Authored by George F. Tidmarsh via RealClearPolicy,

On Friday, Dr. Peter Marks announced his resignation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as Director of CEBR (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research) citing differences with Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy regarding vaccines. The New York Times, Washington Post, and other media outlets such as STAT News breathlessly reported that “FDA’s top vaccine scientist had been pushed out.” We have been told that science is at risk. The irony of these reports is that Marks didn’t resign and is not a vaccine scientist. Dr. Marks was asked to leave and then subsequently wrote that he did not want to become “subservient to [Secretary Kennedy’s] misinformation and lies.”

Peter Marks is not a hero of the resistance but instead has been subverting the scientific process at FDA for years.

The media proclamation that Dr. Marks’ is “FDA’s top vaccine scientist” is ironic because he decided to give himself that position. Marks is a physician but has no clinical or scientific training in vaccines or immunology. Dr. Marks trained as an oncologist, a field far from the important and complex area of vaccine biology. At FDA in 2021, Dr. Marks removed top career vaccine scientists so he could force through the approval of the COVID vaccine to meet an arbitrary Biden administration deadline. He also declined to convene the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee to review his decision. These events are clearly outlined in the June 2023 House Judiciary Hearings. Marks ousted Dr. Gruber and Dr. Krause, the top scientists at the Office of Vaccine Research, due to “intransigence” of these real vaccine experts to not ram through the approval of the vaccine. Drs. Gruber and Krause had voiced concerns that they needed more time to understand the safety of the vaccine especially as it relates to inflammation of the heart, now a well known and accepted toxicity of the COVID vaccine. Marks approved the use of the vaccine in children despite the known fact that children have an extremely low risk of serious health effects of COVID-19 infection and yet a known significant increased risk of serious vaccine related toxicity.

On at least three additional, documented occasions during the Biden administration as Director of CBER, Marks disregarded the opinions and expert advice of long-time career scientists to advance his own dangerous agenda. In addition to ignoring and overruling FDA’s top vaccine scientists during the pandemic, Marks also overruled FDA career scientists and supported the approval of the Alzheimer’s drug ADUHELM; a decision later overturned. In 2023, he overruled his own staff scientists amid their concerns and those raised by an FDA Advisory Board to grant approval of ELEVIDYS, a gene treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Furthermore, in 2024 Marks expanded the approval of ELEVIDYS despite FDA staff objections and without FDA Advisory Committee input.

*  *  *

WEEKEND SALE AT ZH STORE!

Neuro Ignite $50.01 $39.95 (add to cart to see price)

ZeroHedge Multitool $34.95 $29.95

Rosewood Big Bowie Knife $400.00 $374.95

14-Day Emergency Food Bucket $149.99 $124.95

IQ Biologix Brain Rescue $74.95 $44.95 (add to cart to see price)

As tragic evidence of Marks’ failed judgement, just 2 weeks ago, the company that markets the therapy ELEVIDYS announced that a treated patient died of fulminant liver failure. Marks overruled his own career staff and experts to drive through a risky and unproven therapy that has now killed a patient. This tragedy should not have happened. After the initial FDA approval, the company conducted a subsequent trial which failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint. On top of that, ELEVIDYS has proven toxicity including liver failure (22% of patients) and increase in serious adverse events. Despite the lack of proven efficacy and the concerning toxicity profile, Dr. Marks rammed through the initial ELEVIDYS approval and the full approval in June of 2024 against the counsel of his staff and the expert panel. While advocates point to the need for new therapies in severe debilitating diseases such as DMD, giving patients and families hope on a toxic therapy that does not provide a clinical benefit rises beyond simple incompetence. A patient died needlessly, and others have been harmed due to this incompetence.

Dr. Marks also failed to protect public health when he overruled career FDA scientists and supported the approval of the Alzheimer’s treatment AUDHELM, a controversial approval that was subsequently overturned. ADUHELM was approved in June 2021 despite strident objections from FDA staff and against the recommendations of an Advisory Board. In fact, two prominent members of that advisory board resigned in protest of the decision. These members cited a lack of clear efficacy and the risk of serious toxicity including brain swelling and bleeding that can be life threatening. These events led to a congressional investigation which found that FDA had “unusually close” interactions with Biogen, the AUDHELM sponsor and applicant. In January 2024, Biogen decided to remove ADUHELM from the market after confirmatory trials failed to show patient benefit. So, Dr. Marks again supported a dangerous and ineffective therapy that cruelly gave patients hope and provided nothing but risk and cost to Americans.

Both the ADUHELM initial approval and the ELEVIDYS approvals demonstrate that ignoring basic tenants of the use and interpretation of clinical trial data can be very damaging to public health. By ignoring these well-tested tenants of FDA review and approval, Marks endangered patients, gave false hope to those in desperate need and cost vast amounts of money that our health case system can ill afford. It cannot be overstated how destructive this practice is to drug development. This uneven application of basic clinical trial data interpretation calls into question the impartiality and credibility of the FDA. This is particularly relevant now as a patient who otherwise could have lived many more years died from an expected toxicity. And we have yet to fully determine the harm caused by Dr. Marks decision to remove the most experienced and trusted vaccine scientists that simply wanted more time to understand the, now proven, risks of the COVID vaccine.

