The Perils of Vaccinating When You Are Infected

What the forgotten HPV vaccine tragedy can teach us about the dangers of COVID vaccination Story at a Glance: •The HPV and COVID-19 vaccines are two of the most dangerous pharmaceutical products that were ever pushed onto the market. However, regardless of how much evidence of harm emerged, authorities always insisted they were “safe and effective.” •Many of the issues with both vaccines were a result of those vaccines hyperstimulating the immune system, which in turn created a variety of debilitating autoimmune disorders. •One of the less appreciated consequences of this hyperstimulation is that if it occurs while someone is infected with the disease, it can make the existing infection become more severe. •Despite this being clearly shown within the HPV vaccine trials, since testing before vaccination would reduce vaccine sales, it was never recommended within the prescribing guidelines (some groups even said to not test before receiving the vaccine). Likewise, with the COVID vaccines, despite everyone being continuously tested for COVID-19, testing was never advised prior to a vaccination appointment, nor were members of the public informed of the dangers of vaccinating while infected. Recently, Dr. Kory and I decided to begin tackling one of the most challenging topics with the COVID-19 fiasco—does something about these vaccines cause them to harm those around the vaccinated individual? In theory, this should not be possible, yet over and over again we are coming across cases where it is happening (the evidence of which has been extensively documented here). Since “shedding” is used to describe the phenomenon where individuals injected with a replicating organism (e.g., the oral polio vaccine) can then make others become sick with the illness the vaccine is supposed to prevent, everyone has settled on referring to this curious side effect of the spike protein vaccine as “shedding.” Because this is quite a perplexing situation, we’ve spent the last few years trying to come up with a mechanism that could explain how this “shedding” is possible. Recently, I published an article explaining the hypotheses we’ve developed, and presently we believe certain vaccinated individuals exhaling large amounts of spike protein coated exosomes is the most likely mechanism at work. One of the alternative hypothesis I put forward was that the vaccine is impairing the normal immune response and causing injected individuals to become chronic silent shedders of COVID-19. After publishing the article, I received a lot of questions about a few points I highlighted, particularly readers wanting to know more about receiving an HPV vaccine in the presence of a pre-existing HPV infection. This article in turn will address what can go wrong if you vaccinate while already infected. The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid The Last Frontier of Medicine Immunology is frequently referred to as the last frontier of medicine since the immune system is so incredibly complex and at this point, much still remains unknown about it. I personally believe this is because most of the research on it has revolved around trying to find immunological pharmaceutical products (e.g., vaccines or immune suppressing agents) rather than trying to understand the systemic processes that cause the immune system to go awry in the first place (as these are much harder to produce profitable therapies for). Note: some of the existing immune suppressing agents are incredibly helpful for patients (and relatively safe), but many of the other ones we use in practice are quite dangerous and much harder to justify using. Throughout this publication, I’ve tried to illustrate how much of medicine only makes sense if you understand foundational business and marketing practices and then see the existing way medicine is practiced through that lens (e.g., much of what constitutes the “standard of care” is only there because it makes money for the industry). In the case of vaccines I would argue each the following are true: •A central mythology the credibility of modern medicine is based upon is that vaccines rescued us from the dark ages of infectious disease. As a result, the medical field will almost always have faith each promise of a vaccine is indeed true and simultaneously be astonishingly resistant to the idea any vaccine (and by extension the medical profession) could be bad. Note: a good case can be made that most of the benefits attributed to vaccination were actually due to the benefits of modern sanitation, as almost all of the decline in disease attributed to vaccination predated the vaccines actually coming into use. Conversely, the forgotten history of many of the early vaccines showed they worsened the diseases they were supposed to prevent and simultaneously injured many. •Since you can in theory make a vaccine against anything by mixing a target protein with an adjuvant (e.g., aluminum), vaccine development is a very popular area of research—especially because the resulting product (due to the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act) has no liability for injuring people and is often mandated upon most of the country. This for example is why individuals, like Peter Hotez have received over 100 million dollars in research grants—much of which has gone to “developing” a vaccine for a human hookworm infection, despite still not having anything to show for it after decades of work. •Vaccine research in turn rarely considers the possibility that their target protein or adjuvant might cause problems. For example, one of the longstanding issues with vaccines is that the proteins they try to train the immune system to attack partially match normal proteins within the body, and as a result, autoimmunity is a frequent complication of vaccination (there is even a textbook about this). Note: one of the major issues with the COVID vaccine is how many different human tissues match the (spike) protein it mass produces within the body, which many suspect is a key reason why the vaccine has such an extraordinarily high rate of causing autoimmunity. For those wishing to learn more, the subject of vaccines and autoimmunity is discussed in more detail here. •When it comes to vaccines, the same people who constantly espouse the “safe and effective mantra” with an absolute conviction rarely take the time to actually understand exactly what’s going on with the injections and familiarize themselves with the science behind them. Note: the vaguely defined phrase “safe and effective” is a relatively meaningless marketing slogan which has been repeated over and over for decades because it has proven itself to be a very effective way to sell vaccines. For example, there had been a longstanding challenge in producing a “safe and effective” live polio vaccine as making the vaccine “safe” required using formaldehyde to deactivate the polio virus, but doing so also destroyed many of its antigens which were necessary for developing an immune response. To address this issue, Salk put forward a theoretical argument for why his vaccine was “safe” that was accepted by the authorities despite Salk failing to provide the evidence for his contention. When his vaccine hit the market (with the dishonest blessings of the government), many were then paralyzed by it. One honest academic, Paul Meier, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, who critiqued the fiasco, provides some important context on the longstanding use of this marketing slogan: When the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine was released for widespread use in April 1955, and despite assurances of safety, a number of vaccinated children developed poliomyelitis. No public acknowledgment of the manufacturing difficulties was made at this time [a lot of Polio contaminated vaccine lots were found], but the Vaccine Advisory Committee released a public statement which was concurred in by the Public Health Service, and which, in effect, gave assurances that the vaccine was safe. [The VAC is the same group which has green-lighted every possible use of the COVID vaccines]. All manufacturers had rejected some lots because live virus had been found in them: and therefore Salk's theory that safety was guaranteed by the method of preparation obviously did not apply Perhaps the most disturbing element of the entire program, has been the disparity between the risks that were known to be involved and the repeated assurances of safety. The National Foundation, in a memo sent to doctors, also stated emphatically that the [polio] vaccine was completely safe and that the risk of ensuing paralysis was “zero”. The best way to push forward a new program is to decide on what you think the best decision is and not question it thereafter, and further, not to raise questions before the public or expose the public to open discussion of the issue. [This statement was overview of what happened which was meant to be sarcastic]. Hyperpriming the Immune System There are a variety of designs for vaccines. Some work by containing only a small number of proteins (antigens) which match the target disease, while others contain a large number of them. Typically, the former are created by mass synthesizing the protein antigen and mixing it with something that provokes a strong immune response (an adjuvant) as this significantly reduces how much of the most expensive ingredient (the antigen) needs to be administered to solicit the desired immune response. Conversely, the latter are created by taking the existing pathogen you want to develop a vaccine against, somehow making it less dangerous, and then injecting that whole pathogen (which thus has dramatically more antigens to vaccinate the person against). My general impression with vaccines is that the latter (weakened or attenuated forms of the original pathogen) tend to be much more effective than the former at preventing disease and sometimes also have other nonspecific benefits (as they improve the immune system’s ability to fight off other things). Conversely, since these vaccines are a living organism which can replicate, they have the risk of both making the individual become ill and spreading (shedding) the disease into the community (which commonly happens with oral polio vaccine and to a lesser extent happens with the measles vaccine). For this reason, it is always advised that the “live” vaccines are only given to people who are not immune suppressed and that immune suppressed individuals avoid individuals who were recently vaccinated with live vaccines. Presently, I know of the following benefits (beyond preventing the target infection) which are seen with live vaccines: •The rabies vaccine being able to treat an existing rabies infection before it becomes fatal. •The shingles vaccine being able to prevent future shingles episodes in someone who is chronically afflicted by them. •The imunostimulatory effect of the tuberculosis and measles vaccine reducing the risk of dying from other infectious diseases (which in areas like Subsaharan Africa noticeably lowers the death rate since infectious diseases are such a common killer there). •The tuberculosis vaccine functioning as a therapeutic for certain cancers (e.g., bladder) and is also currently being tested as a treatment for fibromyalgia. Note: there are also a lot of problems with live vaccines; I am primarily sharing the above to provide the context for what follows. When a single antigen is used instead (along with the adjuvant which makes the immune system have a disproportionate response to that antigen), an unnatural immune response is created. Some of the common consequences of that include: •It rapidly triggers the pathogen to mutate so that it no longer has the antigen sequence in question. This effect is known as “strain replacement” and is a longstanding issue with vaccines (e.g., this is why they keep on having to add new antigens to the pneumococcal vaccine). Likewise, this is why many individuals were able to correctly predict that once the COVID vaccine was released, many COVID variants would emerge which had a different spike protein the vaccine didn’t work on (which is why boosters to each new strain “needed” to be made). •The immune system becomes permanently locked onto antigen it has been primed to respond to. This becomes problematic since the immune system has a finite