Authored by Dr. Joseph Fraiman via the Brownstone Institute,

The serious-adverse-event signal found in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccine trials has been in the peer-reviewed literature for nearly four years. Mainstream media outlets, on the rare occasions they address it, have treated it not as evidence to be weighed but as misinformation to be managed – dismissed on the authority of experts without relevant expertise, or simply ignored. A recent BBC Radio 4 broadcast is a near-textbook example.

The broadcast aired on Everything Is Fake and Nobody Cares, a BBC Radio 4 series hosted by Jamie Bartlett, whose stated purpose is to ask why, in so much of modern life, fakery is no longer punished but rewarded. It is a reasonable question. The most direct answer the series has produced to date appears inside one of its own episodes.

In the episode in question, Bartlett devoted his broadcast to Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Covid-19 vaccine safety. As part of that segment, he aired a specific claim about a peer-reviewed paper I led, published in the journal Vaccine in September 2022. To evaluate Dr. Malhotra’s on-air statements, Bartlett brought in Dr. Vicky Male, a reproductive immunologist at Imperial College London. Dr. Male told listeners that the authors of the paper had been “specifically told to make it clear this paper should not be used” to support the kinds of claims Dr. Malhotra was making.

That statement is not true. No one told us that. The paper does not contain such an instruction. I am one of its authors; I have the peer review correspondence; I know what the journal asked of us and what it did not. Anyone could have checked this in five minutes by reading the paper, which runs eight pages and is open-access online. Jamie Bartlett did not check.

On the basis of an unchecked false claim about a scientific paper, Bartlett told his audience that Dr. Malhotra was spreading false information – on a podcast whose central premise is that modern life now rewards exactly this kind of thing.

Whether that reflected willful dishonesty or plain incompetence, I cannot say. The case that follows lays out what happened in enough detail for readers to decide for themselves. Both possibilities reflect poorly on a national broadcaster. Only one of them would be excusable.

I. What the Paper Says, and What Dr. Male Said It Says

The most consequential of Dr. Male’s on-air claims was the one I opened with: that the authors were “specifically told to make it clear this paper should not be used to make the kinds of claims Dr. Malhotra is making,” and that Dr. Malhotra’s statement “is not actually correct. The paper doesn’t show that that’s true.”

Told by whom? Dr. Male did not say. Scientific papers pass through three groups of people who could, in principle, issue such an instruction: peer-reviewers, journal editors, and – in some fields – regulators or sponsoring agencies. None of them told us any such thing. The peer review correspondence for our paper is not private. We deposited it publicly alongside our adjudication records and study data at a Zenodo archive, and the paper’s data-availability statement directs readers there. Anyone can read the reviewers’ comments. They contain substantive methodological questions and no such instruction. The editors communicated no such instruction before, during, or after review. There were no sponsoring agencies, because the paper was carried out with no grant funding at all. There was, in short, no one who told us any such thing, because no such exchange took place.

What does the paper actually say?

The closest sentence to the claim Dr. Male described – and this is the one critics occasionally misread – is a standard scope statement from the introduction: “Our study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs so far. To put our safety results in context, we conducted a simple comparison of harms with benefits to illustrate the need for formal harm-benefit analyses of the vaccines that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.” That is a description of what the paper did and did not analyze. It is not a disavowal of the paper’s findings. Every careful research paper contains a sentence like it.

What the paper actually concluded, in its own words, is that the findings “raise concerns that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time of emergency authorization,” and that formal harm–benefit analyses stratified by risk of serious Covid-19 outcomes are needed.

Section 3.4 of the paper, titled “Harm-benefit considerations,” quantifies that ratio directly. In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs was 10.1 per 10,000 vaccinated, against a Covid-19 hospitalization reduction of 2.3 per 10,000 – a harm-to-benefit ratio of roughly 4.4 to 1. In the Moderna trial, the excess risk was 15.1 per 10,000 against a hospitalization reduction of 6.4 per 10,000 – a ratio of roughly 2.4 to 1.

Dr. Malhotra’s on-air statement – that a trial participant was 2 to 4 times more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine than to be hospitalized with Covid – was, if anything, a conservative rendering of what the paper reports. The Pfizer ratio sits just above the top of the range he stated; the Moderna ratio sits near the bottom. Both numbers appear in the paper’s own harm–benefit section. Dr. Male’s statement that the paper “doesn’t show that that’s true” is directly contradicted by the paper itself.

II. The Four Methodology Objections

Dr. Male made four additional methodological criticisms of the paper. Each is answerable on the record.

Timing and Data Access

Dr. Male noted that the reanalysis was done “a couple of years after the fact,” and that the authors did not have access to all of the data.

On the chronology: my co-authors and I began this work in July 2021 – roughly seven months after Pfizer’s phase III results appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, and six months after Moderna’s. What took time was what always takes time in this kind of work: assembling the serious adverse event tables from the sponsors’ published results and regulatory documents, double-blinded adjudication of each event type against the Brighton Collaboration’s pre-specified priority list of Adverse Events of Special Interest, statistical analysis, peer review, and publication. The preprint appeared in June 2022; the peer-reviewed article in September.

On data access, Dr. Male is correct, and we have said so plainly from the start. We did not have individual participant data. That limitation is acknowledged in the paper. Without participant-level data we could not run the stratified subgroup analyses – by age, by comorbidity, by prior infection – that would most inform clinical decisions. On the day of publication, my co-authors and I published an open letter to the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna in The BMJ calling on them to release the individual participant data so a more definitive analysis could be done – by us, or by anyone else.

Four years later, they still have not.

Working only with the public data, we found that in the Pfizer trial there were more serious adverse events in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group – a finding that had not been reported previously. The correct response to “We don’t have the participant-level data” is not to dismiss what the public data show. It is to release the participant-level data.

One implication of this critique is worth naming. Critics who insist the absence of participant-level data is fatal to our reanalysis have been remarkably untroubled that the same data remain withheld by the sponsors themselves. Pfizer and Moderna have administered a novel medical intervention to billions of people worldwide. The raw safety data from the trials that licensed those products are still not public – four years on. If the argument is that no one should draw conclusions from the public SAE tables because the full data would be more informative, the implication is that no one, including regulators and the public, should be confident in the current harm–benefit picture until those data are released. That is not a position most critics of our paper appear willing to hold.

The “Wide Definition” Objection

Dr. Male’s second objection was that the reanalysis used “a very wide definition of side effects, including things that might not have been caused by the vaccine.” This contains a misunderstanding of how randomized trials generate knowledge.

In a randomized trial of a novel intervention, no one – not the investigators, sponsors, or regulators – can determine whether a given individual’s adverse event was caused by the vaccine. That is not a weakness of the paper; it is a fact about how randomization works. The whole point is that the only systematic difference between the two groups is the intervention. If fewer serious adverse events occur in the vaccine arm, the inference is that the vaccine likely reduced them. If more occur in the vaccine arm, the inference is that the vaccine likely caused them. You do not need to adjudicate individual causation. The trial does.

The paper in fact ran two analyses. The first used the widest definition of harm – every serious adverse event reported in the trial, from any cause. This has a known weakness: because most serious adverse events in a large trial are random, a real vaccine-related signal can be drowned in background noise. 

Despite that, in the Pfizer trial serious adverse events were significantly higher in the vaccine group – 127 events versus 93, a 36 percent relative increase and an absolute risk difference of 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95% CI 1.2 to 34.9). Pfizer’s own pivotal NEJM paper stated that “The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.” That statement is not accurate. We wrote to the NEJM to note the error. No correction has been issued.

The second analysis was narrower, not wider. We examined only serious adverse events falling on the Brighton Collaboration’s priority AESI list – a list endorsed by the World Health Organization in May 2020, before the mRNA vaccines were authorized, specifically to pre-specify which adverse events should be monitored in Covid-19 vaccine trials. 

