EXCLUSIVE: Firm Tied To China’s Military Industrial Complex Plans To Roll Out Massive Battery Chemical Plants In U.S.

The Chinese manufacturer of chemicals for electric vehicle batteries planning to build two U.S. factories has long-standing ties to China’s military industrial complex, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

Capchem Technology USA, the wholly-owned subsidiary of China-based Shenzhen Capchem Technology (Capchem), plans to build factories in both Ohio and Louisiana that would produce components for electric vehicle batteries. Chinese government documents reveal the Chinese chemical giant was selected over a decade ago to conduct aerospace research for China’s military industrial complex as part of a program overseen by a blacklisted Chinese government agency.

Corporate reports show the company, as recently as 2023, received payments from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology — a government agency spearheading the Chinese government’s so-called “Military-Civil Fusion” efforts.

“This network of [Chinese Communist Party] military-linked companies proliferating across the United States is a great example of why blind economic engagement with China is a national security threat,” Bryan Burack, senior policy advisor for China and the Indo-Pacific at the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, told the DCNF.

The DCNF’s investigation is based, in part, on information provided by the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action.

Capchem specializes in manufacturing chemicals for electric vehicle batteries, and for years, the firm has advertised its products’ military uses in annual reports and online. Indeed, until very recently, the firm’s website boldly stated its products were used in “high-end military equipment.”

Yet, Capchem denied supplying the Chinese military, and the reference to “high-end military equipment” was scrubbed from the firm’s website within 24 hours of the DCNF reaching out for comment.

Capchem “does not have products used by Chinese military, or any other military organizations,” a spokesperson told the DCNF.

“When the English/U.S. website was developed, the ‘military’ reference was inadvertently included,” the spokesperson said. “You brought it to the company’s attention, and it was removed just as it had been in the Chinese version in 2020.”

However, the military reference also appeared on Capchem’s Chinese-language website when the DCNF reached out for comment. The reference on Capchem’s Chinese-language site appears to have been removed around the same time as their English-language was being scrubbed.

Capchem business filings and corporate announcements from 2023, along with Chinese financial service research reports from as recent as January 2024, also note the firm’s products had military applications.

‘Military-Civil Fusion’

Capchem’s work with China’s military industrial complex extends back to at least 2012. That year, the Guangdong province Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced Capchem was one of 70 companies selected to serve as a “Guangdong Provincial National Defense Science And Technology Industry Military-Civil Fusion Superior Work Unit.”

The work unit focused on “critical components within the aerospace field,” including “space flight-grade, high-reliability and core electronic components, high-end general chips, base software, etcetera,” the 2012 Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announcement reads.

The project was overseen by China’s Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense, which is “under direct supervision of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology,” and responsible for “nuclear weapons, aerospace technology, aviation, armament, watercraft and electronic industries,” according to China’s State Council.

China’s “Military-Civil Fusion strategy supports the modernization goals of the People’s Liberation Army by ensuring it can acquire advanced technologies and expertise developed by PRC companies, universities, and research programs that appear to be civilian entities,” according to the U.S. Defense Department.

Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi recently sent a letter to the Treasury and Defense departments noting the U.S. government’s blacklist of Chinese military companies extends to companies working with China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

“Among other qualifying considerations, a company is a ‘military civil fusion contributor’ if such company is ‘affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, including research partnerships and projects,’” the lawmakers wrote in January 2024. “The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology was formed in 2008 and is key to the PRC’s military-civil fusion strategy.”

Capchem’s annual reports show the firm has received millions of dollars in payments from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology since 2017. The ministry paid the firm approximately $1.5 million for an “Industrial Foundation Project” in 2017, according to Capchem’s annual report for that year.

Capchem’s most recent annual report shows the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology had a subsidy of just under $1 million earmarked for the firm at the end of the 2023 mid-term reporting period.

Despite this, Capchem initially denied getting any “money/subsidies/donations from the Chinese government” in an email to the DCNF, though a spokesperson did say the firm had received “economic development tax incentives.”

However, the spokesperson changed their tune when the DCNF pointed to the firm’s own annual reports.

“The last time the company received any Chinese government subsidies besides standard incentives or awards provided for all eligible companies was between 2016 and 2018,” the spokesperson said. “Any reference to subsidies in company reports apply to those received during that time. The company has received no such subsidies since 2018.”

Capchem’s corporate reports list $26 million in subsidies from various Chinese government entities. The company’s 2023 mid-term report lists roughly $10 million worth of new government subsidies in a section labeled “Programs Involving Government Subsidies.”

Heritage’s Burack said Capchem has been “subsidized by the Chinese government” and “manufactures for China’s military.”

“There’s no question who these companies really work for,” Burack said. “There’s no such thing as a private Chinese company.”

‘Aerospace And Military Industries’

Capchem has long advertised the dual military-civilian use for its products. For instance, Capchem’s 2009 annual report touted how the company’s products are used in “aerospace and military industries.”

The vice president of Capchem’s research institute, Liu Zhongbo, discussed the military application of the company’s sodium-ion batteries at a July 2023 battery forum in Jiangsu province.

“Lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries are representative of new battery types serving as an important foundation for supporting the wide application of new energy sources in the domains of electricity, transportation, communication, military, etcetera,” Liu said during the event, according to Capchem’s website.

“In the future, Capchem will closely follow the national strategy to support the mass production of sodium-ion batteries,” Liu said.

More recently, a January 2024 research report from Chinese financial service firm Huaan Securities identified Capchem’s “fluorinated polyimide” product as being used in the nuclear industry and by the military, and the firm’s “perfluoropolyether oil” product’s use in aerospace landing gear, rudders and aircraft control mechanisms.

‘Security Risks’

Capchem’s plans to expand their U.S. footprint come as federal and state officials move to prohibit the ownership of U.S. land by Chinese entities. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson recently issued an executive order in January 2024 banning entities tied to China from purchasing agricultural land within 10 miles of any “critical military facilities” in the state.

