TBR News November 5, 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., November 5, 2017:”One of Donald Trump’s most successful claims made during his election campaign was the illegal immigration situation in the United States. Liberals of all stripes laughed at him as did the media. The truth of the matter is as follows:

• The illegal alien population of the U.S. is now over 20 million – more than the current population of New York State.
• There are 15 million jobs in the U.S. currently held by illegal aliens, or about 8 percent of the entire American work force.
• 6 million jobs have shifted to the underground economy since 1990. These are not jobs Americans won’t do, but rather jobs Americans used to do. The Mexican invasion has effectively dispossessed the American-born citizen blue collar worker from his right to work.
• The United States is losing $35 billion a year in income tax revenue because of the number of jobs that are now ‘off the books’ and eagerly taken by illegal immigrants and welcomed by American businessmen eager to hire workers not bound by union wages. Most Mexican and Central American illegals send large portions of their pay out of the country to support their families in Mexico and Central America. Therefore, none of this money flows, as do the taxed wages of American workers, into the national economy.
• More than 5 million illegal workers are currently collecting wages on a cash basis and are avoiding all state and Federal income taxes.
• There are over 96 million American citizens now unemployed.”

 

Table of Contents

• Thousands of Basque protesters take sides in Catalonia dispute
• Sacked Catalonia leader turns himself in, polls show independence strength
• Saudi princes among dozens detained in ‘corruption’ purge
• Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman: Reformer and hardliner
• The Tiger
• Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That are False
• Beware of bitcoin bubble, warn investment & financial advisors
• Chasing a killer: U.S. and Congolese scientists are tracking a virus.

 

Thousands of Basque protesters take sides in Catalonia dispute

More than 40,000 people have rallied in the northern Spanish city of Bilbao in anger at Spain’s direct rule of Catalonia. The Basque Country region has its own separatist movement which for decades turned bloody.

November 5, 2017

DW

Protests against Madrid’s handling of the Catalan crisis spread to another Spanish region on Saturday, as the streets of the northern city of Bilbao in the Basque Country were awash with protestors waving umbrellas.

According to the regional paper Naiz, some 44,000 people took part in the rally, which was called by several Basque Country pro-independence groups, the ultra-left wing party Podemos’ regional branch and several labor unions.

History rhymes

The Basque region has, until recently, seen decades of violence by the paramilitary group ETA which left some 850 people dead. ETA surrendered its weapons earlier this year, effectively ending its campaign of terror, after the region won financial concessions from Madrid.

Saturday’s rally organizers said they were angry at how the Madrid government had imposed direct rule on Catalonia, another autonomous region in Spain’s northeast, following a move towards independence.

Some protesters carried a banner which read “No to 155. Democracy and right to decide,” in reference to Article 155 of Spain’s Constitution, which Madrid triggered a week ago to suspend Catalonia’s regional autonomy. Spain also called a snap election for the region next month.

Weeks after Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont held a referendum on self rule, which was declared illegal by the Spanish courts, the regional president is the subject of a European arrest warrant after fleeing to Belgium with four of his ministers.

Nine other Catalan cabinet members have been remanded in custody, charged with rebellion and other alleged crimes, after Madrid authorities removed the entire regional government from office.

Extradition considered

Belgian authorities said on Saturday they will now consider whether Puigdemont can be extradited to Spain to face trial.

Speaking to the media during the Bilbao protest, Arnaldo Otegi, leader of Basque pro-independence party EH Bildu and a former jailed ETA member, decried the recent events in Catalonia.

“In the face of this situation, it’s necessary that the Basques take to the streets, as we’re doing today, and build a popular, democratic wall that allows us to confront this situation,” he said.

While several separatist political parties attended Saturday’s rally, the Basque Nationalist Party, which rules the autonomous region, refused to officially take part.

‘United campaign required’

Puigdemont meanwhile has urged all pro-independence political parties in Catalonia to join a coalition for the region’s December 21 election.

The Catalan leader has said he would consider running in the election, even if he has to campaign for his center-right separatist Democratic Party of Catalonia from afar.

 

Sacked Catalonia leader turns himself in, polls show independence strength

November 5, 2017

by Robert-Jan Bartunek, Paul Day and Sam Edwards

Reuters

BRUSSELS/MADRID/BARCELONA (Reuters) – Sacked Catalonia leader Carles Puigdemont and four associates turned themselves in to Belgian police on Sunday, following Spain’s issuing of an arrest warrant for rebellion and sedition.

All are wanted by Madrid for actions related to the push for the region’s secession from Spain. Puigdemont has become the public face of that move for independence.

Other charges are the misuse of public funds, disobedience and breach of trust relating to the secessionist campaign, which has thrown Spain into a political crisis just as its economy has recovered from a sharp downturn and banking stress.

Madrid has taken over administrative control in Catalonia, until then an autonomous region, and called new elections on Dec 21.

Two polls on Sunday suggested pro-Catalonia independence parties will together win December’s regional election although they may fall just short of a majority of seats in parliament needed to revive the secession campaign.

Parties supporting Catalonia staying in Spain would divide seats but garner around 54 percent of the vote, the polls suggested.

Puigdemont traveled to Belgium shortly after Madrid took control. On Sunday morning, Puigdemont and four of his former councillors presented themselves to police in Brussels.

A judge will hear the defendants case on Sunday afternoon and has until Monday morning to decide whether the formalities for the extradition request have been fulfilled.

According to a GAD3 survey of 1,233 people conducted between Oct. 30 and Nov. 3 and published in La Vanguardia newspaper, pro-independence parties ERC, PDECat and CUP would take between 66 and 69 seats in the 135-seat parliament.

A second poll taken over the same period for the conservative newspaper La Razon echoed the GAD3 survey, showing pro-independence parties would capture the most votes though still fall just shy of a parliamentary majority with 65 seats.

Other seats would be generally divided between parties that support the region remaining as part of Spain, though they would run on separate tickets.

Voter participation, however, will rise to a record of 83 percent, the GAD3 poll showed.