The rationale is the opposite of what Dr. Male described: by restricting the analysis to pre-specified events of biological plausibility, we reduce the random background noise that can hide a real signal. Two independent, blinded clinician reviewers adjudicated every one of the 325 distinct SAE types that appeared across the two trials against that pre-specified list. 

They agreed on classification 86 percent of the time, and disagreements were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. The combined excess risk of serious AESIs was 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). That the signal appeared in pre-specified events – not in scattered random diagnoses – makes chance alone a less plausible explanation, not a more plausible one.

Counting Events, Counting People

Dr. Male’s third objection was that the paper counted events rather than participants, using diarrhea and vomiting in the same patient as her illustration.

On the methodology: event-level and participant-level counts answer slightly different questions, and both are worth knowing. A participant-level count would treat a heart attack followed by a stroke as identical to a single heart attack. An event-level count captures that distinction. Neither metric is inherently correct and neither is inherently wrong. Pfizer and Moderna have not released the participant-level data that would let us publish both, so we published what the public data allowed. Where participant-level data was visible in Pfizer’s published tables, the direction is the same: more individual participants had at least one SAE in the vaccine arm than in the placebo arm, and among those who did, vaccine-arm participants were roughly twice as likely as placebo-arm participants to experience more than one – 24 versus 13.

What I want to address more directly is the diarrhea example. Dr. Male used it straightforwardly, and I do not fault her for that. But the handful of other critics who have discussed our paper on YouTube and on mainstream podcasts have landed on the same example almost without exception – and several have discussed it in a jovial, smiling register, as if the word alone is meant to be funny. Across 325 distinct SAE types in the analysis, virtually every critic reaching a general audience has chosen the same one.

I speak as an emergency physician. A case of diarrhea severe enough to meet the regulatory threshold of a serious adverse event is not “the runs.” The regulatory definition requires hospitalization, life-threatening illness, persistent or significant disability, or death. The serious-diarrhea patients I have personally cared for have been elderly, immunocompromised, acutely dehydrated, hypotensive, in acute kidney injury, or septic from C. difficile. 

Diarrheal illnesses are estimated to kill about 6,000 Americans each year in CDC mortality data – more than the roughly 4,500 Americans who die annually of HIV/AIDS. No serious person in medicine jokes about HIV. The mortality numbers for serious diarrhea are larger. Physicians on podcasts presenting themselves as responsible scientific communicators should be able to see the problem with their own tone.

With 325 distinct SAE types to choose from – coagulation disorders, cardiac injury, myocarditis, encephalitis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, thrombosis, and dozens of others – the decision to keep returning to the one with a punchline-friendly name is a rhetorical move, not a scientific one. If the argument is that our methodology swept in events that should not have counted, the argument should be made with the 30 to 50 SAE types across the two trials where reasonable clinicians could disagree on the adjudication, not with the one that generates an involuntary half-smile from a lay audience.

We took that concern seriously enough to run the exercise ourselves. In response to an earlier critique from the FDA, we performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded every SAE whose inclusion had required a subjective clinical judgment – chest pain and the other calls where reasonable clinicians might have adjudicated differently. The findings were consistent with the original analysis. The excess remained. The subjective judgments, in other words, were not what was generating the signal. That sensitivity analysis is publicly posted on our Zenodo archive, alongside the rest of the study data.

One related point, because critics of our paper commonly argue that a Covid-19 hospitalization is obviously more serious than a case of serious diarrhea, and therefore the harm–benefit comparison is itself unfair. As an ER physician who has treated hundreds of hospitalized Covid-19 patients, I can say this does not match what actually happens in a hospital. Most patients admitted with a positive Covid test during most periods of the pandemic were not critically ill; many did not need supplemental oxygen at all and would have recovered at home. 

The UK data confirm this. In the UK Health Security Agency’s 2023 appendix to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation – the document underpinning the UK’s official NNV calculations for the autumn 2023 booster – UKHSA defined a “severe” Covid-19 hospitalisation as one requiring at least a 2-day stay with documented use of oxygen, ventilation, or ICU admission. 

Across the population rates reported in that document, the ratio of all Covid-19 hospitalisations to severe Covid-19 hospitalisations is roughly 10 to 1. Approximately 90 percent of Covid-19 hospitalisations in the UK surveillance data did not require oxygen, ventilation, or ICU admission. When critics invoke the mental image of a Covid hospitalization to make our harm–benefit comparison look absurd, they are invoking the severe 10 percent and quietly generalizing it to the other 90.

Time Runs Both Ways

Dr. Male’s fourth objection was that side effects typically occur in the first days or weeks after vaccination, whereas protection against Covid-19 lasts months. Compared in that way, she argued, the paper underestimates the vaccine’s benefit.

She is partly right, and we said so in the paper. The vaccines did reduce symptomatic Covid-19 for longer than the roughly two-month window the trials analyzed, and a longer blinded follow-up would likely have shown larger reductions in Covid-19 hospitalizations, improving the ratio on the benefit side.

The problem is that the concern is applied asymmetrically. Dr. Male extends the benefit side beyond the trial window while implicitly assuming the harm side does not. That assumption is not justified. Spike protein has been detected in circulation in some individuals for months following vaccination – not the short-lived pharmacokinetic profile initially described to regulators and the public. Autoimmune disease and certain neurological disorders often begin insidiously around a triggering event but are not formally diagnosed until months or years later. 

Physicians who treat long Covid and post-vaccine injury patients – who often overlap clinically – consistently report that many of their patients carry debilitating symptoms for long periods before receiving a formal diagnosis. Prolonged disability is, by regulatory definition, a serious adverse event. If a material fraction of vaccine-associated serious adverse events take months to declare themselves, the short trial window underestimated the harm side of the ledger, not just the benefit side.

Had the Pfizer and Moderna trials continued in their original blinded form for two years, with boosters administered at realistic intervals and both Covid-19 hospitalizations and serious adverse events tracked throughout, the long-run harm–benefit ratio would be empirically knowable. It is not. The trials were unblinded early, placebo recipients were offered the vaccine, and the scientific question was effectively surrendered. I agree with Dr. Male that a longer analysis would be informative. I would welcome the data.

A Model Is Not a Trial

One further on-air claim deserves direct response. To counter our trial-based findings, Dr. Male cited a modeling study estimating that the vaccines saved millions of lives. What the audience was not told is that this figure does not come from clinical trial data. It comes from a mathematical model.

Such models rely on efficacy inputs drawn from post-authorization observational studies, which are notoriously vulnerable to the “healthy user effect.” Individuals who proactively seek vaccination are, on average, healthier and have better baseline mortality than those who do not. Because observational studies lack randomization, they routinely overestimate benefits. The problem compounds at the modeling stage. The standard class of vaccine-impact models contains no term for vaccine-caused harm; it treats vaccine mortality as zero by construction.

You cannot use a zero-harm mathematical model, fed by healthy-user-inflated observational inputs, to refute an excess harm signal found in the sponsor’s own randomized, placebo-controlled trials. To present such a model to a lay audience as proof that a randomized trial’s harm–benefit analysis is incorrect is methodologically incoherent.

III. The Journalist Who Needed a Doctor

Dr. Male is a respected scientist. Her research on natural killer cells in pregnancy and the uterine immune environment is substantial, and her published work in reproductive immunology speaks for itself. In the BBC segment, she did not claim expertise in clinical trial methodology or evidence-based medicine, and for all I know she was offering informal responses to a journalist’s questions – something any academic would do if a BBC reporter called. I do not fault her for the errors in what she said about our paper. If a journalist asked me to interpret a molecular immunology study on NK cell signaling pathways in the decidua, I would get things wrong too, and I would deserve the same grace I am extending here.

My issue is with the journalist.