Capchem USA is planning on building an approximately $120 million factory in Lawrence County, Ohio, Capchem announced in June 2023. County commissioners recently approved a 50% tax abatement for Capchem USA’s facility, the Herald Dispatch reported. The facility will serve as a “production facility for the manufacturing of battery chemicals,” according to Capchem.

Capchem USA is also considering a $350 million plant in Louisiana, according to Louisiana Economic Development, a government agency.

Ohio Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup’s congressional district includes Lawrence County. Barbara Boland, Wenstrup’s press secretary, told the DCNF that the congressman has “warned of the potential security risks to our supply chains, intellectual property and national security posed by Chinese-owned companies operating in the U.S.”

“Congressman Wenstrup recommends local governments and those pursuing economic development opportunities to fully vet any companies seeking to establish a footprint in their communities,” Boland said.

AUTHOR

PHILIP LENCZYCKI

Daily Caller News Foundation investigative reporter, political journalist, and China watcher. Twitter: @LenczyckiPhilip.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Republican Attorney General Urges Biden Admin To Restrict Foreign Land Ownership Near Major Military Base

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Islamic Terror State Wants to Buy James Bond

After buying The King, Qatar wants to buy Bond.

Is there anywhere that Qatar, the Islamic terror state which has its bloody fingers in everything from Hamas to the Afghanistan collapse to Al Jazeera to 9/11 isn’t?

What about Hollywood?

Daniel Craig is looking for money in the desert; the financiers in the desert want Bond.

It sounds like a half-baked pitch for the next 007 film. In fact, it’s the reality of the present-day film industry: The British movie star is trying to secure financing for a passion project, a version of Shakespeare’s Othello, set in an American barracks in Iraq, from Middle Eastern governments including Qatar, according to people briefed on discussions.

This seems to be a revival of a dumb idea that Craig had starred in back in 2016 in theaters in which he played Iago. By then the Iraq War was fading, but now the whole thing is completely senseless. But I imagine Qatari backing could give it a further anti-American twist.

And then, why not James Bond?

Regardless of who plays Bond… the Qatari government has expressed quiet interest in a connection to upcoming films, the people said.

King Charles III got caught taking Qatari money.

Prince Charles’ office has denied there was any wrongdoing in the heir to the British throne accepting bags full of cash as charity donations from a Qatari politician

After buying the King, Qatar wants to buy Bond.

AUTHOR

 

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Truth about Van Raalten Import

When I was a student at the University of Amsterdam, I needed an income. I had work at the flower auction in Aalsmeer, but I wanted more in life. That’s why I decided to start my own company. I soon knew that I wanted to import good olive oil from Umbria (central Italy). This olive oil made simple dishes delicious and healthy.

I started looking for a supplier. It became the Del Sero company. They still made olive oil according to an old process. This way you get an olive oil with structure, unlike olive oil made with modern techniques.

I bought a first quantity of bottles from my savings, about 2000 guilders. I personally collected them in a passenger car.

I soon had success with sales. I therefore stopped studying at university.

Many famous chefs and shopkeepers became my customers. I also started importing other products, such as the underground growing mushrooms called truffles.

Because the company was growing I needed help. A well-known DJ from Hoofddorp wanted to assist me with cash and advice. I also received help from a friend from Abcoude, who also invested in my business. When everything was back on track, I continued without these gentlemen.

The peak of Van Raalten Import was reached around the turn of the century. At that time there were 300 renowned companies in the Benelux client base, and distribution ran smoothly through a forwarding and warehouse company from Amsterdam.

After this major problems arose. A number of suppliers lowered the quality of their products. The Dutch government started to work against me enormously. This all had to do with my political activities: I had become a member of the VVD Amsterdam, and wrote every day on their public website about the multicultural society, which I did not believe in.

For example, in 2002 I lost my most important suppliers, which left me on the street.

I started again in 2003 with the import of olive oil from Bari. This olive oil was also very good, but less refined in taste.

Once again, Van Raalten Import was a success. However, this came to an end in 2007. Then the obstruction by the Dutch government was so enormous that I could no longer continue. I lost everything, and ended up in the Valerius clinic.

Of course I am not mentally disturbed, but I am a thorn in the side of the Dutch government.

My father, Mr. P.H. Van Raalten outsourced my company to Mr Jesse Keus in 2016. I had to watch helplessly as this happened, without receiving a single cent for my life’s work.

Mr. Jesse Keus manages the company at his own discretion. He doesn’t want any contact with me.

Van Raalten Import is still a household name in haute cuisine.

©2024. All rights reserved.

Biden Admin Hands Out $500 Million For Oil Drilling In Middle East

The Biden administration is providing financing for oil development in the Middle East after taking numerous steps to restrict domestic production, according to Bloomberg News.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank — a nominally independent government entity that aims to boost the American economy “by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services” —  approved a $500 million loan guarantee for oil and gas development in Bahrain on Thursday, according to Bloomberg News. The funding follows the Biden administration’s decisions to release the most restrictive offshore oil and gas leasing schedule in American history and cancel seven previously-issued oil and gas leases in Alaska, among other actions intended to rein in domestic oil production.

The Export-Import Bank’s loan guarantee will “increase the production of oil and the availability of gas to meet the future energy demands” of Bahrain, the institution told Bloomberg News. The $500 million of financing was about five times larger than what some lawmakers were anticipating.

Six Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, wrote a Tuesday letter to the Export-Import Bank in which they implored the agency to not move forward with $100 million of financing because of potential negative ramifications for the climate. After the $500 million loan guarantee was announced, Merkley proceeded to describe the Export-Import Bank as a “rogue agency,” according to Bloomberg News.

While the Export-Import Bank is a nominally independent part of the executive branch, President Joe Biden appointed or successfully nominated Chair Reta Jo Lewis, Vice Chair Judith Pryor and board members Owen Herrnstadt and Spencer Bacchus.

