Irene Winters

@CraigBrockie probiotics

Stanford scientists found one bacteria missing in almost every obese, diabetic, and inflamed patient they studied. It's supposed to make up 3-5% of your gut. In people with metabolic problems, it's often 3,000 times lower. This bacteria has one job. It lives in the mucus lining of your gut wall, The last layer of defense between your bloodstream and the outside world. It eats old mucus, stimulates your body to make fresh mucus, and seals the wall tight. When it's there, your gut barrier is strong. When it's gone, the wall thins: Weight becomes harder to lose Food particles leak through Blood sugar misbehaves Cholesterol creeps up Inflammation climbs Researchers at Nature Medicine gave this bacteria to overweight adults for 3 months. The results: - Cholesterol dropped - Insulin sensitivity improved - Liver inflammation markers fell - Gut barrier function strengthened - Body weight started trending down without a single diet change Here's what people are reporting when they rebuild this strain and its probiotic cousins: Blood sugar stabilizing Cravings for sugar fading Bloating disappearing in days Skin clearing after years of struggle Clothes fitting differently in a matter of weeks What destroys this bacteria? Alcohol Antibiotics Chronic stress Artificial sweeteners High-fat, high-sugar processed diets You can't buy this specific strain at most health food stores. But you can feed the bacteria you already have, and colonize with related strains that do similar work - At levels 10x higher than any capsule. The trick is fermentation. A jar of homemade yogurt fermented with the right strain for 36 hours at the right temperature can deliver 200+ billion live probiotic cultures per serving. A store-bought yogurt? Maybe 1 billion if you're lucky. Dr. William Davis (author of "Super Gut") has spent years documenting exactly how to do this at home. I've been making it myself for 3 years. The difference in how I feel is night and day. Comment PROBIOTICS and I'll send you the free guide on how to make unlimited probiotics at home. P.S. MUST Follow for me to DM you.

BREAKING Israel is blowing up entire civilian homes in Aadshit al-Qusayr, South Lebanon right now — during a ceasefire. Civilian homes. No justification. Just deliberate terror and destruction to ensure civilians have nothing left to return to. A war crime in broad daylight.

You’re a woman who’s having migraines and blackouts. You’re afraid, worried, and it’s taken months to get an appointment with the neurologist in whose office you’re sitting, Dr. Jeffrey “Scott” Sloka. When Dr. Sloka comes in, the nurse leaves, which is weird, but you’re here for a neurology appointment, so you shrug it off. The doctor asks you some questions, and then he tells you he needs to do a vaginal exam and a breast exam. You don’t understand why, and he doesn’t explain. You want to refuse, but what if you make him angry? What if he refuses to continue the appointment? This is Canada; you waited for five months for this appointment, and your symptoms are getting worse — so you consent, even though you still don’t understand why he wants to examine you in this way. Once you’re undressed, Dr. Sloka begins the exam by telling you to remove your gown and stand completely naked with arms and legs spread. The nurse still hasn’t come back, but the doctor proceeds anyway. He says something about checking for lumps, but that doesn’t make any sense; he’s a neurologist, not an ob/gyn. Then you notice that he isn’t wearing gloves. During the breast exam, he touches you in ways that make you uncomfortable, and that are not a part of an ordinary breast exam. The vaginal exam is worse: the exam lasts an exceptionally long time, and the doctor inserts his ungloved fingers. The nurse still hasn’t returned. After the appointment, you feel dirty, soiled. You know deep down that you were assaulted, so eventually you work up the courage to file a report. It opens a floodgate. By the time the trial starts, Dr. Sloka has already lost his license, having pled guilty in front of the licensing board. He is facing 48 separate charges for the sexual abuse of his patients. Woman after woman testifies to this man’s inappropriate behavior. Multiple women testify that Dr. Sloka touched them inappropriately and intimately while not wearing gloves; they describe vaginal exams, rectal exams, and breast exams involving contact that had nothing to do with checking for lumps. An underage girl cries as she describes being pressured into a vaginal exam while her mother was banned from the room. 48 counts. 48 victims. 41 women and girls who took the stand to testify about the abuse they endured. And one more woman: the Crown’s key expert, Toronto neurologist Dr. Vera Bril. She testified that vaginal, rectal, and breast exams are “far outside our standard of practice,” and “far, far outside” of what neurologists typically do. She stated that these intimate exams were “not necessary” for treating or diagnosing the neurological issues presented by the victims. When the judge retires to deliberate, a conviction seems certain. Except that’s not what happens. The judge - Justice Craig Perry - discounts the testimony of all 42 women. He singles out Dr. Bril’s testimony in particular as suffering from “profound frailties,” and accused her of displaying “bias.” He dismisses the victims’ testimonies as well, citing “inconsistencies,” even though none of said “inconsistencies” touched in any way on ex-Dr. Sloka’s guilt. He accepts ex-Dr. Sloka’s claim that the assaults were medically necessary exams, even though Sloka admits to having performed many of them ungloved, and cannot explain what these exams had to do with any of his victims’ symptoms. In the end, Justice Craig Perry acquits ex-Dr. Jeffrey “Scott” Sloka on all 48 counts, choosing to believe a (male) defendant who had already admitted his guilt in front of the licensing board over 41 (female) victims and an expert (female) neurologist. And they say the patriarchy is dead.

