No money for energy? Warm yourselves with some billion-dollar biotech research!

ARPA-H is modeled after similar agencies that advance innovation in their sectors, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is known for contributing to achievements such as the internet, GPS and even Moderna’s vaccine for COVID-19. 

Stanford University

If you’re not familiar with DARPA yet, please see these posts first.

What all these ARPAs do is one thing: spend countless billions from public money to do research that’s later handed to private companies through the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scam.
Universities used to provide these services, they still do to a smaller scale, but they can’t be as secretive and can’t be involved in some highly sensitive projects from a national security perspective.

ARPA-H launches path to speed public-private partnerships

February 10, 2023

The mission of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) is to advance better health outcomes for everyone. To realize this mission, innovations sparked by ARPA-H must be able to transition into the real world. Transition strategies are often left to the last phase of a program, which significantly reduces the likelihood of a solution to reach the people that need it. ARPA-H seeks to facilitate public-private partnerships for accelerating technology transfer and transition by launching an effort to form Partnership Intermediary Agreements (PIA) that will make transition resources available throughout the entire program life cycle.

“Since the launch of ARPA-H almost a year ago, we have been building the team, tools, and capabilities that each program manager will need in order to launch audacious programs capable of advancing the state of the art in health innovation,” said Renee Wegrzyn, inaugural director of ARPA-H. “The PIA capability is critical to ensure that incoming program managers can hit the ground running and pursue big challenges in health.”

A PIA is an agreement established with a nonprofit partner with deep commercial sector and transition expertise, to engage academia and industry on behalf of the government. Speed and flexibility are the two main advantages of PIAs. PIAs allow for novel approaches that mirror commercial practice to get solutions to market. PIAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. §3715 to create public-private partnerships.

“We at ARPA-H care deeply about getting solutions to everyone, and this is a powerful tool to ensure those solutions survive in the wild,” said Craig Gravitz, director of ARPA-H’s Project Accelerator Transition Innovation Office (PATIO). “This ensures ARPA-H programs address the market dynamics that matter for success, early and often.” PATIO is ARPA-H’s transition and commercialization office and focuses on ensuring that technologies developed through ARPA-H programs are readily accessible and scalable.

ARPA-H’s PIA application is designed to be easy to understand and implement, enabling potential intermediaries from all eligible communities who may not have deep government expertise to rapidly submit.

The PIA application is now closed. Awards will likely be made approximately 30 days from release date.

Renee Wegrzyn, Ph.D.

Director, ARPA-H

Dr. Renee Wegrzyn serves as the first director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), appointed on Oct. 11, 2022, by President Joseph R. Biden.

Previously, Wegrzyn served as a vice president of business development at Ginkgo Bioworks and head of innovation at Concentric by Ginkgo, where she focused on applying synthetic biology to outpace infectious diseases – including COVID-19 – through biomanufacturing, vaccine innovation, and biosurveillance of pathogens at scale.

Wegrzyn comes to ARPA-H with experience working for two of the institutions that inspired the creation of the agency – the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA).

Also see: THE MILITARY BIOTECH COMPLEX FROM ORIGINS TO THE DARK WINTER AND COVID

As a Program Manager in the DARPA Biological Technologies Office, Wegrzyn leveraged the tools of synthetic biology and gene editing to enhance biosecurity, support the domestic bioeconomy, and thwart biothreats. Her DARPA portfolio included the Living Foundries: 1000 Molecules, Safe Genes; Preemptive Expression of Protective Alleles and Response Elements (PREPARE); and the Detect it with Gene Editing Technologies (DIGET) programs.

Wegrzyn received the Superior Public Service Medal for her work and contributions at DARPA. Prior to joining DARPA, she led technical teams in private industry in the areas of biosecurity, gene therapies, emerging infectious disease, neuromodulation, synthetic biology, as well as research and development teams commercializing multiplex immunoassays and peptide-based disease diagnostics.

