Environmentalist Group: "Corona Is The Cure - Humans Are The Disease"

zerohedge News environmentalist group corona cure humans disease All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share

Environmentalist Group: "Corona Is The Cure - Humans Are The Disease"



Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,





A climate change group that aligns itself with Extinction Rebellion posted stickers claiming that coronavirus is a “cure” for the “disease” that is humanity.









Read More




DOJ Orders First Shutdown Of Website Selling Fraudulent COVID-19 Cure 

zerohedge News orders first shutdown website selling fraudulent covid-19 cure All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
DOJ Orders First Shutdown Of Website Selling Fraudulent COVID-19 Cure 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Sunday that "it has taken its first action in federal court to combat fraud related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic" via the shutdown of a website offering a cure. 

Detailed in the civil complaint filed on Saturday, the operators of the website "coronavirusmedicalkit.com," which claimed to sell vaccine kits for C

Read More
OVID-19, were engaged in a "wire fraud scheme seeking to profit from the confusion and widespread fear surrounding" the virus crisis. 

"Information published on the website claimed to offer consumers access to World Health Organization (WHO) vaccine kits in exchange for a shipping charge of $4.95, which consumers would pay by entering their credit card information on the website. In fact, there are currently no legitimate COVID-19 vaccines and the WHO is not distributing any such vaccine," the DOJ said. 

US District Judge Robert Pitman ordered the site to shut down on Saturday, according to his statement. As of Monday morning, a search of the site comes up with a blank webpage with a text that reads: "Sorry... coronavirusmedicalkit.com could not be found." 

Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the DOJ's Civil Division said the government will be actively monitoring the internet for other COVID-19 fraud-related websites or schemes: 

"The Department of Justice will not tolerate criminal exploitation of this national emergency for personal gain," said Hunt. "We will use every resource at the government's disposal to act quickly to shut down these most despicable of scammers, whether they are defrauding consumers, committing identity theft, or delivering malware."

"Attorney General Barr has directed the department to prioritize fraud schemes arising out of the coronavirus emergency," said US Attorney John F. Bash of the Western District of Texas.

"We therefore moved very quickly to shut down this scam. We hope in the future that responsible web domain registrars will quickly and effectively shut down websites designed to facilitate these scams. My office will continue to be aggressive in targeting these sorts of despicable frauds for the duration of this emergency."

"At a time when we face such unprecedented challenges with the COVID-19 crisis, Americans are understandably desperate to find solutions to keep their families safe and healthy," said Special Agent in Charge Christopher Combs of the FBI's San Antonio Field Office.

"Fraudsters who seek to profit from their fear and uncertainty, by selling bogus vaccines or cures, not only steal limited resources from our communities, they pose an even greater danger by spreading misinformation and creating confusion. During this difficult time, protecting our communities from these reprehensible fraud schemes will remain one of the FBI's highest priorities."

The DOJ provided very few details about the scope of the fraud but said an investigation is ongoing. 

The intervention by the DOJ comes after New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a cease-and-desist order to televangelist Jim Bakker, ordering him to stop promoting an alleged cure for the virus. 

James has also ordered Alex Jones to stop making misleading claims about virus cure related products offered on Infowars.com.

Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/23/2020 - 23:45

NY AG Orders Televangelist Jim Bakker To Halt Advertising Of Alleged Coronavirus Cure 

zerohedge News orders televangelist bakker halt advertising alleged coronavirus cure All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
NY AG Orders Televangelist Jim Bakker To Halt Advertising Of Alleged Coronavirus Cure 

New York's Attorney General Letitia James sent a cease-and-desist order to televangelist Jim Bakker, ordering him to stop promoting an alleged cure for coronavirus, reported ABC News. 

In early February, on the "The Jim Bakker Show," guest Sherrill Sellman claimed that "Silver Solution" is a remedy for the deadly coronavirus, that at the tim

Read More
e, was spreading across China. Here's a snippet of the broadcast:

When Sellman was asked if the coronavirus elixir would cure Covid-19, she replied, "Let's say it hasn't been tested on this strain of the coronavirus, but it's been tested on other strains of the coronavirus, and it has been able to eliminate it within 12 hours." 

