A FedEx cargo jet averted crashing into a Southwest Airlines commercial plane while attempting to land at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Texas. 

The FedEx jet, a Boeing 767, was cleared to land on the same runway early Saturday morning when a Southwest jet, a 737, was cleared to takeoff.  

According to the flight tracking website Flightradar24, the FedEx jet pulled up with full thrust at the very last second to prevent what could’ve been a devastating air disaster. 

The NTSB is investigating an incident involving a Southwest 737 and FedEx 767 that occurred today in Austin. Initial ADS-B data show the landing 767 overflying the departing 737. We are processing granular data now. https://t.co/twHCydm5ixhttps://t.co/wZ3Z0xKJem pic.twitter.com/nkKVjshXmf

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) February 5, 2023

“The pilot of the FedEx airplane discontinued the landing and initiated a climb out,” the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said in a statement.

Later in the day, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) tweeted, “NTSB is investigating a surface event at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport Saturday, a possible runway incursion and overflight involving airplanes from Southwest Airlines and FedEx.” 

The NTSB is investigating a surface event at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport Saturday, a possible runway incursion and overflight involving airplanes from Southwest Airlines and FedEx.

— NTSB Newsroom (@NTSB_Newsroom) February 4, 2023

The FAA and NTSB said they are investigating the incident. 

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com,

EU members have agreed to support a price cap level of $100 per barrel on Russian diesel sales to third-party countries, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg on Friday afternoon.

The EU’s ban on Russian seaborne crude oil products imports, including diesel and naphtha, is scheduled to go into effect on February 5. The EU’s proposal, submitted last week, called for capping the price of Russian diesel sold to third countries at $100 per barrel for products that trade at a premium and $45 for those that sell at a discount. Similarly to the price cap on Russian crude, buyers outside the EU would continue to have access to Western insurance and financing for cargoes if they comply with the price cap.

The proposal also included setting a price cap of $45 per barrel for discounted products such as fuel oil, which sources suggest has also been approved.  

The goal of the price caps is to limit Russia’s revenues derived from crude oil and its refined products, while keeping the market supplied with Russian energy.

Despite the ban and price cap mechanism that are set to go into effect on Sunday, Russia’s energy minister said he saw no reason to reduce the country’s output on petroleum products, nor was it considering a reschedule for its refinery maintenance to make use of possible reduction in Russian demand.

Although the price cap goes into effect on Sunday, there is a grace period for cargoes loaded before the cap was agreed to that runs until April. Russian diesel prices were about $90 earlier this week, below the cap. Wood MacKenzie said earlier this week that a $100 cap would not have a significant effect on Russian refiners, but could bring its diesel exports down about 200,000 bpd.

Authored by Didi Rankovic via ReclaimTheNet.org,

The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) – started by the UK government to then in late 2021 become owned by Nesta, which describes itself as an independent charity focused on innovation – has a new report out.

And while its authors present it as a useful “guide” toward building “a net zero society,” what observers critical of this content have taken away from it is that it is promoting, and detailing, various forms of psychological manipulation of people.

The problem that Behavioural Insights Team (aka, “Nudge Unit”) has found for itself to solve is a part of the climate change narrative, where achieving “net zero” means doing away with greenhouse gas emissions.

And they don’t seem to care if the way to get there is through direct manipulation of people, specifically online, via prompts (“nudges”) toward making choices that are not really theirs but serve the agenda.

These choices concern and consume people’s everyday lives: what they wear, what and how much they eat, how they travel to work, whether that job is “climate-friendly,” how they travel just in general and where to, for example, for a vacation.

These are all examples of what the report aims to affect from the behavioral perspective, and clearly, the “solution” is to actively push citizens toward “social transformation.”

In this sense, the report recommends putting prompts in apps that would seek to direct the user to order less takeaway food through what critics might call “reality transformation” – one suggestion is changing the name of small portions to “regular portions.”

At one point, the report mentions BIT case study 4, which deals with “exploring” the role of social media influencers as vehicles to promote “green behaviors.”

BIT case study 12, meanwhile, is about “Helping Solent Transport deliver an effective ‘Mobility as a Service’ app.” Solent Transport is a partnership with local transport authorities, while the main idea here is “encouraging people out of cars” and “nudging” them toward other means of transportation.

BIT case study 15 is one about “encouraging” customers to order smaller portions on takeaway platforms.

Several suggestions are made to make “sustainable food easy,” including utilizing the fact that online shopping “gives many opportunities to provide timely substitution prompts, or encourage personalized goals and tips linked to product filters and ranking.”

BIT says that in producing these case studies of interventions, it partnered with “HMG, the French government, UAE’s Crown Prince Court, World Wildlife Forum, Unilever, Tesco, Sky, Gumtree, and Cogo,” among others.

*  *  *

If you’re tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Authored by Pat Fidopiastis via The Brownstone Institute,

Between 2014 and 2019, US tax dollars were funneled to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance. Given that US scientists have far more virology expertise than the Chinese, this begs an obvious question: what type of research were US tax dollars paying for in Wuhan, China? Dr. Fauci’s surprising statement in an interview might provide the short answer to this question: “You don’t want to go to Hoboken, NJ or Fairfax, VA to be studying the bat-human interface that might lead to an outbreak, so you go to China.” 

Given what we’ve endured for the past three years, Fauci’s “so you go to China” comment suggests that he hadn’t considered the global implications of a highly transmissible coronavirus leaking from a Chinese lab plagued by serious safety issues. 

