Authored by Sina McCullough via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

As spring gardening approaches, a new contender has entered the fray—the genetically modified (GM) Purple Tomato. Unlike its GM predecessors, the GM Purple Tomato is not destined solely for the fields of commercial agriculture—it has made its debut in the backyards of home gardeners across the United States.

With claims of heightened antioxidant levels and potential health benefits, this novel creation has stirred both excitement and controversy among consumers and scientists alike. Biotech investors hope it can usher in a new era of public trust in genetically engineered foods while skeptics worry the tomatoes’ near-total lack of regulation or review may hide dangers to human health and/or the environment.

Development 

The GM Purple Tomato was engineered by scientists at Norfolk Plant Sciences in the UK. Led by biochemist Cathie Martin and her team, the project aimed to harness the natural properties of anthocyanins, compounds found in blueberries and blackberries, to enhance the nutritional profile of tomatoes.

In this 2008 handout photo illustration, genetically modified Purple Tomatoes are seen beside red tomatoes. (John Innes Centre UK via Getty Images)

Using genetic engineering techniques, Martin and her colleagues inserted two genes responsible for purple coloration in edible snapdragon flowers into tomato plants. This process enabled the tomatoes to express the genes from the snapdragon and, subsequently, produce high levels of anthocyanins, thereby imbuing the tomatoes with a distinct purple hue and potentially enhanced health benefits.

According to Norfolk Healthy Produce, the U.S. subsidiary of Norfolk Plant Sciences, the Purple Tomatoes are a “rich source of antioxidants” due to the increased content of anthocyanins. Unlike domesticated tomatoes which contain anthocyanins in the skin, the Purple Tomato contains anthocyanins throughout the whole tomato.

The genesis of the GM Purple Tomato marks a significant milestone in agricultural biotechnology. Unlike previous GM crops primarily targeted at commercial producers, this tomato is the first GM food crop directly marketed to home gardeners in the United States, offering an opportunity for individuals to engage with biotechnology in their own backyard.

According to Norfolk Healthy Produce, more than 13,000 Purple Tomato seed orders have already shipped.

Regulatory Approval 

The GM Purple Tomato was deregulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2022. According to a statement from the USDA, the GM Purple Tomato is not subject to regulation by the USDA because it does not pose a plant pest risk:

“With respect to Norfolk Plant Sciences’ purple tomato, we did not identify any plausible pathways to increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated tomatoes and issued a response letter indicating the plant is not subject to regulation.”

In 2023, the Purple Tomato received a “no questions” letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which means the Purple Tomato is considered “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) and, therefore, does not require premarket review or approval by the FDA.

To qualify for GRAS status, Norfolk Plant Sciences submitted data from tests conducted internally.

Norfolk Plant Sciences created the Purple Tomato by splicing genes from a purple snapdragon into a tomato. (Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock, Getty Images)

The lack of safety testing by the USDA and FDA, as well as reliance on data generated by the company that will profit from approval of its own product, has led to some experts calling for a more comprehensive safety assessment.

Safety Concerns and Health Claims 

Data provided to the FDA by Norfolk Plant Sciences demonstrates the company conducted various safety tests. However, critics argue the tests are insufficient to guarantee the safety of the Purple Tomato for human consumption.

According to an FDA memo dated June 13, 2023, tests conducted by Norfolk Plant Sciences mainly focused on six areas.  Of those, four were relatively straightforward while two have raised safety concerns among experts, according to GM Watch.

1. PCR and Southern blot analysis were conducted by Norfolk Plant Sciences to determine if the snapdragon foreign DNA was inserted into the tomato DNA.

The company (Norfolk Plant Sciences) stated that insertion of the foreign DNA was confirmed.

2. PCR and sequence comparison of DNA samples were conducted to confirm the stability of the inheritability of the insertion across generations. Plants were bred to determine if the purple phenotype was inherited in a Mendelian segregation fashion.

The company stated the purple phenotype was inheritable.

3. Compositional analysis was conducted to determine if the Purple Tomato contained similar nutrients at similar levels compared with non-GMO tomatoes, including protein, fat, carbohydrate, fiber, minerals, carotenoids, vitamins, and alpha-tomatine.

The company determined the levels of most of the nutritional components to be similar or with “minor differences.”
(The Epoch Times)

4. Norfolk Plant Sciences assessed dietary exposure levels assuming the complete replacement of red tomatoes in the human diet with the Purple Tomato for two days.