In addition to the restrictive offshore leasing schedule and lease cancellations in Alaska, the Biden administration has moved to take millions of acres of federal lands off the table for oil and gas activity after unsuccessfully attempting to halt drilling on all federal lands in 2021. While U.S. oil production did reach record levels at the end of 2023, energy sector experts previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that those production levels have been reached in spite of the Biden administration’s approach, rather than because of it.

The experts who spoke to the DCNF said this is because most of the growth in production has occurred on state and private lands, where Biden does not have the ability to directly shut down drilling. They added that the oil wells of today are the result of planning and financing decisions made several years in the past.

Neither the White House nor the Export-Import Bank responded immediately to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Biden Admin Talks Tough On Big Oil, But Gave Them Regular Access To Discuss Key Regulatory Change

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

House Passes Bill That Forces Chinese Parent Company To Sell TikTok

The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday that would force Chinese company ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the social media app to be allowed to operate in the U.S.

The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act advanced from the House Energy and Commerce Committee by a unanimous vote on March 7. The legislation, which would allow the Beijing-based company roughly five months to sell TikTok, passed with a bipartisan 352 to 65 floor vote, sending the bill to the Senate.

President Joe Biden has signaled he would sign the legislation if it clears the upper chamber.

Critics of the social media app warn of the potential national security threats of its association with the Chinese Communist Party and what they view to be harmful effects on American youth. Others argue that banning the social media app is a violation of First Amendment rights and free enterprise.

TikTok has been critical of the legislation, which it called “an outright ban” in an X statement on March 5. The social media app encouraged its children and teenaged users to call congressional offices and complain about the bill.

“This legislation will trample the First Amendment rights of 170 million Americans and deprive 5 million small businesses of a platform they rely on to grow and create jobs,” TikTok wrote.

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, appeared to voice opposition to the legislation despite previously attempting to ban the app. Trump’s 2020 ban faced legal challenges, and was eventually repealed by the Biden administration in 2021.

“If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”

Wealthy businessman Kevin O’Leary has expressed interest in purchasing the app if the legislation goes into effect.“It’s not going to get banned because I’m going to buy it,” the Shark Tank co-star told Fox News on Friday. “Somebody’s going to buy it. It won’t be Meta and it won’t be Google because a regulator will stop that. A syndicate will be formed. I would like to be involved, obviously.”

AUTHOR

MARY LOU MASTERS

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: TikTok Bill Clears Committee Hurdle With Unanimous Vote As China Faces App Sale Ultimatum

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden Admin Sent ‘Hate Group’ List of Conservative Orgs to Banks after J6

Last week, it came to light that the Biden administration provided a listing of “hate groups,” which lumped together mainstream conservative organizations alongside avowed neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, to major U.S. banks for the purpose of monitoring financial transactions in the wake of the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Experts say the pattern could lead to an increase in banks cancelling the accounts of politically disfavored organizations.

The listing was taken from a report compiled by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), two U.K.-based left-wing activist groups. The report includes a listing of “American Hate Groups,” which is itself based on the classifications of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The listing classifies conservative organizations such as Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel, and others alongside avowed Neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups such as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

According to an investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) sent the report to “some of the largest financial institutions in the world, including the very financial institutions that are likely responsible for providing financial services to many of the listed ‘hate groups.’”

In January, reports surfaced that FinCEN had urged banks to “comb through the private transactions of their customers” to look for “suspicious charges” of legal activities involving political and religious expression without warrants, including the purchase of religious texts and legal firearms. Experts warn that these actions are part of a pattern of increasing collusion between the federal government and corporate America to commit warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

But experts also fear that the Biden administration’s actions could lead to an increase in outright cancellations of the bank accounts of conservative organizations by major financial institutions, which has already occurred on numerous occasions. As Jeremy Tedesco, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, testified before the Weaponization subcommittee last week, “viewpoint-based de-banking is on the rise.”

As reported by National Review, some banks are citing “reputation risk” in order to justify discrimination “against gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellersfossil-fuel producerscontractors for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency; and private prisons and related services.”

In recent years, two Christian nonprofit organizations were targeted by Bank of America (BoA). Indigenous Advance Ministries, which helps impoverished widows and orphans in Uganda, had its long-standing account closed in 2023, with BoA claiming that they no longer serve Indigenous Advance’s “business type” and that the ministry exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance.” Three years prior, Timothy Two Project International, a ministry that trains indigenous pastors across the globe, received “a nearly identical letter” from BoA and “was repeatedly stonewalled in attempts to gain clarity about the cancellation and how to resolve it.”

Similarly, in 2022 JPMorgan Chase, without explanation, cancelled the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom in the U.S. which is headed by former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback. In order for their account to be reinstated, JPMorgan demanded that NCRF turn over a list of high-level donors, “a list of candidates it intended to support, and its criteria for political support.”

Experts say that the Biden Treasury Department’s actions could lead to more conservative organizations being de-banked.

“That’s what they want,” Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “It’s really troubling. The Republican attorneys general need to come together on this. They need to really start digging into this de-banking pattern and getting subpoenas out. One of the industries where there’s a lot of state regulation is banking. State AGs would have the ability to get subpoenas and start looking at the records and start seeing what the Feds were forcing them to do. It’s very, very serious.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: J6 Committee Reportedly Covered Up Key Testimony, Resulted in Trump Being Struck from Ballot

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

DEI is Dying. And It’s About Time!

Wall Streets DEI Retreat Has Officially Begun. As DEI gets more divisive, companies are ditching their teams.


These are not headlines I thought I’d be reading in 2024, but it’s a happy day when legacy news sites as hegemonic as Bloomberg and The Washington Post are using such clear language to flag the retreat of DEI from corporate America.

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) bills itself as a framework for promoting fair treatment and full participation for all people in the workforce, with a special focus on groups historically hurt by discrimination, like women, racial minorities and LGBT individuals.