While Dr. Peter Marks may try to claim differences with Secretary Kennedy on vaccines and the legacy media try to paint Marks as the FDA hero, the real reason he was terminated is that he made bad decisions that were contrary to FDA long-standing policies and which ran counter to the evaluations of professional career staff at FDA. Thanks to Dr. Marks’ terrible decisions, we are left with a drug that has no proven benefit and that just killed a young patient, a vaccine that is not completely safe is being administered to children that have no significant risk of harm from the underlying infection, and an overburdened healthcare system that had to pay billions for another unproven, harmful therapy. Advocates for Dr. Marks claim that he has acted to help patients with life-threatening conditions which have no alternative treatments. But in reality, he catered to industry and hurt patients. Of course, we should strive to advance safe and effective therapies for such conditions, but we should not approve ineffective and dangerous therapies simply to put something out on the market.  Unfortunately, Dr. Marks has repeatedly disregarded long-held FDA policy that is in place to protect patients. That is malpractice not heroism.

George F. Tidmarsh, MD, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Adjunct Professor, Pediatrics and Neonatology.

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

California state lawmakers have rejected a change to state policies that would have required male student athletes identifying as transgender to compete on sports teams consistent with their sex.

On April 1, Democratic lawmakers on the state Assembly’s Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism rejected two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers—AB 89 and AB 844. Democrats hold a supermajority on the committee.

AB 89 would have required the California Interscholastic Federation, which governs high school sports, to follow rules banning male students from playing on girls’ sports teams at school.

AB 844 would have effectively repealed the 2013 California School Success and Opportunity Act, which permits students to play in sex-segregated school programs, including on sports teams, as well as use bathrooms and other facilities based on their gender identity. The bill would have applied to K-12 and college students.

Democratic Assemblyman Chris Ward, the committee chair and leader of the legislative LGBTQ+ caucus, alleged the bills to be part of an attack on transgender youth.

“Let’s be clear—this isn’t about fairness,” he stated in a post on Instagram.

“It’s about fear and exclusion, and I won’t stand for it.”

“Targeting trans athletes doesn’t protect anyone—it harms all girls,” said Ward, who represents large parts of San Diego. 

“This must stop.”

Republican Assemblyman Bill Essayli, author of AB 844, said the measure would restore fairness to women’s sports.

“California will come into compliance with Title IX either through the legislative process or the court process,” Essayli said during the hearing on Tuesday. “Title IX was passed to protect sex-based sports, to protect girls so they could have their own teams, so they can compete and be champions.”

Essayli said that even one woman disenfranchised due to current state law is too many.

“You’re taking rights away from women,” Essayli said.

Cross country athlete Taylor Starling testified at the hearing that a biological male identifying as a female took her varsity cross-country spot. She had been co-captain of the team.

“After having my spot taken away from me that I earned, I missed out on running with my varsity team in one of the top cross-country invitationals of the season,” Starling said. “My Title IX and free speech rights as a female matter too. Why are girls being told that we must sit down and be quiet while boys unfairly get ahead of us in life?”

Essayli took to social media to condemn Assembly Democrats for continuing what he perceives as a war against women’s rights.

The Corona lawmaker said that most Californians want to keep transgender females out of girls’ sports.

“Assembly Democrats are radically out of touch with common-sense Californians, and the voters will hold them accountable to restore justice and fairness in girls sports,” he said in a statement.

According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 66 percent of Americans think that transgender athletes should play in sports based on their birth sex.

“Our young women are being forced to undress in locker rooms with boys,” Assemblyman and Republican leader James Gallagher of Chico said at the press conference after the vote.

“It’s an absurd result of flawed policy.”

Republican Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez of Rancho Santa Margarita wanted to make it clear in the press conference that the bill targeted CIF competitive high school sports.

“We stood for all high school athletic females. They deserve a safe space. They deserve to be protected,” she said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, made headlines in March when he said on his podcast that he believes allowing transgender-identifying male athletes to participate in girls’ sports is unfair.

Later Tuesday, Essayli resigned from the Assembly to accept President Donald Trump’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California.

Did Hungary’s Viktor Orban start a trend? He is hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a four-day trip to Budapest through Sunday. PM Orban used the occasion to declare that Hungary, an ICC founding member, will pull out of The Hague-based International Criminal Court.

The ICC slammed the move, and said that member states have an obligation to enforce its arrest warrant against Netanyahu. Interestingly, Belgium too has declared in all likelihood it would never arrest the Israeli head of state.

Prime Minister Bart De Wever on Thursday said his country would ignore a warrant for the arrest of Netanyahu, in a reversal from the stated policies of the prior government. This could lead to more and more countries declaring the same, also amid ongoing US pressure to not confirm to ICC dictates.

“To be completely honest, I don’t think we would either,” De Wever told a journalist from the VRT broadcaster. He was specifically responding to Hungary’s announcement that it wouldn’t arrest the Israeli leader, who is accused by The Hague of overseeing war crimes in Gaza.

“There is such a thing as realpolitik, I don’t think any European country would arrest Netanyahu if he were on their territory. France wouldn’t do it, and I don’t think we would, either,” the Belgian prime minister added.

Likely this is accurate especially when it comes to France. European leaders have shown a willingness to criticize Israeli policies in Gaza, and the extremely high civilian death toll – but typically stop short of taking any drastic or serious action against the Israeli government.

Belgium’s prior deputy prime minister, Petra De Sutter, wrote on X in November: “Europe must comply. Impose economic sanctions, suspend the Association Agreement with Israel and uphold these arrest warrants.” Former Prime Minister Alexander De Croo had also said in November that his government would “assume its responsibility” in relation to the ICC case and that “there can be no double standards.”

Meanwhile, Netanyahu will travel from Hungary to the United States next, where he’s expected to meet with President Trump on Monday.

Axios explains that “If the visit takes place as planned, Netanyahu will be the first foreign leader to meet President Trump in person to try to negotiate a deal to remove Trump’s tariffs. The leaders are also expected to discuss the Iran nuclear crisis and the war in Gaza.” Trump set a 17% rate for Israel, stemming from what’s been described as a significant US bilateral trade deficit.

