Authored by Emma Suttie, D.Ac, AP (emphasis ours),

Findings from a recent case study show that personalized lifestyle and environmental changes successfully reversed autism symptoms in fraternal twin girls diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The study appeared in the Journal of Personalized Medicine.

The study also reviewed existing literature on the impact of lifestyle and environmental modifications on ASD, supporting the findings with evidence from similar cases and studies.

The Study Details

The case study involved 4-year-old dizygotic twins who were diagnosed with “level 3 severity” autism spectrum disorder, which the study describes as “requiring very substantial support.” The twins were diagnosed at approximately twenty months of age.

Dizygotic twins, or fraternal twins, result from two separate eggs (ova) being fertilized by two separate sperm. These twins are genetically similar to typical siblings but can be as different from each other as siblings born at different times. They do not share the exact same genetic material and, therefore, can look different and have different characteristics.

The case study shows that a non-drug, personalized approach by a team of multidisciplinary clinicians successfully reduced the number and severity of ASD symptoms using a variety of methods.

Conception

The twins were conceived through in vitro fertilization using an egg donor and carried by a surrogate. Their father was 51 years old at the time of conception. They were born two months premature and spent several weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit. The twins received routine vaccinations at three and six months, but no further vaccination until fourteen months. The girls were given acetaminophen before and after vaccination.

Initial Symptoms

The girls’ parents observed some initial symptoms. One twin had sensitivity to changes, eczema, and digestive issues, and the other had problems making eye contact, babbling communication, difficulty breastfeeding, and decreased muscle tone (hypotonia).

Both twins received breast milk (from the surrogate and their biological mother) for twelve months and had no issues with eating or sleeping.

At twelve months, the girls stopped drinking breast milk, and the introduction of cow’s milk caused digestive as well as behavior and language problems in both girls.

In March of 2021, the girls received the series of vaccines that had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After this round of vaccinations, their parents noticed a worsening of some symptoms, including “significant language loss” for one of the girls, who began communicating using only single words.

ASD Diagnosis

Due to the worsening symptoms, the twins were evaluated for autism spectrum disorder, and both subsequently met the criteria for DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.

Lifestyle and Environmental Interventions

After their diagnosis, the twins’ parents began a comprehensive, personalized approach to address their daughters’ condition. Their approach was holistic and non-pharmacological and considered a variety of potential environmental and biological factors influencing ASD.

The interventions and support for both the twins and their parents began after the twins’ diagnosis at approximately twenty months of age and continued over the following two years. The following is a summary of their interventions and support:

• The parents worked with a coach to help understand the twins’ diagnosis and gain confidence.
• The parents learned about the “total allostatic load” concept, which links chronic stressors to disease, and used resources like webinars and forums through Epidemic Answers.
• The parents completed the Child Health Inventory for Resilience and Prevention survey—“a comprehensive assessment of total allostatic load (cumulative effects of chronic stress on mental and physical health) among children.”
• Made Dietary changes—They followed the Reduced Excitatory Inflammatory Diet, eliminating glutamate, gluten, casein, sugar, artificial colors, and processed foods, and focused on organic, fresh, home-cooked meals from local sources.
• Incorporated dietary supplements—The girls took supplements that included omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, and homeopathic remedies.
• Differentiated the twins’ needs—Genetic variants revealed that each twin had different needs, for example, one twin needed more vitamin D, while the other needed support for neuroinflammation and detoxification.
• The twins received various therapies, including Applied Behavior Analysis, speech therapy, and occupational therapy focused on neuro-sensory motor reflex integration.
• The family addressed toxins in their home, using an environmental consultant to evaluate air quality, moisture levels, and water damage.
• One twin had osteopathic care on the recommendation of a developmental optometrist resulting in notable improvements in communication and overall disposition.

Throughout the study, the children’s parents shared insights about their journey, “Conventional statistics have stacked the odds against the ability to recover a child from an ASD diagnosis. Our approach was therefore focused on following a nonconventional, holistic understanding of each daughter’s bio-individual needs, exploring root cause and designing customized support,” they said.

“We chose practitioners who were aligned in our belief in our daughters’ intrinsic ability to heal given the right support.”

Results

Due primarily to the implementation of lifestyle and environmental changes over two years, the twins achieved a reversal of their diagnoses of level 3 autism spectrum disorder. Significant improvements were seen in their social interactions, communication skills, and behavioral patterns.

There were also dramatic improvements in scores using the Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist—a 77-question assessment tool used to evaluate the effectiveness of ASD treatment, with lower scores indicating improvement in symptoms.