The company concluded the level of dietary exposure to anthocyanins is the same as consuming high-anthocyanin foods.  For example, 8 ounces of Purple Tomato juice is equivalent to consuming 1 cup of blueberries.

The Controversial Tests

1. Bioinformatic analyses were utilized to determine if any open reading frames were generated or disrupted by inserting the foreign DNA. Norfolk Plant Sciences searched the DNA sequences flanking the insertion sequence in the tomatoes.

The company reported no open reading frames flanking the insertion location.

Since Norfolk Plant Sciences did not assess possible damage to the entire genome using advanced laboratory techniques, geneticist Michael Antoniou expressed concern in a statement published by GM Watch.

“There’s no evidence that the developers of the GM purple tomato have carried out the kind of molecular analyses (proteomics and metabolomics) that could help establish whether they only got the change they want, with no unintended changes. As a result, we don’t know if these tomatoes are safe to eat,” said Mr. Antoniou.

“We must also bear in mind that the GM transformation process (plant tissue culture and plant cells transformation) will inevitably give rise to hundreds if not thousands of sites of unintended DNA damage (mutations). These wide scale mutations can change patterns of gene function and alter biochemistry and composition, with unknown downstream health consequences,” he said.

2. Assessment of new peptides of equal or greater than 30 amino acids at the insertion site of the foreign DNA was conducted to rule out toxicity or allergenicity concerns.

The company identified one “putative” peptide, however, they stated, “this peptide has no homology to any known allergen or protein and there was no evidence this sequence is transcribed in tomato.” They concluded the results “do not raise food safety concerns.”

Allergenicity is an ongoing concern regarding the genetic modification of food. For example, a study published in Nature in 1999 reported that bean plants were genetically modified to produce higher levels of methionine and cysteine but were discarded because the expressed protein of the transgene was highly allergenic.

While Norfolk Plant Sciences did not identify a match with any known allergens, that does not guarantee the peptide formed through the process of gene modification is not an allergen. Given that nearly 11 percent of adults and 5.6 million children in the United States have food allergies, it may be prudent to apply the precautionary principle when modifying our food’s genetic makeup.

The Test That Everyone Talked About

Although not included in the 2023 FDA memo, Norfolk Plant Sciences, in conjunction with Cathie Martin, published a pilot feeding study in 2008 in Nature Biotechnology that examined the effects of Purple Tomato supplementation on the life span of cancer-susceptible mice.

According to the study, mice fed the GM tomato lived longer—by an average of 40 days than those fed non-GM red tomatoes.

Publication of the pilot study prompted the John Innes Centre to publish a press release titled, “Purple tomatoes may keep cancer at bay.” (Norfolk Plant Sciences is a spinoff company from the John Innes Centre.)

Read more here…

Isn’t it remarkable that while the military-industrial complex, neoconservative warmongers, and radical leftists in the White House seem to push for further conflict in Eastern Europe without even a hint of suggesting peace negotiations with Russia, some of America’s most advanced military jets are unfit for combat?

The latest example comes from Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport on Monday morning when a Lockheed Martin F-22 stealth fighter jet assigned to the 71st Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Wing at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, suffered what the US military is calling a “mishap.” 

It was not immediately clear what happened, as the military would not elaborate on the “mishap” involving an in-flight emergency. However, one X user posted audio, allegedly from air traffic controllers at Savannah, that reveals the stealth fighter had a “brake failure.” 

“BURNER34 (F-22) advising SAVANAH TOWER that they have a brake failure and requests another aircraft for a visual inspection which DEMON73 (F-16) performed. BURNER34 came in and successfully hooked the runways arresting gear wire,” X user Thenewarea51 wrote in a post. 

BURNER34 (F-22) advising SAVANAH TOWER that they have a brake failure and requests another aircraft for a visual inspection which DEMON73 (F-16) performed. BURNER34 came in and successfully hooked the runways arresting gear wire.

Audio via @liveatc and thanks to Bill B. for… https://t.co/6Fu2Eo556a pic.twitter.com/ZkozSN8Pl0

— Thenewarea51 (@thenewarea51) May 7, 2024

The F-22 was conducting training exercises at Sentry Savannah, the Air National Guard’s largest fourth and fifth-generation counter-air, large-force exercise, held annually at the Air Dominance Center, Savannah Air National Guard Base, Georgia. 