Netanyahu’s trip to Washington will mark his second US visit since the ICC issued the warrant last year, and he’s had to avoid Europe altogether until this week’s Hungary visit. 

By Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research

Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation – The Sequel

Executive Summary

• Hitting and sustaining a precise 2 percent inflation target is more about luck than judgement. It requires both the starting point for inflation expectations and any inflation/deflation shock to combine perfectly to 2 percent.
• The euro area and Japan got lucky, because the pandemic inflation shock moved their inflation expectations close to the 2 percent target. But the US and UK got unlucky because the inflation shock moved their inflation expectations away from the 2 percent target.
• Hence, relative to current rates and expectations, the BoJ has the greatest scope to increase rates; the Fed and the BoE have limited room for manoeuvre; and the ECB has the greatest scope to cut rates.
• FX markets will also be influenced by capital flows into and out of risk-assets. Specifically, USD/EUR is just tracking the rise and fall of the superstar ‘Mag-7’ stocks.
• Tactically, this means that a relief rally in Mag-7 will cause a relief rally in the dollar.
• A relief rally in the dollar also implies a tactical reversal in gold, confirmed by gold’s collapsed 65-day price complexity.
• On a longer-term horizon though, our favourite currency is the Japanese yen.

Tariffs have rekindled fears about inflation at a time that most economies’ inflation rates are already above central banks’ 2 percent targets. But after the pandemic inflation shock, the current low-single digit inflation rates feel like bliss. Causing some commentators to argue: can we really distinguish between low rates of inflation – and if not, then why not settle for inflation at 3 or 3.5 percent rather than the quasi-religious commandment of 2 percent?

To support this argument, some commentators have dug up an archive op-ed by the late Paul Volcker, What’s Wrong With the 2 Percent Inflation Target – Bloomberg 

Volcker’s overarching point was that in trying to manage an economy, “false precision can lead to dangerous policies”. Price stability is that state in which expected changes in the general price level do not effectively alter business or household decisions. But, said Volcker, it is ill-advised to define that state with a point target, such as 2 percent.

Volcker was only partly right. He was right about ‘false precision’ when inflation is below 2 percent, but he was wrong about it when inflation is above 2 percent. Below 2 percent, inflation is imperceptible. So, yes, the distinction between 1 percent and 2 percent is a false precision. But above 2 percent, inflation becomes perceptible. Meaning that there is a big difference between imperceptible 2 percent and perceptible 3 percent.

Crucially, therefore:

There is a huge onus for central banks to bring inflation down from above 2 percent to at, or below, 2 percent.

There’s A Huge Difference Between 2 Percent And 3 Percent Inflation

The human brain cannot distinguish between very low rates of inflation, a range we just perceive as ‘price stability’. In ‘Real-Feel’ Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions by Michael Ashton : SSRN Michael Ashton confirms that “it would be challenging for a consumer to distinguish 1 percent inflation from 2 percent inflation – that fine of a gradation in perception would be extremely unusual to find.” As the entire range of ultra-low inflation just feels like one state of price stability, sub-2 percent inflation does not alter business or household decisions.

Still, cumulative sub-2 percent inflation over years will eventually result in a meaningful increase in prices. Why do we not notice this? The answer is that our productivity also increases at a rate of 1-2 percent. And to the extent that our wages increase in line with our productivity, we will not notice any loss in spending power when inflation is running at, or below, 2 percent.

Above 2 percent though, there is a phase-shift. We do notice higher rates of inflation, both in the short-term and the long-term, so it alters business and household decisions. This makes it crucial for central banks to phase-shift inflation and inflation expectations from the perceptible 3 percent back to the imperceptible 2 percent or below. Yet this is easier said than done because of the way that inflation expectations are formed.

Inflation Expectations In The US And UK Will Stay Too High

Long-term inflation expectations are nothing more than a simple weighted average of long-term historic inflation and extremely recent inflation (Charts 1-4). But the long-term historic component dominates with an 85 percent weighting. Specifically: 

10-year expected inflation = 0.85 * 10-year inflation + 0.15 * 3-month inflation 

This basic maths for inflation expectations has a crucial takeaway: inflation or deflation shocks that cause the long-term historic inflation rate to gap up or gap down will also cause long-term inflation expectations to gap up or gap down.

Or, put in simple English: Inflation and deflation shocks stay in the collective memory for a long time. This leads to another crucial takeaway. The pandemic inflation shock caused long-term inflation expectations to gap up by about 1.5 percent in every major economy. But depending on where those inflation expectations started, the inflation shock was either ‘benign’ or ‘malign’. 

In the euro area and Japan, where long-term inflation expectations were well below 2 percent, the pandemic inflation shock was benign – because it finally lifted those inflation expectations to the required level of 2 percent.

But in the US and the UK, where long-term inflation expectations were close to 2 percent, the pandemic inflation shock  as malign – because it lifted those structural inflation expectations to well above the 2 percent threshold at which inflation becomes perceptible.

In the case of the US and the UK therefore, the pandemic inflation shock must be neutralized by a new deflationary shock to restore long-term inflation expectations back to 2 percent. But the source and timing of that deflationary shock are unclear.

Until such a deflationary shock arrives:

Long-term inflation expectations in the euro area and Japan will be close to the sweet spot near 2 percent, while those in the US and the UK will be stuck uncomfortably above 2 percent.

Tariffs will only make matters worse, as it will add an extra ‘risk-premium’ to an already elevated level of long-term historic US and UK inflation (Chart 5).