Both twins “improved dramatically,” with one going from a score of 76 to 36 in seven months, and the other from 43 to 4 over the same period.

The study notes that the improvements were so profound the pediatrician exclaimed that one of the girls had undergone “a kind of miracle.”

The combined interventions, along with the commitment of the children’s parents, led to a “dramatic improvement and reversal of ASD diagnoses” for the twins.

Beth Lambert is founder and executive director of Epidemic Answers, a website made up of parents, clinicians, researchers, authors, and wellness experts dedicated to helping kids heal from health issues. She is also one of the study authors.

Mrs. Lambert spoke with The Epoch Times and explained that there is hope for children with ASD and other conditions as well as resources for parents to support them through the process.

“We’re doing research to try to gather evidence that many of these conditions are reversible. But also we’re trying to create a platform where we can give solutions to parents—we’re trying to educate them, and we have an online community [Healing Together] where we’re teaching them how to do this work themselves,” she said.

Autism Prevalence

According to the study, the prevalence of autism is growing with increasing speed. In the early 1990’s the number of children diagnosed with autism in the United States was 1 in 2000. Throughout the 1990s, the diagnostic criteria for autism were broadened to include a wider range of symptoms and behaviors. This expansion is reflected in updated editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

For example, in the DSM-IV, published in 1994, the diagnostic criteria were expanded and broken into subtypes such as Asperger’s disorder, autistic disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified.

There was a further expansion of the criteria in the DSM-5 released in 2013, which merged the previous subtypes into one unified diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, or ASD.

These changes contributed to a significant increase in autism diagnoses in the subsequent years—however, some physicians believe that these factors alone are not enough to account for the dramatic rise in ASD diagnoses.

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, in 2000, 1 in 150 children had a diagnosis of ASD, but their most recent data state that in 2020, 1 in 36 children had a diagnosis of ASD, which represents more than a 300 percent increase in the last two decades.

The study states that “Published projections estimate that even if the future prevalence of ASD remained unchanged over the next decade, there would be approximately 1 million new cases, thereby resulting in an additional $4 trillion of lifelong social costs in the United States. Furthermore, if the current rate of increase in prevalence continues, costs could reach nearly $15 trillion of lifelong costs by 2029.”

Mrs. Lambert says, “Modern living is making our children sick, but it’s also making all of us sick—and our children are the canaries in the coal mine.”

Final Thoughts

The study findings suggest that environmental and lifestyle factors play a significant role in the manifestation of ASD symptoms and that targeted interventions in these areas can lead to substantial and lasting improvements—including a reversal of symptoms.

The study authors note that the engagement of the parents or caregivers is vital to the process.

“The commitment and leadership of well-informed parents or guardians is an essential component of the effective personalization that appears necessary for the feasibility of such improvements.”

What the study clarifies is that treating ASD requires a personalized, multifaceted approach rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, as ASD diagnoses are as unique and complex as the individuals they affect.

The twins’ parents agree, according to a section in the study containing their perspective.

“Having fraternal twin daughters diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder at 20 months has given us a profound appreciation of the highly individual presentation of Autism.”

For families dealing with an ASD diagnosis, Mrs. Lambert says “You are not alone.”

“I want people to know that there is support for them. We have a conference [Documenting Hope] so that we can invite parents in so that they can become part of our community. We can do this together, which is working to heal our kids together.”

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

California will help 1,700 first-generation homebuyers with down payments in the second round of its Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan program, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced June 28.

The state program that debuted last year provides potential homebuyers with vouchers to pay up to 20 percent of a home’s value up to $150,000 to cover a down payment and closing costs. Eligible applicants need to be first-time homebuyers (haven’t owned a home in the last three years) and whose parents don’t currently own a home in the United States.

“As part of the state’s comprehensive efforts to improve affordability, build generational wealth, and unlock access to housing, Dream for All is paving the way home for thousands of Californians,” Mr. Newsom said in a statement Friday.

“This program is more than just financial assistance—it’s about providing a pathway for individuals to achieve their California dream.”

The program allows low- to moderate-income families to apply for assistance.

Due to the extremely high demand for the program, however, the California Housing Finance Agency uses a random selection process to ensure all applicants have an equal chance at receiving funding from the $255 million available for the second round of awards.

A third-party audit is performed to certify that voucher recipients meet key program requirements, according to Mr. Newsom’s office.

The housing finance agency plans to allocate funds across nine regions throughout the state—the Capital Region, Central Coast, Central Valley, Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, and rural areas.

