Yesterday we had a NOTABLE about the USDA not paying attention anymore to honeybee losses. However, President Trump also made it very clear he's interested in keeping our environment healthy so that citizens can keep their businesses and the economy working properly. I want to offer my hypothesis about this. Anons, I'm guessing, would agree that our government has become bloated, unworkable, ineffective and worse. As an "anti-vaxxer" I've also come to the conclusion that a lot of agencies are Orwellian (CDC-makes us sick so we are "profitable" for pharmaceutical companies, for example). A lot of people on the progressive side of things got really freaked out that Trump would trash EPA rules that were in place to "protect" the environment. If a lot of our government's actions are indeed Orwellian could it be that eliminating these functions will have the OPPOSITE effect as some would fear. So.. was the USDA counting honeybee losses being used to "check" on the progress of a plot to decimate pollinators? Anons have posted about the death of thousands of honeybees in the EQ. Where is the government on examining this issue? It's pretty safe to ditch Orwellian government agencies and programs, imo.

I am personally working to save honeybees by ditching chemicals in my yard and allowing/encouraging flowering plants. I purchase as my local organic food as I can, which also indirectly helps honeybees. I don't need USDA "counters" to tell me the bees have been disappearing, nor government "regulators" to tell me to do what I can to reverse the trend.

>>6965361

>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-07-03/the-british-banking-dynasty-that-s-even-older-than-the-rothschilds

The coat of arms looks positively creepy, but that Bloomberg story didn't make them seem to be "evil" necessarily. Branching out into serving the biotech industry seems problematic.

The Bloomberg story seems to paint a picture of an old family business that navigated some pitfalls to stick around. Is there sauce providing information that would associate them with nefarious things?

>>6965369

The thing is that these genes, when present in heterozygous carriers seem to be associated with greater intelligence (at least in some cases).

Consider sickle cell anemia. Our hypothesis as to why this disease has not vanished among people of African descent is because a CARRIER for the trait is potentially resistant to malaria. Having one gene makes RBCs more prone to deformation under stress. Meaning that when infected with the malaria parasite the infected RBCs "deform" and are recognized by the body as defective and filtered. (This is just my understand of how this works)

Now consider an "isolated" population such as Ashkenazi Jews (doesn't necessarily have to be them, btw, there are other isolated religious communities). If there are genetic traits that when homozygous produce life threatening disease wouldn't it stand to reason that these traits would very quickly die out UNLESS there was significant survival benefit from being heterozygous? I think some of the trait in the list posted are advantageous to the heterozygous carriers.