Authored by Lee Fang via RealClearInvestigations,

Vice President Kamala Harris has long cast herself as a fearless pioneer of efforts to fight for social and environmental justice.

“When I was elected DA of San Francisco,” Harris told a gathering at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta last year, “I started the first environmental justice unit of any DA’s office in the country.”

In her telling, the San Francisco District Attorney formed the special environmental justice unit in the early 2000s especially to protect the long-neglected community of Bayview Hunters Point, a predominantly African American and impoverished part of the city, which had become “a dumping ground for people from other places.” 

In dozens of speeches and interviews in recent years, Harris has bragged that she went “after polluters” and protected minority communities in San Francisco in novel ways as a local prosecutor. 

The narrative has become a bedrock of Harris’ political identity. She featured her DA environmental justice crimes unit in her first statewide television advertisement and she rarely missed an opportunity to tout the history during her presidential bid, during which she promised similar initiatives if elected.

But records from the San Francisco District Attorney’s office and interviews with local environmental advocates point to a different, far less ambitious record. 

“We’re unaware of any major or semi-major environmental justice work done by Harris in Bayview Hunters Point, including on the Hunters Point Shipyard Superfund site,” said Bradley Angel, executive director of Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, a progressive watchdog group that seeks to “to promote environmental, social, economic and climate justice.”

Steve Castleman, an attorney with UC Berkeley’s Environmental Law Clinic, who has worked on urban pollution issues in the Bay Area, also noted that he did not know of any significant Harris environmental justice action as DA.

Far from targeting powerful corporate interests, Harris’ environmental justice unit appears to have filed only a few lawsuits, all against small-time defendants. The targets included a young man who conducted illegal smog checks at a small auto body shop in the city and a left-leaning community newspaper accused of illegally dumping leftover ink in an abandoned lot. Another defendant charged by the unit was a small construction company accused of using adulterated concrete. The major industrial polluters of San Francisco were left untouched under Harris’ watch during her two terms that ended in 2010.

Ernie Apreza, Harris’ spokesperson, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Despite its green reputation, San Francisco has a fraught history of urban pollution, and Bayview Hunters Point, a roughly four-square-mile area with about 35,000 residents, is a notoriously polluted area. The community, once an industrial hub and a beacon for black workers who flocked to the city for jobs during World War II, is filled with contaminated former factories and commercial warehouses. It is currently the site of a scrap metal recycling facility and a notorious sewage treatment plant. Diesel trucks still frequent the neighborhood, often sitting idle and spewing emissions into the air. 

Most of all, there is the toxic legacy of the U.S. Navy shipyard that once occupied this area. The Navy once cleaned and repaired its ships used for atomic bomb missions in the Pacific at Hunters Point. The legacy left all types of hazardous waste from these operations in the soil here, a mess that remains unresolved. The city impaneled a special oversight grand jury to investigate the Hunters Point shipyard. The 2022 report concluded that much of the former area is still a wasteland of not only radioactive materials but also industrial pollution featuring “piles of asbestos, ponds of oil, crushed heavy metals, discarded batteries, spilled acids, and other toxic chemicals.”

The federal contractor hired in 2002 to clean up the area at a cost of about $1 billion, Tetra Tech, has faced major delays and a legacy of fraud. Two of its workers were sentenced in 2018 for falsifying records. Despite claims of progress, radioactive materials continue to be found, as recently as December.

Against this backdrop, there were many potential investigative targets for any aggressive campaign to hold corporate polluters accountable. But Harris, records suggest, was far more keen to provide gestures toward enforcement rather than action.

Harris came into office in 2004 after a bitter campaign, during which she had galvanized much of the city’s donor community to back her bid against an unpopular incumbent. As Harris began building a national profile, she confronted anger around decades of neglect over Bayview Hunters Point. The EPA had deemed much of the neighborhood near the shipyard a Superfund site, yet little action had been taken. At a June 2005 rally in front of city hall, representatives of the Community First Coalition, a local group, complained that the neighborhood had become a “toxic soup” of pollution.

In response, Harris unveiled a new initiative, which she promoted to the media. “Recognizing that criminal prosecution can be an effective way to hold polluters accountable and protect the health of our city’s residents,” read a press release from her office, “District Attorney Harris recently established the Environmental Justice Unit.”

Harris hired Davina Pujari, an experienced prosecutor with a history of environmental law and public integrity cases, to lead the office, and soon after its creation, the EJU pursued its first case.

In December 2004, the DA charged Alameda Publishing Corp. – the parent of several Bay Area newspapers catering to the black community, including the Oakland Post, the San Francisco Post, and the Berkeley Tri-City Post – and two men with felony dumping violations. The year before, the company had reportedly hired the men to haul away about 40 five-gallon buckets of red, green, black, and blue ink. In exchange for $500, the men roamed around and found an empty lot in Bayview Hunters Point where they left the unopened buckets. The crime was hardly that of a sophisticated criminal operation: Stickers left on the buckets identified the newspaper owners. 

The DA’s office came down hard, charging felonies and fees related to removal of the five-gallon containers. The East Bay Express, a local alt-weekly, noted at the time that the charges were brought just one week after the paper’s longtime owner, Velda Berkley, had completed the sale of the paper. A long legal battle ensued between her and the new owner, Paul Cobb. While reporting that no firm connection could be established, the Express reported that Harris’ mother, while denying knowing Berkley, said she “might belong to a bridge group that I have gone to.”