Those who receive assistance have 90 days to find a home.

The state provides a portion of the down payment in exchange for a share in the property.

If the recipient sells or refinances the home later, they will be required to repay the initial amount of assistance, plus up to 20 percent of any increase in the home’s value.

Program proceeds will be used to fund the next round of homeowners, according to the governor’s office.

When the program was launched on April 3, 2023, with the passage of a bill authored by Sen. President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, its $300 million budget was depleted within days.

More than 2,400 first-time homebuyers qualified for the first round, according to Ms. Atkins.

Only 2,200 families received first-round financing, the governor said Friday.

The income limitation to qualify for the assistance is $159,000 for several counties throughout the state, including San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Mateo.

Los Angeles’s limit is $180,000. and Orange County has the highest income limit in Southern California at $230,000.

The original legislation, written in 2021, proposed a $1 billion per year budget for the program for up to 10 years to assist an estimated 150,000 Californians.

However, after some negotiations, the proposed amount dropped to $500 million in 2022 after the state faced a $25 billion budget deficit that year.

Mr. Newsom again decreased the allocation to $300 million before the program debuted in 2023.

With the idea of an unrealized gains tax being tossed around at the Federal level, and just when you thought we couldn’t possibly conjure up any more fees, taxes, surcharges or other burdensome cash grabs, the Philadelphia Airport is calling your bluff.

The airport spurred “outrage” this week after it was revealed that they are adding a 3% surcharge to every purchase, according to View From The Wing. As if airports weren’t already adding 50% surcharge on everything they sell there to begin with…

According to the report the surcharge is  “to offset the employee wages and benefits” that must be paid to airport workers, but none of the money actually goes to employees. 

View From The Wing then asks the astute question: “You might ask, why allow vendors to charge people more than the marked prices, instead of just raising prices?”

And you already know the answer, right? It’s because the airport doesn’t let them raise prices, stating that “operators are only permitted to charge up to 15% more than a comparable street-side unit”.

Thus, the airport then pretends that a surcharge isn’t a price increase. And while we’re fuzzy on the innerworkings of the charge, it would seem to us that it puts another set of hands in between the customer and the vendor, so we’d be doubtful about vendors having access to all of the new cash they are bringing in. You’ll have to pardon our skepticism, but just remember, we’ve covered Wall Street for decades.

Off-airport stores have increased prices due to 20% inflation over the past four years, and airport vendors have followed suit. With price caps based on a percentage over ‘street pricing,’ the dollar gap between outside and airport prices has grown, the report says. 

Now as a result of the charge, menu prices appear lower than they are, with a $10 item actually costing $10.30, excluding tips. This 3% surcharge, not a service charge, is attributed to the high minimum wage at the airport, which is $15.06 plus benefits.

Despite wages being a cost factor, not all airports have the same wage levels, with some, like St. Louis, paying more. Perhaps funds from paid water refill stations could cover these costs instead.

Vendors must disclose the surcharge but only at the point-of-sale and on receipts, meaning customers learn of it after being charged. This likely leads to lower tips as customers try to keep their total bill as expected. The 3% surcharge diverts money from worker tips to concession owners, undermining the minimum wage increase benefits for workers.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Assume

I think it was in the Bad News Bears, where I first saw that “Assume” can make an a** out of U and Me. I couldn’t get a good clip of that but did come across a scene from The Odd Couple where they went through the same dissection of the word (The Odd Couple, believe it or not, was before my time).

I’ve chosen this word for today’s report as I think it is relevant on many fronts. I am also going back and trying to figure out how many things I “assume” that I should recheck. We will use presume as well, which seems like a less severe version of assume. Finally, we will discuss “mirroring” once again, as this could be very important in the coming weeks.

Markets

Last weekend we wrote about Fragility in a One Stock, Stock Market, and we followed up on Thursday with One Trick Pony. While much of the focus is on the difficulties and risks of interpreting broad market signals in a market that is led by a handful of stocks, we can probably rephrase it in terms of assumptions and presumptions. “Normally” we see X and can interpret Y. In some groups, there has been a lot of discussion of co-movement versus correlation. In this case, correlation is more persistent and there is an element of causation, as opposed to a few things that seem to move together from time to time. I’d lump Bitcoin and almost anything in this category, as somedays it seems very correlated to big tech, and others it beats completely to its own drum – a drum that is getting weaker, but more on that later this week.

Then we can add “passive” to the mix. The large “passive” rebalancing in XLK is over, but in general, for the largest indices, every inflow and outflow is disproportionately (by historical standards) impacting a small percentage of the stocks in the index.