The BBC is the broadcaster UK audiences consistently rank among their most trusted sources for news. It is not a fringe outlet, and a failure of basic journalistic practice there is not a fringe problem. This is the same institution whose Director-General and Head of News resigned in late 2025 after the corporation misleadingly edited a speech by Donald Trump – a failure its own reporter acknowledges, on tape, inside this very episode.

Jamie Bartlett told his audience, more than once, that much of what Dr. Malhotra said sounded reasonable, but that he himself was not a doctor and could not evaluate the clinical evidence being cited. He said he needed to find an expert who could help him sort through it. That framing – I am the humble generalist, I need a specialist to guide me – is a legitimate journalistic move when the specialist actually has relevant expertise. 

Dr. Male is an immunologist who studies NK cells in pregnancy. She is not an epidemiologist, a biostatistician, a pharmacologist, or a clinical trialist. She does not hold a medical degree and does not treat patients. She has no published record in the interpretation of randomized controlled trials, harm-benefit analysis, or vaccine safety signal detection. Dr. Malhotra, whatever one thinks of his public positions, is a consultant cardiologist who treats patients and is the author of a widely cited BMJ editorial on evidence-based medicine. He has spent over a decade writing and lecturing on the interpretation of clinical trial evidence for public audiences – which is, in fact, exactly the skill set Bartlett said he was looking for.

Bartlett knew whom he had found. He chose to present Dr. Male to his audience as the expert who could adjudicate Dr. Malhotra’s claims about a clinical trial reanalysis. That is not a neutral editorial decision.

What followed was worse. By the end of the segment, the same reporter who had opened by confessing he was unqualified to evaluate the evidence had graduated to confidently declaring that Dr. Malhotra’s claims were not true, that he was unsure why Dr. Malhotra held such views, and that the audience should regard them with deep suspicion. 

The journey from “I’m not a doctor and I can’t evaluate this” to “I can now tell you this is false” was accomplished entirely by outsourcing the evaluation to someone who lacked the relevant expertise to perform it – and then treating that person’s answers as settled fact.

Dr. Male’s most consequential claim on the segment was the one at the top of this piece: that the authors were “specifically told” not to use the paper the way Dr. Malhotra was using it. You do not need a medical degree or a PhD in epidemiology to check whether a published paper contains a specific sentence. You need to be able to read. The paper is eight pages long, open-access, and was the centerpiece of Bartlett’s own segment. 

A reporter who built an entire broadcast around a peer-reviewed study, and who took the time to record cheap shots about how Dr. Malhotra was “bombarding” him with data and telling stories that are “just more exciting,” could not be bothered to read the paper himself and verify whether Dr. Male’s most important claim about it was true. It was not. The host of a podcast about why fakery is no longer punished had, in his own broadcast, produced a specimen of exactly that phenomenon. On the basis of that unchecked claim, he told his audience that Dr. Malhotra was spreading false information.

One more failure of basic journalism is worth naming. During the segment, Dr. Male stated that she does not receive pharmaceutical industry funding. Bartlett accepted this at face value and used it to frame Dr. Malhotra’s concerns about financial conflicts as conspiratorial thinking. Two minutes of searching would have complicated the picture. Dr. Male’s publicly declared research funders include the Wellcome Trust and the UK Medical Research Council. 

The Wellcome Trust was founded from the estate of Sir Henry Wellcome, the pharmaceutical magnate who built the company that became GlaxoSmithKline; from 1936 to 1995 the Trust was the sole or majority owner of that pharmaceutical company, and its current £37.6 billion endowment derives from that origin. The UK Medical Research Council describes “alignment with industry” on its own website as central to its strategy, with formal partnerships with AstraZeneca, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB, and more than £100 million in industry contributions to MRC-funded research since 2010.

It is entirely possible that Dr. Male has never examined the provenance of her grant funding, and I do not fault her for that – most researchers do not. But the journalist who spent time on air suggesting that Dr. Malhotra was peddling conspiracy theories about pharmaceutical influence could have determined, with a single Google search, that the expert he had chosen to adjudicate that very question receives her salary support from organizations founded by, or formally partnered with, the pharmaceutical industry. He did not perform the most basic job of a journalist – to fact-check his source. Instead, he had a recording of a denial, used it as a sound bite, and moved on to the next cheap shot.

I cannot determine from the evidence available to me whether Jamie Bartlett knew any of this and broadcast his claim anyway, or whether he simply failed to do the work. The case for either reading is in what he aired.

IV. The Filter

There is a second, uglier layer to the claim that the authors “were told” anything. After our paper was published, Vaccine published two Commentaries critical of our findings – one in 2023, another in 2024. In both cases, the journal declined to share those critiques with me or my co-authors in advance, and declined to invite us to respond – a courtesy that is standard scholarly practice, and that one of the editors had promised in writing. In January 2025, we submitted a short response letter on our own initiative. The editor-in-chief rejected it without peer review.

A scientific journal willing to publish criticism of a paper it had peer-reviewed and accepted, and then unwilling to publish the authors’ response to that criticism, is the opposite of how scholarly exchange works. None of my co-authors had ever encountered it before, and we have looked.

The same pattern reaches beyond the journal. Our paper was labeled “misinformation” on social platforms after publication – a label that, to my knowledge, has never been applied to any peer-reviewed study reporting favorable vaccine outcomes, however methodologically thin.

Dr. Male, through her commentary on the BBC, does not appear to realize that any of this is happening. That is itself part of the problem she is describing – an expert confident in the consensus because she cannot see the filter that produced it.

Conclusion

The paper I led still stands. Its findings have not been refuted; they have been disputed, and the dispute has been handled by a scientific journal in a manner that none of us had ever encountered before. Our finding is straightforward: in the pivotal phase III trials of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, serious adverse events of special interest occurred more often in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group, at a rate that exceeded the reduction in Covid-19 hospitalizations within the trial window. That finding has implications for how the vaccines should be used going forward, particularly in populations at lower baseline risk of serious Covid-19.

The evidence would be settled quickly if Pfizer, Moderna, and the FDA released the individual participant data. Until then, the public is entitled to a more honest discussion than the one broadcast on the BBC. Dr. Male is welcome to disagree with my conclusions. She is not entitled to tell listeners that the paper says something it does not, and neither the BBC nor Jamie Bartlett is entitled to build a narrative of false information on the back of a claim they did not bother to verify.

The paper is in the public record. The journal that published it is in the public record. The journal’s subsequent refusal to publish our response is, now, also in the public record. Readers are intelligent adults. They can weigh the evidence themselves – which is, after all, the only reason peer-reviewed science gets written down in the first place.

What the BBC broadcast illustrates – whether one reporter’s willful dishonesty, one reporter’s incompetence, or both – fits a pattern that has been in place for nearly four years: mainstream coverage of Covid-19 vaccine safety outsourced to experts who were not asked to read the evidence, and the evidence that remains labeled “misinformation.” The public has been entitled to a more careful discussion from the start. Readers are welcome to decide for themselves whether that is what they have been given.

Jamie Bartlett’s podcast is called Everything is Fake and Nobody Cares. He is half right.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman is an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Fraiman earned his medical degree from Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, NY and completed his training at Louisiana State University, where he served as Chief Resident as well as Chairman of both the Cardiac Arrest Committee and the Pulmonary Embolism Committee.

Authored by Rob Jenkins and Michael R. Jenkins via the Brownstone Institute,

Within academia, there seems to be a growing consensus that the peer-review system—once the backbone of academic scholarship—is broken. But is it irreparably so? Perhaps. At the very least, the breakdown of its current form is worth exploring. However, rather than abandoning the entire endeavor, we believe we have a novel solution. First, though, let us examine where the system went wrong.

In the Middle Ages, most scientific research was self-published, as scholars shared their findings among themselves. But, as the profession grew, that became impractical, and the scientific journal was born as a way of disseminating information. A scholar would have an idea, investigate, summarize his conclusions, and submit the resulting manuscript to a journal. There, the editor or editors would consider it and decide whether to publish the work as-is, request revisions, or reject it altogether. Over time, as the number of scholars continued to proliferate, all of them under increasing pressure to publish, publish, publish—in order to be hired, earn tenure, and qualify for grants—the task of journal editors became overwhelming. There were just too many submissions to give them all fair consideration.