Unwilling to admit that he, EcoHealth Alliance, and their Chinese collaborators, are suspects in one of the largest crimes against humanity, Fauci instead opted to conspire with his boss, Francis Collins, to declare “lab leak” a “destructive conspiracy” that must be “put down.” Sadly, it’s clear that from the beginning, these two distinguished scientists made up their minds about virus origin without evidence from both sides of the debate. 

Even worse, renowned scientists that rely on Fauci for their research funding, fearful of sanctions being placed on their life’s work, rallied around the “anti-lab leak” stance. One of the premier scientific journals, Science, whose political bias has become very apparent, attempted to provide legitimacy to Fauci’s position by publishing a paper by authors that claimed “dispositive evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from an animal at the Wuhan market. This paper allegedly “crushed” the lab-leak hypothesis, despite leaving much room for debate. 

The good news is that Big Tech, scientific journals, and most media sources were forced to stop censoring countervailing evidence as it reached critical mass and began spilling over into the public domain. Far from being a “conspiracy,” there is a lot of evidence that strongly suggests SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus that spread from a Wuhan virology lab. Before getting into the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered and leaked from a lab, let’s start a debate around the “dispositive evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 is natural and emerged from the Wuhan market. 

The “market origin hypothesis” is based on four debatable premises  

The entirety of the “dispositive evidence” for market origin cited by Dr. Fauci and others can be summed up as follows: 1) “Early” cases allegedly lived near the market, 2) “early” SARS-CoV-2 lineages were allegedly associated with the market, 3) wild animals susceptible to COVID-19 were sold at the market, and 4) positive SARS-CoV-2 samples were found in the environment around the market and were allegedly “linked to human cases.” For many reasons, some of which are discussed here, none of this evidence is anywhere near “dispositive.” This is why reviewers forced the authors to remove the phrase “dispositive evidence” as a requirement for publication.   

Did “early cases” really live near the market?

The Science paper relied on a joint World Health Organization (WHO)-China report to define “early cases” as those that occurred in December 2019. However, the joint WHO-China report also states: “Based on molecular sequence data, the results suggested that the outbreak may have started sometime in the months before the middle of December 2019.” 

This statement seems more in line with other evidence that the pandemic started earlier than December 2019. Urgent communications from the highest levels of the Chinese government circulating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in November 2019 reported a “complex and grave situation” at the lab. Was this “grave situation” the start of a SARS-CoV-2 “lab leak” unfolding in real -time, weeks before the rest of the world was made aware of the imminent pandemic? 

There were also multiple reports from Chinese media and even the venerable Lancet that documented initial cases started before December 2019, as well as lab-based evidence of international spread as early as November 2019. Furthermore, shouldn’t we be alarmed that a group led by Chinese military scientists applied for a COVID-19 vaccine patent in February 2020? 

If the first COVID-19 cases really were in December 2019, this means that inexperienced Chinese military researchers somehow managed to produce a COVID-19 vaccine based on traditional, less efficient methodology, in a little over a month. For comparison, it took vaccine giant Pfizer about 9 months to produce their vaccine based on more efficient mRNA methodology. Accurately pinpointing the true start date of the pandemic would allow us to assess how meaningful the “early cases” data are. If countervailing evidence is correct and cases that preceded December 2019 were missed or ignored, then a dataset beginning in December would most likely lead to flawed conclusions about pandemic origin.

Were “early virus lineages” really associated with the market?

In perhaps the clearest evidence of a crime scene coverup, Chinese scientists quietly removed from public databases at least 13 genome sequences representing the earliest SARS-CoV-2 strains. There is no legitimate reason for doing that. Fortunately, the files had been backed up before they were removed, allowing Dr. Jesse Bloom to be the first to retrieve them from Google Cloud and analyze them. 

This is proof that the Science paper many claimed to have “crushed” the lab leak was unlikely to be fully representative of the viruses spreading at the start of the pandemic. Adding to the intrigue, one of the authors of the Science paper attempted to intimidate Dr. Bloom so he would not publish his findings. If the evidence for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is so “dispositive,” why would anyone feel the need to censor an expert like Dr. Bloom? 

Animals susceptible to COVID-19 were sold at the market but none tested positive.

Some of the animals trafficked at the market had been experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 in labs or deemed theoretically susceptible based on the presence of compatible receptors. However, the WHO-China Report revealed that none of the 457 samples taken from 188 animals at the market tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A criticism of these negative results is that the market was “under-sampled.” The SARS-CoV-1 pandemic of 2003-2004 spread around the world causing about 8,000 documented infections, resulting in about 800 deaths. Chinese scientists mobilized immediately and within a few months discovered an identical virus that naturally occurs in palm civet cats that were sold in Chinese markets.  

Yet here we are, three years later, thousands of additional animals have been sampled, millions of genomic sequences analyzed, and nothing close to SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be detected in nature. Why is that?

Positive environmental samples found at the market were taken too late to infer virus origin

SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples were detected at the market. However, the samples were taken between January and March 2020. By January, the virus had likely been spreading in Wuhan for more than a month, and had already spread internationally, so how much can we deduce from these samples taken from the heavily trafficked market, weeks after the pandemic started? In fact, those responsible for collecting the samples concluded, “Tthe market might have acted as an amplifier due to the high number of visitors every day.”