ability to respond to things, and as a result, if it locks onto the wrong strain (e.g., one the vaccine had already made become extinct) it loses the ability to respond to respond to the current threat (which is known as Original Antigen Sin or OAS). Note: one of the strongest arguments against the COVID-19 vaccines is that they still contain the spike protein sequence of the original SARS-CoV-2 virus even though that variant is now extinct. For example, consider the author (mentioned above) who discovered that in areas where people frequently die from a variety of infectious diseases, the live measles vaccine reduced children’s overall risk of death by 38-86%, and the live tuberculosis vaccine reduced the overall risk of death by 37-48% because of a non-specific strengthening of the immune system. That same author also found that the pertussis vaccine (one which hyper-primes the body to respond to a few specific antigens) instead increased the overall risk of death by 293% in boys and 898% in girls as they became more susceptible to dying from a variety of other infections. Prior to the COVID vaccines, OAS (and negative vaccine efficacy) had been most frequently seen with the influenza vaccine (e.g., see this review, this study, this study, and this study). However, the most tragic (and well documented) results have been seen with the spike protein vaccines, best shown by this study: Note: there are other mechanisms besides OAS which may also explain why individuals who got the COVID vaccine keep on getting COVID. •For certain diseases, the harm of the disease is a result not of the infectious organism but rather an overactive immune response damaging the body as it tries to eliminate the disease (e.g., rheumatic fever arises from the immune system attacking a critical valve of the heart as it attempts to eliminate a streptococcal infection). One of the major issues with adjuvants is that they don’t just provoke the immune system to attack the target antigen—they also provoke it to do a lot of other things you don’t necessarily want it doing. For example, one study showed that exposing mice to a pertussis vaccine (and its adjuvant) will cause them to also develop allergies to the currently circulating pollen. Let’s now look at how these principles come into play with the two most dangerous vaccines on the market. Note: the anthrax vaccine and the smallpox vaccine are also extremely dangerous but neither is currently given to the general population. The HPV Vaccine Note this section and much of what follows were sourced from the excellent book The HPV Vaccine on Trial which I have quoted with the author’s permission. Prior to the COVID vaccines, I believe the most aggressive vaccine marketing campaign I’d ever seen was for Merck’s Gardasil and I was astonished to see how many girls quickly became deathly afraid of a cancer which had already been mostly eliminated with routine pap-smears (which were first introduced in the 1940s). This campaign was motivated by Merck’s realization being able to sell a vaccine for cancer (given how much fear exists around cancer) could be incredibly lucrative since that would allow a massive markup and the vaccine could be sold to almost everyone. Since so much money was on the line, this in turn necessitated ensuring everyone believed their product was safe and effective. To create this mythology, Merck essentially had to do the following: •Cover up the unprecedented number of severe injuries which occurred in the clinical trials. •Get the CDC and FDA to bend over backwards to protect the vaccine once the vaccine hit the market and a deluge of injuries were reported to them. •Convince the world that the primary cause of cervical cancer was a chronic HPV infection (when in reality a variety of factors like smoking played a key role in it) and that producing an antibody response to an HPV antigen would prevent HPV and in turn would prevent cervical cancer. Note: it’s hard to put into words how awful the trials for Merck’s HPV vaccine were. Since they represent the closest case precedent to what happened in the similarly atrocious COVID-19 vaccine trials, I wrote an article describing exactly what happened to the HPV vaccine trials. One of the major problems with developing the HPV vaccine was that it was quite difficult to provoke the body into developing an immune response to its HPV antigen (which I suspect was because that HPV antigen had too much of an overlap with human tissue—something which was also the case for the COVID-19 vaccine). In turn to solve this (e.g., to overcome the body’s resistance to attacking antigens which resembled its own tissue), Merck had to use a very powerful adjuvant, which in turn led to a very high level of autoimmune complications from the vaccine. For example, in Merck’s trial data, they disclosed to the FDA that 49.6% of vaccine participants developed a “New Medical Condition,” (many of which were likely quite severe) and 2.3% of which Merck admitted were autoimmune disorders. Additionally, the participants died at 2-5 times the normal death rate typically seen in the age group. For reference, this is what is stated in Merck’s package insert for the vaccine, which discussed all the (reported) autoimmune disorders which developed throughout its clinical trials. In turn, some of the autoimmune disorders which have been linked to Gardasil since it hit the market include Guillain – Barré syndrome, other demyelinating neuropathies (multiple sclerosis, MS; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, ADEM; transverse myelitis, TM), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), pri- mary ovarian failure (POF), pancreatitis, vasculitis, thrombocytopenic purpura, and autoimmune hepatitis. Note: one of the most common side effects of Gardasil was POTS (severe lightheadedness when standing up, a debilitating disorder which can sometimes trigger fatal car accidents—and which coincidentally were a common cause of death in the Gardasil trials). Many have since concluded this disease was in part an autoimmune disorder as Gardasil victims have been found to have antibodies to the autonomic receptors which are supposed to bring blood to the head (see this article, this case study and this case study), As you might have noticed, POTS never appeared in Merck’s list of reported autoimmune disorders. I will also note that I believe to some degree, POTS appears to be due to an impaired zeta potential (something Gardasil was also notorious for doing), as restoring the physiologic zeta potential often significantly improves POTS. Negative HPV Vaccine Efficacy One of the most remarkable effects of the HPV vaccine was that its own trials showed it caused cervical cancer if someone was already infected with a vaccine covered HPV strain at the time of vaccination (specifically it increased the risk by 44.6%—something which is known as “negative vaccine efficacy”). Since HPV “causes” cervical cancer by creating chronic inflammation within the cervical tissue, my best guess is that this was a result of the immune system being provoked into creating more inflammation at the site of an existing HPV infection. Note: alternatively, it may have been a result of the immune system losing its ability to keep the chronic HPV infection under control because it was diverted to addressing the vaccine antigen. Let’s look at exactly what Gardasil’s trials found: Note: PCR positive means the virus is currently present in the system and can be detected. Seropositive means that antibodies to the virus are present in the blood, which can either indicate a current infection or that there was a previous infection the immune system eliminated (which commonly happens with HPV). Since that was a bit concerning, Merck looked for a way to lower this negative efficacy, which was accomplished by changing the criteria from “and” to “and/or:” This in turn lowered the negative efficacy by about 25%, but nonetheless still was a fairly concerning amount. What appears to have been missed by the regulators was that this second data set strengthened the case that the HPV vaccine causes cervical cancer (in the context of a pre-existing infection) since being “PCR positive and/or seropositive” signifies a less active (inflammatory) immune response against an active HPV infection than being “PCR positive and seropositive” and in turn the negative efficacy was observed but to a smaller degree. This ties into the well known fact that a dose-response relationship is a classic criteria for determining causality. Note: I also uploaded the full copy of this report in case the above link stops working. Gardasil™ HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine May 1... 395KB ∙ PDF file Download To further support this link between HPV vaccination and cervical cancer, the identical link was also found with the competing HPV vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (which was ultimately taken off the market for “low demand,” which I believe was a result of Merck doing a much better job marketing their vaccine): Note: I also uploaded a full copy of this report in case the above link stops working. FDA Clinical Review Memo Cervarix Octobe... 16.9MB ∙ PDF file Download If you take a step back, it’s extraordinary that Merck (and GSK) able to sell the world on the idea their vaccine “would prevent cancer” because it did something which might do something which might prevent cervical cancer. What’s even more extraordinary was that their data showed for many the exact opposite for many of the vaccine’s intended recipients. For example, to quote Minnesota’s Department of Health: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a common sexually transmitted infection. More than 90 percent of sexually active men and 80 percent of sexually active women will be infected with HPV in their lifetime. Around 50 percent of HPV infections involve certain high-risk types of HPV, which can cause cancer. Most of the time, the body clears these infections and they do not lead to cancer. However, persistent infections can cause changes that lead to cancer. Note: I have multiple patients who had an existing HPV infection get much worse after HPV vaccination or developed HPV shortly after vaccination despite never having had sexual contact prior to the vaccine. Because of these observations, I am inclined to believe this data has real world consequences. An Inconvenient Datapoint Given that the HPV vaccine clearly increased rather than reduced the risk of cervical cancer for those already infected, this suggested the most appropriate thing to do would have been to have potential recipients first be tested for HPV prior to receiving the HPV vaccine. However, since that was at odds with the goal of having a blockbuster that was given every women in the world (along with many men), that didn’t cut it since: •You couldn’t do mass HPV vaccination clinics if you have to wait for test results (as hard as this is to believe, there are numerous cases where groups of children at school were pressured to vaccinate so they wouldn’t die of cervical cancer, after which, many were injured due to the high rate of adverse events following the HPV vaccine). •You would miss the sales opportunity to pressure a patient on a medical visit to vaccinate if you had to wait for a negative test to come back. •Since many people had already had HPV, you would lose all of those potential customers. •The general public learning the vaccine should not be given to those who had already a HPV infection would cast doubt on the 100% “safe and effective and necessary” mantra being used to sell the vaccine. Note: it goes without saying that all of the above also applies to the COVID-19 vaccines, to the point that even when data emerged showed natural immunity provided better protection than the vaccine and people sued for natural immunity to exempt them from vaccine mandates, the mandates were still enforced. See if you can guess what was done to get around this sales problem. To quote the HPV Vaccine on Trial: Merck and GSK state that the vaccine may not protect women who have been exposed to HPV before. What they do not say, however, is that women who have been exposed to HPV before may have enhanced risk for cervical disease. The clinical trial results show this risk, which should have prompted Merck and GSK to strongly consider screening before vaccination, or ...