The Euro Area And Japan Got Lucky, The US And UK Got Unlucky

Ten years ago, I wrote a heterodox report: Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation. In it, I argued that hitting and sustaining a precise 2 percent inflation target is more about luck than judgement. Rather like pulling a brick with an elastic band to a precise target. To end up at the target, you need to get lucky. Hitting the inflation target requires both the starting point for inflation expectations and any inflation/deflation shock to combine perfectly to 2 percent.

Ten years on I stand by that report. The euro area and Japan got lucky. Their pre-pandemic structural inflation expectations at below 0.5 percent combined perfectly with the +1.5 percent pandemic shock to get close to the 2 percent sweet spot. 

Conversely, the US and UK got unlucky. Their pre-pandemic structural inflation expectations near 2 percent combined with the pandemic shock of +1.5 percent to take those expectations well above the 2 percent sweet spot.

Versus the current level of interest rates and expected moves through the next year or so, we can therefore say:

The Bank of Japan has the greatest scope to increase rates; the Fed and the Bank of England have limited room for manoeuvre; and the ECB has the greatest scope to cut rates.

In the rates market this means short Japanese rates; neutral US and UK rates; and long euro rates.

The FX markets are more complicated because they will also be influenced by capital flows into and out of risk-assets. Specifically, USD/EUR is just tracking the rise and fall of the superstar ‘Mag-7’ stocks (Chart 6).

Tactically, this means that a relief rally in Mag-7 will cause a relief rally in the dollar.

A relief rally in the dollar also implies a tactical reversal in gold, which is confirmed by gold’s 65-day price complexity reaching the point of collapse that has signalled previous tactical reversals (Chart 7).

More in the full BCA note available to pro subs.

President Donald Trump on Friday evening spiked the football after over two weeks of Yemen bombings. He posted a video on Truth Social and X which purports to show a gathering of Houthi fighters.

Large aerial munitions are shown falling on them and the screen erupts in a giant explosion and fireball, to which the US President responds, “oops”. The images resembled what’s typically captured from military drones or loitering aircraft observing a strike.

Several dozens of people appeared on the ground in the footage, somewhat strangely standing in an oval shape.

“These Houthis gathered for instructions on an attack,” Trump wrote in his commentary. “Oops, there will be no attack by these Houthis!  They will never sink our ships again!” he added.

It’s impossible to actually know at this point what the people gathered in the footage were doing, or who precisely they were. Presumably President Trump is relying on carefully vetted intelligence in this instance, but as we know from the recent two+ decades of the so-called Global War on Terror that it is not always the case that the situation on the ground is carefully vetted.

AntiWar’s Dave DeCamp made the case for skepticism, quipping sarcastically on X:

Hey guys the most advanced military in the world is constantly bombing us and flying surveillance drones over our head. Let’s have our next war meeting in a giant circle in a completely open area with zero cover.

Despite Trump’s social media bravado, Department of Defense (DoD) officials are admitting only the “limited success” of the anti-Houthi campaign.

The NY Times has detailed this mixed assessment from the Pentagon as follows:

In closed briefings in recent days, Pentagon officials have acknowledged that there has been only limited success in destroying the Houthis’ vast, largely underground arsenal of missiles, drones and launchers, according to congressional aides and allies.

The officials briefed on confidential damage assessments say the bombing is consistently heavier than strikes conducted by the Biden administration, and much bigger than what the Defense Department has publicly described.

But Houthi fighters, known for their resiliency, have reinforced many of their bunkers and other targeted sites, frustrating the Americans’ ability to disrupt the militia’s missile attacks against commercial ships in the Red Sea, according to three congressional and allied officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

Indeed the Houthis have vowed they won’t back down so long as Israel continues occupying the Gaza Strip. They have claimed several attacks on the US Carrier Truman, as well as shootdowns of MQ-9 Reapers drones, and ballistic missile attacks on Israel.

These Houthis gathered for instructions on an attack. Oops, there will be no attack by these Houthis!

They will never sink our ships again! pic.twitter.com/lEzfyDgWP5

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 4, 2025

The Pentagon has largely kept quiet, not confirming or denying some of these latest alleged Houthi ‘successes’. In the past, it has only acknowledged a few instances where drones were downed over Yemen, but has never confirmed a warship was hit.

* * *

Some officials, including within Trump’s own administration (notably Vice President J.D. Vance), have called the Yemen campaign a mistake…

JD Vance – in the war chat group – argued that re-starting Biden’s bombing campaign in Yemen was a “mistake” given how little US interest there is: what one might call the America First view.

But long-time militarists were too excited to use their new positions to bomb someone. pic.twitter.com/VTSvZheqof

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 25, 2025

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

A Wall Street axiom states that the stock markets lead the economy by about six months. While not a perfect predictor, the stock market reacts to investor expectations about future corporate earnings, economic activity, interest rates, and inflation. When sentiment shifts due to anticipated weakness in any of these areas, equity prices often decline, reflecting a reassessment of future growth.

This makes sense, given that investors are parsing earnings data and adjusting expectations that lagging economic data may not reflect as of yet. In “Failure At The 200-DMA,“ we noted that we focus on earnings because earnings and forward estimates reflect changes in the stock market’s risk assessment of all other events. To wit:

“Investors often get lost in the media headlines about rising recession risks, debts, deficits, or valuations. While those risks are important, they are terrible for predicting where markets will likely move next. Furthermore, if or when those risks become an issue, the market will begin to reprice for a reduction in forward earnings.“

Historically, significant market downturns have preceded nearly every major U.S. recession. For instance, in early 2000, the peak in the S&P 500 was months before the official recognition in 2001. In the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis, markets began declining in late 2007. However, even though the recession officially began in December of that year, the declaration was not until December 2008. The COVID-19 crash in early 2020 was another example, with markets collapsing in anticipation of widespread economic shutdowns—well before the economic data caught up.