Wegrzyn served on the scientific advisory boards for the National Academies Standing Committee on Biotechnology Capabilities and National Security Needs, National Academies of Science Board on Army Research and Development, Revive & Restore, Air Force Research Labs, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Innovative Genomics Institute. She holds doctoral and bachelor’s degrees in applied biology from the Georgia Institute of Technology, was a fellow in the Center for Health Security Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Initiative and completed her postdoctoral training as an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow in Heidelberg, Germany.

what a weird thing to say

With ARPA-H’s billions in Congressional funding and broad mandate to solve intractable health challenges, several audience members asked Wegrzyn what success might look like for the nascent agency.
In addition to accelerating breakthroughs in disease prevention and health care delivery, “We want to create tools and products that people want to use,” Wegrzyn said. “We want it to be so obvious to the rest of the world why ARPA-H is here. … So that’ll look like success.”
“And paradoxically,” she added, “success should also look like failure.” If the agency doesn’t experience failure, she argues, it may not be taking big enough risks.
Another key indicator of success for ARPA-H will be in its diversity — in the problems it solves, in the communities it serves and in the program managers it hires. Spreading the word to people around the world, including those in underrepresented communities, will be pivotal.

Stanford University

BIDEN GETS THEM FUNDS, THEY NEED TO GET BIDEN THE CANCER MOONSHOT MODERNA FAILED TO DELIVER

Policy Brief: ARPA-H: Risky or Revolutionary? The Challenges and Opportunities of Biden’s New Biomedical Research Agency

Soumya Somani1 
Rice University, Houston, Texas ​

https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG210107​


Executive Summary

The acceleration of COVID-19 testing platforms and vaccine development has demonstrated the possibility of expediting research for similar biomedical breakthroughs. However, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lacks a framework to regularly sustain this type of research. A new federal agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), offers a unique opportunity to capitalize on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and drive federal investment into high-risk, high-reward biomedical research. ARPA-H will mirror the flat bureaucratic structure of the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) through the employment of independent project managers. ARPA-H is also unique in how it centers equity in the agency’s core mission. These unique traits could enable the agency to fill the gaps in current biomedical research under the NIH. Nonetheless, ARPA-H’s implementation is not without challenges: its incorporation within the NIH has raised concerns regarding its ability to specialize in high-risk research and the diversion of funding away from the rest of the NIH. These worries can be mitigated through the separation of ARPA-H and the NIH. Successful implementation of the ARPA-H framework would supplement current NIH work, diversify the US federal research strategy, accelerate promising breakthroughs, promote equity in health, and transform the nature of biomedical research in the US.

And this is not the last ARPA you’ll hear about.
We’re in a world of ARPAs.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We’ve all heard of existing cancer cures, whether you believe in them or not, you can’t rationally hope they will be made available to plebs for as long a Pharmafia exists.

Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’

CNBC, APR 11 2018

Yuri Arcurs | Getty Images

Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering “gene therapy” treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.

“Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled “The Genome Revolution.”

“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. “While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”

Biotech shares soar on dealmaking, drug progress

Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.

“Gilead is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients,” the analyst wrote. “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”

The analyst didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The report suggested three potential solutions for biotech firms:

“Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.”

“Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe.”

“Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) … Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets.”

So you don’t see anyone pushing for any cures.

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Biden’s moonshot examined: Researchers say cancer cure is a long ways off

By ERIN SCHUMAKER and RUTH READER / Politico / 02.10.2023

The White House is pressing ahead, saying a combination of research on cures and prevention efforts will end the scourge.

Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” President Joe Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo

President Joe Biden’s pledge to “end cancer as we know it” is a rare sliver of common ground between Democrats and Republicans.

Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more during Tuesday’s State of the Union suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum.

But cancer researchers are less unified about the moonshot than Washington policymakers. A contrarian cadre question whether the money appropriated is being well spent. Cancer research is funded well enough, they said, and investing more in high-tech individualized treatments is more likely to help the wealthy live longer than it is to save those most likely to die of the disease: the poor and people of color.

“It’s a lot harder than getting a man to the moon,” Gilbert Welch, an internist and senior investigator at the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said of curing cancer. “It’s a very complex set of diseases. You need to think of it as a family of diseases. The moon is just one thing. Just gotta get there. This is hundreds of different things.”

