Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A majority of Americans said they will likely not receive a COVID-19 booster vaccine this fall, according to a poll released Friday.

A survey from the health care organization KFF found that 59 percent of respondents said they either will not or likely will not receive the booster dose. Around 37 percent said they would “definitely not” receive the shot, while 23 percent said they would “probably not get” the shot.

According to the poll, 21 percent said they will “definitely” receive the booster, and 19 percent said they will “probably get” one.

The survey, meanwhile, indicated that 36 percent of Americans over the age of 65 said they “definitely” will get the updated COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available. Around the same number of Democrats overall also said they would do so, according to the pollsters.

This comes as the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has changed the COVID-19 vaccine policy since the Trump administration took over earlier this year. Last month, the HHS dismissed all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine advisory panel, ordered the removal of mercury from influenza vaccines, and ended the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children.

The KFF survey found that most Americans say they are confused about the changes to U.S. vaccine policy that have been made in the last six months or so.

It also found that 33 percent of all adults surveyed are “very” or “somewhat” worried about whether COVID-19 vaccines will be available to them this fall. But most adults, or 67 percent, told KFF they are “not too” or “not at all” worried about that prospect, it found.

On Thursday, the CDC released data showing that vaccination rates for several diseases, including measles, diphtheria, and polio, decreased among U.S. kindergartners in the 2024–2025 school year from the previous year.

For the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, coverage went from 95.2 percent in the 2019–2020 school year to 92.7 percent last year, before landing at 92.5 percent in 2024–2025. In Texas, the epicenter of the recent outbreak, MMR coverage has fallen to 93.2 percent from 96.9 percent in 2019.

The figures brought forth by the CDC did not include data for COVID-19 vaccines, but only included vaccines that are typically given during childhood.

In addition, exemptions from one or more vaccines increased to 3.6 percent in 2024–2025 from 3.3 percent the year before, the CDC website said. Exemptions, which can be granted on medical or religious grounds, increased in 36 states and the District of Columbia, with 17 states reporting exemptions exceeding 5 percent, it said.

And in a recent report, the CDC said that activity for COVID-19 was low nationwide. Respiratory illness activity, including RSV and influenza, was also described as “very low“ by the agency. ”Very high“ levels of the virus were being reported in Texas, Hawaii, and Alaska, while ”high” levels are occurring in California, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Kentucky, according to a map provided by the agency for the week ending July 26.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The entire economic order is bankrupt–ideologically, politically and financially.

A friend sent me a clip of Tucker Carlson going off on the Boomer generation, and I get it. Tucker’s takedown was epic and entertaining (at least for me), but his disgust and rage were real. So let’s dig into the sources of those emotions.

If you watch the clip, it’s apparent that what really disgusts Tucker is the sanctimoniousness of the Boomers he references, the glibness of their virtue-signaling and claims to righteousness and significance. This extends to the financial level, where the sanctimony is expressed as a high-minded confidence that “we earned it,” overlooking the trillions of dollars handed to them on a Federal Reserve / bubble-economy / entitlements platter.

I think we all get that, but the problem isn’t the Boomers, it’s the entire economic order. The Boomers were just the hitchhiker who were lucky enough to be picked up by the big-finned Cadillac on the way into Vegas.

Even if everyone were absolute saints, they’d still own most of the wealth. Here’s why.

When Social Security was enacted in the 1930s, the retirement age was 65 and the average lifespan of Americans was 62. In other words, the program was intentionally designed to be self-funded (paid by a very modest tax on wages paid by both employer and employee) and act as a safety net for the fortunate few who lived long enough to collect it but who weren’t lucky enough to be wealthy.

As the economy boomed in the postwar era, the age of retirement (at a lower percentage of full benefits) was lowered to 62 as the average lifespan increased to 70 by 1965, when Medicare and Medicaid were enacted. At their inception, these programs were mere fractions of federal spending, and appeared to be “good things” that were affordable.

The Boomers weren’t born in the 1930s, and in 1965 they were kids. These entitlements were initiated in response to the grim reality that old age for the non-wealthy was generally a ticket to poverty.

Fast-forward to today, and the average lifespan is 80 (with millions of elderly living a decade longer) and 3/4 of adult Americans are at risk of lifestyle diseases / metabolic disorders due to an unhealthy diet and poor fitness. Over half of Americans are diabetic or prediabetic.

The entitlement programs to aid the elderly that were modest decades ago are now almost 50% of the entire federal budget, dwarfing all other spending. Entitlements aiding young families are so modest they aren’t even a blip compared to the soaring budgets of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. (Disability entitlements were added to Social Security, greatly expanding the program’s costs.)

The budgets of these entitlement programs are on unsustainable parabolic trajectories. Medicare:

And Medicaid: healthcare has soared from 5% of GDP to almost 20%. “Unlimited free money” tends to do that…

Now we come to the main course, neoliberal economic magic. The basic idea of neoliberal economics is if we just free market forces, that will permanently generate growth and wealth. The net result was an orgy of financialization that benefited the few, not the many, and so policy makers turned to inflating asset bubbles as the “cost-free” way to boost growth and wealth.

By lowering interest rates and flooding the economy with low-cost credit–monetary stimulus–assets will skyrocket, generating a wealth effect that loosens the purse strings of the asset owners as they see their wealth rise without them having to create any value whatsoever. Just sit back and watch your house and stock portfolio generate thousands of dollars of “free money.”

The other neoliberal theory was “trickle-down economics”: as the upper-middle class and wealthy spent freely, some of their immense gains in income and wealth would trickle down to the bottom 90%.

