POPULARITY
84 episodes with famously
22 episodes with famously
10 episodes with famously
3 episodes with famously
4 episodes with famously
2 episodes with famously
2 episodes with famously
2 episodes with famously
2 episodes with famously
When Ryn first met Katja, she was in the habit of inflating her age a bit. Why? Because as an herbalist – at that time – it was preferable to present as older, even as an ‘elder', if possible. Times have changed, and now “influencerbalists” dominate the social media world's public face, for herbalism as for so many things. Staying young forever looks almost plausible, when it's shown through short-form videos on a tiny screen…It's not, though. We'll all age, and that will mean some things don't work as well as they used to, don't feel as good as they used to, don't heal as fast as they used to. We'll get tired, our hair will thin, our faces will wrinkle. All the amazing new products and one-weird-tricks will not stop these things from happening.We don't need to stop them. They're part of life. In just the same way that yes, it's OK to be a plus-sized herbalist, it's OK to be an aging herbalist. Chasing immortality is a fool's errand, and it can distract both from more effective means of mitigating discomforts, and from the benefits this stage of life brings. (Yes, they exist: perspective, experience, even a peaceful detachment – these are the purview of the elder.) Aging is OK.We do have some herbs to recommend, though! In this episode we discuss…ginseng (Panax ginseng) – Famously an “herb for elders”, and indeed able to raise energy levels, enhance congnition, improve stress responses, and much more. Yet ginseng will be much, much more effective if its influences are supported by nourishing food and frequent low-level movement.solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum) – Our very favorite herb for restoring moisture, and thus flexibility, to the joints and connective tissues. You can purchase a solomon's seal salve from Healing Spirits, or find tinctures, salves, and other sol'seal remedies from Cortesia.nervines, e.g. blue vervain (Verbena hastata), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), heather (Calluna vulgaris), linden (Tilia spp.) – Consider working with nervines both for day-to-day mental & emotional steadiness, but also as aids to intentional introspection. Walking or sitting while pondering your past and present, with the support of nervine herbs, is a practice that will help you process your experiences and understand your current stage of life more deeply.demulcents, e.g. linden, marshmallow (Althaea off.), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), elm (Ulmus spp.) – As we age, we tend to dry out! These herbs help us remain fluent and soft. For elders, it's often good to combine these with carminatives such as fennel, ginger, or cardamom.If you'd like to start taking care of your body for the long haul – no matter what age you are today – our Community Herbalist program will equip you to do so! This program prepares you to support your family & community with holistic herbal methods.Like all our offerings, this bundle of self-paced online video courses comes with free access to twice-weekly live Q&A sessions with us, lifetime access to current & future course material, open discussion threads integrated in each lesson, an active student community, study guides, quizzes & capstone assignments, and more!Our theme music is “Wings” by Nicolai Heidlas.Support the showYou can find all of our online herbalism courses at online.commonwealthherbs.com!
Get to know Auburn Baseball Legend, Sonny Dichiara. Famously known as 'Sonny D'. Learn more about Sonny's full baseball career from Hoover HS, to Samford, to Auburn, to the Pros. Sonny has officially retired from Baseball, now attacking his next phase of life including being a husband, finishing school, coaching, and playing some golf.
Murph & Markus - hour 4: Reacting to John Lynch's comments, Jesse Sapolu joins the show, & WDYTLT: RIP Polly Holliday, the waitress who famously said, "Kiss my grits!" in AliceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Murph & Markus - hour 4: Reacting to John Lynch's comments, Jesse Sapolu joins the show, & WDYTLT: RIP Polly Holliday, the waitress who famously said, "Kiss my grits!" in AliceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The last time legendary Wheeling-born saxophonist Chu Berry was in the recording studio, he gave some jazz love to a song written by a fellow West Virginian.The date was Aug. 28, 1941, and the tune — one of the four sides that Berry and his jazz ensemble would record that day for Milt Gabler's Commodore label in New York City's Reeves Sound Studios on East 44th Street — was “Gee, Baby, Ain't I Good to You.”The song was still relatively unknown. No one else had recorded it in the dozen years since Piedmont, WV, native Don Redmond wrote it for McKinney's Cotton Pickers to wax in 1929.As discussed here in an earlier article, the Roarin' Twenties has been good for Don Redman. He was responsible for integrating the rhythmic approach of Louis Armstrong's playing into arrangements for Fletcher Henderson's Orchestra. In 1927 Redman was wooed away from Henderson to join McKinney's Cotton Pickers, the house band at the celebrated Greystone Ballroom in Detroit.When Chu Berry revisited the song in 1941 (to be on the flip side of his version of "Sunny Side of the Street”), it featured ex-Bennie Moten/Count Basie trumpeter Oran “Hot Lips” Page, whose bluesy singing and plunger mute work capped the session.Incidentally, Page recorded it again in 1944, but even more importantly for the song's legacy (and to Don Redmond's checkbook) a year earlier the song was also recorded by an up-and-comer named Nat “King” Cole, who took it to No. 1 on the Billboard Harlem Hit Parade where stayed for four weeks.Losing ChuChu Berry would not live to know any of that. Almost exactly two months after the August 1941 recording date, he was on his way to Toronto for a gig with the Cab Calloway Orchestra, with which he had played for four years. Heavy fog made visibility poor, and the car in which Chu was a passenger skidded and crashed into a bridge abutment near Conneaut, Ohio, 70 miles northeast of Cleveland.Berry died three days later from his injuries just a few weeks after his 33rd birthday.Chu Berry was brought back to Wheeling for his funeral. More than a thousand mourners attended, including Cab Calloway and the members of his band who ordered a massive floral arrangement in the shape of a heart.At the funeral, Calloway told mourners Chu had been like a brother to him. The big man had charmed the world, he said, with advanced harmonies and smoothly flowing solos that would influence musicians for generations to come. “Chu will always be a member of our band,” Cab said. “He was the greatest.”Berry's RootsBorn in Wheeling in 1908, Leon Brown Berry took up the saxophone as a youngster after being inspired by the great tenor man Coleman Hawkins. Berry went on to model his own playing after Hawkins, who would later be quoted as saying, “Chu was about the best.” By the time of his 27th birthday, Chu had moved to New York where he worked with Bessie Smith, Lionel Hampton, Count Basie and others.Eventually, he became the featured sax player with the hottest jazz band of the day, Cab Calloway's legendary Cotton Club Orchestra. In 1937 and 1938, he was named to Metronome Magazine's All-Star Band. Younger contemporaries — notably Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie — almost certainly heard Berry up close and personal at the now-legendary Monday night jam sessions at Minton's Playhouse in New York City, gatherings widely credited for the development of the bebop in the mid-1940s.Famously, in 1938 Parker — 14 years younger than Chu — named his first child Leon in tribute to Berry.And the Nickname?Multiple explanations have been given as to how Leon Berry got his nickname. Music critic Gary Giddins has said Berry was called “Chu” by his fellow musicians either because of his tendency to chew on his mouthpiece or because at one time he had a Fu Manchu-style mustache. Both stories work; take your pick.Our Take on the TuneJoining The Flood repertoire, some songs fit in right away, while others, like this one, need a little time to settle in, but when they do, wow — they're as comfortable as an old shoe. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit 1937flood.substack.com
After being unlucky in love on both The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise, Mercedes is ready to put her love life in Ben Higgins hands! From figuring out what she is looking for in a relationship to what her type is, Mercedes is ready to get to the heart of what she really wants outside of reality TV. Follow us on Instagram @FamouslyAvailableSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Jackson read a book so now he has to explain it badly to all of us and the boys need to figure out how to murder this car asapLinks to everything at https://linktr.ee/plumbingthedeathstar including our terrible merch, social media garbage and where to become a subscriber to Bad Brain Boys+ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
After being unlucky in love on both The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise, Mercedes is ready to put her love life in Ben Higgins hands! From figuring out what she is looking for in a relationship to what her type is, Mercedes is ready to get to the heart of what she really wants outside of reality TV. Follow us on Instagram @FamouslyAvailableSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Steph, John, Steve & Dave put down their phones for screen time with Ice Cube and his (fictional) family! The War of the Worlds has been adapted many times since its first publication in 1898, and each adaptation represented the era in which it was created -- Famously as a radio show in 1938 and the first movie in 1953 when there were national fears of military invasion … then as a Spielberg film in 2005 when there was a national fear of terrorist invasion… And now in 2025 when there's a national fear of invasion of Privacy! It's Amazon Prime's feature length commercial – War of the Worlds! Here's the rapid recap to catch you up! Ice Cube plays Will Radford, DHS Agent and creepster dad who should have been DOGE'd out of his job, because he spends his day stalking his two estranged children – his pregnant daughter, Faith and his intense Gen-Z-er son Dave. When mysterious meteors crash into the Earth, it's up to these three plus Faith's fiancé and Amazon delivery driver, Mark as well as Eva Longoria (whose character's name I don't know and I couldn't quickly see it on Wikipedia, so I'm giving her as much attention as Will gives her in the movie, which is to say close to none) … Anyway, when machines from Mars rise out of the meteor craters, our heroes realize that the aliens are here to chew bubblegum and steal our data…and they are all out of bubblegum. So, in a shameless plot swipe from a totally different alien invasion movie, they have to upload a virus to the alien machines to put an end to the WAR OF THE WORLDS!!!Follow us onTwitter @CraptaculusInstagram @cinemacraptaculusIntro Music: "The Builder" - Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) | Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
After being unlucky in love on both The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise, Mercedes is ready to put her love life in Ben Higgins hands! From figuring out what she is looking for in a relationship to what her type is, Mercedes is ready to get to the heart of what she really wants outside of reality TV. Follow us on Instagram @FamouslyAvailableSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You remember DeAnna Pappas when she was on Brad Womack's season of "The Bachelor", and again when she starred as "The Bachelorette" - but sadly, DeAnna never managed to find love in Bachelor Nation.She got married and started a family, but unfortunately, every rose has its thorn, and the marriage ended in divorce. Now DeAnna is ready to get back out there and take control of her dating life post-divorce! With the help of Ben Higgins, we'll follow her on this journey to finding love...again! Follow us on Instagram @FamouslyAvailableSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ben and Ashley have something NEW you have to hear! Listen to “Famously Available” to follow some of your favorite Bachelor Nation alum on their next journey to finding love! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“Famously Available” explores love at every stage of life, with familiar faces from Bachelor Nation sharing their journeys, opening their hearts, and inviting listeners along as they step into a new era of romance. We’ll follow DeAnna Pappas, who Bachelor Nation will remember for her heartbreak from Brad Womack, and later, for her own turn as The Bachelorette in 2008, neither experience ending in lasting romance. She got married and started a family, but now divorced, DeAnna is ready to put herself back out into the dating scene! Fans will also hear from Mercedes Northup, remembered from Season 27 of The Bachelor and her unforgettable stint in “Paradise,” as she sets out to finally discover what her heart truly wants. …And stay tuned as things will get Golden. Three generations of women all on a quest for love!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You remember DeAnna Pappas when she was on Brad Womack's season of "The Bachelor", and again when she starred as "The Bachelorette" - but sadly, DeAnna never managed to find love in Bachelor Nation.She got married and started a family, but unfortunately, every rose has its thorn, and the marriage ended in divorce. Now DeAnna is ready to get back out there and take control of her dating life post-divorce! With the help of Ben Higgins, we'll follow her on this journey to finding love...again! Follow us on Instagram @FamouslyAvailableSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“Famously Available” explores love at every stage of life, with familiar faces from Bachelor Nation sharing their journeys, opening their hearts, and inviting listeners along as they step into a new era of romance. We’ll follow DeAnna Pappas, who Bachelor Nation will remember for her heartbreak from Brad Womack, and later, for her own turn as The Bachelorette in 2008, neither experience ending in lasting romance. She got married and started a family, but now divorced, DeAnna is ready to put herself back out into the dating scene! Fans will also hear from Mercedes Northup, remembered from Season 27 of The Bachelor and her unforgettable stint in “Paradise,” as she sets out to finally discover what her heart truly wants. …And stay tuned as things will get Golden. Three generations of women all on a quest for love!