What DEI has generally looked like in practice, however, is a new brand of bigotry to replace the old, where a person’s outward identity trumps their merit or performance. Meanwhile, those possessing genuine talent but the wrong attributes (think male, white or straight) have found themselves punished for factors out of their control.

American philosopher Dr Peter Boghossian was part of the infamous Grievance Studies Affair project, and later made headlines for resigning from his prestigious post at Portland State University after the school became overrun with DEI ideology. He has offered more honest definitions for this contentious three-letter acronym.

Diversity, according to Boghossian, means people who look different but think alike. Equity, he says, means making up for past discrimination with current discrimination. And Inclusion, he argues, means restricting speech.

Nowhere have Boghossian’s DEI definitions proven more prescient than at Harvard University, which became embroiled in a months-long scandal late last year as the woke worldview of then-President Claudine Gay unravelled in real time before a watching world.

Ms Gay’s failures were at least threefold.

First, she carved a path of effectively destroying the careers of dissident Harvard scholars, even if they were from racial minorities: economist Roland Fryer and law professor Ronald Sullivan being two prominent examples.

Second, following unconscionable pro-Hamas demonstrations on campus, she was asked during a Capitol Hill deposition whether calling for genocide against Jews ran counter to Harvard’s harassment policy, and she equivocated, bigly.

Third and perhaps most unforgivably for an Ivy League president, some 50 instances of plagiarism were latterly uncovered in her rather threadbare canon of scholarship.

There is no doubt that the fall of Claudine Gay was a turning point for wokery in America’s institutions. If reporting from Bloomberg and WaPo is anything to go on, it also marked the beginning of the end for DEI.

Writes Bloomberg:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has made a surprising change to its Possibilities Summit” for Black college students: Its opened the program to White students.

At Bank of America Corp., certain internal programs that used to focus on women and minorities have been broadened to include everyone.

And at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., executives are being urged to reconsider hard metrics for workforce diversity. Lose them, lawyers have advised.

This is what diversity, equity and inclusion looks like on Wall Street today: anxious, fraught — and changing fast.

From C-suites down, American finance is quietly reassessing its promises to level the playing field. The growing conservative assault on DEI, coupled with pockets of resentment among White employees, have executives moving to head off accusations of reverse discrimination. Its not just Wall Street. In recent weeks, Zoom Video Communications Inc. cut its internal DEI team amid broader layoffs and Tesla Inc. removed language about minority workers from a regulatory filing.

The seemingly small changes — lawyerly tweaks, executives call them — are starting to add up to something big: the end of a watershed era for diversity in the US workplace, and the start of a new, uncertain one.

The news from WaPo is just as bright:

DEI jobs peaked in early 2023 before falling 5 percent that year and shrinking by 8 percent so far in 2024, according to Revelio Labs data shared with The Washington Post. The attrition rate for DEI roles has been about double that of non-DEI jobs, says Revelio, which tracks workforce dynamics.

In recent weeks, Zoom axed its internal DEI team amid broader layoffs, and Snap cut workers who worked on retention and engagement efforts for employees from underrepresented groups. Meta, Tesla, DoorDash, Lyft, Home Depot, Wayfair and X were among major corporations making steep cuts in 2023, slashing the size of their DEI teams by 50 percent or more, Revelios data shows.

Conservative journalist Christopher Rufo, who has been at the forefront of the counter-DEI revolution, has hailed these results as a historic turning point.

“DEI is not an inevitability,” he wrote in City Journal last week. “It is a choice that can be undone.”

Rufo reports having recently spoken with several Fortune 500 executives who had felt immense pressure to enact DEI initiatives following the summer of George Floyd. “But four years later, they have realized that DEI programs undermine productivity, destroy merit-based systems, and poison corporate culture.”

In the wake of events like the Harvard scandal, Rufo explains, these executives “now have the political space — in essence, the social permission — to wind down these programs.”

No small part of turning tide comes thanks to the introduction of 76 anti-DEI bills in U.S. state legislatures, with 17 states either passing or considering them, according to data compiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

“We should celebrate the moment,” Rufo declares — “But we need to do much more.”

Let’s hope it’s only up from here.


Kurt presents a pretty negative view of DEI. Is he on the money? What do you think? Tell us in the comments box below.


AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate architect, a primary school teacher, a missionary, and a young adult pastor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Doctor: ‘DEI Is Dangerous Everywhere, but It’s Most Dangerous in Medical School’

Disney’s DEI Policies Land Them in Court: ‘The Hit Factory Is Now the Flop Factory’

DEI/DIE the Virgin Skies: ‘Um… Why Is Our Plane’s Wing Missing All Those Screws?

RELATED VIDEO: ‘Why DEI Must End for Good’—Bari Weiss Gets a Lot Right Here

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Emerging Collusion’: Experts Warn of Expanding Warrantless Surveillance of Americans

A panel of experts, including famed author and psychologist Jordan Peterson, warned Congress on Thursday that potential collusion between federal law enforcement agencies and financial and other corporations could lead to unprecedented violations of the constitutional right of American citizens not to have private information handed over without proper warrants.

On Thursday, a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government was held to examine how citizens’ private financial data is being surveilled by the federal government. In the wake of incidents like what happened in January when a government agency colluded with banks to uncover gun and religious book purchases of citizens without a warrant, experts are concerned that the U.S. could be headed in the direction of surveillance states such as China.

“If the emerging collusion between government and gigantic corporations continues in the manner it is continuing, there won’t be anything that you do that can’t be used against you and will be used against you in very short order,” Peterson warned. “We are in danger of eliminating the private sphere in its entirety. It’s already happening in places around the world, particularly China. … We have technologies at hand, and it appears both giant corporations and giant governments are utilizing it in every way that they can manage.”

Congressmen like Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) are also worried about how surveillance laws already in place can potentially be abused by the government for political reasons, as he shared on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Thursday.

