#have i ranted about the pharmaceutical industry on here yet?

[jacksoldsideblog]

I'm curious — is there any unusual (as in, people would not expect this of them) jobs y'all can think of that would occupy the same narrative niche as the narrator's crash coordinator job? With the same level of abject, disturbingly accepted corruption and whatnot, the vibe of "in a just world you would be a good guy but instead you're much worse than most people can dream of"

[relationshipsandpolitics]

How I Alienated My Potential Readers Part #2

And we’re back.   Here’s how we are looking after Part 1:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Beto O’ Rourke, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg

Well, some things have changed so we can just go ahead and remove Beto, which is a shame because I had a good rant about him sucking.  Alas, my genius will have to wait.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg

I debated where to put climate change in this breakdown.  For me, climate change is issue #1b for me.  If a candidate denied it, that would be an automatic disqualifier. It should be for every voter.  But I am surprised about how we all agree this is a dire issue that needs to be dealt with immediately, but the only candidate who made it their chief issue, Governor Jim Inslee, got virtually no support and was one of the first to drop out.  We really talk out of both sides of our mouth on climate change.  We all agree it is going to kill us, but we don’t seem to prioritize it, do we?   I have some thoughts about that, but I digress.  

The good news is all remaining candidates agree climate change is happening and that we need to act. The bad news is many of the candidates do not appear willing to take those drastic steps needed to stave off the worst outcomes. This is a problem.  Even the remaining candidates who are best on this issue leave a lot to be desire.  As it stands, I’m not removing anyone because no one is Republican levels of awful on the issue, but also no one meets the bar that needs to be set on genuine change. But seriously, we are all awful on this issue, me included.   We need to be taking steps in out personal lives to cut back on carbon emissions, and we need to be willing to pay more to save our planet.  The truth is if the leading scientific minds announced that to save our planet, we needed to raise taxes by 2% on everyone, we’d instead spend double that to buy front row seats to the end of the world.  We as a people truly suck.

Now let’s finally get into the issues that differentiate the candidates. This is really the whole game for me.  Because there are certain issues I care about tremendously, issues that I feel we need to address if this country is going to survive or if we will slip fully into the oligarchy we seem destined towards.  I’m talking about corporate power and workers’ rights.  Look, we all know the stats.  Income inequality is worse now than at any time since the Gilded Age.  That preceded the Great Depression.  Billionaires and corporations hold more power than the bottom 95% of the population combined. They can write a measly $5,000 check and get face time with the most powerful politicians in the country, and another $5,000 check gets them their full support.  I know this because part of my job is to write those checks.  I don’t try to get into too much about what I do, but suffice it say I work within politics very much behind the scenes. I don’t like what I do, even if I believe in the interests I advocate for.  People like me should not exist, but our corrupt political system not only enables me, but empowers me.

We all want a candidate we can trust to act in the average American’s best interest.  But we so willingly elect people who knowingly fuck us over in favor of the rich and corporate interests that it’s a wonder they even bother going through the motions trying to appease us.  And what have we got for it?  Unions have been decimated as lawmakers pass corporate-sponsored Right to Work laws.  Wages have stagnated while wealth for the top 1% has skyrocketed.  Americans are more productive than ever but seeing a smaller share of that productivity.   Compared to all other industrialized nations, we offer no guaranteed paid vacation, family leave, or health care. This is despite being the richest nation in the world.   College is a necessity to obtain a well-paying job, yet it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain, meaning anyone graduating with loans will be paying them off until they retire. Or die.

These developments are not a coincidence.  They are the results of deliberate efforts by monied interests.  Next, they will come after Social Security and Medicare, claiming we need to reign in the deficit.  And both Republicans and Democrats will heed their call, and we will buy their sudden concern about deficits.  They’ll vote to raise the retirement age and cut benefits, we’ll get mad, and then re-elect them anyway.

How does this rant relate to the upcoming 2020 elections?  It relates because the next decade will mark the point of no return, in my estimation.  Either this country will wake up to getting screwed and finally vote to do something about it, or it will cement its acceptance of the status quo.  Our descent into oligarchy has been relatively gradual because even the Democratic administrations have done little to stem the tide.  They’ve just slowed it down by promoting policies benefiting the rich while throwing tokens of support to the working class, which is everybody else.  They bump up the income tax rates slightly while ignoring the ways the rich really make their money.  They threaten anti-trust lawsuits but never follow through.   They bail out the banks and refuse to prosecute the heads of those banks.  Then they appoint them to run the Treasury Department. Republicans do these same things; they are just more brazen about it.  Whereas Democrats will announce tighter regulations on businesses but include weak enforcement and huge loopholes, Republicans simply get rid of the regulations. Republicans cut the taxes of the rich, Democrats keep them at the status quo.  

The next president has a unique opportunity to finally right the wrongs of decades of neo-liberal fiscal policy.  They can bring the country in line with the rest of the democratic world by pushing policies that help the poor, working and middle classes.   Young parents would be able to afford to have a child.  College graduates would be able to afford to buy home and have a crazy thing called disposable income because their college debt was wiped out and college itself became affordable.  People would stop fucking dying because they don’t have health care. Seriously, on this last point, what in the ever-loving fuck is wrong with people for not being willing to raise their taxes to fund universal health care?

We need to begin assessing potential candidates by what they want to accomplish to fix this issue.   And we can best determine if they will remain mired in the status quo of empty gestures and corporate checks, or if they will fight for us, by their words and actions.  With that in mind, I’m going to base my choice on whether the remaining candidates can be expected to support the fundamental restructuring of government and wealth equality.  I think you all know where I’m going with this one.

Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney – The Technocratic Legislators

Here you have some good moderate Democratic legislators.  Booker, Harris and Klobuchar are sitting U.S. Senators while Delaney is a former Representative.  I don’t really have an issue with any of them, save maybe Delaney.  They all are effective legislators, even if they may be more moderate than I’d like.  I particularly like Booker and Harris as people if not politicians.  But at the end of the day, I can’t really rely on them to push the things that need to be front and center.  I don’t exactly know what their broad policy even is.  Sure, they will come out with a good sound bite or a good proposal on some smaller but still important issue.  Booker is doing great things on tackling issues facing inner city youths.  Harris is good on gun reform.  But Booker is way too closely tied with Big Pharma.  Harris has an awful record on criminal justice and did nothing to help homeowners defrauded during the housing crisis.

They both illustrate a major concern we should all share.  When you have a record of being too cozy with some terrible industries, it shows that the voters can’t truly trust you to have their back.  Campaign contributions are par for the course.  You need them to win elections.  But when you take a disproportionate amount of money from very specific industries, it means you are probably bought by them.  Don’t be surprised if Booker nominates a Pharmaceutical lobbyist to head up CMS.  And when private equity managers donate to Harris, as Blackstone’s Tia Breakley did in March, 2019, they are doing so because there is a reasonable belief that Harris and others won’t come after them.  

Again, I think Harris and Booker are good people and good legislators.  And the critique about money is not limited to them, as I plan on thoroughly ripping into Buttigieg and Biden on it.   But when you take these facts along with the truth that neither candidate is pushing the sort of structural reforms needed in this country, I think it’s fair to say their presidencies would be rather unremarkable.

Amy Klobuchar and Jon Delaney share the money problem, but they have so much more going for them!  Klobuchar treats her staff like absolute shit, which only matters when you remember that we are relying on her to protect all low-level workers.  She clearly has contempt for people beneath her on the career ladder, and a wise woman once said “when a person shows you who they are, believe them.”  

Klobuchar and Delaney have spent their entire campaign advocating not for what they believe, but for trashing other candidates who dare to dream. Klobuchar and Delaney come from the school of Democratic politicians who believe things are too hard to try, and we might lose Republican voters by trying to be Democrats.  The Klobuchar’s and Delaney’s of the world would be happy to adopt every major Republican fiscal position if it meant they got to be President.  Also, Delaney is the moron who thought it was a good idea to trash Medicare for All at the California Democratic convention.  

I would vote for Harris and Booker and not feel bad about it.  I’d feel weird about voting for Klobuchar, and Delaney has as much chance of the nomination as Scott Baio.   They are out.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg

We’re going to go after the young guns now.  The candidates we all secretly wish were just a bit better so that we didn’t have to choose from three candidates in their 70’s.  But these candidates are ultimately empty shells of better candidates who seem too concerned with appearing like the rational voice in the room to have a vision for our country.

Let’s start with Mayor Pete Buttigieg.   I was talking with my mother about who she was going to support in the primary.  Let me be clear that I did not initiate this conversation.  I’d literally rather talk to my mother about our respective sex lives than politics.  But my mother has a bit of a control issue, and this blog was cheaper than therapy.