Despite the minor nature of the charges, Harris and her office celebrated the case as a major victory.

“The fact that they’ve been active in the African American community and empowering that community and then they go and dump this waste in another disenfranchised community – the ironies are replete,” said Pujari, hailing the Environmental Justice Unit’s case.

Locals Disappointed

In one of the only other cases brought by the EJU, Harris charged a 26-year-old man with two felonies for operating a fraudulent smog-check station to help drivers bypass mandatory emissions checks on vehicles. 

Harris called a press conference at a gas station, standing side by side with local air quality officials. “We cannot afford any breakdown in the systems that keep high-polluting vehicles off our roadways and their dirty emissions from tainting the air we breathe,” she said.

The disappointing results from the office were noticed by locals. “We are anxious to see some outcome,” Marie Harrison, a Bayview Hunters Point community organizer, told a local media outlet when asked about Harris’ Environmental Justice Unit. But, Harrison noted, “I haven’t seen any outcome as of yet.”

While the unit produced little in terms of environmental justice, it quickly generated political capital. When she successfully ran for California Attorney General in 2010, Harris frequently pointed to the creation of the office to show off her bona fides as a crusader for the Earth. The Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters cited her creation of the unit in their endorsements of her campaign.

The pattern in many ways continued under her job as the state’s top law enforcement official. Harris’ office continued campaigning loudly as an advocate for the environment, but sidestepping cases against the most powerful corporate defendants. Her office reportedly refused to consider charges against utility giant PG&E, which employed many of her campaign aides as paid advisers to the company, over claims that the firm’s reckless actions led to a pipeline explosion that killed eight people and injured another 58. 

Greenaction similarly petitioned her office to take action on the hazardous waste dump in Kettleman, California, an overwhelmingly low-income, Latino city in the Central Valley, that faced myriad health issues because of pollution. The Kettleman case seemed perfect for any environmental justice focus. Harris, however, declined. 

The barriers for effective cleanup of Bayview Hunters Point may have also touched on donor interests. Many powerful groups sought to expedite the development of the land with as little scrutiny of the environmental risks as possible. Records released a few years ago show that a development company with interests in the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard quietly paid $1.3 million to a firm controlled by former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who previously dated Harris and helped connect her to the city’s elite as she started her political career. The payments were for “facilitating communications between the various federal, state and local agencies to accelerate the completion” of the Hunters Point cleanup.

Still Frisco’s ‘Most Polluted’

Yet Bayview Hunters Point and its pollution woes were not entirely forgotten. They remained the focus for Pujari, the attorney Harris tapped to lead the DA’s Environmental Justice Unit. As Harris ascended the political ladder, Pujari went on to work as the outside counsel for Tetra Tech, defending the contractor over claims that it had misled the government and concealed radioactive waste in the neighborhood. Pujari, records show, helped defeat Greenaction in its petitions to the government over the failed remediation work at the contaminated shipyard. Pujari, now a partner at the firm WilmerHale, did not respond to a request for comment.

Last month, she was featured in a press release for her law firm, for helping lead Norfolk Southern in its settlement with the EPA over the 2023 trail derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The disaster released massive amounts of hydrogen chloride and phosgene into the community, a crisis that has hardly been championed by voices in the environmental justice movement. Norfolk Southern escaped criminal liability and admitted no wrongdoing in its settlement. 

As Harris has ascended to the heights of American politics, Hunters Point has remained what Inside Climate News calls “San Francisco’s Most Polluted Neighborhood.” In 2021, an analysis by the state of California concluded that the area was “disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.”

Outside the Bayview public library this month, at a campaign event connected to the city’s upcoming mayoral election, voters were surprised when told of Harris’ purported environmental justice record in the area. “I haven’t heard about any of that, no,” said Yvonne Clark, a longtime resident of the neighborhood.

Authored by Austin Alonzo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Michael Bloomberg, one of the most prominent liberal donors in the United States, is throwing his financial weight behind President Joe Biden.

On June 20, a pair of committees linked to the president’s reelection effort published their monthly disclosures with the Federal Election Commission. The filings showed Biden For President and FF PAC collectively raised about $77.1 million in May. Together, the two groups ended the month with about $183.9 million in cash on hand.

In a June 20 statement to the press, the principal campaign committee for Biden For President announced that the campaign raised more than $85 million during the month and entered June with a “$212 million war chest.”

However, the release did not specify where those funds were deposited. Furthermore, the claims cannot be independently verified because not every committee associated with President Biden released disclosure statements on June 20. A full accounting cannot be performed until the president’s joint fundraising committees publish their financials on July 15.

While the documents do not provide a complete picture of the president’s campaign finances, they shed light on who is offering millions to support his campaign.

Bloomberg Steps Up

President Biden’s allied hybrid political action committee received an eight-figure boost in May.

On May 30, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent FF PAC, or Future Forward, $19 million. The check was the largest cashed by the Biden-supporting PAC in 2024.

Mr. Bloomberg, the founder of the media and financial services company Bloomberg LP, served as New York City’s mayor from January 2002 to December 2013. He was elected as a Republican and changed to an independent in 2007. He briefly ran for president as a Democrat in 2020.

The former mayor and billionaire entrepreneur is the current chair of the Defense Innovation Board. The board exists to consult the U.S. Department of Defense “on catalyzing innovation,” according to its website. Reid Hoffman, a fellow Democrat Party megadonor and Future Forward supporter, also sits on the Board.