But since the vast majority of the economy’s gains were flowing to capital/assets rather than wages, this didn’t happen. What happened instead is the already-rich who owned most of the assets got richer while those depending on wages got poorer.

Add these forces together and what you get is extreme generational wealth inequality. Those who bought houses in the 1970s, 80s and 90s have profited immensely from housing bubbles #1 and #2 (the current bubble), and from stock bubbles #1 (dot-com), #2 (2007-08) and now #3 (The Everything Bubble).

The entire economic order is bankrupt–ideologically, politically and financially. If nothing changes at the fundamental level, the rich will continue to get richer at the expense of those priced out of the bubblicious assets, and the older generations will continue to accrue unearned wealth while younger wage earners are reduced to debt-serfdom and wage slavery.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but we’re going to have to change our values and the fundamental structures of our economy if we want a different outcome.

*  *  *

Check out my new book Ultra-Processed Life and my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Germany’s historic reversal on its military posture and stregnth has long been on display since near the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. Berlin has been drastically expanding its military spending and is even recently mulling compulsory service for the nation’s armed forces.

But even without this more dramatic action, the reality is that interest in joining the German Armed Forces has grown significantly, with military recruitment up 28% so far in 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, according to new Defence Ministry information published Thursday.

By July 21, approximately 13,750 new recruits had joined the Bundeswehr, the defense miinistry said – which has involved fixed-term service contracts and voluntary military service.

This has apparently been an increasingly attractive route for young people after finishing school. Currently, the Bundeswehr has around 183,100 active personnel, which is an increase of about 2,000 compared to last year.

Voluntary service participation has also climbed by roughly 15%, reaching 11,350 recruits. While these numbers pale in comparison to the much larger militaries of the US, Russia, or even Ukraine – it marks the start of what could be a historic shift after the German military’s post-WWII effective decimation.

The Defence Ministry credits the increase to focused recruitment efforts on growing concerns about global security, and of course the percieved threat to Europe by Russia as a result of the still raging Ukraine war which is not far away geographically.

The Kremlin has consistently denied allegations that President Putin has his eyes set on invading Europe or even a NATO ‘eastern flank’ country.

German officials have voiced their view that the rise in enlistment encouraging, particularly given the urgent need to expand the military’s ranks. Later this month Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Cabinet is expected to vote on a draft bill to reform military service.

All of this also of course makes NATO leadership happy, and is in the context of President Trump’s serious push to get European members of the alliance to shoulder more of the common defense burden.

If passed, the changes could come into effect in early 2026, prioritizing voluntary enlistment and improved conditions, featuring for example better pay – with the aim of attracting up to 15,000 new conscripts annually, according to German media.

Via Eurasianet.org,m

• Russian energy entities, including Rosatom, are experiencing significant financing difficulties, raising doubts about their ability to fulfill international energy project commitments.

• Kazakhstan has decided to independently build thermal power plants originally contracted to Russia’s Inter RAO due to a lack of promised financing, and is increasingly turning to China for nuclear power plant construction.

• Rosatom is seeking government financial support to maintain its global leadership in the nuclear energy market and carry out new projects, citing limited financing options due to international sanctions.

Russian energy entities are experiencing financing woes, raising questions about whether Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, will be able to fulfill its obligations to build Kazakhstan’s first atomic power plant.

Already, financing troubles have caused another Russian state-controlled firm, Inter RAO, to lose out on constructing three thermal power plants in Kazakhstan. 

During a July 30 appearance before the Russian State Commission on Energy, Andrei Petrov, a top Rosatom official, openly acknowledged that Rosatom was seeking government support. The entity has the resources to complete ongoing work, but by 2027, it will need a financial injection to carry out new projects, Petrov indicated.

Rosatom officials have been somewhat cagey in specifying exactly what kind of support they are seeking and have shied away from specifying an amount. For example, Rosatom’s chief, Alexei Likhachev, recently stated the entity is seeking the “provision of special resources” from the government, according to a report published by the Interfax news agency.

In 2024, a Rosatom official, referring to a program to develop floating nuclear power plants, indicated that Rosatom had limited financing options due to international sanctions on Russia, and required state-subsidized low-interest loans in order for the company to maintain its industry lead in several areas. Rosatom presently enjoys a roughly 50 percent share of the global nuclear energy market, with operations even in several NATO member states, such as Turkey and Hungary.  

“The only way to maintain leadership with this product [floating nuclear power plants] is to subsidize exports even more than we already are,” Interfax quoted Vladimir Aptekarev, a top official at the Rosatom subsidiary Atomenergomash JSC, as saying in 2024, citing Chinese competition.

The Russian government, given the immense burden on the state budget imposed by its war effort in Ukraine, has so far resisted pleas from energy entities for increased support. Rosatom officials have acknowledged that the lack of assistance has hindered efforts to build new types of thermal and nuclear units, known as units Shelf-M and Elena-AM.

The Russian government’s cash crunch appears to be responsible for delays in construction of three planned Kazakh thermal power plants near Kokshetau, Semey and Ust-Kamenogorsk. Inter RAO signed a contract to build the three plants at an estimated cost of about $2.7 billion, with financing to be provided by Russian state-connected institutions. But the money never materialized.

On July 31, Deputy Kazakh Prime Minister Roman Sklyar confirmed that Kazakhstan was ditching the contract with Inter RAO, adding that it would build the plants on its own, according to media reports.

“When the company [Inter RAO] took on the obligation to build these facilities, it was supposed to receive export financing at a low rate. Unfortunately, they were unable to do this, so it was decided to build them independently,” he said.