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ben and Ashley have something NEW you have to hear! Listen to “Famously Available” to follow some of your favorite Bachelor Nation alum on their next journey to finding love! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ben and Ashley have something NEW you have to hear! Listen to “Famously Available” to follow some of your favorite Bachelor Nation alum on their next journey to finding love! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You remember DeAnna Pappas when she was on Brad Womack's season of "The Bachelor", and again when she starred as "The Bachelorette" - but sadly, DeAnna never managed to find love in Bachelor Nation.She got married and started a family, but unfortunately, every rose has its thorn, and the marriage ended in divorce. Now DeAnna is ready to get back out there and take control of her dating life post-divorce! With the help of Ben Higgins, we'll follow her on this journey to finding love...again! Follow us on Instagram @FamouslyAvailableSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“Famously Available” explores love at every stage of life, with familiar faces from Bachelor Nation sharing their journeys, opening their hearts, and inviting listeners along as they step into a new era of romance. We’ll follow DeAnna Pappas, who Bachelor Nation will remember for her heartbreak from Brad Womack, and later, for her own turn as The Bachelorette in 2008, neither experience ending in lasting romance. She got married and started a family, but now divorced, DeAnna is ready to put herself back out into the dating scene! Fans will also hear from Mercedes Northup, remembered from Season 27 of The Bachelor and her unforgettable stint in “Paradise,” as she sets out to finally discover what her heart truly wants. …And stay tuned as things will get Golden. Three generations of women all on a quest for love!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is listening a hidden superpower we've overlooked? You've heard of Active Listening, but what is Radical Listening and why does it matter?Episode SummaryOn this episode, I'm joined by Professor Christian van Nieuwerburgh, an academic who also describes himself as 'Coach on a Motorcycle'. He's on the show to help me explore what he calls 'Radical Listening'.Christian is Professor of Coaching and Positive Psychology at the University of East London and the co-author, with Dr Robert Biswas-Diener, of 'Radical Listening: The Art of True Connection'.The book offers a research-backed but deeply human exploration of what it means to really hear someone — and how that act alone can change lives. In the book and in his work, Christian blends academic rigour with road-tested coaching insights, drawing from both the lecture hall and long rides through open landscapes. He invites us to look at listening not just as a skill, but as a way of being.With a background in positive psychology and a passion for connection, Christian brings a perspective that's as practical as it is profound. We talk about how listening — when done with presence and intention — becomes far more than a communication technique. It becomes a way of affirming identity, offering empathy, and shaping culture. Christian shares why well-meaning advice often misses the mark, the difference between social and cognitive listening, and what it takes to be with someone, rather than just hearing them.This isn't just for leaders or coaches; it's for anyone who wants to have better conversations, create stronger relationships, and be more human in how they engage with others. Listening, as we discuss, isn't neutral. It's powerful, personal, and radically transformative.Guest BiographyProfessor Christian van Nieuwerburgh is a globally recognised executive coach, academic, and author, holding the title of Professor of Coaching and Positive Psychology at the University of East London.As Managing Director of the International Centre for Coaching Psychology and Executive Director at Growth Coaching International, he bridges rigorous research with practice.He co-authored Radical Listening: The Art of True Connection (with Dr Robert Biswas‑Diener), which reorients listening from a background skill to a central act of human connection.Famously known as the “Coach on a Motorcycle,” Christian combines his love for the open road with his dedication to how we hear and are heard. Learn more at: LinksRadical Listening - https://www.bkconnection.com/books/title/Radical-ListeningRadical Listening Audiobook - https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Radical-Listening-Audiobook/B0F2B3TKXVChristian's faculty page at Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) - https://people.rcsi.com/chrisvnChristian's faculty page at Henley Business School - https://www.henley.ac.uk/people/christian-j-van-nieuwerburghCoach on a Motorcycle - coachonamotorcycle.comAI-Generated Timestamped Summary[00:01:45] — The roots of Radical Listening[00:06:30] — How coaching principles intersect with everyday conversations[00:11:55] — When advice becomes unhelpful[00:17:40] — Listening as identity-affirming behaviour[00:22:00] — When a good question stops you in your tracks[00:27:30] — Social vs cognitive listening[00:33:10] — Why you don't need to understand the topic to be a great listener[00:38:45] — The unspoken costs of poor listening in organisations[00:44:50] — How Radical Listening links to psychological safety[00:49:20] — Motorcycles, mindfulness, and being in flow[00:56:00] — The AI comparison: why listening is a human art[01:01:00] — Practical takeaways for everyday listeners
This week, we talk about War of the Worlds starring Ice Cube and Amazon product placement! Famously has a 0% on rotten tomatoes, but does it live up to it's terrible reputation? Find out this week on the bomb squad!
Send us a textWe're back with CHARISMATIC pro boxer Kalvin “Hot Sauce” Henderson (19‑2) – diving deeper than ever into his work ethic, diet, family life and his training camp before hitting the fight analysis HARD. Then he shares insider knowledge on boxing's biggest headlines: Manny Pacquiao, Usyk's All-Time Ranking as a Boxer, Jake Paul vs Anthony Joshua & MORE! In my opinion, Kalvin is one of the most interesting men in combat sports... HERE'S WHY:
Though we couldn't gather the entire podcast staff, Robbie and Art still managed to produce an episode that should strike a chord with music-loving listeners. Following Robbie's recent visit to Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and the iconic FAME Recording Studios, the two Guys take note of the incredible amount of musical talent that has recorded there. Aretha Franklin, the Rolling Stones, Wilson Pickett, Paul Simon, and Etta James are just a few of the artists who have made their way to Alabama and worked with the late Rick Hall, backed by the legendary "Swampers" studio musicians. Geeks of the week include Robbie's look at a role-playing game inspired by Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon—no word on if there's a slo-mo option.
This week James and Chris discuss the giant, creepy serial killer Edmund Kemper. Famously portrayed in the show Mindhunter, Kemper (known as "the Co Ed Killer") killed numerous hitchhikers in the 1970s. Brought to you By: The Sonar Network https://thesonarnetwork.com/
My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,The innovation landscape is facing a difficult paradox: Even as R&D investment has increased, productivity per dollar invested is in decline. In his recent co-authored paper, The next innovation revolution—powered by AI, Michael Chui explores AI as a possible solution to this dilemma.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, Chui and I explore the vast potential for AI-augmented research and the challenges and opportunities that come with applying it to the real-world.Chui is a senior fellow at QuantumBlack, McKinsey's AI unit, where he leads McKinsey research in AI, automation, and the future of work.In This Episode* The R&D productivity problem (01:21)* The AI solution (6:13)* The business-adoption bottleneck (11:55)* The man-machine team (18:06)* Are we ready? (19:33)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. The R&D productivity problem (01:21)All the easy stuff, we already figured out. So the low-hanging fruit has been picked, things are getting harder and harder.Pethokoukis: Do we understand what explains this phenomenon where we seem to be doing lots of science, and we're spending lots of money on R&D, but the actual productivity of that R&D is declining? Do we have a good explanation for that?I don't know if we have just one good explanation. The folks that we both know have been both working on what are the causes of this, as well as what are some of the potential solutions, but I think it's a bit of a hidden problem. I don't think everyone understands that there are a set of people who have looked at this — quite notably Nick Bloom at Stanford who published this somewhat famous paper that some people are familiar with. But it is surprising in some sense.At one level, it's amazing what science and engineering has been able to do. We continue to see these incredible advances, whether it's in AI, or biotechnology, or whatever; but also, what Nick and other researchers have discovered is that we are producing less for every dollar we spend in R&D. That's this little bit of a paradox, or this challenge, that we see. What some of the research we've been trying to do is understand, can AI try to contribute to bending those curves?. . . I'm a computer scientist by training. I love this idea of Moore's Law: Every couple of years you can double the number of transistors you can put on a chip, or whatever, for the same amount of money. There's something called “Eroom's Law,” which is Moore spelled backwards, and basically it said: For decades in the pharmaceutical industry, the number of compounds or drugs you would produce for every billion dollars of R&D would get cut in half every nine years. That's obviously moving in the wrong direction. That challenge, I don't think everyone is aware of, but one that we need to address.I suppose, in a way, it does make sense that as we tackle harder problems, and we climb the tree of knowledge, that it's going to take more time, maybe more researchers, the researchers themselves may have to spend more time in school, so it may be a bit of a hidden problem, but it makes some intuitive sense to me.I think there's a way to think about it that way, which is: All the easy stuff, we already figured out. So the low-hanging fruit has been picked, things are getting harder and harder. It's amazing. You could look at some of the early papers in any field and it have a handful of authors, right? The DNA paper, three authors — although it probably should have included Rosalyn Franklin . . . Now you look at a physics paper or a computer science paper — the author list just goes on sometimes for pages. These problems are harder. They require more and more effort, whether it's people's talents, or whether it's computing power, or large-scale experiments, things are getting harder to do. I think there's ways in which that makes sense. Are there other ways in which we could improve processes? Probably, too.We could invest more in research, make it more efficient, and encourage more people to become researchers. To me, what's more exciting than automating different customer service processes is accelerating scientific discovery. I think that's what makes AI so compelling.That is exactly right. Now, by the way, I think we need to continue to invest in basic research and in science and engineering, I think that's absolutely important, but —That's worth noting, because I'm not sure everybody thinks that, so I'm glad you highlighted that.I don't think AI means that everything becomes cheaper and we don't need to invest in both human talent as well as in research. That's number one.Number two, as you said, we spend a lot of time, and appropriately so, talking about how AI can improve productivity, make things more efficient, do the things that we do already cheaper and faster. I think that's absolutely true. But we had the opportunity to look over history, and what has actually improved the human condition, what has been one of the things that has been necessary to improve the human condition over decades, and centuries, and millennia, is, in fact, discovering new ideas, having scientific breakthroughs, turning those scientific breakthroughs into engineering that turn into products and services, that do everything from expand our lifespans to be able to provide us with food, more energy. All those sorts of things require innovation, require R&D, and what we've discovered is the potential for AI, not only to make things more efficient, but to produce more innovation, more ideas that hopefully will lead to breakthroughs that help us all.The AI solution (6:13)I think that's one of the other potentials of using AI, that it could both absorb some of the experience that people have, as well as stretch the bounds of what might be possible.I've heard described as an “IMI,” it's an invention that makes more invention. It's an invention of a method of invention. That sounds great — how's it going to do that?There are a couple of ways. We looked at three different channels through which AI could improve this process of innovation and R&D. The first one is just increasing the volume, velocity, and variety of different candidates. One way you could think about innovation is you create a whole bunch of candidates and then you filter them down to the ones that might be most effective. Number one, you can just fill that funnel faster, better, and with greater variety. That's number one.The candidates could be a molecule, it could be a drug, it could be a new alloy, it could be lots of things.Absolutely, or a design for a physical