In addition to his business career and government work, Mr. Bloomberg is one of the most significant financial supporters of liberal causes.

According to the watchdog organization OpenSecrets, Mr. Bloomberg was the fifth-largest individual donor of the 2022 election cycle, the second-largest donor of the 2020 cycle, the second-largest donor of the 2018 cycle, the tenth-largest donor of the 2016 cycle, the second-largest donor of the 2014 cycle, and the fifth-largest donor of the 2012 cycle.

All told, Mr. Bloomberg has used about $364 million of his wealth on federal political causes between 2012 and 2022. It almost always went toward the Democrat Party or progressive causes.

Mr. Bloomberg is the main financier of Independence USA PAC. According to FEC records, Independence spent about $56.5 million in support of President Biden in 2020.

Simons, Soros, Eychaner, Unions

In May, FF PAC also received millions in donations from a fund linked to liberal megadonor George Soros and from crucial Democrat Party supporters James Simons and Fred Eychaner.

On May 3, a week before his death, legendary investor James Simons sent FF PAC $6.6 million. Mr. Simons was the founder of Renaissance Technologies.

Mr. Simons, who is survived by his wife Marilyn, was a prolific supporter of the Democrat Party and progressive causes. Recently, he contributed $2.5 million to the Democrat-supporting Senate Majority PAC and $2 million to its counterpart House Majority PAC.

On May 7, Democracy PAC, the group linked to Mr. Soros, the Open Society Foundation founder, sent $5 million to FF PAC.

Democracy PAC has received money directly from Mr. Soros, but most of its funding comes from the Fund for Policy Reform Inc., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. According to its tax records, the Fund lists George Soros’ son, Alexander Soros, as a director.

On May 31, NewsWeb Corp. President Fred Eychaner sent $2 million to FF PAC. Mr. Eychaner, a consistent financial ally of President Biden and the Democrats, has now sent $5 million to FF PAC in 2024, according to federal records.

According to donor rankings maintained by OpenSecrets, between the beginning of 2023 and the end of April 2024, Mr. Eychaner made about $18.4 million in political donations. Most of that money went to Democrats or liberal causes.

Along with the megadonors, FF PAC cashed a slew of six- and seven-figure checks from various unions or their associated political action funds and PACs.

In May, five groups—the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Service Employees International Union, Laborers’ International Union of North America, Transport Workers Union of America, and The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada—sent about $3.2 million to the hybrid PAC.

At least two of those unions, SEIU and LIUNA, formally endorsed President Biden’s 2024 campaign. Out of the aforementioned groups, the United Association is the largest individual supporter of FF PAC. According to FEC records, it’s now given the PAC about $1.5 million.

GDP per capita takes the total economic output of a country in a year, and divides it by the total population, providing a measure of a country’s economic performance and living standards on a per person basis.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu visualized GDP per capita for G7 nations, from 2019 to 2029 (forecasted). All figures come from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and are as of April 2024.

Data and Key Takeaways

The data we used to create this graphic can also be found in the table below.

From this data, we can see that the U.S. has managed a very strong post-COVID recovery relative to its G7 peers. While Canada also saw a strong resurgence in 2021 and 2022, its GDP per capita actually fell in 2023.

This is attributed to the country’s high levels of immigration in 2023, which helped boost population by 3.2% (1,271,000 people). Because this increase outpaced economic growth, Canada’s per capita output decreased.

Looking towards the future, the IMF believes that the U.S. will reach a GDP per capita of $101,000 by 2029, which is significantly higher than any other G7 nation. It also believes that the UK will perform well in the second half of this decade, climbing from fourth to second place among this peer group of countries.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out Ranked: The Top 6 Economies by Share of Global GDP (1980-2024).

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

The Lufthansa Group, the biggest airline group in Europe, is introducing a so-called Environmental Cost Surcharge of up to $77.20 (72 euros) per flight to cover part of the costs for using additional volumes of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), the Germany-based airline said on Tuesday.

The surcharge of between $1.07 (1 euro) and $77.20 (72 euros) will apply to all tickets issued from June 26, 2024 with departure from January 1, 2025 from the 27 EU countries as well as the UK, Norway, and Switzerland.

“The surcharge is intended to cover part of the steadily rising additional costs due to regulatory environmental requirements,” Lufthansa said in a statement.

“These include the statutory blending quota of initially two percent for Sustainable Aviation Fuel for departures from European Union (EU) countries from January 1, 2025, adjustments to the EU Emissions Trading System as well as other regulatory environmental costs such as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation.”

Despite investing a lot in new technology and fuels, Lufthansa “will not be able to bear the successively increasing additional costs resulting from regulatory requirements in the coming years on its own,” it said.

“Part of these expected costs for the year 2025 are now to be covered by the new Environmental Cost Surcharge.”

Back in 2022, another major Europe-based airline, Air France-KLM, added a sustainable fuel surcharge on its departures in Europe to help offset the rising costs of using more expensive SAF.  

Last year, Willie Walsh, Director General at the International Air Transport Association (IATA), said that the airline industry would be ready to embrace the fact that SAF would always be more expensive than oil-based jet fuel.

Despite numerous pledges from airlines and government support for SAF production, the alternative of the petroleum-based jet fuel faces challenges in supply, costs, and feedstock, analysts say.

According to the IATA, SAF has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 80%.

Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new study that came out on Friday shows that intermittent fasting may control blood sugar more effectively than popular diabetes medications for people with Type 2 diabetes. Participants on a 5:2 intermittent fasting diet—eating normally for five days and reducing calories for two—had better blood sugar levels and greater weight loss than those on standard diabetes drugs. This suggests that dietary changes could be a potent method for managing diabetes.

Study Highlights and Key Findings

The EARLY [Exploration of Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Overweight/Obese Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus] study, a randomized clinical trial conducted across nine centers in China, assessed the effects of an intermittent fasting diet on glycemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes.

The trial involved 405 participants, divided into three groups: one following the 5:2 fasting diet with meal replacements (MR) and the other two taking either metformin or empagliflozin (drugs to treat Type 2 diabetes).

Those on the 5:2 intermittent fasting diet had two non-consecutive fasting days each week, during which they consumed a low-calorie meal replacement product, limiting intake to 500 calories for women and 600 calories for men.

On the other five days, they ate their usual breakfast and lunch but had a different meal replacement product for dinner while monitoring their overall calorie intake.

All participants received comprehensive dietary and exercise guidance, along with general diabetes education from nutritionists and research physicians.

Over 16 weeks, participants on the 5:2 intermittent fasting diet experienced a significant drop in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels—a key measure of blood sugar control. The fasting group had an average reduction of 1.9 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in the metformin group and 1.5 percent in the empagliflozin group.

The study also reported significant weight loss for those on the fasting diet. Participants in the 5:2 group lost an average of 21 pounds, compared to 12 pounds in the metformin group and 13 pounds in the empagliflozin group.

The study concluded that “the 5:2 MR approach may serve as an effective initial lifestyle intervention instead of antidiabetic drugs for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Intermittent Fasting and Diabetes

Intermittent fasting has garnered significant attention for its potential benefits in managing blood glucose levels, particularly for individuals with Type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Jason Fung, a leading expert in intermittent fasting and author of “The Diabetes Code,” limiting calorie intake on certain days helps stabilize blood sugar levels, improve insulin sensitivity, and reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications.

Fasting allows your body to lower insulin levels and burn stored fat for energy, improving insulin sensitivity. This means your cells are better able to use glucose, reducing overall blood sugar levels. A 2023 study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that 47 percent of intermittent fasting participants achieved diabetes remission.

“It’s nothing more or less than give your body a break and let it burn off all that energy that you’ve stored away because that’s the natural thing to do if you’ve stored too much,” Dr. Fung said in a talk presented at the “Food for Thought 2023: Rising to the challenge of obesity and diabetes” conference.

Another study from 2022, published in the International Journal of Endocrinology, found that intermittent fasting significantly improves blood glucose and lipid levels, as well as insulin resistance, in patients with metabolic syndrome. The meta-analysis showed reductions in fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, insulin levels, and body weight. The study concluded, “Intermittent fasting diets have certain therapeutic effects on blood glucose and lipids in patients with metabolic syndrome and significantly improve insulin resistance.”

A Manageable Approach

The 5:2 intermittent fasting method has shown promise due to its manageable structure. This approach allows individuals to maintain their regular lifestyle most of the week while reaping the benefits of fasting. These studies highlight the potential of intermittent fasting as a practical, non-pharmaceutical approach to managing Type 2 diabetes, offering a flexible option for patients seeking lifestyle-based interventions.

“Studies performed on people with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) have shown that intermittent fasting can lead to weight loss, improvements in glycemic control, and even in some cases, remission of diabetes,” Dr. Andrew Demidowich, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine told The Epoch Times in an email. “This doesn’t mean that intermittent fasting will work for, or is even safe for everyone with T2D, but this dietary strategy is a promising area of active research.”

Practical Tips for Implementing Intermittent Fasting

Dr. Demidowich offers practical tips and considerations for those interested in trying the intermittent fasting diet.

• Start Gradually: If you’re new to fasting, ease into it by gradually reducing your calorie intake on fasting days. This can help your body adjust and make the transition smoother.
• Choose Nutrient-Dense Foods: On fasting days, focus on eating low-calorie, nutrient-dense foods. The meal replacement products used in the study provided essential nutrients while keeping calorie intake low. You can create similar meals with lean proteins, vegetables, and healthy fats.
• Stay Hydrated: Drinking plenty of water is crucial, especially on fasting days. Hydration helps control hunger and keeps your body functioning optimally.
• Monitor Your Progress: Keep a food diary to track your intake and how you feel after eating. Monitoring your blood sugar levels, weight, and overall health can help you understand how intermittent fasting affects your body.
• Consult a Health Care Professional: Before starting any new diet regimen, especially if you have a medical condition such as diabetes, it’s essential to consult with a health care provider. They can provide personalized advice and ensure that the diet is safe for you.

Implementing these tips can make the intermittent fasting diet more manageable and effective, allowing you to experience its potential benefits for blood sugar control and overall health.

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

When I first started researching this, I could hardly believe that it was true. A company in Switzerland known as “Final Spark” has constructed a bizarre hybrid biocomputer that combines lab-grown miniature human brains with conventional electronic circuits.  This approach saves an extraordinary amount of energy compared to normal computers, but there is a big problem.  The lab-grown miniature human brains keep wearing out and dying, and so scientists have to keep growing new ones to replace them. 