LIVE: Reading Introduction & Chapter 1 Part 1 Of Water And The Spirit

I read Introduction & Chapter 1 Part 1 Of Water And The Spirit- Ritual, Magic, and Initiation in the Life of an African Shaman LIVE JAYBEFAUNT JAN 25 © 2024 Jaybefaunt 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

If things have been getting in the way of you hearing me... Remember THE UNIVERSE JAN 25

Mess and magic can exist side by side. . With Love, The Universe x Leave a comment Thank you for being here x Know you are supported x Upgrade to paid Share You’re currently a free subscriber to The Universe Substack. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. © 2024 The Universe The Universe

Transcript: Tony Keller My interview with the Globe and Mail columnist TARA HENLEY JAN 25

For decades now in Canada, there has been a bipartisan, pro-immigration consensus. But in recent weeks, we have watched that consensus fall apart. My guest on today’s program has been covering this development in his columns for The Globe and Mail. He argues that it was the Liberal government that broke the consensus — and it must be the Liberals who restore it. Tony Keller is a veteran Canadian journalist and a columnist for The Globe and Mail. (This podcast was recorded before Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s announcement that the federal government will cap international student visas. You can read Tony’s latest column on that development here.) This is an edited transcript for paid subscribers. You can listen to the episode for free here. TH: It's great to have you on the program today — at what is turning out to be a pivotal moment in Canada for the immigration conversation. You've written on the subject in the past, in both this country and elsewhere; I'm thinking of a memorable piece you wrote for The Atlantic. Today, I want to talk about two of your recent columns in the Globe and Mail, and we will get to that. But first, for our listeners outside of Canada, can you start by giving us a brief explainer on what the historic Canadian context has been for immigration? You write that “Canada used to be a model for the world.” What did that look like? TK: Canada and the U.S. have similar immigration histories, similar immigration systems — but with some really interesting differences. So, the similarity is that both Canada and the U.S. are countries whose populations were historically built on immigration, with fairly large immigration inflows in the late 19th century and the early 20th century. And then a very big change. Both countries in the early 20th century really limited immigration all the way from basically the end of the World War I all the way up to the 1960s. Then, in the early 1960s, both Canada and the U.S. liberalized their immigration systems and allowed much more immigration, and immigration of people of all races. Prior to the 1960s, both Canada and the U.S. had systems to really limit who got to come to the country — not just in numbers, but in terms of race. In the 1960s, both countries liberalized and Canada did a better job of how it liberalized the system. The Canadian system was built to focus on recruiting people with skills and education. We didn't always do this perfectly. But that was the idea of the system: There would be some family reunification, there would be some refugees, and there would be a big core that was about economic immigrants. We also did a really good job of controlling the border. Meaning Canada invited a lot of people in — for a long period we had a higher legal immigration rate than the United States — but at the same time, unlike the United States, we didn't really have very many people who just came to Canada one way or the other, who showed up and stayed. That was not a debate at all in Canada. So, that's the context leading all the way up to, let's say, the early to mid 2010s. And then in Canada what happens is two new streams of immigration start to grow in the 2010s: temporary foreign workers and visa students. Those two streams have really exploded since the Trudeau government came into office in 2015. They were increasing quickly and they've just kept on increasing. At the same time, the Trudeau government has also raised Canada's official regular immigration targets, which were about a quarter of a million in 2015 and are now close to half million people a year. That's a lot. The Canadian population is about one ninth of the United States. So, the U.S. has, in recent years, had about one million legal immigrants a year. Take those Canadian numbers; it means that Canada was, in the past, about two to two-and-a -half times the U.S. level. And we're now looking at sort of three or four times the U.S. level in legal immigration. Then on top of that, we have layered a “temporary” — I use that word advisedly — immigration system for students and temporary foreign workers that is even larger than the official immigration system. In 2022, we had more than one million people come into Canada. In U.S. terms, that would be 9 million people arriving in the United States, or about nine times the level of official immigration. In 2023, we had somewhere north of that. In fact, in the most recent quarter for which we have data, the number was over 400,000. Which would suggest you could be as much as 1.6 million for a full calendar year. We have just seen an incredibly rapid runup. To summarize, Canada was a fairly high immigration country relative to other developed countries, with pretty good border control. We have now turned into a much higher immigration country, and we have some problems with border control. I can get into more of that a bit later. TH: In your column that is just out today, you write that Canada's unique, decades-old, pro-immigration consensus has been broken. It's interesting that our immigration minister has basically come out and said that the system has gotten out of control. You have gone through some of the data; I think it's also worth noting that the number of temporary residents in the country is up more than 1000% since the year 2000. This is exacerbating the housing crisis. It's putting pressure on our healthcare system. But, as you point out in your previous column, the National Bank of Canada economists have also concluded that we are in a “population trap.” Walk us through what that is — and what it might mean for Canada. TK: So, our population has grown so quickly, in just the last couple of years, that we can't really keep up. Every person who comes into the country obviously needs somewhere to live. They need social services, their kids have to go to school, et cetera. It's very easy to raise the population quickly, whether you're Canada or the United States, because there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who would like to come to a country like Canada, a country like the United States. To all of the major western European countries. In a weird way, that's the easy thing. Raising your population is easy. Raising it in a way where the economy and its social services keep pace, that's a lot more challenging. It takes years to permit and build a new house, a new condo, a new apartment building. It takes a long time to train doctors, or to hire new doctors, or to build new facilities, build new hospitals, build new public transit. We've ended up in this odd position where, over the last couple of years, the Canadian economy has continued to grow. If you just look at the number, gross domestic product, the Canadian economy is actually doing pretty well in the G7. We're growing almost as fast as the United States. But our population for the last couple of years has been growing so much faster than the economy. That is where some economists have said, “Hang on a second, we're in a kind of a population trap where we can't invest quickly enough and businesses can't invest quickly enough.” Here's a way to think of it: Imagine you have a business that digs ditches and you have five shovels and you have five employees. Tomorrow you have seven employees, but you still only have five shovels. The per employee productivity level is actually going to decline, because you don't have enough capital, equipment, technology to raise the productivity level or even keep it steady. In the long run, that is solvable. We can find ways to encourage more foreign investment. We can find ways to have Canadians save more. There are all sorts of things we can do. We can build more houses. But those are very long-term solutions, and they're very challenging. Canada has had a problem of insufficient business investment for a long time, and we're layering on top of that more and more and more employees. At least in the short term, and maybe in more than the short term, we have created a recipe for declining Canadian productivity, somewhat lower living standards due to somewhat declining gross domestic product per capita. Which is not ideal. That's not what our immigration system is supposed to be doing. That's the opposite of what immigration is supposed to be doing. TH: Your colleague Andrew Coyne, who I've interviewed for my Substack in the past, takes a different view on this issue. He says the country is having one of its “periodic panics about immigration,” and that if per capita growth has been lagging, “all that the rapid population growth has done is to make the cost of bad investment and housing policies more explicit.” Slowing immigration, he writes, is a band-aid response. What do you make of that argument? TK: I would say he's partly right and mostly wrong. Here's where he's partly right: There's no speed limit on the amount of investment a country can make in its infrastructure. There's no speed limit on the amount of investment businesses can make in capital, equipment and improving their productivity. It's true, those are variables that can be changed. What I will say though is that those are hard to change. Those are difficult, those are challenging. If raising Canadian productivity and getting Canadian labour output up to the level of the United States was easy, we would have already done it. We have been struggling since the 1970s to try to be as productive per hour of work as the United States. Canada is a highly developed country, where we do lots of things really well, but we've always had this gap with the U.S. There have been times when we've narrowed it and it seemed to be narrowed all the way up into the 1990s and the early 2000s. Then there are times when it's been getting wider. It's been getting wider for really the last generation. We struggle to understand exactly why. We struggle to understand what policies can change that. In theory, that can all be changed. In practice, it's really, really, really hard to do. If you layer, on top of that, bringing in over a million people a year abruptly into the labor force — a fairly high number of whom are not high skill workers, but actually low skill, low wage workers — it becomes really difficult to resolve the labour productivity problem. And, as well, the housing problem. He's also right that the housing problem can be resolved — Canada's housing shortage and extremely high cost of housing, particularly rental housing. He's right, that can be solved in the long term. But for people who need an apartment in Toronto for less than $2,000 a month, it's not really very helpful to tell them, “Listen, we can probably fix this by 2028, 2029, 2032.” That doesn't really help them very much. He's also treating high immigration as the thing we can't change and every other policy in the country as the thing that we have to change. Which is weird, because actually the one thing we've changed is the immigration level. The other things were constant and fixed. We've changed one thing and we're now going to have to change all these other policies as a result. At the moment, the way we have designed immigration — or not designed it — over the last couple of years, I think has had more negatives than positives. I think the evidence is fairly clear. It has, at least in the short term, had more negatives than positives. We can design an immigration system that will have more positives than negatives. I think our previous system had more positives than negatives. But that's not where we are right now. TH: It’s interesting, the moment that we are in. The Globe's editorial board has come out saying that our immigration system is broken. We are seeing that sentiment reflected in the polls. Now, in your most recent Globe column, you argue that the Liberals must be the ones to fix this problem, and you outlined some steps that the government could and should take. We don't have a ton of time today. So I want to focus on just one — getting back to what you referenced just a moment ago — the high skilled versus low skilled. We could, as you suggest in your column, restrict temporary foreign workers to high-end jobs. You write, “recruiting a foreign dentist or computer engineer or skilled construction worker. Go for it. Depressing the wages of the poorest Canadians by recruiting overseas fast food clerks. Sorry, no.” Can you unpack that for us?... Lean Out with Tara Henley © 2024 Tara Henley 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Penske's 'Killers' Eraser, Sundance Postcard Part 2

