Many liberals and even leftists put unwarranted faith in the Mueller investigation which apart from indictments of all the President’s men disappointed on every issue regarding the President and Russian collusion. While I never had faith in Mueller given his history, temperament and and Washington establishment leanings, the reality of hiss whitewash of the President in the face of Trump’s self evident quilt is disturbing.
Apparently see no evil still prevails in Washington despite the fact that the emperor has no clothes. Most of America can see that even if Mueller is blind.
USA Today reports that Facebook will extend its censorship to anti-vaccine news. USA Today states:
‘Facebook is considering making anti-vaccination content on its site less visible amid a measles outbreak that has reignited a conversation about preventative shots.
The social media giant that’s been criticized for spreading fake news told USA TODAY it’s “taken steps to reduce the distribution of health-related misinformation on Facebook, but we know we have more to do.”
Facebook has been fighting misinformation on its platform since the 2016 presidential election after fake accounts and news stories aimed at sowing discord among users were discovered.’
Not only are social media censoring left political ideas but, now, extending this censorship to medical issues regarding vaccines and other unpopular ideas. The victims of this censorship is the left, natural medicine, and those pointing to deficiencies in current vaccines. It should be noted that we now have the technology and knowledge to make safer and more effective vaccines. Among those censoring are Facebook, YouTube, Amazon and other social media.
Those voices who normally raise concerns about censorship and demand free speech are strangely and cowardly absent today.
The real reason behind the USA plot to overthrow the Venezuela government is the need for a stable oil supply during the wrong headed Trump administration planned assault on Iran
The long term goal of the Trump administration faction led by John Bolton is Iran but the overriding problem with John Bolton’s plan is the fact that such action would block shipping in the Persian gulf. The straits of Hormous rest on Iranian soil and, if blocked, stop 35 percent of the world’s oil traffic from the gulf including Saudi Arabia and all gulf nations.
The problem facing John Bolton and the Trump administration is in finding a reliable replacement for the loss of Arabian oil during an future war against Iran. The solution would appear to be Venezuela. However, U.S. relations with Venezuela are not amicable. Further, Venezuela just signed long term contracts to supply its oil to China. Hence American need to overthrow the Venezuela government in order to further Bolton’s plan to attack Iran.
And why attack Iran? Israel views Iran as a potential threat despite US intelligence reports that Iran has complied with US requirements to cease manufacturing refined uranium suitable for bombs. But reality has never clouded the Trump administration views.
The United States tried to engineer a coup in Venezuela Wed., January 23, 2019. Trump was expecting the Venezuela Army to desert the government and support the opposition leader picked by the USA. The United States signaled its desire by recognizing the opposition minority leader as the legitimate ruler and getting several client states to follow suit. Venezuela responded by breaking diplomatic relations with the United States and ordering its diplomats to leave in 72 hours. The United States refused to withdraw the diplomats by saying it does not recognize the authority of the Venezuela government. Trump, who has a history of advocating military intervention in Venezuela, may now use the claim that the safety of United States diplomats are endangered in Venezuela as an excuse for military intervention to overthrow the government in Venezuela.
Such intervention would surely trigger opposition in the rest of Latin America and the world at large. We are very close to a return to gunboat diplomacy with all the evils that entails to self determination and democracy for the people of Latin America.
The Trump administration has withdrawn recognition of the elected Venezuela government prompting Venezuela to issue an order expelling American diplomats giving 72 hours to leave. Trump refuses to withdraw diplomats thereby setting stage for a military overthrow of the government in Venezuela under the guise of protecting diplomats illegally in Venezuela.
Sabre rattlingly by the USA will inevitably lead to military conflict.
Earlier, the Trump administration said it recognizes opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country’s interim president.
Maduro says U.S. diplomatic personnel have 72 hours to leave the country. The U.S. State Department said it would not comply with that order.