product. One of the interesting things is, this quote-unquote “modern AI” — AI's been around for 70 years — is based on foundation models, these large artificial neural networks trained on huge amounts of data, and they produce unstructured outputs. In many cases, language, we talk about LLMs.The interesting thing is, you can train these foundation models not just to generate language, but you can generate a protein, or a drug candidate, as you were saying. You can imagine the prompt being, “Please produce 10 drug candidates that address this condition, but without the following side effects.” That's not exactly how it works, but roughly speaking, that's the potential to generate these things, or generate an electrical circuit, or a design for an air foil or an airframe that has these characteristics. Being able to just generate those.The interesting thing is, not only can you generate them faster, but there's this idea that you can create more variety. We're usefully proud as humans about our creativity, but also, that judgment or that training that we have, that experience sometimes constrains it. The famous example was some folks created this machine called AlphaGo which was meant to compete against the world champion in this game called Go, a very complex strategic game. Famously, it beat the world champion, but one of the things it did is this famous Move 37, this move that everyone who was an expert at Go said, “That is nuts. Why would you possibly do that?” Because the machine was a little bit more unconstrained, actually came up with what you might describe as a creative idea. I think that's one of the other potentials of using AI, that it could both absorb some of the experience that people have, as well as stretch the bounds of what might be possible.So you come up with the design, and then a variety of options, and then AI can help model and test them.Exactly. So you generate a broader and more voluminous set of potential designs, candidates, whether it's molecules, or chemicals, or what have you. Now you need to narrow that down. Traditionally you would narrow it down either one, through physical testing — so put something into a wind tunnel or run it through the water if you're looking at a boat design, or something like that, or put it in an electromagnetic chamber and see how the antenna operates. You'd either test it physically, and then, of course, lots of people figured out how to use physics, mathematical equations, in order to create “digital twins.” So you have these long acronyms like CFD for computational fluid dynamics, basically a virtual wind tunnel, or what have you. Or you have finite element analysis, another way to model how a structure might perform, or computational electromagnetic modeling. All these ways that you can use physics to simulate things, and that's been terrific.But some of those models actually take hours, sometimes days, to run these models. It might be faster than building the physical prototype and then modeling it — again, sometimes you just wait until something breaks, you're doing failure testing. Then you could do that in a computer using these models. But sometimes they take a really long time, and one of the really interesting discoveries in “AI” is you can use that same neural network that we've used to simulate cognition or intelligence, but now you use it to simulate physical systems. So in some ways it's not AI, because you're not creating an artificial intelligence, you're creating an artificial wind tunnel. It's just a different way to model physics. Sometimes these problems get even more complicated . . . If you're trying to put an antenna on an airplane, you need to know how the airflow is going to go over it, but you need to know whether or not the radio frequency stuff works out too, all that RF stuff.So these multiphysics models, the complexity is even higher, and you can train these neural nets . . . even faster than these physics-based models. So we have these things called AI surrogate models. They're sort of surrogates. It's two steps removed, in some ways, from actual physical testing . . . Literally we've seen models that can run in minutes rather than hours, or an hour rather than a few days. That can accelerate things. We see this in weather forecasting in a number of different ways in which this can happen. If you can generate more candidates and then test them faster, you can imagine the whole R&D process really accelerating.The business-adoption bottleneck (11:55)We know that companies are using AI surrogates, deep learning surrogates, already, but is it being applied as many places as possible? No, it isn't.Does achieving your estimated productivity increases depend more on further technological advances or does it depend more on how companies adopt and implement the technology? Is the bottleneck still in the tech itself, or is it more about business adaptation?Mostly number two. The technology is going to continue to advance. As a technologist, I love all that stuff, but as usual, a lot of the challenges here are organizational challenges. We know that companies are using AI surrogates, deep learning surrogates, already, but is it being applied as many places as possible? No, it isn't. A lot of these things are organizational. Does it match your strategy, for instance? Do you have the right talent and organization in place?Let me just give one very specific example. In a lot of R&D organizations we know, there's a separate organization for physical testing and a separate organization for simulations. Simulation, in many cases, us physics-based, but you add these deep-learning surrogates as well. That doesn't make sense at some level. I'm not saying physical testing goes away, but you need to figure out when you should physically test, when you should use which simulation methods, when you should use deep-learning surrogates or AI techniques, et cetera, and that's just one organizational difference that you could make if you were in an organization that was actually taking this whole testing regime seriously, where you're actually parsing out when the optimal amount of physical testing is versus simulation, et cetera. There's a number of things where that's true.Even before AI, historically, there was a gap between novel, new technologies, what they can do in lab settings, and then how they're applied in real-world research or in business environments. That gap, I would guess, probably requires companies to rewire how they operate, which takes time.It is indeed, and it's funny that you use the word “rewiring.” My colleagues wrote a book entitled Rewired, which literally is about the different ways, together, that you need to, as you say, rewire or change the way an organization operates. Only one of those six chapters is around the tech stack. It's still absolutely important. You've got to get all that stuff right. But it is mostly all of the other things surrounding how you change and what organization operates in order to bring the full value of this together to reach scale.We also talk about pilot purgatory: “We did this cool experiment . . .” but when is it good enough that the CFOs talks about it at the quarterly earnings report? That requires the organization to change the way it operates. That's the learning we've seen all the time.We've been serving thousands of executives on their use of AI for seven years now. Nearly 80 percent of organizations say they're regularly using AI someplace in the business, but in a separate survey, only one percent say they're mature in that usage. There's this giant gap between just using AI and then actually having the value be created. And by the way, organizations that are creating that value are accelerating their performance difference. If you have a much more productive R&D organization that churns out products that are successful in the market, you're going to be ahead of your competitors, and that's what we're seeing too.Is there a specific problem that comes up over and over again with companies, either in their implementation of AI, maybe they don't trust it, they may not know how to use it? What do you think is the problem?Unfortunately, I don't think there's just one thing. My colleagues who do this work on Rewired, for instance — you kind of have to do all those things. You do have to have the right talent and organization in place. You have to figure out scaling, for instance. You have to figure out change management. All of those things together are what underpins outsized performance, so all those things have to be done.So if companies are successful, what is the productivity impact you see? We're talking about basically the current technology level, give or take. We're not talking about human-level AI, superintelligence, we're talking about AI more or less as it exists today. Everybody wants to accelerate productivity: governments around the world, companies. So give me a feel for that.There are different measures of productivity, but here what we're talking about is basically: How many new products, successful products, can you put out in the market? Our modeling says, depending on your industry, you could double your productivity, in other words, of R&D. In other words, you could put out double the amount of products and services — new products and services — that you have been previously.Now, that's not true for every industry. By the way, the impact of that is different for different industries because for some industries you are dependent — In pharmaceuticals, the majority of your value comes from producing new products and services over time because eventually the patent runs out or whatever. There are other industries, we talk about science-based industries like chemicals, for instance. The new-product development process in chemicals is very, very close to the science of chemistry. So these levers that I just talked about — producing more candidates, being able to evaluate them more quickly, and all the other things that LLMs can do, in general, we could see potential doubling in the pace of which innovation happens.On the other hand, the chemicals industry — let's leave out specialty chemicals, but the commodity chemicals — they'll still produce ethylene, right? So to a certain extent, while the R&D process can be accelerated a great deal, the EBIT [Earnings Before Interest and Taxes] impact on the industry might be lower than it is for pharmaceuticals, for instance. But still, it's valuable. And then, again, if you're in specialty chem, it means a lot to you. So depending on where you sit in your position in the market, it can vary, but the potential is really high.The man-machine team (18:06)At least for the medium term, we're not going to be able to get rid of all the people. The people are going to be absolutely important to the process.Will future R&D look more like researchers augmented by AI or AI systems assisted by researchers? Who's the assistant in this equation? Who's working for who?It's “all of the above” and it depends on how you decide to use these technologies, but we even write in our paper that we need to be thoughtful about where you put the human in the loop. Every study, the conditions matter, but there are lots of studies where you say, look, the combination of machines and humans — so AI and researchers — is the most powerful combination. Each brings their respective strengths to it, but the funny thing is that sometimes the human biases actually decrease the performance of the overall system, and so, oh, maybe we should just go with machines. At least for the medium term, we're not going to be able to get rid of all the people. The people are going to be absolutely important to the process.When is it that people either are necessary to the process or can be helpful? In many cases, it is around things like, when is it that you need to make a decision that's a safety-critical decision, a regulatory decision where you just have to have a person look at it? That's the sort of necessity argument for people in the loop. But also, there are things that machines just don't do well enough yet, and there's a little bit of that.Are we ready? (19:33). . . AI is one of those things that can produce potentially more of those ideas that can underpin, hopefully, an improved quality of life for us and our children.If we can get more productive R&D, and then businesses get better at incorporating this into their processes and they could potentially generate more products and services, do we have a government ready for that world of accelerated R&D? Can we handle that flow? My bias says probably not, but please correct me if I'm wrong.I think one of the interesting things is people talk about AI regulation. In many of these industries, the regulations already exist. We have regulations for what goes out in pharmaceuticals, for instance. We have regulations in the aviation industry, we have regulations in the automobile industry, and in many ways, AI in the R&D process doesn't change that — maybe it should, people talk about, can you actually accelerate the process of approving a drug, for instance, but that wasn't the thing that we studied. In some ways, those processes are applied now, already, so that's something that doesn't necessarily have to changeThat said, are some of these potential innovations gated by approval processes or clinical trials processes? Absolutely. In some of those cases, the clinical trials process gait is not necessarily a regulation, but we know there's a big problem just finding enough potential subjects in order to do clinical trials. That's not a regulatory problem, that's a problem of finding people who are good candidates for actually testing these drugs.So yes, in some cases, even if we were able to double the amount of candidates that can go through the funnel on a number of these things, there will be these exogenous issues that would constrain society's ability to bring these to market. So that just says, you squeeze the balloon here and it opens up there, but let's go solve each of these problems, and one of the problems that we said that AI can help solve is increasing the number of things that you could potentially put into market if it can get past the other necessities.For a general public where so much of what they're hearing about AI tends to be about job loss, or are they stealing copyrighted material, or, yeah, people talk about these huge advances, but they're not seeing them yet. What is your elevator optimistic pitch why you may be worried about the impact of AI, but here's why I'm excited about it? Why are you excited by it?By the way, I think all those things are really important. All of those concerns, and how do we reskill the workforce, all those things, and we've done work on that as well. But the thing that I'm excited about is we need innovation, we need new ideas, we need scientific advancements, and engineering that turns them into products in order for us to improve their human condition, whether it's living longer lives, or living higher quality life, whether it's having the energy, whether it's to be able to support that in a way that doesn't cause other problems. All of those things, we need to have them, and what we've discovered is AI is one of those things that can produce potentially more of those ideas that can underpin, hopefully, an improved quality of life for us and our children.