For now, I’m sticking with the overall sentiment being one of “greedy, but less greedy than before.”

Monday’s large sell-off in the Nasdaq 100 was completely reversed on Tuesday. The index moved higher Wednesday and Thursday, only to wind up fractionally down on the week, as stocks faded into the close on Friday. Maybe I’m alone in struggling with this price action, but it does seem indicative of a lack of any true conviction or depth of liquidity (in either direction).

We “presumed” or concluded (or guessed) that the debate would highlight the deficit and the fact that neither candidate is particularly serious about getting it under control, let alone balancing the budget.

In terms of being right for the wrong reasons, the 10-year Treasury yield closed at 4.4%, smack in the middle of our 4.3% to 4.5% range. But it had nothing to do with the debate (based on the trading during and after the debate). It had absolutely nothing to do with the economic data, as inflation data came in nicely (should have been priced in), and Michigan inflation expectations were surprisingly down (not priced in, but easily ignored). In any case, we were at 4.26% before the market rolled over.

The Nasdaq 100 decided to follow Treasury prices and moved almost in lockstep with them. Whether there was causation or not remains to be seen. It was month-end and quarter-end, so that could have had an impact, though normally the “rebalancing” trades create both demand and supply for stocks/bonds. However, both were for sale. One “assumption” many use is that month-end is good for bonds, as index trackers “extend” duration into the close. That didn’t occur, again, making us wary of assumptions and rules of thumb. Adding to that, NVDA, which has been one of our main “tells” was higher for most of the day, before finishing the day lower.

Do we bounce on Monday as we start the new quarter? Or has momentum lost enough steam that selling continues? Will asset managers slow their purchases or sell now that they have finalized what they show clients on their quarter-end statement? I remain focused on the 50-day moving averages for the broad indices, which would indicate more selling to come.

Oil behaved differently. It traded strongly into the open, sold off with the economic data, and while finishing lower on the day, it had support into the close (unlike stocks or bonds). We will have more to come on oil as the best geopolitical risk trade.

Elections and Debates

European elections are nearing, and I’m leaning towards them causing some market hiccups in Europe. I’d avoid European risk here, and those elections could add pressure to U.S. markets.

While we are non-partisan here at Academy, it is impossible to ignore the debate. While it didn’t seem to have any immediate market impact, it is difficult to know if it had any influence on markets over the course of the day (I’d like to claim I was right and the debate was why Treasuries sold off, but that is a stretch).

There are two things that I think I can safely say about the debate:

• Based on betting data, we saw President Biden’s odds decline, noticeably, but former President Trump’s odds increased marginally. Basically, the betters were taking chips off the Biden table, and spreading them around, not just throwing them all to Trump. I used RealClearPolling (the link seems ok, but I wouldn’t bother clicking it without a good VPN). It seemed comprehensive and in line with other reports I’ve seen. I do not know how easily manipulated the betting markets are (e.g., depth of liquidity). So, you can take this with a grain of salt, but I do think that we’ve seen a change in how people are thinking about the upcoming election.

• We can now see why the media has been very careful to say “presumptive” nominee, as there was a lot of chatter, from sources I would consider pro-Biden, that some consideration should be given to rethinking the Democratic ticket (which seems supported by the betting odds).

I don’t think this is what drove markets on Friday, as the day wore on, but I do think it is important from a geopolitical risk perspective.

Assumptions and “Mirroring”

We have discussed the concept of “mirroring” in many different reports. It is the “problem” that intelligence officers face when trying to extrapolate what an adversary might do. It is extremely difficult not to “mirror” your thoughts and perspectives when analyzing an adversary. It is one of the reasons why most military exercises have “red teams” – teams that play the role of opposition. Trying to gameplay things “properly” is important so that you are facing, in practice and simulation, the opponent that you will face on the battlefield.

The concept of “mirroring” or making incorrect assumptions is likely part of why Academy, with our geopolitical insight, has not only been correct on our trajectory with China but was also predicting it well ahead of time. We cut through some of the “mirroring” issues many seem to face. It is certainly one element of our The Threat of Made By China 2025.

But today, we are revisiting this concept, because it may prove important in understanding how our adversaries/competitors may take the debate.