The Kazakh government’s decision to move on from Inter RAO on the thermal plant projects instantly sparks questions about the fate of Rosatom’s deal to build Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power station. 

When Kazakhstan’s Atomic Energy Agency announced in June that Rosatom would lead the consortium to build the plant on the shores of Lake Balkhash, it indicated that the deal was contingent on the Russian entity’s ability to arrange financing. “Work on the issue of attracting state export financing at the expense of the Russian Federation has begun,” a KAEA statement announced at the time.

At the same time in June, Kazakh officials made the unexpected announcement that they were giving a contract to China’s National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) to build a second nuclear power plant. At the time, observers saw the announcement as a shrewd move to keep Kazakhstan’s two powerful neighbors, Russia and China, happy. But in hindsight, the move can also be seen as a hedge.

On July 31, Kazakhstan appeared to give a vote of no-confidence in Rosatom’s ability to deliver on the nuclear plant. Sklyar, the deputy prime minister, announced that CNNC would lead construction of a third nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan. He declined to disclose a cost estimate for the projects, adding that the locations of both the second and third nuclear power stations had not been determined. 

Even so, it appears Kazakhstan has a backup plan already in place in case the Rosatom deal falls through.

By Thomas Kolbe

Bureaucracy is flourishing in Germany and the EU like never before. Budget planning in Berlin and Brussels offers a clear glimpse into the state of the public sector—and at the same time, points toward the end of the economic cycle.

A saying is making the rounds on social media that captures the European relationship with the state: Europeans love to be governed so much, they’ve even installed a government for their governments in Brussels. It’s a reference to the European Union’s bureaucracy—a sprawling administrative apparatus that is gradually disempowering national governments and shifting the burdens of centralization onto the citizenry.

The latest example: a ruling by the European Court of Justice that weakens the definition of a “safe country of origin,” effectively removing any effective legal instrument EU states might use to stop the overwhelming wave of illegal migration.

Brussels’ ideological stubbornness and institutional detachment from reality are part of a relentless drive to subject ever-larger parts of European society to regulatory control. It’s as if an illegitimate stepchild has embedded itself into the family and is now trying to rob the rightful heirs of their inheritance.

The Mega-Budget of Madness

Case in point: the EU Commission recently unveiled its new seven-year budget, now inflated to a whopping €1.8 trillion—a runaway bureaucracy at a time when European economies are suffering a severe productivity crisis and member states are gasping for fiscal air.

Brussels is living proof that bureaucratic structures develop a life of their own from day one. Like all social organisms, they strive for growth, bigger budgets, and expanding regulation as a way of entrenching their power base. Their activity continues even as the host society weakens—until the host’s growth forces collapse entirely.

Argentina clearly reached that point two years ago, when libertarian Javier Milei was handed a literal chainsaw to hack through the jungle of regulations, bureaucracy, and senseless state interference. The result: an economic euphoria that remains completely alien to Germany. Here, bureaucracy continues to bloom in full.

Crushing Bureaucratic Burdens

German businesses groan under a bureaucratic burden that grows year after year. According to calculations by the Ifo Institute, bureaucratism costs the German economy €146 billion annually—wasted just to meet government documentation, compliance, and control mandates.

It’s an economic catastrophe, prescribed by the state to secure its own power. We are deep in the age of bureaucratic overkill.

No craftsman, no mid-sized entrepreneur can survive today without a dedicated admin department or pricey consultants—just to submit the next batch of paperwork or satisfy a new reporting obligation. Millions of working hours—hours that should serve innovation, productivity, and actual labor—are simply incinerated.

In what was once the land of inventors and visionaries, the biggest brake on growth—besides crushing taxes—is the regulatory jungle of forms and mandates. It’s a damning indictment of politics, whose will to control has exceeded all reasonable limits.

Against this backdrop, the Merz government’s bureaucratic-reduction promises are nothing short of an insult to those forced to endure the madness.

America Shows Another Way

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The U.S. is currently showing a radically different path. With the launch of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), AI is being deployed across the board. Its goal: to scrap roughly 100,000 federal regulations—about half of all existing ones—deemed unconstitutional or redundant.

At the heart of this push is the “DOGE AI Deregulation Decision Tool,” which may soon become the global standard for deregulation.

The U.S. government estimates annual savings of up to €1.3 trillion (~$1.5 trillion)—primarily through lower compliance costs for businesses and slashed administrative payrolls. AI is already being used at agencies like the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), where in just two weeks, 1,000 regulations were reviewed and marked for deletion.

The End of the Cycle

Reform is possible—but it demands a long runway. The political will for it must rise from deep societal crisis, build over time, and then strike suddenly to break the bureaucratic fortress.

Bureaucracies evolve in parallel with the society and economy that host them. Everything obeys the laws of growth, maturity, and decay. The question is: where does Germany stand in this cycle when we examine the structure and growth dynamic of its public administration?

Surely, it’s a long way from here to the Milei chainsaw. The end of that path involves severe economic and social turbulence.

Just look at Argentina: two currency collapses, hyperinflation, welfare-state implosion, and economic paralysis—the typical symptoms of a society in collapse.

At that point, political arguments about “more regulation” go silent. People begin to recognize the bureaucratic plunder for what it is. The media can no longer cover up economic reality. It’s the moment when society demands that those who’ve benefited from the labor of others finally pay the price—those who hid from life’s risks in government offices.

At that stage, redundant agencies are shuttered, civil service rights suspended, pensions slashed. In short, the state-private sector relationship is recalibrated.