Since the broadcast, Bakker has been selling "Silver Solution" on his website for $300 for a pack of 12. 

"Your show's segment may mislead consumers as to the effectiveness of the Silver Solution product in protecting against the current outbreak," the cease-and-desist order said. "Any representation on the Jim Bakker Show that its Silver Solution products are effective at combating and/or treating the 2019 novel coronavirus violates New York law."

James' office asked Bakker to add a disclaimer on all Silver Solution products of how the FDA has not evaluated the product's effectiveness against the virus.

"In addition to being mindful about our health, we must also beware of unscrupulous actors who attempt to take advantage of this fear and anxiety to scam or deceive consumers," James said in a statement.

Dr. Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told Inside Edition that Bakker's Silver Solution is nothing more than snake oil. 

"It's an absolute outrage that they're pushing this product. There's no proof about its effectiveness," Lurie said. "Stay away from the product. All you're doing is wasting your money!"

Lurie has been petitioning the FDA and FTC to take action against Bakker "to halt this fraud on the public."

Back in 2018, Bakker was pumping an imminent apocalypse, selling boatloads of doomsday prepper food kits.

Capitalizing on fear is big business for Bakker as it appears his followers now have a 'magic coronavirus cure' and doomsday prepper food kits for the virus crisis sweeping across America that could soon be labeled a pandemic. 

Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/09/2020 - 17:05

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not The Cure For Cononavirus

zerohedge News peter schiff printing money cure cononavirus All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not The Cure For Cononavirus

Via SchiffGold.com,

In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets.

Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helpe

Read More
d the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system.

All this means more liquidity - central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.”

Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up —  and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs.

In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.”

In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question.

The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down.

Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks and central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.”

Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy.

In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.”

Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up.

The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.”

Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies.

Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.”

Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy  – which of course, is not booming.

Tyler Durden

Thu, 02/20/2020 - 08:50

Global Centralization Is The Cause Of Crisis - Not The Cure

zerohedge News global centralization cause crisis cure All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Global Centralization Is The Cause Of Crisis - Not The Cure

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Once you understand the globalist mindset, almost everything they do becomes rather robotic and predictable.  It should not be surprising that the World Health Organization (WHO), a branch of the United Nations, has been so aggressive in cheerleading for the Chinese government and its response to the coronavirus out

Read More
break. After all, China's communist surveillance state model is a beta test for the type of centralization that the UN wants for the entire planet. They certainly aren't going to point out that it was China's totalitarian system that allowed the outbreak to spread from the very beginning.

Even now Xi Jinping is trying to rewrite history, claiming that he had been swift in responding to the crisis more than a month before he actually did.  The lie that the coronavirus mutated naturally in a food and animal market in Wuhan continues to be peddled by the mainstream media even though no evidence supporting this claim exists.  And China is still releasing rigged death and infection numbers while they have over 600 million people under martial law lockdown and their crematoriums continue pumping out the fumes of the dead 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Brave health workers like Li Wenliang, who was punished by the government for warning about the virus in December, have died in the process of trying to fight against the centralized behemoth just to get vital information to the world, but that never happened, right? It was actually president Xi and the CPC that saved the day. The WHO and the CPC say so. You'll never hear the UN praise the efforts of Li Wenliang; they want his name to disappear down the memory hole as much as the Chinese government does.

The developing narrative is a familiar one – Local officials “stifled” the response to the outbreak while the centralized national leadership put things back on track with extreme control measures that have turned the Hubei province into a veritable internment camp. Whatever you do, don't point out that it was the national government's habit of imprisoning health officials that release “false information” that led to the delayed reaction on the coronavirus. Also, don't point out that ground zero for the outbreak is just down the road from the largest Level 4 Biohazard Lab in Asia, because that would make you a “conspiracy theorist”.