Stem cells that are derived from human skin tissue are used to create the 16 spherical brain “organoids” that the system depends upon.  I realize that this sounds like something straight out of a really bad science fiction movie, but it is actually happening.

Scientists at Final Spark are calling their hybrid computer “the Neuroplatform”, and it is being reported that it only uses “a fraction of the energy required to power a traditional set up”…

Swiss tech startup FinalSpark is now selling access to biocomputers that combine up to four tiny lab-grown human brains with silicon chips.

This new bioprocessing platform, called the Neuroplatform, uses small versions of human brains to do computer work instead of silicon chips. The company says it can fit 16 of these mini-brains onto the Neuroplatform and use a fraction of the energy required to power a traditional set up.

The platform, currently adopted by nine institutions, integrates hardware, software and biology to construct a processing system that is energy-efficient and high-performing.

This “breakthrough” is being hailed as a way to save a gigantic amount of energy.

But what about the lab-grown human brains that are being enslaved to run the Neuroplatform?

Each of the 16 mini-brains is made up of approximately 10,000 living neurons, and they are kept alive by a “microfluidics system that supplies water and nutrients for the cells”…

Rather than merely integrating biological concepts into computing, FinalSpark’s online platform ‘taps’ into spherical clusters of lab-grown human brain cells called organoids. A total of 16 organoids are housed within four arrays that connect to eight electrodes each and a microfluidics system that supplies water and nutrients for the cells.

The approach, known as wetware computing, in this case harnesses researchers’ abilities to culture organoids in the lab, a fairly new technology that allows scientists to study what are essentially mini replicas of individual organs.

During their short lives, the mini-brains are literally trained to perform certain tasks using a reward and punishment system…

Researchers do this by training the organoids through a reward system. The organoids are rewarded with dopamine, the neurotransmitter responsible for pleasure (and addiction).

Meanwhile, as “punishment,” the organoids are exposed to chaotic stimuli, such as irregular electrical activity.

If the enslaved mini-brains do what they are supposed to do, they are rewarded with lots of pleasure.

If the enslaved mini-brains do not do what they are supposed to do, they are hit with lots of “irregular electrical activity”.

In other words, these miniature human brains are tortured until they learn to obey.

Reading that should literally make you sick.

What these scientists are doing is so incredibly evil.

Final Spark claims that the miniature human brains use “a million times less power than their silicon counterparts”…

Swiss technology firm Final Spark has successfully launched Neuroplatform, the world’s first bioprocessing platform where human brain organoids (lab-grown miniaturized versions of organs) perform computational tasks instead of silicon chips.

The first such facility hosts the processing prowess of 16 brain organoids, which the company claims uses a million times less power than their silicon counterparts.

Final Spark hopes that their new “technology” will become the primary energy source for the AI revolution.

Because at this point training AI models uses a colossal amount of conventional energy…

According to Final Spark’s estimates, training the popular large language model GPT-3 that powered ChatGPT in its initial days alone consumed 10 GWh of energy. This is a whopping 6,000 times more energy than an average European city consumes in an entire year.

Replacing silicon chips with bioprocessors could lead to drastic energy savings. Final Spark allows research labs to experience the power of biological processors on the Neuroplatform.

To a lot of people out there, this is going to sound really great.

Final Spark insists that the processor that it has created will use a million times less energy compared to a normal silicon chip.

There is just one enormous problem.

The mini-brains keep dying and must be regularly replaced.

At first they would die “in just a few hours”, but now they are apparently living for up to 100 days…

Final Spark faced many challenges in its early years since the organoids would die in just a few hours. The company has worked on this shortcoming and improved its MEA systems to ensure that organoids live for 100 days.

These “organoids” are literally worked to death.

They are hooked up to electrodes and worked until they can work no more…

Final Spark has made working these varied components possible through an innovative setup called Multi-Electrode Arrays (MEAs), where the three-dimensional masses of brain tissue are placed.

Each MEA has four brain organoids that interface with eight electrodes. These electrodes perform the dual role of stimulating the organoids and recording the data they process.

Data transfer is done through digital analog converters with a 16-bit resolution and a 30 kHz frequency. A microfluidic system provides life support for the MEAs, and cameras can monitor their overall operation.

Have you ever seen “The Matrix”?

I was reminded of that film as I researched all of this.

Just like in that movie, human energy powers the entire system.

And just like in that movie, those that power the system are enslaved.

The creators of “the Neuroplatform” insist that this is perfectly okay because the mini-brains are not sentient beings.

Whether that is true or not, what they are doing is still very wrong.

Creating miniature human brains and using them to power a computer may be a way to save a lot of energy, but it also perfectly illustrates how far our society has fallen.

We are crossing lines that should never be crossed, and eventually we will pay a very great price for the crimes that our scientists are committing.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack  newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued the first-ever surgeon general’s advisory on firearm violence on June 25, saying that it poses an urgent threat to the nation’s health and well-being.

The unprecedented advisory calls for a public health approach to address what Dr. Murthy describes as a “moral crisis” that demands immediate and decisive action.

A surgeon general’s advisory is a public statement that calls the American people’s attention to urgent public health issues and is reserved for significant public health challenges that require the nation’s immediate awareness and action.

“Today, for the first time in the history of our office, I am issuing a Surgeon General’s Advisory on firearm violence,” Dr. Murthy said in a video statement.