In other words, infected people most likely entered the crowded market and spread the virus. It’s notable that many of the positive samples came from vendor stalls in which “aquatic products,” seafood, and vegetables were sold. None of these products could be a natural reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the WHO-China report concludes that many of the environmental samples reflect “contamination from cases” (i.e., infected people) given how widely distributed the virus was by then. 

The following is a review of some of the lab-based and circumstantial evidence supporting “lab leak.” Hopefully, this analysis will lay the foundation for honest, thoughtful discussion, leading to a true understanding of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. If we can’t have honesty, how will we ever minimize the chances of this happening again?

Early strains of SARS-CoV-2 were unnaturally human adapted

The “natural origin” hypothesis contends that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans from an animal in December 2019. A virus that so recently jumped to humans from an animal should not bind to human cells with higher affinity than the animal host it came from. However, at the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Nikolai Petrovsky’s lab made the startling discovery that the earliest known strains of SARS-CoV-2 were unnaturally human-adapted. 

In fact, these strains showed highest affinity for human cell receptors over receptors from bats, pangolins, and about eleven other animals known to harbor coronaviruses. Dr. Petrovsky submitted this important research to a top journal, Nature, in August 2020. In an egregious example of censorship, Nature delayed publishing the paper until June 2021, corresponding to when Dr. Fauci finally admitted that a lab leak could have started the pandemic.

There was financial motivation and established methodology for creating pandemic viruses

A rejected 2018 grant proposal submitted to DARPA that includes EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) collaborators gives us enough information to figure out the motivation and methodology that likely created SARS-CoV-2. The primary goal of the grant was to create a “complete inventory” of SARS-like coronaviruses taken from several bat caves in China. 

What follows is a streamlined version of the workflow proposed by the researchers: 1) add the spike proteins from these novel bat coronaviruses to a previously characterized SARS-like bat coronavirus core, and insert genetic modifications to spike proteins for enhanced infectivity if necessary, 2) infect “humanized” mice with these lab-made viruses, 3) flag chimeric viruses capable of infecting the mice as potential pandemic strains, and 4) prepare “spike” protein vaccines from these potential pandemic strains and use them to “immunize” bats in caves (Fig. 1). 

Fig. 1. Risky research methodology used by EcoHealth Alliance, WIV, and their collaborators to attempt to create bat vaccines. There’s no way of knowing in advance the pandemic potential of unnatural, chimeric SARS-like viruses created in this workflow.

The authors of the DARPA proposal discuss the importance of spike protein cleavage by human enzymes such as furin in the ability of coronaviruses to spread optimally and become pandemic strains. Notably, they proposed to insert “human-specific cleavage sites” (e.g., furin cleavage site, FCS) in spike proteins that lack the functional cleavage sites and then “evaluate growth potential” of the modified viruses in human cells. 

They further proposed to modify cleavage sites in highly abundant, low-risk SARS-like viruses taken from Chinese bat caves. These studies are precisely the type of work that could accidentally or intentionally create pandemic viruses. Although the proposal states that chimeric virus work would be done at the University of North Carolina, by Fauci’s own admission, “I can’t guarantee everything that’s going on in the Wuhan lab, we can’t do that.”  Furthermore, whenever a proposal this large (i.e., a $14 million request) is submitted, a great deal of the work will have already been done in advance to provide the “proof of concept” needed to sway reviewers. 

The unique furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of genetic engineering 

Many natural coronaviruses contain an FCS, so why is an FCS in SARS-CoV-2 so suspicious? The answer is that the genomes of thousands of coronaviruses from hundreds of different animals have been sequenced, and it’s clear that only distant relatives of SARS-CoV-2 have an FCS (see Fig 1A, Table 1). 

The closest known sibling of SARS-CoV-2, a bat coronavirus named RaTG13, at best weakly infects human cells and lacks an FCS. SARS-CoV is another sibling of SARS-CoV-2, and like all the other known siblings, also lacks an FCS. Without an FCS, SARS-CoV-1 spread around the world in 2003-2004 but fizzled out after infecting about 8,000 people. A comparison of the short stretch of amino acids in the spike protein clearly reveals the missing FCS in these SARS-CoV-2 siblings (Fig. 2). 

Fig. 2. Comparison of partial spike protein amino acids showing the FCS of SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., “PRRAR”), and the lack of FCS in two of its siblings. Different letters represent unique amino acids. Identical amino acids in all three viruses are highlighted in yellow; dashed lines indicate the missing FCS. 

The unique genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is evidence of genetic engineering

In coronaviruses, the blueprint for assembling proteins such as the surface spikes needed for infection lies in their RNA genome. The specific genomic sequence that encodes the short, all-important FCS within the SARS-CoV-2 spike is: CCU CGG CGG GCA CGU. Each three-letter bit of code (i.e., codon) dictates the specific amino acid to be used in building the FCS. Thus, CCU encodes “P” (for proline), CGG encodes “R” (for arginine), GCA encodes “A” (for alanine), and CGU also encodes “R.” 

As you can see, there is redundancy in the genetic code (e.g., there are six different codons that a virus can use to encode arginine). The odd feature of the SARS-CoV-2 FCS is the double CGG codons. In fact, CGG is one of the rarest codons in human coronaviruses, yet there just so happens to be two right next to each other in the FCS, one of the most important sequences in the entire 29,903 “letters” making up the SARS-CoV-2 genome. 