Biden wants to press ahead on a bipartisan initiative. He has called on Congress to maintain funding for the 2016 law that launched the moonshot, the 21st Century Cures Act. He pledged to cut cancer death rates by 50 percent in the next 25 years and to turn fatal cancers into treatable diseases.

Biden also has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Reauthorization would help the National Cancer Institute support researchers around the country by building clinical trial networks and more robust data systems, according to Danielle Carnival, the White House’s moonshot coordinator.

But some experts, such as Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former White House adviser, said there’s plenty of money devoted to cancer research. The National Cancer Institute had a nearly $6.4 billion budget for cancer research in 2021 and its annual spend has been growing since 2015. Cancer non-profits like the American Cancer Institute also raise hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

President Richard Nixon speaks.
President Joe Biden has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. | AP Photo

Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry is incentivized to put money behind increasingly lucrative cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Research shows that from 2010 to 2019 revenue generated from cancer medicines increased 70 percent among the top 10 pharmaceutical companies to reach $95 billion.

And not everyone thinks more funding is a good thing. “There’s so much money sloshing around,” Welch said of the cancer industry, adding, “Both academic and biotech or industry are excessively enthusiastic and just trying to put out as many products as they can.”

We’ve overinvested in cancer, according to Welch, especially in expensive cancer drugs with modest or unproven benefit for patients and in screenings — Welch’s research area. He’s particularly opposed to the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), which would require Medicare to cover cancer blood tests if they’re approved by the FDA. From Welch’s vantage point, benefits from screenings have been exaggerated, while its harms have been minimized.

Other critics, such as Keith Humphreys, a public health professor at Stanford University who has published academic articles on the link between alcohol use and cancer, see cancer prevention as a more immediate way to save lives.

Managing disease and curing it

The president’s agenda goes beyond money, Carnival told POLITICO, emphasizing prevention efforts, such as improving nutrition for kids, discouraging smoking, and decreasing environmental risks.

“We’re going to have to reach more people with the tools we already have and those we develop along the way,” Carnival said. “The purview is much broader than research. I don’t think anyone would say we have all of the research advancements and knowledge and treatments that we need today to end cancer as we know it.”

Those closely involved in developing cutting-edge cancer therapeutics said the field has shifted dramatically in recent years. It’s gone from treating cancer as a chronic disease, to trying to cure patients.

During his medical fellowship in the early 2000s, improving patient survival by months or years was the goal, explained Marco Davila, a physician-scientist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who helped pioneer some of the first CAR-T cell therapies for patients with blood cancer.

Since then, treatment breakthroughs for some previously incurable cancer have upended the cancer-as-chronic-disease philosophy. Now, doctors and researchers believe cancer-curing therapies are within reach. “It’s changed the nature of how we manage patients. There’s that option there. It’s on the table,” Davila said.

For Davila, moonshot funds earmarked for cancer research and therapies created a new pool of money for his work. It doesn’t fix the problem of underfunded science as a whole, he said, but it makes his work as a cancer researcher a priority.

“It’s great for us, because that’s our field. It’s also great for patients, because cancer is still going to be one of the most common causes of people’s death in the United States,” Davila said. (In the U.S., it’s second behind heart disease, taking more than 600,000 lives in 2020, the most recent year for which there are statistics.)

Indeed, since the late 1980s, scientists have developed effective treatments for lung cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There are caveats, of course. They don’t work for all patients.

“It’s maybe 20 percent, 30 percent,” Davila said. The goal now is to keep improving those cure rates over time — to 50 percent or 60 percent, for example.

“Will it get to 100 percent in your lifetime? I don’t know,” he said.

What Davila does know is that each 10 percent cure-rate increase means saving tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives.

‘Prevention takes action’

But some cancer experts said there’s a downside to the shift toward precision medicine and individualized treatments. Attempting to test everyone or characterize every tumor more precisely is a bit of magical thinking, according to Welch.

“The more you subset people, the more difficult it is to know whether your treatments help. It’s too small of a group,” Welch said. “It used to be just lung cancer. Now we’ve got eight genetic variants we’re testing in adenocarcinomas of the lung,” he added.

“Ironically, the more precise we get, the more types of cancer there are, as we genetically signature each cancer, all of a sudden we don’t really know what to do with any one of them.”