“It outlines the urgent threat firearm violence poses to the health and well-being of our country. As a doctor, I’ve seen the consequences of firearm violence up close and the lives of the patients that cared for over the years. These are moms and dads, sons and daughters, all of whom were robbed of their physical and mental health by senseless acts of violence.”

The announcement on firearms comes a little over a week after the surgeon general called for a warning label to be placed on social media platforms, stating the potential mental health harms for children using them.

Opponents of the action argue that the surgeon general’s advisory could potentially infringe on Second Amendment rights if enforced improperly, while proponents say it could have a similar impact on public policy and perception as similar advisories, such as those on the dangers of smoking.

Rise in Firearm-related Injuries

Dr. Murthy’s announcement included statistics and personal experiences. According to the advisory, firearm-related injuries have become the leading cause of death for U.S. children and adolescents, surpassing motor vehicle crashes, cancer, and drug overdoses.

In 2022 alone, 48,204 people died from firearm-related injuries, marking a significant increase compared to previous years, according to the advisory.

“Fifty-four percent of adults in America report that they or family members have experienced a firearm-related incident, whether they’ve been personally threatened with or injured by a firearm, lost a family member, witnessed a shooting, or shot a firearm in self-defense,” Dr. Murthy said.

The advisory states that black individuals suffer the highest rates of firearm homicides, while suicide rates are highest among veterans, older white individuals, and younger American Indian or Alaska Native people.

“What is especially devastating is how this has affected our children,” Dr. Murthy said.

Dr. Murthy shared his personal experiences as a doctor, recounting the stories of patients and families affected.

“I’ve sat with parents who’ve lost their child to firearm violence. I’ve listened to their stories and felt their pain as they describe the holes in their hearts,” he said. “As a father, I know a parent’s worst nightmare is to lose a child, to feel like you can’t protect your child from harm.”

Criticism of Policy

Second Amendment advocates with The Heller Foundation have voiced strong criticisms of the approach by America’s chief public health figure.

Kristie Tertel, national director of Legislative Policy for The Heller Foundation warns that the advisory could unlawfully infringe on Second Amendment rights.

“The U.S. Surgeon General is using the guise of a ‘public health emergency’ as an unlawful and unconstitutional means of circumventing the Heller decision,” she told The Epoch Times.

Ms. Tertel emphasizes that the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller established a binding precedent affirming an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense.

She noted Justice Scalia’s majority opinion which stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.”

She added her own personal experience where having a firearm would have helped her avoid being the victim of a crime.

“A firearm is the great equalizer,” she told The Epoch Times. “I am Australian-American and thought guns were dumb—until I needed one. I have over 30 stalkers nationwide. My ex-boyfriend beat me into a coma seven times and left me for dead in a Baltimore dumpster. Two years ago I was brutally drugged and raped and we are now prosecuting him for attempted murder. Had I been armed and trained, it would have all been prevented.”

Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the landmark DC v. Heller case and executive director of The Heller Foundation, also dismissed the advisory’s potential impact on the Second Amendment, suggesting that the real issue lies with criminal behavior, not firearms.

“The only effect the advisory will have on the Second Amendment is the fake news trying to blame ‘helpless’ firearms for what people do,” he said in an interview with The Epoch Times. Heller argued that firearms themselves are incapable of committing crimes, which are actions performed by individuals, often criminals.

“Life is simple, the only helpful use of an advisory would be to have the government keep the killer-animal-violent criminals out of society and locked up in a maximum security jail,” he said. “Of course, this will not happen under the current administration as it does not fit their ‘gun control’ agenda, painting the false picture of ‘It’s Guns Doing Bad Things.’”

lan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, echoed the focus on criminals themselves in an interview with The Epoch Times.

“Criminals break laws. That’s why they’re called criminals,” he said.

“When you have open borders and people coming in and committing violent acts all over the country, this is where your problems are.”

Mr. Gottlieb also took issue with the data behind the Surgeon General’s action.

“First of all, let me say that the data they’re using, saying gun violence is an ‘epidemic’, so to speak, is totally off base,” he asserted.

“Quite honestly, that the Surgeon General is pushing this as a public health crisis really bothers me. Because it’s not a public health crisis. I mean, gun ownership is not a contagious disease.”

Policy Support

Proponents of the advisory argue however that the advisory and proposed actions of the Surgeon General are long overdue.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the report comes weeks after their own advisory council called on such action from the Surgeon General and the White House.

Brady’s Board Chair and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Joseph V Sakran, said in a statement after the announcement that will “create a seachange in the fight to free America from gun violence.”

“Surgeon General reports are renowned publications that take an evidence-based approach to our nation’s most urgent public health issues. Seeing as firearms are now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S., there’s arguably no public health issue that’s more urgent or that warrants the commission of a Surgeon General report more than gun violence,” Dr. Sakran said. “This advisory not only sounds the alarm for all Americans, but it signals there must be greater investments in research and violence prevention solutions.”

He continued by noting how previous reports on public health issues such as the dangers of smoking ignited a slew of initiatives to tackle the issue and they hope the gun-related report will have the same impact.

“As a survivor of gun violence and a trauma surgeon who treats firearm injuries, I am appreciative of both the Surgeon General and the Biden-Harris administration,” continued Sakran. “The best medical treatment is prevention and we are grateful for the advocates who have been calling for this report and the experts who set it into motion, we will finally turn the tides in the fight against gun violence.”

Surgeon General’s Recommendations

The surgeon general’s advisory lays out a comprehensive approach to address firearm violence as a public health crisis.