The message being pounded into the public consciousness is clear: "Shut up and accept that Centralization works". Even when it fails miserably, it is still the answer to all our problems. All we have to do is “adjust” the historical record a little bit every time the system breaks and then institute even MORE centralization in response.

In other words, if the interdependent and draconian top-down structure of the globalist state leads to crisis, then it is because it was not centralized ENOUGH. Centralization always begets more centralization.

The financial fascist system of central banking and corporate oligarchy leads to the socialist welfare state, and the socialist welfare state leads to the surveillance state, the surveillance state leads to the martial law state, and the martial law state leads to full-on global governance; an endless elitist empire.

The failings of centralization have caused numerous problems long before it led to a potential pandemic. The pandemic simply clarifies the issue. For example, the breakdown in the global supply chain is becoming a bigger threat by the day.  The Baltic Dry Index a measure of shipping rates as well as global demand for goods, has essentially collapsed.  This should have been the first warning sign that the supply chain was in trouble, but the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the fundamentals, only stock markets.  Enter Apple, one of the largest companies in the world, which has now abandoned its projections for 2020 and finally admitted that the shutdown of Chinese factories may just be a problem. 

Some mentally challenged people out there are scoffing sarcastically at this issue, saying "Oh no, whatever will we do without i-Phones...?".  They don't grasp the wider implications.  If Apple's production is going down because of the supply chain disruption then this is a signal that multiple companies and most of the economy are also going down because of supply chain disruptions. It's not about i-Phones, it's about the bigger picture.

Globalism has led to interdependent economies and nation states that no longer have redundancies in production. We have been forced to rely on production centers on the other side of the world for a vast majority of our goods.

When China shuts down, the US economy loses almost 20% of its supply chain. When Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Vietnam shut down from the virus, you can add another 10% to 15% on top of that. Retailers in the US represent around 70% of GDP. Cut off the supply chain in Asia and retailers lose a vast array of goods to sell. The US economy eventually shuts down also, even if the virus never spreads here.

Some people will argue that we don't need all the “cheap plastic crap” from Asia anyway, and this situation is a “good thing”. Sorry to break it to you, but America's economy is built on the selling of cheap plastic crap (along with the selling of the fiat dollar as the world reserve currency). Walmart (Chinamart if you discount agricultural products) is the largest employer in the US and the world, after all. Right or wrong, our economic system is so globalized that the fall of the Chinese dominoes will eventually knock down our own dominoes.

But when this disaster occurs and numerous national economies suffer from enforced globalist integration, guess what will happen next? The globalists will ride to our “rescue” with even greater centralization. This was their agenda all along.

Many people in the liberty movement are now aware of the Event 201 simulation, a war game run by globalists in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum on a “theoretical” coronavirus pandemic that kills 65 million people. This simulation took place only a couple of months before the real thing exploded in China in December. But hey, maybe that's all just amazing coincidence. What concerns me even more is the solution that was presented at the end of Event 201 – the creation of a centralized global financial body that would manage the international response to the outbreak.

Isn't it amazing how every major catastrophe caused by globalism seems to lead to more globalism? One might start to wonder if some of these events were triggered by incompetence, or if they were deliberately engineered. At the very least, crisis events have been allowed to fester unchecked by organizations like the WHO as they continue to write off the coronavirus as a non-issue that is "well under control" by a Chinese government that caused it to spread in the first place.

So here is what is going to happen next:

Best case scenario is that the Western world is mostly unscathed by the virus itself but the economic supply chain suffers major setbacks. The global economy, which was already crashing over the past year due to historic levels of corporate and consumer debt, not to mention faltering exports and freight, is finally tipped over the edge. The massive Everything Bubble, fueled by a decade of inflationary central bank stimulus, implodes. Governments respond with totalitarian measures in the name of “protecting the public”.

Globalist institutions like the IMF step in and suggest that frail national monetary systems come under the management of their Special Drawing Rights basket in order to mitigate the debt crisis. Essentially, this is the first step to global governance.

Worst case scenario, the virus spreads throughout the US and Europe and governments respond the same way China's government has; martial law and full blown concentration camp culture. This would lead to civil war in the US because we are armed and many people will shoot anyone trying to put us into quarantine camps. Europe is mostly screwed.