In fact, these are the only two CGG codons out of the 3,822 “letters” encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and they are the only instance of a CGG-CGG doublet in any of the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Notably, an arginine-rich FCS enhances the ability of coronaviruses to infect cells. At this point, it should not surprise anyone that CGG codons are the preferred code for genetic engineers who wish to produce an arginine-containing protein in human cells. It’s hard to deny that the CGG-CGG in the SARS-CoV-2 FCS is “smoking gun”-level evidence of genetic tampering.  

Suspicious cut sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome are evidence of genetic engineering

One method to create chimeric viruses utilizes specialized genome-cutting enzymes called “Endonucleases.” Endonucleases can be used to cut virus genomes in specific places, then the pieces can be strategically recombined to create chimeric viruses. Cut sites are randomly distributed in the genomes of natural viruses, but they can be precisely inserted or removed by scientists to make chimeric viruses in a laboratory. BsmBI and BsaI are two examples of endonucleases that co-authors of the DARPA grant used in previous work to make chimeric coronaviruses. 

When present, the distribution of BsmBI and BsaI cut sites in viruses isolated from nature (e.g., SARS-CoV-1) are randomly distributed throughout the genome. Meanwhile, the distribution of cut sites in SARS-CoV-2 appear to be non-random and suggest genetic manipulation in a laboratory (Fig. 3). Curiously, a previous study involving EcoHealth Alliance described the insertion of two BsaI cut sites in a bat coronavirus called “WIV1” (i.e., Wuhan Institute of Virology 1), allowing scientists to make changes to the spike protein (see S9 Fig. Spike substitution strategy). 

Two BsaI cut sites can be found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome (Fig. 3) in the same location as BsaI cut sites engineered into WIV1 back in 2017. The astronomical odds of this being coincidence cannot be overstated. According to the authors, “BsaI or BsmBI sites were introduced into the [spike]. Then any spike could be substituted into the genome of [lab engineered WIV1] through this strategy.” The same strategy might have been used in the construction of what would become the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

Fig. 3. Distribution of BsmBI and BsaI cut sites in the genomes of the two pandemic SARS viruses. SARS-CoV-1 is a natural virus with cut sites that are randomly distributed, while distribution of cut sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome appear to be non-random. The black bar represents the location of the spike gene; the FCS region is highlighted in red. BsaI can be used to cut out and replace most of the SARS-CoV-2 spike, including FCS, to alter virus infectivity.

Strong circumstantial evidence supports the lab- leak hypothesis

Three years into the current pandemic, with thousands of animals sampled and millions of genome sequences analyzed, nothing close to SARS-CoV-2 has been found in nature. In stark contrast to 2003-2004, China’s early response to COVID-19 was “disappearing” scientists and journalists, obfuscation, and deflecting blame for starting the pandemic away from themselves onto everything from the US Army to imported frozen fish. This is exactly the type of behavior you might expect from a guilty party.

No one (except maybe the dishonest Chinese government) has ever denied that the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic is Wuhan, China. But what are the odds that such an explosive outbreak originated at the Wuhan market? This is just one market out of about 40,000 markets scattered around China, and it happens to be a few miles away from a lab that in 2017 became the first high-security virology lab on the Chinese mainland. 

Here, a counterargument is that SARS-CoV-1 was a natural spillover from a market, so there’s precedence. But even the far less transmissible SARS-CoV-1, not long after being brought into the lab for study, eventually “leaked” with fatal consequences. 

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is the most important question of the pandemic, with implications that extend exponentially beyond scoring political points. At the start of the pandemic, even the journal Nature was sounding the alarm about the increasing role China’s military has been playing in secretive biomedical research in China. Yet, three years later all we have is obfuscation from China and Fauci and nothing even close to a natural ancestor of SARS-CoV-2. Throughout the pandemic, people parroted empty phrases like “Follow the science” without really following the science.

So, let’s do that, let’s “Follow the science” (and the logic), because the genetic and circumstantial evidence for lab leak is impossible for any reasonable person to deny. 

* * *

Pat Fidopiastis is a Professor of Microbiology at California Polytechnic State University,

Authored by Brett Wilkins via Common Dreams,

After decades of criminalization, Australia’s government said Friday that it will legalize the prescription of MDMA and psilocybin for the treatment of two medical conditions, a historic move hailed by researchers who have studied the therapeutic possibilities of the drugs.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said in a statement that starting July 1, psychiatrists may prescribe MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine), commonly called “Molly” or “ecstasy” by recreational users, to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and psilocybin—the psychedelic prodrug compound in “magic” mushrooms—for treatment-resistant depression.

“These are the only conditions where there is currently sufficient evidence for potential benefits in certain patients,” TGA said, adding that the drugs must be taken “in a controlled medical setting.”

Advocates of MDMA and psilocybin are hopeful that one day doctors could prescribe them to treat a range of conditions, from alcoholism and eating disorders to obsessive-compulsive disorder.

David Caldicott, a clinical senior lecturer in emergency medicine at Australian National University, toldThe Guardian that Friday’s surprise announcement is a “very welcome step away from what has been decades of demonization.”

Caldicott said it is now “abundantly clear” that both MDMA and psilocybin “can have dramatic effects” on hard-to-treat mental health problems, and that “in addition to a clear and evolving therapeutic benefit, [legalization] also offers the chance to catch up on the decades of lost opportunity [of] delving into the inner workings of the human mind, abandoned for so long as part of an ill-conceived, ideological ‘war on drugs.'”