POLITICIANS ON REMAND

Under the European arrest warrant system, the five defendants in Belgium can agree to an extradition order immediately or the judge can set bail or detain them. Belgian authorities have to inform their European counterparts if a European arrest warrant cannot be executed after 90 days.

On Saturday, Puigdemont – who PDECat said on Sunday would lead the party in the election – called for a united Catalan political front for independence from Spain and against the detention of his former members of government.

On Thursday, nine of his sacked cabinet were ordered by Spain’s High Court to be held on remand pending an investigation and potential trial.

One member of the dismissed cabinet, Santi Vila, was freed after paying bail of 50,000 euros ($58,035) on Friday. The other eight could remain in custody for up to four years.

According to the GAP3 survey, 59 percent believed legal action against Puigdemont was unjustified while 69.3 percent said that the jailing of the Catalan politicians would give the independence cause a boost at the ballot box.

Catalan civic groups Asamblea Nacional Catalana and Omnium Cultural – whose leaders were imprisoned last month on sedition charges – called for a general strike on Nov. 8 and a mass demonstration on Nov. 11 to protest the detentions.

BACK TO THE START

A rally in Barcelona on Sunday, however, attracted just a few hundred people, a long way from the hundreds of thousands to join pro-independence marches in October, many waving the regional flag and carrying protest signs.

One protester, Antonia Aguilera, 63, said she was concerned the new elections wouldn’t be fair and would be manipulated by the Spanish government.

Her concerns echo the deep mistrust many Catalans have of politicians in Madrid that has deepened since the arrests and after the national police used truncheons and rubber bullets to thwart voting in the illegal independence referendum on Oct. 1.

“I‘m disgusted by it all. We knew they would react but not as strongly as they did,” she said, adding that she believed the pro-independence parties would win the December election.

“And then we’ll be back where we started.”

Reporting by Robert-Jan Bartunek in Brussels, Paul Day in Madrid, and Sam Edwards in Barcelona; Editing by Jeremy Gaunt

 

 

Saudi princes among dozens detained in ‘corruption’ purge

November 5, 2017

BBC News

The heir to the throne in Saudi Arabia has consolidated his hold on power with a major purge of the kingdom’s political and business leadership.

A new anti-corruption body, headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, detained 11 princes, four sitting ministers and dozens of ex-ministers.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire with investments in Twitter and Apple, is among those held.

Separately King Salman replaced the national guard and the navy chiefs.

The new anti-corruption committee has the power to issue arrest warrants and travel bans.

The heir to the throne in Saudi Arabia has consolidated his hold on power with a major purge of the kingdom’s political and business leadership.

A new anti-corruption body, headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, detained 11 princes, four sitting ministers and dozens of ex-ministers.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire with investments in Twitter and Apple, is among those held.

Separately King Salman replaced the national guard and the navy chiefs.

The new anti-corruption committee has the power to issue arrest warrants and travel bans.

A shock to Saudis unused to change

Analysis by Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent

The events of Saturday night in Saudi Arabia are nothing short of seismic for that country. In a bold, pre-planned move, the 32-year old Crown Prince has removed the final obstacles to his gaining total control over the world’s richest oil producer and home to the holiest shrines in Islam.

Presented to the world as an anti-corruption drive, the arrests of princes, ministers and the billionaire tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal have shocked Saudis unused to sudden change.

The crown prince is largely popular, especially amongst young Saudis, but many older, more conservative citizens think he is moving too far too fast. He has started an unwinnable war in Yemen while still fighting the extremists of so-called Islamic State. He has also backed a damaging boycott of Gulf neighbour Qatar.

But his supporters hail his efforts to modernise Saudi Arabia and, after decades of rule by old men, they welcome a fresh vision from a man who could well be king for the next 50 years.

Who is Prince Alwaleed?

The owner of London’s Savoy hotel is one of the richest men in the world, with a net worth of $17bn (£13bn) according to Forbes.

Shares in Kingdom Holding, the investment firm owned by the prince, plunged 9.9% in early trade on the Saudi stock market after news of his detention emerged.

The firm is one of Saudi Arabia’s most important investors. Apart from Twitter and Apple, it has shares in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Citigroup bank, the Four Seasons hotel chain and ride-sharing service Lyft.

The Saudi prince made the news in the past for employing women, who make up two-thirds of his staff.

But he was also known for his hundred-million-dollar desert resorts, where he employed dwarves for entertainment purposes.

Two years ago he offered luxury cars to fighter pilots participating in a bombing campaign in Yemen, where the Saudi-led coalition continues to bomb Houthi rebels, killing 26 people in an attack on a hotel and market on Wednesday.

Prince Alwaleed once bought control of a hotel and a yacht from Donald Trump, when he had yet to enter politics, but clashed with him publicly on Twitter in 2015 over his decision to stand for president, the New York Times notes.

Mr Trump, who was born into a family of property developers, shot back with a tweet mocking the source of the prince’s wealth.

However, after Mr Trump’s election last November, the prince sent “congratulations and best wishes”.Who else was detained or sacked?

National guard minister Prince Miteb bin Abdullah and navy commander Admiral Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammed Al-Sultan were both replaced, with no official explanation given.

Prince Miteb bin Abdullah has been replaced as head of the powerful national guard

Prince Miteb, son of the late King Abdullah, was once seen as a contender for the throne and was the last member of Abdullah’s branch of the family in the highest echelons of Saudi government.

Those reported to have been detained include:

• Former Finance Minister Ibrahim al-Assaf, a board member of the Saudi Aramco oil company
• Economy Minister Adel Fakieh
• Former Riyadh governor Prince Turki bin Abdullah
• Former head of the royal court Khalid al-Tuwaijiri
• Bakr bin Laden, chairman of the Saudi Binladin construction group, and brother of Osama bin Laden

Some of the detainees are being held at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in the diplomatic quarter of Riyadh, sources in contact with the government told Reuters news agency.

What do we know about Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman?

Few people outside Saudi Arabia had heard of Prince Mohammed bin Salman before his father became king in 2015. But since then, the 32-year-old has become the most influential figure in the world’s leading oil exporter

Last year, the crown prince unveiled a wide-ranging plan to bring social and economic change to the oil-dependent kingdom.