Today's Jamboree: THR's Lily Gladstone revise, the gun talk Hollywood won't have, and Slamdance keeps the spirit alive RICHARD RUSHFIELD JAN 25 JAY PENSKE’S MAGIC ERASER There was much to be heralded about Lily Gladstone’s best actress nomination for Killers of the Flower Moon on Tuesday. However, one reporter took it as a moment to run with. I’m told that after Hollywood Reporter writer Rebecca Sun included a line in her reaction piece that morning that read “Gladstone is the first acting nominee who hails from people indigenous to the land now occupied by the United States,” internal scuttlebutt has that Jay Penske weighed in, reaching out to an editor and saying something along the lines of (and I paraphrase with embellishment), “What the fuck is this?” Soon after the editor called the web editors to remove the line from the story. But thanks to Wayback Machine on the internet, the before and after lives on. BEFORE (red underline added) AFTER! (red underline added) If Penske was indeed the sentence hit man, this is not Jay’s first run-in with provenance issues of the land-and-real-estate variety. If you recall, his attempts to renovate an historic Black church into a private family compound complete with four-car garage in Venice at the height of Black Lives Matter went horribly array, drawing protests from the likes of Ben Affleck. Sun is not the only one these days to use her original expression to identify Gladstone. NPR’s Stephen Thompson of Pop Culture Happy Hour described Gladstone that same day as “the first actor in this category to hail from land now occupied by the United States.” Sun has written before about indigenous subjects, and internally, after the sentence was removed, explained to her colleagues she had been making a distinction that Gladstone was the first nominee to come from the United States as the term “Native American” includes Mexican and Canadian North American indigenous people, and the first indigenous North American nominee was actually Mexico’s Yalitza Aparicio for Roma. (Also note, opinions vary on how “first” this nomination is, with the awards for Wes Studi and Buffy St. Marie offered as other possibles.) A spokesperson for PMC (whose headquarters, for the record, sit on original Chumash land) did not immediately return a request for comment. Share Upgrade to paid THE PANEL ON GUNS The Sundance Film Festival is not just a place for films to bubble up, but for critical issues that we just don’t have time for back home to let percolate and seep into the Hollywood bloodstream. This past Sunday, I was delighted to moderate a panel at the august Filmmakers Lodge of an all-star panel on Gun Safety and Hollywood, sponsored by the Brady Center Against Gun Violence and its Show Gun Safety group. The panelists — actor Clark Gregg, producers Jelani Johnson and Laura Lewis, and Rep. Maxwell Frost (at 27 the first Zoomer in Congress), spoke incredibly movingly on the devastation wrought by guns, a subject they have all been deeply immersed in, and the need for Hollywood to help create a healthier culture around gun safety. It’s not a conversation that gets a lot of air time in Hollywood, where the default reaction to the latest gun travesty remains to point fingers at the now-shambolic NRA and change the subject. Representative Frost horrified us all with an array of statistics about how deep the devastation goes. Most horrifying: the fact that guns are the leading cause of death of children in America. Kris Brown speaking for Brady emphasized that most of those deaths occur after a child finds a gun that has been left unlocked and unstirred around the house. Shoot-em-ups aside, Hollywood typically depicts the most casual handling of guns around the home — the cop coming home from work and tossing his gun on the kitchen counter. Modeling some basic safety when showing guns around the home could help save many lives, Brown made clear. But beyond that, the panelists showed a sense of frustration during this crisis with this industry’s indiscriminate use of guns to solve every onscreen problem, and turning to shooting as the easy answer to every narrative challenge. Gregg, who has spent time with the families of school shooting victims and is clearly shaken from what he’s seen, talked about how on Agents of Shield, they have begun making an effort to find alternatives to reaching for the sidearm. Jelani Johnson, whose Freaky Tales, starring Pedro Pascal, premiered here this year and featured extensive scenes of balletic violence, pointed out that while the movie was laden with thrilling fight scenes, not a single gun is used in them. Representative Frost made the case however, that guns are the final bad step in lives that have gone off track for a lot of reasons. He noted that if we’re going to turn the tide on gun violence, drawing attention to that bigger picture of despair that turns people to guns is very necessary. For myself, I’ve written about this issue a lot, and have felt frustration that even as children die in horrifying numbers, with very few exceptions, Hollywood remains unwilling to engage with this issue, even a little. This panel was the first public event I’ve been to on the subject and I hope there will be many many more. Share Give a gift subscription Don’t Call It Slumming: Slamdance at 30 INDIE GODS Slamdance pioneers Dan Mirvish and Frank Hudec. (photo by me) For 30 years now, Slamdance and Sundance have co-existed, side by side, blue whale and pilot fish, in a symbiotic relationship. You could call it a parasite and host symbiosis (“a festival that has attached itself to us in a parasitical way” was how Robert Redford put it), but on closer viewing, it’s not entirely clear who plays which role in the buddy act. Slamdance, persisting in a corner of the Park City area during the festival week, was ignited literally to take advantage of overflow crowds from Sundance screenings. But since then, it has evolved into something of an institution in its own right, and has become perhaps the leading farm team feeding into the festival and in and of itself now occupies a fairly exalted height in the indie world. It’s the indie’s indie, the blood flow of new talent into an institution that is continually at risk of being co-opted by the Hollywood system it exists to challenge. While the two keep at wary near-distance from one another, this year put an interesting twist on the relationship. For years the Doubletree Hotel — formerly the Yarrow — has served as one of the major hubs of Sundance activity. Sitting on the crossroads of bus routes and hosting a good number of screenings and events in its conference rooms, the Yarrow lobby and bar is where generally a hub of festival related schmoozing takes place. This year, however Sundance, organizers surrendered their presence at the Yarrow, which was then taken over by the scrappy punks of Slamdance, who moved their festival from their somewhat ramshackle, vaguely haunted-feeling home at the Treasure Mountain hotel, perched at the top of Main. Is it the coming of age for Slamdance (after 30 years)? Will the festival retain its un-housebroken ways in more staid surroundings? Stopping by Slamdance HQ, I checked in with Dan Mirvish, a filmmaker and one of the festival’s founders. Thirty years ago, Dan and a quartet of friends trying to get some attention for their films (which had not been accepted to Sundance), rented a projector and conference room in a hotel not far from the Eccles Theater, and held a screening 15 minutes after the festival’s big premiere started to catch the overflow crowd. As people drifted away from the big theater, a good handful saw the card table set up advertising a screening and came inside. Slamdance was born. In the years since, the list of Slamdance alums reads like a Who’s Who of Sundance luminaires. Among the proud and scrappy filmmakers who launched their careers at Slamdance: Christopher Nolan, Minrari director Lee Isaac Chung, documentarian Marina Zenovich, Lynne Shelton, Gina Prince-Bythewood, Ari Aster, Jon Chu, Ana Lily Amirpour and the Russo Brothers. To name a few. The stories of indie film history have become mainstream film history. Mirvish remembers advising Nolan to run down to Kinko’s and make some flyers when almost no one turned out to his first film, Following. Steven Soderbergh was electrocuted so many times by the projectors when he brought a film (after his falling out with Sundance), he pledged to buy the festival new equipment. Then after his screening, he stuck around to see a film by these two wacky brothers from Cleveland, the freres Russo, which he liked so much he told them they needed to come out to L.A. where they could work out of his office. Most consequentially are the deep ties with the low key buddy team of Reed and Ted, who haunted the festival from its earliest days as they looked for movies to feature on their DVD by mail service. Ted was in the habit of dropping in and watching from the projection booth, Mirvish says, and has kept up his ties with the scrappy festival up to the present. Back at the beginning, Netflix rewarded its warehouse workers every year with an annual trip to Sundance, where they would borrow a Slamdance screening room to show films to their team. This year, Mirvish wasn’t just presiding over festival events (the founders long ago passed the torch but he still presides as an emeritus presence) but also was talking up his latest filmed project — a biopic of Marjorie Taylor Greene, staged as an “absurdist political satire” entitled Dr. Andy in Wonderland. Like all Mirvish’s films, it will shoot for a budget in the neighborhood of $300,000 over a couple frantic weeks. The spirit lives on. The fact of the matter is as much as Sundance may struggle to walk the line of indiedom, the genie is out of the bottle. Even if Sundance dips into corporate sponsorship hell, Slamdance lives on to keep them honest and revitalize the bloodstream. Slamdance is a vital part of the ecosystem. Every year at the opening conference, Mirvish greets this year’s crop of filmmakers with a poem about the year past. Here is this year’s convocation. On this, our year of our 30th reunion ‘Twas marked in large part as the year of the union Solidarity for our comrades Writing and acting On picket lines and I’m not redacting Directors too, I’m not shy to say A card-carrying member of the DGA That I’m proud of my Guild Who didn’t me desert When I showed up on the lines In my tie-dyed Guild shirt The writers suspicious and not very candid Noticed I didn’t come empty handed I always brought scones Homemade blueberry As many as I could bake As much as I could carry They were quite yummy, secret ingredient Cardamom, my friends, yes just a hint All of them writers for streaming TV Showrunners, staffers, but what about me? Oh I make indie films! Yes it can be done! No studios, no streamers Greenlit by none! Shocked and befuddled my new writer friends wonder Then who do YOU picket When your deals go under? Oh, for us, that’s quite normal and not at all weird We’d have to picket ourselves I happily jeered For indie filmmakers more often than nup Rely on each other to pick ourselves up Why take for example That thirty years before You’ve heard the legend and you’ve heard the lore A group of film rejects Banded together We drove up to Park City Despite the bad weather Yes, we had our signs and we had our banners And Sundance insists that we had bad manners But as unions today rely on cohorts We had 12 features and we had 12 shorts We came from New York! We came from Redondo! 24 teams of filmmakers all in one condo We stood up for each other just like Clarence Darrow We even had screenings right here at the Yarrow! And now thousands strong, Slamdancers unite Just like a union, together we fight! Share Upgrade to paid Sundance Itinerary of Rhyane Eisner-Semel (not related), junior networker Rhyane is a prominent aspiring young networker attending the festival for the second time, was kind enough to share with us his schedule for the week, allowing us a glimpse into the life of Young Hollywood away in the mountains. He is also an imaginary creation of The Ankler. THURSDAY 4:15 PM – Flight lands at Salt Lake. Notice flurries outside and questions decision not to take boots because of roommate’s advice that “you don’t need them anymore in global warming.” 5 PM - Shuttle ride up with gang from the Firestone activation team. They tell me about a mansion party tomorrow night, but say you have to be attached to “something major” to get in. I ask them what movies they are seeing. “We’ll probably hit up Beekeeper” they tell me. 7 PM – Gets to condo-share. Greeted with boos from the crowd in the living room. The organizers thought Rhyane was a woman. My spot was in a bed with four females, which “isn’t happening.” Ask if there’s any room in the guys’ bed. Apparently, that’s got a wait list. They say I can sleep in the garage, but theres no blankets. I make a little bed in a wheelbarrow. 1:30 AM – Condo-share. Awoken by the sounds of a raging party going on in the house. Try to join but the door into the kitchen is locked. Open the garage but exit is blocked by snow drift. FRIDAY 10 AM - Main Street, Jersey Mike’s House. Because of traffic, I arrive an hour late. The subs are all gone. First official networking event of the day. Jersey Mike’s house is sort of the secret hideaway for the junior networking elite. Meet some of the up and coming players in the short doc scene. Plan to connect again for mansion party tonight. 11:30 AM - Marriot Festival Headquarters. Spend the next hours studying the schedule, trying to figure out if I can make it in time to get on the standby line for Love Me at the Holiday Cinemas and whether afterwards I can make it meet Kyle from home and then get to the Library early enough to get in there. When I figure out I can make it, I realize it’s 2:30 and Love Me has already started. 4 PM - Shuttle bus. On bus to get in stand by line for Sasquatch Summer at Eccles. Woman my age on the bus who interned at Gersh last summer tells me she heard I Saw the TV Glow at the Egyptian is the film of the festival and that the afterparty is open to the public. I stay on bus at Eccles and try to take it to town, but get stuck in a traffic snarl coming up Park. Someone suggests it’s better to walk. Get out and walk the last hour up to Main Street. 8 PM - Main Street. Feel too sick from altitude and not having eaten since yesterday to immediately hike up to the Egyptian. Wait on line for hour at Atticus. All baked goods are sold out so I buy a bottle of water. It helps. 9:45 - Egyptian. Make it to the top of Main. The movie is over. 10:30 PM - Swede Alley Step on black ice in Swede Alley. Slide head first three blocks before crashing into the line at the UTA party which fortunately is dense enough to break my fall. Get accused of trying to break into the party. Bystanders pack snow on the wound to stop the bleeding and tell me I should go to the urgent care around the corner from where the racquetball screening room used to be. I ask which bus goes there. Nobody knows. 12:30 PM - Shuttle bus. Wake up in Heber City. Apparently was the last bus of the night. Try to call an Uber but there’s no internet. Old man at the bus station tells me I can sleep on his couch. For $600. Call parents from his landline to Venmo him money. But he only uses Zelle. SATURDAY 9 AM - Bus terminal. Waiting to get back to festival, see a bus tagged “SLC Airport.” Climb aboard. Will try Sundance in 2025. Leave a comment Follow us: X | Facebook | Instagram | Threads Upgrade to paid Got a tip or story pitch? Email tips@theankler.com. To advertise to our 63,000 subscribers, email info@theankler.com. ICYMI The Wakeup Peacock $$ bleed: an enigma wrapped in an earnings report 🎧 Fragile Egos Don't Take Fountain Rob Long on the Hollywood art of protecting someone's feelings while insulting them (transcript here) ‘Pain Sponge’: The New Hell of Being PR Chief ‘Last thanked, first blamed’: It’s shoot the messenger as flaks try to manage mercurial CEOs during entertainment’s most difficult era The Fever Dream of Barbenheimer Fans loved them both. In the end, voters favored one Shake-up at the Netflix Film Corral Peeling the glass onion of Scott Stuber's sudden departure — and the Netflix movie project to date What the TV Market is Telling Us Sources say the pitching slump should pick up, hitting a peak in February into March Postcard from Sundance... Starting with H'wood Agents at Burbank Airport No festival stars without Hollywood ‘Hunger Games’ at the gate 🎧 Ari Golds of a New Hollywood Agents and managers fight to join this generation's big power brokers (transcript here) The Optionist, a newsletter about IP A 'White Lotus' Thriller in Big Sur Two Period Thrillers Mix Procedurals with History