MDMA—which has been criminalized in Australia since 1987—was first patented by German drugmaker Merck in the early 1910s. After World War II the United States military explored possibilities for weaponizing MDMA as a truth serum as part of the MK-ULTRA mind control experiments aimed at creating real-life Manchurian candidates. A crossover from clinical usage in marriage and other therapies in the 1970s and ’80s to recreational consumption—especially in the disco and burgeoning rave scenes—in the latter decade sparked a conservative backlash in the form of emergency bans in countries including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration classifies MDMA and psilocybin as Schedule I substances, meaning they have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

From 1 July this year, medicines containing the psychedelic substances psilocybin and MDMA can be prescribed by specifically authorised psychiatrists for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and treatment-resistant depression.

Read more: https://t.co/rJI9dRs3M7 pic.twitter.com/A8fTlWyX0w

— TGA Australia (@TGAgovau) February 3, 2023

Patients who’ve tried MDMA therapy and those who treat them say otherwise. A study published last year by John Hopkins Health found that in a carefully controlled setting, psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy held promise for “significant and durable improvements in depression.”

The California-based Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)—the world’s premier organization for psychedelic advocacy and research—interviewed Colorado massage therapist Rachael Kaplan about her MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD:

For the majority of my life I prayed to die and fought suicidal urges as I struggled with complex PTSD. This PTSD was born out of chronic severe childhood abuse. Since then, my life has been a journey of searching for healing. I started going to therapy 21 years ago, and since then I have tried every healing modality that I could think of, such as bodywork, energy work, medications, residential treatment, and more. Many of these modalities were beneficial but none of them significantly reduced my trauma symptoms. I was still terrified most of the time…

In my first MDMA-assisted psychotherapy session I was surprised that the MDMA helped me see the world as it was, instead of seeing it through my lens of terror. I thought that the MDMA would alter my perception of reality, but instead, it helped me see… more clearly… The MDMA session was the first time that I was able to stay present, explore, and process what had happened to me. This changed everything… There are no words for the gratitude that I feel.

Jon Lubecky, an American Iraq War combat veteran who tried to kill himself five times, told NBC‘s “Today” in 2021 that MDMA therapy—also with MAPS—enabled him “to talk about things I had never brought up before to anyone.”

“And it was OK. My body did not betray me. I didn’t get panic attacks. I didn’t shut down emotionally or just become so overemotional I couldn’t deal with anything,” he recounted.

“This treatment is the reason my son has a father instead of a folded flag,” Lubecky said in a message to other veterans afflicted with PTSD. “I want all of you to be around in 2023 when this is [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]-approved. I know what your suffering is like. You can make it.”

Founder and Executive Director of @MAPSnews, @RickDoblin Ph.D., discusses a new #psychedelic study that supports MDMA-assisted therapy as a treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (#PTSD) on @FoxBusiness. https://t.co/im1QEz3vdR

— Psychedelic Science (@PsychedelicSci) February 2, 2023

MAPS’ latest clinical research on MDMA—which is aimed at winning FDA approval—is currently in phase three trials. The Biden administration said last year that it “anticipates” MDMA and psilocybin would be approved by the FDA by 2024 and is “exploring the prospect of establishing a federal task force to monitor” therapeutic possibilities of both drugs.

Like MDMA, psilocybin—which occurs naturally in hundreds of fungal species and has been used by humans for medicinal, spiritual, and recreational purposes for millennia—remains illegal at the federal level in the U.S., although several states and municipalities have legalized or decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms, or have moved to do so.

There have also been bipartisan congressional efforts to allow patients access to both drugs. Legislation introduced last year by U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would permit therapeutic use of certain Schedule I drugs for terminally ill patients. Meanwhile, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) passed amendments to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act providing more funding for psychedelic research and making it easier for veterans and active-duty troops suffering from PTSD to try drug-based treatments.

Authored by Julie Kelly via AmGreatness.com,

As judges hand down one absurd sentence after another, one might be inclined to laugh at the absurdity of it all except, of course, it’s not funny…

The Department of Justice carefully crafted the dramatic moment in court.

A federal prosecutor handed an enclosed paper bag to an FBI agent responsible for investigating members of the Proud Boys, now on trial for seditious conspiracy related to their participation in the events of January 6. The bag contained “evidence of the unlawful entry of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 and evidence of the disruption to the certification of the 2020 presidential election,” FBI Special Agent Elizabeth D’Angelo told assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Moore on Wednesday.

D’Angelo cautiously pulled the evidence out of the bag to present to the jury.

Spectators in D.C. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly’s courtroom were on the edge of their seats. What would the mystery bag reveal?

Would it disclose the group’s intricate but failed plot to overthrow the government? A detailed list of weapons the “seditionists” planned to use in service of their dastardly deed? Names of targeted officials?

A nervous hush fell over the room; sweat beads formed on furrowed brows. Finally, the big moment arrived.

It was—a set of challenge coins.

Moore: Can you give a brief description of what they are?

D’Angelo: They are challenge coins. This one is black and gold—and this package contains four black and gold colored challenge coins.

Moore: Are these the same coins that were seized from Zachary Rehl’s home?

D’Angelo: Yes.

What?

Like many organizations, the Proud Boys produce coins that depict the group’s motto and attitude. When multiple armed FBI agents raided Rehl’s Philadelphia residence in March 2021, terrorizing his pregnant wife and pillaging his home, investigators found not one but several such coins.