Anyway, my mother said she was supporting either Biden (shocking, I know) or Buttigieg.  She said she liked that he was young, and it was great he was gay. I asked my mom what positions of his did she support, and she couldn’t really name any except that he didn’t support Medicare for All.  This was a selling point for her.  See, my mother represents a huge segment of the Democratic base that is upper middle class, socially liberal (except Kaepernick should’ve stood) and fiscally moderate (aka conservative but they swear they have homeless friends).  What this really means is they are Democrats when it doesn’t hurt them to be.  They think what’s going on at the border is abhorrent, but they know someone who was mugged by an “illegal” and we need a wall.  And they support the idea of everyone having health insurance, but no way will that mean they have to pay more in taxes.   They agree housing is too expensive, but then they’ll oppose affordable housing development in their neighborhoods because they attract a “bad element.”  For these people, Buttigieg is the ideal candidate. They get to keep their money and nice gated communities, but because he is gay they can call themselves progressive.   Plus, we know Buttigieg won’t do anything monstrous like keeping refugees locked up or denying basic rights to LGTBQ people, so how could anyone not support him?

Well, let me be the first to say that Pete Buttigieg is awful.  First, keep in mind this guy is the Mayor of South Bend.  That’s less a city and more a place for Notre Dame fanboys to “romance” the gold helmets in a sleazy motel.  He won his last election with 8,500 votes.  And he still managed to piss off a sizable number of his constituents by botching police relations with the black community.  And now people think he can run a country.  But he’s taken seriously because he raised a boatload of money and the pundits (also rich white people generally) like him.  Never mind where that money is coming from and what favors he now owes to those people, right?

Mayor Pete came out for Medicare for All but decided when it was political opportune to trash it using Republican talking points.  His actual healthcare plan is truly awful.  Pete Buttigieg is the darling candidate for voters who don’t want anything to change, like my mother. They have good health insurance.  They own their house and see it as an asset, not a noose.  They don’t have any student debt, mainly because they attended college when it cost the equivalent of an iPhone.  Buttigieg is a technocrat with a nice haircut. He is a lot like Obama, minus the everything. But his message is one of comfort to the people who own vacation homes in upstate New York and tie rainbow bandannas around their dog’s neck for Pride Week. Under a Buttigieg administration, civility will return and nothing else will change.  If the biggest criticism of Sanders and Warren is they have pie-in-the-sky ideas, then Buttigieg’s biggest critique is he has no ideas.  It’s just sad how little that matters to the people who will decide this election.

Julian Castro: you’re next. Here’s someone I kind of like.  He is great on housing, one of the core issues keeping Americans from feeling secure.  I live in an area once considered cheap for housing.  But that’s changing.  They keep building and building but rents still shoot higher and higher.   Sometimes I feel the laws of supply and demand don’t work with housing.  I mean, it works when there is low supply and high demand like in Los Angeles and San Francisco.  But where I live, there is plenty of supply, yet rents are increasing as much as 10% year over year.  Likely this is because demand is still high to live near an urban center.  It doesn’t matter if there are tons of vacant units. Renters are willing to pay the cost and don’t do a good job shopping around.  Also, as rents continue to soar while jobs continue to navigate towards major cities and people continue to need to live near those jobs, our commutes will get longer and longer.  This means more cars on the road, more pollution in the air. Solving the housing crisis means putting a huge dent in climate change. No one seems to understand the impact of not having affordable housing, but Castro comes fairly close.  I think I would go for him if he wasn’t so milquetoast on every other issue.  He gets completely lost in the shuffle.  I think Castro supports Medicare for All? I mean, I do know where he stands because I follow this stuff closely, but it should be clear to the average voter.  Castro is young, attractive and is relatively progressive compared to the field.  But he isn’t charismatic.  He doesn’t articulate his message clearly enough, and my big concern is whether he can create a narrative that gives his administration a chance to pass meaningful legislation.  It’s not that I can’t get on board with Castro based on policy, but I just don’t think he has the chops to get it done.  Castro’s other problem is he doesn’t speak to workers’ rights issues enough. He pays them lip service, and I’m sure he believes in increasing union membership and raising the minimum wage. I just can’t envision him fighting hard for those issues once in office.  I, quite frankly, see him as another politician pushing incremental change on some areas and tackling the low hanging fruit issues of the Democratic base rather than swinging for the fences.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders

And then there were three. I think we all knew it was coming down to these three.  Let’s not kid ourselves here.  We know who is getting the next ax, but the bottom line is these are the three true contenders and until things change, they are the only horses in the race.  So we will tackle them together in Part 3, which is hopefully coming soon.

[buttbuttgoat-blog]

Only in America

Only in America is the average citizen too stupid to look at the suffering of others and not care, because for some reason seeing this crazy bullcrap happening to other people doesn't somehow make them care it might happen to them or someone they love. Just too stupid and cognitively dissonant to realize tomorrow it might be them with a diagnosis their insurance refuses to cover (because what are you gonna do about it?), getting shot by a deranged white kid with a God complex, dying of preventable diseases because you can't afford medication, going homeless and the entire nation forgetting you even exist, becoming unable to work and having no safety net so you starve to death... Do these people honestly think being "good, honest folk" means they can't possibly suffer cancer? Do they think their religion is good enough healthcare for them? And maybe think that should be the case for everyone else too? These things CAN happen to you or someone you love. You absolutely ARE in danger. If you understand that, good, now go do some public service convince a conservative to stop being a moron and start caring about this nation and its people - REALLY care, not "hur dur no kneely for flag time" patriotism. That isn't god damn patriotism. Patriotism is caring enough to want to make this a good nation, and how can a good nation be made up of a small group of satisfied, genuinely well-off folk when it's scattered among a hellish nightmare for millions of our homeless and dying? All because they'd rather throw their unearned millions to fund political parties that will refuse to fix our tax system than simply paying their fair damn share for getting to enjoy the comforts of their lifestyle off of the sweating back of the working America? And how can the thousands of the unfortunate working class Americans that tip-toe the line between survival and failing without a real safety net continue to support a system like this? How can so many vote conservative without considering the fact that future events completely outside of their control might end up with you or someone you care about finding yourself without a home, losing everything you have to natural disaster, a sudden murmur or a numbness of the side, or unfortunate timing with a kid who decided he wasn't too drunk to drive? These things can all happen to any one of us. That's the thing. In this nation, there's millions of unfortunate souls that have found themselves like that one day and have been living that hell ever since. Being a God-loving 'Murican won't save you from that. For those things, you need good social safety nets, good healthcare, sensible gun control laws to help prevent massacres - in essence, a modern government. Just listen to the experts, for just a moment, on any of those topics if you disagree. The REAL experts, not the hosts of Fox nor any of the bigots with a degree they bring on to get an opinion. Please, accept the modern sciences and census data and what they tell you. Stop living in your delusions just because they match your fears. I know it's hard, looking for those things is a primitive instinct that's just hard to overcome. Large corporations, billionaire preachers, the pharmaceutical industry, the NRA (and the industries/companies whose interests they represent), the tobacco industry, the coal industry, all the Walmarts and the like are exploiting this nation. They grew to huge wealth in one way or another and now want our government to keep making it as easy as possible to keep stealing from all of us. Fortunately for them, people are greedy so naturally a political party migrated their beliefs (over decades) to align with and represent all those "donors" that fund their election campaigns. Do you want to know something that would be funny, if it wasn't the dead honest truth? Somewhere along this pathway, someone actually had to sit down and think of how to take each of those ideas and put a positive spin on them in order to somehow convince the American public to support them. That's how "Clean" coal happened. That's how Trickle Down Economics happened. That's how Coca Cola getting away with health and marketing lawsuits happened, and, just like all the others, they pour money into our system to make sure the people make it legal to keep food labels as vague and misleading as possible stay legal, or to refuse to fund clean energy or enforce stricter environmental protection laws, etc.

But here's the thing (and I wish I could've said this earlier because I probably lost many people who need to read this by now, but oh well): I'm not saying these giant corporations and whatnot profiteering off of our system are evil. They're not. You know that, and I know that. But they are greedy. They realized they can buy political influence in order to literally change American society into one that would increase their profits. And they did this to its extremes. There isn't some cartoon villain pulling the strings, and I know we leftists love to compare Trump to one but he isn't a cartoon villain either; however, he IS a greedy human, just like the rest of us. That's why he takes the stances that he does. The new healthcare bill, his tax plan, and everything else can be explained by this. Those choices are funded by people who were ahead and realized they can get even further ahead by pushing beyond the boundaries of what our economic system was designed for and exploiting it. And the only reason this isn't presented as exploitation to you by the conservative media or anyone else who watches it is because they are paid by those exploiting us to hide that from you. Next time you hear a debate, please don't just break down the liberal's response but also ask yourself "Who benefits from the conservative option?" Ask yourself this about the investment any major economic force might have in the issue and then maybe even do some research about who is funding the conservative in this scenario (assuming this is a public figure); however, don't mistake not having funding for being trustworthy either, as most politicians will also match the party's position. Figure out who is donating to the party as well, and then see how those entities might benefit from that stance.