He recently said the return of “moderate Islam” was key to his plans to modernise Saudi Arabia.

Addressing an economic conference in Riyadh, he vowed to “eradicate the remnants of extremism very soon”.

 

Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman: Reformer and hardliner

He is known as “MBS” or “Mr. Everything.” As the King’s favorite son, he is in line to take power in Saudi Arabia. However, the role Mohammed bin Salman plays in Riyadh has two sides.

November 5, 2017

by Marko Langer

DW

For big-name global business advisors like McKinsey or Boston Consulting Group, the Saudi capital of Riyadh is the place to be: Rich, shiny and dynamic. Conservative and undemocratic, too, but those values take a backseat to business.

The consultants have put together a concept called “Vision 2030” for the Saudi leadership: How can the Kingdom modernize and break its dependence on oil production? How can the state-run oil company, Aramco, be privatized? Most of all, where are the new sources of revenue and jobs for the Saudi people?

At just 32 years old, Mohammed bin Salman is the driving force behind the project, which he is using to help shape his image as a reformer.

The power of MBS

Mohammed bin Salman, known in Riyadh by his initials, MBS, has been consolidating power to an extent not well known until June 20 of this year. That is when 81-year-old King Salman, whose health is deteriorating, placed him in line for the throne, supplanting the King’s nephew, Mohammed bin Nayef.

The influence Mohammed bin Salman now wields can be both frightening and impressive. His political career began as governor of Riyadh, and he later served as his father’s special advisor. He became Chief of the Court in 2012, assuming the rank of minister. When his father became King, Mohammed bin Salman was appointed defense minister, the youngest in the world and a position he still holds.

Occupying multiple posts at once, German newspaper Die Zeit once called him “extremely corrupt, greedy and arrogant.” He has stoked the ongoing feud with Iran, saying the regime in Tehran “will not change overnight.” International criticism of his own country’s extremely conservative Islamic ideology, Wahhabism, does not faze the crown prince. Iran supports the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whom Saudi Arabia would gladly like to see gone.

Waging war in Yemen

Yemen is another important front for Mohammed bin Salman. With US support, Saudi Arabia entered the conflict in the neighboring country two years ago in a bid to defeat the Houthi rebels, a Shiite group. But instead of bringing the conflict to a close, Saudi Arabia’s military campaign has contributed to one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises that looks to have no end in sight.

“No one wants this war to continue,” Mohammed bin Salman told the state broadcaster, Al Arabiya, in May. If there has been a chance to end the war, however, the Saudi government and its defense minister have not taken it. Human Rights Watch has documented Saudi war crimes and indiscriminate airstrikes. Guido Steinberg, a Middle East expert for the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), expressed concern in the Berlin Tagesspiegel newspaper that Mohammed bin Salman’s “aggressive foreign policy aggravates regional conflict.”

Freedom remains a dream

Despite his many posts, Mohammed bin Salman has minimal international experience. His education is limited to a bachelor’s degree in Islamic Law from King Saud University. His private life is less well known, only that he is married with four children. Under his authority, women have recently been allowed to drive – a historic decision, though Saudi Arabia remains a country ruled by an extremely oppressive government.

Women still require permission from a male family member to study or travel. Human rights remain a low priority in the Kingdom. The blogger Raif Badawi, for example, has been in prison since 2012 despite an international effort to free him. Indeed, the crown prince appears to be in no hurry to create a more open society.

 

The Tiger

November 5, 2017

by Christian Jürs

Tiger, tiger, burning bright

In the forests of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

-William Blake. 1757–1827

Lying at his ease on the gray concrete of his outdoor exercise area in the zoo, the great Bengal tiger is a strong and vivid sight to the beholder. In yellow, with white beneath and black stripes,  he catches both the eye and the imagination. But the tiger’s natural habitat is not a concrete exercise and rest area but dense jungle and in this setting, we cannot see the tiger until he is upon us and by that time, assuming him to be a man-eater, it is far too late to do anything but scream…briefly.

The British philosopher, William of Occam, stated in his writings that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. In sum, if a complex problem is reduced to its basics, the problem becomes clear to the viewer and we have then to contemplate a common denominator

If we wish to see the tiger in all his vibrant visual glory, it will be necessary to strip away all the foliage that has concealed him; to make him visual, clearly and without any camouflage whatsoever. Toward that end, let us examine the tiger that comprises a number of related subjects. We will deal with the attack by Saudi terrorists on domestic American symbolic targets on September 11, 2001. We will examine this attack, not post mortem but from its inception up to the point of execution. Much has been written about this after the attack and most of these writings are the result of deliberate disinformation and will not be addressed at this point in time.

Now, let us consider the problem of viewing the tiger.

Towards the end of the second Clinton term, the highest leadership of the Republican party started work on a plan to take, and keep, political power in the United States   The Republicans had been out of power for some time and were eager to not only get back into power (with one of the usual electorate mood swings and the subsequent guaranteed assistance by the Florida Republicans and some of the Supreme Court) but, as Karl Rove insisted, keep it for a long time.

Rove worked for George H.W. Bush before the elder sent him to run his useless, drunken sot of a son and Rove, very much a history buff, reasoned that as George was colorless and stubborn, he would have to have some help or it would be a one term reign.

The answer?

Looking at the career of President Franklin Roosevelt, the answer was plain: A wartime president with immense, all-encompassing powers was the perfect solution to the problem of total Republican control of the United Sates and its ruling bodies. . As a wartime president,  the figurehead of the party could get a frightened Congress to pass any restrictive legislation wanted if  the American public became sufficiently angry and, at the same time, terrified of external enemies the way they were just after the Japanese sudden attack on Pearl Harbor, an attack Roosevelt and his claque deliberately fomented and encouraged.

With domestic control installed and implemented, the  President and his party would be guaranteed of long, and very lasting power so the plan, instigated by the devious and vicious Karl Rove, based on a novel by a CIA writer, was discussed with former President George H.W. Bush, father of George. As Rove outlined his scenario, a domestic attack, spectacular enough to resonate with the American public, could, if properly executed, provide the springboard to an iron Republican dictatorship,  a stepping stone to global power and a virtual guarantee of a Republican permanent control over every aspect, social and business of the United States. The senior Bush was  a man who was on excellent terms with the Saudi-based and very powerful bin Ladin family. They socialized together and many family members were honored guests of the Bush family (and others) in this country.