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* The Tariffs Kicked In. The Sky Didn't Fall. Were the Economists Wrong? - NYT Opinion* AI Disruption Is Coming for These 7 Jobs, Microsoft Says - Barron's* One Way to Ease the US Debt Crisis? Productivity - Bberg Opinion* So far, only one-third of Americans have ever used AI for work - Ars▶ Business* Meta and Microsoft Keep Their License to Spend - WSJ* Meta Pivots on AI Under the Cover of a Superb Quarter - Bberg Opinion* Will Mark Zuckerberg's secret, multibillion-dollar AI plan win over Wall Street? - FT* The AI Company Capitalizing on Our Obsession With Excel - WSJ* $15 billion in NIH funding frozen, then thawed Tuesday in ongoing power war - Ars* Mark Zuckerberg promises you can trust him with superintelligent AI - The Verge* AI Finance App Ramp Is Valued at $22.5 Billion in Funding Round - WSJ▶ Policy/Politics* Trump's Tariff Authority Is Tested in Court as Deadline on Trade Deals Looms - WSJ* China is betting on a real-world use of AI to challenge U.S. control - Wapo▶ AI/Digital* ‘Superintelligence' Will Create a New Era of Empowerment, Mark Zuckerberg Says - NYT* How Exposed Are UK Jobs to Generative AI? Developing and Applying a Novel Task-Based Index - Arxiv* Mark Zuckerberg Details Meta's Plan for Self-Improving, Superintelligent AI - Wired* A Catholic AI app promises answers for the faithful. Can it succeed? - Wapo* Power Hungry: How Ai Will Drive Energy Demand - SSRN* The two people shaping the future of OpenAI's research - MIT* Task-based returns to generative AI: Evidence from a central bank - CEPR▶ Biotech/Health* How to detect consciousness in people, animals and maybe even AI - Nature* Why living in a volatile age may make our brains truly innovative - NS▶ Clean Energy/Climate* The US must return to its roots as a nation of doers - FT* How Trump Rocked EV Charging Startups - Heatmap* Countries Promise Trump to Buy U.S. Gas, and Leave the Details for Later - NYT* Startup begins work on novel US fusion power plant. Yes, fusion. - E&E* Scientists Say New Government Climate Report Twists Their Work - Wired▶ Robotics/Drones/AVs* The grand challenges of learning medical robot autonomy - Science* Coal-Powered AI Robots Are a Dirty Fantasy - Bberg Opinion▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* A Revolutionary Reflection - WSJ Opinion* Why Did the Two Koreas Diverge? - SSRN* The best new science fiction books of August 2025 - NS* As measles spreads, old vaccination canards do too - FT Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe
EPISODE 325 - We start our season on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with an in-depth look at the original issue #1. Famously created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, this issue was meant as a one-shot story. Not quite a joke, but not quite serious either, the creators had no idea they were creating a media empire. The comic is good! We meet the turtles, Master Splinter and Shredder! How much did Will know about the turtles going in (not much). But how much did he like the comic? A lot! ------- Email us at screwitcomics@gmail.com Subscribe for monthly bonus episodes at screwitpodcasts.com Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/phXVFgB4ck
Episode 156: In this very special episode, Modi is joined by his dear friend of thirty years, Jeff Ross. Famously known as The Roastmaster General, Ross is the star of his new one man show on Broadway "Take a Banana for the Ride." They discuss Ross's recent battle with cancer, his lifelong love of Broadway and how roasting is an act of love. Send us Modi Mail!118A Orchard St.PMB #208New York, NY 10002Modi's special "Know Your Audience" is available on YouTube now!For all upcoming shows visit www.modilive.com.Follow Modi on Instagram at @modi_live.Follow the AHM podcast on Instagram at @AHM_Podcast.Leave us a voicemail!Send us a textSupport the show
Heads up! This is the episode where we solve gender.Famously a "construct," it turns out Mx. Gender has been around for hundreds of thousands of years.This podcast is only 70 minutes long so we're sticking to the last 5,000... but still. Not bad.Join Bash and his honoured guests this week – Kit Heyam and Marty Davies – as they delve into the deep-cut history of gender, long before we had words like cis, trans, or nonbinary.Kit Heyam is the author and historian behind Before We Were Trans, our guiding text for this episode. And Marty Davies is the founder of Trans+ History Week, an award-winning initiative now in its third year in the UK.You might think – like Bash did for an embarrassingly long time – that gender and sex binaries have been the norm since the beginning of time. Everyone has "male" and "female" right? Husband and wife, penetrator and pregnancy-haver. And that's that.That's actually wrong. It's waaaay messier than that. As long as there have been humans, there has been what Kit Heyam calls "gender disruption."This essentially experimental and creative approach to gender is in fact the norm – the one thing we find in almost every civilisation.As if that weren't enough, here are some other essential things you'll learn about in this episode:Ancient Egypt's female pharaohs, who insisted on wearing their beards(Plus, why their high priests didn't like gender creativity – spoiler alert: it fucked with their revenues!)A 17th century stand up comic who once wore trousers in St. Paul's Cathedral (WITCH!!!!! KILL IT!!!!!)The elegant and silk-draped wakashu, who were a third-gender class of adolescent sex workers in early modern TokyoAnd the truth of why writing trans+ history is so fucking hard but so necessary.As always thanks for listening, and if you love what you hear, please leave us a FIVE STAR ONLY review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.You can follow Historical Homos on Instagram and TikTok, and you should sign up to our newsletter if you care about gay people at all.You can also listen to the QueerAF podcast on Apple, Spotify or your fave podcast app, including all the episodes that came out this season with Trans+ History Week. And subscribe to QueerAF's free newsletter to understand the LGBTQIA+ world every Saturday, or find them on Instagram and Bluesky.Episode Credits:Written, researched, and hosted by Bash. Special thanks to guests Kit Heyam and Marty Davies. Edited by Alex Toskas and Jamie Wareham.A QueerAF and Historical Homos Production.
Marcus and Corey What You Know 'Bout That trivia game for Thursday July 10, 2025.
You may be familiar with the name of Marco Polo – the 13th-century Venetian merchant who travelled along the Silk Road, journeyed through Asia and spent time at the court of Mongol emperor Kublai Khan. Famously, he documented his experiences in a detailed account that has inspired many travellers since. Emily Briffett and Sharon Kinoshita follow in Polo's footsteps, exploring the medieval world through his eyes. (Ad) Sharon Kinoshita is the author of Marco Polo and His World (Reaktion Books, 2024). Buy it now from Waterstones: https://go.skimresources.com?id=71026X1535947&xcust=historyextra-social-histboty&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterstones.com%2Fbook%2Fmarco-polo-and-his-world%2Fsharon-kinoshita%2F%2F9781789149371. The HistoryExtra podcast is produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
On the mean streets of Brussels... where people without homes live lives of isolation, and migrants looking for more often find little... a few leaders are looking to inspire teams to use their time and talents to serve others. Famously, Spider-Man reminds us that "with great power comes great responsibility." In Part 2 of this episode featuring Andrea and Mahmoud, two project leaders from Brussels, we see how they inspire others to serve with the values of humility, compassion, respect, courage, love and hope. This story from our founding city is part of our celebration of Serve the City's 20th anniversary this week!
In this empowering and insightful episode of the Undeletable Dad Podcast, Tracy sits down with the renowned relationship and business expert, Dr. Gilda Carle. Famously known as the "Love Doctor" from her MTV days, Dr. Gilda brings decades of experience and wisdom into an often-overlooked topic—men's mental health.Drawing from her newest, thought-provoking book, "Real Men Don't Go Woke," Dr. Gilda sheds light on the hidden crisis of men's emotional well-being, revealing alarming statistics around depression, loneliness, and suicide rates among men, particularly those facing challenges like parental alienation, divorce, and isolation.Episode Highlights:Men's Silent CrisisWhy men often suffer in silence and the alarming statistic that suicide is the leading cause of death for men under 50.Insightful discussion about celebrities like Howie Mandel, Pete Davidson, Simon Cowell, and Will Smith, highlighting that even seemingly successful men struggle deeply behind the scenes.The Book Behind the ConversationDr. Gilda reveals why major publishers rejected her book due to its provocative title and how she bravely took the publishing journey into her own hands.How this book, described as "a love story for men," has resonated globally, reaching readers who felt isolated and alone in their experiences.Understanding the Woke NarrativeA deep dive into why "woke" culture poses unique challenges to men's self-esteem and emotional health.Discussion on why society quickly labels men as "toxic," pushing some toward self-denial and despair.Strategies for Emotional MasteryDr. Gilda introduces her powerful three-step approach:"Frame it, Claim it, Tame it" to manage anger and emotional overwhelm.Practical examples and communication strategies to foster better understanding in personal and professional relationships.Taking Personal ResponsibilityWhy taking responsibility for your emotional state and life circumstances is foundational to healing and personal growth.Real-life anecdotes from Dr. Gilda's extensive coaching experience, including the critical need to recognize and address one's own role in personal struggles.Empowering Women to Support MenHow women can create emotionally safe environments for the men in their lives to openly express vulnerability without shame.The importance of genuine listening and compassionate communication, breaking down misconceptions around male vulnerability.Transformative Insights for RelationshipsDr. Gilda's direct, no-nonsense advice about avoiding the pitfalls of victimhood, codependency, and "people-pleasing."How authentic self-expression and vulnerability become the foundation for lasting and fulfilling relationships.About Dr. Gilda Carle:Dr. Gilda Carle is a celebrated relationship expert, author of 19 books, and former MTV personality known as the “Love Doctor.” She expertly combines relationship and business strategies, helping individuals and corporations communicate effectively, build resilience, and cultivate genuine connections.Connect with Dr. Gilda:Website: drgilda.comLinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok: @DrGildaHost Information:Reach out to Tracy at UndeletableDad.com for support, resources, or coaching on navigating fatherhood, parental alienation, and men's mental health.Listen in, share with friends, and join the vital conversation about breaking the silence around men's mental health. It's time to heal.2/2
Chicago CWRT Meeting June 2025 David Power on "The Atlanta Campaign: Missed OpportunitiesFor more info: www.chicagocwrt.org I've got Joe Johnston Dead!" Or so Sherman is said to have exclaimed upon hearing that James B. McPherson had seized Resaca. Famously, that turned out not to be true, one of the great "lost opportunities" of the entire war. But in fact, there were other such turning points in the first month of the campaign, each perhaps more significant than Resaca. On May 16, Sherman's armies stumbled crossing the Oostenaula River, offering Johnston a chance to damage one or more of the Federal corps; and at Dallas, McPherson hesitated again when facing just a single small Confederate division. What would have happened if either of these moments had gone differently? David A. Powell is a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute (1983) with a BA in history. He has published numerous articles in various magazines, and more than fifteen historical simulations of different battles. For many years, David's focus was on the epic battle of Chickamauga, and he is nationally recognized for his tours of that important battlefield. The result of that study are five books, the final volume being The 2 Chickamauga Campaign: Barren Victory (2016). Subsequently, he has turned to the study of the battles for Chattanooga. Battle Above the Clouds, concerning the Battle of Lookout Mountain, was published in June of 2017. Decisions at Chickamauga followed in 2018. Two more books, "All Hell Can't Stop Them" (on Missionary Ridge) and Union Command Failure in the Shenandoah Valley both appeared in 2019. More recently The Tullahoma Campaign (co-authored with Eric Wittenberg) and Grant at Chattanooga, were published in 2020. Decisions at Shiloh appeared in 2023, and he is now hard at work on The Atlanta Campaign, a projected multi-volume study. Volume One of Atlanta appeared in July, 2024, with Volume Two to follow in 2025. David, his wife Anne, and their trio of bloodhounds live and work in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.