“The chart below shows the S&P 500 with two dots. The blue dots are when the recession started. The yellow triangle is when the NBER dated the start of the recession. In 9 of 10 instances, the S&P 500 peaked and turned lower before the recognition of a recession.“ – Failure At The 200-DMA

However, it’s important to distinguish between normal market corrections and actual recession signals.

Not Every Correction Is A Warning

While entirely arbitrary, the market has long defined a correction as a decline of 10% or more from recent highs. Such corrections are common and occur about once a year.

During bullish years, corrections happen more often than you think. However, when corrections occur, it is not uncommon to see concerns about a “bear market” rise. However, historically speaking, the stock market increases about 73% of the time. The other 27% of the time, market corrections reverse the excesses of the previous advance.” – Bull Markets Often Have Corrections

The historical median correction is 10%, with a median gain of 13%. Given the frequency of 10% corrections, not every pullback indicated the onset of a recession. However, sometimes they are so we must not dismiss corrections entirely.

Corrections in the stock market can occur due to many short-term factors, such as geopolitical tensions, overvaluation, or shifts in investor sentiment. We are in no short supply of those factors. Today, investors focus on the impact of tariffs, sticky inflation, and elevated valuations. As expected, the stock market correction has already led to a reversal in both sentiment and valuations since valuations are a function of sentiment.

However, those factors are temporary and not necessarily linked to deeper economic issues. In contrast, if a correction deepens into a bear market, as the media defines it, a decline of 20% or more, and is accompanied by deteriorating economic fundamentals, the risk of a recession becomes more pronounced.

A Reversion To Reality

As discussed in “Stock Markets Are Detached From Everything,” market corrections eventually revert prices to underlying economic fundamentals.

“While stock prices can deviate from immediate activity, reversions to actual economic growth eventually occur. Such is because corporate earnings are a function of consumptive spending, corporate investments, imports, and exports. The market disconnect from underlying economic activity is due to psychology. Such is particularly the case over the last decade, as successive rounds of monetary interventions led investors to believe ‘this time is different.’”

While not precise, a correlation between the stock market and economic activity does remain. For example, in 2000 and again in 2008, corporate earnings contracted by 54% and 88%, respectively, as economic growth declined. Such was despite calls for never-ending earnings growth before both previous contractions. As earnings disappointed, stock prices adjusted by nearly 50% to realign valuations with weaker-than-expected current earnings and slower future earnings growth. However, both events were tied to other exogenous factors (Enron and Lehman failures) that exacerbated the decline.

Why is this important? The chart below notes that when markets and earnings significantly deviate from the long-term growth trend of the economy, they revert to the economy—not the other way around. However, not every reversion is linked to a recession.

As investors, it is crucial to understand that not every stock market correction is a recession warning. However, sometimes they are. The question is what indicators can warn us if the current market correction is “just a correction or a recession warning.”

What To Watch

There is no guaranteed method of determining whether a correction is just a correction or a warning of a recession. Much like Sherlock Holmes, we must follow a trail of clues and make assessments based on the data at hand. Several economic and technical indicators can help confirm whether a market downturn signals a recession.

Economic Warnings

When it comes to economic data, investors must realize that much of the data runs with a significant lag, but some have a high correlation to economic outcomes. For example, inverted yield curves, falling leading economic indicators (LEI), weakening manufacturing and service-sector PMIs, declining corporate earnings guidance, and widening credit spreads are some of the best. When these factors align with a significant market decline, it often points to an economy on the verge of contraction.

There are currently very few economic signals warning of an economic contraction. For example, our Economic Output Composite Index, which comprises more than 100 different data points, including the ISM surveys and Leading Economic Indicators (LEI), is currently in expansionary territory.

Furthermore, if we weigh the ISM Manufacturing and Services Indices to the compensation of the economy, there is no current recessionary warning.

However, the most crucial indicator we watch is credit spreads. Credit spreads are the market’s early warning indicators if a correction will morph into a recessionary bear market. To wit:

“Credit spreads are critical to understanding market sentiment and predicting potential stock market downturns. A credit spread refers to the difference in yield between two bonds of similar maturity but different credit quality. This comparison often involves Treasury bonds (considered risk-free) and corporate bonds (which carry default risk). By observing these spreads, investors can gauge risk appetite in financial markets. Such helps investors identify stress points that often precede stock market corrections.”

The chart below shows the spread between corporate “junk” bonds (BB), often referred to as “high yield,” and the “risk-free” rate of U.S. Treasury bonds. While the yield spreads have ticked up modestly, this is commensurate with a market correction, not a recessionary warning.

However, as noted, all this data runs with a lag, and today’s readings can change tomorrow. This is why investors also need to pay attention to the technical warnings.

Technical Warnings

Several technical indicators warn that the current correction has the potential for something more. As shown, the market has broken below long-term moving averages, reduced market breadth (fewer stocks participating in rallies), and spikes in volatility (as measured by the VIX) often appear before recessions. Those conditions have been met technically, but the economic data does not confirm them —at least not yet.

However, while investor sentiment has declined sharply, cash holdings remain very low. This would likely not be the case if market participants braced for tougher economic times, as we saw in 2000 and 2008.

Conclusion

The stock market’s value as a recession indicator lies in its ability to reflect future expectations. Those future expectations will be reflected in Wall Street’s expectations of future earnings, which are derived from economic activity.

“Looking at forward estimates, while there has been a minor cooling in the previous exuberance, analysts still expect a 16% annualized growth rate in earnings into next year. Unless those estimates begin to reverse sharply, it is unlikely that the current correction will devolve into a deeper corrective cycle.”