And so they came up with the idea of farming out their evaluation of submissions to teams of unpaid reviewers, other scholars in the same field or a related field who were (theoretically, at least) qualified to judge the quality of the research under consideration. This would relieve some of the burden on the editors while also bestowing an additional stamp of legitimacy on the finished product. Whether a given piece of scholarship was worthy of publication was to be determined not just by one or two people but rather by a group of “blind” experts. Thus, the label “peer-reviewed” became the gold standard for scholarly research. A publication in a “peer-reviewed journal” has long been considered essentially unassailable, to the point that politicians and media types seem convinced they can win any argument simply by referencing a piece of “peer-reviewed research.”

It was initially a pretty good system, and it worked reasonably well for a long time. But it seems to have now run its course. Tenure requirements have become more quantitative. The internet has decreased barriers to submission, encouraging more scholars to submit more articles to more journals. The number of submissions from Asian, African, and Middle Eastern universities has exploded. Even with more journals and more reviewers, the system has broken down, as all large, complex systems eventually do. We know this to be the case because of a problem first identified 20 years ago by Stanford scientist John Ioannidis, which has since come to be known as the “replication crisis.”

One of the hallmarks of good science is that an experiment can be replicated—that is, another researcher using the same methodology will achieve the same result, meaning the findings are both valid and consistent. But what Ioannidis argued in his seminal 2005 article “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (updated in 2022) was that, well, most published research findings are flawed. The experiments can’t be replicated, casting their validity into question.

Other scholars have since taken issue with Ioannidis’s thesis, especially his use of the word “most.” Social scientists, in particular, argue that experiments involving human subjects often can’t be replicated precisely because people are themselves inconsistent. Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that the replication crisis is real, if not quite as widespread as Ioannidis suggests.

What does this have to do with peer review? Obviously, if the system were functioning as intended, with teams of bona fide experts checking and double-checking each other’s work, we might expect that very few flawed studies would slip through. In other words, there wouldn’t be a replication crisis if peer review actually worked.

Unfortunately, the accuracy of the system isn’t even the biggest issue. Like many institutions, it has devolved into a highly politicized echo chamber. Rather than a mechanism for determining and disseminating truth through a system of scholarly checks and balances, peer review has become an instrument for promoting and enforcing orthodoxy. No longer a community of scholars rigorously but collegially testing each other’s hypotheses, journal editors and reviewers have appointed themselves gatekeepers. Only those who recite the correct passwords are admitted.

Take the field of climate research, for example. For at least a couple of decades now, the scientific consensus has been that anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat to humanity. Anyone who challenges that orthodoxy, regardless of the quality of his research or the logic of his arguments, finds it very difficult to publish his findings in leading journals. The gatekeepers (read: reviewers) simply won’t allow it.

Or how about transgender ideology? Even before we learned that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) was hiding and manipulating its data, why did very few scholars question the claim that social, medical, or surgical transitioning for minors reduced their suffering? You know the answer: They knew they couldn’t do so without derailing their careers. Even now, we take a professional risk just by pointing this out. That is not science, which advances the search for truth; it is politics, which impedes it.

In all fairness, it’s easy to understand why this happens. We’re not even claiming it’s entirely nefarious. It’s just human nature. Ideas that challenge the prescribed way of thinking have always been unpopular among those doing the prescribing, going back to Copernicus and Martin Luther. New findings and the theories that grow out of them threaten to discredit the theories of the previous generation of scholars—and guess who primarily serves as reviewers? When we say “politics,” we don’t necessarily mean that in the partisan sense but, rather, in the personal sense: Whose ox is being gored?

But, of course, partisan politics—and ideology, specifically—often enter into the equation, as well. Even in disciplines that are not as politically fraught as climatology or “gender studies”—such as accounting or marketing—young scholars must still bow to the ideological gods of their seniors. They must pay proper homage to concepts such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” “whiteness,” and “marginalized populations,” even if those concepts have nothing whatsoever to do with their research or, worse, are unsupported by their findings. And, of course, if they really want to be published, they will find some way to tie those findings into the political flavor of the month. Hence, we get articles with titles such as “How Branding for Whiteness Disadvantages BIPOC Consumers” or “Addressing Marginalized Populations in Management Research.” (One of these is real; the other we made up. Can you tell which is which?)

So, what now? We believe it is time to return to the medieval “community of scholars” model—with a 21st-century twist. Sure, in most disciplines, it is nearly impossible to get all scholars together to pass around manuscripts (as anyone who has been to a conference can attest), but, with modern technology, scholars can indeed “pass around” their manuscripts, sharing their work-in-progress with colleagues from across the country and around the world.

Our idea involves creating official online forums for each discipline, where scholars can post essays about their ideas at any stage, laying out the theoretical background, proposing hypotheses, disclosing research findings (including methodology), and extrapolating to implications or predictions. Other scholars in the community can comment on those essays, offering critiques, providing missing information, and suggesting new directions in which to take the research. They can also try the experiments themselves to see if they get the same or similar results and “report back” to the group. Then the original authors can take that information and apply it to their further exploration of the research topic.

One advantage of this approach is that it is iterative, with each scholar building on the efforts of those who came before. Another is that scholars can “publish” regardless of their results. A common criticism of the current peer-review system is that scholars can publish only if they get positive results. Yet negative results are also results and help, in their own way, to advance knowledge. Just as scholars need to know what has been found to be true in order to build on that progress, so they must also know what has been proved to be false so they can avoid the same pitfalls.

Submissions to the forums would be time-stamped, so authors could easily prove ownership of ideas. The posts could be hyperlinked to make follow-up research and citations quick and easy. To discourage bad actors, there would be no anonymity for contributors and commenters. And the forums would be lightly moderated to ensure posts met scholarly standards, with appropriate decorum, civility, and attribution. But all ideas would be entertained. There would be no gatekeeping. Instead, the community would police itself, “ratioing” (to use the social-media term) rather than censoring “bad” ideas.

Obviously, in order for this system to ultimately take the place of the current peer-review system, universities would need to embrace it and figure out how to evaluate scholars’ productivity for the purposes of granting tenure and so forth—perhaps based on the number of posts and the reaction to them from the community.

But we believe this is where things are headed, and universities, disciplines, and learned societies would do well to get on board. The current system has outlived its usefulness, becoming a hindrance to the pursuit of truth rather than a means of supporting it.

In the latest development with private equity firms making moves in the nuclear industry, Arlington Capital Partners has acquired nuclear engineering specialist ENERCON from funds managed by Oaktree Capital Management. 

The deal includes merging ENERCON with Arlington portfolio company Pond & Company. The combined entity will operate under the ENERCON name, creating a powerful nuclear engineering firm with more than 2,700 professionals.

And then there is the issue of where the US gets 300,000 engineers to build all this missing power supply by 2030 https://t.co/a18crhqZ4v pic.twitter.com/tinW8SHDwM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 14, 2025

ENERCON currently supports ~90% of the nation’s nuclear plants. It also holds capabilities in small modular reactors and large-scale reactor projects. Pond contributes with strengths in federal energy, natural gas infrastructure, and mission-critical engineering services. Together, they form an end-to-end provider for regulated power and energy infrastructure.

Arlington Managing Partner Michael Lustbader highlighted the strategic timing. “We have begun a once-in-a-generation structural shift in power demand driven by AI, the onshoring of manufacturing, and changing national security priorities,” he said.

This transaction is the latest in a string of acquisitions signaling intense interest in nuclear-related engineering and services capacity…

In December, advanced reactor developer Natura Resources purchased Shepherd Power from NOV Inc. The move bolstered Natura’s project deployment, regulatory, and licensing expertise as it advances molten salt SMR commercialization for data centers and industrial users.