Don’t even get us started with the latest figures from the Government Accountability Office, which show that only 15% to 30% of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters are ‘capable of combat.’ 

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

It is no secret that Donald Trump is a hot wire that either fires up the imagination of voters or fries the brain.

For those of us who experience Trump as a Promethean bringer of enlightening fire to the dark barren fields of modern politics, it is hard to fathom the reaction of those who are terrified of him. We just say they have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But for those Trump haters, of course, it is the rest of us who are deranged. We are cult members or Christian nationalists or foot soldiers of the new Hitler.

You cannot imagine more diametrically opposed views of one man. On one hand, he is the embodiment of hope for those who want to restore America to the pinnacle of greatness. On the other, he is the manifestation of the worst fears of those who believe the country’s ascendant leftist ideology could still be thwarted at the ballot box.

Call Trump the random ink blot of a national Rorschach test that forces each of us to identify with the better angels or the worst devils of our nature. Or think of him as the equivalent of the optical illusion that forces the mind to choose whether it sees an old hag or a beautiful young woman. You can’t see both at once. Although both exist simultaneously in a drawing, you can only focus on one at a time.

As regards Trump, the media – serving as the surrogate eye of the public – can only see the equivalent of the old hag, and reports truthfully to the audience that it envisions Trump as a dark and dangerous presence who is a threat to democracy. But when the rest of us look at the same picture – or the same interview or speech – we can see Trump as the shining spirit of American greatness.

Case in point: The now infamous interview of Trump by Eric Cortellessa that recently appeared in Time magazine. The corporate media and Trump’s political opponents have seized on this interview to declare conclusively that Trump is a clear and present danger to the nation if he were elected to a second term. The headlines are downright hysterical:

“Trump doesn’t rule out political violence if he loses, and other takeaways from his Time interview” (CNN)
“Trump threatens to prosecute Bidens if he’s re-elected unless he gets immunity” (The Guardian)
“Trump reveals terrifying plan for potential second term in Time magazine interview” (MSNBC)
“Trump Hints Another January 6 Could Happen If He Loses the Election” (The New Republic)
“Trump says it’s up to states whether to punish, monitor women for abortions” (Washington Post)

If those headlines were accurate, you could certainly make the case that all Americans should vote against Donald Trump, no matter how much they despise Joe Biden. And, truth be told, if you were to read just the interpretation of Trump’s words by Cortellessa in his Time magazine news story, you would be inclined to agree with that assessment. But what if Cortellessa is looking at Trump through a prism that automatically distorts his words to fit a confirmation bias that anything Trump says must be dangerous?

Fortunately, we don’t have to guess whether that happened. Time magazine very generously provided the evidence of the distortion by publishing not just Cortellessa’s very damaging news story, but also the raw transcript of his two interviews with Trump where we can see what the former president actually said.

Side by side, the story and the transcripts are raw material for a master class on media manipulation and how a reporter with a point of view can manufacture damaging fake news out of even the most benign responses of an overly trusting interviewee.

What is clear from the transcripts is that Cortellessa is an expert interviewer, someone who can make his subject comfortable and who stubbornly pursues answers to his questions until he gets the response he wants. But when you read the story he created out of the interview responses, you realize that Cortellessa’s real talent is magic: He can pull a dangerous autocrat out of Trump’s benign responses that show he intends to apply the power of the presidency in a thoughtful and well-reasoned manner to achieve the policy objectives he has outlined in his campaign.

A few examples will have to suffice in this format, but surely a conscientious journalism student could form an entire thesis around such a comparison. Early in his story, Cortellessa goes through a long laundry list of offenses that he categorizes as “the outlines of an imperial presidency.” The first thing you notice when reading the list is that it is in large measure the exact same list of policy goals that Trump recites proudly at every rally. It is therefore not only “the terrifying plan” that has MSNBC worried about a second term; it is also the platform that has convinced voters to favor Trump over Biden by 1.5 points in the RealClearPolitics Average of polls. In fact, despite Trump’s legal woes, as of last week he was ahead of or tied with Biden in nine of the last 10 polls.

The second and more important thing you notice about Cortellessa’s laundry list of Trump’s offending statements is that they are the least sympathetic interpretation by the author of well-reasoned positions taken by the former president in lengthy responses.