Others think there needs to be a fundamental shift away from screening and treatment and toward preventing cancer in the first place.

“It’s terrific when we develop new treatments for cancer, but it certainly is always better to prevent something than to treat it,” said Humphreys, who served as a drug policy adviser under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

“Very high-end, complicated treatments are never going to be accessible to the whole population,” he added. “Congress could definitely do more.”

“We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die.”

Keith Humphreys, public health professor at Stanford University

Tobacco taxation is widely considered one of the most effective practices in preventing people from starting to smoke in the first place, leading existing smokers to quit, and reducing deaths from tobacco-related cancers. Humphreys said Congress could take the same taxation approach to the alcohol industry. “We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die,” he said.

While broad blood-based cancer screening may not be a cost-effective strategy for stopping cancer early, targeted cancer screening for colorectal, breast, cervical, prostate, and lung cancers could be. Rules could stoke participation or ensure that patients on Medicaid, who are more likely to be at risk of cancer, are getting regular screenings.

“It’s important to acknowledge that our biggest success in cancer really reflects prevention,” Welch said. “It’s nothing fancy. It’s discouraging cigarette smoking.”

Following a surgeon general warning in the 1960s about the health risk of smoking, and subsequent anti-smoking campaigns, tobacco use — and later lung cancer rates — plummeted.

Ezekiel Emanuel speaks
There’s a lot of money already in the moonshot cancer system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, said Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and former White House adviser.

The White House touts prevention in its moonshot agenda. In 2022, the first year of the reignited moonshot, the FDA proposed rules to prohibit menthol cigarettes. Among other agenda items, the moonshot program plans to increase cancer screenings in at-risk communities and facilitate donations of sunscreen to schools and youth organizations.

But prevention is a trickier cancer-prevention mechanism than treatment. It could mean cleaning up Superfund sites or removing lead pipes to reduce environmental cancer risk. It often requires people to change their behavior — to drink less alcohol and exercise more or stop smoking — a more challenging mission at the population level than directing patients to take a pill or offering them a diagnostic test.

“It’s not necessarily clear how one spends money on prevention,” Welch acknowledged. “It’s much easier to sell a test or a drug. It’s a concrete thing. Prevention takes action on the part of individuals,” he said. “You gotta say, that’s harder.”

More funding wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem, according to Emanuel.

There’s a lot of money already in the system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, Emanuel explained.

Who is spending that money also matters. The government sponsors roughly one-third of clinical cancer research, according to Emanuel. Industry accounts for the remaining two-thirds of funding. “It’s good that they’ve got a lot of drugs that they’re testing. What’s bad is having industry shape the clinical research agenda, because industry has a bias.”

Emanuel’s solution: stronger government leadership and more non-industry sponsors.

“The NCI [National Cancer Institute] is the biggest NIH institute,” Emanuel said. “It’s not exactly like they’re starving.”

You also have to be a monster to sell halving the cases long after your death as a “cure”

Biden keeps rambling about curing cancer because he and Obama set up and funded the delusional mRNA industry, which was initially aimed at cancer. The Moderna guys promised him this and he ran with it. He still does, poor dumb fv<k…

Learn more here: OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

and here: SCANDALOUS! YOUTUBE JUST SCRUBBED MODERNA CHIEF SCIENTIST’S TED TALK ABOUT MRNA AND GENES. FOR “MEDICAL MISINFORMATION”

THIS DUDE DUPED AT LEAST THREE US PRESIDENTS

And if you have a MAGA hat, don’t flash it before reading this:

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

As US media can’t be trusted with anything, I looked up mostly Eastern sources and came up with the full story of the lowest point in US history since 9/11. 

This is the story of how China snatched Afghanistan from U.S. without firing a single bullet. Watch this, then I’ll contextualize even more.