One son, Osama, bin Ladin, had worked with the CIA, and was paid by them, as liaison with the Afghanistan Taliban during their very successful guerrilla warfare against the Soviet Union and although seriously ill (with kidney problems) he was an excellent connection to use in the furtherance of their scheme Also,. the Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, was known from CIA observations, to be highly anti-US and was certainly perfectly placed to assist in the recruitment of possible terrorists. And  so the older Bush spoke with one of the bin Ladins who, in turn, spoke with the Interior Minister and, hey presto, a road crew of Saudi fanatics was put together, supplied with fake papers and off they went on their mission.

First they went to Germany where the German BND watched them and reported to their superiors who, in turn, passed on information to our people and next the Saudi terrorists came to this country. In order to keep an eye on the volatile Arabs, we enlisted the eager support of the Israeli Mossad who were allowed to function in this country with the, often-disregarded, idea they would pass any information of importance to the FBI.

Once the whole Saudi wrecking crew were ensconced in Hollywood, Florida, plotting, the highly capable Israeli Foreign Intelligence, the Mossad, was alerted and moved into the same town to infiltrate and, eventually control, the Saudi terrorists. The Mossad, the Israeli government and through them, the American plotters, knew to the minute what was current and future and all of this material was immediately passed up the ladder of command to both Tel Aviv and the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

As an example of Mossad control, when one projected hijacked plane was destined for the Pentagon, the American plotters had the Mossad   convince the Saudis to target a side of the huge building that was closed for repairs…the real targets were on the opposite side of the complex. As the plot took shape, in addition to the attack on the Pentagon, two further commandeered aircraft were destined to slam into the iconic WTC buildings (that had been attacked earlier by means of a bomb-laden van in the parking garage below the World Trade Center ) and the fourth was intended for the most important mission of all : this was intended to crash into the Capitol while Congress was in session.

This latter was the key to the Rove/George H.W Bush. plan. Congress was in session at that time and if the plane crashed into either wing, it would cripple the government until replacements could be elected to fill the empty seats left by the attack. That plane, we can be thankful, was crashed into a field in Pennsylvania by the unexpected revolt of the doomed passengers and Congress was not touched.

With the mainstay neutralized, the Bush people nevertheless subsequently pushed ahead with their constant threats of pending terror, followed by more and more oppressive legislation and the erection of more organs of domestic repression. Eventually, because of a number of relatively minor problems, the worst being gross ineptness on the part of the Rovians, the plot slowly collapsed like a ground-based barrage balloon with a tear in the fabric

 

Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That are False

November 5, 2017

by Glenn Greenwald

The Intercept

There is ample talk, particularly of late, about the threats posed by social media to democracy and political discourse. Yet one of the primary ways that democracy is degraded by platforms such and Facebook and Twitter is, for obvious reasons, typically ignored in such discussions: the way they are used by American journalists to endorse factually false claims that quickly spread and become viral, entrenched into narratives, and thus can never be adequately corrected.

The design of Twitter, where many political journalists spend their time, is in large part responsible for this damage. Its space constraints mean that tweeted headlines or tiny summaries of reporting are often assumed to be true with no critical analysis of their accuracy, and are easily spread. Claims from journalists that people want to believe are shared like wildfire, while less popular, subsequent corrections or nuanced debunking are easily ignored. Whatever one’s views are on the actual impact of Twitter Russian bots, surely the propensity of journalistic falsehoods to spread far and wide is at least as significant.

Just in the last week alone, there have been four major factually false claims that have gone viral because journalists on Twitter endorsed and spread them: three about the controversy involving Donna Brazile and the DNC, and one about documents and emails published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. It’s well worth examining them, both to document what the actual truth is as well as to understand how often and easily this online journalistic misleading occurs:

Viral Falsehood #1: The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.

On Wednesday, Politico published a blockbuster accusation from Donna Brazile’s new book: that the DNC had “rigged” the 2016 primary election for Hillary Clinton through an agreement that gave Clinton control over key aspects of the DNC, a claim that Elizabeth Warren endorsed on CNN. The Clinton camp refused to comment publicly, but instead contacted their favorite reporters to publish their response as news.

The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp’s primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied “only to preparations for the general election,” and had nothing to do with the primary season. That defense, if true, would be fatal to Brazile’s claims, and so DNC-loyal journalists all over Twitter instantly declared it to be true, thus pronouncing Brazile’s accusation to have been fully debunked. This post documents how quickly this claim was endorsed on Twitter by journalists and Democratic operatives, and how far and wide it therefore spread.

The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense’s Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is

The NBC article itself that was originally used to spread this claim now includes what amounts to a serious walk back, if not outright retraction, of the DNC’s principal defense

DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying lawyer language claiming that it is “focused exclusively on preparations for the General,” but as Fischer noted that passage “is contradicted by the rest of the agreement.” This would be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official (“A will pay Politician B to vote YES on Bill X”), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that “nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe,” and then have journalists cite that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face explicitly says the opposite.

The Clinton/DNC agreement explicitly vested the Clinton campaign with control over key matters during the primary season: the exact opposite of what journalists on Twitter caused hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, to believe. Nonetheless, DNC loyal commentators continue to cite headlines and tweets citing the legalistic language to convince huge numbers of people that the truth is the exact opposite of what it actually is

Viral Falsehood #2: Sanders signed the same agreement with the DNC that Clinton did.

To make the Clinton/DNC agreement appear benign and normal, the claim was quickly and widely circulated that Sanders had signed the same agreement with the DNC as Clinton had. This, too, was false – in the most fundamental way possible.

