And while it’s more or less a recap of what ZeroHedge readers have known for years, the essay provides a sobering dose of reality for the “You should really watch Rachel Maddow” types.

Seven months away from a rematch election pitting President Biden against former President Donald Trump, the incumbent is struggling. Mr. Biden suffers from persistently low approval ratings, he barely manages to tie Mr. Trump in national head-to-head polls and he lags behind the former president in most of the swing states where the election will be decided (despite some recent modestly encouraging movement in his direction).

The question is why. -NY Times

Biden’s defenders, and the administration itself, has chalked the president’s unpopularity up to “a failure of communication,” however Linker instead suggests “It’s usually wiser to listen to what voters are saying” (beyond the obvious concerns about the president’s age).

‘Too Numerous to List’

Citing a January 2021 essay in Tablet titled “Everything Is Broken,” and a follow-up essay by the same author, Alana Newhsouse, who wrote that “whole parts of American society were breaking down before our eyes,” Linker encapsulates why Americans are so pissed (h/t Dean Baker):

The examples are almost too numerous to list: a disastrous war in Iraq; a ruinous financial crisis followed by a decade of anemic growth when most of the new wealth went to those who were already well off; a shambolic response to the deadliest pandemic in a century; a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan; rising prices and interest rates; skyrocketing levels of public and private debt; surging rates of homelessness and the spread of tent encampments in American cities; undocumented migrants streaming over the southern border; spiking rates of gun violence, mental illness, depression, addiction, suicide, chronic illness and obesity, coupled with a decline in life expectancy.

That’s an awful lot of failure over the past 20-odd years. Yet for the most part, the people who run our institutions have done very little to acknowledge or take responsibility for any of it, let alone undertake reforms that aim to fix what’s broken. -NYT

Linker then writes that the above is why “angry anti-establishment populism has become so prominent in our politics over the past decade,” which both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have capitalized on.

And Biden, a career politician, has been part of the problem (and therefore implicated in these abject societal failures), and is “badly out of step with the national mood, speaking a language very far removed from the talk of a broken country that suffuses Mr. Trump’s meandering and often unhinged remarks on the subject.” (gotta get that shot in!)

That leaves Mr. Biden as the lone institutionalist defender of the status quo surrounded by a small army of brokenists looking for support from an electorate primed to respond to their more downcast message.

Linker suggests that in order to recover, Biden ‘stop being so upbeat’ – about the economy in particular, and stop making the election about how awful Trump is. Biden “should admit Washington has gotten a lot of things wrong over the past two decades and sound unhappy about and humbled by it.”

Further, Biden “could make the argument that all governments make mistakes because they are run by fallible human beings — but also point out that elected representatives in a democracy should be up front about error and resolve to learn from mistakes so that they avoid them in the future.”

“Just acknowledging how much in America is broken could generate a lot of good will from otherwise skeptical and dismissive voters,” Linker suggests.

Let’s see how that goes.

Among the biggest revelations is that the program was established a decade ago and spans three different American presidents. The Times says the CIA program to modernize Ukraine’s intelligence services has “transformed” the former Soviet state and its capabilities into “Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.”

This has included the agency having secretly trained and equipped Ukrainian intelligence officers spanning back to just after the 2014 Maidan coup events, as well constructing a network of 12 secret bases along the Russian border—work which began eight years ago. These intelligence bases, from which Russian commanders’ communications can be swept up and Russian spy satellites monitored, are being used launch and track cross-border drone and missile attacks on Russian territory.

This means that with the disclosure of the longtime “closely guarded secret” the world just got a big step closer to WW3, given it means the CIA is largely responsible for the effectiveness of the recent spate of attacks which have included direct drone hits on key oil refineries and energy infrastructure.

“Without them [the CIA and elite commandoes it’s trained], there would have been no way for us to resist the Russians, or to beat them,” according to Ivan Bakanov, former head of the SBU, which is Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency.

A main source of the NYT revelations—disclosures which might come as no surprise to those never willing to so easily swallow the mainstream ‘official’ narrative of events—is identified as a top intelligence commander named Gen. Serhii Dvoretskiy.

Clearly, Kiev and Washington now want world to know of the deep intelligence relationship they tried to conceal for over the past decade. It is perhaps a kind of warning to Moscow at a moment Ukraine’s forces are in retreat: the US is fighting hand in glove with the Ukrainians. And yet the revelations contained in the NY Times report also confirm what President Putin has precisely accused Washington of all along.

While the lengthy NYT report is full of fresh revelations and confirmation of just how deeply the CIA has always been involved in Ukraine, below are seven of the biggest contained in the story…

Description of secret spy bunker

The report contains a surprisingly detailed description of one of the ‘secret’ underground command centers established by the CIA near the Russian border… location undisclosed of course:

Not far away, a discreet passageway descends to a subterranean bunker where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrop on conversations between Russian commanders. On one screen, a red line followed the route of an explosive drone threading through Russian air defenses from a point in central Ukraine to a target in the Russian city of Rostov.

The underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center in the months after Russia’s invasion, is a secret nerve center of Ukraine’s military.

There is also one more secret: The base is almost fully financed, and partly equipped, by the CIA.

Elite commando force

Within two years after the 2014 West-backed coup in Ukraine, the CIA had set up a training program for elite Ukrainian operatives:

Around 2016, the CIA began training an elite Ukrainian commando force — known as Unit 2245 — which captured Russian drones and communications gear so that CIA technicians could reverse-engineer them and crack Moscow’s encryption systems. (One officer in the unit was Kyrylo Budanov, now the general leading Ukraine’s military intelligence.)

And the CIA also helped train a new generation of Ukrainian spies who operated inside Russia, across Europe, and in Cuba and other places where the Russians have a large presence.

Ukraine transformed into an “intelligence-gathering hub”

The US intelligence network in Ukraine (which is tantamount to NATO intelligence network too) has in reality been more extensive than pretty much all prior media speculation has envisioned. Ukraine has long been a massive “intelligence gathering hub” for Washington and its partners:

In more than 200 interviews, current and former officials in Ukraine, the United States and Europe described a partnership that nearly foundered from mutual distrust before it steadily expanded, turning Ukraine into an intelligence-gathering hub that intercepted more Russian communications than the CIA station in Kyiv, Ukraine, could initially handle. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence and matters of sensitive diplomacy.

Now these intelligence networks are more important than ever, as Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is more dependent on sabotage and long-range missile strikes that require spies far behind enemy lines. And they are increasingly at risk: If Republicans in Congress end military funding to Kyiv, the CIA may have to scale back.

Huge NYT admission that Putin was basically right

Below is a hugely ironic excerpt from the Times report. The section begins by noting that Putin has repeatedly blamed the US-NATO for expanding its military and intelligence infrastructure into Ukraine. Not only had this precisely been going on for the past decade, as is now being admitted, but was presented by the Kremlin as a key cause of the Russian invasion of Feb.24, 2022. Putin and his officials were adamant on the eve of the invasion that NATO was militarizing Ukraine. The Times appears to now fully admit that, yes – this was actually the case:

Putin has long blamed Western intelligence agencies for manipulating Kyiv and sowing anti-Russia sentiment in Ukraine.

Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the CIA, together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow.

…U.S. officials were often reluctant to fully engage, fearing that Ukrainian officials could not be trusted, and worrying about provoking the Kremlin.Yet a tight circle of Ukrainian intelligence officials assiduously courted the CIA and gradually made themselves vital to the Americans. In 2015, Gen. Valeriy Kondratiuk, then Ukraine’s head of military intelligence, arrived at a meeting with the CIA’s deputy station chief and without warning handed over a stack of top-secret files.

According to a new account in the NYT:

On the night of the Maidan coup in Ukraine ten years ago, Feb. 24th 2014, Ukraine's post-coup spy chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko arrived at his new headquarters and made his first call to "the C.I.A. station chief and the local head of MI6."… pic.twitter.com/Dun8mPmnIR

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) February 25, 2024

2014 Coup… and Crimea

The report indirectly references this very critical period which set Ukraine and Russian on their tragic collision course:

With violence escalating, an unmarked U.S. government plane touched down at an airport in Kyiv carrying John Brennan, then the director of the CIA. He told Nalyvaichenko that the CIA was interested in developing a relationship but only at a pace the agency was comfortable with, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.

To the CIA, the unknown question was how long Nalyvaichenko and the pro-Western government would be around. The CIA had been burned before in Ukraine.

…The result was a delicate balancing act. The CIA was supposed to strengthen Ukraine’s intelligence agencies without provoking the Russians. The red lines were never precisely clear, which created a persistent tension in the partnership.

Operation Goldfish

Money and advanced tech given by the CIA has allowed the Ukrainians to establish eavesdropping operations far beyond what they would otherwise be capable of. All the while, elite commando teams were being trained by the CIA in European cities as part of a program called ‘Operation Goldfish’. The NYT reporting includes a bit of a ‘boast’ of the Ukrainians now being able to hack into Russian military networks:

In the bunker, Dvoretskiy pointed to communications equipment and large computer servers, some of which were financed by the CIA. He said his teams were using the base to hack into the Russian military’s secure communications networks.

“This is the thing that breaks into satellites and decodes secret conversations,” Dvoretskiy told a Times journalist on a tour, adding that they were hacking into spy satellites from China and Belarus, too.

…The CIA began sending equipment in 2016, after the pivotal meeting at Scattergood, Dvoretskiy said, providing encrypted radios and devices for intercepting secret enemy communications.

A stunning admission: “Tiptoeing Around Trump”

Among the most interesting and curious moments of the NYT report is a description of the CIA program’s expanse under the Trump administration. The report suggests that the true scope may have even been hidden from Trump. The Russian hawks in his administration quietly did the ‘dirty work’, we are told:

The election of Trump in November 2016 put the Ukrainians and their CIA partners on edge.