The establishment then suggests that paper money be removed from the system because it is a viral spreader. China is already pushing this solution now. Magically, we find ourselves in a cashless society in a matter of a year or two; which is what the globalists have been demanding for years. Everything goes digital, and thus even local economies become completely centralized as private trade dies.

Again, this might be an engineered event, or it might simply be that the globalists are exploiting a natural outbreak. Either way, they are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. Whether or not they succeed is dependent on several factors, but mostly, its dependent on us. How many people will buy into the notion that centralization is the answer to out problems? How many people will realize that centralization is the CAUSE of all our problems? And how many people will fight to prevent ultimate centralization under a psychopathic globalist cult?

A viral outbreak is a significant danger to us all, but an even greater threat is the supposed cure. Trading our economic and social freedom in the name of stopping the coronavirus?  No matter how deadly the bug, it's just not worth it.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/19/2020 - 23:45

Fedophilia: The Intellectual Disease And Cure

zerohedge News fedophilia intellectual disease cure All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Fedophilia: The Intellectual Disease And Cure

Authored by George Selgin via Alt-M.org,

Although the movement to “End the Fed” has a considerable popular following, only a very tiny number of economists—our illustrious contributors amongst them—take the possibility seriously. For the rest, the Federal Reserve System is, not an ideal currency system to be sure (for who would dare to call it that?), but, implicitly at leas

Read More
t, the best of all possible systems. And while there’s no shortage of proposals for reforming it almost all of them call only for mere tinkering. Tough though their love may be, the fact remains that most economists are stuck on the Fed.

This veneration of the Fed has long struck me as perverse. Its record can hardly be said, after all, to supply grounds for complacency, much less for the belief that no other system could possibly do better. (Indeed that record, as Bill Lastrapes, Larry White and I have shown, even makes it difficult to claim that the Fed has improved upon the evidently flawed National Currency system it replaced.) Further, as the Fed is both a monopoly and a central planning agency, one would expect economists’ general opposition to monopolies and to central planning, as informed by their welfare theorems and by the general collapse of socialism, to prejudice them against it. Yet instead of ganging up to look into market-based alternatives to the Fed, the profession, for the most part, has relegated such inquiries to its fringe.

Why? The question warrants an answer from those of us who insist that exploring alternatives to the Fed is worthwhile, if only to counter people’s natural but nevertheless mistaken inclination to assume that the rest of the profession isn’t interested in such alternatives because it has already carefully considered—and rejected—them.

It’s tempting to blame Fedophilia, and the more general phenomenon of what Larry White calls “status quo” bias in monetary research, on the Fed’s direct influence upon the economics profession. According to White, in 2005 the Fed employed about 27 percent more full-time macro- and monetary (including banking) economists than the top 50 US academic economics departments combined, while disseminating much of their research gratis through various in-house publications or as working papers. Perhaps not surprisingly, despite a thorough review of such publications, White could not find “a single Fed-published article that calls for eliminating, privatizing, or even restructuring the Fed.” That professional monetary economics journals are not much better may, in turn, reflect the fact, also documented by White, that Fed-affiliated economists also dominate those journals’ editorial boards.

But I doubt that a reluctance to bite the hand that feeds them is the only, or even the most important, reason why most economists seldom question the Fed’s desirability.

Another reason, I suppose, is their desire to distance themselves from… kooks. Let’s face it: more than a few persons who’d like to “End the Fed” want to do so because they think the Rothschilds run it, that it had JFK killed because he planned to revive the silver dollar, and that the basic plan for it was hatched not by the Congressional Committee in charge of monetary reform but by a cabal of Wall Street bankers at a top-secret meeting on Jekyll Island.

Oh, wait: the last claim is actually true. But claims like the others give reasonable and well-informed Fed critics a bad name, while giving others reason for wishing to put as much space as possible between themselves and the anti-Fed fringe.