LIVE! U.S. GDP Numbers Are MIRACULOUS! And The Are Also 100% FAKE...

IMPORTANT UPDATES. Mannarino From Greg M GREGORY MANNARINO JAN 25 Lions And Friends. PLEASE SUPPORT MY WORK. Choose either PayPal, Click: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/GregoryMannarino Or Use STRIPE, Click: https://buy.stripe.com/28o15F82aeQwcCc7ss WANT TO SUPPORT MY WORK WITH CRYPTO? Please click: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/81ce40ab-37d8-45f9-af89-61831978c6eb

In memory of those who "died suddenly" in the United States and worldwide, January 16-January 22, 2024

Musicians in the US (6), Canada (2), Brazil (2), Germany (2), Poland, Latvia, Greece, S. Africa, Russia, Australia (2); doctors in the US, Canada, Brazil, Czechia, Belarus, Italy, NZ; & more United States: https://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-44f News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Canada: https://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-f3d Mexico: Mexico, Cuba, Turks and Caicos, Colombia, Peru, Brazil and Argentina: https://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-b65 Brazil: United Kingdom and Ireland: https://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-c79 Spain: France, Bel., Holland, Germany, Austria, Norway, Poland, Latvia, Belarus, Czechia, Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Malta and Spain: https://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-bfd Italy: Italy: https://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-06 Morocco, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, South Africa, Israel, Turkey, Ukraine and Russia: https://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-711 Vietnam: India, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Maldives, Vietnam, China, S. Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Australia and New Zealand: h ttps://open.substack.com/pub/markcrispinmiller/p/in-memory-of-those-who-died-suddenly-4e0 India: Indonesia: News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller. © 2024 Mark Crispin Miller New York City

What is Google so afraid of?