Yes, the markets are occasionally prone to false alarms or overreactions. However, the stock market does respond faster than lagging economic data, which is often revised long after the fact. Investors who understand the relationship between market movements and broader economic trends are better positioned to manage risk and make informed decisions.

Rather than react emotionally to every market dip, investors should evaluate whether the sell-off is driven by fundamental weakness or short-term noise. When a broad market decline is accompanied by deteriorating earnings, slowing growth, and weakening economic indicators, the likelihood of a recession increases. In such cases, adopting a more defensive investment strategy, diversifying across asset classes, and maintaining a long-term perspective can help weather economic downturns and preserve capital.

New photos reveal that Tesla’s 1950s-inspired drive-in Supercharger station, currently under construction at 7001 Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood, is nearing completion. This station could serve as a prototype for a nationwide rollout, offering Tesla drivers a massive upgrade over existing, dull Supercharger stations. The drive-in Supercharger concept can be likened to a ‘Buc-ee’s’ for electric vehicles. 

The West Hollywood Supercharger station is the next generation of Tesla charging stations, featuring a restaurant, a drive-in movie theater, and dozens of charging bays. Tesla seems eager to spice up the dull charging experience by blending the 1950s/60s Americana style with cutting-edge technology. 

X investor Sawyer Merritt shared new images providing an update on the construction of the drive-in Supercharger station, with the photos suggesting that the grand opening could be just months away, if not sooner.

Tesla Hollywood Diner update: pic.twitter.com/B7OGCFB7e9

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 2, 2025

A brief note on diners in the 1950s and 1960s: These places were social hubs and gathering spots that became a significant part of life in the post-World War II era. They symbolized the booming middle class, contributed to the car culture’s explosion, and played a key role in shaping media and pop culture. This all plays into Musk and Tesla’s broader mission to revive Americana. 

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times,

Online forums based in the United States that rely on First Amendment protections are getting caught up in internet regulations in the UK, where they now risk being blocked under recent legislation.

Hailed by the British government as the world’s first online safety law, the Online Safety Act (OSA) became law in October 2023, but the duties related to the regulation of so-called illegal content took effect on March 17. 

The law requires online platforms to implement measures to protect people in the UK from criminal activity, with far-reaching implications for the internet.

Gab, an American social media network, positions itself as a champion of free speech.

Gab CEO Andrew Torba said in a March 26 social media post that the UK government has demanded that it submit to “their new censorship regime under the UK Online Safety Act.”

Gab—which has no legal presence in the UK—was informed in a letter from UK regulator Ofcom on March 16 that it falls specifically within the scope of the law and must comply.

Under the OSA, sites that allow user interaction, including forums, must have completed an illegal harm risk assessment by March 16 and submitted it to Ofcom by March 31.

Ofcom warned that noncompliance could result in enforcement action—including massive fines of 18 million pounds (more than $23 million), or 10 percent of a company’s annual revenue—or even court orders to block access in the UK.

OSA was designed to ensure tech companies take more responsibility for user safety.

Under the act, social media platforms and other user-to-user service providers must proactively police harmful and illegal content such as revenge and extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, coercive or controlling behavior, and cyberstalking.

Gab has refused to comply with the OSA.

“We will not comply. We will not pay one cent,” Torba said.

In a statement to The Epoch Times, Gab said that this “law operates outside their jurisdiction.”

Gab’s lawyers said that their client is a U.S. company with no presence outside of the United States.

“The most fundamental of America’s laws—the First Amendment to our Constitution—ensures Gab’s right to provide a service that allows anyone, anywhere, to receive and impart political opinions of any kind, free from state interference, on its US-based servers,” they said in a statement last month.

In 2018, Gab was cut off by payment processors after 46-year-old Robert Bowers allegedly posted anti-Semitic comments on the platform just hours before shooting to death 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

“I was horrified that this terrorist, this alleged terrorist, was on our site,” Torba said at the time.

Gab also refused to comply with legislation in other countries.

The company claimed it received a data request from the German government concerning a user who, in 2022, made a comment that was deemed offensive by a German politician.

“This comment, which referred to the politician’s weight, has prompted the German government to demand that we hand over the user’s data so they can identify and potentially imprison them for up to five years,” Torba said at the time.

Gab has also been banned from Google and Apple app stores, as both require apps to enforce strict content moderation policies.

Web forum Kiwifarms said it also received a letter from Ofcom. 

The platform is now blocking users in the UK because of the legislation.

British users are now greeted with a message: 

“You are accessing this website from the United Kingdom. This is not a good idea. The letter states the UK asserts authority over any website that has a ’significant number of United Kingdom users’. This ambiguous metric could include any site on the Internet and specifically takes aim at the people using a website instead of the website itself.”

The unsigned message added that the situation in the UK is “now so dire I fear for the safety of any user connecting to the Internet from the country.”

The law has already affected dozens of smaller UK websites, from forums for cyclists, hobbyists, and hamster owners, to those supporting divorced fathers.

The regulatory pressure and the many rules have caused many of them to shut down, despite some operating for decades.

‘Locked Out of UK Internet Space’

If Gab or other companies do not comply, Ofcom can use enforcement powers.

John Carr, one of the world’s leading authorities on children’s and young people’s use of digital technologies, told The Epoch Times by email that the regulator “has the power to go to a UK court asking for orders which could compel different actors to withdraw services from Gab if it remains non-compliant with Ofcom’s directives.”

It can, for example, apply to the court for “business disruption measures (BDMs).”