I’m convinced that imagination, or the lack of it, also plays a part. To some extent, the problem is too much rather than too little imagination. With fiat money, and a discretionary central bank, it’s always theoretically possible to have the money stock (or some other nominal variable) behave just like it ought to, according to whichever macroeconomic theory or model one prefers. In other words, a modern central bank is always technically capable of doing the right thing, just as a chimpanzee jumping on a keyboard is technically capable of typing-out War and Peace.

Just as obviously, any conceivable alternative to a discretionary central bank, whether based on competition and a commodity standard or frozen fiat base or on some other “automatic” mechanisms, is bound to be imperfect, judged relative to some—indeed any—theoretical ideal. Consequently, an economist need only imagine that a central bank might somehow be managed according to his or her own particular monetary policy ideals to reckon it worthwhile to try and nudge it in that direction, but not to consider other conceivable arrangements.

That there’s a fallacy of composition of sorts at play here should be obvious, for a dozen economists might hold as many completely different monetary policy ideals; yet every one might be a Fedophile simply because the Fed could cater to his or her beliefs. In actual fact, of course, the Fed’s conduct can at most satisfy only one of them, and is indeed likely to satisfy none at all, and so might actually prove distinctly inferior to what some non-central bank alternative would achieve. So in letting their imaginations get the best of them, all twelve economists end up endorsing what’s really the inferior option.

If you don’t think economists are really capable of such naivete, I refer you to the literature on currency boards, in which one routinely encounters arguments to the effect that central banks are always better than currency boards because they might be better. Or how about those critics of the gold standard who, having first observed how, under such a standard, gold discoveries will cause inflation, go on to conclude, triumphantly, that a fiat-money issuing central-bank is better because it might keep prices stable?

But if economists let their imaginations run wild in having their ideal central banks stand in for the real McCoys, those same imaginations tend to run dry when it comes to contemplating radical alternatives to the monetary status quo. Regarding conventional beliefs concerning the need for government-run coin factories, which he (rightly) dismissed as so much poppycock, Herbert Spencer observed, “So much more does a realized fact influence us than an imagined one, that had the baking of bread been hitherto carried on by government agents, probably the supply of bread by private enterprise would scarcely be conceived possible, much less advantageous.” Economists who haven’t put any effort into imagining how non-central bank based monetary systems might work find it all too easy to simply suppose that they can’t work, or at least that they can’t work at all well. The workings of decentralized markets are often subtle; while such markets’ ability to solve many difficult coordination problems is, not only mysterious to untrained observers, but often difficult if not impossible even for experts to fathom except by means of painstaking investigations. In comparison monetary central planning is duck soup—on paper, anyway.

Nor does the way monetary economics is taught help. In other subjects, the welfare theorems are taken seriously. In classes on international trade, for example, time is always spent, early on, on the implications of free trade: never mind that the world has never witnessed perfectly free trade, and probably never will; it’s understood that the consequences of tariffs and other sorts of state interference can only be properly assessed by comparing them to the free trade alternative, and no one who hasn’t studied that alternative can expect to have his or her pronouncements about the virtues of protectionism taken seriously.

In classes in monetary economics, on the other hand, the presence of a central bank—a monetary central planner, that is—is assumed from the get-go, and no serious attention is given to the implications of “free trade in money and banking.” Consequently, when most monetary economists talk about the virtues of this or that central bank, they’re mostly talking through their hats, because they haven’t a clue concerning what other institutions might be present, and what they might be up to if the central bank wasn’t there.

Since monetary systems not managed by central banks, including some very successful ones, have in fact existed, economists’ inability to envision such systems is also evidence of their ignorance of economic history. That ignorance in turn, among younger economists at least, is a predictable consequence of the now-orthodox view that history can be safely boiled down to a bunch of correlation coefficients, so that they need only gather enough numbers and run enough regressions to discover everything worth knowing about the past.