Trump praised Putin and dismissed Russia’s role in election interference. He was suspicious of Ukraine and later tried to pressure its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to investigate his Democratic rival, Biden, resulting in Trump’s first impeachment.

Official Narrative update: the idea that the CIA has been deeply involved in Ukraine for over a decade waging a secret war against Russia is no longer a conspiracy theory. pic.twitter.com/sxv2472VqY

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 25, 2024

The report then emphasizes, “But whatever Trump said and did, his administration often went in the other direction. This is because Trump had put Russia hawks in key positions, including Mike Pompeo as CIA director and John Bolton as national security adviser.”

And further, “They visited Kyiv to underline their full support for the secret partnership, which expanded to include more specialized training programs and the building of additional secret bases.” Given the attempt to place Trump in a negative light (he had to be ‘tiptoed around’…), it will be interesting to see how he and his campaign respond to the report. But more consequential will be the reaction of Putin and the Kremlin in the coming days.

Looks like a CNN hit piece is coming out to provide air support for Biden DOJ’s assault on the First Amendment.

By charging and convicting Douglass of a felony for sharing satirical meme about Hillary, the regime attempts to codify the discredited “disinformation” scam into law.

Looks like a CNN hit piece is coming out to provide air support for Biden DOJ's assault on the First Amendment.

By charging and convicting Douglass of a felony for sharing satirical meme about Hillary, the regime attempts to codify the discredited "disinformation" scam into law. https://t.co/74UKIjEFUn

— Darren J. Beattie (@DarrenJBeattie) December 18, 2023

Beattie was referring to a statement dropped by one of the original victims of the regime’s war on memes, Douglass Mackey. They noted that CNN was coming out with something soon. According to Reclaim The Net, the NY Times has already dropped their load:

It’s that time of the US election cycle again: what were formerly known as “newspapers of record” attempting to, for political reasons, promote odd ideas like regulating jokes.

It’s the New York Times this time, looking like it’s terrified that Donald Trump might be successful in his new presidential bid, and so going guns blazing after what it calls his “troll army.”

And “troll” here means – meme creators. As for the memes themselves, the NYT either pretends not to or doesn’t get the joke – namely, that they are jokes, and basically treats them as sinister tools for peddling misinformation and deepfakes.

To add insult to the paper’s injury, the memes not only support the Trump campaign, but Trump also enjoys them, and takes time to communicate with the meme creators.

The article claims that there is a large number of “sexist and racist tropes” being repeated in these memes, but singles out a video collection of some of President Biden’s many gaffes.

As usually, this latest round of attacks has to do with Donald Trump being the likely opponent to whoever becomes the Democrat nominee for president.

Here’s the statement about the coming attacks by James Lawrence, Mackey’s attorney:

The media has already widely reported that some of the hundreds of thousands of social media posts Doug Mackey made between 2015 and 2018 contained inflammatory and vulgar content. As he truthfully testified under oath, he regrets the tone and substance of these posts, and they do not reflect his current views or the person he has been for the last several years. However, he does not regret using his anonymous account to promote conservative political ideas or then-candidate Donald Trump.

In the prosecution, the government only alleged two satirical memes he found on 4chan about “voting by text” violated the law, not these offensive tweets. Despite attempting to track down every person who texted the phone number in the memes, the FBI could not find a single person who ever believed the memes were serious, let alone did not vote because of them. Mr. Mackey’s other tweets have no relevance to whether these memes are protected by the First Amendment or violate 18 U.S.C. § 241 for conspiring to violate the civil rights of voters. Americans have made literally millions of vile and repellant—but First Amendment-protected—social media posts without facing federal prosecution. The government and media only bring up these other offensive tweets to bias the public against him.

Doug is grateful that former President Trump, his son, and thousands across the political spectrum can see through these smears and distractions and recognize that his case is about protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans. He looks forward to making his case before the Second Circuit.

BREAKING: Statement on forthcoming CNN hit piece

James Lawrence, civil attorney for Doug Mackey:

The media has already widely reported that some of the hundreds of thousands of social media posts Doug Mackey made between 2015 and 2018 contained inflammatory and vulgar content.… pic.twitter.com/fIPFIEqC29

— Douglass Mackey (@DougMackeyCase) December 18, 2023

Here’s Mackey’s GiveSendGo.

This may be all about Trump now, but it’s really about subverting the American people’s rights to express ourselves. They want a compliant and obedient populace and the people standing in their way are patriots.

Political correspondent Maggie Haberman said during an interview on the Dispatch podcast that Trump was planning to assemble loyalists for a potential administration should he win the upcoming presidential election. Podcast host Jamie Weinstein then asked her about the rumors that Trump could pick Carlson, a co-founder of the Daily Caller and Daily Caller News Foundation, as his running mate.