• China (Xi), Russia (Putin), Iran (Khamenei), and North Korea (Kim) are all autocrats. They are in charge. What they say goes. While they likely “understand” at some level, how our House of Representatives and Senate work and how the Supreme Court has influence, it may be difficult for them to comprehend that the president (with “Executive Powers”) doesn’t have the same freedom of action that they do. It seems like there is at least a potential that these actors (and some others across the globe) may view the criticism of Biden’s performance as something bigger than it is.
• The U.S. media was (and is) completely domestically focused at the moment. U.S. media coverage always tends to be “parochial” (relatively small domestic events/human interest stories often take priority over potentially much more important events occurring globally). However, the U.S. media and social media are being dominated by the debate and the election.
  • To the extent any of these actors were planning on influencing U.S. elections, they probably already have some elements in place.
  • It seems plausible, that having watched the Ukraine funding debate and the relationship with Israel evolve since October 7th, any bad actor has potentially added some new influencing tools to their tool kit.

A combination of misunderstanding how the U.S. works and overconfidence in their ability to win a misinformation campaign may give these bad actors the incentive to act sooner than later.

In our recent Geopolitical Risks – Perception vs Reality we highlighted “wildcard risk.” The intensity and variety of geopolitical risks already seemed high (something we’ve mentioned in recent reports), and it seems that it is necessary to increase our estimate of geopolitical risk after Thursday.

The concern is that some adversary, or competitor, will try to take advantage of what they perceive as an opportunity, with the president facing some new questions, even from supporters.

The common denominators between these countries (and their likely actions) are commodities and trade.

I want to own energy and commodity related assets now (the commodities, but also the stocks of companies in those industries). Since I’m worried about trade, in the event of some act, I’m leaning more towards energy than industrial commodities. I’ve been asked about gold and silver (and Bitcoin), but I don’t have a strong opinion (though, gold and silver would certainly seem to fit my geopolitical risk thesis).

If you have time, re-reading The Game of Chicken in Today’s World seems like a good use of time, as all of the actors above are likely trying to figure out what, if anything, to do given the election news here and in Europe.

Bottom Line

Higher yields and less inverted curves. 4.3% to 4.5% is still our working range for 10s. The bias is now to break higher, but geopolitical risk, while not providing a “flight to safety” trade like it has done in the past, will support Treasuries (more at the front end).

Lower stocks and the “catch-up” will only occur in a down market at this stage.

With geopolitical risk rising, own commodities and commodity-related stocks (and bonds) with a bias towards energy.

Apologies to anyone we may have offended regarding politics or the debate. We have tried to stick to the obvious things that have been happening since the debate. It would be easier to avoid discussing it at all, but since our adversaries and competitors are analyzing it, and it could influence their behavior in the coming weeks, we felt that it was important to go down this uncomfortable path. Given Academy’s expertise in Geopolitical Risk, and often being asked when and how to hedge it, it seems more timely than ever to put some trades on that will benefit from increased activity (while hoping, on a personal level, that nothing occurs, as we already have more than enough fighting happening in this world).

In the meantime, we will continue to challenge our own assumptions and presumptions in this tricky market and world.

The cost of living in American cities has skyrocketed so much that retirees now need more than $3 million to be considered “wealthy” in them, according to a new study from GoBankingRates.

In this study, a team of researchers first calculated the minimum savings needed to retire for 20, 25 and 30 years in America’s 50 largest cities.

They analyzed each city’s annual cost of living and subtracted the annual Social Security income (as sourced from the Social Security Administration’s Monthly Statistical Snapshot as of May 2024).

Then, to find the savings needed to be “rich”, the study took the minimum savings needed in each city and doubled those amounts. We ranked each city based on the smallest to largest amounts needed to be considered rich for 25 years of retirement.

The study found:

1. It takes more than $3,000,000 to be considered wealthy in 10 cities. The top three cities where you’ll need the most savings to be rich are all in California: San Francisco (~$6,000,000), San Jose (~$5.5M) and Oakland (~$4.5M).
2. It takes significantly less savings to be wealthy in New York than it does in San Francisco. You’ll need roughly $3.8M to retire rich in New York, which is substantially less than the $5.95M needed in San Francisco.
3. Austin is more expensive than many people realize. Austin was the 11th most expensive city on our list, ranking right next to Boston. In Austin, you’ll need more than $2.5M to be considered rich for 25 years of retirement.

According to the data, the financial requirements for retirees looking to enjoy a rich lifestyle are particularly steep in cities such as San Francisco, San Jose, and New York City.

For instance, in San Francisco, the savings needed for a 20-year retirement amount to a staggering $4,757,745. Extending this to a 25-year retirement pushes the savings requirement to $5,947,182, and for a 30-year retirement, retirees would need an eye-watering $7,143,762. The annual cost of living after Social Security in San Francisco is $118,944, reflecting the high cost of living in this iconic city.