Simply put, the agreement Sanders signed with the DNC – which the Sanders camp appears to have provided ABC News in order to debunk the claim – did not contain any of the provisions vesting control over the DNC that made the Clinton agreement cited by Brazile so controversial. As ABC News put it (emphasis added):

A joint fundraising agreement between the Bernie Sanders campaign and the Democratic National Committee — obtained Friday by ABC News and signed at the start of the primary campaign for the 2016 presidential election — does not include any language about coordinating on strategic decisions over hiring or budget, unlike a fundraising memo between the Hillary Clinton team and the DNC.

It’s possible that had Sanders wanted to invoke his funding arrangement with the DNC, and then signed a second agreement, it might have included similar control provisions. But it’s also possible that it would not have. We’ll never know, because it never happened. What we actually know for certain – what exists in reality – is that Sanders never signed any agreement with the DNC that contained the control provisions that were given in 2015 to the Clinton campaign. In other words, the provisions cited by Brazile in her “rigging” allegation did not exist in any contract signed with the DNC by the Sanders campaign.

Needless to say, a tiny fraction of those who were exposed to the original falsehood (Sanders signed the same agreement as Clinton) ended up seeing this fundamental reversal, because the journalists who promoted the original falsehood felt no compunction, as usual, to provide the less pleasing correction.

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.” The article said Brazile considered exercising this power after Clinton’s fainting spell made her worry that Clinton was physically debilitated, and her campaign was “anemic” and had taken on “the odor of failure.”

But Brazile – as a result of her stinging criticisms and accusations of Clinton, Obama and the DNC – is currently Public Enemy Number One among Democrats in the media. So they seized on this headline to pretend that she claimed the power to unilaterally remove Clinton on a whim, and then used this claim to mercilessly vilify her – the chair of Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, last year’s interim head of the DNC, and a long-time Democratic Party operative – as a deluded, insane, dishonest, profiteering, ignorant fabulist who lacks all credibility.

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down well in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

The Post then amended its story to reflect that she made no such absurd claim in her book, but rather noted that “the DNC charter empowered her to initiate replacement of the nominee” and that “if a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.” The Post then added this note to the top of the article:

Journalists on Twitter spent hours yesterday mocking, maligning and attacking the reputation of Brazile for a claim that she simply never made – all because a tweeted headline, which they never bothered to read past or evaluate, made them think they were justified in doing so in order to malign someone who has, quickly and bizarrely, become one of the Democrats’ primary enemies.

Viral Falsehood #4: Evidence has emerged proving that the content of WikiLeaks documents and emails was doctored.

From the time WikiLeaks began last year publishing emails and documents from the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox, Clinton officials and their media supporters have constantly insinuated, and sometimes outright stated, that the WikiLeaks documents were frauds because they had been altered. What was most notable about this accusation was how easy it would have been prove it had it really been true: all anyone had to do was show the actual, original email that they sent or received, and then compare it to the altered WikiLeaks version, and that would have been proof that WikiLeaks archive was unreliable.

But that never happened. Never once did any of the dozens of Democratic Party operatives who sent or received the emails published by WikiLeaks point to a single specific case of an alteration – something that, obviously, they would have eagerly done had they been able to. As Politico noted last year (emphasis added):

Clinton’s team hasn’t challenged the accuracy of even the most salacious emails released in the past four days, including those featuring aides making snarky references to Catholicism or a Bill Clinton protégé describing Chelsea Clinton as a “spoiled brat.” And numerous digital forensic firms told POLITICO that they haven’t seen any proof of tampering in the emails they’ve examined — adding that only the hacked Democrats themselves could offer that kind of conclusive evidence.

Similarly, when PolitiFact tried last year to fact-check the Clinton campaign’s claims that the documents were doctored, they noted: “The Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.”

Nonetheless, the desire to believe this persisted. And this week, AP published a report that countless journalists seized upon to claim that proof finally had emerged that the WikiLeaks documents had been altered. The claim in the AP report is incredibly simple and limited. It does not involve any claim that WikiLeaks altered any documents, or that any of the emails it published were frauds; rather, the claim is that Guccifer, on one of the documents that he published, placed a “CONFIDENTIAL” watermark that did not appear on another version:

The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox, according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

The official said the word “CONFIDENTIAL” was not in the original document .

Guccifer 2.0 had airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention.

There are so many reasons to question whether this actually happened. To begin with, the fact that one version of the document is without a “Confidential” watermark doesn’t mean no version has one; it’s common to add watermarks of that sort for different purposes and different recipients. Moreover, AP’s only basis is an anonymous source claiming the document has been altered, along with the version that lacks the watermark. This is very far from proof that Guccifer “airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention.”

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Guccifer did, in fact, add a “Confidential” watermark to this document, and did so to entice journalists to view the document as more appetizing. This does not remotely justify the claim that any of the documents and emails published by WikiLeaks were materially altered and were thus unreliable.

First, Guccifer adding a watermark to a document he circulated does not mean that any of the archive of documents published by WikiLeaks was altered. It’s long been known that Guccifer altered the documents’ metadata to hide its path, but nobody ever tried to cite that as proof that anything published by WikiLeaks was fraudulent (indeed, PolitiFact cited Guccifer’s alteration of metadata when concluding there was no evidence that the WikiLeaks documents themselves had been altered).

Second, this has no bearing on the content of the emails or documents themselves published by WikiLeaks, which to date nobody has demonstrated have been altered in the slightest. Third, if it were the case that any of the emails or documents published by WikiLeaks were fraudulent, it would still be incredibly easy to prove: all anyone would have to do is produce the original and show how the WikiLeaks version was altered; why – a full year after WikiLeaks began publishing these documents – has nobody done this, despite the overwhelming incentive that would be to do so?

In sum, evidence that the content of any of the WikiLeaks emails was altered is nonexistent, while there is overwhelming reason to believe none has been (beginning with the fact that, as easy it would be to do so, no proof has been provided after all this time). Nonetheless, as a result of journalists’ conduct on Twitter this week, the false claim that emails and documents in the WikiLeaks archive were proven to be altered is now viral and will remain fixed in people’s belief system forever:

There’s no way to prove the negative: that no emails or documents published by WikiLeaks were altered. But one should demand actual evidence before affirming this claim. And despite the ease of providing that proof, and the long period of time that has elapsed, none has been provided. But, unsurprisingly, that did not stop the claim that it had been proven from going viral this week on Twitter – all based on the tenuous claim that Guccifer added a “Confidential” watermark to one of the documents he circulated.