“[The] Bank Secrecy Act is supposed to keep us safe,” he explained. “You use [it] to … catch terrorism, money laundering, illicit finance, tax evasion, things like that. So they do have sort of this loophole, though, because they implemented this in 1970, and it essentially circumvents the Fourth Amendment. … [I]f you remember back a couple of years ago, the Biden administration wanted to start surveilling your bank account for $600 of activity a year and share that directly with the IRS. I think what people are seeing now is they already surveil your accounts … with the rules they have in place. The question is, can they use it in court?”

Davidson, who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, went on to observe how other laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and agencies like the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) were initially enshrined to protect Americans but are now being increasingly used to eavesdrop and spy on Americans without cause.

“[T]he Fourth Amendment’s there on purpose,” he emphasized. “And there’s a reason it’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — foreigners aren’t protected by our Constitution the way American citizens are. … [Y]ou’re supposed to have to get a warrant or a subpoena to go after an American.”

Davidson continued, “They can’t just do this blanket [search] like, ‘Well, I don’t know who was in Washington, D.C. on this day. Well, who was here? Who was here?’ And they build the case from that end. They’ll literally say, ‘We’re querying the database,’ which is a synonym for searching. But they’ll say, ‘No, no, no, that’s very different, because once we go to search, we get a search warrant.’ So they’ll query the database, and they build the database. How does the data even get into the database? They do it [in] multiple ways. … [T]he Financial Crimes [Enforcement] Network will direct the banks to, basically, ‘Here’s how you spy on your customers better for us. And if you don’t do a good job, the regulators will come in and shut your bank down.’”

The congressman further shed light on how the FBI surveilled private data without a warrant surrounding the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.

“[T]he whistleblower came forward because he worked in the Boston FBI office, and he said, ‘Hey, what I saw is we were targeting people that happened to be in Washington, D.C. on January 5th, 6th, and 7th,’ and then they started building from there, like who had a financial transaction on this date,” Davidson described. “And if they had financial transactions on this date, what other things did they buy? Did they use transactions in certain stores? And they started highlighting red flags like, ‘Oh, you might have gone to Cabela’s or Bass Pro, you might have purchased anything related to a firearm. You might have purchased religious material, including the Bible.”

Davidson concluded by outlining what congressional actions need to happen in order to help restore Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted searches and seizures.

“[W]e have to change the law fundamentally,” he stressed. “The Bank Secrecy Act is very flawed. … There’s court decisions related to that … [which could] effectively completely nullif[y] the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. … The Judiciary Committee, in a rare set of events, you had Jim Jordan [R-Ohio] and Jerry Nadler [D-N.Y.] agreeing that the government needs to get a warrant. … The intel community, on the other hand, is asking to expand the surveillance on Americans. They want to add Wi-Fi hotspots … to get at more expansive data, to add more things to the database. And those ideas deserve a debate, and they deserve a recorded vote. So we hope Speaker [Mike] Johnson will give us that vote very quickly.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICE: Viktor Orbán Warns: ‘The Hegemony of the West has Ended, A New World Order is Emerging’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

More Misleading White House Statistics on Unemployment

Critical Thinkers will not be fooled!

One of the most monitored U.S. statistic — and one frequently used for political gain — is the Unemployment Rate. It sounds simple enough (and actually should be) but when bureaucrats and politicians got their hands on it, it’s merely a shadow of itself.

Here is a Mainstream Media article on the most recent Employment Report (just released), plus the Whitehouse spin on it…

Believe it or not (as this superb article explains), there are now SIX different U.S. unemployment rates! Here are the latest (2023) government data for all six. The popularly referred to rates are 3.6% (U-3: unemployed) and 6.9% (U-6: out of work).

However, there is another large fly in the ointment: the unemployment rates (by-and-large) do not count illegal immigrants. When that number was low, it was ignored, as it was considered to be just statistical noise. Since 2020, that is no longer the case, as the current data says some six (6) million new illegal immigrants are in the US, just from the Southern border!

A reasonable estimate is that 4± million of these are people who would be normally considered as part of the labor pool. The approximate size of the US citizen labor pool is 165 million. So the 3.6% (U-3) means that 6± million US citizens are unemployed.

Let’s estimate that 1± million (out of the 4± million employable) of the new illegal aliens are gainfully employed. That leaves 3± million who would be considered unemployed. None of those are considered in the government statistics… Put another way, the U-3 statistic goes from 6 to 9 million (i.e., a 50% increase: 3.6%—> 5.4%). The U-6 statistic would likewise go from 6.9% to 8.7% (i.e., an increase of 1.8%)

The point here is that these immigration corrections are rather sizable, so if the government is claiming to be doing its best to keep citizens accurately informed, (e.g., about our economy) they should include this information in their calculations. Maybe I missed it, but I was unable to find that…

In this vein, I can’t resist plagiarizing this prior Abbott and Costello spoof:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: 
Good Subject. It’s 3.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work? 
ABBOTT: 
No, that’s 6.9%.

COSTELLO: You just said 3.6%.
ABBOTT: 3.6% 
are unemployed. 

COSTELLO: Right, 3.6% out of work.
ABBOTT:
 No, that’s 6.9%. 

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 6.9% unemployed.
ABBOTT: 
No, that’s 3.6%. 

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 3.6% or 6.9%?
ABBOTT: 3.6% 
are unemployed. 6.9% are out of work. 

COSTELLO: But if you are out of work, you are unemployed. 
ABBOTT: 
No, Biden said you can’t count those “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to be looking for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: 
No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: 
Someone who isn’t actively looking for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: It wouldn’t be fair to whom? 
ABBOTT: 
The unemployed. 

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work. 
ABBOTT: 
No, the Unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are Out of Work gave up looking. If you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the Unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the Unemployment roles that would count as less Unemployment? 
ABBOTT: 
Yes, unemployment would go down.

COSTELLO: The unemployment rate goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: 
Obviously. That’s how the current administration gets it to 3.6%. Otherwise it would be 6.9%. Our government doesn’t want you to read about 6.9% unemployment.

