“We must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.”
This week Ottawa welcomes 4,000 delegates from the United Nations to discuss how they will oversee a reduction and even possible elimination of plastics from our lives. The key problem is no one has ever figured out how they will replace this essential component of our modern economy and society. The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada (CCMBC) has launched an information campaign to discuss the realities of plastic, how it contributes massively to our society and the foolishness of those who think plastics can be eliminated or greatly reduced without creating serious problems for key industries such as health care, sanitary food provision, many essential consumer products and safety/protective equipment, among others. CCMBC President Catherine Swift said “The key goal should be to keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment, not eliminate many valuable and irreplaceable plastic items. The plastics and petrochemical industries represent about 300,000 jobs and tens of billions contribution to GDP in Canada, and are on a growth trend.”
The UN campaign to ban plastics to date has been thwarted by reality and facts. UN efforts to eliminate plastics began in 2017, motivated by such terrible images as rivers with massive amounts of floating plastic and animals suffering from negative effects of plastic materials. Although these images were dramatic and disturbing, they do not represent the big picture of what is really happening and do not take into account the many ways plastics are hugely positive elements of modern society. Swift added “Furthermore, Canada is not one of the problem countries with respect to plastics waste. Developing countries are the main culprits and any solution must involve helping the leading plastics polluters find workable solutions and better recycling technology and practices.”
The main goal of plastic is to preserve and protect. Can you imagine health care without sanitary, flexible, irreplaceable and recyclable plastic products? How would we keep our food fresh, clean and healthy without plastic wraps and packaging? Plastic replaces many heavier and less durable materials in so many consumer products too numerous to count. Plastics help the environment by reducing food waste, replacing heavier materials in automobiles and other products that make them more energy-efficient. Many plastics are infinitely recyclable and innovations are taking place to improve them constantly. What is also less known is that most of the replacements for plastics are more expensive and actually worse for the environment.
Swift stated “Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has been convinced by the superficial arguments that plastics are always bad despite the facts. He has pursued a campaign against all plastics as a result, without factoring in the reality of the immense value of plastic products and that nothing can replace their many attributes. Fortunately, the Canadian Federal court overturned his absurd ban on a number of plastic products on the basis that it was unscientific, impractical and impinged upon provincial jurisdiction.” Sadly, Guilbeault and his Liberal cohorts plan to appeal this legal decision despite its common-sense conclusions. Opinion polls of Canadians show that a strong majority would prefer this government abandon its plastics crusade at this point, but history shows these Liberals prefer pursuing their unrealistic and costly ideologies instead of policies that Canadians support.
The bottom line is that plastics are an essential part of our modern society and opposition has been based on erroneous premises and ill-informed environmentalist claims. Swift concluded “Canada’s record on plastics is one of the best in the world. This doesn’t mean the status quo is sufficient, but we must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.” The current Liberal government approach is one that has no basis in fact or science and emphasizes virtue-signaling over tangible and measurable results. Swift noted “The UN’s original founding purpose after World War II was to prevent another world war. Given our fractious international climate, they should stick to their original goal instead of promoting social justice warrior causes that are unhelpful and expensive.”
The CCMBC was formed in 2016 with a mandate to advocate for proactive and innovative policies that are conducive to manufacturing and business retention and safeguarding job growth in Canada.
SOURCE Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Remember Aduhelm? It was Biogen’s $56,000/year Alzheimer’s drug that didn’t even work.
Worse, it caused brain swelling, brain bleeding, and sudden falls in patients—and the FDA approved it anyway.
But the truth is, you don’t need deep pockets to treat Alzheimer’s. You just need to look at what Big Pharma can’t monetize.
This report exposes the real causes behind Alzheimer’s—and the cheap treatment options you should explore instead.
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
Exposing the Great Amyloid Scam and the cures they buried for billions…
Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.
It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.
That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.
The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.
The amyloid hypothesis was unstoppable. Billions poured in. Researchers who questioned it were pushed to the margins.
Critics called it “amyloid mafia” because no alternative view got funded or even considered.
Meanwhile, real scientists were finding deeper drivers of Alzheimer’s. Things like chronic inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, and mitochondrial collapse.
But these discoveries never gained traction because they didn’t lead to blockbuster drugs.
The entire field locked onto a theory that would never cure the disease but could generate infinite research dollars.
By 2006, the amyloid hypothesis was in trouble. The failed trials and contradictory evidence began piling up and could no longer be ignored. So the medical establishment pivoted instead of admitting any error.
They claimed the real problem was a toxic oligomer called Aβ*56.
An article in Nature declared that they found the smoking gun. It became one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies ever. The authors became stars. Pharma reinvested billions chasing a new chemical villain.
The field was saved! But there was no truth here, just a convenient new molecule used to justify research funding.
The entire foundation of modern Alzheimer’s research rested on one “blockbuster discovery.” But what if the discovery never existed?
It was a scandal of epic proportions.
A neuroscientist reviewing experimental drug data in 2021 noticed suspicious Western blots. When he looked a little deeper, he found multiple Alzheimer’s papers filled with manipulated images, all traced back to the same author of the famous 2006 study.
So he kept digging. And what he uncovered was stunning!
At least 20 fraudulent papers tied to this researcher, 10 directly involving the molecule the entire amyloid theory now depended on.
The field’s “master proof” was built on completely fabricated data.
Let that sink in.
The NIH was informed in early 2022. And guess what?
They did nothing about it.
Actually, they did worse than nothing—they gave the suspect researcher a $764,792 grant a few months later.
It wasn’t until 2024 that the paper was finally retracted, and even then the authors insisted the fraud didn’t change their conclusions.