Signs and Symptoms

So where does Germany currently stand?

The signs are everywhere. From the absurd climate-panic regulations emerged the biggest subsidy machine in European history. Between 2028 and 2034, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen plans to pump €750 billion into this monster of capital destruction.

Hundreds of NGOs feed off this machine, inflating their own activity levels to secure budgets and influence. Think of climate protestors gluing themselves to roads, Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for Future—the pathological symptoms of a psychologically wounded society that has lost touch with its own values.

At the end of the economic cycle, Germany appears to have exhausted its integrative and stabilizing capacities—and is now stumbling through a process of economic and social disintegration.

German society—and much of Europe—finds it hard to activate the forces of self-healing. Internal conflict seems inevitable. The collapse of the climate narrative is only a matter of time, likely triggered by a United States that peels off its green-socialist mask and returns to its foundational ideals.

As bureaucratization reaches its end stage, the Kafkaesque degeneracy is impossible to ignore. Vast swaths of streets blocked off for cyclists, causing more emissions and fine dust due to induced traffic jams. Urban “green meeting points” in the middle of major roads. Gender-garbled language. Non-binary toilets. This is the grotesque overgrowth of an unhinged bureaucracy intoxicated by ideology.

Visible Decay

These often bizarre bureaucratic mutations point to Germany having entered a late stage of societal and economic decline. Crisis, catharsis, and reorientation are inevitable. The collapse of the economy is already so advanced that even left-wing state-socialists struggle to obscure it with climate hysteria or fairytales of a coming green utopia.

History moves in waves. Bureaucratism eats away at the private sector until it can no longer bear the metastasizing state. When the private sector collapses—as we now visibly see in Germany’s decaying public spaces and dismal economic data—the pressure on the political system intensifies.

At a Crossroads

Society then approaches a fork in the road. One path leads to total collectivism, as seen in the 20th century. The other returns to a bourgeois society grounded in free markets, family, and a lean state.

As Europe’s nations contemplate their future, the fog is lifting in Brussels. The political class has abandoned fiscal consolidation and now bets everything on debt acceleration. The question is no longer if there will be another sovereign debt crisis—but who will trigger it.

Right now, France looks poised to pull the plug on Brussels’ imperial ambitions. With a public debt-to-GDP ratio of 114% and a state share of 57%, it is trapped in its own fiscal nightmare. Political gridlock remains unresolved.

It will likely be Marine Le Pen and the Rassemblement National who, within two years, break the deadlock and send shockwaves through Europe by pivoting away from Brussels.

Whatever happens, every national government in the EU would be wise to have a Plan B when the reckoning in Brussels arrives.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist who has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

It’s been one week since the British government’s odious ‘Online Safety Act’ came into force and basically everything on the Internet is now blocked.

The legislation was presented as an effort to protect children from seeing things they shouldn’t be seeing online.

However, to absolutely no one’s surprise, it’s already being used to eviscerate free speech.

The first thing that was blocked were videos of protests outside hotels where the government is housing illegal immigrants on the taxpayer’s dime.

British users of X shared screenshots of messages that popped up while they attempted to view footage from the protests, which started in Epping after a migrant sexually assaulted a teenage girl and have since spread around the country.

But they won’t stop burglars and thieves. Backwards. pic.twitter.com/Bas7F4MXb7

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) July 27, 2025

The Telegraph report states:

An elite team of police officers is to monitor social media for anti-migrant sentiment amid fears of summer riots.

Detectives will be drawn from forces across the country to take part in a new investigations unit that will flag up early signs of potential civil unrest.

The division, assembled by the Home Office, will aim to “maximise social media intelligence” gathering after police forces were criticised over their response to last year’s riots.

Probably purely a coincidence, right?

Also probably purely a coincidence that a shady government outfit now known as the National Security and Online Information Team (NSOIT) has been lobbying social media companies to take action against users who post what it describes as “concerning narratives” about immigration and ‘two tier policing’.

Previously known as the ‘Counter Disinformation Unit’, it was formerly tasked with identifying and monitoring COVID lockdown dissenters during the pandemic. 

Today we learn that this spying operation actively used web trawling tools originally created to hunt for jihadist terrorists to find critics of ‘asylum’ hotels instead.

A Whitehall “disinformation” unit used tools created to hunt for jihadists to find critics of asylum hotels, The Telegraph can reveal

Read the full piece by Tony Diver here⤵️https://t.co/25vJWuJdWA pic.twitter.com/QrCcVGZqwY

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 3, 2025

While censoring dissenting voices is evidently a primary focus for elements within the British Deep State, a whole host of other stuff has been blocked.

Whether this is intentional and nefarious or just a result of the massively broad terms of what the government could possibly consider ‘harmful’ or ‘hateful’ content, or whether the social media companies just don’t know, or just don’t want to take any chances, remains to be determined.

X user Chris Middleton shared an enraging thread of some of the stuff Brits can’t see anymore.

The Act gives Ofcom powers to slap platforms with fines of up to 10% of global turnover for “harmful” content.

“Harmful” is so vague that companies are over-censoring in order to avoid trouble.

It’s not protecting kids. It’s incentivising mass censorship.

— Chris Middleton (@ChrisMid) August 1, 2025

MP @Katie_Lam_MP says content on rape gangs is being suppressed.

Her take: “The state won’t stop mass gang rape but will stop adults hearing about it.”

This isn’t a safety feature. This is how states hide their own failures.https://t.co/HURgJaRWwL

— Chris Middleton (@ChrisMid) August 1, 2025

Yes, can’t talk about that. We all know why.