Similarly, San Jose demands equally substantial savings, with $4,422,401 needed for a 20-year retirement, rising to $6,640,241 for 30 years. The annual living cost post-Social Security here is $110,560, emphasizing the financial burden retirees face in the heart of Silicon Valley.

New York City, another major metropolitan area, requires retirees to save $3,069,460 for 20 years of retirement, increasing to $4,608,798 for 30 years. The annual cost of living after factoring in Social Security stands at $76,736, making it one of the most expensive cities to retire in. This trend is mirrored in other high-cost cities like Los Angeles and Oakland, where retirees need upwards of $2.8 million and $3.6 million respectively for a 20-year retirement, and the costs only escalate with longer retirement periods.

The study and data on all 50 states can be read in its entirety here. 

Authored by Rudy Blalock via The Epoch Times,

A California task force has seized nearly 7 million fentanyl pills since January thanks to efforts statewide and near ports of entry into the United States from Mexico, officials announced this week.

The updated figures were issued in a June 26 press release from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said the state will continue its crackdown on the drug.

“We will continue to take fentanyl out of our neighborhoods, hold drug traffickers accountable, and expand access to life-saving medicine,” he said, referencing Narcan, an opiate blocker.

In a May press release, Mr. Newsom announced that the same task force had assisted in the seizure of 5.8 million fentanyl pills since the start of the year.

During a one week stretch in April more than 1 million pills and more than 500 pounds of methamphetamine were seized in San Diego County and at the border, according to the press release.

Mr. Newsom increased the number of California National Guard officers near the state’s southern ports of entry last year by 50 percent to help stop drugs from being brought across the border, according to his office.

The crackdown has resulted in over 62,000 pounds of fentanyl seized in 2023, 1,066 percent more than what was confiscated in 2021 and up 115 percent from 2022.

A recently launched state website, opioids.ca.gov, also now offers a “one-stop-tool” for drug prevention, treatment resources, and updates on the state’s battle to hold pharmaceutical companies and drug traffickers accountable for the drug crisis, according to the governor’s most recent press release.

Mr. Newsom also met with President Joe Biden in February to discuss border policy and immigration issues, and last October spoke with Chinese leader Xi Jinping about addressing the transnational shipping of precursor chemicals that are used to create fentanyl, according to the same announcement.

In the wake of his historically disastrous presidential debate performance, President Biden set out to ease the worries of Democratic mega-donors gathered at a sprawling Hamptons oceanfront estate on Saturday afternoon.

However, a powerful, competing message was in the air — literally — as an airplane flew by the event toting a sign with a message that concisely proclaimed that Biden’s 2024 re-election bid is already over: “BI-DONE!” According to the New York Post’s sources, the next-level aerial trolling was the work of an unnamed New York Republican donor.

The aerial rhetorical assault proved unnecessary — as donors who attended the event told the Wall Street Journal it was a “joyless” affair, and said Biden’s appearance only served to solidify their deep worries about his fitness. The event was tightly orchestrated, and Biden did his speaking with the aid of a teleprompter, reminding attendees of his inability to manage unscripted dialogue — even with a friendly audience. 

The event was hosted by hedge fund billionaire Barry Rosenstein on his 18-acre beachfront property in East Hampton, NY. Rosenstein and his wife Lizanne set a then-US record for a home purchase price when they paid $137 million for the place in 2014. Attendees reportedly included celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, Matthew Broderick and Howard Stern, along with Michael J. Fox and his wife Tracy Pollan, all of whom paid upwards of $250,000 to see Biden’s hollowing husk in person. Loews Hotels CEO Jonathan Tisch attended too. 

Ahead of the event, anonymous mega-donors shaken by Biden’s Thursday-night disaster confided to the Post that they were gritting their teeth and following through on their planned attendance — which they’d already paid for. “We have no choice but to believe Biden will redeem himself. The alternative is so unthinkable,” said one of them. “I’m going and everyone I know is still going.” 

Another longtime Democratic funder, who’d opted against attending, said the mood among the people who write the big checks is dark: “Everyone going [to the fundraiser] is extremely disappointed. Everyone paid in advance… so it could be an opportunity to encourage him to drop out.” The same donor pointed a finger of blame at Jill Biden: “Lots of people are blaming his wife … for not telling him [to step aside].”

“Joe, you did such a great job answering every question. You knew all the facts.”