Published 22 January 2019 (20 hours 33 minutes ago)
While the so-called Lima Group and the U.S. refused to recognize Maduro’s new mandate, many progressive governments and international organizations have shown support and solidarity to Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez Tuesday said U.S. Vice President Mike Pence was “openly calling for a coup d’état in Venezuela ” after Pence issued a video message of support to the Venezuelan opposition to encourage those who are protesting against President Nicolas Maduro and underline U.S. backing for opposition lawmaker Juan Guaido, the self-appointed head of the suspended National Assembly.
The Venezuelan VP’s statement followed an earlier message from Venezuelan Information Minister Jorge Rodriguez who said Pence was, “promoting instability and violence in Venezuela.”
“Because Mr. Pence doesn’t have a job, now he wants to come and run Venezuela, handing out instructions on what should happen in Venezuela tomorrow,” Rodriguez said in a press in a short statement following Pence’s interventionist message. “Openly calling for a coup d’état in Venezuela. I will say it like the Venezuelan people would say it to you, ‘Yankee, go home.’ We’re not going to allow you to intrude on issues of the country of Bolivar and the country of Hugo Chavez.”
Venezuela’s opposition on Wednesday plans to hold marches nationwide as part of an annual event that marks the fall of a military government in 1958.
In a taped video message in English with a few Spanish words and phrases mixed in, Pence, who has lashed out at Maduro before, declared him a “dictator” who has no rightful claim to power.
Pence declared U.S. support again for Guaido, with whom he spoke by phone earlier this month, and the suspended National Assembly, which he leads, as the “last vestige of democracy.” Pence said Washington supported Guaido’s decision to assert the body’s powers, declare Maduro a “usurper” and push for a transitional government to be established.
The decision by the suspended National Assembly to appoint Guaido as the head of the body was invalidated by the country’s Supreme Court because the body itself has been in contempt of court since 2016.
On Jan. 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of Justice declared the National Assembly in contempt of court for swearing in three deputies from the self-appointed Unity Roundtable (MUD) elected by the state of Amazonas in December 2015. The three Indigenous legislators should have been temporarily suspended because of voting irregularities in that region, but instead took possession of their seats on July 28.
The contempt of court is maintained to this day because the new board of the assembly refuses to accept the judgments of the top court.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was inaugurated for a second term in office on Jan. 10 and his term would last until 2025. His new term comes amid continuing economic war against the country and its people using harsh economic sanctions led by the United States in an effort to oust Maduro and his progressive government.
While the so-called Lima Group, the United States and other right-wing governments refused to recognize Maduro’s new mandate, many progressive governments and international organizations have shown support and solidarity to Maduro. It is a critical moment for the region and the world amid a rise in right-wing politics and governments such as that of far-right Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Possible link between rotavirus vaccine and decline in type 1 diabetes
January 22, 2019
Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
A drop in the number of young children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes could be associated with the introduction of routine rotavirus vaccination of Australian infants.
A drop in the number of young children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes could be associated with the introduction of routine rotavirus vaccination of Australian infants, according to a new study by Melbourne researchers.
The researchers investigated the number of Australian children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes from 2000 to 2015 and found that type 1 diabetes diagnoses in children aged 0-4 years declined from 2007 — the year that rotavirus vaccine was introduced as a routine infant vaccination.
This is the first time the rate of type 1 diabetes in young children in Australia has fallen since the 1980s. While not conclusively linking the rotavirus vaccine with protection against type 1 diabetes, the discovery builds on earlier research suggesting natural rotavirus infection may be a risk factor for type 1 diabetes.
The study, a collaboration led by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Walter and Eliza Hall Institute clinician scientists, was published in JAMA Pediatrics today.
Decline in type 1 diabetes
Since the 1980s, the incidence of type 1 diabetes has steadily increased in Australia and worldwide, but the reasons for this increase are poorly understood. Type 1 diabetes is a serious, lifelong autoimmune condition, in which the body’s immune system destroys cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, a hormone that controls the level of glucose in the blood.