“It’s a real thing that I am hearing as a possibility,” Haberman responded. “The likelihood of it, I don’t know. I think there will be a pretty professionalized vetting process, honestly. I know that might sound unbelievable based on what we’ve seen from Trump historically, but Trump’s current political team is the best — at least as a non-incumbent — that he’s had, and there’s just a different level of control.”

Carlson’s show with Fox News amassed huge ratings before the network announced his departure on April 24. After his departure, the ratings for the replacement show, “Fox News at Night,” declined until the network announced that Jesse Watters would move his show from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. to replace Carlson’s show.

“The risk with Tucker Carlson and Trump is that Tucker Carlson’s a very big star in his own right, and I’m not sure how Trump would contend with that,” Haberman said.

The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

New York Times Magazine Editor Jake Silverstein addressed Hughes’ resignation, stating, “While I respect that she has strong convictions, this was a clear violation of The Times’s policy on public protest. This policy, which I fully support, is an important part of our commitment to independence.” Silverstein further explained that the decision for Hughes to resign came after a discussion about the incompatibility of her public stance and participation in protests with her role as a journalist at The Times.

The letter that Hughes signed, titled “Writers Against the War on Gaza,” accuses Israel of attempting to conduct genocide against the Palestinian people. The letter highlights the high number of Palestinian casualties, including children, as well as the deprivation of basic human rights endured by Gaza’s 2 million residents. It specifically criticizes the New York Times for an editorial where it stated that Israel is fighting to defend a society that values human life and the rule of law.

The letter also takes issue with “establishment media outlets” referring to the terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7 as “unprovoked.” It urges a rejection of narratives that justify Western complicity in ethnic cleansing and expresses solidarity with the people of Palestine in their struggle for freedom and self-determination against occupation.

In addition to Hughes, Jamie Lauren Keiles, another contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine, also signed the letter and announced her departure from the publication. Keiles clarified that her resignation was a personal decision to ensure the freedom of her work, stating, “Having a formal institutional affiliation was starting to become a liability to my work… I stand by my choice to sign the letter and pray for a free Palestine soon.”

Article generated from corporate media reports.

The New York Times published an article advising readers, “How to Get Absolutely No Sun This Summer.”¹ I’d like to say this is a joke, but it’s disturbingly real. It begins by stating there’s “no such thing as a safe tan,” warning that should you avail yourself of a bit of daily sun, you’re setting yourself up for sunspots, skin discoloration, premature aging and skin cancer.

While too much sun can, indeed, harm your skin, the article completely neglects to tell readers that too little sun can be equally detrimental to your health — and likely more so.

New York Times Recommends Full Face Masks, Staying Indoors

This summer, The New York Times recommends you only venture out into the sun if you’re prepared to fully block its rays. In addition to applying sunscreen every two hours “across every exposed bit of skin, including your hands and the tips of your ears,” they suggest using a hat, long-sleeved clothing and an umbrella.

But that’s not all. A full face mask that covers your face up to your eyes — or one that goes completely over your head — is also recommended, along with sun capes, gloves, sunglasses and visors. Or, you could simply avoid going outside altogether. Dr. Maressa C. Criscito, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University Langone Health, told the Times:²

“Coupling your sunscreen with a hat, or UPF clothing, or sitting under an umbrella, or going indoors for lunch during the high, peak UV index — those are all things that you could do in addition to your sunscreen application.”

The Times even worked in what appears to be a cheap shot at yours truly, noting that a dermatologist they spoke to, Dr. Shereene Idriss from New York City, “bristled at the mention of the anti-sunscreen posts that occasionally pop up on social media, shared by self-proclaimed health experts who believe seed oils to be at the root of all modern ailments.”³

Yet seed oils are part of the equation when it comes to the sun and your health — I’ll explain why below. The fear-based article, unfortunately, is doing an extreme disservice to anyone who reads it and comes away believing they must shun the sun entirely.

What Does the Science Say About Sun Exposure and Cancer?

The biggest fear many have about the sun is that it may increase the risk of skin cancer. The Times certainly played on this fear, writing:⁴

“In the 1700s, the average life expectancy was 30 to 40. The median age at which melanoma is diagnosed is 65,” she [Idriss] said. “If people seemed to get less skin cancer before, she argued, it was because they weren’t living long enough to develop it.”

But this doesn’t paint the whole picture, which is far more complex. On a typical sunny day, your body may produce up to 25,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D,⁵ which has anticancer effects. Many people aren’t getting these benefits, however, because they’re not in the sun enough to optimize their vitamin D levels.

The global prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (defined as a level of less than 20 ng/mL) and insufficiency (defined as a level of 20 to less than 30 ng/mL) is 40% to 100%.⁶ Further, 20 ng/mL has repeatedly been shown to be grossly insufficient for good health and disease prevention and, to maintain your health, levels below 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) are not recommended.