COSTELLO: Why don’t they include illegal immigrants in the employment data?
ABBOTT: 
Because that would make unemployment rates much worse!

COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection. 
ABBOTT: Duh!

COSTELLO: So that means there are three ways to bring down the unemployment number? 
ABBOTT: 
Yes.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct. 

COSTELLO: And unemployment goes down if citizens stop looking for a job? 
ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: And unemployment also goes down if the government doesn’t fully include employment data about illegal immigrants? 
ABBOTT: You’re a genius. 

COSTELLO: So citizens who support the current administration can help bring unemployment down, by stopping to look for work. 
ABBOTT: 
Now you’re thinking like the Economy Czar.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!  ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like some of our current leaders!!!

PS — This relevant article just came out today: Doing statistics can be difficult but understanding them can be fairly simple

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

POST ON X:


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

U.S. Economy LOST 1.87 Million Full Time Jobs In Past 3 Months

Every month, the Biden regime’s job report is revised DOWN by 20-50%. It bears noting that it’s the government sector that continues to dominate the new jobs reports.

Rich Baris posts: “Another MASSIVE downward revision to the prior monthly jobs report. These people are lying to us, and covering their tracks a month later. We’ve now had downward revisions for 10/12 to 11/12 on the 12-month for nearly two years.”

Government statistics, once a tool to measure the health of our economy, are cooked and created – weaponized as a campaign tool.

 

AUTHOR

POSTS ON X: 

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Americans Chip Away at Corporate Wokeness with Doritos Win [Video]

It took Frito-Lay 63 years to build a $13 billion dollar empire. This week, 50 seconds almost destroyed it. That’s how close the brand came to corporate annihilation after its Doritos team posted a short video with a trans influencer that makes Dylan Mulvaney look like a youth pastor. Turns out, 24-year-old Samantha Hudson isn’t just a man pretending to be a woman, he’s a sick pervert with dreams of sexually abusing children. Congratulations, Bud Light. You’re officially out of the brand basement.

To everyone’s shock, Hudson, who appeared on “Crunch Talk” on behalf of Doritos Spain, has a disgusting history of social media tweets that fantasize about everything from nymphomania to child sexual abuse. “I want to do thuggish things to get into a 12-year-old girl’s [expletive],” he wrote. In another post, he talks about being in the middle of a street in his underwear “in front of a super beautiful 8-year-old girl.” With surprising cruelty, he vilifies victims of abuse, writing, “I hate women who are victims of sexual assault and go to self help centers to overcome their trauma. Annoying sl—s.”

As if that weren’t enough, Hudson describes himself as a Marxist “anti-capitalist,” who fights for “the abolition of … the traditional monogamous nuclear family” — which apparently makes him perfect spokesperson material.

Of course, once people started digging up his vile statements, Hudson apologized, claiming they were “pure provocation and in very bad taste.” “… [H]onestly I don’t know what to say,” he said. “I don’t remember having written such barbarities. … I thought that ‘dark humor’ was funny.” But it was too late. Americans across every platform were horrified, outraged, and to Frito-Lay’s terror, motivated. From journalists to former Trump officials, people called for “the Bud Light treatment.” Who hires an admitted pedophile to be the face of their product, everyone wondered? And what lazy marketing team doesn’t do a background check?

“This person is a million times worse than Dylan Mulvaney,” Ian Miles Cheong argued. The country seemed to agree — making #BoycottDoritos trend on X within hours of the story breaking.

Then something incredible happened. Before the wave of consumer anger hit land, Frito-Lay didn’t just take the video down — they fired Hudson. “We have ended the relationship,” a spokesperson told Rolling Stone. “We strongly condemn words or actions that promote violence or sexism of any kind.”

It was an astonishing turn for the company, even more astonishing given the timetable. Less than 48 hours after the video went viral, Frito-Lay — whose parent company PepsiCo has a perfect 100% score from the Human Rights Campaign on trans advocacy — dropped Hudson like a hot potato. Even Rip Curl, who faced the world’s wrath last month for featuring a trans “hero” in its surfer series, took five days to apologize — a record for regret.

That’s how dangerous it’s become for brands to cross consumers with a woke agenda. In the 11 months since Mulvaney-gate at Bud Light — a gamble that’s now cost them an eye-popping $1.4 billion in revenue — the entire landscape of corporate activism has changed. CEOs who were tripping over themselves to embrace the LGBT fringe are desperate to avoid the pushback that broke Anheuser-BuschTargetDisney, and others.

As Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm pointed out to The Washington Stand, this situation is different than other endorsement deals “involving so-called trans influencers,” since Hudson has quite a different, depraved past. “But it’s good to see that gender identity is no longer providing immunity to do and say terrible things,” he observed. “Wokeness has long insisted those labeled ‘oppressed’ can get away with doing things other people should not do. We need a world where people are judged consistently by their choices more than the group they identify with. Yes, Frito-Lay is probably doing a financial calculation here as well, but this is still a refreshing act of moral sanity.”

For corporate America, it’s quite a sea change. After years of punching above their weight class, Big Business faces a terrifying reality: consumers are punching back. And victories like this one will only inspire them to flex those muscles more.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Student Files Lawsuit against Fairfax County’s ‘Dystopian’ Trans Bathroom, Pronoun Policies

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

At Last! A new bill in Congress to hold Big Pharma companies responsible for Covid vaccine injuries!

Hats off to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, for authoring this bill!

While so many of us have been sounding the alarm over the experimental mRNA Covid “vaccines” and fighting localized battles as we were able, Rep. Chip Roy’s bill may be the colossal breakthrough we’ve all been praying for!

Not only would it be a godsend to the many thousands who’ve been badly injured by these novel injections, but it also loudly proclaims to the entire nation that these vaccines were not, and are not, safe!

Chip Roy is one brave man. His quote below says it all:

“I am introducing the LIABLE Act to empower Americans to remove crony federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and empower injured Americans. The American people deserve justice for the infringement on their personal medical freedom and those medically harmed deserve restitution.” (Emphasis mine)

Gotta now watch his back!