Key strategies include implementing community violence prevention programs, enhancing firearm risk reduction strategies, improving access to mental health care, and expanding research funding to inform and evaluate prevention efforts.

“Firearm violence is a public health crisis. Our failure to address it is a moral crisis,” Dr. Murthy said. “To protect the health and well-being of Americans, especially our children, we must now act with the clarity, courage, and urgency that this moment demands.”

By adopting a public health approach, similar to those used for other significant health issues like tobacco use and motor vehicle safety, he argues the nation can work toward reducing the impact of firearm violence on communities and future generations.

“Our children should not have to live in fear that they are going to get shot if they go to school,” Dr. Murthy said. “None of us should have to worry that going to the mall or concert, or house of worship means putting our lives at risk, or that we’ll get a call that a loved one in a moment of crisis has taken their own life with a firearm.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Second Amendment advocates and gun control supporters for comment.

Authored by Kenin M. Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

There were two astonishing developments this week in the Biden administration’s continuing attack on free speech. First, just days ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to uphold the Fifth Circuit’s injunction against the administration’s extensive censorship enterprise, a second White House press secretary strongly encouraged the media to chill political debate. Second, Karine Jean-Pierre was masterful in her delivery of the new Biden attack line on “cheap fakes.”

To set the stage: last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a federal district court’s finding that the evidence likely established that the Biden Administration, including then spokesperson Jen Psaki, had engaged in a broad attack on free speech in violation of the First Amendment. It issued an injunction prohibiting the White House and other federal agencies from taking “actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce… social-media content containing protected free speech.”

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed enforcement of the injunction, pending its review. The Court heard oral argument in March. The administration might prevail, despite browbeating social media into blocking core political speech, including criticism of Biden, humor, and discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop. Yes, that same laptop the Justice Department and FBI just admitted were legitimate and tamper-free. A decision is expected within 10 days.

Now, KJP and the administration are doubling down. Attacking a new category of “cheap fake” videos, KJP blasted the media for publishing unaltered video of the president’s frailties. Her objection appears to be that by presenting information about the president out of the context preferred by the administration, this video is, in effect, fake. See here.

While the administration was unclear about the missing context, I infer that it prefers a focus on the presumed majority of the president’s 10 AM to 4 pm, Monday-to-Friday workday during which he is not frozen, wandering aimlessly, mumbling incoherently, or blanking out. I understand that preference, but it is unseemly, and depending on next steps, may be unconstitutional, for a government official, speaking from the White House, to seek to chill free speech.

KJP claimed these videos are “misleading,” “manipulated” and “deep fakes.” A deep fake is false. But, what KJP really means is to falsely allege that the videos are out of context. As such, her attack has all the earmarks of the administration’s censorship campaign against “malinformation.” The administration defines three categories of speech it asserts should be censored, misinformation and disinformation, which include falsehoods, and “malinformation,” which is used out of context, specifically, truthful information that does not have a progressive spin.

Aside from the misinformation in KJP’s attack – the videos presented by mainstream media and respected conservative online publications are revealing, unedited windows into a physically and cognitively impaired president; they are neither out of a context necessary to understand what we are seeing, nor manipulated. Regardless, the White House press secretary (as contrasted to a campaign spokesperson), has no business demanding censorship of videos that paint the president in a bad light. Actions like this led two federal courts to issue injunctions against the White House.

The Supreme Court explained in W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (1943) that “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the Court declared that with few exceptions, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Labeling speech as “misinformation” does not strip it of protection. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that even “false statements” may not be censored, writing “some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views….Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.”

Speaking directly to KJP’s demands, Justice Kennedy added: “The mere potential for the exercise of that [censorship] power casts… a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom….The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth…Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.”

It is irrelevant that the publishers or social media companies will be the instrument of suppression. As Justice Clarence Thomas summarized in 2021, “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

The administration is afraid that voters will learn the truth. It is now up to a free media and the Republican candidate for president to make certain that voters know how to apply that fear.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio and podcasts. He received his A.B., M.B.A., and J.D. from Columbia University.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. Supreme Court justices on June 24 rejected appeals brought over COVID-19 vaccines by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent candidate running for president.

The nation’s top court rejected an appeal seeking to overturn lower court rulings that found that CHD and its members lacked standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its emergency authorizations of COVID-19 vaccines for minors.

The justices also rebuffed another CHD appeal in a case that challenged the COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed on students at Rutgers University, a public college in New Jersey.

The Supreme Court did not comment on either denial. It included them in a lengthy list dealing with dozens of cases.

“Disappointing that the courts are closed to FDA fraud harming millions of Americans,” Robert Barnes, an attorney representing CHD in the FDA case, told The Epoch Times in an email.

He called for Congress to pass reforms.

Julio Gomez, an attorney representing CHD in the Rutgers case, told The Epoch Times in an email that the Supreme Court’s denials marked a sad day because clarity is needed on vaccines and the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a city’s law requiring vaccination against smallpox.

Mr. Gomez pointed to a recent federal appeals court ruling that determined that Jacobson did not apply to a case filed against a vaccine mandate in California because plaintiffs had produced evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Lawyers for Rutgers and the government did not return requests for comment.

In the FDA case, CHD and parents in Texas and Florida argued that the regulatory agency cleared COVID-19 vaccines under emergency authorization despite COVID-19 posing less risk than influenza to children and without adequate clinical testing. The FDA also wrongly promoted the vaccines, the plaintiffs alleged.