Later update: Some readers rightfully suggested I haven’t highlighted enough the Afghani natural resources and their importance. So I made a follow-up video:

Wanna-be-green US has just handed global dominance on lithium and batteries to China. Why? See below

China in South Asia: The Case of Afghanistan

13 FEBRUARY 2018, by Lindsay Hughes, Research Analyst, Indian Ocean Research Programme, Ausralia Download PDF

Key Points

  • In Afghanistan, China recognises several economic and strategic opportunities to advance its goals in the region and beyond.
  • It sees the opportunity to acquire access to much of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.
  • There is also an opportunity for China to ensure the security of its own restive Xinjiang Province.
  • Beijing also discerns a possibility to diminish US and Indian influence in Afghanistan.
  • Afghanistan, thus, almost demands China’s foreign policy attention.

Summary

It is almost trite to observe in 2018 that China’s economic growth over the last twenty-five or so years has been spectacular. The Chinese Communist Party, which has managed most aspects of the economy, can justifiably take credit for that growth. It has lifted an estimated six hundred million people out of poverty and enabled many others to become millionaires and even billionaires. If the sheer enormousness of that figure is difficult to comprehend, consider this: China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the United States used in the entire twentieth century. In other words, in the space of those three years, China constructed more housing and infrastructure than the United States did from the 1900s through to the 1990s, including its period of greatest expansion during which it built its Interstate road networks, the Hoover Dam and most of its skyscrapers. In those three years, China used an estimated 6.6 gigatons of cement compared to the United States, which used 4.5 between 1901 and 2000.

US-China Cement Usage (web)

China’s economic growth has had a major effect on its foreign policy. In order for the Chinese Communist Party to be seen by the Chinese populace as not resting on its economic laurels, in being perceived to be pursuing the Chinese dream of returning the country to its historically pre-eminent position in the international order and in keeping with the one hundred-year marathon that Pillsbury describes, China now seeks to increase its influence in the region. While its efforts in that regard in the South China Sea and among the countries of South-East Asia have been recognised and analysed in considerable depth, its efforts to do likewise to its west have not received the same degree of attention.

China is actively at work in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, attempting to stabilise those countries, and is now extending its reach into Afghanistan in order to achieve its regional goals. This paper will study some of those.

Analysis

Writing in 1975, Etzioni noted that ‘power differs according to the means employed to make [a] subject comply. These means may be physical, material or symbolic’, or what he terms coercive, remunerative and normative power. China employs these forms of power in different situations; for example, whereas in the South and East China Seas it uses coercive power more than it does the other forms, it relies more on remunerative power in Afghanistan. In other words, it buys its influence in that country.

The question that immediately flows from that observation is this: why does China seek to increase its influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan? What does it seek to achieve by doing so? The answer would appear to be economic gain. That is certainly true; China does seek economic reward by increasing its presence in these two countries. To limit that answer to mere economics would be short-sighted, however. The two countries need to be examined individually in order to better understand China’s motives.

China’s external relations policies are, like those of many other countries, an extension or outcome of its domestic situation. The Chinese Communist Party, in order to remain in power, has entered into an implicit agreement with the Chinese people that runs, more or less, along the lines of, “We will ensure that your economic circumstances are enhanced; in return, you will not question the legitimacy of our control over the country.” For economic benefits to flow, however, a country needs political stability. That is not assured in far-flung Xinjiang Province.

An estimated forty per cent of the people of Xinjiang belong to the Uyghur community; they are ethnically Turkic and mainly Muslim. They are different from the majority Han population in the rest of China (excluding Tibet) in their social structures, traditions and language, besides their religious ideology. As a consequence, the Chinese Communist Party, which does not countenance social differences it cannot fully comprehend, has sought to diminish the Islamic influence in the province. Apart from resettling Han Chinese in large numbers in Xinjiang, the Communist Party has imposed severe restrictions on the Uyghurs’ practice of their religion and their freedoms; mosques are barred from broadcasting the call to prayer; there are restrictions on the names that may be given to babies; the Muslim veil for women and beards for men are banned; the city of Karamay promulgated an ordinance that banned bearded men and women wearing burqas or hijabs from travelling on public buses; Uyghur drivers are often stopped and their identification papers and those of their passengers examined; their mobile phones are searched for content and applications that are deemed, arbitrarily in many instances, to be a threat to national security; Uyghur civil servants, students and teachers are prevented from fasting during the Ramadhan period and restaurants are forced to remain open. Schools are forced to conduct lessons in Mandarin and not Uyghur. These restrictions and often blatant violations of the rights accorded to other Chinese citizens have rankled in the Uyghur community. Arguably worst of all, the Communist authorities offer the Uyghur people cash and other incentives to intermarry with Han people, leading to a commonly-held perception in the Uyghur community that it is a blatant attempt to breed it out of existence.