Maps of New England during King Philip's War [Attention Boston-area listeners: We will do a meet-up on Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 5:30 at Trillium - Fort Point, 50 Thomson Pl, Boston, MA 02210. Reservation under my name. I'll also post information in a blog post on the website for the podcast, and on X and Facebook, links below. Send me an email at thehistoryoftheamericans *at* gmail if you think you can make it.] After the Great Swamp Fight, Josiah Winslow turned away overtures from the Narragansetts for a ceasefire, incorrectly believing he had the upper hand. Instead, he pursued the Narrangansetts, stumbling into the "hungry march," in which Winslow and his starving militia were lured to the north by the Narragansetts, who were moving to join the Nipmucs and the Wampanoags in attacks on Massachusetts border towns. February and March would see a string of catastrophic losses, from the English point of view, and thrilling triumphs, from the Indian point of view. Famously, the destruction of Lancaster would result in the capture of Mary Rowlandson, who would go on to write an account of her captivity that would be New England's first bestseller. By the end of March, even Providence had burned, notwithstanding a last appeal from Roger Williams, his last meaningful appearance in history. The situation in New England was desperate. As often happens, however, for the English it was darkest just before the dawn. X/Twitter – @TheHistoryOfTh2 – https://x.com/TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/HistoryOfTheAmericans Selected references for this episode (Commission earned for Amazon purchases through the episode notes on our website) Matthew J. Tuininga, The Wars of the Lord: The Puritan Conquest of America's First People James D. Drake, King Philip's War: Civil War in New England, 1675-1676 George Ellis and John Morris, King Philip's War Mary Rowlandson, The Sovereignty and Goodness of God
The only good communist, is a dead one. Famously stated in the 1950's and 1960's, and it still rings true today. Arrest the funders, eliminate the NGO's, and declare war on jewish communism, and then we can have a nation once again. Book Websites: https://www.moneytreepublishing.com/shop PROMO CODE: “AEFM” for 10% OFF https://armreg.co.uk PROMO CODE: "americaneducationfm" for 15% off all books and products. (I receive no kickbacks).
Topics- Riots in L.A. with arrests being made by ICE agents- 3 young sisters found dead after "visitation - Father on the run in Washington State after 3 daughters found dead- Father & Daughter found dead in mountains in Maine- 2 teens found shot to death in Arizona mountains- Florida Mom kills 6yr old son to "remove demons"- Sly Stone of Sly & The Family Stone dies at 82- HOF NFL player Jim Marshall dies at 87 - Famously known for running fumble the wrong way - 66yds!- The truth why Shedeur Sanders dropped in the NFL draft- Trey Hendrickson is refusing to show for OTA's for Cincy- Jalen Ramsey is a no-show for Dolphins OTA's - wants trade- Jonnu Smith tells Dolphins he wants to be traded away- Joe Namath turns 82!- Joe Montana turns 69!- Minnesota Lynx & NY Liberty are undefeated in WNBA- NBA finals have shocking game 1 - series tied at 1-1- NHL Stanley Cup has surprise game 1 as Florida ties series at 1 a piece- Mariska Hargatay (Law & Order SVU) pays out-of-pocket for 11,000 untested rape kits that the NYPD budget couldn't approve- The real reason Trump is going after Harvard University- Jack reviews the MLB standings- 23 & Me going out of business...millions of people's info at risk
The 18th-century philosopher Adam Smith is often called “the father of economics,” and sometimes “the father of capitalism.” IDEAS contributor Matthew Lazin-Ryder examines how Smith's name has been used and abused to both defend and attack free-market economics since his death.
For much of the Scariest Things crew, we are discussing horror movies from our backyard. This is our home turf. The Pacific Northwest is a suitable backdrop for horror, with its often gloomy weather, quirky urban cities, and history of cryptids. Famously, we keep it weird in the PNW, and the movies reflect these tastes.
Rebellions are built on two seasons of a prequel series. Your Star Wars pals Dan, Kat, and Tony return to revisit 2016’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story or, as we call, it Andor: The TV Movie. We discuss Krennic’s very bad week, why Cassian’s arc gets a little tricky, and the inevitable Saw Gerrera supercut. Dan Moren, Tony Sindelar and Kat Benesh.
CraftLit - Serialized Classic Literature for Busy Book Lovers
Ep. 683: Cranford | Chapter 5 Book talk begins at 9:31 A mysterious stranger arrives in town, and you just know the ladies of Cranford are ready to investigate... politely, of course. --------------------------------------------------------------- 00:00 Episode start 01:28 2:42 Plum Deluxe . Plum Deluxe's CraftLit tea collection is here: Also, MAY RAFFLE - Sir Walter Scott Cross stitch from Rebecca S (Of Book it with Becca, who wrote the wonderful post: 04:25 Gardening! 09:30 - START BOOK TALK: Last week, the lovely Mr Holbrook and his very sad passing. 12:06 Joint- Stock bank: > A bank owned by shareholders, operating under a charter or act of Parliament, and offering services to the public. Unlike older private banks (run by individuals or families), joint-stock banks were corporations, meaning shared risk and more capital. How bank books worked— A bank book (also called a passbook) was given to bank customers to record all transactions in their account—- Every deposit and withdrawal was manually written into the book by a bank clerk. The customer's copy was their only proof of the account's balance. 14:12 Envelope usage / turning inside out (ETSY doing this NOW) Whole vs half sheet and crossed letters 16:36 STRING and Indian-rubber rings 17:24 “India-rubber” was the 19th-century term for what we now just call rubber—and India-rubber rings were small rubber loops or bands like we use today. Came from the latex of tropical trees (especially Hevea brasiliensis) 18:42 TONQUIN beans: TONKA beans: Tonka beans are the wrinkled, black seeds of the Dipteryx odorata tree, native to South America. Chefs outside the US use them in desserts and to replace nuts. AND ILLEGAL in the USA since 1954 due to the presence of liver damaging “coumarin” - - and 20:54 22:43 PADUASOY: heavy, rich corded or embossed silk fabric, From French - peau de soie, a cloth resembling serge (twill fabric with diagonal lines/ridges on both inner and outer surfaces per a two-up/two-down weave.) 24:19 Bottom of page a small “T.O.” = turn over / Molly's writing is full of spelling like “Bewty” which is a subsequent joke line 25:49 Dum memor ipse Mei, dum Spiritus regift artus - Virgil, Æneid, IV.382, “While memory shall last and breath still control my limbs” 25:28 Carmen (lowercase) like CARMINA (song poem or verse) 26:54 Gentleman's Magazine 1782—Kind of an Atlantic Monthly—guess who contributed? Samuel Johnson! 27:18 M. T. Ciceroni's Epistolae: The letters of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43BCE) Roman statesman, orator, philosopher, and writer with 800+ letters surviving Heather before recording, in garden, with skewer pack: 28:41 “Rod in a pickle” - rod, method of punishment; pickle, something preserved for future use. 29:42 Life is a vale of tears: Psalm 84:6 also, description of a helicopter parent feels marvelously modern 30:21 Mrs Chapone (1727-1801) Contributed to the Rambler AND Gentleman's Magazine and wrote “Letters on the Improvement of the Mind (1773) and Mrs Carter (1717-1806) many languages and in 1758 published first translation of Epictetus THE Stoic Philosopher. 31:32 “Before Miss Edgeworth's ‘Patronage' had banished wafers from polite society…”: Patronage was a book (1814) with a character who was offended by a letter she received that was sealed with a wafer: “I wonder how any man can have the impertinence to send me his spittle” (I, 248) 33:06 “Old original post with stamp in the corner” not exactly the right watermark, but you get the idea… 34:30 “Sesquipedalian” writing - foot and a half long sesqui = 1-½ pedalis =foot looonng polysyllabic words 35:13 Buonaparte (Bony)1805 invasion fears - In case you still need to build your own 36:55 David and Goliath, son of Jesse (I Samuel 17) Apollyon (Greek version) and Abbadon (Hebrew version) are names for an archangel In Revelation 9:11—> _“And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.” (Revelation 9:11, KJV) Meaning: Abaddon (Hebrew) means “destruction” or “place of destruction.” Apollyon (Greek) means “destroyer.” It's overblown biblical satire—calling someone “Apollyon” in Cranford is like referring to a strict schoolmarm as “Beelzebub.” 38:08 Bonus Bernardus non video omnia The Blessed Bernard does not see everything - maybe said by St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)— This quote is often attributed (possibly apocryphally) to Peter Abelard, the 12th-century theologian, as a gentle jab at St. Bernard of Clairvaux, with whom he clashed theologically. Meaning: Even the wisest man (here, Blessed Bernard) can be wrong sometimes. Post-chapter Notes Chapone and Carter and Bluestockings (see below for big notes) real historical women writers, both part of the 18th-century English Bluestocking movement—educated, literary women who promoted female intellectualism and moral development. Gaskell is absolutely name-dropping intentionally here for Cranford's themes of domestic gentility, moral seriousness, and self-improvement. ⸻ Mrs. Hester Chapone (1727–1801) Best known for Letters on the Improvement of the Mind (1773), addressed to her niece. It was a conduct book for young women, offering advice on moral character, reading habits, and proper behavior. Hugely popular—Cranford-adjacent readers would know her by name. ⸻ Mrs. Elizabeth Carter (1717–1806) A respected scholar, translator, and poet—a genuine intellectual heavyweight. Famously translated the Discourses of Epictetus from Greek in 1758—the first English translation by a woman, and one of the first of Epictetus at all. She knew multiple classical and modern languages and was close friends with figures like Samuel Johnson and Hannah More. *CraftLit's Socials* • Find everything here: https://www.linktr.ee/craftlitchannel • Join the newsletter: http://eepurl.com/2raf9 • Podcast site: http://craftlit.com • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CraftLit/ • Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/craftlit • Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/craftlit/ • TikTok podcast: https://www.tiktok.com/@craftlit • Email: heather@craftlit.com • Previous CraftLit Classics can be found here: https://bit.ly/craftlit-library-2023 *SUPPORT THE SHOW!* • CraftLit App Premium feed bit.ly/libsynpremiumcraftlit (only one tier available) • PATREON: https://patreon.com/craftlit (all tiers, below) ——Walter Harright - $5/mo for the same audio as on App ——Jane Eyre - $10/mo for even-month Book Parties ——Mina Harker - $15/mo for odd-month Watch Parties *All tiers and benefits are also available as* —*YouTube Channel Memberships* —*Ko-Fi* https://ko-fi.com/craftlit —*NEW* at CraftLit.com — Premium Memberships https://craftlit.com/membership-levels/ *IF you want to join a particular Book or Watch Patry but you don't want to join any of the above membership options*, please use PayPal.me/craftlit or CraftLit @ Venmo and include what you want to attend in the message field. Please give us at least 24 hours to get your message and add you to the attendee list. • Download the FREE CraftLit App for iOS or Android (you can call or email feedback straight from within the app) • Call 1-206-350-1642
The dotty medium of Braille has just turned 200 years old. Famously invented by French boy, Louis Braille, it spread worldwide and became the way blind people were finally able to read. Access All's presenter Emma Tracey explains what she does with it and why she loves it whilst meeting interesting people who have used the medium in very interesting ways…including, Stevie Wonder. Presenter: Emma Tracey Producer: Adele Armstrong First broadcast on the BBC World Service April 2025.
You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!Welcome back to Bad Dads Film Review! This episode swings open some metaphorical and literal portals as we explore our Top 5 Gates in film and TV, take aim with the tense WWII drama Enemy at the Gates, and finish off with an animated sci-fi detour through Stargate Infinity.