If you're a conservative and you made it this far, agree or disagree, I just wanted to congratulate you. You proved you aren't a snowflake and got through my entire rant without getting too triggered to keep going. ;) In which case, I just wanna throw in an afterthought for you: White privilege is the fact that white people are less likely to be faced with the troubles a person of color faces throughout their life, with the same frequency and magnitude. You're, in essence, less likely to be confronted with some of the misfortunes I mentioned, and thus probably also less likely to have had experienced a drive to fight for a nation that doesn't let good lives just fall apart by a stroke of bad luck. That's why so many underprivileged people fight for progressive leadership, although its easy to dismiss them as too lazy and simply ignore their suffering. Even if you aren't well off, there were probably situations in your life where you would've been worse off as a person of color, and a lot of people don't see that. But the fact people of color have it worse in America is confirmed by statistics. Economic well-being is tied to race, and yet there is no biological evidence for any intellectual difference between the races - leaving only socioeconomical reasons as valid explanations. Listen, you can agree or disagree, but at least have the courage to listen to the people living through this to tell you what it's like. Then go home and google how much we spend on the military, how much we aren't collecting in taxes where we should (and don't forget to check the billionaire preachers too), and how little it would cost us of our budget just to finally put together proper healthcare and other safety nets, and start to think for yourself instead of being told this is what a great America looks like.

And if you agree, leftist or rightist, reblog/share it and hopefully it will make a difference.

[preciousmetals0]

Sometimes, It’s Lupus; Sage’s Depressing Results

Sometimes, It’s Lupus; Sage’s Depressing Results:

The Right Prescription for Massive Returns

Today, dear readers, we’re going to cover a topic I just know you all love and adore: biotechnology.

I can hear the groans already … and I get it. All those big scary words that have no real meaning to you at all. It’s like they’re talking about some surreal, otherworldly threat that will never — ever — impact you. So, why would you invest in them?

And that’s really the crux of the problem when it comes to investing in biotech stocks. You invest in what you know and can understand. It’s one of the axioms of investing, after all.

But, let’s be honest … does anyone outside of the industry really know what 7-nanometer microchips are? Or what it means to be able to achieve real-time HD ray-tracing graphics? I’m betting the answer is no, and yet we still invest in Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (Nasdaq: AMD) and Nvidia Corp. (Nasdaq: NVDA).

Getting back to the point, I’m bringing up biotech stocks today because the sector is on a tear. For instance, the SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (NYSE: XBI) is up more than 22% in the past month. By comparison, the S&P 500 Index is up a mere 7.7%.

There are two reasons for this sudden outperformance in biotech stocks:

Increased merger and buyout activity.

A flood of clinical trial data.

We talked about buyouts on Tuesday when Astellas Pharma Inc. (OTC: ALPMY) bought Audentes Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: BOLD) for a whopping $60 per share in cash. It was just the latest blockbuster biotech deal in a long string of buyouts from Big Pharma looking to get into gene therapy and cutting-edge biotech treatments.

Clinical trials are building to a head this week. We have trial data on everything from lupus (sometimes, it is lupus) and depression to Alzheimer’s and heart disease. We’re covering some of that trial data today — and the winners and losers that came out of it a bit later.

So, keep reading.

The Takeaway:

If you’re not convinced yet that you should consider investing in biotech stocks, there’s a couple of other really good reasons to seriously consider the sector.

The first is health care. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services projects that the U.S. will spend nearly $6 trillion on health care costs by 2027. Of that $6 trillion market, biotech spending is expected to grow to more than $775 billion by 2024.

This is a massive market.

Bigger than semiconductors.

Bigger than the cloud.

Bigger than pretty much every popular technology investment you’ve ever been pitched. (So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here, I can tell you.)

Keeping with our tech comparison, you don’t need a few extra million pixels on your iPhone display. Is it nice and pretty to look at? Sure. Does it make you go “Ooooh!” and “Aaaaah!” when you look at Great Stuff memes on your phone? Definitely.

But you don’t need it.

However, people truly need biotech solutions. Some diseases don’t respond to current drug treatments. That’s where things like gene therapy come in: specially tailored solutions to very specific health problems. And these problems affect millions and millions of people around the world.

That’s why this is a multitrillion-dollar market. And that should be more than enough incentive for you to start your journey into biotech investing today.

Now, you didn’t think I was just going to leave it at that and throw you to the biotech wolves, did you?

You need a guide. Someone who can help you cut through all the medical jargon and weird drug names. Someone who can identify a real opportunity before the Big Pharma guys move in and start buying everything up.

That someone is Banyan Hill expert Jeff Yastine.

Jeff has all the details on a $450 million biotech company that’s set to soar. And if you act quickly, you can get in on the ground floor … before the Big Pharma firms take notice.

Start your journey into the world of biotech on the right foot.

Click here now for all the details!

The Good: Sometimes, It Is Lupus

Dr. House might have taken issue with today’s shining star in the biotech sector. (Man, I miss House.)

Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: AUPH) released phase-3 trial results for its experimental lupus medication. Lupus is a chronic autoimmune disease that causes your body’s defense system to attack its own tissues. (It’s the ultimate “stop hitting yourself” disease.)

The results were very good, with Aurinia’s voclosporin returning statistically significant results in treating lupus. (Breathe. Those were some potentially scary words, but it’s all good. Just think of things like this as anti-virus software for the human body. There. All better, right?)

Aurinia believes that if this treatment gets regulatory approval, its patents will be extended in the U.S., Europe and other key markets through 2027. In other words, Aurinia could get protection from generic versions for quite some time. And that means more revenue.

AUPH shares are up more than 100% today.

The Bad: Depressing Results

One of the problems with investing in biotech and pharmaceutical companies is the volatility that surrounds clinical trial data. Not every pipeline drug or treatment pans out, and there’s no way to confirm which will work without rigorous testing.

Sage Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: SAGE) is a prime example. The biotech’s experimental depression treatment, SAGE-217, missed its key goal in a phase-3 study. In short, the medication did not perform better at treating major depressive disorder than a placebo.

According to Sage, however, SAGE-217 did reduce depression in patients after three, eight and 12 days. The company also noted that about 9% of the trial patients might not have taken the drug.

So, it’s back to the drawing board for SAGE-217. The company still believes in the drug, but it’s going to have some work to do in order to get back to phase-3 testing.

SAGE shares fell more than 60% following the data.

Here we have a prime example of why investors are skittish when it comes to investing in biotech. This is also an excellent example of why you need someone like Banyan Hill expert Jeff Yastine to help guide you.

If you didn’t click the link above to find out more on Jeff’s biotech research, here it is again.

The Ugly: Cut Slack Some Slack

OK, you’re probably burned out on biotech by now. So, here’s some more comfortable tech news for you.

Business tech firm Slack Technologies Inc. (NYSE: WORK) reported better-than-expected earnings and revenue after the close last night. The company swung from a loss of $0.30 per share a year ago to a loss of just $0.02 in the third quarter. Analysts expected a loss of $0.08 per share.

Revenue topped expectations by more than $12 million.

Slack also put fourth-quarter guidance in line with expectations and boosted full-year results well above the consensus estimate.

Things are clearly looking good for Slack, but the stock is down more than 3% following the report.

In this case, Slack is a victim of this year’s overhyped initial public offering (IPO) market. You know, the one that WeWork broke? It also doesn’t help that other big-name IPOs, like Uber Technologies Inc. (NYSE: UBER), continue to post billions in losses.

So, when investors see losses like Slack’s, their knee-jerk reaction is now to sell. In Slack’s case, however, the company shows solid growth for a recent IPO — more in line with traditional growth of newly public companies. As such, investors might want to cut Slack a little slack as it continues to ramp up.

You know the drill.

You write in, and I respond. You Marco, I Polo.

It’s Reader Feedback time!

On Tuesday, I posed several questions to get you guys started, and I must say that your collective takes on Peloton Interactive Inc. (Nasdaq: PTON) were a hoot! (Hoot? Just how old is this guy?!)

Great Stuff reader Dan G. had my sides hurting after this reply:

I was watching TV with my 17- and 15-year-old granddaughters. A Peloton ad came on, and I offered a life lesson about gift-giving to a spouse. “Giving fitness equipment as a gift is equal to saying, ‘Honey, you’ve got a fat ass.’” The girls about blew a gasket laughing. Competitors offer similar equipment and services for half the money. Not a workable long-term business plan, no matter how pretty the model and how fancy the workout room. 

Tim P. had this to say about Peloton:

No Peloton for my wife! Worst idea ever! I use the YMCA. Very handy and great value.

You know, not many people think about the YMCA. It’s not only fun to stay there — they also have everything for you to enjoy.

Moving on from Peloton, Jim L. shared his thoughts on the Great Stuff Trade War Cycle chart:

The tariff cycle you have reduced to a pictograph is painful but enriching. Long, then short, then long, then short, and on and on.

My take is that Trump learned last night or today that the U.S.’s veto-proof Hong Kong support and the inevitability of impeachment have together motivated the Chinese to stop answering calls and emails. He knows they’ve left the table and won’t be back. His war is unwinnable for him. He’ll be gone one way or the other before it resolves. In the meantime, he’s picking on smaller victims in South America and Europe. No? Prove me wrong. 

Carry on, please, your letter is enlightening and light every day. I love it.

It certainly doesn’t look good right at the moment, does it, Jim? As for proving you wrong … let’s throw this out to the Great Stuff comments section.

What do you all think about the current U.S.-China trade situation?

Click here to join the conversation!

Finally, we have David C. with a little praise for Great Stuff:

I don’t have a rant … today … but I always look forward to Joseph’s illustrious, illuminating and lighthearted take on the day’s investor-oriented news.