By investigating the number of Australian children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes each year since 2000, the research team observed that after 2007 the rate of type 1 diabetes decreased in children aged 0-4 years, said study lead Dr Kirsten Perrett from the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.
“The significant decrease in type 1 diabetes that we detected in young children after 2007 was not seen in older children aged 5-14. This suggests the young children could have been exposed to a protective factor that didn’t impact older children,” Dr Perrett said.
“We observed the decline in the rate of type 1 diabetes in children born after 2007 coincided with the introduction of the oral rotavirus vaccine onto the Australian National Immunisation Program in 2007.”
The rotavirus vaccine is routinely given to Australian infants aged 2 and 4 months to protect them against a severe, potentially life-threatening form of diarrhoea.
Exploring the connection
Professor Len Harrison from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, who is the study senior author, said the discovery followed on from earlier research implicating rotavirus infection in the development of type 1 diabetes.
“Twenty years ago our team revealed an association between the appearance of immune markers of type 1 diabetes in children and rotavirus infection. Subsequent studies in laboratory models suggested rotavirus infection of pancreatic cells can trigger an immune attack against the insulin-producing cells — similar to what occurs in type 1 diabetes,” he said.
“While not conclusive, our latest study suggests that preventing rotavirus infection in Australian infants by vaccination may also reduce their risk of type 1 diabetes. We will be continuing this research to look more closely at the correlation, by comparing the health records of young children with or without type 1 diabetes.
“At this stage we don’t yet know whether the reduction in type 1 diabetes is a permanent effect or transient, and it may only be relevant to Australian children,” Professor Harrison said.
The research was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (ECF APP1054394), a Melbourne Children’s Clinician-Scientist Fellowship, a Murdoch Children’s Research Institute grant, the Colin North Diabetes Fund and the Victorian Government.
Materials provided by Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Kirsten P. Perrett, Kim Jachno, Terry M. Nolan, Leonard C. Harrison. Association of Rotavirus Vaccination With the Incidence of Type 1 Diabetes in Children. JAMA Pediatrics, 2019; DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4578
Cite This Page:
Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. “Possible link between rotavirus vaccine and decline in type 1 diabetes.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 22 January 2019. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/22
LONDON — As the upstart voter-profiling company Cambridge Analytica prepared to wade into the 2014 American midterm elections, it had a problem.
The firm had secured a $15 million investment fromRobert Mercer, the wealthy Republican donor, and wooed his political adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, with the promise of tools that could identify the personalities of American voters and influence their behavior. But it did not have the data to make its new products work.
So the firm harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission, according to former Cambridge employees, associates and documents, making it one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history. The breach allowed the company to exploit the private social media activity of a huge swath of the American electorate, developing techniques that underpinned its work on President Trump’s campaign in 2016.
An examination by The New York Times and The Observer of London reveals how Cambridge Analytica’s drive to bring to market a potentially powerful new weapon put the firm — and wealthy conservative investors seeking to reshape politics — under scrutiny from investigators and lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic.
Christopher Wylie, who helped found Cambridge and worked there until late 2014, said of its leaders: “Rules don’t matter for them. For them, this is a war, and it’s all fair.”
“They want to fight a culture war in America,” he added. “Cambridge Analytica was supposed to be the arsenal of weapons to fight that culture war.”
Details of Cambridge’sacquisitionand use of Facebookdatahave surfaced in several accounts since the business began working on the 2016 campaign, setting offa furious debateabout the merits of the firm’s so-called psychographic modeling techniques.
But the full scale of the data leak involving Americans has not been previously disclosed — and Facebook, until now, has not acknowledged it. Interviews with a half-dozen former employees and contractors, and a review of the firm’s emails and documents, have revealed that Cambridge not only relied on the private Facebook data but still possesses most or all of the trove.
Cambridge paid to acquire the personal information through an outside researcher who, Facebook says, claimed to be collecting it for academic purposes.