Billions of dollars and two decades of research fueled by manipulated images—and the establishment still defended the theory today.
What a joke.
Why are they protecting a disproven model? Why would they continue to push a hypothesis built on doctored data?
Because amyloid research is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—across drugs, trials, funding, and Medicare reimbursements. Seven million Alzheimer’s patients represent an enormous revenue stream.
And with no cure, they’re set to increase customers as people age.
If the amyloid theory collapses, so does the entire financial architecture tied to it. So the system pushes forward—regardless of fraud, failure, or human cost.
And the average person continues to trust this system.
BigPharma eventually produced monoclonal antibodies that cleared amyloid from the brain. The FDA called it a breakthrough. The investors celebrated. News headlines said there was hope.
Except there was a problem. A big problem. Removing amyloid didn’t actually help anyone.
The first drug, Aduhelm, didn’t improve cognition. At all.
In fact, an FDA advisory panel voted 10–0 against approval, calling it a disaster.
But the FDA approved it anyway. Three advisors resigned in protest, calling it the worst drug decision in modern history!
Why was it so bad?Just take a look at these side effects:
Up to 41% of patients experienced serious brain complications.
And it costs a sickening $56,000 per year.
Congress actually launched an investigation. But the FDA still greenlit it—and even quietly approved the next two monoclonals, despite similarly weak results and similarly high risk.
Because it’s not about a cure.
The new drugs caused brain bleeding… but that wasn’t even the most disturbing part.
They still caused massive brain swelling and bleeding, just at slightly lower percentages.
And their “benefits” were so tiny—slowing decline by a fraction of a point on a scale where patients need 1–2 points for them and their families to notice anything.
Despite aggressive marketing and FDA cheerleading, the market ultimately rejected these drugs. Aduhelm earned only $5 million before it was pulled. The replacements sold modestly but never lived up to the hype.
Why? Because people quickly realized they didn’t work. Hopeful families didn’t see any improvement. Doctors didn’t either. The risks outweighed the rewards, and thankfully people started to notice.
And yet the system keeps pushing the same model—even as evidence mounts that amyloid might be protective, not harmful.
You read that right. Amyloid may actually be protective.
One of the few successful Alzheimer’s protocols, RECODE, treats amyloid as the brain’s attempt to shield itself from metabolic and inflammatory damage. So removing it may worsen the underlying disease.
This helps explain why amyloid-clearing drugs cause so much harm.
They very well may be ripping off the brain’s band-aids while exposing and ignoring the deeper wounds.
Therapies that do help (and don’t cost an arm and a leg) remain completely ignored.
A trial using MCTs from coconut oil showed 80% of patients improved or stabilized over six months of use. That’s better than any amyloid drug in existence.
Patients around the world have reported similar benefits simply from adding coconut oil to their routine! No side effects. No brain bleeds. And of course, no $30,000 price tag.
The Alzheimer’s story is really a story about American medicine. We don’t have a cure not because the disease is too complex, but because the system isn’t designed to cureanything.
It’s designed to manage your symptoms while profiting off of them.
Until we move away from profit-first frameworks and toward root-cause medicine, we’ll continue to lose the war on chronic disease.
Thankfully, we’re closer now than ever before to making this necessary shift.
If you or someone you love is facing cognitive decline, this report is essential reading. It explains the entire collapse of the amyloid model, the fraud no one wants to talk about, the real mechanisms behind Alzheimer’s, and the natural therapies that actually help.
This thread barely scratches the surface—the full article is one of the most important things you’ll ever read about Alzheimer’s.
Parents should take precaution this holiday season when it comes to artificial intelligence toys after researchers for the new Trouble in Toyland report found safety concerns.
Illinois Public Interest Research Group Campaign Associate Ellen Hengesbach said some of the toys armed with AI raised red flags ranging from toys that talk in-depth about sexually explicit topics to acting dismayed when the child disengages.
“What they look like are basically stuffed animals or toy robots that have a chatbot like Chat GPT embedded in them and can have conversations with children,” Hengesbach told The Center Square.
The U.S. PIRG Education Fund report also points out that at least three toys have limited to no parental controls and have the capacity to record your child’s voice and collect other sensitive data via facial recognition.
“All three were willing to tell us where to find potentially dangerous objects in the house, such as plastic bags, matches, or knives,” she said. “It seems like dystopian science fiction decades ago is now reality.”
In the face of all the changing landscape and rising concerns, Hengesbach is calling for immediate action.
“The two main things that we’d like to see are more oversight in general and more research so we can see exactly how these toys interact with kids, really just identify what the harms might be and have a lot more transparency from companies around how are these toys designed,” she said. “What are they capable of and what the potential risks or harms might be. I just really want us to take this opportunity to really think through what we’re doing instead of rushing a toy to market.”
As for the here and now, Hengesbach stressed parents would be wise to be thoughtful about their purchases.
“We just have a big open question of what are the long-term impacts of these products on young kids, especially when it comes to their social development,” she said. “The fact is that we just really won’t know what the long-term impacts of AI friends and companion toys might be until the first generation playing with them grows up. For now, I think it’s just really important that parents understand that these AI toys are out there; they’re very new and they’re basically unregulated.”
Since the release of the report, Hengesbach said one AI toymaker temporarily suspended sales of all their products to conduct a safety audit.
This year’s 40th Trouble in Toyland report also focuses on toys that contain toxins, counterfeit toys that haven’t been tested for safety, recalled toys and toys that contain button cell batteries or high-powered magnets, both of which can be deadly if swallowed.