Those who’ve been spared such “training,” on the other hand, often have a purblind view of the history of money and banks—one that brings to mind Saul Steinberg’s famous New Yorker cover depicting a 9th-Avenuer’s view of the world, with its almost uninhabited desert between the Hudson and the Pacific, and China, Japan, and Russia barely visible on the horizon. If he or she knows any monetary history at all, the typical (which is to say American) economist knows something about that history in the U.S., and perhaps considerably less about events in Great Britain. Theirs is, in short, just the right amount of knowledge to be very dangerous indeed.

And dangerous it has been. In particular, because the U.S. before 1914, and England before the Bank of England began acting as a lender of last resort, happened to suffer frequent financial crises, economists’ historical nearsightedness has given rise to the conventional wisdom that any fractional-reserve banking system lacking a lender of last resort must be crisis-prone, and two clever (if utterly fantastic) formal models serving to illustrate the same view (or, according to economists’ twisted rhetoric, to “prove” it “rigorously”). It has, correspondingly, led economists to ignore or at least to underestimate the extent to which legal restrictions, including unit banking laws in the U.S. and the six-partner rule in England, contributed to the deficiencies of those countries’ banking systems. Finally, and most regrettably, it has caused economists to overlook altogether the possibility that the monopolization of paper currency has itself been more a cause of than a cure for financial instability.

The good news is that Fedophilia is curable. Milton Friedman, for one, was a recovering Fedophile: later in his career, he repudiated the mostly-conventional arguments he’d once put forward in defense of a currency monopoly. Friedman, of course, was a special case: a famous proponent of free markets, he had more reason than most economists do to view claims of market failure with skepticism, even if he’d once subscribed to them himself. Even so, his was only a half-hearted change of heart, in part (I believe) because he still hadn’t drawn the lessons he might have from the banking experiences of countries other than the U.S. and England.

Friedman’s case suggests that it will take some pretty intense therapy to deprogram other Fed inamoratos, including a regimen of required readings.

Charles Conant’s History of Modern Banks of Issue will help them to overcome their historical parochialism.

Vera Smith’s The Rationale of Central Banking will do more of the same, while also exposing them to the lively debates that took place between advocates and opponents of currency monopolies before the former (supported by their governments’ ravenous Treasuries) swept the field. 

The Experience of Free Banking, edited by Kevin Dowd (with contributions by several Alt-M contributors including yours truly) gathers studies of a number of past, decentralized currency systems, showing how they tended to be more stable than their more centralized counterparts, while another collection, Rondo Cameron’s Banking in the Early Stages of Industrialization, shows that less centralized systems were also better at fostering economic development. Finally, instead of being allowed to merely pay lip service to Walter Bagehot’s Lombard Street, Fedophile’s should be forced, first to read it from cover to cover, and then to re-read out-loud those passages (there are several) in which Bagehot explains that there’d be no need for lenders of last resort had unwise legislation not created centralized (“one reserve”) currency systems in the first place. The last step works especially well in group therapy.

Of course, even the most vigorous deprogramming regimen is unlikely to alter the habits of hard-core Fed enthusiasts. But it might at the very least make them more inclined to engage in serious debate with the Fed’s critics, instead of allowing the Fed’s apologists to go on believing that they answer those critics convincingly simply by rolling their eyes.

Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/16/2020 - 21:00

India's Leaders Claim Drinking Cow Urine Will Cure Covid-19

zerohedge News indias leaders claim drinking urine will cure covid-19 All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
India's Leaders Claim Drinking Cow Urine Will Cure Covid-19

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his extreme Hindu backers are making some amazing claims about science.

Indian nationalists peddle something worse than snake oil. It's the The Cow Dung Cure for Coronavirus.

Swami Chakrapani Maharaj, presiden

Read More
t of the Hindu Mahasabha—a century-old organization that advocates Hindutva (or “Hinduness”)—declared that consuming cow urine and cow dung will stop the effect of infectious coronavirus.”

The swami added that“person who chants ‘om namah shivay’ and applies cow dung” on his body “will be saved. The Sanskrit chant is a salutation to Shiva, a Hindu deity.

The swami is a prominent figure in hard-line Hindu circles and has an ideological affinity with Mr. Modi.