During a week of inquiries from The Times, Facebook downplayed the scope of the leak and questioned whether any of the data still remained out of its control. But on Friday, the companyposted a statementexpressing alarm and promising to take action.
“This was a scam — and a fraud,” Paul Grewal, a vice president and deputy general counsel at the social network, said in a statement to The Times earlier on Friday. He added that the company was suspending Cambridge Analytica, Mr. Wylie and the researcher, Aleksandr Kogan, a Russian-American academic, from Facebook. “We will take whatever steps are required to see that the data in question is deleted once and for all — and take action against all offending parties,” Mr. Grewal said.
Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, and other officials had repeatedly denied obtaining or using Facebook data, most recently during a parliamentary hearing last month. But in a statement to The Times, the company acknowledged that it had acquired the data, though it blamed Mr. Kogan for violating Facebook’s rules and said it had deleted the information as soon as it learned of the problem two years ago.
In Britain, Cambridge Analytica is facing intertwined investigations by Parliament and government regulators, who are scrutinizing possible data privacy violations and allegations that it performed illegal work on the “Brexit” campaign. In the United States, Mr. Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, a board member, Mr. Bannon and Mr. Nix received warnings from their lawyer that it was illegal to employ foreigners in political campaigns, according to company documents and former employees.
Congressional investigators have questioned Mr. Nix about the company’s role in the Trump campaign. And the Justice Department’s special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, hasdemandedthe emails of Cambridge Analytica employees who worked for the Trump team as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the election.
While the substance of Mr. Mueller’s interest is a closely guarded secret, documents viewed by The Times indicate that the firm’s British affiliate claims to have worked in Russia and Ukraine. And the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange,disclosed in Octoberthat Mr. Nix had reached out to him during the campaign in hopes of obtaining private emails belonging to Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The documents also raise new questions about Facebook, which is already grappling with intense criticism over the spread of Russian propaganda and fake news. The data Cambridge collected from profiles, a portion of which was viewed by The Times, included details on users’ identities, friend networks and “likes.”
“Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do,” Mr. Grewal said. “No systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked.”
Still, he added, “it’s a serious abuse of our rules.”
Reading Voters’ Minds
The Bordeaux flowed freely as Mr. Nix and several colleagues sat down for dinner at the Palace Hotel in Manhattan in late 2013, Mr. Wylie recalled in an interview. They had much to celebrate.
Mr. Nix, a brash salesman, led the small elections division at SCL Group, a political and defense contractor. He had spent much of the year trying to break into the lucrative new world of political data, recruiting Mr. Wylie, then a 24-year-old political operative with ties to veterans of President Obama’s campaigns. Mr. Wylie was interested in using inherent psychological traits to affect voters’ behavior and had assembled a team of psychologists and data scientists, some of them affiliated with Cambridge University.
The group experimented abroad, including in the Caribbean and Africa, where privacy rules were lax or nonexistent and politicians employing SCL were happy to provide government-held data, former employees said.
Then a chance meeting bought Mr. Nix into contact with Mr. Bannon, the Breitbart News firebrand who would later become a Trump campaign and White House adviser, and with Mr. Mercer,one of the richest men on earth.
Mr. Nix and his colleagues courted Mr. Mercer, who believed a sophisticated data company could make him a kingmaker in Republican politics, and his daughter Rebekah, who shared his conservative views. Mr. Bannon was intrigued by the possibility of using personality profiling to shift America’s culture and rewire its politics, recalled Mr. Wylie and other former employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had signed nondisclosure agreements. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Bannon declined to comment.
Mr. Mercer agreed to help finance a $1.5 million pilot project to poll voters and test psychographic messaging in Virginia’s gubernatorial race in November 2013, where the Republican attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, ran against Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic fund-raiser. Though Mr. Cuccinelli lost, Mr. Mercer committed to moving forward.
The Mercers wanted results quickly, and more business beckoned. In early 2014, the investor Toby Neugebauer and other wealthy conservatives were preparing to put tens of millions of dollars behind a presidential campaign for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, work that Mr. Nix was eager to win.