The repressive measures have led to fatal attacks by Uyghur groups on Han Chinese, leading to a vicious circle of further repression and violence. Beijing is acutely aware, however, of the need to pre-empt any attacks by the Uyghurs’ co-religionists in Afghanistan or Pakistan, whether those be members of the Taliban or ordinary Muslim citizens who object to the repression of the Uyghurs, on its energy pipelines that originate in Gwadar and flow through to Xinjiang. To that end, it has sought to mitigate any perceptions of it being a repressive, authoritarian regime by seeking to develop, in the first instance, a strong economic relationship with Kabul.

It is no coincidence that China has sought to acquire mining rights in Afghanistan. As a previous FDI paper observed:

It was reported (and elsewhere, including here) in 2010, that the Pentagon believed that Afghanistan’s untapped mineral wealth could be worth around US$1 trillion. According to another report, the Afghan Government declared that figure to be around US$3 trillion but that figure is likely an exaggeration. According to the news report, a task force studying the country’s resources found that Afghanistan has significant deposits of copper, iron ore, niobium, cobalt, gold, molybdenum, silver and aluminium, as well as sources of fluorspar, beryllium and lithium, among others. While even the one trillion dollar figure may be exaggerated, the fact remains that the country does have enormous unexploited mineral wealth. Even if another country did not avail of the minerals itself (an unlikely possibility or outcome), there could be much profit to be had in partnering with still-to-be-established Afghan mining companies, by providing the technology and expertise required, for example, in the extraction of those minerals.

More specifically, it is the discovery of major lithium deposits in Afghanistan (one source provides an idea of the amounts of lithium available by referring to Afghanistan as “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”) that is of consequence. The original Pentagon report, while stating that the main minerals found were iron ore (estimated value US$421 billion) and copper (US$273 billion), was careful to note that the trillion dollar figure did not include known oil and gas reserves or the value of minerals like lithium that have not been verified to an extent that would permit a dollar figure estimation. While two Chinese firms have committed themselves to a US$4 billion investment in the vast Aynak copper mine, south of Kabul, it is the lithium deposits that are of strategic interest.

In the past few years, the demand for lithium has exploded along with the growth of lithium-ion battery technology in mobile phones, personal digital assistants, laptop computers and, more recently, electric vehicles and batteries that can be attached to solar-powered systems. China, which seeks to position itself as a major electric-powered automobile and solar panel manufacturer, could see its plans disrupted and, more importantly, at the mercy of, for instance, American firms that might come to control lithium production in Afghanistan.

The issue is especially acute for China, given the American presence in the form of its troops and “advisers” in Afghanistan.

In order to vitiate any advantage that the Americans may have in Afghanistan, China is talking not only to the Afghan Government but also to some Taliban groups. The approach appears to have been successful. While the government has cracked down on illegal mining, thus enabling Chinese mining companies to expand their operations, the Taliban has assured the Chinese firms that they need have no fear of attacks by its members and also offered to protect at least one mine and several gas projects with its members. While this has caused some discomfort in the government, which says that it has the sole right to grant mining leases and protect the ensuing operations, the Chinese companies remain secure in the knowledge that their operations can continue with minimal fear of being attacked. China appears to be reaping further dividends with its approach; an uncorroborated report has it, furthermore, that Afghanistan has recently announced that American mining companies would not be given licences to conduct operations there. This announcement comes despite reports of another major find in Afghanistan: huge deposits of potash.

Establishing a good relationship with Afghanistan also helps China to reduce American influence there. In fact, the visit by the Afghan Foreign Minister, Zalmay Rasoul, to Beijing in May 2011 saw a growing relationship between the two countries formalised just as then President Obama was preparing to reduce the number of American troops there. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu spoke of Chinese support for the Afghan Government as it struggles to end instability and crushing poverty and noted China’s appreciation of Afghanistan’s ‘assistance on major issues bearing on China’s core interests’, a reference to Chinese territorial claims, especially in Xinjiang and Tibet that border the volatile Central Asia.