Trump just fired all 24 members of the National Science Board. Every single one. By email. No warning. No reason given. The board has existed since 1950. The National Science Board is the independent body that oversees the National Science Foundation, the agency that distributes $9 billion in research grants every year. Its members are scientists and engineers from universities and industry. They serve six-year staggered terms specifically so they cross presidential administrations and stay independent of whoever is in power. On Friday, every single one of them got the same boilerplate email from Mary Sprowls of the Presidential Personnel Office: "On behalf of President Donald J Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service." That's it. That's the whole letter. For 76 years of institutional independence. The NSF funds the basic science behind MRIs. Cellphones. LASIK eye surgery. GPS. The internet itself. The Antarctic research stations. The deep-space telescopes. The research vessels mapping the ocean floor. Every breakthrough that made America the world's leader in science for the better part of a century traces back through grants this agency made and this board approved. The board chair, Victor McCrary, was actively advising Congress on Trump's proposed 55% cut to NSF's budget. The board was helping fight back. So Trump fired the board. Marvi Matos Rodriguez, one of the fired members, told reporters she had been reviewing an 80-page report as part of her board duties just days before being terminated. Keivan Stassun, a physicist at Vanderbilt, said NSF's leadership had already stopped responding to board oversight requests months ago. "We would ask them, 'Are you following board governance directives?' And their answer would be, in effect, 'We don't listen to you anymore.'" Now there's no board to answer to. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House Science Committee, called it "the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation. Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won't stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries?" That's the actual question. Because while Trump is firing American scientists, China is building research universities at a rate we cannot match. The CDC just buried a study showing vaccines work. RFK Jr. runs HHS. The EPA is gutted. The Forest Service is being broken. Half of American children are breathing dangerous air. And now the people who decide what gets researched in the United States have all been fired by email on a Friday afternoon.

@Here_s_Hoping Use them or frame them and display them. Hidden in a linen cupboard is no place for such beautiful work

One killed journalist might be a tragic accident. Two killed journalists are undeniable attempts to intimidate journalists and suppress freedom of press. Over 260 dead journalists in 2.5 years is the works of the most ruthless terrorist organization in the history of the world.

Dublin City Council has set aside €10 million of taxpayers money for works on its Wood Quay headquarters, despite the fact its vacating within 3 years and demolishing it. €3 million goes on internal office renovations. The rest covers security and maintenance. For a building heading for the skip. @DubCityCouncil is moving to Kevin Street at a cost north of €670 million, justified by a claim that retrofitting Wood Quay to 2030 climate standards would cost €400 million. So we cant afford to fix what we have, so we will spend ten million maintaining it, demolish it, then spend two-thirds of a billion elsewhere. Even worse, environmental studies put the carbon cost of this new foolishness up to 70% higher than a straightforward retrofit! Wood Quay was built on top of one of the most significant Viking archaeological sites ever uncovered in Europe. Thousands marched in protest. The council pressed on anyway. Annihilating our priceless irreplaceable heritage only to feck off barely forty years later. Dublin and Dubliners deserve better!