Thank you, David! I’m glad my illustrious, lighthearted take can illuminate your day.

Until next time, good trading!

Regards,

Joseph Hargett

Great Stuff Managing Editor, Banyan Hill Publishing

[goldira01]

The Right Prescription for Massive Returns

Today, dear readers, we’re going to cover a topic I just know you all love and adore: biotechnology.

I can hear the groans already … and I get it. All those big scary words that have no real meaning to you at all. It’s like they’re talking about some surreal, otherworldly threat that will never — ever — impact you. So, why would you invest in them?

And that’s really the crux of the problem when it comes to investing in biotech stocks. You invest in what you know and can understand. It’s one of the axioms of investing, after all.

But, let’s be honest … does anyone outside of the industry really know what 7-nanometer microchips are? Or what it means to be able to achieve real-time HD ray-tracing graphics? I’m betting the answer is no, and yet we still invest in Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (Nasdaq: AMD) and Nvidia Corp. (Nasdaq: NVDA).

Getting back to the point, I’m bringing up biotech stocks today because the sector is on a tear. For instance, the SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (NYSE: XBI) is up more than 22% in the past month. By comparison, the S&P 500 Index is up a mere 7.7%.

There are two reasons for this sudden outperformance in biotech stocks:

Increased merger and buyout activity.

A flood of clinical trial data.

We talked about buyouts on Tuesday when Astellas Pharma Inc. (OTC: ALPMY) bought Audentes Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: BOLD) for a whopping $60 per share in cash. It was just the latest blockbuster biotech deal in a long string of buyouts from Big Pharma looking to get into gene therapy and cutting-edge biotech treatments.

Clinical trials are building to a head this week. We have trial data on everything from lupus (sometimes, it is lupus) and depression to Alzheimer’s and heart disease. We’re covering some of that trial data today — and the winners and losers that came out of it a bit later.

So, keep reading.

The Takeaway:

If you’re not convinced yet that you should consider investing in biotech stocks, there’s a couple of other really good reasons to seriously consider the sector.

The first is health care. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services projects that the U.S. will spend nearly $6 trillion on health care costs by 2027. Of that $6 trillion market, biotech spending is expected to grow to more than $775 billion by 2024.

This is a massive market.

Bigger than semiconductors.

Bigger than the cloud.

Bigger than pretty much every popular technology investment you’ve ever been pitched. (So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here, I can tell you.)

Keeping with our tech comparison, you don’t need a few extra million pixels on your iPhone display. Is it nice and pretty to look at? Sure. Does it make you go “Ooooh!” and “Aaaaah!” when you look at Great Stuff memes on your phone? Definitely.

But you don’t need it.

However, people truly need biotech solutions. Some diseases don’t respond to current drug treatments. That’s where things like gene therapy come in: specially tailored solutions to very specific health problems. And these problems affect millions and millions of people around the world.

That’s why this is a multitrillion-dollar market. And that should be more than enough incentive for you to start your journey into biotech investing today.

Now, you didn’t think I was just going to leave it at that and throw you to the biotech wolves, did you?

You need a guide. Someone who can help you cut through all the medical jargon and weird drug names. Someone who can identify a real opportunity before the Big Pharma guys move in and start buying everything up.

That someone is Banyan Hill expert Jeff Yastine.

Jeff has all the details on a $450 million biotech company that’s set to soar. And if you act quickly, you can get in on the ground floor … before the Big Pharma firms take notice.

Start your journey into the world of biotech on the right foot.

Click here now for all the details!

The Good: Sometimes, It Is Lupus

Dr. House might have taken issue with today’s shining star in the biotech sector. (Man, I miss House.)

Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: AUPH) released phase-3 trial results for its experimental lupus medication. Lupus is a chronic autoimmune disease that causes your body’s defense system to attack its own tissues. (It’s the ultimate “stop hitting yourself” disease.)

The results were very good, with Aurinia’s voclosporin returning statistically significant results in treating lupus. (Breathe. Those were some potentially scary words, but it’s all good. Just think of things like this as anti-virus software for the human body. There. All better, right?)

Aurinia believes that if this treatment gets regulatory approval, its patents will be extended in the U.S., Europe and other key markets through 2027. In other words, Aurinia could get protection from generic versions for quite some time. And that means more revenue.

AUPH shares are up more than 100% today.

The Bad: Depressing Results

One of the problems with investing in biotech and pharmaceutical companies is the volatility that surrounds clinical trial data. Not every pipeline drug or treatment pans out, and there’s no way to confirm which will work without rigorous testing.

Sage Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: SAGE) is a prime example. The biotech’s experimental depression treatment, SAGE-217, missed its key goal in a phase-3 study. In short, the medication did not perform better at treating major depressive disorder than a placebo.

According to Sage, however, SAGE-217 did reduce depression in patients after three, eight and 12 days. The company also noted that about 9% of the trial patients might not have taken the drug.

So, it’s back to the drawing board for SAGE-217. The company still believes in the drug, but it’s going to have some work to do in order to get back to phase-3 testing.

SAGE shares fell more than 60% following the data.

Here we have a prime example of why investors are skittish when it comes to investing in biotech. This is also an excellent example of why you need someone like Banyan Hill expert Jeff Yastine to help guide you.

If you didn’t click the link above to find out more on Jeff’s biotech research, here it is again.

The Ugly: Cut Slack Some Slack

OK, you’re probably burned out on biotech by now. So, here’s some more comfortable tech news for you.

Business tech firm Slack Technologies Inc. (NYSE: WORK) reported better-than-expected earnings and revenue after the close last night. The company swung from a loss of $0.30 per share a year ago to a loss of just $0.02 in the third quarter. Analysts expected a loss of $0.08 per share.

Revenue topped expectations by more than $12 million.

Slack also put fourth-quarter guidance in line with expectations and boosted full-year results well above the consensus estimate.

Things are clearly looking good for Slack, but the stock is down more than 3% following the report.

In this case, Slack is a victim of this year’s overhyped initial public offering (IPO) market. You know, the one that WeWork broke? It also doesn’t help that other big-name IPOs, like Uber Technologies Inc. (NYSE: UBER), continue to post billions in losses.

So, when investors see losses like Slack’s, their knee-jerk reaction is now to sell. In Slack’s case, however, the company shows solid growth for a recent IPO — more in line with traditional growth of newly public companies. As such, investors might want to cut Slack a little slack as it continues to ramp up.

You know the drill.

You write in, and I respond. You Marco, I Polo.

It’s Reader Feedback time!

On Tuesday, I posed several questions to get you guys started, and I must say that your collective takes on Peloton Interactive Inc. (Nasdaq: PTON) were a hoot! (Hoot? Just how old is this guy?!)

Great Stuff reader Dan G. had my sides hurting after this reply:

I was watching TV with my 17- and 15-year-old granddaughters. A Peloton ad came on, and I offered a life lesson about gift-giving to a spouse. “Giving fitness equipment as a gift is equal to saying, ‘Honey, you’ve got a fat ass.’” The girls about blew a gasket laughing. Competitors offer similar equipment and services for half the money. Not a workable long-term business plan, no matter how pretty the model and how fancy the workout room. 

Tim P. had this to say about Peloton:

No Peloton for my wife! Worst idea ever! I use the YMCA. Very handy and great value.

You know, not many people think about the YMCA. It’s not only fun to stay there — they also have everything for you to enjoy.

Moving on from Peloton, Jim L. shared his thoughts on the Great Stuff Trade War Cycle chart:

The tariff cycle you have reduced to a pictograph is painful but enriching. Long, then short, then long, then short, and on and on.

My take is that Trump learned last night or today that the U.S.’s veto-proof Hong Kong support and the inevitability of impeachment have together motivated the Chinese to stop answering calls and emails. He knows they’ve left the table and won’t be back. His war is unwinnable for him. He’ll be gone one way or the other before it resolves. In the meantime, he’s picking on smaller victims in South America and Europe. No? Prove me wrong. 

Carry on, please, your letter is enlightening and light every day. I love it.

It certainly doesn’t look good right at the moment, does it, Jim? As for proving you wrong … let’s throw this out to the Great Stuff comments section.

What do you all think about the current U.S.-China trade situation?

Click here to join the conversation!

Finally, we have David C. with a little praise for Great Stuff:

I don’t have a rant … today … but I always look forward to Joseph’s illustrious, illuminating and lighthearted take on the day’s investor-oriented news.

Thank you, David! I’m glad my illustrious, lighthearted take can illuminate your day.

Until next time, good trading!

Regards,

Joseph Hargett

Great Stuff Managing Editor, Banyan Hill Publishing

[bliss1970]

On the anniversary of fours years of being damaged and disabled by leveaquin, cipro, avelox and flagyl. Yes I was given high doses of all of these in a 2-3 month period. Yes each dr knew what I was given before they gave me each new prescription. I was never warned of the possible side effects. What I have gone through and my husband has gone through being my caretaker is more difficult then anyone that hasn’t been in a similar situation can understand. Please read this please learn from me and wake the heck up!!! Also this took me over a month to write. I have two choices: depressed it took me a month to write this or grateful I pushed through the pain to get it done!!!!!