That meeting was among the first of many that followed. In December 2017, China hosted a trilateral meeting with the foreign ministers of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Salahuddin Rabbani and Khawaja Asif, his Afghan and Pakistani counterparts respectively. Going against its stated policy of not interfering in the internal politics of other nations and demonstrating the country’s new-found confidence in its ability to play a much larger role in international politics, Mr Wang sought to bring the two governments together to resolve their differences. While he was only partially successful, Mr Wang did elicit promises from both to continue with their dialogue. That meeting was followed only days later by a meeting between the Defence Ministers of Afghanistan and China, which ended with a statement that the two sides had worked to ‘deepen pragmatic co-operation in various fields including anti-terrorism operations, and push forward the state and military relations between the two countries’. It is interesting to note that both meetings ended with statements regarding co-operation in anti-terrorism initiatives, an indication of how nervous Beijing is about terrorism in Central Asia spilling over into Xinjiang.

China is acting to mitigate those fears. In keeping with its policy of bringing bordering countries under its influence economically and militarily in progressive stages, China is now in discussions with Afghanistan to establish a military base there. It has been reported by many sources that Beijing is in talks with Kabul to construct a military base in Afghanistan’s remote and mountainous Wakhan Corridor, where witnesses have reported seeing Chinese and Afghan troops on joint patrols. Beijing allegedly fears that exiled Uyghur members of the insurgent East Turkestan Islamic Movement use the Wakhan Corridor to cross into Xinjiang to carry out attacks there. Beijing also worries that Uyghurs who were trained by and fought for Islamic State are now fleeing Iraq and Syria and could, similarly, use the Wakhan Corridor to enter China. Beijing is correct in fearing that these various groups and factions could amalgamate, based on their ethnicity and dislike of Chinese repression, and foment further unrest in Xinjiang.

A few other Chinese objectives in Afghanistan are worth noting. First, just as it hopes to reduce American influence there, Beijing also wants to reduce Indian influence in the country. New Delhi, which has a strong relationship with Kabul, is detested by Islamabad, which works to reduce Indian influence in the region in which it seeks “strategic depth” in the event of an Indian attack. China, for its part, seeks to isolate India in South Asia in a zero-sum game for influence in that region.

Second, China would want to create an alternative route for its Belt and Road Initiative through Afghanistan, a country that it could better influence than, say, Kazakhstan, which a resurgent Russia, for all its messages of friendship with China, would not readily permit, since Moscow sees Astana as being in its own zone of influence. China recognises the risks associated with a BRI route running through Kazakhstan and would wish to avoid that. Afghanistan offers an option. An Afghanistan route also enables China direct overland access to the gas fields of Iran. That could eliminate even the comparatively minor risks associated with piping oil and gas through Pakistan, such as attacks upon the infrastructure and personnel by Balochi insurgents and even by India in a conflict with Pakistan. Islamabad undoubtedly recognises, in turn, the risks that Afghanistan poses to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and Chinese investment in it.

Finally, by bringing Afghanistan into its zone of influence, China could create another market for its manufactured goods. At a time when it sees its exports dwindling, and in light of the Trump legislation on reduced company taxes in the United States, which has resulted in increased investment in that country’s manufacturing sector, China would want to avail itself of every market it possibly can.

To conclude, Afghanistan offers China several major economic and strategic opportunities. It requires no great deal of thought to recognise the viability of those. China would, almost unreservedly, seek to use those opportunities to further its agenda in the region and beyond.

*****

This above is still not the full picture. You also need to be aware of the following historical facts:

CHINESE COMMUNISM IS AS JEWISH AS ITS RUSSIAN COUSIN (YOUTUBE BAN WINNER)

And in parallel with the storyline above, another one was at play:

As Israel and the US are just Rothschild enterprises and CCP a long-time partner to them, if you combine the two storylines it’s safe to safe to conclude:

The Rothschilds may not own everything and everyone but they have enough leverage to persuade anyone into an alliance. This one with the CCP has been in works for decades, they’ve incubated and supported this regime since the early days and, as it proves more fruitful than owning America lately, the human farm administration entered a longer process of reform. Biden is just the valet who delivered the keys to the new admin.
And he wasn’t alone in this, he’s not the only Rothschild puppet there, see

THE TRUMP – ROTHSCHILD – ROCKEFELLER CONNECTIONS

And see that there are some agendas that each president has continued from his predecessors, sometimes against own political promises and ideology.