Consider Cortellessa’s dismissal of Trump’s rejection of FBI crime statistics:

“On the campaign trail, Trump uses crime as a cudgel, painting urban America as a savage hell-scape even though violent crime has declined in recent years, with homicides sinking 6% in 2022 and 13% in 2023, according to the FBI. When I point this out, Trump tells me he thinks the data, which is collected by state and local police departments, is rigged. ‘It’s a lie,’ he says.”

Well, Trump is right and Cortellessa is wrong. In an Oct. 27, 2023, report at Stateline.org, Amanda Hernández reported that “Across the country, law enforcement agencies’ inability — or refusal — to send their annual crime data to the FBI has resulted in a distorted picture of the United States’ crime trends, according to a new Stateline analysis of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program participation data. … Prior to 2021, 23% of U.S. law enforcement agencies on average did not report any crime data to the FBI. In 2020, 24% of agencies did not report, and in 2021, it surged to 40%.”

Call it a lie, or call it a damned statistic, but Trump is closer to the truth than the author.

On another topic – abortion – Cortellessa tells his readers that Trump is contemplating invasive monitoring of pregnancies.

“More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans,” Cortellessa declares, “and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies.”

Not quite. When you read the transcript, you discover that it was the reporter who brought up the concept of states “monitoring women’s pregnancies so they can know if they’ve gotten an abortion after the ban.” It is a nonsensical concept because there is nothing preventing a woman from traveling to a state where abortion is legal and receiving the procedure there.

But Trump never took the bait. When asked if he thought states should do it, he answered that they might do it, but he made it very clear that those decisions would be made at the state level and he would have no input on them. This is consistent with his policy on post-Roe legislation.

Cortellessa does give credit to Trump for saying that he would not consider challenging the 22nd Amendment’s limitation of two terms for each president. But he did everything he could in the interview to twist Trump into saying he would like to serve a third term. Although Trump said repeatedly that he would abide by the amendment’s restrictions, the reporter asked him three times if he would consider challenging the amendment.

“I don’t know anything about it,” an exasperated Trump says. “I mean, you’re telling me now that somebody’s looking to terminate. I wouldn’t be in favor of it. I wouldn’t be in favor of a challenge. Not for me. I wouldn’t be in favor of it at all. I intend to serve four years and do a great job.”

As for the threat of violence if Trump should lose the 2024 election, it is a gossamer-thin threat that exists mostly in the author’s subconscious.

“Trump does not dismiss  the possibility of political violence around the election,” says Cortellessa. ‘If we don’t win, you know, it depends,’ he tells TIME. ‘It always depends on the fairness of the election.’”

But Cortellessa once again had to stretch Trump’s words to make it seem like he was contemplating violence if he lost the election. Here is the relevant passage from the first transcript.

Are you worried about political violence in connection with this November’s election?

Trump: No. I don’t think you’ll have political violence.

You don’t expect anything?

Trump: I think we’re gonna have a big victory. And I think there will be no violence.

That is as clear as you can get, but it didn’t fit the narrative that Cortellessa was intent on providing to his readers, so he returned to the topic in a follow-up interview:

[I]n our last conversation you said you weren’t worried about political violence in connection with the November election. You said, “I think we’re going to win and there won’t be violence.” What if you don’t win, sir?

Trump once again insisted that he would win, and suggested that because of heightened scrutiny he didn’t think the Democrats would be able to get away with any illegitimate schemes to steal the election in 2024. He then gave the quote that Cortellessa seized upon: “I think we’re going to win. And if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”

Absolutely no reference to political violence, or any other kind of violence. Rather, Trump seems to be distinguishing between the possibility of a legitimate loss and being the victim of cheating. His reaction to losing would depend on whether the election was fair or not, but there is no evidence he is promoting violence. That is just a Democratic fantasy.

Ultimately, I recommend that everyone read the transcript of the interview and avoid Cortellessa’s interpretive fantasy. What you will discover is a former president who is fully in charge of his faculties, capable of arguing with nuance and gusto, and who has a vision for making America great again – the absolute opposite of the incumbent.

Indeed, if every voter were to read the transcript prior to voting, I have no doubt that Trump would win in a landslide. And there is evidence that Trump knew he had delivered a knockout with his wide-ranging responses. Toward the end of his first interview with Cortellessa, he tells the reporter, “I thought it was a good interview, actually,” and then he qualifies it based on his years of experience of having his words twisted by unscrupulous reporters:

“I mean, if it’s written fairly, it’s a good interview.”