I have learned the following:

To hear you must learn what it feels like to be truly silenced. Not just by people that you choose to have in your life who are jerks but by an entire system. To bang against doors and been seen as a dirty secret and feel what it is like to have a system tell you we don’t care please go away and die.

Don’t tell me I’m wrong because that’s how I’ve been made to feel and there are many floxies who do give up because of mental damage of the drugs it’s been proven to cause phycological damage added to that damage is how the medical system treats them. If you haven’t been damaged by big pharma then you have no clue of the cruelty they unleash on you. Each suicide is murder and I have fought my own demons because this shit does horrible things to people. I’m too stubborn to let a piece of crap system steal who I am. It’s a struggle every day and I fight it because if I lose then they win in silencing one more person. Then they get to kill more people. Systems only change when enough people rise up and say no more.

It has enabled me too see things that most turn a blind eye to. That we as a society choose the easy route the path of cognitive dissonance.

Our let someone else solve it society has allowed corporations to have more rights then I do. We have normalized “side effects” to the point where we have allowed the companies that did this to me and countless other to say oh well it’s my fault and that I have no way of suing these companies. Yes I’ve talked to lawyers. Somehow if their medication damages me I’m told it doesn’t count and that I have to pay for it when I lost my ability to work. The whole they shouldn’t be responsible thing is crap. It is absolutely bs. It’s been told to us that it’s our problem if you have side effects or it’s falsely told to us it’s such a small amount that it doesn’t matter. The lives ruined don’t matter!!! We as a society have normalized this. Levaquin one of the drugs that I was given at a high dose for two weeks is now off the market. So I guess for the “greater good” it was pulled but the companies that pulled it aren’t being held responsible.

Let me be clear last year I was told by two drs who are familiar with this that it is unlikely I will ever heal. That western medicine doesn’t spend the money to heal side effects. The reason they don’t is because society allows it. I don’t want your pity I want you to wake the hell up.

I am still here and still going but I’ve also accepted the fact that this is my life. It’s not easy and for the rest of my life I can’t take care of myself. If I have an attack I can’t always understand what someone is saying to me. I know someone is speaking I see what’s occurring around me unless my eyes roll back into my head but depending on a number of things during my attacks I don’t always know what someone is telling me.My husband double checks everything he also checks on me while at work. I have 30 mins to respond or he will leave work to make sure I’m okay. It’s a toss up on how people interact with me anytime I go out in public. I still go outside even if I scream in public with no control of it and I smile not matter what the reaction. Yes it took a lot of tears to get to this point. It took more personal strength to deal with people laughing and refusing to help me. Yes it’s happened many times and I still smile at them because I have empathy for them. I feel so sorry for people who seek to judge me because they must have a really sad life when they project those emotions on to me. So I smile at them no matter what because I hope maybe the crazy disabled lady with the smile helps them face their own demons.

I am pretty positive and I have worked like crazy to get to where I am. I don’t want pity I hope you wake the hell up. Stop letting greedy people who gave corporations more rights then people have and pushed agendas that normalized actions and concepts where if you talk about them in isolation are stupid. If you want to defend it you are defending a company. The whole greater good bs is propaganda. FDA HAS LABELED WHAT HAPPENED TO ME AS AN ACTUAL DISABILITY YET AGAIN THE COMPANIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION FOR THIS DISABILITY ARE NOT BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE. AGAIN MY DISABILITY IS CAUSED FROM A DRUG.

Talking about actual important subjects and not idle gossip is actually what we as a society should do. There is no such thing as the right place or time. That’s more idiotic propaganda about manners that we have normalized.

Please be captains of your health look into naturopathic treatments.

I can’t try a bunch of stuff because I react to what feels like everything makeup makes my face swell perfume can trigger attacks usually choking attacks followed by a rash and I now learned that Stevia can burn the top layer of skin off my lips completely. I’m more grateful for my life then I can ever explain. I have my ups and my downs both are normal and healthy.

I force myself to talk about all of this because society as a whole loves to defend the pharmaceutical industry. I have fought these 4 years to stop the medical system from dehumanizing me.

Stop being lazy we as a society allowed ourselves to be divided a long time ago. We have the power to believe in unity. I don’t believe in political parties, I believe in unity. I don’t care what religion you follow or if you even follow one, I care about what you practice when no one is looking. Stop falling for stupid bs that is meant to divide and look for common ground and support basic rights for everyone all those concepts lead to unity. Stop dehumanizing people!!!!!

If you actually read my rant, thank you and I bet I know who the three of you are..... 😂😂😂😂🤪😱🥰🤗🥰

[ionecoffman]

Testosterone Wars

There has always been money in testosterone, but especially now. The world is awash in ads for products that “enhance” and “support” testosterone levels. They promise health and virility. They are predicated on the contested assumption that there is a widespread dearth of testosterone—that more problems lie in scarcity than surplus.

Infowars

Among these products is a potion known as Super Male Vitality. A single two-ounce vial costs $59.95. (The “retail” price on the seller’s website is given as $69.95, but that price has been conspicuously crossed out.)

For buyers who are not convinced by the discount and the phallic applicator and the promise of some kind of superior maleness, there is the question of what this product is. Its seller claims: “As men age, they may often experience a slow-down in vitality, energy, and overall wellness,” so Super Male Vitality is “specifically designed to assist the body in regulating proper balance to create superior vitality in males.”

The liquid is a mix of widely available herbs. The reason many people seem to believe it creates superior vitality in males is that the liquid is sold at a store called Infowars—which you may know as the media business owned by Alex Jones, who you may know as the man who takes his shirt off and yells a lot, and who believes that the massacre of children at Sandy Hook was a hoax, and who has said tap water is “a gay bomb.”

Jones was in the news this week regarding an interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, which was diffusely criticized for the fact of even giving air time to Jones. He is often described as a media personality or commentator, and his radio show is widely syndicated, and his videos have been seen millions of times online––though he distances himself from “the media” in any sense. He might better be described as a provocateur, then—a person in the business of getting attention.

At some point, of course, that attention needs to be turned into money. That seems to be where Super Male Vitality and the rest of Jones’ health business comes in. Buzzfeed reported last month that according to multiple former Infowars employees, the supplements were what really turned Infowars into a “media empire” that caters to conspiracy-minded consumers, estimating annual sales in the tens of millions of dollars. (It’s not just Super Male Vitality: Infowars also sells a product called Brain Force Plus, and another called Caveman, which will invite users to “rediscover the human blueprint, and experience the power of cutting edge science.”) One former employee said Jones “can sell 500 supplements in an hour.”

These supplements seem to be more than a part of the business model, but the core of it. Infowars does not operate like a newspaper or magazine, by selling ad space to third parties.

Last month in New York magazine, Seth Brown detailed that Jones makes no money from selling ads on his radio show, which amounts to a widely syndicated four-hour infomercial for supplements. “An examination of his business seems to indicate that the vast majority of Infowars’ revenue comes from sales of these dietary supplements. Infowars isn’t a media empire—it’s a snake-oil empire.”

Infowars didn’t reply to my request to discuss some products’ health claims and sales. Though a representative did tell me that in the future I should address questions about the supplement business to an account called whistleblower@infowars.com, the existence of which seems like an admission of something.

The store itself is heavily fortified with legal caveats for its health claims, like “The information contained in the Website is provided for informational purposes only, and is not meant to substitute for the advice provided by your doctor or other health care professional.”

So to be clear: The information is for informational purposes only.

Though even this is not quite true. The fine print actually says that the act of reading the information absolves Infowars and Alex Jones of any responsibility for conveying that information. (“By using this site for any purpose whatsoever, including reading, browsing, studying … you are agreeing to indemnify Infowars … from any claims or responsibility for anything which may result there from, and you accept sole responsibility for any legal, medical, or financial liability which may occur as a result of your usage of the pages on this site.”)

The company is not responsible for the information, or for the act of selling products that make unsubstantiated health claims. You the reader are responsible for the act of using the page. This is the sort of setup for which consumer protection exists. Of course, Jones rants against all sorts of consumer-protection measures, entities, and ideas. He has a vested interest in it remaining that way.

It was in fact because of an expensive campaign of fear-of-government-mongering by the supplement industry that Jones and others are able to sell these medicinal concoctions without the government getting in their way. The 1994 Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act effectively lets anyone sell medicine––so long as it’s not explicitly medicines, but ingestible non-food products that claim to improve health. More specifically, a product can’t be sold to treat or cure a specific disease, as pharmaceuticals are, but a supplement can claim to provide health, vitality, cardiovascular support, joint functionality, brain wellness, et cetera.

The law has led to much consumer confusion and piles of money wasted on products that may or may not be offering “support” or “vitality” or “enhancement.” But it has been a boon for industry. Instead of paying hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a product to market as a vetted pharmaceutical, anyone can go to market with a potion or pill or whatnot. This is acknowledged in a dark grey font on a black background on Infowars: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Meanwhile much more visibly, right next to the product, buyers are assured: “As always, we offer what we have researched and believe to be the highest quality selection of products for you and your family that have been developed along with the advisory of top doctors and experts.”