Prosecutors, however, didn’t explain how Rehl and his co-defendants—also found in possession of incriminating challenge coins during similar SWAT raids—deployed the dangerous faux currency that day. (One version included an image of a Pokemon character, apparently an insurrectionist himself.)

Did the Proud Boys hurl the trinkets at officers clad in full riot gear outside the Capitol? Did they open locked doors with the coins? Did they use the coins to bribe “election deniers” in Congress?

After all, no weapons were recovered at Rehl’s house. So what gives?

No one knows. Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, last month insisted the coins were admissible evidence to show a “relationship” among the defendants. 

Welcome to the judicial funhouse formally known as the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse—a maze of distortions created by government clowns and ghouls intended to frighten those trapped within its confines while amusing others behind the scenes. Wednesday’s embarrassing spectacle is only a tiny glimpse into the charade unfolding on a daily basis in the heart of the nation’s capital.

Consider just a few recent events. Last week, relatives of the late Brian Sicknick were allowed to read “victim impact” statements in the sentencing of Julian Khater, the man accused of spraying Sicknick with pepper spray on January 6. Although Sicknick did not die as a result of the spray—the coroner concluded he died of two strokes caused by a blood clot—Sicknick’s immediate family members continue to blame Khater for Sicknick’s passing, disproven claims nonetheless given the court’s imprimatur.

Sicknick’s former girlfriend was allowed to participate in the stunt, even though she admitted the couple was on a “break” months before the Capitol protest. Dozens of Capitol Police officers also attended the hearing. The theatrics worked. Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Khater to serve 80 months in prison.

A D.C. jury on January 23 returned all guilty verdicts in the trial of Richard Barnett, the man photographed with his feet on a desk in Nancy Pelosi’s office that afternoon. It took jurors less than two hours to convict Barnett on eight counts including obstruction and civil disorder. He faces decades in prison.

The same day, four men were found guilty of seditious conspiracy and other serious crimes tied to January 6. Alleged members of the Oath Keepers entered the Capitol an hour after Congress had evacuated the building, carried no weapons, stayed for less than 15 minutes, and vandalized nothing inside—a humiliating failure to overthrow democracy.

Nonetheless, Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia handling every criminal case, bragged about his office’s victory. 

“For the second time in recent months, a jury has found that a group of Americans entered into a seditious conspiracy against the United States,” Graves boasted.

“The goal of this conspiracy was to prevent the execution of our laws that govern the peaceful transfer of power—striking at the very heart of our democracy. We are grateful to the thoughtful, deliberative work of this jury who gave weeks of their lives to carefully consider and deliver justice in this case and in so doing reaffirmed our democratic principles.” 

(A week later, Graves charged a California doctor who attempted to save Ashli Babbitt’s life with four misdemeanors including “parading” in the Capitol.)

The jury over which Graves swooned deliberated less than two days in a case comparable to treason.

“You’re entitled to your political views but not to an insurrection. You were an insurrectionist.”

So said Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly during the February 1 sentencing hearing for Daniel Caldwell, a Marine veteran who pleaded guilty to spraying police officers on January 6. Caldwell spent 19 months in pretrial detention before accepting the government’s plea offer last September. Through tears, according to Politico’s Kyle Cheney, Caldwell begged Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, for mercy.

She gave none.

Explaining how her harsh sentence must “fortify against the revolutionary fervor that you and others felt on January 6 and may still feel today,” Kollar-Kotelly sentenced Caldwell to 68 months in jail.

“Insurrection is not and cannot ever be warranted,” she lectured a man neither charged with nor convicted of insurrection.

But perhaps no one better represents the warped imagination of the prosecutors and judges overseeing January 6 cases better than Tanya Chutkan. The Obama appointee is known for handing down the stiffest punishment against Trump supporters, ordering nonviolent protesters accused of low level offenses to serve time in jail even when the government recommends none. And she’s on a roll.

Clearly agitated that Russell Alford, an Alabama man charged with the four most common misdemeanors in January 6 cases, chose to go to trial instead of accept the government’s plea offer, Chutkan scolded Alford for his 11-minute peaceful jaunt through the Capitol. “You may have not been breaking any glass, but make no mistake, that wouldn’t have been a mob without you,” Chutkan told Alford, convicted on all four counts last October after the jury spent only a few hours considering his fate. “You helped terrorize the real Patriots trying to fulfill their duty.”

Insisting she was not penalizing Alford for exercising his constitutional right to demand a jury trial—the first jury trial in Chutkan’s courtroom since every other January 6 defendant, clearly aware of her reputation, has accepted plea deals—Chutkan commenced to do so, commenting on the number of lawyers on both sides involved in the trial and the jurors’ time. “The same system you are railing against worked.”

While acknowledging Alford has no criminal record, Chutkan explained her ruling must act as “general deterrence” to warn others that the punishment for future insurrections will be “certain, swift, and serious.”

She then sentenced Alford to 12 months in prison, one month less than the Justice Department suggested. (Prosecutors asked for 13 months and accused Alford of spreading “disinformation” about the killing of Ashli Babbitt.) Her sentence is the longest imposed yet for a Trump supporter found guilty of 4 misdemeanors.