When Mr. Wylie’s colleagues failed to produce a memo explaining their work to Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Nix castigated them over email.
“ITS 2 PAGES!! 4 hours work max (or an hour each). What have you all been doing??” he wrote.
Mr. Wylie’s team had a bigger problem. Building psychographic profiles on a national scale required data the company could not gather without huge expense. Traditional analytics firms used voting records and consumer purchase histories to try to predict political beliefs and voting behavior.
But those kinds of records were useless for figuring out whether a particular voter was, say, a neurotic introvert, a religious extrovert, a fair-minded liberal or a fan of the occult. Those were among the psychological traits the firm claimed would provide a uniquely powerful means of designing political messages.
Mr. Wylie found a solution at Cambridge University’s Psychometrics Centre. Researchers there had developed a technique to map personality traits based on what people had liked on Facebook. The researchers paid users small sums to take a personality quiz and download an app, which would scrape some private information from the their profiles and those of their friends, activity that Facebook permitted at the time. The approach, the scientists said, could reveal more about a person than their parents or romantic partners knew — a claim that has been disputed.
When the Psychometrics Centre declined to work with the firm, Mr. Wylie found someone who would: Dr. Kogan, who was then a psychology professor at the university and knew of the techniques. Dr. Kogan built his own app and in June 2014 began harvesting data for Cambridge Analytica. The business covered the costs — more than $800,000 — and allowed him to keep a copy for his own research, according to company emails and financial records.
All he divulged to Facebook, and to users in fine print, was that he was collecting information for academic purposes, the social network said. It did not verify his claim. Dr. Kogan declined to provide details of what happened, citing nondisclosure agreements with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, though he maintained that his program was “a very standard vanilla Facebook app.”
He ultimately provided over 50 million raw profiles to the firm, Mr. Wylie said, a number confirmed by a company email and a former colleague. Of those, roughly 30 million contained enough information, including places of residence, that the company could match users to other records and build psychographic profiles. Only about 270,000 users — those who participated in the survey — had consented to having their data harvested.
Mr. Wylie said the Facebook data was “the saving grace” that let his team deliver the models it had promised the Mercers.
“We wanted as much as we could get,” he acknowledged. “Where it came from, who said we could have it — we weren’t really asking.”
Mr. Nix tells a different story. Appearing before a parliamentary committee last month, he described Dr. Kogan’s contributions as “fruitless.”
An International Effort
Just as Dr. Kogan’s efforts were getting underway, Mr. Mercer agreed to invest $15 million in a joint venture with SCL’s elections division. The partners devised a convoluted corporate structure, forming a new American company, owned almost entirely by Mr. Mercer, with a license to the psychographics platform developed by Mr. Wylie’s team, according to company documents. Mr. Bannon, who became a board member and investor, chose the name: Cambridge Analytica.
The firm was effectively a shell. According to the documents and former employees, any contracts won by Cambridge, originally incorporated in Delaware, would be serviced by London-based SCL and overseen by Mr. Nix, a British citizen who held dual appointments at Cambridge Analytica and SCL. Most SCL employees and contractors were Canadian, like Mr. Wylie, or European.
But in July 2014, an American election lawyer advising the company, Laurence Levy, warned that the arrangement could violate laws limiting the involvement of foreign nationals in American elections.
In a memo to Mr. Bannon, Ms. Mercer and Mr. Nix, the lawyer, then at the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, warned that Mr. Nix would have to recuse himself “from substantive management” of any clients involved in United States elections. The data firm would also have to find American citizens or green card holders, Mr. Levy wrote, “to manage the work and decision making functions, relative to campaign messaging and expenditures.”
In summer and fall 2014, Cambridge Analytica dived into the American midterm elections, mobilizing SCL contractors and employees around the country. Few Americans were involved in the work, which included polling, focus groups and message development for the John Bolton Super PAC, conservative groups in Colorado and the campaign of Senator Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican.