More evidence that Trump is at the top of his game.

One day after postponing a filing deadline in Donald Trump’s classified documents case, Judge Aileen M. Cannon has postponed the whole thing indefinitely.

In a Tuesday decision, Cannon vacated (canceled) Trump’s May 20 trial date, and wrote that setting a new date given the enormous stack of pre-trial matters would be “imprudent.”

NEW: Judge Cannon officially vacates May 20 trial date, says setting a new date with so many outstanding matters would be “imprudent.” pic.twitter.com/A8QwNmuQ6o

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) May 7, 2024

On Monday, Cannon postponed a filing deadline for Trump’s team to provide a list of classified documents they want to present at trial – which was supposed to be filed by this Thursday. Cannon did not announce a new deadline, perhaps the first clue into today’s decision.

The move also comes after special counsel Jack Smith’s team admitted that the classified files at the heart of the case had been tampered with, and they needed more time to assess that revelation.

Smith also misled the court, after originally telling U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the boxes remained “in their original, intact form as seized,” when in a footnote they conceded that they removed classified documents and left placeholder sheets, which prosecutors acknowledged has created an “inconsistent” record – in which some of the documents are no longer in the same order as they appear in digital scans made in the fall of 2022.

“The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court,” the footnote reads, according to Just the News.

The finding comes after Cannon ordered a review into whether the FBI may have seized legally privileged records in response to a request from Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta.

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

Over the past several decades, America’s culture has been transformed at a pace that is absolutely breathtaking.  When I was growing up, I was convinced that I believed in a shared set of national values that most other Americans also embraced.  But in our day and age those values have been discarded and now people that see the world the way that I do are clearly not in the majority any longer.  I know that a lot of people out there may not want to hear that our national values have been turned upside down, but it is the truth.  Those that sought to “fundamentally transform” this country have succeeded, and at this point “American values” are vastly different from the “American values” that I cherished as a young boy. 

The following are 7 numbers that clearly reveal the direction that America has chosen…

#1 There is more political chaos in our nation than there has ever been in my entire lifetime, and more than 40 percent of U.S. voters actually believe that a “second civil war” is likely within the next five years…

More than four-in-ten US voters say the country is likely to get ripped apart in a second civil war within five years, a shocking new survey reveals.

The Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 41 percent eye a civil conflict, compared to 49 percent who say it’s not likely. Another 10 percent said they were not sure.

That amounts to 106 million US adults saying civil war is on the horizon.

The survey comes against a backdrop of mounting violence on US college campuses, where pro-Palestine protestors clash with law enforcers, conservatives, some Jewish students and others.

#2 According to a recent Gallup survey, only 36 percent of Americans approve of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza…

After narrowly backing Israel’s military action in Gaza in November, Americans now oppose the campaign by a solid margin. Fifty-five percent currently disapprove of Israel’s actions, while 36% approve.

The latest results are from a March 1-20 survey. The Israel-Hamas war has continued for five months and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis. Major parts of Gaza have been destroyed, complicating efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians still living there. The United Nations and international community, including the Biden administration, have called for a cease-fire, but the two warring sides have been unable to agree.

#3 65 percent of Americans do not approve of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade…

About two-thirds (65%) oppose the 2022 Supreme Court decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and 34% approve, numbers that have remained effectively unchanged in CNN’s polling across the nearly two years since the ruling. Those who strongly disapprove of the decision continue to outnumber those who strongly approve by a more than 2-to-1 margin.

A 69% majority who disapprove of overturning Roe, including 82% of those who strongly disapprove, say that federal politicians should work to pass laws ensuring national abortion access. Those who support the ruling largely say federal politicians shouldn’t take action on the issue: 59% say laws on abortion should be left up to the states, with 29% in favor of further restrictions to abortion access nationwide. New national restrictions are supported by just about one-quarter of Republicans, White Evangelical Christians and those who describe themselves as conservative.

#4 More than 20 percent of Generation Z adults (22.3 percent to be specific) now identify as LGBTQ+…

Overall, each younger generation is about twice as likely as the generation that preceded it to identify as LGBTQ+. More than one in five Gen Z adults, ranging in age from 18 to 26 in 2023, identify as LGBTQ+, as do nearly one in 10 millennials (aged 27 to 42). The percentage drops to less than 5% of Generation X, 2% of baby boomers and 1% of the Silent Generation.