Since the Hinduist Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, ascended to national power in 2014, its views have infiltrated textbooks and even scientific discourse. Mr. Modi has suggested that ancient Indians had test-tube babies. Citing the case of Karna—a hero of the “Mahabharata,” a Hindu epic from the third century B.C.—Mr. Modi told a gathering of doctors in 2014 that since Karna was “not born from his mother’s womb” (in Mr. Modi’s version of the myth), this had to mean that “genetic science was present at the time.” Referring to Ganesha, the elephant-headed god, he said, there “must have been some plastic surgeon at that time who got an elephant’s head on the body of a human being.

Mr. Modi is too smart to believe all this. He spoke those words because he knew they would delight his nationalist base. His fellow travelers routinely resort to pseudoscientific assertions in the service of Indian glory. Among the claims: Indians beat Pythagoras by 300 years to the theorem that bears his name; nuclear weapons were used in the great war depicted in the “Mahabharata”; and ancient Indians flew airplanes.

India's Path of Ruin

India is on the path of destruction with Modi in charge.

This is yet another example that shows the importance of separation of church and state.

Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/12/2020 - 05:00

Trader Warns "Cutting Global Rates Doesn't Cure Sick People"

zerohedge News trader warns cutting global rates doesnt cure sick people All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share

Trader Warns "Cutting Global Rates Doesn't Cure Sick People"


Authored by Richard Breslow via Bloomberg,




On days like today, it’s easy to fall into one of two camps.





You can either look at every move that risk makes and declare it horribly important. Portending something lasting, momentous and dispositive. And demanding to know why someone isn’t doing something to propel sto

Read More
cks higher. Bounces are taken as a blow struck for justice and the wholesome functioning of asset markets as they are meant to be experienced. Sell-offs are seen as unfair.


Or you can be taken as a scold for suggesting that traders, and commentators, get a grip.








Thai Doctors "Cure" Coronavirus Patient Using Powerful AIDS Drugs

zerohedge News thai doctors cure coronavirus patient using powerful aids drugs All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Thai Doctors "Cure" Coronavirus Patient Using Powerful AIDS Drugs

A couple of days ago, Zero Hedge decided to highlight a string of tweets by respected epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding wherein he noted some unusual characteristics of the novel coronavirus (nCoV-2019) that has swept across nearly two dozen countries since emerging in the central Chinese city of Wuhan last year.

Scientists trying to trace the evolution of the virus in order to u

Read More
nderstand how to contain it using knowledge gleaned from previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS among them) discovered something strange: Initially, researchers believed that they had found a string of genetic code that hasn't been present in other coronavirus strains, but is similar to strains found in "the HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag."

Now, Dr. Feigl-Ding later pointed out that subsequent research confirmed that some similarities have, in fact, been found in other known coronavirus strains. The similarities are certainly interesting.

Let's move now to the front lines of the outbreak, where doctors in Beijing and elsewhere in China have started using popular retrovirals commonly employed in the treatment of AIDS. So much so that the US and drug companies have reportedly upped shipments of the drugs to China to assist in containing the outbreak. Another unusual trait: the virus binds to the same receptors as HIV.

Some have suggested that these oddities indicate nCoV was possibly engineered by scientists working to create a powerful new bioweapon - though these claims have been ridiculed and dismissed out of hand by the mainstream press.

Offering some more evidence that this wasn't just some fluke, a team of Thai doctors told the Bangkok Post that the use of anti-flu an AIDS drugs has been a huge success as the country with the largest number of infected patients tries to contain the outbreak within its own borders.

Two doctors from Rajavithi Hospital in Bangkok (Dr. Kriangsak Atipornwanich and Associate Professor Dr. Subsai Kongsangdao) decided to use oseltamivir, an anti-flu drug used to treat MERS along with lopinavir and ritonavir, two AIDS drugs that had been used with some success in Beijing, to treat a female patient whose condition was rapidly deteriorating. 

The patient was admitted to Hua Hin Hospital then transferred to Rajavithi Hospital on Jan. 29.