Earlier this year, Swedish nuclear services firm Studsvik acquired Kärnfull Next for approximately €6.5 million. The deal expands Studsvik from supporting existing fleets into full project development for new SMR initiatives in Sweden and beyond.

Energy Capital Partners also recently announced plans to acquire EnergySolutions (for the second time), a provider of integrated nuclear services spanning maintenance, modifications, decommissioning, waste management, and lifecycle support.

We just detailed this concern for lack of specialized labor in the nuclear industry with the breakdown of a report from Barclays. There is serious demand for specialized engineering talent and capacity as the nuclear renaissance gathers momentum. With utilities and tech giants alike racing to secure reliable, dispatchable zero-carbon power, the bottleneck in qualified engineering resources is becoming evident. 

Summary

• Bessent on X: “Amid the impact of Economic Fury, Iran’s currency has hit an all-time low. The Iranian people deserve a new era, which the corrupt and shambolic Iranian regime cannot provide.” Signals hope for uprising, regime change.

• Israeli Defense Minister Katz: “soon we will need to act again in Iran to ensure that the regime cannot threaten Israel for years to come.” Oil spikes on this and new reports of Israeli defense build-up at ports, air hubs.

• Not giving up nuclear program: Iran will “guard” its “advanced technologies” like it does its own borders, Mojtaba Khamenei said in a written speech read aloud by state TV. It will “secure the Persian Gulf region and dismantle the hostile enemy’s exploitation of this waterway.”

• US military teases cutting-edge, not yet tested in battle, hypersonic missiles for Mideast region as CENTCOM head set to brief Trump on further military options at White House.

• Brent crude for June delivery reached as much as $126 a barrel in trading on Thursday, before easing to $114 – as oil prices have surge to their highest levels since 2022 as Trump mulls a military-enforced Iran blockade extension.

*  *  *

Bessent Gloats Over Iran’s Collapsing Currency, Signals Hope For Uprising

Amid chatter that Israel could be preparing for renewed attacks on Iran, and as Trump is said to be mulling more limited strikes – but while at the same time the USS Gerald R Ford is returning to the United States after a record deployment – Iran is signaling it is ready for a long war and can endure the US naval blockade for a long time to come. However, there are also unconfirmed reports out of Pakistan that another draft peace proposal could be presented by Tehran as soon as this weekend. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has newly said Thursday the blockade is effectively an “extension of military operations” by Washington, despite the extended ceasefire declared by Trump.

Also on Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled that the US administration gameplan seems to be to drive Iran into economic ruin, in hopes of triggering some kind of uprising toward regime change. But this was the exact same ‘prediction’ and gameplan in the opening days of the war – which never materialized. One the one hand his below message on X seems to gloat over imposing widescale misery over the bombed-out country, while on the other claiming to help and support the Iranian people, saying they “deserve a new era”. 

As we reported earlier, Iran’s currency on Wednesday collapsed to a record low, plunging to 1.8 million rial per dollar amid the prolonged US-Israel war and uneasy ceasefire, also as surging global energy prices hit the economy. The rial began sliding sharply two days prior to this after weeks of artificial stability. In the early phase of the war that kicked off on February 28, the currency held steady due to a near-total halt in imports and limited market activity.

“We think the price was worth it” vibes…

Amid the impact of Economic Fury, Iran’s currency has hit an all-time low.

The Iranian people deserve a new era, which the corrupt and shambolic Iranian regime cannot provide.

With their oil industry closing and their currency plummeting, it is past time for the Iranian regime… pic.twitter.com/k7QvKoWbl2

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) April 30, 2026

Oil Spikes on Israeli Defense Chief’s Threats of New Strikes

Israel Defense Minister Katz has said in a Thursday briefing: “It is possible that soon we will need to act again in Iran to ensure that the regime cannot threaten Israel for years to come,” according to a local reporter.

According to more, he said that while Israel supports the United States’ diplomatic efforts with Iran, it may “soon be required to act again” to remove the “existential threats” posed by the Islamic Republic.

“Iran has suffered extremely severe blows over the past year, blows that have set it back years in all areas,” Katz continued at a military ceremony. “US President Trump, in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is leading the effort to complete the campaign’s objectives in a way that ensures Iran will not return to being a threat to the existence of Israel, to the United States, and to the free world for generations to come,” he added. “We support this effort and provide the necessary backing, but we may soon be required to act again to ensure the objectives are achieved.” Oil prices shooting back up on the headline, and as Israeli media reports on a new military build-up and US defense aid at the country’s ports…

The below is via AP on a “new plan” being mulled by Trump:

Under the plan, the United States would continue its blockade on Iranian ports, while coordinating with allies to impose higher costs on Iran’s attempts to subvert the free flow of energy, according to a senior administration official. Trump is weighing multiple diplomatic and policy options to push Iran to end its chokehold on the waterway, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

Khamenei: Protect Nuclear Program, Gulf Region Will Have Future Without America

Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has never released video or voice messages, and he’s still not been seen or even photographed since the war’s start, and is believed to be severely injured and recovering. State TV on Thursday read aloud his written speech, which struck a defiant tone, declaring that the only place Americans belonged in the Persian Gulf is “at the bottom of its waters” and that a “new chapter” was being written for the whole region. State media cited security as the reason for having to read aloud his statement.

Khamenei says Iran will closely guard and protect its nuclear and missile capabilities, a clear and direct rejection of President Trump’s demand to hand over enriched uranium as the basis for a deal. Iranians will cling to the country’s nuclear and missile capabilities “as their national capital and will guard them like water, land and air borders,” Khamenei said.

Chilling: Iran supreme leader issues statement saying:
— only place Americans belong in Persian Gulf is ‘at the bottom of its waters
— Iran will protect nuclear capability
—Iran will keep Hormuz

Iran is not surrendering— it’s preparing for escalation https://t.co/rFkkH0TTVh

— Robert A. Pape (@ProfessorPape) April 30, 2026

“By God’s help and power, the bright future of the Persian Gulf region will be a future without America, one serving the progress, comfort and prosperity of its people,” Khamenei continued. “We and our neighbors across the waters of the Persian Gulf and the (Gulf) of Oman share a common destiny. Foreigners who come from thousands of kilometers away to act with greed and malice there have no place in it – except at the bottom of its waters.” He also vowed Iran’s forces will “secure the Persian Gulf region and dismantle the hostile enemy’s exploitation of this waterway.”

US Teases Hypersonic Missiles, CENTCOM to Brief Trump

As we detailed Wednesday night, United States Central Command has requested deployment of the Army’s long-delayed hypersonic Dark Eagle to the Middle East for potential use against Iran, seeking a longer-range capability to strike ballistic missile launchers deep inside the country, Bloomberg first reported. If approved, the move would mark the first deployment of the hypersonic system, which remains behind schedule and has not been declared fully operational, even as Russia and China have already long ago fielded their own versions.

The Pentagon has claimed time and again of late that it has local air superiority, meaning that in some parts of Iran its aircraft can operate without facing much of a threat. And yet dozens of MQ-9 aircraft, plus several crewed fighters, have been downed, showing that other parts of Iran’s airspace remain dangerous.

The Bloomberg report hit just as Axios rehashed an earlier report, according to which President Trump will receive a briefing on new plans for potential military action in Iran on Thursday from CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper. The briefing signals that “Trump is seriously considering resuming major combat operations either to try to break the logjam in negotiations or to deliver a final blow before ending the war.”

Meanwhile the Iranian side has been claiming dozens of its vessels have breached the US naval blockade, which the Pentagon has been denying. Others say that while some ships have traversed the strait, they have not actually fully crossed the blockade.