As Google falls behind Microsoft in its AI innovation, it also sees decline in market share across all its products. With a renewed focus to drive cost efficiency, what does its next phase look like? UTTAM DEY AND AMRITA ROY JAN 25 «The 2-minute version» Ever since the launch of ChatGPT, Google seems to be caught in a sort of midlife crisis. What exactly is it so afraid of? Falling behind? In the next innings of technological innovation, Microsoft is determined to be a winner. As Microsoft’s relationship with OpenAI became an overnight success, the company wasted no time in racing to integrate OpenAI’s ChatGPT into all of Microsoft’s products. Meanwhile, there is evidence pointing that Google is falling behind in its AI innovation as it called Code Red last year to bring Google’s founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and help accelerate the company’s AI strategy. To make matters more complicated: Google’s product adoption has been slowing across some of its flagship products such as Chrome, Google Search and Android OS. Tough choices ahead: Last week, Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, underscored that the company was working towards ambitious goals in 2024 by investing in big priorities. Unfortunately, in order to create capacity for investment, Google’s employees are now in the line of fire, as the company has laid off 13K employees through 2023, with more role eliminations yet to come. What’s next? The management has laid out a 7-point manifesto that outlines the company’s commitment to improve its velocity, efficiency, productivity and deliver durable cost savings in 2024, similar to Meta’ Year of Efficiency mandate in 2022. The company will be walking a very thin line between managing investor sentiment and employee morale while adopting a frugal approach to drive growth. Buy us a couple of coffees? For most corporations, 2022 was the year of reckoning. Caught between supply chain constraints that showed no signs of easing and consumer demand, which was on thin ice, many corporations were forced to hunker down and prepare for a new world where inflation and high interest rates could very well be the new norm. Silicon Valley’s growth-at-all-costs mantra did not seem to resonate anymore. Any company whose expenditures seemed exuberant was punished severely. But through 2023, the economy would continue to stay strong, inflation would show some more promise of receding, and innovation would steal the spotlight again in the form of AI and ChatGPT. However, one company that has been wary of AI and ChatGPT is Google's parent company, Alphabet. Ever since the launch of ChatGPT, the search giant seems to be caught in a sort of midlife crisis warning against the rush to hastily adopt AI, fighting a proxy war for tech dominance while making “tough decisions” to lay off thousands of employees all at the same time. AI is Google's next frontier no doubt. But there are consequences. If this past year of AI has taught us anything, it is not that OpenAI is the hottest startup in a long time. In the battle for the next chapter of technological innovation, Microsoft $MSFT is determined to be a winner. Microsoft’s Satya Nadella had already navigated the company in a new direction since 2014 by serving the enterprise with cloud computing infrastructure. But he still longed for the consumer technology reach that Google $GOOG has. The Seattle-based company was the pioneer of personal computers, no doubt. But a series of missteps saw it slip up unprecedented opportunities that were eventually taken by Google’s Search or Apple's iPhone. By the end of 2022, Microsoft’s relationship with OpenAI became an overnight success, and the company wasted no time in racing to integrate OpenAI’s ChatGPT into all of Microsoft’s products. A few months later, the world witnessed a rapid pace of announcements about their AI-based integrations from both the technology companies—Microsoft and OpenAI—leveraging their relationship to launch more AI-based products and features, while Google launched Bard, Search Generative Experience (SGE), and Gemini. In a call with investors late last year, Google’s Chief Business Officer, Philipp Schindler, hinted at what Google might officially plan to do with its AI ambitions. He mentioned that Google had already begun testing new ad formats with SGE, while also adding that “it’s extremely important to us that advertisers still have the opportunity to reach potential customers along their search journeys.” To most, it seemed like a no-brainer that Google would eventually find a way to embed its AI products with ads. But Schindler’s commentary was quite different from the measured words that had been trickling out of Googleplex all of last year. In February, the company’s executives called Code Red and asked Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, to step in and urgently help accelerate the company’s AI strategy . Later, in April 2023, when asked in a 60 Minutes interview about what keeps him up at night with regard to AI, Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, said, “We don’t have all the answers there yet, and the technology (AI) is moving too fast. So does that keep me up at night? Absolutely.” Meanwhile, Google’s product adoption has been slowing. Yes, the concerns about AI are real. But Google’s campaign to deploy AI responsibly could also threaten its dominance in technology. Could the tables have turned, putting Google in a position to catch up? Was AI a genuine threat to its overall Search & Ads business? At the moment, it's too early to say how ChatGPT and AI will impact Google Search. But some early commentary from SEO (Search Engine Optimization) experts is starting to show why Google’s executives were right to issue Code Red last year. According to this SEO expert, Google’s search algorithm has been unable to keep up with the ferocious speed at which AI models learn and adapt, allowing unscrupulous sites to blatantly fill Google’s search results with plagiaristic redundancy. Coincidentally, behavioral changes in online consumption patterns have also started to gradually shift the balance of user traffic away from the eponymous Google Search. According to this study, nearly a third of U.S. adults under the age of 30 regularly get their news from TikTok. Moreover, podcasts and newsletter platforms such as Substack are favorites among young audiences as an alternative source of news. A study by Insider Intelligence showed 66% of Gen Z podcast listeners use podcasts to stay updated on the latest current events. The culmination of issues that AI could pose to Google’s search, together with the shifts in online information consumption, could have gotten Google executives extremely worried. These developments could probably explain why Google’s market share in Search has been stagnating at the 92% level for the last five years as can be seen in the left chart below. To further complicate matters, fewer mobile phones with Android Operating Systems (OS) have been selling over the past 5 years, according to Statcounter, as seen in the right chart above. While the market share for other OS mobile phones largely remained stagnant after the pandemic, Apple’s iOS-powered iPhones gained significant market share in the same time period at the expense of Google’s Android, which saw its share fall by 5% over a five-year period. This looks consistent with recent news that Apple overtook Samsung as the world’s largest smartphone seller. Last month, we also looked at how Google’s Chrome was losing popularity among users as the preferred internet browser. Google isn’t just losing market share in A.I. 2023 was rough for Chrome too. Google isn’t just losing market share in A.I. 2023 was rough for Chrome too. UTTAM DEY AND AMRITA ROY · DECEMBER 14, 2023 Read full story So far, it looks like just two products over the history of Google’s product suite have been meaningful enough to have their own separate line items in Google’s financial statements: Search & Youtube and Google Cloud. The rest are still grouped together in the Other Bets category, which till now has been losing boatloads of money for the Mountain View company. It appears 2023's market share figures could have been the last straw to break the search giant’s back. Google’s employees are now in the line of fire. In an organization-wide memo last week, Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, underscored that the company was working towards “ambitious goals” in 2024 by investing in “big priorities." The memo also mentioned, “The reality is that to create the capacity for this investment, we have to make tough choices.” So far, those “tough choices” have included layoffs and reorganizations in many of Google’s business units, including hardware, ad sales, search, shopping, and YouTube. According to data compiled by layoffs.fyi, Google has laid off about 13k employees, or about 6.7% of its workforce, through 2023. But Pichai’s memo went on to further warn that more layoffs would be coming as the company continued to make “specific resource allocation decisions throughout the year (2024)” with “role eliminations” yet to come. In light of the uncertain impact of AI on Google’s products, combined with the perceived slowdown in some of Google’s most used products and changing online user behavior, cutting back on employee salaries is conservative corporate strategy at its best. With these insights at hand, Google’s management will be tasked with walking a very thin line: managing investor sentiment and employee morale while adopting a frugal approach to investing in its “big priorities” and work towards its “ambitious goals.” Much like $META Meta’s Year of Efficiency mandate in 2022, Google wants to demonstrate that it will work towards improving “company velocity, efficiency, productivity and deliver durable cost savings," as it pointed out in its recently launched 7-point manifesto for 2024. Therefore, to immediately solve issues such as efficiency and productivity, Google has turned to a common corporate panacea: the Revenue per Employee metric. Simply put, it is a ratio that roughly measures how much money each employee generates for the company. While companies such as Apple $AAPL and Microsoft demonstrated more prudence in hiring employees over a four-year period, the rest of the companies in the left chart doubled their workforce on average over the same time period. Most of these companies that doubled their workforce had severe problems proving how productive their employees were, i.e., how much revenue each employee was accountable for on average. Besides, with the perceived productivity boosts that AI delivers to the organization or to the general economy, Google executives may already be bracing for a barrage of questions on productivity this year. All of this at a time when the company is working on big priorities. While Google can’t afford to take its foot off the spending brakes, neither can it take its foot off the growth pedal. At the same time, competing in AI isn’t getting cheaper, and Alphabet’s Other Bets is still a drag on earnings. Do you think Google will be able to deliver on its growth ambitions while driving cost efficiencies? Are you bullish or bearish Google over the coming years? Uttam & Amrita 👋🏼👋🏼 Want to support our work? Thank you for reading The Pragmatic Optimist. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share A guest post by Uttam Dey Uttam is the quintessential data enthusiast with an eye for spotting trends at the intersection of technology, finance and geopolitics. Subscribe to Uttam The Pragmatic Optimist © 2024 Amrita Roy Vancouver Canada. Unsubscribe

Kucinich for America? Dennis Announces his No Label Bid for Ohio's 7th

Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The bottom-line is that I honestly believe that Dennis Kucinich is a good person; however, reacting to his recent announcement that the 77-year-old (he will be 78, if he wins the seat), he has an uphill struggle. The positive aspects of Dennis’s campaign is that he is running as an independent, “No Label” candidate. Since the Dem Party redistricted him out of his Congressional seat in 2012, he remained with the War Party of Wall Street, and that was my main criticism of him, even though he’s kept a relatively low profile after 2012. Dennis was always a reliable voice for peace, not just antiwar. In 2011, I interviewed him on the Soapbox when he called Barack Obama’s bombing of Libya an “impeachable offense.” "'Humanitarian War is an Oxymoron," by Cindy Sheehan By Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox - March 23, 2011 "Humanitarian War' is an Oxymoron" Dennis Kucinich on Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox March 23, 2011 Yesterday, I was scanning through the AM radio stations on my way to Berkeley to pick up something, when I heard a familiar voice, our old friend, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh)—and he didn’t sound happy. So I stopped the scan to listen. Surprisingly, Congressman Kucinich was talking to another old “friend,” Sean Hannity of Fox News—the only thing I have to say about Sean Hannity is that I was on his TV show in NYC once and he paid for my assistant and I to fly the next day to Cuba—Sean financed a Federal Crime, but at least I have something on him, now. Anyway, Dennis was talking to Sean about the recent US bombing of Libya and he was furious at President Obama for not consulting with Congress before this happened, (he consulted with the UN, he consulted with the Arab League, he consulted with Hillary Clinton—Secretary of State; Susan Rice—US Ambassador to the UN and Samantha Power—somebody?), but he didn’t talk to Congress—which is the governmental body under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that has the sole power to declare war. Not only was Dennis angry about that, he was angry that the president sent Congress a weak letter this past Monday, after the fact, that justified his actions under Article II, which outline the duties of the executive branch. Well, the Constitutional Scholar was obviously incorrect about his assessment because nowhere in Article II does it say that the president has unilateral war making powers. In fact, as Dennis pointed out, in December 2007, Obama told the Boston Globe this little inconvenient truth that has arisen like a rattlesnake to bite him in the ass with the stark contradiction between what he said before he got the nomination, to what he actually did as president: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, Boston Globe, December 20, 2007 So, I was pounding on the steering wheel, flabbergasted that for the first time in years, I was hearing something that was bold and non-partisan coming from the mouth of a Congress-critter—I have always had respect for Dennis, I have eaten cereal with him at his modest home in Cleveland and learned much from him—but I haven’t been so impressed with him since Obama has been the leader of his party. However, my respect for Dennis soared yesterday and I quickly got a hold of the producer of my radio show to see if Dennis would do me the honor of coming on to tell me and my listeners (from the far-left) how he felt and what his concerns were. I was a little nervous, because I have become persona non grata in the halls of power since I have questioned everyone in those halls, not just the R’s. I was not only pounding the steering wheel out of exuberance that Dennis was saying these things--but because I have felt so utterly alone and thoroughly attacked for being against the Holy One's "humanitarian intervention" in Libya. I have really felt like I was on a lonely island of sanity in a world that has gone completely bonkers! Anyway, the full interview will be on this Sunday at 2pm PDST on Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox, but I just wanted to point out a few highlights. First of all, I think Obama is in big trouble. I don’t think he is in “impeachable” trouble, but who knows? The last time a president was impeached it was a Democrat, Clinton, during a Republican House Majority. Obama has great support from Senators like Levin of Michigan and Kerry of Massachusetts, and I doubt Obama would be convicted in the Senate—but he is in trouble. Secondly, as I told Dennis, Sean Hannity’s agreement with Dennis and the Republican anger reeks of partisanship and Dennis, who has supported Obama in some big things I don’t agree with, lends his voice as a voice of what’s right over allegiance to political party—and with Dennis’s district being disappeared for 2012, he is taking another political risk and I admire him for that. I also asked Dennis if he was going to change his mind and give Obama a primary challenge over this and his answer to me was: “I think someone should, but it’s not going to be me.” I gave up on Robber Class politics a long time ago and I think that most politicians are motivated by cynicism and greed, and many of my supporters and comrades will tell me that Dennis is a shill to keep the antiwar segment of the Democratic Party tied to the party—and I think they could be correct—but Dennis will stand up for peace and against blatant power grabs no matter who is president. In fact, he and Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina (both R’s) just co-sponsored a bill to have the troops out of Afghanistan by the end of this year—it failed, but it got 28 more votes than last time. It might all just be a charade, but I also know that there is no great movement of civil society pushing hard to make Congress defund the wars to end them—it’s just not there. We are failing, too. Of course, I would be thrilled if Dennis would leave the Democratic Party and become a Green, or Independent, like Bernie Sanders of Vermont, but we need his voice where it is, for now. LISTEN TO THE SHOW SUNDAY AT 2PM (PDST), BESIDES DENNIS, MY GUEST ALSO WILL BE HISTORIAN, THADDEUS RUSSELL, WHO WROTE A FASCINATING BOOK CALLED: A RENEGADE HISTORY OF THE US. THAD ALSO GOES OFF ON OBAMA’S INSANE POWER GRAB. (Unfortunately, the podcast with Dennis is one of the few that have been lost in the interwebs) What do you think about Dennis and his campaign to move back to The Swamp? Leave a comment Share Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Newsletter It’s never too late to become a paid subscriber to support our work, or for a one time donation: We have different tiers of support: $5/month; $50/year, or $100 as a founding member. Upgrade to paid Checks/money/orders/cash/etc can be SNAIL-mailed to: Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox, LLC PO BOX 6264, VACAVILLE, CA 95696 PayPal: cindysheehanssoapbox@gmail.com Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Newsletter © 2024 Cindy Sheehan PO Box 6264, Vacaville, CA 95696 Unsubscribe