Jill Biden is a monster.

pic.twitter.com/8YuHteTzly

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 28, 2024

Donors who spoke to the Journal said they’re waiting for the incoming round of post-debate polling results, anticipating that cratering support would greatly ease the challenge of ejecting Biden, who would be 86 years old if he defied all odds and managed to serve out a second term. 

Meanwhile, as the editorial boards of major newspapers like the New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution have begun urging Biden to quit the race, Democrats of a lesser station aren’t waiting for new polls before doing some urging of their own. These demonstrators, positioned alongside Biden’s motorcade route to Saturday’s Hamptons fundraiser, tried some gentle-but-firm messaging: 

“Step down for DEMOCRACY!”
“THANK YOU! NEXT…”
“PLEASE DROP OUT FOR U.S.”
“WE LOVE YOU BUT IT’S TiME”

Photo by @AmandaGordon along Biden motorcade route in the Hamptons pic.twitter.com/WyyRxHOAWC

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 29, 2024

Authored by Beth Brelje via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In a major project milestone, the Iowa Utility Board (IUB) this week approved a proposal by Summit Carbon Solutions to build the world’s largest carbon capture pipeline.

The total project spans five states: Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. It will slice through 2,500 miles of land and connect with 57 ethanol plants, and affects thousands of private landowners, many of whom have fought against the project. The portion approved in Iowa is 680 miles, a Summit spokeswoman told The Epoch Times.

Many landowners have said, in public hearings and official protest letters submitted to the IUB, that they object to allowing the company to have a right-of-way on their land.

With this decision, 859 land parcels can be taken by the company through eminent domain.

“After weighing numerous factors for and against Summit Carbon’s petition, the Board found that the service to be provided by Summit Carbon will promote the public convenience and necessity,” the IUB wrote in its decision. “The Board found Summit Carbon could be vested with the right of eminent domain.”

Conditions of Approval

It did put some conditions on the approval.

Summit will be required to submit certain revised exhibits as compliance filings for IUB review before the board issues the construction permit. And Summit must obtain and maintain at least a $100 million insurance policy; comply with certain construction methods; and ensure that landowners and tenants are compensated for damages that may result during construction.

Also, Summit needs approval in all the other states.

“The momentum will continue as we prepare to file our South Dakota permit application in early July,” said Lee Blank, Summit CEO in a statement. “We look forward to engaging with the state throughout this process and are confident in a successful outcome.”

The company reports that it has already signed easement agreements with 75 percent of Iowa landowners on the route.

Landowners Protested Project

Landowners have argued that the project is not for the public good, but instead, is an untested science that will only profit the company making use of the private lands.

“There is a deep-rooted passion for our farm ground in many farmers, and to have something like this rip it apart for something so unnecessary is unimaginable,” said Austin Hayek, a Fort Dodge, Iowa, farmer whose land is to be affected if the project goes ahead. “Many have wanted to be able to allow their families to continue their legacy of farming as they want, and if this is allowed, it takes options off the table for them.”

The project is encouraged with federal tax credits as an answer to climate change. It will capture carbon dioxide from ethanol plants, compress the captured CO2, and send it by pipeline to North Dakota where it will be permanently stored underground in deep geologic storage locations.

“Doing so will drastically reduce the carbon footprint of ethanol production and enhance the long-term economic viability of the ethanol and agriculture industries,” Summit’s website explains.

Large-scale carbon sequestration projects receive federal tax incentives like the federal Carbon Capture and Sequestration tax credit, also called the 45Q, which is worth up to $85 per ton of CO2 captured.

Summit expects to store 16.7 million tons of CO2 per year. That amounts to $1.4 billion in tax incentives from taxpayers.

Tax credits can be converted into cash. Companies that have more tax credits than they can use, sell them at a discount to other companies. This way, the seller makes a profit, and the company buying the credits gets a break on their taxes, paying less than face value for the credits.

The decision came after the IUB reviewed nearly 4,200 written comments, 7,500 pages of hearing transcripts, testimony at hearings from more than 200 witnesses and landowners; and the IUB reported receiving some 50,000 pages of prefiled testimony and exhibits from hundreds of witnesses and landowners, accepting more than 150 intervenors into the docket, and conducting 33 public information meetings over 34 months. The IUB heard a range of viewpoints in these materials.

The Sierra Club Iowa Chapter is one group that has partnered with landowners in opposition of the project.

“This is far from over,” Sierra Club Iowa Chapter Conservation Coordinator Jess Mazour said in a statement. “We will appeal this decision and make our arguments in front of a fair decision maker.”

Beijing Tianbing Technology Co., also known as Space Pioneer, suffered a catastrophic failure on Sunday during a static-fire test of the first stage of its Tianlong-3 launch vehicle at a testing facility in the Henan Province.