These measures allow the blocking of noncompliant services, meaning UK users could lose access to certain platforms. BDMs could involve requesting payment or advertising providers to withdraw services or ask internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict access.

He said it was a “negative form of enforcement insofar as, ultimately, Ofcom can get them locked out of UK internet space,” adding that it would be a business decision.

“If they don’t have many UK users they will probably defy Ofcom and big it up as brave defiance. It’s not hard to write the script,” he said. “There is no legal basis on which an overseas company can claim it has an exemption from applying local law.”

Legal commentator Tony Dowson told The Epoch Times that the legislation does allow services to be regulated even if they are not incorporated in the UK.

He said that there is a legal test in the law over whether it has “links” with the UK, which can mean “having a significant number of UK users or the UK being one target audience.”

Dowson said that another test in the law assesses if the service is capable of being used in the UK and if there are “reasonable grounds to think that it poses a risk of serious harm through its content.”

“So, Ofcom is entitled to, under the Act, to regulate services outside the UK, as unrealistic as it could be in practice,” he said.

The UK has blocked sites via court order before.

In May 2012, British courts ordered major ISPs, including Sky, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, O2, and Everything Everywhere (EE), to block access to The Pirate Bay, a file-sharing website, after a ruling found it facilitated copyright infringement.

‘Key Figures No Longer Buy the Fiction’

U.S. lawyer Preston Byrne said he believes that enforcement of the law could set it on a political collision course with the United States.

“London should brace for significant political blowback,” he told The Epoch Times by email.

Byrne is urging American companies that received letters from Ofcom to contact his law firm, Byrne & Storm. He stated that the websites’ decision to operate from the United States appears to be a lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights.

“The UK is, in effect, asserting that the First Amendment no longer exists,” he said. “It’s increasingly clear to me that key figures in Congress and the White House no longer buy the fiction that the UK is merely trying to make the internet a bit safer for kids, and now believe the UK is trying to undo the U.S. Constitution.”

Screenshot of attempts to access the video site Rumble in France. Epoch Times

James Tidmarsh, an international lawyer based in Paris specializing in complex international commercial litigation and arbitration, told The Epoch Times that he suspects this case “is going to attract a lot of attention [UK authorities] don’t need.”

Tidmarsh referenced France’s decision to block the American site Rumble.

In November 2022, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski turned “off France entirely” after the company refused to comply with the country’s demand for the removal of Russian state-media accounts.

Tariffs

Tidmarsh mulled that the UK could also face threats of tariffs.

This year, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a memorandum seeking to protect American companies and innovators from what he called “overseas extortion.”

Much of Trump’s ire has been focused on the European Digital Services Act (DSA), with the European Commission staring down a series of deadlines to decide whether Apple, Meta, and Google are in breach of the EU’s digital competition laws.

The chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, appointed to the FCC helm by Trump in January, said that DSA’s approach was “something that is incompatible with both our free speech tradition in America and the commitments that these technology companies have made to a diversity of opinions.”

The U.S. State Department said in a March 20 statement on social media that it was “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.”

The department was referring to the case of 64-year-old Livia Tossici-Bolt, a campaigner who opposes abortion and was recently charged with infringing a public spaces protection order after holding a sign reading “here to talk” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, England.

Tidmarsh said he believed there was a risk that the special relationship between the UK and the United States could be affected.

“We, as in Europe, still rely on the U.S. for so much, culturally, commercially,“ Tidmarsh said. ”My first reaction seeing this was, ‘Oh my God, how did they get the timing so wrong?’ I mean, if this goes across Trump’s desk, I mean he can very easily just extend all these tariffs to the UK.”

An Ofcom spokesperson told The Epoch Times that services that want to operate in the UK must comply with UK laws.

“The new duties that have just come into force under the UK’s Online Safety Act have free speech at their core and are all about protecting people in the UK from illegal content and activity like child sexual abuse material and fraud,” the spokesperson said. “We’re currently assessing platforms’ compliance with these new laws, and our codes of practice can help them do that. But, make no mistake, providers who fail to introduce measures to protect UK users from illegal content can expect to face enforcement action.”

As if you didn’t have enough to worry about, the risk of space junk causing a catastrophic chain reaction that profoundly affects life on Earth rose significantly in 2024, according to the latest annual analysis from the European Space Energy (ESA).

The numbers are mind-boggling. ESA estimates there are now more than 1.2 million orbiting objects larger than 1cm and more than 50,000 larger than 10cm. Of the enormous number of orbiting missiles, only 40,000 are individually tracked by surveillance networks. The number in that category rose by 8% last year. Part of that increase is attributable to the August explosion of China’s Long March 6A rocket, one of the worst junk-generating incidents in decades. “If we extrapolate current trends into the future, as before, catastrophic collision numbers could rise significantly,” the ESA report said.

Don’t judge space junk’s potential for destruction using your Earthly instincts: Traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour in space, even a small object has the potential to inflict major damage. In one incident that demonstrates that fact of physics, a 2mm piece of space once junk put a 5cm-wide dent in a climate satellite. A modest move up the scale brings much more power: “A one-centimeter piece of debris has the energy of a hand grenade,” ESA’s Tiago Soares told DW.  

In an ominous 2009 incident, a Russian Cosmos satellite collided with an Iridium satellite, creating a cloud of about 2,000 pieces of junk measuring 10cm or more. That’s brings us to the nightmare scenario that should fill you with dread: The Kessler Effect. Imagine an initial major impact that creates hundreds of shards, which then start colliding with more orbiting objects, setting off a chain reaction. Actually, you don’t need your imagination. While some scientists say it wasn’t fully accurate in depicting the physics, Hollywood ventured to depict the Kessler Effect in the 2013 movie, Gravity: 

It would be enormously difficult to move forward from a catastrophe in which thousands and thousands of objects are shattered in orbit, as entire orbit zones could be rendered unusable. 