It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind.

 

Beware of bitcoin bubble, warn investment & financial advisors

November 5, 2017

RT

Bitcoin’s sevenfold rally is one of the telltale signs of a bubble, according to investment strategists. It started the year at $973 and rocketed north of $7,400 as of Saturday, up over 750 percent in 10 months.

Financial advisors warn bitcoin is another bubble similar to the tech boom of the late 1990s, the housing crash of 2006-2007 and the commodities bust of 2008-2009.

“A month before the 1987 crash, my cab driver said he started day trading,” Scott Kelly, CEO of Black Dog Venture Partners in Phoenix, Arizona told Forbes. “A month before the real estate crash in 2007 in Arizona, my cab driver said he was getting into flipping real estate. Last week, my Uber driver said he just started trading Bitcoin.”

Since making its debut in 2008, bitcoin has gone from no value to a fraction of a penny by March 2010. Now, one coin is worth over $7,400, and its market capitalization is greater than McDonald’s. For an early investor, $1 in bitcoin seven years ago is worth millions today.

Since going mainstream, the crowd is piling in. New companies are popping up everywhere selling you on buying bitcoin for your retirement, writes Forbes, as newsletters tout their bitcoin trading strategy could make $1.64 million in 72 hours. Stories of overnight cryptocurrency millionaires abound.

While opinions have been split on the world’s most popular cryptocurrency, business leaders like Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon and Robert Shiller have warned bitcoin is a bubble.

“But it is anybody’s guess what inning. It looks to me like we’re well ahead of the 7th-inning stretch,” said Jason R. Escamilla, CEO of ImpactAdvisor, an investment advisory firm in San Francisco, as quoted by Fobes. “The price level and energy usage are unsustainable. There is far better technology emerging to meet the same needs.”

Ethereum, bitcoin cash and ripple could be those technologies. Bitcoin accounts for about 61 percent of the cryptocurrencies market that is worth nearly $200 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.com. If bitcoin crashes, there is nothing to prevent any of the alternative coins from taking over.

 

 

Chasing a killer: U.S. and Congolese scientists are tracking a virus.

At a time when a deadly disease can cross the globe,they need to understand the mysterious monkeypox.

November 3, 2017

by Lena H. Sun

The Washington Post

MANFOUETE, Congo Republic —   Along a narrow, winding river, a team of American scientists is traveling deep into the Congo rain forest to a village that can be reached only by boat.

The scientists are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and they have embarked on this watery journey to solve a decades-old mystery about a rare and fatal disease: monkeypox.

A cousin to the deadly smallpox virus, the monkeypox virus initially infects people through contact with wild animals and can then spread from person to person. The disease produces fever and a rash that often turns into painful lesions that can feel like cigarette burns. It kills up to 1 in 10 of its victims, similar to pneumonic plague, and is particularly dangerous in children. Monkeypox is on the U.S. government list of pathogens such as anthrax and Ebola with the greatest potential to threaten human health. There is no cure.

Over the past year, reports of monkeypox have flared alarmingly across Africa, one of several animal-borne diseases that have raised anxiety around the globe. The Congolese government invited CDC researchers here to track the disease and train local scientists. Understanding the virus and how it spreads during an outbreak is key to stopping it and protecting people from the deadly disease.

In Congo Republic, many suspected monkeypox cases trace back to the village of Manfouete, a six-hour boat trip from the nearest airport. The village has 1,600 people, no electricity and no running water. The scientists are traveling upriver in a big motorized boat that looks like an open-air school bus. They must bring everything they need for their work. So a second boat — a long, wooden dugout canoe — will follow later carrying most of their supplies: boxes of traps and test tubes, a portable centrifuge, jerrycans of gasoline, a 25-kilogram sack of rice and lots of bottled water.

On the river, the scientists in their noisy boat pass men and women gracefully paddling their own wooden dugout canoes and standing with their feet far apart for balance. Some ferry entire families; others carry baskets of vegetables, smoked fish or firewood. The scientists pass huts with dried mud walls and palm-thatched roofs where brightly colored clothes are laid out to dry.

“Mbote! Mbote!” — Hello! — children shout from the riverbanks. Biologists Jeff Doty and Yoshinori Nakazawa, part of the CDC team, wave back.

The boat follows the Ubangi River to the twisting Motaba River, where the water is smooth and still and stained the color of black tea.

The last few miles are difficult to navigate. As the sun dips low in the western sky, everyone worries about arriving after dark, when chances are highest for run-ins with hippos, considered the most dangerous animals in Africa.

On the river, the scientists in their noisy boat pass men and women gracefully paddling their own wooden dugout canoes and standing with their feet far apart for balance. Some ferry entire families; others carry baskets of vegetables, smoked fish or firewood. The scientists pass huts with dried mud walls and palm-thatched roofs where brightly colored clothes are laid out to dry.

“Mbote! Mbote!” — Hello! — children shout from the riverbanks. Biologists Jeff Doty and Yoshinori Nakazawa, part of the CDC team, wave back.

The boat follows the Ubangi River to the twisting Motaba River, where the water is smooth and still and stained the color of black tea.

The last few miles are difficult to navigate. As the sun dips low in the western sky, everyone worries about arriving after dark, when chances are highest for run-ins with hippos, considered the most dangerous animals in Africa.

Working with a dozen Congolese and international experts who are part of the team, they move wooden desks and benches out of two classrooms and pitch tents to protect themselves from biting insects during the night. (They avoid a third classroom, where a two-foot-high termite mound has sprouted from the concrete floor.)

When that work is done, there is still no sign of the dugout canoe carrying the food. So the scientists go to bed hungry, listening to the rhythmic thrum and shrill noises of the jungle.

Monkeypox in middle America

Manfouete lies in the tropical rain forest of central Africa, just north of the equator. Leprosy and other infectious diseases long wiped out elsewhere still lurk in this remote corner of the world. Ebola, caused by one of the most dangerous pathogens ever discovered, is considered endemic in neighboring Congo, where eight outbreaks have been recorded in the past 40 years.