Fifty two Iranian vessels have crossed a US-imposed blockade of Iranian waters within a 72-hour period…
https://t.co/mZrwK5qijI

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) April 29, 2026

IAEA Chief on Global Energy Crisis, Oil

The head of the International Energy Agency (IAEA) has emphasized in new remarks that the world is facing its biggest energy crisis in history due to the war. “The oil markets and gas markets are going through big difficulties. When I looked last time, the oil price was over $120 which is putting a lot of pressure on many countries,” executive director Fatih Birol said at a conference in Paris. “Our world is facing a major economic and energy challenge.”

Indeed, benchmark Brent crude for June delivery reached as much as $126 a barrel in trading on Thursday, before easing to $114 – as oil prices have surge to their highest levels since 2022 as Trump mulls a military-enforced Iran blockade extension.

Iranian leadership in the meantime continues to troll the US over rising oil and gas prices, using its significant geographic leverage over global markets…

3 days in, no well exploded.We could extend to 30 and livestream the well here.
That was the kind of junk advice the US admin gets from people like Bessent who also push the blockade theory and cranked oil up to $120+. Next stop:140. The issue isn’t the theory, it’s the mindset.

— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) April 29, 2026

More Latest Developments

via Newsquawk

• US CENTCOM is to brief US President Trump on new plans for potential military action in Iran on Thursday, Axios reported citing sources; plan includes a short and powerful strike potentially targeting infrastructure to break the nuclear issue deadlock. Other options expected to be presented include a plan to take over part of the Strait to allow for commercial shipping, which could involve ground forces, and a special forces op to secure Iran’s uranium stockpile.
• US CENTCOM has asked to send the Army’s hypersonic missile to the Middle East for possible use against Iran, Bloomberg reported citing sources.
• US CENTCOM said the US navy has redirected 42 vessels from the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and that the military is fully committed to enforcing the blockade.
• US President Trump told Israeli PM Netanyahu that Israel should only take surgical military action in Lebanon and avoid a full resumption of the war, Axios reported.
• US Treasury Secretary Bessent said sprinting for the finish line with Iran, according to Fox Business; willing to do secondary sanctions on Iran oil buyers. Every day adding more economic pressure to Iran. Close to half a billion in Iran-related crypto seized. Consumers and stock market are looking through Iran. UAE and others have requested swap lines, swap lines are not a bailout.
• Iran lawmaker Mottaki says a naval blockade would amount to a declaration of war, and that fighters could decide as soon as tomorrow or next week to remove such obstacles via military action.
• Iran’s Navy Commander said the Islamic Republic will soon unveil a new weapon that would deeply terrify the enemy, IRNA reported. He said Iran has closed the strategic Strait of Hormuz from the Arabian Sea. Condemned the US’s illegal seizure of several Iranian vessels as part of the blockade, which he said amounted not only to “piracy” but also “hostage-taking”.
• Iran’s Navy commander warns that Iran will soon face its enemies with a very dreadful weapon that will strike fear into their hearts, according to Press TV.
• Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said channels of dialogue with officials in Washington and Tehran remain open, Al Hadath reported. ““The clock on diplomacy has snit stopped. We remain hopeful for a negotiated settlement on this issue. We will continue with our sincerest efforts”,.
• China’s Military said they conducted combat readiness patrols near Scarborough Shoal, according to a statement.
• “No point” in negotiating over zero enrichment, Iranian lawmaker said, Al Jazeera reported; adding “I have no objection to going to the negotiating table, but we should have looked more closely at how to proceed”.
• The US administration is asking countries to join a new international coalition that would enable ships to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz, WSJ reported. The Maritime Freedom Construct would be a US-led coalition that would share information, coordinate diplomatically and enforce sanctions.
• A surveillance drone near the US embassy in Baghdad has been shot down, according to Iraqi security sources.
• Iranian Navy Commander said we have closed the Strait of Hormuz from the Arabian sea side and will take swift action if enemy advances, Al Araby reported.

Earlier this month, when much of the attention was largely focused on private credit, we warned that one of the old, familiar credit market time-bombs, commercial real estate which for many years had been penned as the “Next Big Short”, was deteriorating rapidly: according to the latest TREPP CMBS monthly report, March saw a surge in the CMBS delinquency rate, which jumped by 41bps to 7.55%, the highest in years, led by a surge in the lodging rate, a category which until now was not a source of concern. 

It now appears that this particular time bomb is about to go off, as the huge redemptions wave that rocked private credit in recent months is making a move into commercial real estate. 

According to Bloomberg, Barry Sternlicht’s high-profile Starwood Capital Group Management is halting redemptions from a $22 billion real estate fund aimed at retail investors as it seeks to prevent a flight of assets amid mounting pressure on its bet that the commercial real estate markets would quickly recover from interest rate rises in 2022 and 2023

The asset manager is “temporarily suspending” share repurchases from its Starwood Real Estate Income Trust with a few exceptions following a strategic review, according to a letter to shareholders. It will also cut its annualized distribution to 4.7% for Class I shares, down from 6.3% as of March.

Sternlicht’s fund, one of the first retail private markets funds, pinned its decision to temporarily suspend most redemptions on interest rates that have “remained high”. The move comes after Sreit had restricted investors’ liquidity rights by more than 80% two years ago

“We recognize this decision may be frustrating for some shareholders,” Starwood CEO Barry Sternlicht said in the letter. “However, taking this step now allows us to preserve the opportunity to realize better outcomes as market conditions improve.”

The issue was “not the real estate,” said Sternlicht in the letter, but rather “the pressure created by elevated redemption requests, which rose quite suddenly when interest rates spiked and remained high”. 

As the FT notes, SREIT has struggled to recover from a real estate market that has remained weak since interest rates began to creep up four years ago. The fund owns 598 properties across the US. Sternlicht said Sreit would “reintroduce liquidity when it can be done in a consistent and sustainable way” Until then, the firm will only allow investors to redeem their shares due to death, disability or if their balance is below $5,000.

The CEO said Starwood expected “the war with Iran to conclude, oil prices to subside, inflation to stabilize, and for Kevin Warsh to be seated as Fed Chair, supporting a lower interest rate environment”. 

“The temporary actions announced today reflect our commitment to making the right long-term decisions for all SREIT shareholders, including the nearly 70% who have never made a redemption request,” Sternlicht said in an emailed statement. “Our interests are fully aligned with our investors as the largest owner of SREIT, with over a $500 million ownership stake.”Sternlicht said in a statement.

Last month, hedge fund Saba Capital last month offered to buy 5% of the outstanding shares in Sreit, at a discount of more than 20% of the fund’s most recent stated value. In the end, Saba acquired only $7.7 million of the approximately $400mn in SREIT shares they had offered to buy, the FT reported. 

Two years ago, Starwood limited investors’ ability to redeem their investments after the FT reported that SREIT had tapped its credit facility to support redemptions, rather than selling real estate assets.

SREIT launched in 2018 amid a wave of similar offerings from Blackstone and KKR  to give retail investors exposure to commercial real estate. In the early years, low interest rates helped the funds plow capital into apartment buildings, warehouses and other properties. But the real estate cycle flipped in the middle of 2022, when a sharp increase in interest rates cratered property values and pushed investors to withdraw capital. Those withdrawals have been eating into SREIT’s liquidity, leading to Wednesday’s decision to halt redemptions.

As readers are well aware, SREIT is not the only retail-oriented fund that has come under pressure in recent months. Similarly structured vehicles that invest in private credit have suffered a wave of withdrawals amid concerns over underwriting standards and potential disruption to software businesses from AI, forcing managers to enforce caps on withdrawals.

SREIT is among the largest owners of multifamily apartments in the US, with more than 63,000 apartment units concentrated in the Sunbelt, including Texas and Florida, according to the letter.

Sternlicht made a reputation buying distressed real estate in the aftermath of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. He went on to found Starwood Hotels & Resorts, which was later acquired by Marriott International Inc., and the real estate lender Starwood Property Trust.