Every day with this. But you’re a fascist if you protest it. https://t.co/q9ci4kqT6W

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) August 3, 2025

Can you even see that post? Probably not if you’re in the UK.

And as already mentioned…

The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) backs this up: A video of police arresting a protester on X was quickly blocked for UK users.

This used to be something we mocked in authoritarian states. Now it’s happening in Britain.https://t.co/TfbzJ7yFwl

— Chris Middleton (@ChrisMid) August 1, 2025

A witty X account exposing how awful Britain has become, also blocked.

It gets more absurd. @kunley_drukpa says @MythoYookay, an account that ironically enough, satirises the UK’s decline, is also being censored.

When even satire is being restricted in the UK, things have clearly gone too far.https://t.co/nv1PZ2CiMT

— Chris Middleton (@ChrisMid) August 1, 2025

A whole host of other innocuous things…

Even baby name stats aren’t safe. @ZiaYusufUK says an article noting no UK babies were named “Keir” last year also got blocked.

Over-censorship that is so ridiculous it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.https://t.co/LinJx2P0Nf

— Chris Middleton (@ChrisMid) August 1, 2025

Spotify…You cant listen to music now without the government’s permission.

And it’s not just social media.

Spotify now demands ID for “adult” content or risks suspending accounts, as reported by @visegrad24.

Music platforms are now digital ID checkpoints.https://t.co/fn2679nuHW

— Chris Middleton (@ChrisMid) August 1, 2025

Absolutely insane, and we’re only one week into this.

The Online Safety Act is clearly not just about protecting children.

It is a poorly worded law, written by people who don’t understand the internet.

Oh, and if you disagree with it, Labour says you’re “on the side of predators”.https://t.co/BnkmipDWDv

— Chris Middleton (@ChrisMid) August 1, 2025

A petition to repeal the censorship has almost half a million signatures at time of writing.

Over 467,300 signatures for repeal. https://t.co/EJ9BRbZ4f4

— Kathleen Tyson (@Kathleen_Tyson_) August 1, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

A synthetic opioid derived from the kratom plant sold in gummies, tablets, and drink mixes is slated to be restricted because of concerns that it has a serious potential for abuse.

The compound is called 7-hydroxymitragynine, commonly known as 7-OH. It occurs naturally in trace amounts in kratom. Products containing 7-OH have potentially dangerous, enhanced levels and are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the recommendation on June 29, stating that the 7-OH should be scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act because of its ability to bind to opioid receptors, which makes it a pain reliever that can be more powerful than morphine.

HHS noted that it is focused on a concentrated byproduct of the kratom plant and not natural kratom products. 

Here’s what to know about the synthetic opioid.

What Is 7-OH?

A variety of products contain 7-OH, including gummies, drink mixes, and shots. While the substance occurs naturally in kratom, it is in trace amounts.

A product also known as 7-hydroxy, 7-OHMG, and “7,”  7-OH is a powerful psychoactive compound added to products in concentrated amounts and, according to the FDA, falsely marketed as kratom. The agency stated that it is “engineered to be addictive” and is a “potent opioid by design.”

According to the FDA, Americans have reported side effects, including dependency, withdrawal, overdose, and death. 

“7-OH is an opioid that can be more potent than morphine,” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said. “We need regulation and public education to prevent another wave of the opioid epidemic.”

Kratom itself is a plant native to Southeast Asia that has been used by consumers to treat pain, anxiety, and even drug dependence.

Regulators have had kratom in their sights for about 10 years because of concerns about potential negative effects. Both distributors and users have opposed possible regulation, saying kratom is a safer alternative to opioid use to treat pain and drug addiction. 

The FDA stated that 7-OH is not approved for the treatment of pain, depression, anxiety, or other disorders, nor is it approved to treat opioid or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor withdrawal symptoms.

The availability of 7-OH in products has been a concern of the FDA because it can be purchased online and in local corner stores and vape shops. The department is particularly concerned about the availability to children and teenagers.

According to officials, products with 7-OH may not be labeled clearly or accurately and might be marketed as regular kratom.

Health Risks 

Due to the ability of 7-OH to bind to the opioid receptors in the brain, it has highly addictive potential, according to a statement by HHS.

“The FDA is particularly concerned with the growing market of 7-OH products that may be especially appealing to children and teenagers, such as fruit-flavored gummies and ice cream cones,” the statement reads. “These products may not be clearly or accurately labeled as to their 7-OH content and are sometimes disguised or marketed as kratom.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said when announcing the recommendation for 7-OH restrictions that he spoke with Attorney General Pam Bondi and members of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) just days before the announcement and discovered the product was spreading to vape shops around military bases, near schools, and in low-income neighborhoods.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) warned that 7-OH can cause a relapse for those recovering from drug addiction, recalling his experience with a family member. 

“They’re clean, they’re doing better,” he said at the July 29 press conference. “They find out they can go to a gas station or a vape shop or skate shop or bike shop, and they can find something that’s legal … that gives them the same high, and they can still pass drug tests, even though they’re on probation.”

Government Actions 

The agency’s recommendation on a new classification for 7-OH will be reviewed by the DEA, which sets the federal rules for high-risk ingredients, including both prescription medicines and illicit substances.

If the agency decides to enact a national ban, it wouldn’t take effect until the agency finalizes new rules that would govern the ingredient.

The FDA hopes to add  7-OH to the list of “scheduled” drugs to be used for medical use only, which are potentially addictive. Scheduled drugs are classified from I to V. Currently, Schedule I drugs are addictive substances such as heroin and LSD, whereas Schedule V drugs include many cough syrups. 