For example, research has shown that once you reach a minimum serum vitamin D level of 40 ng/mL, your risk for cancer diminishes by 67%, compared to having a level of 20 ng/mL or less.⁷

The fact is, strong associations with cancer can be found depending on your location in relation to the equator. Dr. Paul Saladino, author of “The Carnivore Code,” a book on nose-to-tail animal-based eating, and host of the Fundamental Health Podcast, said, “With distance from the equator, we know that there are higher rates of colon, breast, pancreas, ovary, brain and kidney cancers, and the blood cancer multiple myeloma — as you move farther from the equator.”⁸

Outdoor Workers Have Lower Breast Cancer Risk

The idea that the more time you spend in the sun, the higher your risk of skin cancer becomes is also misleading — and far from black and white. A 2021 study published in the BMJ Occupational & Environmental Medicine⁹ found no association between a history of working outdoors and breast cancer. Further, after the age of 50, more solar ultraviolet B radiation (UVR) was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer.

“The findings indicate that long-term UVR may decrease the risk of late-onset breast cancer,” the study found, adding, “Advice about regularly spending a short period of time outside in the sun could be considered especially for female indoor workers.”¹⁰ A 2023 systematic review similarly found no increased risk of developing cutaneous melanoma among people who primarily work outdoors.¹¹

The Times statement that a tan is unsafe is also misleading, because melanin, the substance that makes your skin look darker after sun exposure, is intended to help prevent sunburn. This is why intermittent sun exposure — occasional exposure followed by many days or weeks of little to no exposure — tends to be more problematic than regular, frequent sun exposure, as you’re more likely to burn and cause DNA damage in your skin.

Regular exposure, on the other hand, ameliorates this risk, as it engages innate adaptive systems in your skin, your melanin in particular, that are explicitly designed to prevent DNA damage from UV light exposure. In my interview with Ari Whitten, author of “The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy,” she explained:

“So, we have this system built into our bodies that’s designed to allow us to get all these benefits of sunlight without the DNA damage and the increased skin cancer risk. Framing light as a nutrient is the best way of understanding this.

Just as we require adequate nutrients from the food we eat, just as our bodies require physical movement to express normal cell function, we also require adequate light exposure to express normal cell function. The absence of that exposure to sunlight creates abnormal cell function. And there are myriad mechanisms through which this occurs.

Vitamin D is obviously the most well-known one that regulates over 2,000 genes related to immune health, musculoskeletal health and many other things. But there are many other mechanisms [as well].”

Skin Cancer Is Linked to Linoleic Acid

Regarding the seed oils quip in The Times, it’s ironic they mentioned it, because linoleic acid (LA), the primary fat found in polyunsaturated fats, including vegetable/seed oils, is linked to melanoma.

In a 1987 study,¹² samples of fat tissue were taken from 100 melanoma patients and 100 people without melanoma and analyzed for fatty acids. Not only is there an increase in linoleic acid in the tissue of all the subjects, but the percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) is significantly higher in the melanoma patients’ tissue.

“The suggestion is made that increased consumption of dietary polyunsaturates may have a contributory effect in the etiology of melanoma,” the researchers concluded.¹³ Further, high LA intake can raise your risk for sunburn, which you don’t want, as that’s what contributes to skin cancer.

Eliminating seed oils from your diet will dramatically reduce your risk of sunburn and skin cancer, as susceptibility to UV radiation damage is controlled by the level of PUFAs in your diet. It’s almost like a dial. The PUFAs control how rapidly your skin burns, and how rapidly you develop skin cancer. According to Saladino:¹⁴

“Is it possible that increased linoleic acid consumption could be causing fragility to cell membranes and that could be leading to oxidative damage in the sun leading to DNA damage and then more melanocytic nevi precursor lesions or melanoma or could the same thing be happening with squamous and basal?

I would say yes. It’s not supported by literature yet because there haven’t been any studies looking at this. We need many more studies with linoleic acid … I have major concerns that linoleic acid found in seed oils is one of the biggest drivers of chronic disease in humans.”

Nonburning Sun Exposure ‘Is a Health Benefit’

The health risks of sun exposure come from getting burned, i.e., overexposure. “Since ‘over exposure’ is not defined, the public is led to believe that sun exposure should be avoided and that avoidance of sun exposure is risk-free,” researchers with Medical University of South Carolina and Leiden University Medical Center in The Netherlands wrote in 2018.¹⁵

In fact, there’s a vast array of benefits from sunshine, which you miss out on if you don’t get enough. This goes far beyond vitamin D, which likely serves as a marker of sun exposure but isn’t solely responsible for all of its benefits. A commentary in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health explained:¹⁶

“Identified mediators produced by sun exposure include vitamin D, nitric oxide, dopamine, beta-endorphin, urocanic acid, and glutamate. Vitamin D supplementation is not an adequate substitute for sun exposure … Our conclusion is that non-burning UV exposure is a health benefit and — in moderation — should be recommended as such.”