In recent years, he has criticized the Federal Reserve for being late to increase interest rates in the aftermath of Covid. In the letter he said that he expects the war in Iran to end, leading to lower oil prices and stabilizing inflation. He now expects the Fed to cut rates.  

Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has since the war’s start and prior assassinations of top leaders including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei become the most visible figurehead representing the Islamic Republic to the world, has continued trolling the United States even as President Trump is renewing fresh military strikes amid an uneasy extended ceasefire and ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

He stated Wednesday that the United States’ naval blockade of the country has a goal to create division and “make us collapse from within.” His message was delivered through state TV and he is warning citizens about “maintaining unity” in the face of this unprecedented economic and military pressure.

Ghalibaf went on to explain that Trump falsely “divides the country into two groups: hardliners and moderates, and then immediately talks about a naval blockade to force Iran into submission through economic pressure and internal discord,” according to more from state media sources.

“The enemy has entered a new phase and wants to activate economic pressure and internal division through naval blockade and media hype to weaken or even make us collapse from within,” he continued, urging Iranians that the only solution is to keep national unity amid the assault.

This hearkens back to Trump having said earlier this month that the Iranian government was “seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so.”

This was quickly followed by reports that Ghalibaf himself was being sidelined by the IRGC when it comes to the next potential US-Iranian talks. But Tehran quickly rejected reports that the influential parliament speaker had been removed from the negotiating team.

As for definitions of ‘hardline vs. moderate’ – these are somewhat superficial and manufactured by the West (akin to prior Middle East wars and regime change operations, with one recent example being so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria).

With the MSM and Iran, this is based fundamentally on speculation from afar and circular logic. Any Iranian official who is against pursuing more negotiations – while understandably coming to the conclusion that Washington can’t be trusted (after it bombed Iran twice during talks) – gets automatically labelled ‘hardliner’ by the MSM, and this also carries all kinds of implications overlapping with radical Islam. The idea is to make anyone not amenable to Washington and Israeli plans for the region look irrational and fanatical – even if their decisions might be rational and understandable based on Iranian national self-interest and survival.

Meanwhile Ghalibaf has continued trolling the US on X over rising oil and gas prices, which again suggests that Tehran is settling in for a long war, and is willing to endure and survive politically…

3 days in, no well exploded.We could extend to 30 and livestream the well here.
That was the kind of junk advice the US admin gets from people like Bessent who also push the blockade theory and cranked oil up to $120+. Next stop:140. The issue isn’t the theory, it’s the mindset.

— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) April 29, 2026

The longer the Hormuz standoff goes, and the more the anti-Tehran rhetoric flows out of the White House and from Trump on Truth Social, the more likely the Iranian so-called hardliners are to influence broader numbers of Iranian leaders and sectors of the public. This is especially if Tehran gets bombed again, which is looking likely.

Yet Washington is hoping that it actually produces the opposite: admin officials have expressed hope that common Iranians would take to the streets in large numbers, with regime collapse being the end goal.

On the surface, today’s Q1 GDP print was unremarkable: Real GDP grew 2.0% annualized in the first quarter, somewhat below consensus expectations of 2.3% and reflecting a surprisingly small rebound in government spending after the shutdown drag in Q4. Federal government spending contributed only half as much to real GDP growth in Q1 (+0.6%) as it subtracted in Q4 (-1.2%), implying that the level of real federal government spending in Q1 is 2.2% below its level in 2025Q3. Inventory accumulation also contributed less to Q1 growth than we had anticipated (+0.4pp vs. our expectation of +1.2pp). Net exports subtracted 1.3% from GDP after boosting it dramatically in early 2025 as imports surpassed exports. Consumer spending rose 1.6%, somewhat above consensus expectations, but as we noted earlier, much of this has been due to “stimulus” refunds which are now over, and which pushed spending growth far higher than income growth.

Even with the stimmies, personal savings dropped to a 3 year low.

Yet when we get to fixed investment, something remarkable emerges: Housing investment declined 8%, and subtracted 0.31% from the bottom line GDP print, which is to be expected with mortgage rates remaining very high, maintaining a depressed housing market.

But Nonresidential fixed investment was the outlier, soaring by 10.4%, largely reflecting a boost from higher electronics imports and a 12% annualized decline in software prices.

Let’s take a closer look at the breakdown.

The chart below shows quarterly annualized GDP growth broken down by components. It shows that Q1 GDP grew at exactly 2.0% in Q1. Also notable is that traditionally strong consumption, which contributed 1.0% of GDP growth, was offset by net trade (1.3%) with, inventories (0.4%) and government (0.73%) providing a modest offset. 

The highlighted block is Fixed Investment, which contributed 1.1%. However, keep in mind that residential fixed investment subtracted 0.31% from the total number, which means that Nonresidential fixed investment was responsible for 1.38% of the 2.0% GDP print.

Focusing on the fixed investment component, we find the following: as noted above, it was all about non-residential fixed investment.

Zooming into this segment, we find that Nonresidential equipment grew by 6.3%, or contributing 0.9% to the 2.0% GDP, while Intellectual Property products grew just over 5%, and added 0.7% to the bottom line GDP. 

While IP is clear – it consists primarily of Software, the kind that one uses to create and develop AI tools, as well as R&D – the components behind Nonresidential equipment need a closer look again, and here we find that Information Processing equipment, i.e., data centers, grew at a stunning 13%, comprising virtually all of the 0.88% contribution to 2% GDP growth.

And there you have it: between Software (0.7% of the GDP growth) and Nonresidential Equipment (0.88%), AI – which was the primary driver behind growth in both – contributed just over 1.5% to GDP growth of 2.0%; in other words about 75% of all US growth in Q1 was due to AI.

Another way to visualize the remarkable impact of spending on “computers” is the chart below: it clearly shows just how reliant the US has become on spending on computer products.

And that’s why AI is now not only a market bubble, but it has become a core anchor propping up the entire US economy; it’s also why the US government will have no choice but to backstop it once the inevitable AI bubble pops. 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis rolled out a proposed redistricting map for the state this week, but the way he did it could give ammunition to lawyers mounting inevitable legal challenges that will follow the map’s expected approval by the legislature, both Democratic and Republican observers say. Some Republican legislators are uneasy with DeSantis’ rollout of the plan — which he shared with Fox News before he shared it with them. 

Today, Republicans hold 20 of Florida’s US House seats, compared to 8 held by Democrats. Under the DeSantis plan, the GOP could have a 24-4 advantage. DeSantis gave Fox News a map of his proposed new districts, depicting anticipated party control after the midterms.

The format of that map could prove legally fatal to the scheme. The Florida constitution contains anti-gerrymandering “Fair District” provisions that seek to prevent partisan “intent.” A Florida Republican consultant who’s participated in previous redistricting efforts expressed surprise at the  DeSantis team’s use of a color-coded map, telling NBC News, “This is wild. I don’t know how you can argue a red and blue map released from the governor’s office doesn’t show some form of partisan intent.” DeSantis told Fox News that new districts are needed after Florida was “shortchanged” in the 2020 census that determines each state’s number of House seats. 

In a memo to lawmakers, DeSantis also signaled his new map will be an attempt to force reconsideration of the Fair Districts provisions in the state Constitution. The language requires the consideration of race when drawing new political lines, which DeSantis says is unconstitutional. – NBC

Some Republicans are uneasy about the proposed districts. To create new GOP opportunities, some Republican-rich neighborhoods have been removed from current Republican districts, amping up the pressure on the incumbents who hold them, at a time when President Trump’s low approval ratings and significant Republican disenchantment with the administration present significant headwinds for the party. While many Republicans are still enthusiastic about Trump, some are put off by his initiation of a war of choice on Iran, his opposition to the release of the Epstein files, and his disinterest in imposing fiscal discipline. 

