Reblogged from AMAC a great place to be.

The Left’s Chilling Refusal to Stop Flirting With Marxist Ideas

Karl Marx Marxism MarxistThe New York Times just can’t stop talking about communism.

Recently the Times ran an editorial headlined  “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!”

The piece, written by Jason Barker, a professor in South Korea, is about what one would expect from a defense of communism. As one Federalist writer noted, it was “beyond parody.”

Hilariously, the article was behind a very capitalistic paywall.

The New York Times hasn’t shied away from publishing Marxist boosterism.

In 2017, the Times dedicated an entire section of its website to the 100-year anniversary of the communist revolution in Russia. It featured an assortment of absurd pieces running the gamut of declaring Lenin a hero environmentalist to claiming that women had better sex lives under socialism.

This romanticized account of life under communism is a delusion.

Of course, while the most ridiculous claim in the most recent piece is that Marx has somehow proven to be correct, it’s notable it goes a step further to say that essentially nobody questions his fundamental critiques of capitalism.

“While most are in agreement about Marx’s diagnosis of capitalism, opinion on how to treat its ‘disorder’ is thoroughly divided,” Barker wrote.

It seems fair to conclude that actually there is widespread doubt about Marx’s claims about capitalism—unless, of course, one lives in a neatly sealed left-wing bubble.

The fact is, Marx was wrong about everything.

He was wrong about economics, wrong about the flow of history, wrong about religion, wrong about where his ideas would lead, and most importantly, wrong about human nature—which he believed could be reshaped under a communist regime.

If there was one thing that was illuminating about Barker’s piece, it was his description of modern social justice crusades as fundamentally Marxist.

“Social justice movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo owe something of an unspoken debt to Marx through their unapologetic targeting of the ‘eternal truths’ of our age,” Barker wrote. “Such movements recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.”

This is an interesting admission that these movements are essentially “cultural Marxism,” a phrase that the left so often stridently claims is a figment of conservative imaginations.

Given the profound failures of and misery created by communism in the past, we probably shouldn’t be too hopeful about the success of its modern iterations.

Unfortunately, many young people don’t know about the depths of these past failures, or have a skewed idea of what communism means in practice.

We should all worry about the consequences of historical ignorance.

At least Marx could conceivably say that “real communism hasn’t been tried yet.”

His modern proponents don’t have an excuse.

After nearly two centuries of experimentation with Marxist ideas, communism has failed to produce a brotherhood of man or a classless society in which everyone worked in blissful harmony.

Instead, it has produced societies notorious for their cruelty, dysfunction, and violence. It has led to the estimated death toll of just under 100 million people in the last century.

One only has to look at the Korean Peninsula to see the astounding difference of a society under communist tyranny and freedom.

 

As historian Sean McMeekin wrote in his book, “The Russian Revolution”:

Today’s Western socialists, dreaming of a world where private property and inequality are outlawed, where rational economic development is planned by far-seeing intellectuals, should be careful what they wish for … they may just get it.

Communism offers nothing to humanity but suffering and hopelessness.

This is not to say that life under communism was all about starvation and murderous purges.

Even at its least malignant, living under communism’s inevitable system of enforced conformity and equality where decisions are only the purview of government authorities and bureaucratic managers is hardly a system of human flourishing.

This is more akin to living a lifetime stuck in the DMV.

Marx was wrong, hopelessly wrong. His ideas have been tried, tested, and spectacularly failed.

It’s time to leave his legacy on the ash heap of history.

From – The Daily Signal – by Jarrett Stepman

Great News from the FDA leadership

FDA vs Experimental Stem Cell Drug lawsuits, investigations, and online ads

President Trump’s choice for FDA Commissioner was Dr. Scott Gottlieb. He was no stranger to FDA nor the inner workings of the field of medicine having acted in several capacities over the years in the field and in government. His qualifications were impressive as well as extensive and involved government work as well, not even the liberals could object to much about him.

According to MedCity News on December 26,2017 the man hit the office at high-speed to help get the backlog and procedures out of stasis to process applications faster and improve investigative procedures.

“Dr. Gottlieb’s first year as FDA Commissioner, he has chaperoned the agency through a blockbuster 2017 with 46 novel drug approvals to date. The final tally is the highest seen this century, surpassing the previous record holder 2015, which clocked in at 45. Both were more than double 2016’s sad tally of 22 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved.”

So is it that this is just “politics” or is there actually a sound basis for having FDA approve new drugs and oversee all? Overall, it isn’t about politics but about safety and procedures. Part of the problem has always been the length of time required to get a drug to market. Apparently Dr. Gottlieb now has a handle on that process and is making progress far beyond those of the last eight years.

One area of expertise for Dr. Gottlieb is stem cell research. In November, the FDA released new guidelines, asserting its authority over clinics, and says it will begin cracking down on those selling dangerous stem cell treatments.

Stem cell research has been around since 1968. Since that time stem cell research, trials, production, therapy, and results have been moving forward in many ways. Some have been well-documented and some research has been faked by seemingly qualified research analysis. Stem cell research has now progressed dramatically and there are countless research studies published each year in scientific journals.