God Bless Texas

With increasing frequency over the course of the Biden administration, we have heard warnings of an impending constitutional crisis. We need sound the warnings no more. The crisis is here. The immediate cause is the question of access to the Texas-Mexican border. Texas, fed up with federal “law enforcement” acting to facilitate illegal entry into the United States has asserted its control, strung razor wire, and told the feds to back off. The Biden administration has gone running to the Supreme Court, which has waded in and in a preliminary ruling advised that Texas cannot prevent the federal government from carrying out its constitutional responsibility for controlling the country’s borders. AND Magazine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Texas has responded by saying it fully intends to ignore the Supreme Court ruling and hold its course. The stage is now set for a direct confrontation between Washington and Austin. Multiple other states have already voiced their support for Texas in its confrontation with Washington. Texas is right. The justices on the Supreme Court are wrong. They missed the point. We don’t live in a monarchy. The federal government does not rule by divine right. It does not have unlimited power. The federal government has only those powers given to it by the Constitution. Perhaps more importantly it can only use those powers for the purposes identified by the Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but he can only use that authority on behalf of the people of the United States and to defend them from their enemies. This President has decided to act in a blatantly unconstitutional fashion. He has ordered federal agencies to act in concert with our enemies and in a fashion calculated to harm American citizens. Under Joe Biden, the federal government is not simply failing to secure the border. It is actively working to break federal law and to aid and abet a foreign invasion of this nation. Illegals entering this country do not arrive here completely under their own power. They are moved here across Central America via a series of camps connected in many cases by charter bus lines. These camps are operated by the United Nations but paid for largely by American taxpayers. IOM, the United Nations agency that is at the heart of this “conveyor belt” is effectively an arm of our State Department, and its chief Amy Pope was put in place by our government. Amy thinks “migration” is a force for positive change. She is all about encouraging and expanding it. She wants to do everything in her power to bring as many people as possible here, and she does not care what our laws say. Once illegals arrive at the border they are not turned away. They are met by Border Patrol which has been directed to act as the equivalent of Welcome Wagon. Illegals actively seek out Border Patrol and turn themselves in. They know they will be processed and released expeditiously. Once processed and released illegals are then not only free to move into the interior of the country they are assisted in doing so by federal authorities. They are told to appear for hearings, which are set for as much as a decade in the future. They do not appear. No one looks for them. The entire exercise is a charade. Despite security measures in place to prevent terrorist attacks on commercial aircraft illegals are allowed to travel by air without any form of identification other than the documents showing they were arrested for breaking our laws and crossing the border illegally. They are even allowed to refuse to be photographed by security if they so desire. The illegals get backpacks, snacks, and cell phones. If processing through security takes too long, special lines are opened up just for illegals. You, my fellow American citizen, do not get any such consideration. When moving illegals into the interior of the country via normal commercial flights proves impractical the federal government acts more directly. It contracts for flights dedicated exclusively to the movement of illegals around the country. You pay for that too, According to the immigration watchdog group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), DHS was estimated to be providing “$363.8 million of taxpayer dollars” in Fiscal Year 2023 to NGOs and nonprofits to handle migrant arrivals. FAIR also noted that “it’s unclear how the money is actually spent by the NGOs and local governments.” The President takes this oath upon assuming office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." None of the actions listed above are in accordance with this oath. Every single one of them is contrary to the Constitution. This President, acting as an absolute despot, is actively using the powers of the federal government against the American people to endanger our national security. The Supreme Court should have recognized that. It should have had the moral courage and integrity to say directly that a President cannot order actions specifically designed to harm the United States of America. It did not. Texas has. Texas has opted to defy blatantly unconstitutional orders by the supposed Commander in Chief. God Bless Texas. © 2024 AND Magazine P.O. Box, Forest City, PA

Everything Old Is New Again in 2024

Guess who's coming to The Daily Show? In the wake of the New Hampshire primary results, the odds of a Joe Biden-Donald Trump matchup in the 2024 general election seem like a mortal lock. All of the polling suggests that many Americans are displeased with this choice set. This is partly because Trump and Biden are both very, very old and have been on the political stage for quite some time. A presidential election year is always a ripe moment for political satire, and for this presidential year in particular there will be a demand for comedic takes to make everyone laugh when they are not crying. In other words, this is a moment for The Daily Show, which has been on Comedy Central¹ for more than a quarter-century, to really step up its game. The show that Craig Kilborn, Jon Stewart, and Trevor Noah all made their bones is a ripe platform for someone new to offer a fresh take on the state of American politics. Drezner’s World is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Readers, if you’ve been reading the news for the last day then you know where this segue is going. If not, get prepared for a very retro announcement courtesy of CNN’s Oliver Darcy: Jon Stewart is heading back to “The Daily Show.” The comedian, who during his 16-year run as host of the Comedy Central program established it as an entertainment and cultural force, will return to host the show each week on Mondays starting February 12, Showtime and MTV Entertainment Studios announced Wednesday. Stewart, who returns as the 2024 presidential election season heats up, will also executive produce the show and work with a rotating line-up of comedians who will helm the program the rest of the week, Tuesdays through Thursdays. “Stewart is the voice of our generation, and we are honored to have him return to Comedy Central’s ‘The Daily Show’ to help us all make sense of the insanity and division roiling the country as we enter the election season,” Chris McCarthy, chief executive of Showtime and MTV Entertainment Studios, said in a statement…. Convincing Stewart to return to “The Daily Show” is a major coup for Comedy Central. While Trevor Noah received critical acclaim for hosting program after Stewart exited, it never quite had the same cultural impact it did under Stewart’s stewardship.² The poaching of Stewart is also a win for Paramount Global, which has been trying to breathe life into its Paramount+ streaming service. Axios’ Sara Fischer provides some further context, explaining that “Stewart will be the executive producer of every episode this year and next, but he will only host on Mondays through the election…. Mondays are the most-watched day during the week and will serve as a platform for Stewart to catch audiences up on news that broke between Thursday and Sunday.” The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World has decidedly mixed feelings about this development. On the one hand, there is no denying this feels like a trying out something that worked a decade ago but maybe not now. In the years since Stewart departed I have read³ a fair number of takes suggesting that Stewart’s schtick helped lay the groundwork for our current political moment. For example, in 2016 Vox’s Emmitt Rensin described Stewart’s time on The Daily Show as, “a program that more than any other thing advanced the idea that liberal orthodoxy was a kind of educated savvy and that its opponents were, before anything else, stupid. The smug liberal found relief in ridiculing them.” Furthermore, it’s not like Stewart’s post-TDS projects were all that great. He wrote a meh movie and hosted The Problem With Jon Stewart on Apple+ which had it’s, um, problems and ended abruptly. To put it bluntly: in a moment when a swath of younger voters believe that there is no difference between Biden and Trump, is Jon Stewart really going to be the guy that persuades them otherwise? Actually… maybe? Thank you for reading Drezner’s World. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share It’s worth remembering that Stewart left The Daily Show only six weeks after Trump took his ride down the gold-plated escalator. He started his Apple+ show after Trump lost in 2020. We have never really seen what Stewart would do on a regular basis with Trump as a candidate. His 2011 riff on Sarah Palin and Donald Trump eating pizza in Times Square remains one of my favorite comedy bits of this century. So even if I am not persuaded that Stewart’s return will work out great, I’m glad to watch him try to revive the magic. As a Gen Xer who has been horrified by the GOP’s metamorphosis in the 21st century, there are Daily Show sketches from Stewart’s time as host that still stick with me. His analysis of how Fox News coped with the 2012 election was pretty good as well. I’m also partial to his Passover vs. Easter comparison. Done right, this could also allow for a transition to a new host at the end of 2024. The owners of The Daily Show seemed at something of a loss about who would host the show after Trevor Noah departed the show at the end of 2022 — so much so that former correspondent Roy Wood Jr. kept mouthing the words “hire a host” during Noah’s Emmy acceptance speech earlier this month. Even during this fallow period there have been some solid bits, but maybe Stewart as executive producer could revive this franchise. Maybe this is the comedy equivalent of Michael Jordan returning to the Chicago Bulls after his baseball run and winning three more NBA championships. Or… maybe it’s Michael Jordan coming out of retirement to play for the Wizards. For the hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World, however, what matters is the comedy more than the political impact. In retrospect, Stewart’s influence over the body politic was wildly overstated. I am way more interested in whether he can make me laugh during an unfunny year. Laughter is good. Laughter is necessary. Hopefully, Jon Stewart will be able to go to the comedy well one more time. Leave a comment 1 For Gen Z: Comedy Central is a channel on something called “cable television.” Or, to translate into your lingo: Comedy Central is a show streaming on Paramount+. 2 Darcy might be correct but I don’t think this had anything to do with Noah — who had some brilliant bits and clever innovations — so much as the general decline of cable as compared to streaming just as Noah was coming on board. 3 I think I also wrote one back in 2009. Drezner’s World © 2024 Daniel W. Drezner 160 Packard Ave. Medford, MA 02155

Lets start looking at some contradictions in the latest draft of the Pandemic Treaty.