Markey expects  7-OH to be considered a Schedule I drug, but that decision will be made by the DEA. The FDA, however, plans to publish a report about 7-OH, how it differs from other substances, and the potential dangers associated with consumption.

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In his department’s latest move related to vaccine-related reform, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Aug. 1 announced more repeals of federal policy that rewarded hospitals for reporting staff vaccination rates.

Kennedy said in a press release that the policy was coercive and denied informed consent.

“Medical decisions should be made based on one thing: the wellbeing of the person—never on a financial bonus or a government mandate,” Kennedy said. “Doctors deserve the freedom to use their training, follow the science, and speak the truth without fear of punishment.”

Created under the Biden administration’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) inpatient payment rule, the policy linked hospital reimbursement to staff vaccination reporting.

“Doctors and other providers should have the same autonomy to choose what’s right for their own individual health care needs as the patients for whom they care. Today’s announcement helps put that power back in their hands,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in the press release.

The move represents the most recent policy repeal under CMS. These moves are “part of a broader HHS effort to restore medical autonomy in federally funded programs and root out financial and regulatory pressures that incentivize physicians towards pre-scripted medical decisions rather than individualized, evidence-based care,” according to the press release.

Since taking office as HHS secretary, Kennedy has implemented multiple changes regarding vaccines.

The Food and Drug Administration in late May said it planned to limit access to future COVID vaccines to people 65 and older and individuals with underlying health conditions.

The agency also announced it would permit vaccine manufacturers to coordinate in-depth studies to assess the efficacy and safety of COVID vaccines in children and younger, healthy adults.

In recent months, HHS has also dismissed all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory panel, ended the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children, and ordered the removal of mercury from influenza vaccines.

After it voted to advise officials to stop recommending influenza shots that have mercury, the remade Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) said it plans to look at multiple other vaccines.

Martin Kulldorff, the new chair of ACIP, said on June 26 that one proposal is to notify the CDC that young children should not receive the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) combination immunization.

The agency instead would recommend that children under the age of 47 months get two separate vaccines: the measles, mumps, rubella shot, and the varicella, or chickenpox, vaccine.

Kulldorff noted that the change would reflect data that indicate the MMRV combination vaccine causes more febrile seizures. The CDC reported the same information in a background paper dated June 25.

A vote on the issue could happen as early as the next ACIP meeting, which is expected to be held in August or September.

Dr. Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that “re-examining the childhood vaccine schedule and the use of thimerosal are both politically motivated actions that are not based on science.”

“Raising questions without adequate data casts doubt on vaccination, which can further drive down confidence in vaccines. More than any other medications, vaccines are extensively and constantly reviewed and evaluated,” she added.

During the ACIP meeting, Kulldorff explained that Kennedy had given the committee “a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine for making vaccine recommendations.”

“Vaccines are not all good or bad. If you think that all vaccines are safe and effective and want them all, or if you think that all vaccines are dangerous and don’t want any of them, then you don’t have much use for us—you already know what you want,” he said.

“But if you wish to know which vaccines are suitable for you and your children and at what ages, then we will provide you with evidence-based recommendations,” he added.

ACIP members who were removed by Kennedy said the panel has “lost credibility.” The former members wrote in a July 30 New England Journal of Medicine commentary that the process for recommending vaccines is “rapidly eroding.”

On Aug. 1, the CDC notified some outside groups that they can no longer participate in panels that review vaccine data and form recommendations for the ACIP.

The panels meet behind closed doors and typically include members of the ACIP, which advises the CDC on vaccines. The workgroups are also composed of experts from liaison organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Groups that employ the experts have been informed that they won’t be part of the workgroups any longer, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent agency, told The Epoch Times on Aug. 1.

An official said some groups are being removed from the workgroups because of concerns that they have conflicts of interest.

For instance, the American Pharmacists Association lists vaccine manufacturers such as GlaxoSmithKline and Moderna among its corporate supporters.

“Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence, and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations,” Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the HHS, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Last month, six medical organizations—including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM)—and a pregnant woman filed a lawsuit against HHS and Kennedy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that they intentionally removed vaccines and unjustly removed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s entire vaccine advisory panel.

The legal action seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop Kennedy’s new COVID vaccine recommendations and a declaratory judgment declaring the decision unlawful.

Jack Phillips and Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

Please forgive the Shakespearean indulgence, but I’m in Waterloo, in Wellington Country, not too far from the Shakespeare festival in Stratford on the Avon (the Canadian version).

But finally, literally everyone is talking about a long-running theme in T-Reports – we need high quality data to make good decisions.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve written or spoken the words “Garbage In, Garbage Out” but it is a real issue with real world consequences.

We didn’t get to talk much about jobs in Tuesday’s Bloomberg TV interview, but we did get to talk about the balancing act of Tariffs vs. National Production for National Security and the importance the strike on Iran has had on U.S. relations with our allies.

While we won’t focus on it today, the court rulings on the legality of existing tariffs could impact markets.

Our Geopolitical Intelligence Group crafted a report on the announcement that the U.S. is moving two nuclear subs, which spooked markets, but is another example of some steps, that while potentially dangerous, are necessary in reestablishing deterrence and building Peace through Strength (see SITREP).

Imagine an “Alternate Reality” July 3rd

Imagine that on July 3rd, we had a June NFP headline of 14,000 jobs instead of 147,000.