Adult stem cells are already being used to treat many conditions such as heart disease and leukaemia. Researchers still have a long way to go before they completely control the regulation of stem cells. The potential is overwhelmingly positive and with continued support and research, scientists will ideally be able to harness the full power of stem cells. However, rogue groups continue to test the boundary between clinically FDA certified and experimental with no safeguards and unapproved methodology.

Back in July 2012, in the case of United States of America v. Regenerative Sciences, LLC the DC Court of Appeals ruled that their stem cell “therapy” was to be considered a product and therefore required FDA approval. Their product, Regenexx-C, was for the treatment of arthritis and orthopedic injury that involved extraction and culture of mesenchymal stem cells from the same patient which were later reinjected. After the decision the makers of Regenexx-C moved out of the U.S. to a more lenient country and placed a ban on being purchased for US markets.

Was it the right choice for the health of the patient? According to the company making Regenexx their success rate is good. This may force those wealthy enough or willing to go into deep debt to travel to their location for treatment. It also might deny solutions to other patients who don’t have the same resources here in the states.

This isn’t the only instance nor will it be the last where FDA and companies wanting to “make money” off their products clash. More than a few companies had moved out of the US over the years over issues of approval. Some have found a good market in the new country, others have bilked desperate people out of millions of dollars. In the reverse, there have been occasions when FDA approved some drug but other countries have banned the same product. Which has people questioning what they know versus what FDA approves.

The thing is leadership of FDA is a key factor in decision-making as in any government agency. And, like any other agency, it has been afflicted at times with bias and with politics. Overall though the purpose of FDA is important to insure that quality, qualifications, and procedures used will actually benefit the vulnerable patients. There have been miscalculations and recalls even with drugs that took years waiting for approval. So FDA is not foolproof but then no agency of government ever is. However, even if it is only right some of the time, it does provide a measure of relief to know that a drug has met the minimum of standards.

In April 2018, the FDA after months of warnings had DoJ issue formal complaints in Florida and California on several defendants manufacture of “stromal vascular fraction” (SVF) products from patient adipose (fat) tissue, which the companies then market as stem cell-based treatments for a host of serious conditions and diseases. Desperate people, mostly elderly, have flocked to those locations to try to get relief or get cured.

Sun Sentinel in Florida had done an investigative report back in the first days of December 2017 on the use of the product. They just released a new article on May 10th which details further what they discovered. Their investigation resulted in some serious issues not just for drug approval but for its online aspects as well:

— Some of these clinics’ medical procedures are questionable, experts say, such as injecting patients with experimental stem cell solutions in both eyes at the same time, risking blindness.

— Florida clinics use online seminars, high-tech websites and listings in the federal database ClinicalTrials.gov to market their treatments to patients. They tout Florida sunshine and tourist attractions such as fine hotels, beaches and unique shopping districts.

— Some stem cell clinics use hard-sell tactics and lead patients to rake together thousands of dollars, as insurance doesn’t cover stem cell treatments.

— State and federal regulators rarely have stepped in to stop these advertising and medical practices.

Sun’s efforts may have paid off as the DoJ and FDA have focused complaints on US Stem Cell Clinic LLC, of Sunrise, Florida, US Stem Cell, Inc., and company officers Kristin Comella and Theodore Gradel.  A separate complaint was filed the same day in the Central District of California against California Stem Cell Treatment Center Inc., of Rancho Mirage and Beverly Hills, California, Cell Surgical Network Corporation, and company owners Elliot Lander, M.D. and Mark Berman, M.D.

LA Times on April 24, 2018 ran an article about Kristin Comella. They described her this way:

“Comella, 41, who is the founder and president of the academy — crowd-pleasing, shot through with what sounded like serious science, delivered with the superficial credibility of a PhD from an unaccredited offshore university. Her pitch has made her a sought-after speaker at health industry conferences and gatherings of .longevity enthusiasts such as the annual Revolution against Aging and Death Festival, or RAADFest.

The biotech firm, Florida-based U.S. Stem Cell Inc., disclosed earlier this month that the Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenaed its financial records and other documents in connection with what the company says is a formal “fact-finding inquiry.” U.S. Stem Cell declined to provide any further details of the probe, and the SEC declined to comment.

Regulatory scrutiny of this entire field is long overdue. The FDA has been signaling for nearly a year that it takes its responsibility seriously. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and agency official Peter Marks wrote last month in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine that giving patients these treatments risks “serious adverse events” and warned of the drawbacks of “propagating products with dubious clinical efficacy and possible risks.”

–00–

It could be that Trump’s choice for FDA Commissioner is proving to be a good one who intends to put action to ideas rather than mouth off and make promises. It could be these people were already under review by DoJ and that FDA was acting quickly and efficiently to shut down the companies (for a government agency).  It might be only coincidental that the Sun article ran the first week in December, but hey good investigative reporting can help speed actions along once in a while.

I wonder if the FDA has a way to analyze prior companies turned down to see if their products did move overseas and if they did finally prove through their efforts that their products were worth bringing back into the US? Also, one that questions why foreign countries have actually banned things that the FDA approved and move to get them off our markets as well if they find the reasoning sound.

It’s a shame that the same level of investigative journalism isn’t still available on the MSM these days instead of just Anti-Trump canned rhetoric.

–Uriel–