Since late last year, reports of monkeypox have been on the rise. An outbreak occurred in chimps in a Cameroon primate sanctuary. Human cases have been reported in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo Republic, the Central African Republic and, most recently, Nigeria.

The United States experienced a monkeypox outbreak in 2003. An exotic pet dealer imported 800 animals from Africa, including giant pouched rats, dormice and rope squirrels. While the animals were housed in a facility in Illinois, some of them infected prairie dogs that were later sold as pets. Forty-seven people in six Midwestern states were sickened, all of whom recovered. The youngest was a 3-year-old girl bitten on the finger by her new pet prairie dog.

Worldwide, animal-borne infectious diseases that jump to humans are on the rise. Tropical rain forests, with their rich diversity of animal life, are disease hot spots. An outbreak that begins in a remote village such as Manfouete can reach major cities on any continent in less than 36 hours, blossoming into a global crisis.

In the Congo Republic, the monkeypox outbreak began in January with a hunter from Manfouete. Since then, at least 88 suspected cases of monkeypox have been reported throughout the country, and six people have died, including one confirmed case from Manfouete.

Some people were infected while caring for sick relatives. Others became sick through contact with wild animals or while hunting or preparing this critical source of protein in the local diet. But scientists don’t know which animals carry the virus.

Despite its name, monkeypox is probably not spread by monkeys. It was discovered in research monkeys in Denmark in 1958. Giant pouched rats, dormice and squirrels are the chief suspects, but there could be others. If the sources could be identified, villagers could avoid those species and prevent future outbreaks.

So in August, the CDC dispatched an ecological investigation team from Atlanta to try to find the sources. In addition to Doty and Nakazawa, the mission includes a third biologist, Clint Morgan, and Jennifer McQuiston, deputy director of the CDC’s Division of High-Consequence Pathogens.

The biologists are the core team. Doty, 39, is outgoing, with a wry sense of humor. He has learned enough Lingala, a local language, to converse easily with villagers. Nakazawa, 38, is the boss on the mission. More reserved, he speaks five languages, including French, Congo Republic’s official language. Morgan, 26, is the team’s junior member, making his first trip to Africa.

The CDC gave a rare opportunity to a Washington Post reporter and photographer to accompany them.

From Atlanta, the team flew to Brazzaville, the capital of Congo Republic, with 15 boxes of supplies, including a 48-ounce jar of Jif creamy peanut butter for use in making bait. In nearby Kinshasa, they picked up a tank of liquid nitrogen to preserve animal samples at minus-346 degrees Fahrenheit on the long trip back to Atlanta for analysis.

In Brazzaville, the scientists are joined by Congolese and international experts who help with translation and logistics. From there, the group flew 450 miles north to Impfondo.

In Impfondo, they completed their shopping at the town’s sprawling market under a relentless equatorial sun. Doty checked items off a handwritten shopping list: Generator. Power strips. Hammer and nails. Shovels and machetes. Rubber boots. Plastic buckets. Canned corned beef and dried beans. Soap. Toilet paper.

Then they loaded the boats and set off.

‘Ecology is more complicated than rocket science’

On the first full day in Manfouete, everyone on the team is up before dawn. There’s still no sign of the wooden dugout.

Doty, normally unflappable, scans the river anxiously. Maybe the motor broke down, he says. Or the boat drivers were robbed. There’s no way to communicate with them.

Logistics are difficult for field research like this. On a previous mission in neighboring Congo, Doty says, a planeload of supplies didn’t arrive until the second-to-last day. On another investigation in Congo, the team’s only truck hit a motorcycle and plunged into a river.

After two hours, the dugout appears, and the work begins in earnest. Supplies are unloaded, bucket-brigade style. Men from the village are hired to build a makeshift laboratory by cutting bamboo from the forest with machetes and wrapping tarp around the fresh-cut poles. The village secretary’s wife is hired to cook one daily meal: rice and beans, fish stew and roast goat. Hunters are hired to lead the way into the forest to set the traps.

Detailed negotiations over payment follow in a mix of English, French and Lingala. The village secretary records the agreements, longhand, in a large black ledger. Every evening, Doty or Nakazawa will pay the villagers in local currency.

The scientists then set about preparing the traps. They will be baited each afternoon and checked the next day at dawn. In some, the bait is peanut butter mixed with oats and seeds. In others, it is diced coconut cooked in oil and coated with peanut butter.

The rich smell of peanut butter makes the Americans hungry; none of them has eaten a full meal in more than a day. McQuiston sneaks a gloved fingerful.

Led by the hunters, the scientists carry the traps into the dark thicket of vines and trees surrounding the village. There are metal rectangular boxes and wire cages that snap shut when an animal walks inside. The most low-tech are pitfall traps: plastic buckets set in holes in the ground and covered with tarps, best for catching small rodents.

The smell of earth is heavy and moist as McQuiston and Doty kneel on the jungle floor digging holes for the buckets. Their hands are black with dirt.

“This is very labor-intensive,” McQuiston says.

“Yeah, this is not my favorite kind of trap,” Doty agrees

The hunters want to place the wire cages near large dirt mounds at the base of some trees — potential dens of giant pouched rats. Known as “motomba,” the animals are a leading suspect as a monkeypox host.

To figure out how the disease spreads, the scientists want to know whether jungle animals live on the ground or in the trees and whether they emerge during the day or at night.

“It’s the ecology of how the virus is being circulated and transmitted, because you find out what the animals are doing and how they’re doing it,” Doty says. “Ecology is more complicated than rocket science.”

After two sick teens

‘Esimbi!’ he calls out. Success!

The next day, everyone is eager to check the traps. The team hikes at sunrise into the jungle and splits into groups.

Wearing a headlamp, Doty peers into buckets now full of rainwater from overnight thunderstorms. In the first is a frog, which he scoops out and sets free. (The virus infects mammals, not amphibians.)

Bucket two is empty. So is bucket three.