This draft was named "pandemic agreement" to keep us guessing whether it is really the same document or something else This is the official version, the latest draft of the pandemic treaty dated October 30, 2023 that both the developing nations and Pharma did not like. But is there much for we the people to like? The term “infodemic” pops up in Article 1, where it is defined as too much information, false information or misleading information. Why is too much information a problem? Equity is to be at the center of this document, at its heart. Let’s see how long that lasts. Free, unhindered access to accurate information is also right at the start of the document, in its “Objective and scope” section. But these mellifluous phrases didn’t last long. By the time we reach the Article 17, equity has morphed into choosing who will get first dibs on pandemic products. Everyone is not equal after all. After promising free, full and fair access to information in earlier articles above, the WHO treaty yanks freedom of speech away. Everyone has to control infodemics (too much informatin or unwanted information) at the local, regional national and international level. That is some massive censorship project being contemplated…or perhaps already in place. And here, the pandemic treaty promises transparency regarding government contracts for drugs and vaccines. Transparency! What a beautiful word. But guess what? Is a charade. Because this very week, the European Parliament and the Canadian parliament voted to continue to hide the contracts for COVID vaccines from their citizens. Do you really think nations will make future contracts open to the public, when so many billions of dollars in gravy was involved, and no entity: not DOD, HHS or the so-called manufacturers wants to be held responsible for the resulting deaths and destruction. © 2024 Meryl Nass 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe Get the appStart writing

Each of Us A Pyramid A bit of prose for a Winter day. PAUL WITTENBERGER JAN 25

An interview with Jordan Schachtel, author of The Dossier YURI BEZMENOV AND JORDAN SCHACHTEL JAN 25 History has shown that human beings leave behind an amazing array of artifacts, material remains of objects they created, modified, or used. Thus, every person can be considered as an archeological site to be excavated, dug into, like the earth that hides a clay sculpture or animal bones or the memory of fire. This piece of writing might be an example of what I mean. As a child, I knew as children do, the dark of nights, the deepest dread, ghosts haunting shadows bathing my room, the monsters under my bed. When I was five years old, I knew fear and I was afraid. In the bathroom, the wooden stool I stood upon to look out the window would wobble while I waited to hear the opening and closing of the front entry door, peering out to see the figure of my father walking up the sidewalk in the direction of his workplace. I never lost balance and I wasn’t afraid of falling off the stool—I don’t remember it as being particularly dangerous. When I stood on the stool, I could make it rock from left to right by moving my feet and it would make a clattering sound as the uneven feet on each side hit the linoleum floor. I do remember though, once having seen my father on his way, a feeling of freedom washed over me—I always felt safer. Excavate that. Leave a comment Share Thanks for reading Paul’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Pledge your support Paul’s Substack is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Paul’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments. © 2024 Paul Wittenberger 205 S. Park Avenue, Fond du lac, WI 54935 Unsubscribe

HB 187 Bill PUSHED in Florida

Florida Legislators are pushing an anti-Semitism bill that would redefine it. If you enjoy Jaybefaunt’s Stream Of Consciousness , share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe. Invite Friends © 2024 Jaybefaunt 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe

What's the best diet? The answer might surprise you. GISELA ALVAREZ RDN, LDN JAN 25

If you ask any doctor what the healthiest diet is, I guarantee you they’ll say, “Well, the Mediterranean diet of course!” If you were to ask over at Silicon Valley, the tech bros would say, “Well, Intermittent Fasting!” If you ask Netflix, “A vegan diet, no doubt!” and if you ask me, well, keep reading. Let’s start with the basics, what do we mean when we say “diet”? I went to Merriam-Webster and found we’ve got a couple of definitions for the term: “Diet” di·​et ˈdī-ət food and drink regularly provided or consumed // habitual nourishment. promoting weight loss (as by depressing appetite) // reduced in or free from calories. a formal deliberative assembly of princes or estates // any of various national or provincial legislatures (OK? New one to me!). The word diet as a broad term just means the food and drinks we regularly consume, our habitual nourishment. When we put it in certain cultural contexts, that word now relates to calorie-free, weight loss, and the pursuit of thinness, and that’s usually what we associate it with. “I’m on a diet so I can’t eat X,” or “I’m on X diet so I can lose X pounds before the wedding,” and “You shouldn’t be eating that, aren’t you on a diet?” Phrases we all know, all too well. The pursuit of thinness in diet culture has led many (particularly women) to succumb to what we call fad diets. “Fad diet” /fæd/ dī-ət Though no formal definition is found in the dictionary, “Fad diets are eating plans that are often promoted as the “best” or “fastest” approach to losing weight. They can sound like a newly discovered “hack” that promises a better, healthier you.” The “quick fix” is often touted as the only way to lose weight quickly, without scientific evidence to back its claims, and does not take into account our biology and nutrition adequacy. Fad diets usually become very popular socially but never become a standard dietary recommendation. They often promote restriction by cutting out major food groups or specific foods and may consist of expensive and unnecessary food products, ingredients, and/or supplements. Risks/consequences of following fad diets include: -Severe caloric restriction -Adverse symptoms (nausea, vomiting, dehydration, constipation, etc.) -Vitamin and mineral deficiencies -Increased risk of developing an eating disorder -Negative health outcomes -Body dissatisfaction and low self-esteem -Slower metabolism, muscle loss, and impaired bone health -Changes in gut microbiome -Infertility and hormone imbalance When we succumb to these short-term eating plans, we fall into the Diet Cycle, also known as the Binge-Restriction Cycle. It can be never-ending, as we try new diets in hopes of finding the one that “sticks.” Think alkaline diet, South Beach diet, la dieta de la piña, etc., etc. Certain fad diets can sound appealing and look like a shiny golden ticket from afar, but following them and hopping from one to the next does more harm than good. Being stuck in the Diet Cycle may take years of unlearning and relearning how to best nourish yourself in order to break free. 5 Ways to Spot a Fad Diet: Beware of a diet that… Promises short-term weight loss and quick fixes, and does not teach you how to improve eating habits and food choices long-term. Encourages you to: eliminate, buy, or glorify certain foods or food groups. The evidence behind it is not strong or non-existent. Is endorsed by artists, models, spokespersons, or other famous people. Quickly becomes popular, and just as quickly fades away once a “new” diet comes out. On the other side of the coin, we have those who follow certain diets or dietary patterns in pursuit of health and/or longevity. If the Oscar’s were given to diet plans, the Mediterranean diet would sweep the floor. It’s been ranked #1 for 2024 by U.S. News & World Report, for the 7th consecutive year. It’s followed by the DASH diet at number 2 (Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension) and the MIND diet at number 3 (Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay-what a mouthful!). A panel of 43 doctors, dietitians, and other health experts examine the diet quality, health risks and benefits, long-term sustainability, and evidence-based effectiveness of 30 dietary plans to determine which takes the crown. When compared to a Western diet, these top 3 patterns focus on adding more plant-based foods, healthy fats, and limiting processed foods, and are overall higher in fiber and antioxidants. They all exist with different goals in mind; the DASH diet was structured to help lower blood pressure, the Mediterranean diet to lower overall cardiovascular risk and disease, and the MIND to be neuroprotective and help with cognitive function. These are very well-researched and backed dietary patterns because time and time again they have shown positive results when related to various chronic conditions (i.e. diabetes, hyperlipidemia, dementia, etc.) But all things have their time and place, and as a practitioner, I find at times, that promoting said diets isn’t the best way to connect with a patient and might even deter them from further counseling. In an era of globalization with heightened migration, preserving traditional cuisines and customs is of utmost importance to many. Immigrants work hard to maintain their traditional foods as part of their ethnic identity and heritage. By upholding a diet so high up and recommending it without guidance and explicit explanation, patients might give up their cultural foods and think they are “bad for their health.” In reality, many cultures provide an abundance of nutritious foods and eating patterns, and by providing recommendations in a contextualized format, change and acceptance of change are more likely to occur. Culture influences people’s perspectives on health, healing, medication/alternative therapy use, food choices, and eating patterns. Meeting in the middle and shifting towards culturally sensitive recommendations that encourage the consumption of veggies/whole grains/healthy fats/plant-based and lean protein just like the Mediterranean diet does might be a better way of eliciting healthy habits and behavior change. So what’s the best diet, then? The secret to healthy eating is recognizing that our health (or weight) IS NOT determined by ONE meal or ONE food; it is instead influenced by our long-term eating patterns. Nutrition is not one size fits all, even the best-ranked diet knows it as it tells you what to eat, but not how much/when. The best diet to follow is one that: Meets your needs (energy, fiber, micronutrients, protein, etc.). Keeps you satisfied and satiated throughout the day. Does not lead to extreme cravings or promote unnecessary restrictions. Fits into your schedule and preferences, and takes into account any present health conditions or allergies. Is flexible to day-to-day changes. Find what works for you. Adopting certain dietary patterns and adapting them to your lifestyle, preferences, and schedule will help them be the best for you. Strive to develop healthier eating habits that are not only sustainable but also, and this cannot be emphasized enough, ensure you're eating enough; your dietary pattern should offer flexibility to avoid strict restrictions and undereating, remember what doesn’t bend, breaks. Unless driven by genuine preferences or medical necessity, your diet shouldn't eliminate entire foods or food groups. If you focus on subtracting from your diet and have a rigid mindset around eating, it won’t be a sustainable plan. The best diet combines adherence with flexibility, allowing you to find a sense of peace and sustainability in your nutritional choices from day to day. Keep chewing! Something to Chew On takes a closer look at trendy nutrition topics, provides guidance and information, will have you questioning your relationship with food, and gives you fun resources. It’s a leisurely read sent out every other Thursday that’ll have you thinking, learning, reflecting, and chuckling, here and there. Now, that’s something to chew on. Feel free to share with someone you think will enjoy this! Share Something to Chew on © 2024 Gisela Alvarez