What did the late Bulgarian psychic, Baba Vanga, often referred to as the “Nostradamus of the Balkans” have to say about 2025? Michaela and Scott explore many of her accurate past predictions, as well as some future ones which include extraterrestrial contact, wars with other planets and more! They revisit some of Nostradamus' accurate world predictions, explain what prophecy is and detail the mysterious history of the famous psychic.Listen to more podcasts like this: https://wavepodcastnetwork.comWant to learn more? Enjoy one of our other interactive Aura quizzes: https://knowyouraura.com/aura-quizzesListen to this introductory episode to find your Aura color: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bonus-every-aura-color-explained/id1477126939?i=1000479357880Send Mystic Michaela some positive energy on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mysticmichaelaExplore the Know Your Aura Website : https://knowyouraura.comVisit Mystic Michaela's Website: https://www.mysticmichaela.comJoin Mystic Michaela's Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2093029197406168Ads:Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code AURA at https://lumedeodorant.com #lumepodGet $30 off the first box - PLUS free Croissants in every box - when you go to https://wildgrain.com/kya to start your subscription.Get started at https://www.factormeals.com/kya50off and use code kya50off to get 50 percent off plus FREE shipping on your first box.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Happy Opening Day! Baseball is back, and BTTM is back with another baseball-themed book adaptation. Bookseller and writer Jonah Lipton joins the crew to discuss Bernard Malamud's 1952 novel THE NATURAL, and its 1984 film adaptation starring Robert Redford. Famously the book is downbeat and cynical, reflecting postwar disillusionment, while the movie is upbeat and heroic, reflecting Reagan-era optimism. We know they're different but which one is better?? Hosted by Tyler Austin, Allan Traylor, and Justin Remer. Produced by Justin Remer. Recorded at the LAPL Octavia Lab. Opening music: "Optimism (Instrumental)" by Duck the Piano Wire. Closing music: "Rule of 3s (Solemnity Child)" Elastic No-No Band.
A conversation with Dr. Jo Freer, a leading scholar on the work of American novelist Thomas Pynchon. I'm currently leading our Library's Classics Book Discussion Seminar series on Pynchon's 1973 masterpiece Gravity's Rainbow and Dr. Freer's work has been incredibly helpful for me in understanding this challenging novel and Pynchon's work as a whole. We're thrilled to get Dr. Freer's perspective on this important writer. Dr. Jo Freer is Senior Lecturer in American and Postcolonial Literature in the Department of English and Creative Writing at the University of Exeter. She is the author of Thomas Pynchon and American Counterculture (Cambridge University Press, 2014), which considers Thomas Pynchon as a political philosopher. While Gravity's Rainbow centers around the saga of American Lt. Tyrone Slothrop, stationed in England at the end of WWII, Freer shows how the novel often responds directly to debates within the 1960s counterculture; the different approaches of the New Left, Yippies, The Black Panther Party, the Women's Movement, and the proto-countercultural Beat writers who influenced Pynchon are all game for comparison, revealing Pynchon to be a subtle and profound political thinker. Dr. Freer is also editor of the excellent essay collections The New Pynchon Studies (Cambridge UP, 2019) and co-editor of Thomas Pynchon, Sex and Gender, (Georgia UP, 2018). Our conversation also considers the various ways Pynchon's depictions of gender and sexuality have been interpreted by Freer and others. Famously, the judges of the Pulitzer Prize selected Gravity's Rainbow, but the Pulitzer Advisory Board said the book was “unreadable,” “turgid,” and “obscene” and chose to not award a prize that year. This is a fascinating conversation about form and content and the value of this difficult, challenging, anti-authoritarian reading experience for us today. Like the graffiti that appears in Gravity's Rainbow, Dr. Freer tells us that Pynchon creates texts that are “revealed in order to be thought about, expanded on, translated into action by the people.” You can check out books by Dr. Freer, and work by all of our previous podcast guests, here at the library in our Podcast Collection. You can also find Dr. Freer on her University of Exeter page. We hope you enjoy our 66th interview episode! Each month (or so) we release an episode featuring a conversation with an author, artist, or other notable guests from Chicagoland or around the world. Learn more about the podcast on our podcast page. You can listen to all of our episodes in the player below or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments and feedback—please send to podcast@deerfieldlibrary.org.
This week, Hunter and Peyton check in with the newest plot developments on The White Lotus and get to know the new cast of Real Housewives of Atlanta. And they're joined by Haley Mlotek, author of the new divorce memoir “No Fault” to talk divorce trends over the years, the history of no fault divorce in America, and what it feels like to go through a divorce of your own.Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to Lemme Say This on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Watch new episodes on YouTube and listen to weekly exclusive bonus content by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/lemme-say-this/ now. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
On this special bonus episode of Lipps Service, Scott sits down with a Lipps Service veteran, longtime friend, and blistering rock ‘n' roller — Luke Spiller. Famously known as the electric frontman of British rock band The Struts, Luke is getting ready for the release of his debut solo record, Love Will Probably Kill Me Before Cigarettes and Wine. The two get into everything behind the making of the new album, which is slated to be released on April 25. They discuss Luke's journey of going solo, how he met Scott, and why he wanted to make his own record outside of the band. He talks about his relationships with Jason Falkner of Jellyfish (Scott's favorite band!) and the late Taylor Hawkins of Foo Fighters. He also tells the stories behind a few of the new songs, including the title-track and “Devil In Me.” To close, Luke lists his top 5 solo albums from a lead singer of a band. Tune into a friendly and exciting conversation with Luke Spiller! CREDITS (Instagram handles)Host @scottlippsEdited by @toastycakesMusic by @robby_hoffProduced by @whitakermarisaRecorded at Melrose Podcasts LA Sonos makes it so easy to fill your home with incredible sound! Check out the new Sonos Ace headphones, which are Bluetooth-enabled and have three buttons. The content key allows you to play, pause, accept calls, and control the volume. Plus, they feature noise cancellation and voice assist!These headphones are exceptionally well done and sound incredible, whether listening to your favorite playlist, chatting on a call, watching a movie, or even recording a podcast like this one. They sound particularly fantastic when listening to Lipps Service!Sonos has great gifts for everyone on your list. Visit sonos.com/Lipps to save 20% on select products. 01:44 - Journey to solo album & how Luke and Scott met02:11 - Starting the album in 202002:44 - Why he went solo04:18 - How he decides if it's a Struts song or a solo song05:05 - Themes of love on the record06:00 - “Love Will Probably Kill Me Before Cigarettes and Wine”07:12 - Jason Falkner07:49 - Taylor Hawkins09:11 - Bond theme ideas for the record10:36 - “Devil in Me"12:22 - Mel's Diner14:07 - Lyricism on the record15:31 - Going solo17:00 - Taylor Hawkins, “Angel Like You” & Shane Hawkins20:21 - The Sun Rose shows in LA21:00 - Top 5 solo albums from a lead singer of a band
Welcome to Roll Pod, an Alabama sports podcast from Bama247. On today's episode, Cody, Mike, and Alex discuss the first day of spring ball and also discuss some Tide Hoops. FOLLOW • Mike Rodak: https://twitter.com/mikerodak • Alex Scarborough: https://twitter.com/ByScarborough • Cody Goodwin: https://twitter.com/codygoodwin LINKS • Bama247 Website: https://247sports.com/college/alabama/ • Subscribe to Bama247: https://247sports.com/college/alabama/join/?promo=QUICKLINKS • Bama247 Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2YzVw4plQnY8V8mMNCfZ8g • Bama247 Twitter: https://twitter.com/Bama_247 • Bama247 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bama_247/ To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal Healthcare" Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being. The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with. It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach? The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket. Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage. During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory. Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset. Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse. Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year. Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage." Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste. But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start. The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste. A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending. For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions. In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes. Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject. In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems. Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings. No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs! Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay. Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory. However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation. How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it? By Helen Buyniski Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually. But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole? The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State. Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year. It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies. “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1 Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies. As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care. Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2 While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing. Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death. PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies. For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas. Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5 Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus. FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus. While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author. After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications. That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests: On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4] In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6] Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record. What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur. These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5] This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV. However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.” It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings. It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered. Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III. In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9] Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper. For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations. Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along? Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before. 10 DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL” While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside. Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12 With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13 Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14 It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17 That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy. Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “
Last time we spoke about the Ishiwara Kanji. Born in 1889 in Japan, Kanji Ishiwara was the son of a policeman from a samurai lineage. He entered military training at 13, rising through the ranks to become a Major and a respected lecturer. His unconventional views on military strategy and history led him to predict a prolonged conflict with the United States. Deeply influenced by Nichiren Buddhism, he envisioned Japan as a moral leader destined to guide Asia, advocating for reform in China while grappling with his nation's imperial ambitions. In 1928, ishiwara fell ill with influenza, leading to a six-month hospitalization. During recovery, he joined an elite study group discussing war theories. His lectures on total war gained fame, culminating in a presentation to Kwantung officers. Amid rising tensions in Japan, he advocated for control over Manchuria, believing Japan had a moral duty to stabilize China. His theories on warfare, including the devastating potential of airpower, foreshadowed the horrors of future conflicts, influencing Japan's military strategies. #137 Ishiwara Kanji Part 2: The Mukden Incident Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. For the next two and a half years, Ishiwara and Itagaki collaborated with other members of the Kwantung Army to address what they perceived as the Manchurian issue. By the mid-1930s, the belief that Manchuria needed to be forcibly seized had become the prevailing opinion among the Kwantung Army. Ishiwara was convinced that Japan could no longer remain passive in Manchuria, as each passing day meant Japan was gradually losing its rights and interests in the region to China, risking expulsion. Abandoning Manchuria would be a national catastrophe, resulting in the loss of a crucial buffer state, valuable resources, and land for Japan's growing population to settle. In essence, Manchuria was vital for Japan's survival and growth. Ishiwara would often say “manchuria provides Japan with breathing space” where have we heard that type of talk before?. To the military heads in Tokyo Ishikawa would often assert Manchuria had to be seized via force, because of the soviet threat of the USSR and communism as a whole “In view of the traditional russian policy in that area, once the soviets advanced into manchuria, it would become a base for the communization of asia. Not only would the internal stability of manchuria become impossible to maintain, but Japan would be unable to maintain its own national defense, and China's defenses, too, would become imperialized". The Army Headquarters in Tokyo also recognized that Manchuria was a crucial defensive line against the USSR. However, unlike the Kwantung Army, which aimed to control all of Manchuria, the leaders in Tokyo focused on incorporating