Here’s more from an Epoch Times articleProposed legislation introduced on March 5 would strip COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers of liability protections, enabling U.S. residents injured by the vaccines to sue the companies.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), would retroactively remove protections from the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers. (Emphasis mine)

The bill itself reads as follows: No federal law … may make the manufacturer of a COVID-19 vaccine immune from suit or liability, or limit the liability of such a manufacturer, with respect to claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a COVID-19 vaccine.

And now we need to flood our Representatives with calls, letters, faxes and emails, exhorting them to support this bill!

©2024. Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson with Dr. Pierre Kory on the now known deaths from the mRNA shots

More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid — Part 2

Please read Part 1 here. As bad as the multiple failings in the Johns Hopkins article I outlined in Part 1 were, there is an even greater abdication of medical responsibility by Johns Hopkins.

Their Mission Statement says: “The mission of Johns Hopkins Medicine is to improve the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research, and clinical care.”

Maybe I don’t understand what “standard of excellence” means. It seems that it says that Johns Hopkins will objectively provide the public with the latest scientific health research as to what is in citizens’ best interest to do (or not do).

In other words, when Johns Hopkins discusses a pharmaceutical option for COVID — e.g., Paxlovid — (or anything else) they would objectively and thoroughly:

  1. honestly describe the possible benefits,
  2. accurately explain all the potential downsides, and
  3. objectively identify reasonable alternatives.

As my original commentary outlined, they did a woeful job of both #1 and #2. Here I’d like to address #3, which was completely missing.

Well over two years ago (January 2022), after doing some research, I published a spreadsheet of the various pharmaceutical options for COVID-19 early treatment — as I was not able to find this posted elsewhere in a layman easy-to-understand format. I compared the official and non-official options on several key criteria. Since then I have updated this spreadsheet every month or so. (This info is one of many things to be found on my COVID website: C19Science.info). Here is the latest data.

Since this article is just about Paxlovid, I put together a very condensed version: Condensed Comparison of Paxlovid to Some Other Options.

To see the links and more explanations refer to the uncondensed version. (Please pay attention to the note there clarifying that I am not a medical professional, etc.)

Note that Paxlovid has two columns in the upper (Effectiveness) part:

  • a) the first column was the evidence used by the FDA (a single study done by Pfizer) to grant Pfizer an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), and
  • b) the second column is the current number of scientific studies of Paxlovid done by numerous independent scientists. Compare the concluded ET effectiveness…

What this data indicates about these COVID early treatment options is:

1 – An alternative to Paxlovid is Vitamin D. Based on 11 scientific studies of 44,000± patients, it has about three times the effectiveness (60% vs 21%). (The results of Peer-reviewed early treatment studies = 57%. The results of early treatment Randomized Control Trials [RCTs], after exclusions = 65%.)* The data.

Safety & Cost — Vitamin D has: no serious medical side effects, no evidence of a rebound effect, and no usage restrictions. Further, it has long-term safety data, it does not require a prescription (OTC), and the cost is minuscule.

2 – Another alternative to Paxlovid is Ivermectin. Based on 38 scientific studies of 59,000± patients, it also has roughly three times the effectiveness (62% vs 21%). (The results of Peer-reviewed early treatment studies = 61%. The results of early treatment Randomized Control Trials [RCTs], after exclusions = 66%.)* The data.

Safety & Cost — Ivermectin has: only minor potential medical side effects, no evidence of a rebound effect, and no usage restrictions. Further, Ivermectin has long-term safety data and the cost is very low.

The question is: why didn’t the Johns Hopkins article say anything about alternatives to Paxlovid — since scientific data indicates that they may be superior options?

To be fair, the same question applies to the FDA, CDC, AMA, WHO, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the Mayo Clinic, the mainstream media, etc., etc. They have all shed their scientific suits, and have proudly dressed themselves in political correctness panoply.

Please watch this talk given by Dr. Scott Atlas, last week. It is chilling to hear what he observed going on at the highest levels of our country, regarding COVID policy.

As always, the most effective defense is Critical Thinking.

PS: Still no response to the polite email I sent to the Johns Hopkins article author.

* This data is not on the above table, but can be found by following the links of the full version.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid, Part 1

If we can’t trust Johns Hopkins, what established sources are left?

I was periodically updating my webpage on the effectiveness of all the popular COVID early treatment options, and came across this current article:

Feel free to read it, but be forewarned that it is woefully deceptive. I can understand that when Paxlovid first came out (late 2021), medical professionals would be enthused to endorse it, as the only study done said it was 88% effectiveNice!

But is that our scientific knowledge in 2024? NO! I sent the JH author a polite email:

Aliza:

I’m an independent scientist (physicist) who has done considerable research on COVID.

As such I read with interest your recent article on Paxlovid, stating that it is “a tremendous tool that’s completely underutilized”.

FYI, I also read your CV.

[Note to substack readers: she has no science credentials.]

The key message in your article is premised on your statement:

“Paxlovid is extremely effective when taken within five days of symptom onset. In clinical trials, it reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by almost 90% in unvaccinated people.”

I’m writing because that is (regretfully) a major misrepresentation of our current knowledge of Paxlovid.

Please consider the following three facts:

Fact one: In late 2021 the FDA gave Pfizer an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Paxlovid as a COVID-19 early treatment.

Should your readers be alerted to the fact that the FDA has not approved Paxlovid, but rather given it a very different EUA? Then your readers could use their own judgment whether or not we remain in a COVID-19 emergency.

Fact two: when the FDA gave Pfizer an EUA for Paxlovid for COVID-19 early treatment, it was based on just one (1) study (on 2,100± people), done by Pfizer, that showed that Paxlovid supposedly had an 88% effectiveness rate.

Should your readers be alerted to the fact that there was only one initial study prior to the EUA, and that it was done by the drug manufacturer — clearly not an unbiased source?