In what may or may not prove to be an omen for November, a March special election brought Republicans and Trump a bruising loss in Florida, as the GOP lost its grip on a reliably red state House seat that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. The Democrat challenger won the race by just over 2 points — an approximate 11-point swing toward Democrats from the 2024 outcome in the Palm Beach County district.

An appropriate response to Virginia – but what this reveals is both sides have given up on persuasion, recognizing the country is so divided that it’s basically impossible. So it’s a race to rig the system in your favor, all while speaking in grand terms about “our democracy.” https://t.co/96f8Dsfs4O

— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) April 27, 2026

The Florida plan is the latest development in a year-long, nationwide set of electoral-map skirmishes ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In the opening salvo of a war started at the urging of President Trump, last August Texas undertook a rare, mid-decade redistricting effort that aspires to flip five current Democrat-held seats into the Republican column this November. California responded with a new map meant to fully negate the Texas impact, flipping five GOP seats. Other states have made tweaks, and in the latest move, Virginians narrowly approved a referendum that would likely see the GOP lose four seats to the Democrats.

The various plans have been subjected to legal challenges. The last few days brought big news on that front. On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued a summary reversal allowing Texas to proceed with its new congressional map for the November 2026 elections. The justices overturned a federal district court’s earlier injunction against the new boundaries. Sunday held good news for Democrats, as a Virginia court rejected a Republican-led challenge to the state’s new map.

As the legal battles continue, some see the redistricting war as a clear signal that America is steadily plowing deeper into discord: 

We have reached phase six of Ray Dalio’s Big Cycle — when irreconcilable differences lead to political fracture, war, and then collapse. Arguably, we are already in a soft civil war.

— Kenneth Rapoza (@BRICbreaker) April 27, 2026

By Bas van Geffen, Senior Macro strategist at Rabobank

Energy prices continue their ascend –with Brent futures trading above $124/barrel – after media report that the US may try to break the stalemate in the US-Iran war by force. Axios reports that military leaders will brief Trump on potential military options today. Reportedly, the Pentagon is preparing a wave of “short and powerful” strikes on Iran, likely targeting infrastructure.

Yesterday, Trump still suggested that he would not resume the bombing campaign. The US president said he believes the US blockade of Hormuz is the most effective form of leverage. However, that strategy has so far failed to exert significant concessions from Iran. So, these military strikes –or the mere threat thereof– could be an option if Iran does not budge on the nuclear issue.

The news injects fresh tail risks into the outlook for the war, energy prices, and inflation around the globe. Amidst the unusually high uncertainty about the outlook, the FOMC kept the federal funds target range unchanged at 3.50-3.75%, as widely expected.

Equally expected was Governor Miran’s dissent, who repeated his preference for a rate cut. However, that was offset by three dissenting votes on the policy statement. Governors Hammack, Kashkari, and Logan “did not support the inclusion of an easing bias in the statement at this time.”

Chair Powell noted that the Committee was in no rush to change the language of the statement. Perhaps, the FOMC decided to wait for the change of guard – and to avoid wobbly messaging. Because once Warsh is appointed as next Fed chair, he will probably try to convince the other FOMC members of the need for additional rate cuts.

Whether Warsh succeeds depends on incoming data, but Powell suggested yesterday that this could be an uphill battle. According to the current Fed chair, the more centrist policymakers were moving towards a more neutral place in thinking about cuts versus hikes. Likewise, their economic assessment now says that inflation is “elevated,” instead of “somewhat elevated.”

We still forecast two rate cuts from a Warsh-led Fed this year. However, as we have flagged before, we think that in the coming months are more likely to drop a rate cut from our forecast than add one.

But the biggest surprise was arguably Powell’s personal decision: the current Fed chair announced that he will continue to stay on as governor for some time after his term as chair ends. This does not mean he will serve out his term as governor; Powell said he will leave when he thinks it’s appropriate – which he seemed to tie to the legal attacks on the central bank. Powell did suggest he would keep a lower profile, and that he would not try to undermine Warsh out of respect for the role of Fed chair.

Returning to energy prices, the fresh highs for Brent this week provide a sobering backdrop to the otherwise better-than-expected April inflation data for the Eurozone countries. Overall, German and Spanish inflation data for April were on the lower end of expectations – although the harmonized inflation measure still ticked 0.1 percentage point higher in Spain.

VAT cuts on petrol have certainly softened the blow. The fact that energy prices were somewhat lower in the first half of April may also have limited energy-driven price pressures for the month. That may be short-lived, given that the price of energy commodities has been on the rise again.

But the miss wasn’t entirely driven by lower energy prices – core inflation, i.e., inflation excluding energy and food, came in a bit lower too. Clothing and recreation –the Spanish bureau of statistics specifically mentions package holidays– were the main reasons why core inflation decelerated compared to the prior month. However, keep in mind that pricing of these goods and services can be quite erratic, due to seasonal shifts and the timing of holidays like Easter. So, this is a mitigating factor for now, but we don’t think that this is a sign of broader disinflation.

Fidelity and Vanguard have stopped processing donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center through their donor-advised fund platforms, citing the organization’s recent federal indictment on fraud charges.

The moves came April 29, eight days after a federal grand jury in Alabama indicted the SPLC on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Prosecutors allege that between 2014 and 2023 the group secretly funneled more than $3 million in donor funds to individuals affiliated with extremist organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and the National Socialist Party of America, while misleading donors about the use of the money.

Fidelity Charitable, which oversees more than 350,000 donor-advised accounts, notified customers that the SPLC is no longer an eligible grant recipient, the NY Times reports. “Fidelity Charitable is aware of an ongoing governmental investigation into Southern Poverty Law Center,” the company wrote in an email to a donor. “Consistent with our grant-making standards and practices, the organization is not an eligible grant recipient during the ongoing investigation.”

Vanguard Charitable issued a similar denial when a donor requested a grant. “The organization has had allegations and/or charges brought against them for activities that may call into question their ability to carry out their tax-exempt charitable purpose,” the company stated.

Both sponsors have long-standing rules that allow them to reject grant recommendations when legal issues arise. Fidelity Charitable’s guidelines state that recommendations “might” be declined if an organization “is being investigated for alleged illegal activities or noncharitable activities, such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes or fraud,” or if other federal or state agencies are investigating the group.

Vanguard Charitable’s policy is triggered by any criminal indictment from state or federal authorities. A Vanguard spokeswoman said the sponsor makes grants “only to organizations that meet I.R.S. eligibility requirements” and pauses funding “while the matter is pending” when charges are filed. The company does not evaluate the substance of the allegations, she added.

Fidelity Charitable distributed $18.3 billion in grants last year. The SPLC now joins a list of organizations the sponsor has paused under its due-diligence rules.

Context of the Indictment

The Department of Justice announced the indictment April 21. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and other officials described the case as involving deception of donors. The SPLC has denied the allegations, called them politically motivated, and said its payments were part of a legitimate informant program that provided intelligence to law enforcement. The group has filed court motions seeking grand jury transcripts and restrictions on public statements by prosecutors.

The SPLC has not lost its tax-exempt status. Legal experts note that donor-advised fund sponsors can still act on investigations or indictments even without a final conviction or IRS revocation.

Turnabout is Fair Play, Bitch

The move carries extra bite because of what happened three years ago. Back in 2023, the SPLC released a report blasting donor-advised fund sponsors – naming Fidelity and Vanguard among them – for supposedly bankrolling “hateful and extremist beliefs.” The same organization that once criticized these platforms for lax standards now finds itself on the receiving end of their risk controls.(Fidelity notably stopped advertising on ZeroHedge during this period, so we assume they bent the knee). 

Not all donor-advised fund providers have followed the same path. Daffy, a newer platform, continues to allow donations to the SPLC, stating that it generally relies on the IRS’s determination of tax-exempt status. The SPLC remains in good standing with the IRS, the company said. Charles Schwab’s affiliated DAF platform had not issued a public statement as of Wednesday.