Cambridge Analytica, in its statement to The Times, said that all “personnel in strategic roles were U.S. nationals or green card holders.” Mr. Nix “never had any strategic or operational role” in an American election campaign, the company said.
Whether the company’s American ventures violated election laws would depend on foreign employees’ roles in each campaign, and on whether their work counted as strategic advice under Federal Election Commission rules.
Cambridge Analytica appears to have exhibited a similar pattern in the 2016 election cycle, when the company worked for the campaigns of Mr. Cruz and then Mr. Trump. While Cambridge hired more Americans to work on the races that year, most of its data scientists were citizens of the United Kingdom or other European countries, according to two former employees.
Under the guidance of Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s digital director in 2016 and now the campaign manager for his 2020 re-election effort, Cambridge performed a variety of services, former campaign officials said. That included designing target audiences for digital ads and fund-raising appeals, modeling voter turnout, buying $5 million in television ads and determining where Mr. Trump should travel to best drum up support.
Cambridge executives have offered conflicting accounts about the use of psychographic data on the campaign. Mr. Nix has said that the firm’s profiles helped shape Mr. Trump’s strategy — statements disputed by other campaign officials — but also that Cambridge did not have enough time to comprehensively model Trump voters.
In a BBC interview last December, Mr. Nix said that the Trump efforts drew on “legacy psychographics” built for the Cruz campaign.
After the Leak
By early 2015, Mr. Wylie and more than half his original team of about a dozen people had left the company. Most were liberal-leaning, and had grown disenchanted with working on behalf of the hard-right candidates the Mercer family favored.
Cambridge Analytica, in its statement, said that Mr. Wylie had left to start a rival firm, and that it later took legal action against him to enforce intellectual property claims. It characterized Mr. Wylie and other former “contractors” as engaging in “what is clearly a malicious attempt to hurt the company.”
Near the end of that year, a report in The Guardianrevealedthat Cambridge Analytica was using private Facebook data on the Cruz campaign, sending Facebook scrambling. In a statement at the time, Facebook promised that it was “carefully investigating this situation” and would require any company misusing its data to destroy it.
Facebook verified the leak and — without publicly acknowledging it — sought to secure the information, efforts that continued as recently as August 2016. That month, lawyers for the social network reached out to Cambridge Analytica contractors. “This data was obtained and used without permission,” said a letter that was obtained by the Times. “It cannot be used legitimately in the future and must be deleted immediately.”
Mr. Grewal, the Facebook deputy general counsel, said in a statement that both Dr. Kogan and “SCL Group and Cambridge Analytica certified to us that they destroyed the data in question.”
But copies of the data still remain beyond Facebook’s control. The Times viewed a set of raw data from the profiles Cambridge Analytica obtained.
While Mr. Nix has told lawmakers that the company does not have Facebook data, a former employee said that he had recently seen hundreds of gigabytes on Cambridge servers, and that the files were not encrypted.
Today, as Cambridge Analytica seeks to expand its business in the United States and overseas, Mr. Nix has mentioned some questionable practices. This January, in undercover footage filmed by Channel 4 News in Britain and viewed by The Times, he boasted of employing front companies and former spies on behalf of political clients around the world, and even suggested ways to entrap politicians in compromising situations.
All the scrutiny appears to have damaged Cambridge Analytica’s political business. No American campaigns or “super PACs” have yet reported paying the company for work in the 2018 midterms, and it is unclear whether Cambridge will be asked to join Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.
In the meantime, Mr. Nix is seeking to take psychographics to the commercial advertising market. He has repositioned himself as a guru for the digital ad age — a “Math Man,” heputs it. In the United States last year, a former employee said, Cambridge pitched Mercedes-Benz, MetLife and the brewer AB InBev, but has not signed them on.
Matthew Rosenberg, Nicholas Confessore and Carole Cadwalladr reported from London. Gabriel J.X. Dance contributed reporting from London, and Danny Hakim from New York.