southern Manchuria through the South Manchurian Railway and did not pursue any territory north of it. Ishiwara, on the other hand, believed that the only way for Japan to prevent the USSR from exerting pressure on southern Manchuria was to occupy northern Manchuria and extend even further north toward the Amur River. This would allow Japan to control the mountain ranges that bordered the western and eastern frontiers of northern Manchuria. Once Japan controlled northern Manchuria, Ishiwara stated in 1931 “With the solution of our defense problems in the north, we would then be free to plan an advance in any direction: to China proper, for example, or even to Southeast Asia”. Ishiwara advanced his ideas significantly after Japan's conquest of Manchuria, recognizing the necessity of effectively administering and pacifying its diverse populations. He posited that the stability of Manchuria could be achieved through the unique skills and contributions of the various ethnic groups residing there. For instance, he believed that the Chinese would excel in developing small businesses, while the Koreans would apply their expertise in paddy farming. These racial dynamics, according to Ishiwara, would play a crucial role in the development of Manchukuo and the broader vision of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. However, it was clear that, above all, Manchuria was intended to serve Japan's interests, many of which were exploitative and economically driven. By early 1930, Ishiwara and his colleague Itagaki devised a military strategy reminiscent of the tactics employed during the Russo-Japanese War, specifically a surprise night attack. Their plan involved the Kwantung Army launching an assault on the Liaoning region, targeting key Chinese garrisons. This operation required meticulous planning, as the Kwantung Army was significantly outnumbered by the forces commanded by Zhang Xueliang. In the vicinity of Mukden alone, Zhang commanded approximately 20,000 well-equipped troops, supported by aircraft and tanks. Across Manchuria, he could mobilize around 250,000 soldiers in the event of conflict. In stark contrast, the Kwantung Army could only field about 10,000 personnel, primarily composed of garrison units stationed along the railway. They lacked substantial air support and mechanized units, and their overall equipment was inadequate. To address this stark imbalance in military strength, Ishiwara emphasized the importance of intelligence and rigorous training. He aimed to refine specific assault techniques, enabling Japanese forces to execute rapid and concentrated attacks that would overwhelm their Chinese adversaries. The overarching strategy was notably straightforward: it hinged on delivering a decisive blow to the heart of Zhang Xueliang's military stronghold at the Peitaying barracks in Mukden. Ishiwara believed that if this critical target fell, it would shatter the enemy's morale, providing the Kwantung Army with the necessary military and psychological momentum to dominate the surrounding regions. However, he acknowledged that if the Soviet Union intervened, the entire plan could unravel catastrophically. One important variable Ishiwara highlighted was the necessity to pull off the operation before any attempt to restructure the domestic order in Japan occurred. Ishiwara knew his arguments and those of his colleagues would influence the heads in Tokyo, and they had to act before they did. However the heads at Tokyo and the Kwantung army held very different perspectives on when to act. In June of 1931 the Central army HQ stated in its General Outline of a solution to the Manchurian problem “we must defer the question of military action for a whole year. During this time the foreign ministry would attempt to dampen anti japanese activities in manchuria through negotiations with the government of Nanking. In the meantime the government would launch an information campaign to try and drive acquiescence at home and aboard for military action ” Ishiwara, as you can imagine, was deeply frustrated by the prospect of delaying action for another year. He argued passionately that the current international landscape necessitated an immediate strike. At that time, the Soviet Union was still in the midst of its ambitious five-year plan, which limited its capacity for intervention. Meanwhile, the United States, Britain, and France were grappling with their own financial crises, rendering them unable to mount significant resistance in the Far East. Most notably, the Nationalist regime in China was preoccupied with its unification efforts south of the Great Wall, but this situation was expected to shift soon. Ishiwara believed that if they postponed their plans for a year, the geopolitical environment would deteriorate further, making decisive action imperative. For Ishiwara, the moment to act was now or never. In July 1931, Ishiwara and Itagaki orchestrated a crucial reconnaissance mission aimed at familiarizing the newest Kwantung officers with the northern regions of Manchuria. To disguise their true intentions, they informed high command that the mission was a survey focused on the Soviet Union. However, the real objective was to assess the strength and influence of Chinese power in northern Manchuria. During their return journey, the team received alarming news about the disappearance of Captain Nakamura Shintaro, a Kwantung staff officer. Upon reaching Port Arthur, they learned that rumors were circulating that Captain Nakamura had been killed by Chinese soldiers under what were described as “mysterious circumstances.” In the preceding months, Manchuria had witnessed a surge in violent riots, murders, work strikes, and various other incidents, all contributing to a climate of unrest. The Nakamura affair intensified these existing tensions. In response, both the Chinese and Japanese foreign ministries attempted to negotiate a resolution to the crisis. However, figures at the central army headquarters, such as Nagata Tetsuzan, who sympathized with the urgency felt by their Kwantung counterparts, felt compelled to support them. The situation was rapidly escalating, and the stakes were growing ever higher. For Ishiwara the issue was clear as he wrote “the Nakamura incident adds just one more issue to the others. What the army should do now is to ignore the foreign ministry and solve the problem by taking matters into its own hands”. And that's exactly what he did. The Kwantung officers moved their troops beyond the railway zone, where they had been confined, and without waiting for Itagaki's approval—who was in Japan at the time—they began preparations to send an armored train along with a mixed regiment of infantry and artillery to Mukden. Their goal was to enlist the help of the Chinese military in investigating Nakamura's disappearance. Upon learning of this, Tokyo sent a telegram instructing them to halt their departure from the railway and to refrain from using the Nakamura incident as a pretext for employing force to address the Manchurian issue. For Ishiwara this was the last straw. On August 20th he sent a message to Nagata condemning the current diplomatic situation and that negotiations were an utter waste of time. “There is no way to settle the matter except by placing it in the hands of the army. If central hq finds it so difficult to trust its field personnel then it had better replace them with representatives more suitable to the conditions it imagines to exist in Manchuria”. Ishiwara doubled down and pushed for a plot to provoke military conflict outside of Mukden. As he wrote in almost a messianic Nichiren conviction ‘I will be the pillar of Japan; I will be the eyes of Japan; I will be the great vessel of Japan” . “Gekokujo / ruling from below” is a Japanese historical term referring to when subordinates defy or manipulate their superiors. Ishiwara and his like minded close colleagues were about to perform Gekokujo. Ishiwara ordered the dispatch of an armored train carrying a mixed regiment of infantry and artillery to compel the Chinese military authorities in Mukden to assist in the investigation of Nakamura's disappearance. However, central headquarters halted the train's departure at the last moment, sending a telegram from Tokyo that specifically instructed the Kwantung Army not to use the Nakamura incident to pressure a resolution to the Manchurian issue. In addition to the Nakamura situation, another issue was brewing. Colonel Dohihara Kenji was involved in a plot to enlist Warlord Yan Xishan to attack Zhang Xueliang. This scheme was attracting unwanted attention and undermining the effectiveness of the Nakamura incident, prompting Ishiwara to swiftly suppress the plans. Rumors began to circulate in Tokyo that the Kwantung Army was preparing to retaliate against the Chinese due to the Nakamura situation. In response, War Minister General Minami dispatched Major General Yoshiji Tatekawa to Mukden to caution the Kwantung officers against any such actions. Ishiwara was informed of Tatekawa's arrival and sent urgent telegrams to his followers, warning, “Plot exposed. Act before Tatekawa's arrival.” Consequently, the launch date was moved from September 28th to the 18th. Itagaki personally intercepted Tatekawa's train, inviting him for tea and sake, and arranged for him to spend the night with a geisha on the evening of the 18th. On September 18th of 1931, 1st Lt Suemori Kawamoto of the independent Garrison Unit of the 29th infantry regiment planted bombs along the tracks near Liutiaokou. At 10:20pm they exploded doing only minor damage to 1.5 meters of track on one site. The damage was so minor a train actually passed over the tracks without difficulty 10 minutes later. Ishiwara, Itagaki and their followers quickly announced the explosion to be a Chinese atrocity and mobilized the Kwantung Army. Itagaki ordered the Independent Garrison Force and 29th infantry regiment to storm the Peitaying Barracks. Battalion commander Shimamoto was awakened by the orders via telephone and quickly dispatched the 1st (Ono) and 4th (Takahashi) companies from Mukden; the 2nd (kawakami) company at Fushun to advance to Liutiaokou. At 10:40pm the 29th regiment commander Hirata got a call from Shimamoto who ordered him to get his regiment into emergency formation and to storm the Peiyating barracks. Two secretly hidden 24cm artillery pieces began to bombard the Peitaying barracks as 500 Japanese stormed the 7000 strong Chinese garrison. Despite being outnumbered 14 to 1, the Japanese destroyed Zhang Xueliangs small air force, routed the Chinese and occupied the Peiyating Barracks by 11pm, all at the cost of 500 Chinese lives and allegedly only 2 Japanese lives. A major reason the Japanese had ease was because Zhang Xueliang ordered his men to store away their weapons and not put up a fight if the Japanese invaded. Zhang Xueliang and Chiang Kai-shek both in Beijing at the time knew they could not initiate an offensive war against such a strong foreign country. They were hoping the League of Nations would intervene as pertaining to the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928. But later on Chiang Kai-Shek would find America too wrapped up in its depression at home, Britain indifferent and other nations without enough reason to risk anything in the far east. An hour after the attack, Ishiwara began pressing General Shigeru Honjo, the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Kwantung Army, to send reinforcements to capture all of Mukden. Initially, Honjo hesitated, but Ishiwara convinced him that there was significant provocation from the enemy, prompting Honjo to order additional units into combat to secure the entire city. Historians have since struggled to determine whether Honjo was aware of the invasion plan; it seems likely he had some knowledge, but not the full details, which made him cautious in his actions over the following weeks. In the days that followed, Honjo attempted to confine the incident, but Ishiwara and Itagaki continuously urged all forces to adhere to the secret plan they had trained for. The speed and decisiveness of their actions overwhelmed the Chinese forces and left Honjo unable to change the course of events. Famously when one colleague asked Itagaki what to do in response to cease and desist orders from Honjo, Itagaki responded “Never mind Honjo, it's Ishiwara's war”. Official orders from Tokyo came on the next day, specifically opposing the expansion of hostilities, but Ishiwara and Itagaki had come too far to stop now. They began persuading Honjo to telegram the General Staff to ask for reinforcements and freedom of action “to pursue actively the security and order of all of Manchuria”. Ishiwara and Itagaki clearly aimed to expand their offensive through official channels first, but they also circumvented these channels. One cunning tactic they used was to incite chaos among civilians in Manchurian cities, thereby heightening the demand for improved security for Japanese residents. This strategy would enable the Kwantung Army troops to move beyond their established boundaries. Shortly after what is now known as the "Mukden Incident," military agents were sent to Kirin to stir unrest in the city. Reports of disturbances from Kirin began flooding into the Kwantung Army headquarters, with Ishiwara urging Honjo to send forces to Kirin to safeguard Japanese residents. He also pushed for reinforcements from the Korean Army, but Honjo was reluctant to take that step. It seems Ishiwara feared missing a golden opportunity and chose another course of action. On the night of the 20th, he gathered together a bunch of younger Kwantung officers such as Itagaki's assistant, Captain Katakura Tadashi and told them “I can't do anything more to budge the commander and so i'm giving up my responsibilities for the direction of operations. Katakura, you take over”. Well it seems this little ploy had the intended effect as all the young officers immediately began pressuring Honjo to support Ishiwara's demands to advance to Kirin, many of them threatening to resign. After several hours of the officers nagging, Honjo related and authorized the despatch of troops. The operation against Kirin was executed with remarkable speed. Ishiwara ordered the majority of the 2nd Division, led by General Tamon Jiro, to swiftly travel to Kirin by train. They entered the city without firing a single shot and compelled the local Chinese commander to declare the province's independence from Zhang Xueliang's regime. Within hours, the Korean army responded to an aid request from the Kwantung Army staff sent on September 21st and began advancing into Manchuria. In just 48 hours, the Japanese military had taken control of Kirin, which was outside the Kwantung operational zone, and the Korean army was invading Manchuria without Tokyo's approval, effectively undermining military discipline. Chief of Staff Kanaya Hanzo had issued specific orders to restrict the Kwantung Army's operations and granted field commanders discretionary authority for certain emergency situations, typically of a local nature. However, the Kirin expedition did not fit within these parameters. Encouraged by their success, Ishiwara and Itagaki pushed for an advance on Harbin. As noted in the previous episode, the strategy for taking Manchuria relied on speed and precision. The Kwantung Army