Fact three: Since the FDA gave Pfizer the EUA for Paxlovid, many independent scientists have conducted studies about the effectiveness of Paxlovid. To date, some 57 studies on Paxlovid have been completed, with 42 being peer-reviewed.

Should your readers be alerted that these independent studies (on 120,000± people) have concluded that the actual COVID-19 early treatment effectiveness of Paxlovid is only 21±% — a far cry from the Pfizer study claiming 88%?

I’m taking the time to write as I’ve always respected Johns Hopkins as an unbiased, accurate source, of current medical information.

Sincerely,

It’s been over a week now, and I’ve received no response of any kind.

Some may think I’m being a bit harsh on Johns Hopkins, but the letter sent was a stripped-down version of what I could have said. (I thought that the chance of a response would be inversely related to the length of my email.)

For example, Fact 4: Harvard published a late 2023 study that concluded that 20±% of those taking Paxlovid, were likely to have a rebound result where they get COVID again. (Compare that percentage to the average chance of 2±%.)

That appears to say that taking Paxlovid results in a net zero result! (It has a 21±% chance of a positive result, but a 20±% chance of a negative one…)

Note: I shouldn’t be surprised, but I was, when the same JH person felt compelled to write a later piece pooh-poohing the COVID rebound matter.

As a proud optimist, I thought that the AMA, well-known medical establishments (like Johns Hopkins), etc., would continuously analyze new scientific COVID studies, and realize that they made some earlier bad calls regarding COVID.

Maybe (for legal reasons) they wouldn’t outright apologize (although they should), but I did NOT expect them to continue with the same politically correct posturing WHEN THEY SHOULD NOW KNOW THAT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS WRONG!

However, this JH article about Paxlovid seems to indicate that now that they find themselves in a hole, their reflex solution is to keep digging.

  • FYI #1, although this commentary is about Johns Hopkins, their politically correct campaign is the norm, as there are dozens of other one-sided Internet articles advocating more use of Paxlovid (e.g., here and here). I chose Johns Hopkins as they should be above political science, and instead be focused on real science.
  • FYI #2, I could write quite a bit more about this matter, but this is not intended to be a scientific paper, but rather an overview for the public. That said, I will do Part 2 in a few days about another very important omission in this JH article…

I’ll end this part with some GOOD NEWS.

  1. This late 2023 article reports that Paxlovid usage has precipitously declined. “Sales of Paxlovid are down 97%, year over year… and Pfizer lost $4.7 Billion in write-offs.” Citizens are getting informed and voting with their feet — excellent!
  2. As even more evidence of the weakness of Paxlovid, the FDA has recently officially announced that the EUA for Paxlovid will expire on March 8th, 2024! Note 1: Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but when I searched the Johns Hopkins site, I could find no mention of this important FDA announcement, made back on 1-29-24. Note 2: I could find nothing about this EUA change elsewhere!}

Once again this all reinforces the extraordinary importance for citizens to become Critical Thinkers — and it all MUST start in K-12 Science classes…

PS — I’m legally required to make clear that I am not a medical professional. Always consult with a qualified physician before taking (or stopping to take) any medication.

©2024. John Droz, Jr.. All rights reserved.


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Historic Business Remington Flees New York For Georgia After 208 Years

Remington is leaving Ilion, N.Y., ‘after two centuries, abandoning upstate for a gleaming new factory in Georgia. With it goes the village’s identity.’  so wrote the New York Times.

NY village ‘losing its soul’ as nation’s oldest gun manufacturer flees blue state for Georgia

Remington is the nation’s oldest gun manufacturer

“Two hundred and eight years of history. Gone, gone,” Ilion, New York, Mayor John P. Stephens told The New York Times. “Ilion is Remington. Remington is Ilion.”

“Two hundred and eight years of history. Gone, gone,” Ilion, New York, Mayor John P. Stephens told The New York Times. “Ilion is Remington. Remington is Ilion.”

Remington, the nation’s oldest gun manufacturer, told union officials late last year that company chiefs at RemArms, the current version of Remington Arms, made the decision to end its New York manufacturing come March. The remaining operations located in Ilion will move to Georgia, where company leaders say the firearms industry is supported and welcomed.

Residents of the New York village, which is located roughly 230 miles northwest of New York City, are bracing for the manufacturer to officially move, which some say will take part of the town’s identity with it.

A view of the Remington Arms Co., Inc. compound in the middle of Ilion, New York, on Feb. 1. The nation’s oldest gun-maker is consolidating operations in Georgia and recently announced plans to shutter the Ilion factory in early March. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

“When Remington leaves, it’s not going to be like a facility leaving, it’s going to be like part of your family has moved off,” Jim Conover, a retired Remington employee who began his career there in 1964, told The Associated Press.

A furnace operator and technician at the factory, Frank “Rusty” Brown, told the outlet that he and generations of his family worked at the facility and noted he and his wife will be out of jobs.

“My mom worked there. My dad worked there. My wife works there with me now. My daughter works there with me now. My second daughter works there with me now. And my son-in-law works there,” Brown said. “So it’s a double-hit for me and my wife: two of us out of a job.”

The closure of the New York location will result in about 300 people losing their jobs in a town of roughly 7,600. The mayor of Ilion told the Daily Mail that the village is expected to lose $1 million in revenue due to the move, in addition to other local businesses taking a financial hit.

”It’s like the town is losing its soul. It’s almost like losing a family member. That’s the thing that people are struggling with, the nostalgia, the history. It feels like we are losing the identity of the town,” Stephens told the outlet.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Insane Trump’s Penalty Will NY Businesses To Flee to FLA, as New York State Becomes ‘Legal Banana Republic’: Experts

CEO of Cardone Capital To Team: “Immediately Discontinue All Underwriting on New York City Real Estate” In Wake of Insane Ruling in Trump Case

California, New York Lose Most in Tax Revenue as Residents FLEE for Conservative States

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.