But the fourth bucket contains a prize: a tiny, dark-gray shrew, partly covered by leaves and twigs. With a gloved hand, Doty grabs it and drops it into a small cloth bag.

Some of the metal traps are also empty; others are full of ants. But then Doty comes to a box next to a fallen log under a canopy of leaves. He keeps it at arm’s length as he lifts it and gently presses the trap door. “Esimbi!” he calls out in Lingala. Success!

Inside is a glimpse of dark fur, a tail and two tiny ears.

“One,” he says.

After about two hours, the scientists regroup and compare notes. The day’s catch: 13 rodents, mostly shrews. No giant pouched rats, but the majority of traps have yet to be set.

“It’s a good start,” Doty tells Nakazawa.

“Not bad,” Nakazawa replies, his ponytail bobbing in agreement.

Angelie Dzabatou-Babeaux, a Congolese health ministry official from Brazzaville who is coordinating efforts on the ground, asks how many animals the scientists hope to catch during their stay.

“We’d like to get 250,” Doty replies. “But if we get less, we’re still happy.”

‘Esimbi!’ he calls out. Success!

The next day, everyone is eager to check the traps. The team hikes at sunrise into the jungle and splits into groups.

Wearing a headlamp, Doty peers into buckets now full of rainwater from overnight thunderstorms. In the first is a frog, which he scoops out and sets free. (The virus infects mammals, not amphibians.)

Bucket two is empty. So is bucket three.

But the fourth bucket contains a prize: a tiny, dark-gray shrew, partly covered by leaves and twigs. With a gloved hand, Doty grabs it and drops it into a small cloth bag.

Some of the metal traps are also empty; others are full of ants. But then Doty comes to a box next to a fallen log under a canopy of leaves. He keeps it at arm’s length as he lifts it and gently presses the trap door. “Esimbi!” he calls out in Lingala. Success!

Inside is a glimpse of dark fur, a tail and two tiny ears.

“One,” he says.

After about two hours, the scientists regroup and compare notes. The day’s catch: 13 rodents, mostly shrews. No giant pouched rats, but the majority of traps have yet to be set.

“It’s a good start,” Doty tells Nakazawa.

“Not bad,” Nakazawa replies, his ponytail bobbing in agreement.

Angelie Dzabatou-Babeaux, a Congolese health ministry official from Brazzaville who is coordinating efforts on the ground, asks how many animals the scientists hope to catch during their stay.

“We’d like to get 250,” Doty replies. “But if we get less, we’re still happy.”

‘We had never seen anything just like this before’

Back at the lab, the biologists examine their catch. All three have received the smallpox vaccine, which is 85 percent effective against monkeypox. To further guard against infection, they wear long blue gowns, two pairs of gloves and battery-powered respirators that cover the entire face and neck. After a few hours, their shirts are soaked through with sweat; the insides of their gloves are also wet.

For each animal, the procedure is the same: The trap number is recorded. The trap’s GPS coordinates, captured separately, will permit scientists to pinpoint the homes of animals that test positive.

The animal is anesthetized and its blood drawn with a tiny syringe. Its sex, species and approximate age are recorded, along with its body measurements in millimeters and grams and its reproductive condition.

The scientists also note any sign of wounds or lesions before placing the samples into test tubes. These are then bagged in black, knee-high nylon stockings and dropped into the liquid nitrogen tank.

Creedence Clearwater Revival is playing on Doty’s iPhone as he examines one of the rodents.

“A45,” he calls out.

Nakazawa jots the trap number in a logbook. After a while, their work sounds like a game of bingo.

“Adult, scrotal male,” Doty says. “Length, 209; tail, 84; foot, 18; ear, 19; weight, 44.”

He notices the animal has bigger ears and footpads than some others.

“Is it a rat?” Nakazawa asks through his respirator.

“Not sure what it is,” Doty replies, peering closely at the animal. Its tail looks as though it was cut short, maybe from disease.

“Have you seen any lesion-like things yet?” Morgan asks.

No, Doty says. Not yet.

Lesions could be a sign of infection. An animal in the wild with an active infection could yield live monkeypox virus or DNA evidence of the virus. In the past four decades, scientists have been able to gather live monkeypox virus only twice from wild animals.

Two days before they leave Manfouete, the scientists get what could be a huge break. They catch two giant pouched rats, each nearly three feet long and weighing about three pounds.

The tail of each animal is covered with circular crusted lesions.

They swab the lesions and take samples.

“We had never seen anything just like this before,” Doty explains later. It’s possible the lesions are from wounds in a fight or from a parasite. The scientists won’t know for sure until the samples are tested back in Atlanta.

“It would be great if it’s monkeypox,” Nakazawa says.

Over 10 days, the CDC team takes samples from 105 animals, including 28 African wood mice, 22 shrews, nine giant pouched rats, two bats and one African brush-tailed porcupine.

It will take several weeks for the liquid nitrogen tank to be cleared into Atlanta, where samples from the lesions on the giant pouched rats will be tested first. If biologists find evidence of monkeypox, they will attempt to grow the virus in the lab, sequence its genes and develop a more complete picture of which virus strains from which animals are infecting people. The entire process could take several months.

For now, the team focuses on leaving Manfouete. Their lab is dismantled and many supplies distributed to the villagers. The generator, traps, personal protective gear and test tubes will be carried back down the river and left in Impfondo for use in future disease outbreaks.

On their last day in the village, the scientists host a farewell dinner under an enormous mango tree as tall as a five-story building. Nearly 150 villagers come, bringing their own bowls and banana leaves to hold the meal of rice and beans, dried fish, goat and saka-saka, a vegetable dish made from cassava leaves.

As sunset approaches, people dance to the pulsating beat of Congolese music. Children get gifts of candy and glow-stick bracelets the scientists have brought from Atlanta.

The next morning is overcast. The clouds turn the river gray, making the green of the trees seem brighter. Villagers turn out to send the scientists off, waving and calling out goodbyes. The scientists wave back.

“Merci,” the scientists shout as the boats pull away. ”À la prochaine! Until next time!”

And then they’re gone, bearing the liquid nitrogen tank and the hope that, somewhere inside it, lies an answer.