In a world in which satellites play an ever-increasingly important role for humanity, the stakes are high. “We depend on satellites as a source of information for our daily life, from navigation, to telecommunications, to services, to Earth observation, including defense and security,” Josef Aschbacher, ESA’s Director General, told DW. 

The enormous swarm of junk doesn’t just include small pieces of debris, but also obsolete satellites and the bodies of used rockets. Of those two types of junk, an average of more than three of them re-enter the atmosphere every day, according to the ESA’s new 2025 report. Some state actors have intentionally created thousands of shards: both Russia and India have tested anti-satellite weapons. 

When will a Kessler Effect event become a substantial, ongoing plausibility? “I think we’re not there yet, but we’re approaching the situation very quickly,” said University of Arizona Earth and space scientist Vishnu Reddy. “The debate is about when it will happen, whether it is five years from now, 10 years from now or 20 years from now.”

We’d like to tell you that a cleanup has already started. Alas, the first test of a satellite-plucking mission is still three years away. The experiment will be carried out by privately-held Swiss firm, ClearSpace, with funding by ESA. Originally slated for this year, the ClearSpace-1 mission is now scheduled for 2028, targeting being just a single, suitcase-sized ESA “PROBA-1” satellite. It will be a suicide mission of sorts: An unmanned, autonomous vehicle will deploy a “space claw” to take hold of the satellite, and then guide it into the Earth’s atmosphere, where both will be incinerated on re-entry.  

Driving home the urgency, planners had to pick the PROBA-1 target after their original one was — you guessed it — hit by debris.  

Authored by Victoria Friedman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

One in 10 people say they have been harmed by the NHS, according to a study published in the BMJ Quality & Safety Journal.

Researchers surveyed over 10,000 people across England, Wales, and Scotland between 2021 and 2022 and found that 988 of them (9.7 percent) had reported experiencing physical or emotional harm caused by the health service in the previous three years.

According to researchers at the University of Oxford’s Population Health and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), 6.2 percent said they experienced harm owing to care they had received.

The remaining 3.5 percent blamed the harm on having a lack of access to treatment.

The study, published on Tuesday, found that just 17 percent of people chose to take formal action by making a complaint, with an even smaller proportion (2.1 percent) taking legal action.

Higher Rate

The reported harm rate exceeds that of previous surveys in 2001 (4.8 percent) and 2023 (2.5 percent). However, researchers suggest this increase may be down to a broader definition of “harm” that now includes mental distress and harm caused by lack of access to health care, alongside physical harm.

Researchers found that more women had reported harm than men, with there being higher rates among the unemployed and those with disabilities or long-term health conditions.

Men were also found to be less likely to share their experiences, along with older people and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Older people were also less likely to make a formal complaint.

Some Way to Go

Helen Hogan, associate professor at the LSHTM, said: “These findings indicate that healthcare harm affects a considerable number of members of the general public.

“Our study is the first to put a number on the harm that results from people having to wait for treatment as well as the scale of harm caused by the care itself. It shows that there is still some way to go to improve safety across the NHS.”

Hogan continued that while the vast majority of NHS staff prioritise patients’ needs, there are pressures within the system—such as a lack of time or staff—which can affect the quality of care they can deliver.

Scottish Health Secretary Neil Gray responded to the report by telling reporters that patient safety is paramount and that NHS boards must be open about mistakes and learn from them.

A Welsh Government spokesperson said that they are simplifying the complaints process to ensure thorough investigations and continuous improvement in health care.

An NHS England spokesperson added that the health service was making “significant progress in strengthening patient safety – including a nationwide programme of training and education – and we recognise there is still more to do to improve care for patients by providing better access to services and reducing health inequalities.”

‘Startling Collapse’ in Public Satisfaction

The public is reporting not only increased harm but also growing dissatisfaction with the NHS.

On Wednesday, the Nuffield Trust described the “startling collapse” in satisfaction, which plummeted by 39 percentage points since before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The British Attitudes Survey (BSA) study into satisfaction with the taxpayer-funded health service found that in 2024, 59 percent of people are “quite” or “very” dissatisfied with the NHS, which is up from 53 percent on the year before and at its highest rate on record.

The analysis, published by the Nuffield Trust and The King’s Fund, found that only one-fifth (21 percent) of respondents were happy with the NHS, down from 24 percent on the year before and at its lowest level since this survey first polled Britons on the matter in 1983.

The part of the service which people expressed most dissatisfaction with was A&E, with 52 percent dissatisfied, rising from 37 percent in 2023. Satisfaction with GP services has also fallen, dropping from 34 percent in 2023 to 31 percent last year.

Broken NHS

“We inherited a broken NHS and this survey shows patients agree,” Health Secretary Wes Streeting told reporters in response to the BSA poll, citing long waiting lists, the rise of corridor care, and Britons struggling to see their GPs.

He said: “Thanks to the necessary decisions we took in the Budget, we’ve invested a record £26 billion over two years, ended the crippling strikes, cut waiting lists for five months in a row and delivered 2 million extra appointments seven months early.

“There’s a long way to go but we are fixing our NHS to make it fit for the future.”

In January, the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) unveiled plans to create 2 million extra medical appointments next year, in a bid to bring down high NHS waiting lists.

The DHSC said up to half a million more appointments are expected to be created in total every year by expanding the use of Community Diagnostic Centres, which will be open seven days a week, 12 hours a day, so that patients can access tests and health checks closer to home and at times more convenient to them.