“The first stage of its Tianlong-3 rocket under development had detached from its launch pad during a test due to structural failure and landed in a hilly area of the city of Gongyi in central China,” Reuters reported. 

Space Pioneer’s two-stage Tianlong-3 (“Sky Dragon 3”) is a partly reusable rocket that is under development to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX. Tianlong-3 is comparable to SpaceX’s Falcon 9.

Footage uploaded on X shows the Tianlong-3’s first stage detached from the test bench due to structural failure and soared into the sky, only to come back and crash down to Earth, igniting in a massive fireball about a mile away from the launch facility.  

The Tianlong-3 spacecraft of the Chinese private aviation manufacturer Space Pioneer malfunctioned after it was launched during the test in Gongyi city of Henan Province, and fell back to the ground, causing a huge explosion. pic.twitter.com/5MOkx3YPLi

— War Intel (@warintel4u) June 30, 2024

Whoops…. possible Tianlong-3 first stage test failure…

source: https://t.co/Z8CAyfPsCl pic.twitter.com/2WWQr4pC4O

— DutchSpace (@DutchSpace) June 30, 2024

“Space Pioneer was conducting its test as a buildup to an orbital launch of the Tianlong-3, which is benchmarked against the SpaceX Falcon 9, in the coming months,” according to Space News, adding, “The company announced earlier this month that it has secured $207 million in new funding.” 

Meanwhile, SpaceX continues to dominate the industry with its reusable rockets.

Data from BryceTech shows that Musk’s rocket company launched an impressive 525 spacecraft (mainly Starlink satellites) in the first quarter of 2024 – more than any other rocket company or nation.

Musk is quite literally America’s rocket program: SpaceX launched about 429,125 kg of spacecraft upmass in the first quarter, significantly outpacing China’s rocket program (China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation), which launched a measly 29,426 kg. 

It’s not just China struggling to compete with SpaceX’s reusable rockets (read: “SpaceX Leads Reusable Rocket Race, While China Continues Crashing Boosters To Earth”) . Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin is also lagging behind. 

While the government may be able to fake BLS and CPI data to gloss over the fact that 5.5% rates have already likely driven the nation into a deep recession, independent data on the housing market is showing a decades-long shortage in inventory starting to rebound. 

A new report from Construction Coverage has revealed where the largest increases in real estate inventory in the U.S. are taking place.

The report notes that the current housing shortage—which is now estimated to be between four million and seven million homes—can trace its beginnings to long before the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 10 years following the Great Recession, the United States constructed fewer new homes than in any other decade since the 1960s.

They write that the lack of housing affects certain areas more severely than others. Researchers ranked locations based on the percentage change in the average monthly housing inventory—the total number of active listings plus pending sales at the end of the month—between Q1 2023 and Q1 2024.

Data from a national level showed that U.S. housing inventory decreased from more than two million in 2012 to a low of approximately 630,000 at the start of 2022.

Over the same period, months’ supply—a measure of how long it would take existing inventory to sell if no new homes came on the market—plummeted from a national high of 7.5 months to a historic low of 1.1 months, the report adds.

It also noted that inventory has rebounded slightly since early 2022: throughout the first quarter of 2024, the national inventory hovered around 970,000 homes for sale, marking a 4.0% year-over-year increase.

Despite this uptick, existing inventory would sustain the current sales pace for just 2.9 months—a marginal increase from the 2.8 months’ supply recorded last year.

The report broke down trends by cities and states, finding that as of the first quarter of 2024, states with the lowest levels of supply are concentrated in and around the Midwest (such as Kansas with 1.5 months of supply) and the Northeast (including Rhode Island with 1.8 months of supply).

However, Washington also stands out for having some of the lowest levels of available housing nationally, with just 1.9 months of supply.

In contrast, several states in the South, led by Florida (5.2 months of supply), along with Hawaii (5.2 months) and Montana (5.1 months), present notably more favorable conditions for buyers.

Among the nation’s largest cities, Denver, El Paso, and Dallas recorded the largest year-over-year increases in housing inventory. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Las Vegas, Raleigh, and Chicago recorded the biggest declines.

The data is hardly a 2008-style collapse, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t noteworthy. 

While the ‘turning of the tide’ still remains muted, the housing market is so large it rarely corrects swiftly. It’s important to notice, however, that rising inventory ticking higher – combined with mortgage rates now over 7% – could easily be telegraphing a correction in prices heading into 2025.

You can view the entire study here.