Bisexuality is the most common LGBTQ+ status among Generation Z, millennials and Generation X. Fifteen percent of all Generation Z adults — representing more than two-thirds of those with an LGBTQ+ identification — are bisexual.

#5 According to the Daily Mail, the number of transgender troops in the U.S. Army has doubled since 2020…

The Pentagon has spent more than $26million treating transgender troops since 2020, official records show.

The number of US army staff with gender dysphoria has doubled in that time — from around 1,800 to 3,700, according to DoD data seen by DailyMail.com.

In the past three years, $17.5m in taxpayer money was spent on psychotherapy for trans service people and $1.5m went towards hormone drugs.

A further $7.6m funded gender-affirming surgeries, including facial tweaks to make a recruit more masculine or feminine, and the removal or creation of breasts and genitals.

#6 By a vote of 692 to 51, the United Methodist Church has voted to approve LGBTQ clergy and same sex weddings in their churches…

The United Methodist Church, one of the largest Protestant denominations in the U.S., has voted to repeal its ban on LGBTQ clergy as well as prohibitions on its ministers from officiating at same-sex weddings.

Delegates overwhelmingly approved the changes, 692 to 51, during the United Methodist Church’s General Conference.

The meeting is taking place this week in Charlotte, N.C. after the pandemic delayed the 2020 General Conference where these decisions had been slated to take place.

#7 Only 3.6 million babies were born in the U.S. last year, and the birth rate is now at the lowest level ever recorded…

The birth rate in the US has declined to a new low, according to data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The figures show that fewer than 3.6 million babies were born in the US last year, the lowest amount since 1979 and equating to the lowest fertility rate EVER recorded.

The CDC analysed the 2023 data and found that the birth rate is down 2 percent on the previous year.

If you go back to 1960, the average U.S. woman gave birth to 3.65 children during her lifetime.

Today, that number has fallen all the way down to 1.6.

But we need a birth rate of at least 2.1 just to keep replacing ourselves.

If we didn’t have so much immigration going on, our population would be steadily falling.

In my latest book entitled “Chaos”, I have an entire chapter about the population collapse that is happening in wealthy nations all over the industrialized world.

It is often said that children are the future of our society, but we have greatly devalued marriage and parenthood.

Meanwhile, birth rates are still very high in many nations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Given enough time, those that are willing to multiply would become increasingly powerful and those that are not willing to multiply would become less powerful.

But the fact that we aren’t reproducing ourselves is just one of the existential problems that we are facing.

At this point we live in an upside down society that has rejected the values that this nation was founded upon.

If we stay on this path, there isn’t going to be a future for America, and that is the truth.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

Oil prices ended the day flat today (after touching the lowest level in almost two months on news reports said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak indicated OPEC+ could move to raise crude production).

Novak told Russia’s Interfax news agency that the possibility of increasing oil production within the OPEC+ framework was still being analyzed.

“It always depends on the current situation; the balance of supply and demand. Everything is analyzed. Now there is no need to forecast anything. We need to look at how the market is feeling,” he said, according to Interfax.

OPEC+ has largely been expected to roll over existing voluntary cuts of 2.2 million barrels a day beyond the second quarter.

But crude recovered, finding technical support ahead of tonight’s API inventory data.

API

Crude +509k (-1.40mm exp)

Cushing +1.339mm

Gasoline +1.46mm

Distillates +1.713mm

Inventories rose across the whole complex according to API…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI tested its 100DMA for the third day in a row, and rejected it (for the third day in a row)…

And dipped after the inventory builds…

Overall, “oil is lower because a renewed battle between Israel and Hamas, in isolation, does not really affect oil-producing nations,” Stewart Glickman, energy equity analyst at CFRA Research, told MarketWatch.

If Iran is “subsequently encouraged to do more direct attacks on Israel, it may be different,” he said, but the market is “discounting this possibility.”

Finally, President Biden will use crude oil from the strategic petroleum reserve should the need arise, energy adviser Amos Hochstein has said, noting there was enough oil in the reserve.

“We have been replenishing into the SPR for the last several months. I think we have sufficient supply in the SPR to address any kind of concern in the economy if we need it,” Hochstein said, speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference, as quoted by Reuters.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Mere mortals are left in a hopeless situation. In response, they’re withdrawing from the competition en masse.