"We checked related information and found anti-flu drugs were effective on MERS so we combined both groups of medications," he said. "After poor lab tests for 10 days, the test finally turned positive after 48 hours of administering the medications. The treatment, as well as the recovery, is fast."

Doctors from the Thai Public Health Ministry also said at a briefing on Sunday that the number of patients in Thailand has climbed to 19.

So, the coronavirus responds to a combination of meds used to treat the flu and AIDS? If we were going to create a super frankenvirus, that's where we'd probably start.

Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/02/2020 - 15:05


Health Medical Pharma
Social Issues


Scientists In Britain May Have Just "Accidentally" Found A Cure For Cancer

zerohedge News scientists britain have just accidentally found cure cancer All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Scientists In Britain May Have Just "Accidentally" Found A Cure For Cancer

Every once in a while, medical researchers simply have a stroke of good luck. In this case, that "stroke of good luck" could have a profound effect on the medial community. 

Researchers at Cardiff University that were in the midst of analyzing blood from a bank accidentally stumbled into an "entirely new type of T-cell", according to The Daily Wire. 

Read More
ng>The new cell carries a "never before seen" type of receptor that acts like a grappling hook, latching on to most human cancers. 

Prior therapies, called CAR-T and TCR-T, which use immune cells to attach to HLA molecules on cancer cells' surface, are incapable of fighting solid tumors, the article notes. HLA molecules vary in people, but the new therapy instead attaches to a molecule called MR1, which does not vary in humans. This gives the therapy a chance of fighting most cancers.

It also means people could share the treatment, which could allow banks of cells to be stored and offered quickly, as needed. 

The treatment has already worked on lung, skin, blood, colon, breast, bone, prostate, ovarian, kidney and cervical cancer cells. The study stated:

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-independent, T cell-mediated targeting of cancer cells would allow immune destruction of malignancies in all individuals. Here, we use genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screening to establish that a T cell receptor recognized and killed most human cancer types via the monomorphic MHC class-I related protein, MR1, while remaining inert to noncancerous cells … These finding offer opportunities for HLA-independent, pan-cancer, pan-population immunotherapies.

It concluded: “In summary, we describe a TCR that exhibits pan-cancer recognition via the variant MR1 molecule, and, by equipping patients with melanoma T cells that lacked detectable cancer reactivity with the MC.7 G5 TCR, we rendered the T-cells capable of killing autologous melanoma.”

What does that mean? It means "it works". Additionally, T-Cells of skin cancer patients altered by the treatment were capable of killing the patient's cancer cells and other patients' cancer cells as well.

The lead author on the study, Andrew Sewell, said: “This was a serendipitous finding, nobody knew this cell existed. Our finding raises the prospect of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ cancer treatment, a single type of T-cell that could be capable of destroying many different types of cancers across the population. Previously nobody believed this could be possible.”

“This new type of T-cell therapy has enormous potential to overcome current limitations of CAR-T, which has been struggling to identify suitable and safe targets for more than a few cancer types,” said Professor Oliver Ottmann, Cardiff University’s Head of Haematology.

Trials on terminally ill patients could start as soon as November. 

Now if they could only "stumble" onto a cure for the coronavirus next...

Tyler Durden

Sat, 01/25/2020 - 08:45


Health Medical Pharma


“Self-regulating” nanoparticles can burn cancer without harming healthy cells

logicfish News Society Science Health nano nano particles cancer cure cancer cure All https://techcrunch.com   Discuss    Share

Researchers at the University of Surrey and Dalian University of Technology in China have created a form of nanoparticle that can heat up and kill cancerous..

Sign up for our newsletter

Unsubscribe at Anytime | Privacy Policy
Welcome, DisDroidians

Send a donation to get your link on the front page - send 0.5mBTC - Or your RSS feed - send 4mBTC.

Please Donate
Send a donation to get your link on the front page - send 0.2mBTC - Or your RSS feed - send 2mBTC here:



Most Viewed Stories
Latest Comments
Disdroid.co.uk - ranking and value