had limited forces compared to the immediate Chinese troops in Manchuria, yet they were constrained by directives from Tokyo HQ that prohibited the movement of Kwantung troops beyond the South Manchuria Railway, where they had previously confined their actions. Ishiwara attempted to frame the situation politically, arguing that Japan should support Manchurian independence and sent this proposal directly to Tokyo central HQ. However, on October 3rd, Tokyo HQ firmly rejected the idea of expanding hostilities. Faced with this outright refusal from Tokyo HQ, the Kwantung radicals believed their only option was to create further chaos to compel a response. Ishiwara took the lead once more, aiming to unsettle Tokyo HQ. On October 8th, he donned military pilot gear and infiltrated one of five Chinese aircraft seized at Mukden airfield. He personally led a raid, although later in life, during the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, he would claim that the flight was intended solely for reconnaissance of enemy activities at Chinchou. He argued that it was only at the last moment that intelligence revealed anti-aircraft guns had been installed at Chinchou, prompting the Kwantung Army Commander to authorize their neutralization if fired upon. Ishiwara maintained that he and the four accompanying aircraft were fired upon, leading them to drop approximately 75 bombs on Chinchou. This series of events was quite dramatic, and contemporary accounts suggest it was a premeditated effort to provoke Tokyo. The raid on Chinchou certainly alarmed Tokyo, leading the staff there to worry that the West would start condemning them. Tokyo's high command found themselves in a difficult position. They felt compelled to publicly support the Kwantung Army by retroactively approving the chaotic attacks, but internally, they were furious. Major Endo Saburo from the intelligence division was dispatched to Manchuria to investigate the situation. When he asked Ishiwara about the events, Ishiwara claimed he acted on the principle of field initiative, which was why he hadn't informed Tokyo beforehand. Saburo also noted that Ishiwara's tone suggested that he and the intelligence division should stay out of the matter. Additionally, Saburo learned that there were whispers in Manchuria indicating that if Tokyo's high command did not align with them, the Kwantung Army was ready to act independently. It appeared that the radical officers of the Kwantung Army were even willing to defy the Imperial Japanese Army command to achieve their goals. Ishiwara went as far as to send this telegram to Tokyo “For the sake of the nation we are doing our very best in Manchuria, but if the Japanese government constantly interferes we cannot complete our great work. Then the Kwantung army will have to come to the point where we will have to break the glorious history of the imperial army and separate ourselves from the empire” If you found this situation quite surprising, there was also a rumor that Ishiwara and Itagaki planned to use an independent Manchuria as a base for a coup d'état against the Japanese government. Their goal was to overthrow the capitalists oppressing the people and establish a national socialist regime centered around the emperor. For those familiar with the history of political assassinations in 1930s Japan, this rumor hints at events that would unfold in 1936. It remains unclear whether Ishiwara and Itagaki genuinely intended to pursue this plan, but they certainly spread the word. On October 18th, War Minister Minami Jiro sent a telegram to the Kwantung Army, instructing them to stop any discussions about making Manchuria independent or attempting to seize control of it. Additionally, they dispatched Colonel Imamura Hitoshi from the operations section to Manchuria to reason with Ishiwara and Itagaki. They all met at a restaurant in Mukden where Imamura began by explaining the purpose of his mission, but before he could even really begin, Ishiwara blurted out “whats the matter? Doesn't central headquarters have any backbone?” A great way to start a meeting to be sure. Imamura tried to explain the situation, but Ishiwara said “if we follow the spineless Tokyo approach we'll never settle the Manchurian problem”. Imamura replied “we can't accomplish anything by following the arbitrary decision of field elements, which may create a crisis that will shake the whole army. In such a problem it is essential for the whole nation to be unified”. To this Ishiwara apparently said really loudly in the restaurant that he was sleepy, rolled over on the tatami and closed his eyes. Imamura furious haha, get up quickly after denouncing his so called hosts for conducting official IJA business at a restaurant and left. The next day they all met again, where Ishiwara and Itagaki kept speaking about the necessity to create an independent state, since there was no hope of the Chinese reforming Manchuria. After Imamura left that meeting, Ishiwara said to Itagaki “Imamura is a fine fellow, but he doesn't understand China”. Despite the chaos and turmoil, the Kwantung Army had been held back from launching any sustained military operations throughout October. As expected, Ishiwara continued to argue for an advance into northern Manchuria. In early November, he found another opportunity when he claimed that more railways had been destroyed. Allegedly, hostile Chinese forces had blown up the rail bridges over the Nonni River, south of Tsitsihar. When Japanese engineering units arrived to repair the damaged tracks, they came under fire from Chinese troops. To the high-ranking officials in Tokyo, this appeared to be a legitimate reason to take defensive action. Additionally, Kwantung intelligence reports were reaching Tokyo, suggesting that Chinese forces in northern Manchuria were planning a southward offensive. Ishiwara had also provided exaggerated reports to the Japanese public, manipulating media narratives to pressure Tokyo into supporting an advance into northern Manchuria. Tokyo approved a defensive operation, restricted in time and scope, aimed at protecting Japanese positions at the Nonni River bridges. Kwantung Army forces began moving north and soon engaged in intense fighting around the railway area of Tahsing. Ishiwara personally led troops during this engagement, marking the only time in his military career that he did so. General Honjo, rightly concerned that the Kwantung forces were becoming uncontrollable, sent a cable on November 5th announcing that under the “rinsan inmei / provisional mandate,” the general staff would assume direct command authority in Manchuria. Unsurprisingly, Ishiwara and his like-minded colleagues in the Kwantung Army were furious. Honjo followed this up by stating he would resign if they did not comply, but Ishiwara brushed off the provisional mandate stating “that the directive from the chief of staff is just a personal, not an imperial order. No matter how many we get of those we shouldn't' care. We'll just go ahead with our plans”. On november 17, the Kwantung army began advancing upon the city of Tsitsihar seizing it 2 days later. Confronted with yet another dire situation, the IJA high command permitted the Kwantung Army to advance toward Tsitsihar. However, international outcry soon erupted, compelling them to order the evacuation of the city. Ishiwara sparked a significant debate among the staff, arguing that the evacuation was unacceptable given the sacrifices already made by the troops. Nevertheless, Honjo remained resolute. A few days later, Chinese forces began to gather at Chinchou, and tensions escalated with skirmishes occurring between Japanese and Chinese troops in Tientsin. In response, Ishiwara urgently called for Honjo to initiate an offensive at Chinchou as a way to better position their forces closer to Tientsin in case they faced overwhelming opposition. To support this advance, they also requested assistance from the Korean army. Once again, the burden fell to Tokyo. The high command in Tokyo ordered an immediate halt to the offensive and a withdrawal east of the Liao River. The Kwantung Army hesitated, not solely due to the order but also because the Korean army refused to join the offensive against Chinchou, which was crucial for their success. Ishiwara found himself in a predicament; without reinforcements, the entire offensive could fail. Then, on December 11th, a significant change occurred when Premier Wakatsuki was ousted. War Minister Minami and Chief of Staff Kanaya, who had attempted to moderate the Kwantung Army's aggressiveness, were replaced by Araki Sadao, a leader of the Kodoha faction known for its aggressive stance. To provide some context, the Japanese military was divided into factions, similar to warlord cliques, vying to influence the future operations of the IJA and, to some extent, the IJN. Two primary factions shaped the military landscape in the 1930s: the Kodoha and the Toseiha (Control Faction). The Kodoha was not an organized political party nor did it hold an official position within the IJA, but it wielded considerable influence. Its members were typically younger officers, particularly from the Kwantung Army. General Sadao Araki was a founding member of the Kodoha, which was heavily influenced by Bushido, Fascism, and the Kokutai ideology. They aimed to restore Japan to its perceived former glory, viewing liberal democracy as a detrimental force. They blamed the capitalists, industrialists, and elites—politicians, bureaucrats, and Zaibatsu leaders—for the nation's decline. Their goal was to see the Emperor reclaim full power in what they termed a "Showa Restoration." The Kodoha's primary adversary, as perceived by much of the Japanese military at the time, was the USSR and communism in general. Consequently, they supported the Hokushin-ron (Northern Strike Policy), which was Japan's theoretical plan to invade the USSR. While I don't want to delve too deeply into the details, it's important to note that the Kodoha was counterbalanced by the more moderate Toseiha faction, led by Hideki Tojo. The Toseiha opposed the Kodoha on several fronts, notably their desire to avoid a violent revolution to restore imperial dominance. Although they shared many principles with the Kodoha, the Toseiha rejected the Hokushin-ron strategy in favor of the Nanshin-ron (Southern Strike) strategy, which aimed at expanding into Southeast Asia and the resource-rich Dutch East Indies. The Toseiha faction also maintained better relations with the IJN. To contextualize this narrative within the political landscape, these two factions began to fiercely compete for dominance starting in 1931. With the influence of Araki Sadao and support from Prince Kan'in, a Kodoha sympathizer, significant changes occurred in Tokyo's command. Suddenly, offensive operations against Chinese forces in Manchuria were rebranded as “bandit suppression” campaigns. The Kwantung Army, fully backed by Tokyo, swiftly pursued all military objectives established by Ishiwara and Itagaki since September. Chinchou and Shanhaikwan were captured in early January 1932, followed by Tsitsihar in February. By spring 1932, Ishiwara urged the staff to complete the full occupation of Manchuria, both north and south. In April of that year, he presented the “Manshu haiti heiryaku,” or the program for the pacification of Manchuria. This new plan called for the seizure of Hailar in the north because “it was pivotal to the defense against the USSR”. It also called for seizing Jehol province because “it was an important condition to the independence of Manchuria”. By the end of the year Hailar was taken and in 1933 the Kwantung army was marching upon Jehol. It is clear that Ishiwara played a crucial role in the conquest of Manchuria. The Kwantung Army and the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) had various strategies available to address the Manchurian issue, but Ishiwara focused primarily on achieving complete control over the region for its resources, strategic advantages, and to establish a continental base for a potential war against the United States. For Ishiwara, securing all of Manchuria was essential in preparation for the Final War. While it's likely that conflict between Japan and China would have occurred in Manchuria without Ishiwara's influence, it's uncertain whether Japan would have outright taken the province. Ishiwara dedicated years to planning and pushing boundaries, but when the operation commenced, it became evident that he and his associates lacked a definitive timeline for conquest and had several missing contingency plans. Despite the chaotic circumstances, the conquest of Manchuria proved to be a remarkable success. So much so, Ishiwara said to a friend of his, Satomi Kishio in 1932 “Even if Japan has to face the entire world, she can't be beaten”. Ironically as many of you know, Japan's actions in Manchuria cost her greatly. Japan was now hated by the Chinese, well much more so. The west condemned Japan's actions, alongside the USSR. As my professor first taught me in a class about the Pacific War when I was a wee lad in his early 20's “It all was about Manchuria, everything started with Manchuria, and it ended with Manchuria in 1945”. The Manchuria incident set Japan on an unavoidable path toward the China War, which ultimately led to conflict with the West. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. This situation also raises questions about military discipline. Many cite the concept of Gekokujo as a reason why individuals like Ishiwara and Itagaki were able to act as they did. These militaristic junior officers seemingly ran rampant, engaging in rebellious actions that defied their superiors, which forced those higher up to become complicit. While Gekokujo certainly played a role, especially in Ishiwara's case, it does not negate the fact that there was a significant level of indiscipline within the Japanese army. Ishiwara was undoubtedly aware of the potential consequences of his actions. A prime example is Colonel Komoto Daisaku, who had previously seen his career ruined after being exiled due to the Huanggutun incident. However, Ishiwara's focus extended beyond Manchuria; he was closely monitoring the political landscape in Tokyo. He recognized that the 1931 cabinet was unstable and that certain high-ranking officials, like Araki Sadao, were rapidly advancing in their careers and sympathized with his agenda. Ishiwara was betting that supporters from factions like Kodoha would gain the necessary power to further his cause. His gamble paid off handsomely, as all the key players in the Manchurian affair were rewarded for their efforts. Ishiwara received the Order of the Golden Kite, 3rd class, and returned to Japan as a celebrated hero, captivating younger officers in the Imperial Japanese Army. Ironically, the indiscipline he had nurtured within the army would later come back to haunt him as he climbed the ranks and became part of the Tokyo staff. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. As Ron Burgundy once said “Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast.” While perhaps Ishiwara did not plan for an all out war to break out against China, he certainly was the culprit to it happening. There was no going back, 15 years of blood, sweat and tears would be shed.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