For instance, sun exposure increases circulating nitric oxide, which lowers risks of high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases.¹⁷ Health risks associated with low sun exposure, meanwhile, include:¹⁸

• Specific cancers
• Multiple sclerosis
• Diabetes
• Cardiovascular disease
• Autism
• Alzheimer’s disease
• Age-related macular degeneration

Also, if you get proper sun exposure, near-infrared rays from the sun penetrate deep into your body and activate cytochrome c oxidase, which in turn stimulates the production of melatonin inside your mitochondria. Your mitochondria produce ATP, the energy currency of your body. A byproduct of this ATP production is reactive oxidative species (ROS), which are responsible for oxidative stress.

Excessive amounts of ROS will damage the mitochondria, contributing to suboptimal health, inflammation and chronic health conditions such as diabetes, obesity and thrombosis (blood clots). But melatonin essentially mops up ROS that damage your mitochondria.

So by getting plenty of sun exposure during the day, your mitochondria will be bathed in melatonin, thereby reducing oxidative stress.^19,20 Exposure to narrow bank ultraviolet B, or NB-UVB, even leads to another little-known benefit — modulation of the human intestinal microbiome.²¹

Recommendations for Safe, Sensible Sun Exposure

To gain the benefits of sunlight while minimizing the risks, you should spend short amounts of time in the sun daily, gradually working your way up so you don’t get burned. Saladino refers to this as building your solar callus:²²

“If you are light skin, cover up, get a small amount of sun exposure, develop your solar callus … get that UVA and UVB into the different layers of your skin. Get that UVB-producing melanin gradually dark and gradually think about being in the sun.

As a piece of homework that is my prescription for you, get into the sun gradually … this is your chance to fill up your sun reserves … If you’re going to be out in the sun too long to safely be in the sun without burning based on your relative amount of melanin in your skin, then cover yourself.”

Meanwhile, remember to reduce LA in your diet by avoiding ultraprocessed foods, and build up your body’s supply of nutrients, like astaxanthin, that have UV protective activity, helping to reduce your risk of sunburn and related skin damage from the inside out.

• ^{1, 2, 3, 4} The New York Times May 29, 2023
• ⁵ J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2019 May;189:228-239. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2018.12.010. Epub 2019 Jan 4
• ⁶ Endocr Pract. 2021 May; 27(5): 484-493
• ⁷ PLOS ONE 2016; 11 (4): e0152441
• ⁸ YouTube, CarnivoreMD, The Sun Episode May 10, 2022, 20:13
• ^9, 10 Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2021;78:286-292
• ¹¹ J Surg Res. 2023 Mar;283:274-281. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.10.025. Epub 2022 Nov 21
• ^12, 13 Nutr Cancer. 1987;9(4):219-26. doi: 10.1080/01635588709513930
• ¹⁴ YouTube, CarnivoreMD, The Sun Episode May 10, 2022, 39:52
• ^{15, 16, 17, 18} Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(12), 2794; doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122794
• ¹⁹ Physiology February 5, 2020; doi: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2019
• ²⁰ YouTube, MedCram, Sunlight: Optimize Health and Immunity January 21, 2022
• ²¹ Front Microbiol. 2019; 10: 2410
• ²² YouTube, CarnivoreMD, The Sun Episode May 10, 2022, 53:05

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

Nevertheless, a New York Times article by Roni Caryn Rabin blames this “historic setback” mainly on a lack of COVID-19 vaccination and not enough “behavioral measures to prevent infections, such as wearing masks,” especially among “white populations.” Her supposed evidence of this is the following claims from Dr. Steven Woolf, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University:

“While other high-income countries were also hard hit in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, most had begun to recover by last year, he said. …

“Those countries had more successful vaccination campaigns and populations that were more willing to take behavioral measures to prevent infections, such as wearing masks, he said, adding: ‘The U.S. is clearly an outlier. …

“‘The white population did worse in 2021 than communities of color, besides Native American and Alaska Natives,’ Dr. Woolf said. ‘I think that’s very telling: It reflects the greater efforts by Black and Hispanics to get vaccinated, to wear masks and take other measures to protect themselves, and the greater tendency in white populations to push back on those behaviors.’”

Other than the United States being an outlier when it comes to falling life expectancy in 2021, the rest of those claims are demonstrably false.

First, a greater portion of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 than the European population throughout all of 2021. Even when limited to members of the European Union, the United States had a significantly higher rate of vaccination for the bulk of the year:

Second, whites had equivalent or higher COVID-19 vaccination rates than blacks and Hispanics throughout 2021:

• A CDC survey conducted at the end of April 2021 when “all U.S. adults were eligible to receive” the vaccines found that the vaccination rate was 59 percent for whites, 46 percent for blacks, and 47 percent for Hispanics.
• A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in September 2021 found that the vaccination rate was 71 percent for whites, 70 percent for blacks, and 73 percent for Hispanics.
• A CDC survey conducted at the end of November 2021 found that the vaccination rate was 79 percent for whites, 78 percent for blacks, and 81 percent for Hispanics.