One might be inclined to laugh at the absurdity of it all except, of course, it’s not funny. Lives are being systematically destroyed to the obvious pleasure and gratification of taxpayer-paid lawyers and judges, who are the only ones smiling. Unfortunately for many innocent Americans, this theater of the absurd appears for now to be on an unlimited run.

Previous constant headlines of the Ukraine-Russia war were put on pause Friday into Saturday as the American public’s attention and discourse got temporarily consumed by the bizarre Chinese ‘spy balloon’ saga, which grew more dramatic by the hour until it was shot down by the Pentagon over the Atlantic Ocean.

But few are currently asking the necessary deeper questions related to the timing. Given the last major balloon crisis to take over 24/7 network news coverage ended up being a complete hoax (remember the “balloon boy” stunt of 2009 which had the world breathless and on edge for a full news cycle?), the current context to the Chinese balloon story and the question of cui bono is worth a deeper dive…

Entrepreneur and geopolitical commentator Arnaud Bertrand, who as a Westerner has spent many years living in China and frequently attempts to correct the often misleading analysis of mainstream press reports, offers an ‘alternative view’ of what’s fast unfolding below [emphasis ZH’s)…

* * *

“I took a bit of time to dissect the “spy balloon” story – both how it is portrayed in the US and China’s response,” Bertrand begins a lengthy thread. As you’ll see, the more you think about it, the more stunned you get at the sheer absurdity of the whole thing.”

I took a bit of time to dissect the “spy balloon” story – both how it is portrayed in the US and China’s response.

As you’ll see, the more you think about it, the more stunned you get at the sheer absurdity of the whole thing.

A small 🧵

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) February 4, 2023

First, the US story.

China sent a “spy balloon” over highly strategic US sites. It chose to spy on these sites with a big visible balloon (reported as being “as big as multiple school buses”), that anyone can see with the naked eye from the ground, to “demonstrate it had the capability”, despite having a plethora of other more discreet ways to spy like satellites or stealth drones.

Unclear that anyone doubted China had mastered the technology of *check notes* hot air balloons and why it therefore needed to demonstrate this capability… China chose to do so on the eve of Secretary of States Blinken’s visit to China, where he was invited, and hours after signaling Blinken would also be meeting with Xi during his visit, a high-level meeting not granted to any US Secretary of States in years.

The story therefore being that China chose to disrupt a meeting with its own president and to sabotage its own efforts at détente in the US-China conflict… The Pentagon said it had been “tracking the balloon for quite some time” and that it wasn’t the first time such an incident occurred, but this time – for unclear reasons – it chose to do a public announcement. As a result, Blinken announced he was postponing his China trip.

Now the story from the Chinese side.

To them this is a fluke accident, the balloon being “a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes” that “deviated far from its planned course” because of strong “Westerlies” (wind that flows west to east) and “limited self-steering capability”, the main characteristic of a balloon being of course that it can only go up or down.

A piece in WaPo seems to confirm this, quoting “experts in national security and aerospace [who] said the craft appears to share characteristics with high-altitude balloons used by developed countries around the world for weather forecasting.”

(Source: washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/… )

The Pentagon itself said that “the payload wouldn’t offer much in the way of surveillance that China couldn’t collect through spy satellites” and that “the balloon posed no serious physical or intelligence threat”. 

I.e. the Pentagon themselves say it would make zero sense for China to use a balloon like this for intelligence purposes when it has satellites. Kind of begs the question why they decided to make a big deal out of it in the first place… 

I’ll let you decide for yourself which story makes more sense… The sheer ridiculousness of this Nth “red scare” episode is absolutely obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense. Except, sadly, common sense seems to be in critically short supply nowadays. 

Also, as often, the real story is probably why this story became a story in the first place.

And the important context here is of course Blinken’s visit to China, which could – one can always dream – have been a step towards some form of de-escalation in China-US rapports. It was quite easily foreseeable that a story like this one on the eve of the trip would have made it politically very difficult for Blinken to go.

So a plausible hypothesis is that this whole episode is an attempt by internal US forces to prevent any US-China détente. One alternative hypothesis, much less likely, is that it’s internal Chinese forces trying to do the same thing by sending this big balloon.

Unlikely because:

a) China has time on its side so it gains from reduced tensions with the US and there isn’t any obvious “faction” in China who believe the contrary

b) it’d be immensely risky for anyone in China to do something like this as it’d undoubtedly be seen as an act of high treason with grave consequences for themselves

c) again, balloons like this particular one basically can’t be steered so… 

To plan sending a balloon like this from China to a place over US land isn’t even doable in the first place. The last hypothesis, which I guess is also somewhat likely, is that this is a series of unfortunate events without any malice on either side.

1) Balloon deviates from course and gets in US airspace,

2) people see it and Pentagon feels it has to communicate about it

3) the media, wearing their usual “China bad” hat, decide to go all-in on the scare-mongering,

4) political opposition and China hawks jump on the bandwagon,

5) administration feels it has no other choice than to cancel the trip and doesn’t have the political courage to say “this is just a balloon that drifted off course”.

If Putin doesn’t do anything this month, then the biggest story of February 2023 would be a balloon.

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) February 4, 2023

Well I guess in this scenario there is in fact malice on the media’s part and that of politicians and wider members of the blob but it’s “organic malice”, so to speak, jumping at a golden opportunity to scare-monger. 

Conclusion: however you see it, this story is absolutely shameful and a sad reflection of the insane times we live in, when rather than take the time to carefully consider facts, apply reason and common sense, we instead choose as a society to incite fear and hostility.