Let’s further imagine that May’s reported number was 19k, instead of whatever had been reported at the time.
It is easy if you try, since ADP was -23k and 29k respectively (why the markets and the Fed consistently ignore ADP is beyond me, but that is an argument for another day).

If we had that jobs data, would this FOMC been different?

Maybe we wouldn’t have gotten a cut, but why the heck not? We had 2 dissents as it was. With this No Silver Lining Jobs Data, there would have been a lot of pressure to cut. The unemployment rate, which hasn’t been bad, has largely been stable because we have seen a 0.4% reduction in the labor force participation rate since April.

Certainly, my flight back from London would have been more enjoyable as the data would have been even worse than my already pessimistic views and Treasuries could have continued their strong performance. It isn’t just our view that was hit by data that now looks very incorrect. On the July print, if memory serves, only 1 economist surveyed had an estimate that was higher. Now, it looks like in hindsight, that every estimate was above the actual number (though closer on average to the original print).

The real-world impact of having inaccurate data is problematic (and let’s be honest, for all we know this month’s data will be revised higher next month – which doesn’t change the argument that Garbage In, Garbage Out needs to be addressed).

It’s Not Just Jobs Data

We have often made well-reasoned arguments (some would say, rants) around incorrect inflation data. The owners’ equivalent rent is fraught with issues, including significant lag time. We’ve argued that the country voted based on the inflation they saw in the real world, not the calculated inflation (which seemed low on many things – like health insurance costs). Many look to things like Truflation to get potentially more accurate, real-time information (though not sure what good it does, if policy makers don’t).

The jobs data has caught everyone’s attention, it is time to address data across the board.

Let’s not forget we live in an electronic and AI world, which should help us get better answers.

Two Problems

The Collection Problem.

• Survey Response Rates. The initial survey response rate has been between 25% and 35% for the past year. Prior to 2020, the initial response rate averaged close to 70%. We now get less than half of the initial responses than before, and that seems problematic.
  • By final revisions, the response rate is typically above 90%, even approaching 98%. Maybe we should stop pretending NFP is timely? If we get far more respondents after the initial publication, it isn’t surprising that the data is all over the place.
• There are collection problems on almost any data series. It is part of living in the real world, but how do we address these problems and try to minimize them?

The Seasonal Adjustment Problem.

• Even if the underlying data was perfectly accurate (it isn’t) we move on to the “seasonal adjustments.” We “love” adjusted data as it provides “smoother” data. Apparently we couldn’t handle that the Non-Seasonally adjusted jobs were -1.07 million, +360k, +703k, and +825k for the past four months (in all honesty, I don’t know whether those have been adjusted or not via revisions, but that is the actual jobs data).
  • Is there any reason to believe that the BLS (or anyone) has the “best” seasonal adjustment methodology? I think not, as I’d like to see as many different estimates as possible.

So, we have all these incredibly smart, well-resourced economists trying to do 1 of 2 things:

• Determine, to the best of their abilities, the number of jobs created.
• Guess what the jobs numbers calculated by the BLS will be, and then guess what the adjustments will be. To the extent that this is prevalent, it reduces the impetus to change existing official methodologies.

While “similar” the two things are very different.

The first is a truly valid exercise in establishing where the economy stands and providing data to make good decisions. Despite that, it is somewhat useless if no one believes you and just gravitates to the officially published data.

The second is what makes careers. Bloomberg reports analysts that are most “accurate.” Not accurate in terms of what the final data comes in at, but at predicting the pseudo random number that comes out the first Friday of the month (or other dates, for other data series).

My bet gravitates towards the crowd-sourced efforts of economists trying to predict the actual state of the economy (though I’m not sure if that is the goal of many, or trying to guess the NFP is the goal, which is similar but different).

Some Food for Thought on Solutions

Enough ranting and rehashing old arguments. Let’s take a peek at some potential solutions, or at least some ideas that we think warrant discussion.

Getting the most accurate, timely data as possible.

Every year, our employers send the IRS our tax forms, that include our income and our Social Security, so the IRS can link all of our employment income together. W2s and 1099s have to cover a significant part of the legal work force. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would expect that W2s and 1099s would cover a large percentage of the legal, documented workforce. It misses under the table payments, all cash jobs, and probably some sole proprietorship jobs, but virtually everyone I know receives at least 1 paycheck a month (some are weekly, or biweekly).

So how about providing some “encouragement” for companies to provide that information every month?

• Privacy concerns? Sure, but the federal government (IRS), and probably your state will all get this information over the course of time. Does it really matter whether they know your monthly data in addition to the annual data? Sure, my initial reaction is that this seems sketchy, but is it really? Certainly, some information could be “redacted” so individuals don’t stand out (though it would still likely need to be collated by SSN to determine those working multiple jobs). 1099s may pose some similar issues (by SSN or EIN), but it seems like something that should be “workable.”
• What do we mean by “encourage”? Maybe a reduction in certain payroll taxes. Maybe even a small rebate to the company and/or the employee. Would this cost some money? Yes, but would the cost be more or less than living with data that is so unreliable that it leads to bad decisions at the policy, corporate, and even individual level? Data collection in any form tends to have expenses, but doing something to encourage (or mandate) timely data would be interesting.

Just imagine a world where on the 20th of each month (just to pick a date) anyone cutting checks that will show up on W2 or 1099 reports, sends (in an identical format) the information to the data collection area (probably involving the IRS, as they are the ones already entitled to this information on an annual basis).

That data is plunked into an algo that then comes up with changes in employment.

Would we be missing some parts of the economy? Sure. Without a doubt. But would we have highly accurate information on the vast majority of the economy? Probably. This part of the jobs report could be published as such. Then we can all try to spend time figuring out what is happening in the part of the economy that is not captured.