The world has changed over the past two generations in ways that don’t fit the heavily promoted narratives of “growth” and “progress.” The “growth” and “progress” narratives hold that everything is getting better in every way and every day–next stop, Mars!–but if we consider everyday life, a much different picture emerges.

1. Globalization shifted high-pay work overseas to the benefit of capital, who reaped the profits from global wage arbitrage and to the detriment of workers in developed-nation economies.

The conventional-economic apologists glorified this as a net positive: everyone who lost their jobs to globalization would move up the food chain and get jobs as currency traders, highly paid tech workers, etc.

2. In reality, most were left with lower pay, precarious jobs as developed economies were producing ever larger cohorts of elites–college graduates and increasingly, those with advanced degrees–competing for those highly paid jobs.

Laid-off production-service workers could not compete with the growing army of credentialed elites for the remaining secure, highly paid jobs.

3. At the same time, the lower levels of the university-educated elites could no longer compete due to the overproduction of elites described by historian-author Peter Turchin as a key destabilizing dynamic in eras of social disorder. Two generations ago, a PhD was scarce enough to guarantee a secure job in academia, government or industry. Today, even a PhD from an elite university is little more than a ticket to enter the next round of cut-throat competition for the few tenure-track positions available.

4. This competition for the remaining secure, highly paid jobs was intensified by another change: the mass entry of women into the labor force in the 1970s led to the rise of households in which both spouses had well-compensated jobs in the upper reaches of the economy. These households had far more resources to pour into the advancement of their children, and a heightened awareness of the winner-take-all nature of elite competition.

5. As this chart from a Financial Times article depicts, the net result is the Millennial generation is highly unequal in wealth and prospects. Two generations ago, about 20% of the workforce had a college diploma; that percentage has roughly doubled, even as the number of jobs that actually require a university education to do the job has declined. Those with the support of two professional parents entered the competition as early as kindergarten and continued apace into their mid-20s, leaving their less-prepared competitors in the dust.

Meanwhile, labor’s share of the economy’s income has been declining for 50 years, leaving less income, fewer benefits and less security to divide among the workforce.

6. Concurrent with hyper-globalization, the hyper-financialization of the economy generated competition for productive assets and real-world assets such as housing. Workers in the low-pay, insecure reaches of the economy cannot compete with the wealthy elites (the top 10% own 90% of financial assets) for housing or other assets, while this credit-driven bubble has pushed prices higher, further reducing the purchasing power of wages.

Where one secure income was once enough to support a middle class household that owned the family home and sent the children to college, it now takes two secure incomes to support even the lowest rung of middle class expectations.

7. At the same time, society lost respect for essential work in favor of digital visibility. Validation, respect and being recognized for one’s work are no longer available for those doing the work that keeps civilization functioning; recognition and admiration–and envy–are reserved for those with high visibility on social media or mass media.

8. This competition for visibility is not only cut-throat, it is artificial. Reserving recognition and respect for the few with high visibility in the world of screens has generated a great many perverse outcomes. Since mere mortals cannot possibly compete, every competitor must present an artificial self that is a pastiche of what’s considered essential to gain media visibility: not just being attractive, but super-attractive, not just wealthy but super-wealthy, not just talented but super-talented, and so on.

Mere mortals are left in a hopeless situation. In response, they’re withdrawing from the competition en masse. This abandonment of the competition is largely beneath the surface, as the apologists’ happy-story narrative collapses once we recognize the hopelessness and the solution–withdrawal from the economy and society.

I’ll have more to say on this in my next post.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Another quiet macro day (although an ugly picture was painted late on by the unexpectedly weak revolving credit increase – potentially signaling a US consumer who really has hit their limit).

Some FedSpeak wiped a little lipstick off the early pig’s squeeze higher as Kashkari seemed to offer both sides some hope (but it spoiled the fun with the ‘we could hike’ line):

“It’s a little too soon to declare that we’re definitely stalled out [on disininflation],” Kashkari says on Bloomberg Television.

“The most likely scenario is we sit here for an extended period of time,” he added later at the Milken Institute Global Conference.

“If inflation starts to tick back down or we saw some marked weakening in the labor market then that might cause us to cut back on interest rates.”

“Or if we get convinced eventually that inflation is embedded or entrenched now at 3% and that we need to go higher [in rates], we would do that if we needed to,” he added.