U.S. District Judge Alan Albright tossed out the lawsuit in 2023, finding that CHD and the parents did not meet the requirements for standing, or the ability to sue over the actions, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

While the parents said their children were at risk of being vaccinated by other people, they did not show that they faced imminent harm because of the FDA issuing emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines, the judge said. Imminent harm is one requirement for standing.

The judge also said CHD had not shown that its resources were drained in responding to the FDA’s conduct and that it was airing a “generalized grievance,” which is not allowed under Supreme Court precedent.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in January upheld the ruling.

“Plaintiffs contend that the injury-in-fact element is satisfied because a third party might vaccinate their children over their objections, and that such vaccine could allegedly injure them and their children,” the panel stated. “Be that as it may, we agree with the district court that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate an injury in fact because the alleged injury is neither concrete nor imminent.”

Mr. Barnes had urged the Supreme Court to look at the case.

“Can no one sue the FDA? Is that what Article III means?” he wrote in a filing

Government lawyers waived their right to file a brief to the court.

In the case against Rutgers, CHD and some of its members said the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional in part because the Constitution’s due process clause enables people to refuse medical treatment.

U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled against the plaintiffs in 2022, finding that Rutgers mandated vaccination as part of a legitimate goal of protecting the school community from COVID-19 and that the students either brought claims that had become moot because they were granted religious exemptions to the mandate or failed to state a claim.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the decision in February.

In a filing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for CHD said the lower courts erred and that the justices should intervene.

“If government is allowed to mandate experimental vaccines that do not prevent transmission against a person’s right to freely exercise informed consent, then COVID-19 will have eroded one of our most basic liberties—the right to refuse a medical experiment,” they wrote.

Rutgers declined to file a brief with the court.

So much for “showing f**king AIPAC the power of the mother-f**king South Bronx”…

Fire alarm specialist Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York just became the first member of the far-left ‘Squad’ to be unseated as he lost his primary battle to ‘moderate’ Westchester County executive George Latimer.

Mr. Latimer leads Mr. Bowman 54.5 percent to 45.5 percentage points, with 53 percent reporting.

The Associated Press called the race at 9:38 p.m ET.

The two-term congressman is also the first Democratic incumbent to lose their primary this year, capping off a contest that laid bare divisions within the Democratic party that have ruptured over the Israel-Hamas war.

As The Epoch Times’ Michael Washburn reports, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a major pro-Israel group, emerges as another winner from the race after it poured $14 million in ads to boost Mr. Latimer, helping to make this primary the most expensive House race ever, according to ad tracker AdImpact.

Mr. Bowman’s District 16, which covers the northern Bronx and Westchester County, is solidly blue, so Mr. Latimer is likely to win the seat in November.

Bowman’s Two Terms

Washburn goes on to point out that, in 2020, Mr. Bowman unseated longtime incumbent Democrat Rep. Eliot Engel in the primary and then easily crushed his Republican challenger in the fall general election. Mr. Bowman won a second term in 2022, during which he consolidated his reputation as one of the most outspokenly progressive members of the Squad, with a message of antiracism, social justice, and economic equity.

In the race that just concluded, he enjoyed the endorsement of fellow Squad members such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Rep. Cori Bush (R-Mo.), along with powerful Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.).

Mr. Bowman has courted controversy over his staunch pro-Palestinian stance, and by calling accounts of the sexual abuse of Israeli hostages “propaganda,” for which he later apologized.

Last year, he also pulled a fire alarm inside a congressional building during a House vote, for which he pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. He maintains it was an accident.

Middle East in Focus

The congressman’s defeat is consistent with predictions in the run-up to the June 25 election from pollsters, as well as establishment Democrats.

FiveThirtyEight polls gave Mr. Latimer double-digit leads, while prominent Democrats, ranging from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to former state Gov. Andrew Cuomo, had signaled their support for the challenger, who enjoys a reputation of being more in touch with the mainstream sentiment on the Gaza conflict and support for Israel’s war on Hamas.

“The message is clear: antisemitism in any and all forms will not be tolerated in New York. And you can’t call yourself a progressive without making progress,” Mr. Cuomo wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on the morning of June 25, predicting Mr. Bowman’s defeat.

David Carlucci, a former New York state senator who ran in the District 17 primary, north of District 16, in 2020, and who worked for Mr. Engel two decades ago, acknowledged that many voters in Tuesday’s election considered first and foremost where the two candidates stood on Middle East policy.

“The contrast between Latimer’s pro-Israel stance and Bowman’s more critical perspective on U.S.-Israel relations has sharpened the divide among voters with strong opinions on this issue, and has been front and center in this race,” Mr. Carlucci told The Epoch Times.

Democratic candidate for New York’s 16th District George Latimer speaks during a press conference at the Mount Vernon Democratic headquarters on June 24, 2024, in Mount Vernon, N.Y. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

At the same time, some voters made choices based on Rep. Bowman’s and Mr. Latimer’s respective positions on such issues as criminal justice reform, policing and public safety, climate action, and environmental sustainability, Mr. Carlucci said.

Hence, while the Middle East loomed large in this race, many voters’ decisions signify a wide schism between the radical and centrist factions of the Democratic Party, a divide that could grow still further in the months and years to come, he observed.

“This race could reflect broader national trends within the Democratic Party, regarding its diverse opinions and large tent,” he said.