Only one doctor and/or expert is named on the site. He is referred to as Dr. Edward Group, and he is the person credited with inventing the Infowars supplement concoctions. It was he who “created the most powerful herbal male hormonal support product on the market,” Super Male Vitality. And it was Group who explained in an Infowars Youtube video called “The B12 Conspiracy” that “everyone is deficient in B12 because of all the pesticides and everything else that's been sprayed on the soil.” Infowars also sells vitamin B12 (as most pharmacies do for a few dollars). Though the Infowars product is called Secret 12, and it costs $29.99.

I find no leading expert who agrees that all people are deficient in B12—or even that many people are. In particular cases, a B12 supplement may be beneficial—but this is a discussion for a particular patient with their particular doctor who knows their particular case. Apart from certain few other cases—vitamin D in certain people, folic acid in pregnant females, vitamin C in 18th-century transoceanic seamen—supplements do not help us.

Group is a chiropractor. He is pictured on his web site in a white coat and scrubs, signifying to clients some belonging in the medical profession. His website lists multiple media appearances, the recurring theme being opposition to “Western medicine.” For example, he told The New York Times in 2009, “Western medicine is treating the symptoms instead of addressing the root cause.”

This is a mantra of “alternative” and “naturopathic” healers. It’s, of course, true. Like Jones’s conspiracy theories, it’s based in truth and plausibility. But it can be true that the U.S. health-care system is built around a fee-for-service model that ignores the causes of disease—and it can simultaneously be true that the answer to the problem is not to spend your money on Super Male Vitality or other “dietary supplement” pills, powders, and potions.  They risk providing a false security and distract from addressing the root cause of disease. And it is not a discussion to be had with a doctor who also sells supplements—much less at exorbitant markups.

Yet worse than all this is that these sales tactics are predicated on sowing distrust in what is actually known. The near consensus of actual leading experts is that eating mostly minimally processed plant-based foods is the best way to keep a body nourished. If there are indeed effects of certain herbs on human testosterone levels—a plausible concept—it is not likely necessary to pay exorbitantly for ultra-concentrated vials. In addition to lack of evidence, the product’s validity is undermined by the fact that Infowars also sells a potion called Super Female Vitality. It does not mention testosterone. The list of ingredients is almost identical.

Though it ends in ellipses.

Article source here:The Atlantic

[sherristockman]