Afghanistan may be one of the lowest points in the US foreign policy history and a massive drama for Americans, but it’s just an episode to them, many more to follow. According to Biden, Americans have bigger worries right now:

Leave it to China to persuade them to mask and vaxx, mark my words!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

It’s as simple as 1,2,3,4: You make them audit each other.

Do something like we did:

  1. Create an UNLISTED video on YouTube. Don’t share the link to anyone.
  2. Make a PRIVATE blog post with the video (and not much else to attract people) on another platform, one with detailed and credible traffic reports like WordPress preferably live traffic reports similar to YouTube’s. Set it private so that no one can find the link unless you give it to them. And DON’T share the link with anyone, except… see below
  3. Make a PUBLIC Facebook post with the PRIVATE blog link. Now the only access gate to the blog post and the video is Facebook. Boost the post immediately, even if only for 5-10 bucks, it’s enough to generate good comprehensive statistics from Facebook. Make sure there’s no other links or distractions included so the audience can’t go anywhere else or come from anyone else, that compromises the experiment
  4. Compare the Facebook reports with the ones from the blogging platform and the one from Youtube.
    If they are honest, the numbers vary only about 5-10%.
    If you have my luck, Facebook reports 2-300% more than the blog, while YouTube has capped your numbers and deletes views same way Dominion deleted Trump votes, so it has no relation whatsoever with the other two.
    That’s the case for the Fauci Fashion song below, which has not been allowed to cross 9k for over half a year, despite some intense promo efforts.
Click here to join THE PEOPLE FOR FAUCI FASHION now!

5. (Optional): Feel free to add more elements to the scheme, the only rule is to be able to accurately monitor the traffic, numbers as well and sources, destinations, gates etc. This model is in 3D, but any number can go if you extrapolate the method intelligently.

Bad idea again, Susie

IMPORTANT: As time passes, if people start sharing the links organically, they can create distortions and interferences in your controlled audience funnel, first 2-3 days are the most accurate, from there things can go either way. Nevertheless, that can’t explain my numbers either, but can explain smaller deviations from the general rule.

If you think a whole industry went away with Cambridge Analytica, I lol

This post is an upgrade of an earlier post focused on Facebook only. I promised I will do my best to come up with something similar for YoutTube, came up with something even better: This one is like an integrated 3D version of that experiment, and can be expanded, no theoretical limits to it.
But on the original post you can read more details evidence on the day-to-day Facebook ripoff and gaslighting of its audience, CLICK HERE TO READ.

Later update:
Funniest thing: people figuring out I’m right not from monitoring their own numbers, as I advised, but from watching Biden’s. Ok, whatever you can…

Source
This is AFTER they “Dominioned” the numbers. Unlisted link

Later-er update: They started to cover their tracks and burn more evidence, but too late, The Gateway Pundit got on the case too :))

Source
This one looks exactly like my screenshots for my Fauci Fashion video above, but in reverse, I’ve watched my views counter going backwards. And I wasn’t alone. Click here to read

Latest edit: I had to

State of the Union 2021. Source

Biden’s message is clear: “Learn more if you want to open. Comments closed”.
So I had to do this. Launching the #FuckYoutube hashtag. On Youtube, see the description of the video below. On Youtube.

Btw, same goes for Facebook. I can’t research Twitter now, but if I am to bet I don’t hesitate

The President of the US of A, Big Joe-Un, and his Big Tech lemmings, are a buncha retarded pathetic thieves and nothing can stop the awareness, especially not imbeciles like themselves
Read more, it’s juicy!

Get involved, share this as wide as you can, make and share your own experiments, let’s crash this monster and its stock market value by outing its schemes!

Imagine getting 115k likes and no heart 😀 What numbers do you see? Check it here

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them