Fears over the virus pandemic and social unrest in the last several years ignited demand for guns to unprecedented levels. Back then, the FBI’s monthly background checks, part of the process to purchase a firearm, soared to new monthly highs. Now the latest background check data shows the gun-buying craze wanes, though it remains elevated. 

According to data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), unadjusted criminal background checks slid 12% to 2.67 million in January. Compared with 2022 figures, background checks increased by 3.2% from 2.59 million. However, NICS checks were down 43% from 4.69 million (a record high) in March 2021. 

For this time of year, the 2.67 million figure is the third highest January ever. The only other times the FBI ran this many background checks on people who wanted to purchase firearms for the month of January was in 2020 and 2021. 

Recall NICS background check data is a proxy for gun sales because there is no national database tracking firearms purchases. The data continues to confirm the mania phase of gun buying has subsided though interest in guns is above average. 

Gun buying might be elevated because of out-of-control crime in liberal metro areas or President Biden threatening to ban semi-automatic rifles. 

Meanwhile, Smith & Wesson Brands, one of the country’s largest firearms manufacturers, has seen shares tumble 50% since the blowoff top in the gun mania phase in mid-2021. 

Data from Ammo Prices Now shows the most popular caliber for home defense has plunged since the mania a few years ago. 

So what (or who) will cause the next panic buying of firearms? Will it be Biden?

Apple’s Crash Detection feature is causing severe headaches for emergency dispatchers around ski resort areas. 

Skiers and snowboarders, with supported iPhone and Watch models, have been hitting the slopes this season and occasionally take a tumble. Their devices, packed with high-tech sensors, like the accelerometer and gyroscope, as well as advanced motion algorithms, mistakenly believe the user has been in an automobile crash. 

Suppose skiers and snowboarders don’t respond to the cash notification within 20 seconds. In that case, the devices will automatically call 911 with an automated message that indicates, “The owner of this iPhone was in a severe car crash.” 

A report from NYT said emergency dispatchers in Colorado had been inundated with false distress calls due to the crash detection feature. 

Lately, emergency call centers in some ski regions have been inundated with inadvertent, automated calls, dozens or more a week. Phone operators often must put other calls, including real emergencies, on hold to clarify whether the latest siren has been prompted by a human at risk or an overzealous device.

“My whole day is managing crash notifications,” said Trina Dummer, interim director of Summit County’s emergency services, which received 185 such calls in the week from Jan. 13 to Jan. 22. (In winters past, the typical call volume on a busy day was roughly half that.) Ms. Dummer said that the onslaught was threatening to desensitize dispatchers and divert limited resources from true emergencies. -NYT 

Last year, Apple introduced Crash Detection for iPhone 14 models and Watch Series 8. False alerts started popping up at theme parks last summer when the devices thought people on rollercoasters experienced a car crash. And the same thing happened: The devices flooded 911 operators with false alerts. 

Apple needs to get a handle on this mishap or have its own call center if they want to continue with this feature. Bogging down emergency dispatchers with false alerts is a significant problem that needs to be fixed immediately. How did Apple technicians miss this? 

Authored by Kyle Anzalone & Connor Freeman via The Libertarian Institute,

Washington and Manila are close to inking an agreement that would see four new American installations opened in the Philippines. The new sites are part of a US military buildup in the Indo-Pacific to prepare for war with China.

According to the Washington Post, negotiations are ongoing but a deal between Manila and Washington is nearing completion. Once inked, American forces are expected to have new sites at four Philippines bases.

Two of the new facilities will be located in Luzon, in the northern half of the country. The military sites are expected to be used in a future war between Washington and Beijing, and “could give US forces a strategic position from which to mount operations in the event of a conflict in Taiwan or the South China Sea,” the Post reported.

In 2012, then-President Barack Obama adopted a more aggressive policy toward China – dubbed the “pivot to Asia,” the largest military buildup since World War II. Under the strategy, Washington has authorized billions of dollars for new bases, ships and weapons to be deployed to the Asia Pacific. The Pentagon aims to encircle China with two-thirds of all US air and naval forces.

The increased military activity has led to a string of deadly accidents in the region. A series of US warships have collided with civilian vessels, resulting in dozens of casualties. In 2018, an F-18 collided with a refueling aircraft off the coast of Japan, killing six.

The Joe Biden administration has accelerated the military buildup in the Pacific. Last week, the Department of Defense opened a new base in Guam. At the end of the year, the Pentagon awarded contracts to begin work on a new radar installation in Palau.

The relationship between Manila and Washington has strengthened since Ferdinand Marcos Jr. became president in June. The previous leader of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, threatened to end the Visiting Forces Agreement with the US and suggested Manila could increase ties with Beijing.

Manila and Washington’s converging views of the region has facilitated agreement regarding the new military bases. The United States sees Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and over Taiwan as crucial threats to the US-enforced international world order. Marcos “realizes the dynamics of the region at the moment and that the Philippines really needs to step up,” a Philippine official told the Post. The official added that Marcos has been monitoring developments in the Taiwan Strait and in the West Philippine Sea.

The Biden administration has repeatedly promised the US military will come to the Philippines’ defense in the event of a violent conflict with China, including in the South China Sea, potentially over the disputed Whitson Reef.

In a recently obtained memo, a four star Air Force general warned officers in his command that he believes the US “will fight [China] in 2025.”