Third, masking was less common in certain segments of Europe during 2021 than the United States. For example:

• the European CDC recommended that children under the age of 12 not wear masks in schools, while the U.S. CDC recommended masking children down to two years of age, even while outdoors at summer camps.
• Sweden didn’t have a mask mandate and didn’t encourage masking except on public transport, leading Swedes to rarely wear
• The Netherlands didn’t mandate masks except for transportation and when required by building managers.

Moreover, a study conducted with data from 35 European countries during the winter of 2020–21 found a “moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe,” suggesting that “the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”

Finally and most importantly, the strident assertions of the Times and Woolf are based on the childish notion that correlation proves causation, a fallacy that high schoolers are taught to avoid. That’s because a correlation can be a mere coincidence or caused by numerous other factors. Worse still, their correlations are erroneous.

Just Facts asked Woolf if the Times accurately reported his words, and he replied:

“When reporters ask me to explain why the US losses were so large, my custom is to say that more research is needed to definitively answer the question and to mention a range of potential contributing factors. Among them is how people responded to vaccination and pandemic control measures, but I usually mention a number of other factors and in all cases (try to) use conditional language such as ‘may have.’”

Just Facts then asked Woolf if he planned to ask the Times for a correction, and he didn’t reply.

In June 2021, NPR reported on a study from Woolf and company about the life expectancy decline in 2020 and asked him, “So, what’s the prognosis going forward in the United States?” Woolf replied, “I think life expectancy will rebound.”

Given his focus on vaccines and masks, Woolf’s failed prediction was likely based in part or whole on his observations of vaccine uptake and mask usage in 2021. Now that these measures failed to work or overcome other factors which may have driven down life expectancy, Woolf and the Times are calling for more of the same.

Randomized controlled trials are the only sure way to determine the effects of medical interventions. These are gold standard studies in which people are randomly assigned to receive or not receive a certain treatment.

Several such studies have been conducted on COVID mRNA vaccines and on cloth/surgical masks—and none of them found that these measures save more lives than they take. Concerningly, the authors of one of these studies won’t reveal data that speaks directly to this matter.

From Just Facts Daily

One of the keys to discernment is to question everything. And by everything, I mean we shouldn’t just question what happens but why it happens in the first place. Those of us who know there is a cabal of globalist elites and their numerous proxies who are trying to destroy America and take over the world are often the ones who need discernment the most. We’re good at getting on the right track but we can be easily made to miss the real point.

Such is the case of Konnech, the tiny election logistics company out of Michigan. Their CEO, Eugene Yu, was arrested Tuesday for storing sensitive personal data of around two million election workers on servers housed in China. This was, of course, big news because it partially confirms what many have been saying for a long time. More on those details later, but I want to talk about the wrinkle in the story first.

Just a day before the arrest, the NY Times posted an article attempting to debunk claims that Konnech and their CEO were storing confidential data in China. Conservative media pounced on the story, as we are wont to do, because it was a total embarrassment for the leftist news outlet. It’s standard operating procedure for conservative journalists to “own the leftists” whenever they make such embarrassing mistakes. Conservatives on social media were virtually chuckling, offering each other high five emojis.

In reality, we were conned once again.

I’m discussing all of this on today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show. Here’s what really went down. The arrest was made on orders of LA District Attorney George Gascon, an embattled disciple of George Soros. While nearly every conservative and alternative media outlet out there howled in delight that not only was a massive voter fraud conspiracy theory partially confirmed, but that the NY Times owned itself by publishing a “debunking” story the day before. “What a crazy, awesome, inexplicable turn of events,” one conservative journalist noted in her article on the subject.

As I noted in the beginning, conservatives in media desperately need discernment. The powers-that-be know how to manipulate us. They can practically write our headlines for us through their selective leaks and perfect coordination between corporate media, the Deep State, and other proxies of the globalist elite cabal. The timing of the NY Times story was not fortuitous. It does not benefit conservatives or America one bit. It served two very important purposes. And yes, it was dropped exactly when it was supposed to be dropped and said exactly what it was supposed to say based on orders from the Cabal.

The first purpose was to get ahead of the arrest that the NY Times knew was coming. We have to remember how the vast majority of Americans, even many conservatives, operate. Once a piece of “news” is relayed into their minds, it’s hard to convince them of anything other than the original narrative. The notion that Konnech and their CEO were involved in a massive voter fraud scheme by working with the Chinese Communist Party was declared a “conspiracy theory.”

If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that this huge story about potential election manipulation will be swept under the rug by corporate media. But it’s worse than just corporate media ignoring it. The NY Times story planted the seed that not only is Konnech’s involvement just a conspiracy theory, but that “election deniers” like True the Vote are somehow dangerous. That’s going to be the takeaway from many who even hear about the story at all. Unfortunately, not many Americans will.