Trump Sets Off Media Firestorm With Creation of Vaccine Safety Review Panel Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola Only nine days away from his swearing-in as president, Donald Trump held his first press conference since the election and announced that the pharmaceutical industry was "getting away with murder" and that during his presidency he would do something about high drug prices with more competitive bidding for federal contracts. His remarks sent drug stocks into a sudden nosedive.1 As noted by Brad Loncar, manager of Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF: "When somebody that high-profile says something that negative, people do not want to invest in it." According to Reuters:2 "Trump's campaign platform included allowing the Medicare healthcare program to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, which the law currently prohibits. He has also discussed making it easier to import drugs at cheaper prices. 'We are going to start bidding. We are going to save billions of dollars over time,' Trump said." Trump's comments came only one day after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told reporters that Trump had asked him to "chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity." Although the Trump transition team quickly denied that any decision had been made on such a commission, shockwaves reverberated throughout the drug industry in speculation as to what impact this commission, if formed, might have on vaccine uptake and sales.3 Robert Kennedy and Media Coverage of a Possible New Vaccine Safety Commission Although Trump himself has not made a public statement, if you had any doubts whatsoever that conventional media is following an industry-created script, look no further than the incredibly biased coverage of Kennedy's reported appointment. A vast majority of the articles written are so blatantly slanted and unbalanced, it is hard to understand why self-respecting professional journalists would ever want their names associated with them. Repeatedly, such articles claim the science on vaccines is settled and vaccines are safe.4 Period. The New York Times — which recently promised to rededicate itself "to the fundamental mission of Times journalism … to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives"5 — wrote a remarkably biased article about Kennedy's appointment, saying:6 "Mr. Trump … asked a prominent anti-vaccine crusader to lead a new government commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, ushering debunked conspiracy theories about the dangers of immunization into the White House … Among his many political pursuits, Mr. Trump picked up the anti-vaccine cause a few years back. In 2012, he tweeted … 'A study says @autism is out of control — a 78 percent increase in 10 years. Stop giving monstrous combined vaccinations.' These views, to say the least, are not the scientific consensus …" So, The New York Times, supposedly newly rededicated to impartial reflection on all sides of the issue, simply decides there's a consensus among all scientists and makes no attempt to address a single argument made by those who provide substantial evidence that there are big gaps in vaccine safety science. That's hardly upholding journalistic integrity. Yet, this is what we're seeing everywhere in news reporting by conventional media dominated by corporate interests these days. Is Vaccine Safety as Established a Fact as Gravity? There are no long-term studies comparing differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The pharmaceutical and medical trade industries claim a vaccine's benefits always outweigh the potential harms, but no solid scientific evidence is provided to back up such claims. It's really little more than opinion. The government and pharmaceutical industries say it would be unethical to study vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, as the unvaccinated children would be put at risk. Yet more and more parents are having first-hand experience with adverse reactions, and choosing to opt-out of the government vaccine schedule. Ask a parent of a child who died or suffered permanent brain damage after vaccination and I'm sure you'll get a very different response. Curiously, anyone who dares to question the quality and quantity of vaccine studies is immediately branded anti-science and a medical heretic. In response to Kennedy's announcement that Trump had asked him to head up a commission on vaccine safety, Dr. David Kimberlin, co-director of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said:7 "We don't have to keep asking if gravity is real. We don't have to keep asking if clean water is a good thing. Yes it is. Vaccines are good things. They save lives." According to Kimberlin, "The science proving the safety of vaccination is settled and does not need to be investigated again." But if it's settled, where are the studies? Where's the research showing that 50 doses of 14 vaccines administered to children in combination and repeatedly in the first six years of life equals long-term health and results in few, if any, problems? What are the multi-generational effects to the immune system with so many vaccine doses? The sad fact is the often repeated mantra that vaccines are absolutely safe and that there is nothing to worry about is a case of thinking that if a falsehood is repeated over and over again, and long enough, people will believe it's true. Why are vaccine proponents so terrified of an honest vaccine safety review? This in and of itself raises serious questions. Another fact that should give everyone pause is the witch hunt unleashed on anyone who dares to question the never-proven-hypothesis that vaccines are so unequivocally safe and beneficial for everyone that everyone should be forced, by law, to get vaccinated with every government-recommended vaccine. Cleveland Clinic Doctor Faces Disciplinary Action for Stating the Obvious One of the latest victims of such a witch hunt is Cleveland Clinic physician Daniel Neides, director of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute. Neides writes a monthly column for cleveland.com, a publication that is part of the Sun News organization, which also publishes the Cleveland Plain Dealer. In his January 6 column,8 Neides expressed his concerns about the ever-growing toxic burden humans face and his disappointing experience with the annual flu shot, which left him bedridden for two days. He also touched on the potential vaccine-autism link, saying: "Why do I mention autism now twice in this article. Because we have to wake up out of our trance and stop following bad advice. Does the vaccine burden — as has been debated for years — cause autism? I don't know and will not debate that here. What I will stand up and scream is that newborns without intact immune systems and detoxification systems are being over-burdened with PRESERVATIVES AND ADJUVANTS IN THE VACCINES. The adjuvants, like aluminum — used to stimulate the immune system to create antibodies — can be incredibly harmful to the developing nervous system. Some of the vaccines have helped reduce the incidence of childhood communicable diseases, like meningitis and pneumonia. That is great news. But not at the expense of neurologic diseases like autism and ADHD increasing at alarming rates." His comments ignited a media fire storm and prompted the Cleveland Clinic to issue a statement saying Neides would face disciplinary action for his comments.9 The column was briefly removed from the cleveland.com site, but mysteriously reappeared and became accessible again after Neides retracted his statements and apologized for what his physician colleagues and the media are characterizing as an anti-vaccine "rant." If a prominent, well-respected physician cannot state the obvious without facing potentially career-ending consequences, what hope do we have of ever getting at the truth? WHY is open dialogue about vaccination not permitted? It's simply not reasonable to shut every discussion down with the old "the science is settled" claim, while the scientific literature is still littered with outstanding questions. Coincidence Claims Falter as Vaccine Damage Becomes More Common On January 11, a group of concerned parents rallied at the State Capitol in Mississippi in the hopes of having their voices heard in the vaccine debate.10 One of those parents was Dr. Scott Guidry, whose son developed autism spectrum symptoms following some of his childhood vaccinations. Guidry told WJTV: "My son was vaccine-injured, and we reversed the vaccine injury, and now he's recovered from autism. I'm not against vaccines. I learned the same importance of vaccines like every other physician who went to med school did. I know. But it's never really been studied, the safety of vaccines. There's never been a long-term safety study on vaccines." According to this news report, Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates, as well as the highest infant mortality rate in the country.11 Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given. The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. It has become so common that a majority of people now have a family member or know someone who has been adversely affected by one or more vaccines. Eventually, this first-hand experience with vaccine reactions will come to include most physicians and politicians, as well. At a certain point, the coincidence-theory simply cannot hold water any longer, and that's what we're starting to see now. Very often, people don't care enough to get involved in the discussion until it's personal and, in recent years, we've seen a growing number of influential people speaking up and describing their personal experiences with vaccine reactions in the public forum. Robert De Niro is the latest example of a well-known celebrity parent, who has gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism. Not surprisingly, like everyone who raises questions about vaccine safety, he has been attacked by the media as being uninformed and promoting dangerous ideas. Rick Rollens, former secretary of the California State Senate, and retired Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences with vaccination and autism. They were strongly criticized for speaking out as they attempted to open up discussions about vaccine safety. Absolutely no one is above ridicule should they dare question the safety of vaccines. Paul 'For Profit' Offit's at It Again Wherever discussion about vaccine safety is covered by the media, Dr. Paul Offit is there in the middle of it. A vaccine developer for Merck and author of several books attempting to marginalize vaccine safety critics, Offit has become the "go-to" doctor whenever corporatized conventional media wants a spokesperson to deny vaccine risks and defend "vaccine safety." Rarely, if ever, does media note his deep ties to the vaccine industry, and the fact that he stands to profit personally from maintaining the illusion that vaccines are absolutely safe for everyone all the time, which also protects the status quo for industry profitmaking. The Daily Beast recently ran an article12 penned by Offit, in which he says "Trump needs vaccine experts, not conspiracy theorists." How do you know a propagandist when you see one? For starters, they're extremely fond of throwing around derogatory and humiliating terms like "conspiracy theorists," "hacks" and "quacks," in lieu of making a solid argument. Offit has earned tens of millions of dollars in royalties from the Rotateq vaccine, and has notoriously stated that infants can tolerate 10,000 vaccine doses at once without ill effect. He's also been caught making unsubstantiated and false statements about former CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, and lying to the OC Register about providing CBS News with the details of his financial relationship with the vaccine maker Merck.13 Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), sued Offit for defamation in 2009, along with reporter Amy Wallace and publisher Conde Nast. "She lies," Offit was quoted as stating "flatly" about Fisher in Wired magazine. However, no evidence supporting his accusation was provided and Fisher was never asked by the reporter for a comment on Offit's baseless allegation. Fisher sued in the Fourth Circuit federal court in Virginia for a jury trial and $1 million in damages, but Judge Claude Hilton dismissed the defamation lawsuit. Hilton's primary argument for dismissal was that both Fisher and Offit are public figures and that, in his opinion, Offit's allegation that "she lies" was made in a moment of emotional exasperation and the heat of spirited public debate, which is the hallmark of free speech protected by the First Amendment. It is interesting how the free speech argument was used to dismiss a clear-cut case of defamation. The big question today is: Will the First Amendment protect Neides or anyone else in the U.S. who dares to publicly criticize the safety or effectiveness of vaccines? In Absence of Reliable Injury Reporting, How Can Safety Be Ascertained? In 2015, media reports noted that a "study" by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had confirmed that vaccines rarely ever cause serious reactions. The study in question used CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, concluding there were only 33 "confirmed vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis cases" among the 25,173,965 vaccine doses administered between January 2009 and December 2011.14 However, there's a significant problem with using this study to "prove" safety, as there are dozens of serious reactions besides anaphylaxis. To say that vaccines rarely cause serious reactions based on the occurrence of anaphylaxis alone is misleading at best. Moreover, it's reasonable to suspect that the findings rely on incomplete data. The assumption is that the VSD — which collects health data from nine health care partners — actually receives thorough and accurate information about what happens to a patient following vaccination. But the chances of that are actually slim, since studies have shown vaccine reactions are rarely if ever recorded or reported. Providers of vaccines are by law required to report vaccine reactions to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), jointly operated by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Despite that, most vaccine providers are unaware of this requirement, are unfamiliar with the reporting process, are confused about who should be doing the reporting, and/or are unwilling to file a report. As noted by The Vaccine Reaction, an online journal newspaper published by NVIC:15 "Although the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act [NCVIA] of 1986 requires doctors and other health care providers who administer vaccines to make a report to VAERS for 'hospitalizations, injuries, deaths and serious health problems' following vaccination, it is estimated that this happens in only between 1 to 10 percent of the cases. VAERS receives about 30,000 reports annually. Given the extreme under-reporting to the system, it is likely that the true number of vaccine adverse reactions in the United States is closer to at least 300,000 per year, and perhaps as high as 3 million. One can only guess how many of those would be serious reactions. Suddenly, the argument that vaccines are safe because adverse reactions are 'rare' becomes a bogus one." If underreporting to VAERS is that common, chances are, the VSD is no better. Adding to the problem, the VSD data is not openly available to independent researchers, and without replication, the accuracy of the findings must forever remain suspect. The Vaccine Reaction Cover-Up Most pediatricians will tell you they've never seen a vaccine reaction, or that reactions are really rare. However, when a child suffers a vaccine reaction, they typically end up in the emergency room (ER), not the pediatrician's office. In a 2015 article, an ER nurse and former police officer shares his experiences with vaccine reactions, noting he's "seen the cover-up" first hand. He writes, in part:16,17 "I cannot even begin to guess how many times over the years I have seen vaccine reactions come through my E.R. Without any exaggeration, it has to be counted in hundreds … The cases almost always presented similarly, and often no one else connected it. The child comes in with either a fever approaching 105, or seizures, or lethargy/can't wake up, or sudden overwhelming sickness, screaming that won't stop, spasms [or] GI inclusion … And one of the first questions I would ask as triage nurse, was, are they current on their vaccinations? … Parents (and co-workers) usually just think I'm trying to rule out the vaccine preventable diseases, when in fact, I am looking to see how recently they were vaccinated to determine if this is a vaccine reaction. Too often I heard a parent say something akin to 'Yes they are current, the pediatrician caught up their vaccines this morning during their check up, and the pediatrician said they were in perfect health!' … But here's the more disturbing part. [Of] all the cases I've seen, I have never seen any medical provider report them to VAERS. I have filed VAERS reports. But I am the only nurse I have EVER met that files VAERS reports. I have also never met a doctor that filed a VAERS report. Mind you, I have served in multiple hospitals across multiple states, alongside probably well over a hundred doctors and probably 300 [to] 400+ nurses … What does that say about reported numbers? … And the final part of that, is that I have, first hand, seen blatant cover ups from doctors. I have seen falsification of medical records and documentation via intentional omission … I remind them that VAERS is a reporting body for ANY symptoms that are contemporaneous to vaccination, whether causation is believed to be associated or not, and I get the dismissal that they are not filing it because it [the vaccine] has nothing to do with it [the symptom] … This is a systemic suppression of information and statistics." How Vaccine Mandates Are Imposed on Health Care Workers in Absence of Legal Requirements In related news, GoErie.com recently reported18 that six health care workers fired from a hospital in Erie, Pennsylvania, for refusing the annual flu vaccine have been reinstated with back pay. In related commentary, according to Dr. Meryl Nass, a vaccine blogger with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, it appears American hospitals do not actually have a legal leg to stand on when firing health care workers over vaccine refusals, because the federal government claims it does not impose vaccine mandates for adults. So why are hospitals firing workers for refusing influenza vaccinations? In large part, it appears to be a strategy designed to receive higher Medicare reimbursements. Organizations co-created by the federal government have created guidelines for improving "quality of care" in hospitals, and Medicare reimbursements are used to forcibly impose certain quality measures over others, such as vaccination. In a nutshell, hospitals that have higher vaccination rates for patients and health care workers get higher Medicare reimbursement rates. But this has little to do with actual federal mandates. In fact, according to the CDC, "there are no legally mandated vaccinations for adults, except for persons entering military service. CDC does recommend certain immunizations for adults, depending on age, occupation and other circumstances, but these immunizations are not required by law." Flu Vaccine Mandate for Hospital Workers Is Financially Driven Employee coverage rates of flu vaccination is a quality measure that is reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). As noted by Nass: "The bottom line is that the federal government squeezed hospitals by requiring hospitals to report the rates of yearly influenza vaccinations of both hospital staff and hospital patients, including these two measures in a global calculation of hospital 'quality.' A hospital's 'quality' number determines approximately 3.75 percent of its overall Medicare reimbursements rate in 2017 … In the health care industry, 3.75 percent is enough to make a hospital sink or swim. The hospitals, predictably, acquiesced by demanding their employees be vaccinated or fired. But the federal government insists it imposes no mandates. Yet its actions created a de facto mandate. Where are the lawyers who will litigate this in federal court? I don't understand why cases are going through EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], where employees may win, when their wins do not impact the de facto health care worker flu shot mandates that continue to be imposed in most U.S. health care institutions today." Vaccinating Hospital Workers Has No Impact on Patient Safety Interestingly, hospitals began mandating annual flu shots for their workers AFTER meta-analyses by Cochrane (considered the gold standard of meta reviews), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC concluded that health care worker vaccinations do not protect patients from influenza — a finding that raises questions about its validity as a "quality of care" measure in the first place. The first one, published in July 2013, by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, found "laboratory-proven influenza or its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalization or death due to lower respiratory tract illness) did not identify a benefit of health care worker vaccination on these key outcomes … This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of health care workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in long-term care institutions." The Cochrane Database Systematic Review published an update to this analysis in June, 2016, noting that 5 percent of health care workers who had received the influenza vaccine and 8 percent of workers who were unvaccinated had laboratory-proven influenza each season, and that health care workers may transmit influenza to patients. Still, the conclusions remained the same. "Offering influenza vaccination to health care workers based in long-term care homes may have little or no effect on the number of residents who develop laboratory-proven influenza compared with those living in care homes where no vaccination is offered," the authors write. They did note one study of moderate quality evidence suggests health care vaccinations may reduce lower respiratory tract infections in residents by 2 percent, from 6 to 4 percent. Another 2013 meta-analysis — this one by the CDC — found, "The evidence quality that health care personnel vaccination reduces patient mortality and influenza cases is moderate and low, respectively."19 A third analysis of 20 different studies,20 also published in 2013, found that while influenza vaccination of health care workers is likely to offer some indirect protection to vulnerable patients, the evidence is limited. Science Be Damned As noted by Nass:21 "Each of these three groups examined the world literature on the effects of health care worker vaccinations in 2012 [to 20]13, and each determined that there was no statistically significant evidence that health care worker influenza vaccinations prevented either influenza cases or influenza deaths in their patients. You cannot get better evidence than this. Health care worker flu vaccinations, despite what the public has been told, do not improve patient care. Furthermore, there is no good evidence that flu shots benefit the over-65 Medicare patients who are also being vaccinated to comply with a second 'quality' measure. To my knowledge, no one has looked to see if hospital inpatients have poorer outcomes because of these shots, but they certainly might. The shots cause a generalized inflammatory reaction that might adversely affect patients with, for example, autoimmune diseases, pneumonia or heart attacks." If you ask me, I think it's about time we get a vaccine safety review commission started, and if Kennedy is the one who heads it, I wish him the best in this endeavor and hope he seeks advice from Barbara Loe Fischer, co-founder of NVIC. We must bring back some objective sanity to the discussion about vaccine safety and scientific integrity. It's going to be an uphill battle all the way, but it is encouraging to see the topic being discussed by the new administration and, hopefully, it will result in better science and holding drug companies more accountable for the safety of their products.