Stocks reversed their gains (leaving only squeezable Small Caps higher). Selling pressure in the last few minutes really took the shine off…

Goldman’s trading desk highlighted the fact that their buyback desk was running at 1.4x ytd daily avg notional executed (Equating to $5.5b of US equities purchased street wide on daily basis). They also added that ETF and Swaps desks are much more active than cash and dominated by HF activity (short hedges getting scaled back).

The post-Powell resurgence of Mag7 stocks stalled today…

Source: Bloomberg

…and ‘most shorted’ stocks flatlined as algos could not ignite any momentum…

Source: Bloomberg

Treasury bonds also reversed on Kashkari’s comments (yields reversing higher to almost erase earlier declines)…

Source: Bloomberg

While stocks and bonds reversed on that, rate-cut expectations were stoic…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar rallied for the first time in 5 days (but only modestly)…

Source: Bloomberg

…and the dollar’s gains were gold’s losses…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin was quiet… too quiet.. today, hovering just above $63,000…

Source: Bloomberg

…after a second day in a row of net inflows…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices were flat on the day, recovering from losses during the EU session…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, with copper top of mind for many, we brushed off a oldie-but-a-goodie chart – comparing copper/gold to 10Y yields…

Source: Bloomberg

Either copper is very cheap (relative to gold) or 10Y yields are too high (i.e. growth/flation under-priced in copper and/or over-priced in bonds).

Stock in Pfizer dropped on Tuesday after a young boy receiving experimental gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy died during the trial.

According to STAT News, Pfizer has yet to determine exactly what happened or how the boy died Pfizer has confirmed that the boy suffered cardiac arrest, and is pausing crossing over patients in its randomized phase 3 trial of the treatment in older boys, according to the report. The company will, for now, stop dosing patients who initially received a placebo with the gene therapy after a year.

Pfizer is expected to announce data from the study in the upcoming weeks.

Of note, in 1999 Jesse Gelsinger was the first person publicly identified as having died during a clinical trial for gene therapy – which caused the FDA to shutter human genetic research at Penn’s Institute for Gene Therapy.

Shares in the pharmaceutical giant took an immediate hit on the news.

Developing…

After several months of wild swings in US consumer debt, culminating with last month’s jump in credit card debt to a new all time high despite record high credit card rates, in March households finally hit a brick wall because according to the latest consumer credit data published by the Federal Reserve moments ago, in the last month of Q1, total consumer debt rose by a paltry $6.274 billion, which was not only nearly a more than 60% miss to consensus estimates of $15.0 billion…

… but also a dramatic slowdown from February, tumbling by almost $9BN, the biggest monthly drop in the rate of change in 2024.

But it was when looking into the details of the report, we find something remarkable: while non-revolving credit rose a modest $6.1BN, up a bit from February’s $4.3BN, and exactly half the $12.2BN average monthly increase in nonrevolving credit over the past decade…

… which is to be expected in a time when student debt continues to shrink due to illegal debt discharges by the Biden admin (which is defying SCOTUS and continues to forgive billions in student loans) while auto loans are barely rising due to record interest rates…

… what was the biggest shock in today’s data was the absolute collapse in revolving credit growth, i.e., credit card debt, which plunged from a $10.7BN increase in February – one of the biggest monthly prints on record – to barely positive, or $152 million, the smallest monthly increase since the covid crash!

Of course with the Fed refusing to cut rates – for good reason – the brutal slowdown in new credit card debt is hardly a surprise since as the Fed also reported that in Q1, the average rate across all commercial banks on all credit card amounts just hit a new record high of 21.59%, which is a vivid reminders that while banks are happy to hike credit card rates, they rarely if ever cut them, and it’s also one of the main reasons why Goldman’s trading desk just went bearish on US consumers.

Yet with consumers ever more strapped for actual cash and equity, as the personal savings rate in the US has collapsed from over 5% to 3.2% – the lowest since 2022 – in just a few months…

… there is only so much more credit card maxing out that can take place before reality finally sets in, as can be seen in the next and perhaps most striking chart yet: total credit card debt is record high while the personal savings rate is record low!

Then again, with an election on the horizon – one which ensures that any credit-card fueled spending must be encouraged – don’t be surprised if the White House instructs banks to just ignore soaring delinquency and charge-off rates…

… as discussed previously in “These Are The 5 Charts The FDIC Does Not Want You Paying Attention To”, only for the hammer to fall on the first day of Trump’s new presidency.