The second purpose is more important. Like I said, conservatives in media are easy to manipulate. This is a perfect example of the Cabal switching the focus of those of us who are trying to pay attention. Go to your favorite conservative news outlet and search for Konnech. You’ll probably find two stories. One will be about the arrest. The other will be about the NY Times and their “humiliating” story the day before. Both stories are important to conservatives because one deals with voter fraud and other deals with corporate media. But just because they’re both important to us doesn’t mean they’re both important in the grand scheme of things.

Konnech stored personal data for the most important people during any election: Poll workers. We’ve seen how much power they can have in close elections. We all saw videos from the 2020 election when poll workers were counting, double-counting, and triple-counting ballots. We saw videos of them bringing out boxes hidden under tables after media was told to leave. Controlling those who are counting the vote is the easiest path to stealing an election, and these people had their personal data housed by a company affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party.

That’s the story. Unfortunately, around half of the conservatives who would have learned more about it are busy with their high five emojis because of the ludicrous and “embarrassing” article in the NY Times the day before. We are being distracted from a big story with a completely irrelevant one. For many if not most conservative readers, the “fun” story about the NY Times is getting shared more than the bombshell arrest that happened.

It’s not a coincidence that the story came out the day before the arrest. Keep in mind, this story wasn’t breaking. The events the NY Times highlighted happened in August. Yet there will be those who tell me I sound crazy when I say it was coordinated. To those people, I’ll remind them to look at the facts. A story hit mockingbird media the day before a Soros-backed District Attorney arrested a CEO of a company that is accused of housing personal poll worker data in Communist China. As a result, more attention is being paid to the NY Times than to the company that appears to be at the heart of the voter fraud that stole the 2020 election.

Sure, that’s all just a coincidence.

We desperately need more discernment in conservative, alternative, and Christian media, which is why we are launching Discern.tv. If you would like to help us, please consider a generous donation at GiveSendGo.

Here’s today’s full episode.

In an editorial published Friday, they put in the required caveat of “sufficient evidence” being required for an indictment, but then proceeded to journalistically prosecute him without acknowledging the possibility that he’s actually innocent.

Which he is.

According to leftist news outlet The Hill:

The board argued in a piece published Friday that, “Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation” following the Jan. 6 select committee hearings and news of the Justice Department’s search of Trump’s Palm Beach, Fla., home for classified documents.

“This board is aware that in deciding how Mr. Trump should be held accountable under the law it is necessary to consider not just whether criminal prosecution would be warranted but whether it would be wise.”

The board mentioned former President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon for any crimes he may have committed during the Watergate scandal, with Ford justifying the decision as avoiding the “rousing” of “ugly passions” and polarization.

The board stated that prosecuting Trump could entrench support for him and “play into the conspiracy theories he has sought to stoke.” They argued it could also allow future presidents to misuse the precedent set to go after their political rivals.

But, the paper warned that doing nothing poses a much more significant risk and not holding him accountable for his actions related to the Jan. 6 insurrection would could set an “irresistible” precedent for future presidents.

The FBI’s jackbooted raid of Mar-a-Lago represents the first opportunity for Trump’s many media enemies to seek revenge. Like the NY Times, they all want indictments. And like the NY Times, they don’t want evidence to be a requirement.

Here’s the Tweet:

Cannibalism has a time and a place. Some recent books, films and shows suggest that the time is now. Can you stomach it?

Cannibalism has a time and a place. Some recent books, films and shows suggest that the time is now. Can you stomach it? https://t.co/JzU1QRPYxV

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 23, 2022

The article itself is actually even worse. Those who study psychological warfare and brainwashing would recognize the piece is a play to plant seeds of normalizing cannibalism couched in references to fictional acceptance of the same. In other words, they touch the minds of the readers by framing it in a rise of fiction surrounding cannibalism, but the intention is to get the reader thinking about it in their own future reality.

One might read the article as more than just pushing acceptance of of cannibalism. They are romanticizing it. To the vast majority of people out there, this would not have any real effect. But to those who have propensity for experiencing such depravities first hand, this article could actually unlock some demons.

A blatant attempt to justify cannibalism wouldn’t work for a publication like the NY Times, but getting people to ask the question of themselves is the intention. They don’t need to sell cannibalism. They need people to imagine situations in which they would accept it. For example, one line from the article reads, “But as his book documents, cannibalism has occurred around the world throughout history, lending these fictional tales a queasy whiff of ‘what if?'”

As noted, much of the article is couched in the popular fiction that regarding cannibalism that has become far more prevalent today, but there are subtle uses of wordplay throughout the article that play the right psychological notes to make some readers curious. For example, “The show’s tension is in the knowledge that you know cannibalism is coming, but when? And why?”

For years, fiction and celebrity propaganda has been used to promote eating bugs. Who can forget the notorious Nicole Kidman bug video used to normalize the concept. Whether they’re pushing cannibalism to make bugs seem not so bad or if they’re really trying to get people to start eating each other when the food shortages get bad enough is unknown, but either way they’re evil.

Editor’s Note: They really are going to try to control us with food, so stocking up now is a good idea.