[medicalmarijuana-news]

Radical Rant: Marijuana’s Imminent Trumpocalypse

One week from today, Donald Trump will be sworn in as the nation’s 45th president. He enters the Oval Office with his party in control of the House (241-194) and the Senate (52-48), majorities just five congressmen and two senators short of Congress’s largest Republican majority since the Great Depression, and a vacancy he’ll fill on the Supreme Court to create a 5-4 conservative majority.

Worst of all, he has chosen as his attorney general literally the most hard-line anti-pot senator in America, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, a man whose history of racial animosity derailed his appointment as U.S. Attorney in the 1980s. (Imagine: too racist for the 1980s, when “I speak jive“ and “Long Duk Dong“ were jokes you could get away with in a movie, but just fine for the 2010s.)

Yet, some commentators on marijuana policy think everything will work out just fine.

Some tell us that the marijuana industry is just too big. It’s generating tax revenue and jobs. It’s popular with the people. It’s been 20 years since California’s medical marijuana started; it’s just too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

Sure. And in 1919, there were 1,300 operating breweries in America. They generated a ton of tax revenue—up to 75 percent of New York’s. Saloons were quite popular with the people. Americans had been drinking alcohol on this continent since 1609. And yet, they put that genie back in the bottle for thirteen years, didn’t they?

Some tell us that Donald Trump loves business and money. As the guy who claims he’ll “Make America Great Again,” he’ll want to show growth and productivity gains. He won’t want to shut down an exploding industry.

Sure. But who has more business and money for Trump to love? The $6 billion startup industry headquartered in states that gave 99 votes to Clinton, four to Trump and four to others in the Electoral College? Or their global corporate competitors in the pharmaceutical and alcohol industries worth over $600 billion?

Some tell us that Jeff Sessions as Attorney General will have bigger fish to fry. With the limited resources of the Department of Justice and a mandate to attack immigration violations, Sessions and Trump won’t have the time and resources to go after state-legal marijuana.

Sure. But Sessions and DOJ won’t have to expend much energy at all to drastically alter the marijuana industry. Threatening letters to states, warning of prosecution for officials who license marijuana commerce, don’t take much time and money.

And they don’t need the resources to go after it all. Just a few DEA raids of the largest warehouse grows and storefront shops will put a chill over all of them. Investors thinking of sinking funds into the green rush will start closing their wallets.

Some tell us that the Trump administration won’t waste political capital going after something as popular as marijuana, which now has 60 percent public support for legalization and over 80 percent for medical marijuana.

Sure. Marijuana enjoys widespread support nationally, but Trump’s re-election doesn’t depend on widespread national support. It depends on maintaining his Republican support, and they oppose legalization by 58 percent, with greater opposition in the areas of the South and Midwest that he dominated.

Some tell us not to worry, because Trump said he was 100 percent for medical marijuana and states’ rights for marijuana legalization.

Sure. But Trump also said that there are a lot of problems coming out of Colorado. Also, we tend to think “medical marijuana” means “people can grow cannabis and buy cannabis and use cannabis for their medicine for whatever ailment”, but people like Trump and many Republicans think “medical marijuana” means “OK, you’re on your deathbed with cancer and you’ve tried every other medicine and surgery, so I guess we can let you buy some cannabis tincture at a store.”

Plus, consider that states’ rights work both ways.

Maybe it means California, Oregon and Colorado have the right to legalize marijuana inside their borders. Maybe it means Arizona, Idaho and Kansas have the right to keep it from flowing over theirs. Which side do you think Trump will take—the states that voted for him or the ones that didn’t and won’t in 2020?

Some tell us not to fear Jeff Sessions, because in his confirmation hearings this week, he didn’t commit to a full-scale federal prohibition effort. He gave vague, non-committal answers like his predecessor, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and she didn’t ramp up prosecutions of marijuana states.

Sure. But Loretta Lynch couldn’t ramp up prosecutions because the Rohrabacher Amendment was in place, forbidding DOJ from spending any funds to prosecute state-legal marijuana. That amendment expires in April, and Speaker Ryan has set new rules forbidding budgetary amendments on guns, abortion, LGBT, and marijuana issues, so it can’t be renewed.

Besides, Sessions has been in a job interview this week; of course he’s going to conceal his true nature to avoid losing confirmation votes. A more accurate look at how Sessions may be as Attorney General is found back in April, when he was questioning a witness in a Senate hearing and didn’t have to worry about passing a confirmation hearing:

“This is a huge, huge issue. … [President Obama] thinks it’s a very little problem. But these data show that it is [a huge problem]! … [W]e need a nationwide understanding about the problem. This is very real.”

“Colorado was one of the leading states that started the movement to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. And we’re going to find it, in my opinion, ripple throughout the entire American citizenry; and we’re going to see more marijuana use, and it’s not going to be good! We’re going to see more other drug use, illegal drug use, also, which is damaging.”

“I mean, we need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it’s, in fact, a very real danger, you can see the accidents, traffic deaths related to marijuana jump 20 percent.”

“These are the kinds of things we’re going to see throughout the country. You’ll see cocaine and heroin increase more than it would have, I think, had we not talked about it.”

“I see the danger and damage it does, and I think the president needs to speak out. I think one of his great failures—it’s been obvious to me—his lax treatment and comments on marijuana.”

“It’s been obvious; it reverses 20 years, almost, of hostility to drugs, begun really when Nancy Reagan started the ‘Just Say No’ program.”

“And if we go back into this path, we’re going to regret it. And you’ve got to have leadership from the top.”

“I can’t tell you how concerning it is for me emotionally and personally to see the possibility that we would reverse the progress that we’ve made and let it slip away from us!”

“Lives will be impacted, families will be broken up, children will be damaged, because of the difficulties their parents have, and people may be psychologically impacted the rest of their lives with marijuana. And if they go on to more serious drugs, which tends to happen, and deny it if you want to, but it tends to happen, there’ll be even greater causes…”

“[T]his drug is dangerous, you cannot play with it, it’s not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity that good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

“I believe the Department of Justice needs to be clear and the president really needs to reassert some leadership on this. I think it’s really serious.”

Now maybe when President-elect Trump made the offer to Senator Sessions to become Attorney General, he told Sessions not to do anything about the “dangerous drug” marijuana that leads to damaged children and greater hard drug abuse. Maybe when Sessions accepted the offer, he decided this “really serious” “very real” “huge, huge issue” could be ignored and his Department of Justice shouldn’t be the “grown-ups in charge of Washington” sending the message that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

Maybe, and I’ll be thrilled to be wrong if the status quo continues, the marijuana industry grows and nobody gets raided or jailed. But I have always believed this isn’t a War on Drugs, this is a war on culture, and the other side of that culture war is in complete control. Like Bill Maher said, don’t piss off your old underground dealer; you may find you need their services again.

Previously in Radical Rant: My First Time

Click here for all of Russ Belville’s columns.

from Medical Marijuana News http://ift.tt/2jFCCGp via https://www.potbox.com/