Again, I’m not advocating for giving up our privacy, but the reality is that the information goes to the government, just not in this organized or frequent type of approach. I presume companies or payroll companies could code this additional step in a matter of weeks. Yes, maybe I’m missing a lot of legal issues, but can this really be worse than a survey?

I would also like to see some “cohort” analysis. What I like about Case-Schiller is that it tracks a set of houses, not every house. There is effectively a “control” group. For wage inflation, it would be great to see data by cohort. Track the wage of a particular person over time. When we think about wage inflation, we think about what people get paid over time. This sort of methodology would mimic that. It could also potentially be done by income bracket (now this might be going too far, but just tossing it out there). What we currently get on average hourly earnings is a change in the entire pool of workers. But if someone retires and is replaced by a new employee at a much lower wage, the current methodology would likely see lower wage inflation than there really is. Tracking by cohorts over time may give a better read on wage pressures than existing methodologies. This is a second order effect, but hey, why not try to make a really robust report?

Open source the seasonality. Let’s publish both the unadjusted number (as volatile as that is) along with the adjusted number and the algorithm used to do that adjustment. Then the brightest or most curious minds can try to improve it. In this day and age, I wouldn’t bet against a group of kids in college playing around with the methodology and figuring out improvements – especially if we have reduced the range of issues around the data collection.

Whether or not these ideas make any sense, there should be some simple steps taken.

• Identify and implement ways to reduce the margin for error on broad swaths of the labor force. The more data that can be collected very accurately means we have less to worry about on the data that isn’t calculated as accurately.
  • Then focus on ways to reduce the errors in the data that isn’t as accurately collected.
  • In parallel, work on ways to ensure that the adjustments are realistic and up to date with the current economy (a major shift in jobs (like AI and Data), or the GIG economy, or regional preferences as where people live and work has changed). Adapt and refine.

Finally, and this might sound weird, stop pretending that the data is accurate to the nth degree.

Imagine having only a yard stick with no measurements marked in between. Then being asked to use that yardstick to measure a long distance over a hilly, rocky field. You take that yardstick and to the best of your ability, flip it over and over, counting the number of flips until you have traversed the field.

Then you come with an answer of 3,423 yards and 12 inches. There is no way the methodology laid out can produce something to that degree of accuracy. Maybe you could say that given the terrain, slippage, etc., we estimate between 3,400 and 3,500 yards, which isn’t as satisfying as 3,423 yards and 12 inches, but does convey a more accurate assessment of the situation. Significant figures exist in science for a reason, to avoid creating the perception of more accuracy than there really is. Maybe more of our economic data should incorporate that concept?

Maybe we need a warning note along with the data?

We are getting warnings about almost everything these days. Objects in the mirror might be closer than they appear. Not eating fully cooked food. You get the idea.

Maybe the warning label should be:

Before using this data, the margin for error is 136,000 for the Establishment Survey. Yes, the margin for error is larger, in some cases, than the actual number we report. Please rely on this data at your own risk as it may or may not be accurate, may be changed multiple times in the coming months, and again in annual revisions. If you think that is a wide margin of error, then we warn you not to even think about the margin for error in the Household Survey. BLS Technical Notes.

Bottom Line

I do not believe that the BLS intentionally gets anything wrong in either direction, but I do believe that in an era with so much of the data floating around electronically and the ability to apply hardcore computing power to that, we should be reinventing our data collection and publication tools to the greatest extent possible (I would include inflation and other important metrics in this project).

I do not like the idea of “shooting the messenger” as that doesn’t create the goal of true intellectual honesty in developing new and better tools.

Garbage In, Garbage Out should no longer be acceptable, and we should be able to corral the will and the resources to mitigate that risk.

End rant, and have a great weekend!

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 837, representing 3,200 Boeing defense workers across Missouri and Illinois and affiliated with the AFL–CIO/CLC, has rejected a modified four-year labor deal with Boeing. As a result, for the first time since 1996, a strike will begin at midnight, impacting operations at key fighter jet plants. 

“IAM District 837 members have spoken loud and clear, they deserve a contract that reflects their skill, dedication, and the critical role they play in our nation’s defense,” IAM District 837 Directing Business Representative Tom Boelling stated in a press release, adding, “We stand shoulder to shoulder with these working families as they fight for fairness and respect on the job.”

The 3,200 machinists were in a week-long federally mandated “cooling-off” period after rejecting Boeing’s initial labor contract last Sunday. By Friday, Boeing presented a modified offer that included a 20% pay boost, raising average annual pay from $75,000 to $102,600, along with other perks, including a $5,000 signing bonus. 

For some context, the last time IAM District 837 went on strike was in 1996, a labor action that lasted 99 days. There’s no telling how long the current stoppage will last, but it will undoubtedly impact operations at the F-15, F/A-18, and cutting-edge missile and defense technologies plants. 

The timing of the strike comes as the world is on fire and deepening into a bipolar state. We asked a very simple question early last week:

One must ask whether foreign adversaries, as part of their hybrid warfare campaign to implode the US from within, have exploited this union in an attempt to strike a critical node in America’s defense manufacturing hub. 

• Attacking Critical Nodes? US Fighter Jet Factories At Risk Of Labor Strike By Democrat-Aligned Union

Indeed, the heads of IAM District 837 were pro-globalist Joe Biden…

It’s not far-fetched to suggest that foreign adversaries could infiltrate unions; it’s a well-documented tactic in the hybrid warfare playbook.