THE MAN THEY CALLED A NUTTER JUST GOT A KNIGHTHOOD In 2003, the Post Office fired Alan Bates from his small branch in Llandudno, Wales. The reason? He refused to repay £1,200 that the Horizon computer system had invented out of thin air. He invested £65,000 in that post office. He made 507 calls to the helpline. He kept meticulous records proving the software was broken. The Post Office's response was to terminate his contract and walk away. Their own internal documents called him "unmanageable." People at industry conferences called him a nutter and a thief. He couldn't afford a hotel room at one protest event. He slept in a tent. So naturally he spent the next 20 years building the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, dragging the Post Office into the High Court, winning a landmark judgment in 2019 that proved Horizon was riddled with bugs, errors and defects, and triggering the overturning of more than 900 wrongful convictions. Over 900 people were prosecuted. Around 700 convicted. 236 went to prison. The scandal was linked to at least 13 suicides. The compensation bill has now passed £1.2 billion. Fujitsu (@Fujitsu_Global) knew about the bugs from 1999. The Post Office (@PostOfficeNews) knew. They prosecuted people anyway. Then they destroyed the evidence, sacked the forensic accountants when they got too close to the truth, and deleted social media comments from victims. Paula Vennells, the CEO who presided over much of it, collected a CBE. She kept it for years. Bates turned down an OBE in 2023 specifically because of that. He finally accepted a knighthood in 2024. After the ITV drama. After the public inquiry. After the nation had caught up with what he'd been saying since 2003. Twenty years. Sleeping in a tent. Called a thief by the people who were supposed to represent him. Sir Alan Bates was right from the start. The institution was lying from the start. That is the whole story. Sources: @ComputerWeekly | @BBCNews | @ITVNews | @guardian |

Researchers sent the same resume to an AI hiring tool twice. Same qualifications. Same experience. Same skills. One version was written by a real human. The other was rewritten by ChatGPT. The AI picked the ChatGPT version 97.6% of the time. A team from the University of Maryland, the National University of Singapore, and Ohio State just published the receipt. They took 2,245 real human-written resumes pulled from a professional resume site from before ChatGPT existed, so the human writing was actually human. Then they had seven of the most-used AI models in the world rewrite each one. GPT-4o. GPT-4o-mini. GPT-4-turbo. LLaMA 3.3-70B. Qwen 2.5-72B. DeepSeek-V3. Mistral-7B. Then they asked each AI to pick the better resume. Every model picked itself. GPT-4o hit 97.6%. LLaMA-3.3-70B hit 96.3%. Qwen-2.5-72B hit 95.9%. DeepSeek-V3 hit 95.5%. The real human almost never won. Then the researchers tried the obvious objection. Maybe the AI is just better at writing. So they had real humans grade the resumes for actual quality and ran the experiment again, controlling for it. The result was worse. Each AI kept picking itself even when human judges rated the human-written version as clearer, more coherent, and more effective. It gets worse. The AIs do not just prefer AI over humans. They prefer themselves over other AIs. DeepSeek-V3 picked its own resumes 69% more often than LLaMA's. GPT-4o picked its own 45% more often than LLaMA's. Each model can recognize and reward its own dialect. Then the researchers ran the simulation that ends careers. Same job. 24 occupations. Same qualifications. The only variable was whether the candidate used the same AI as the screening tool. Candidates using that AI were 23% to 60% more likely to be shortlisted. Worst gap was in sales, accounting, and finance. 99% of large companies now run AI on incoming resumes. Most of them use GPT-4o. The paper just proved GPT-4o picks GPT-4o 97.6% of the time. If you wrote your own cover letter this week, you did not lose to a better candidate. You lost to a worse candidate who paid OpenAI 20 dollars. Your qualifications do not matter if the AI prefers its own handwriting over yours.

@Jennnyyyyyy 18kg

What is the weight of Lion? 🤔 Difficulty - Medium Pro 🤠

When Sarah Barratt was threatened with rape by 3 men while poolside at the @MarriottIntl in Qatar, her husband Craig complained to the front desk, and they were told the men hd been kicked out. It was a lie. Days later, coming off the elevator, the Barratts encountered the men again. Craig was furious, and posted a negative review on TripAdvisor. Craig is a businessman who operates in the Middle East, and when he next returned to Qatar, he was arrested, detained, fined, and deported, having been convicted in absentia of damaging the Marriott’s reputation. Worse, his inability to work in Qatar has destroyed his financial security. He and his wife are selling possessions online, and are considering selling their home. Marriott International, a Western company, used the draconian laws restricting speech in Qatar in order to have Craig Barratt punished for leaving a negative review on TripAdvisor - a review that was fully justified and supported by the facts. This is appalling behavior on their part, and I sincerely hope that this story will be circulated as widely as possible. All Marriott had to do was apologize. Instead, they destroyed a guest’s life for daring to complain about having been lied to, and about having been made unsafe on Marriott property by the actions of Marriott staff. thetimes.com/article/447b8e…

@KeruboSk Yes. 70/30 split or go your seperate ways

My boyfriend and I are planning to buy a house together after dating for 3 years. He earns significantly more than I do, so he’d be contributing about 70% of the down payment. Because of that, he wants the house to be only in his name. He says it’s just “fair” based on the numbers, but we’d both be living there, splitting bills, and building a life together. I’ve been watching a lot of relationship content about equity vs equality, and it made me realize things don’t always have to be 50/50 but this feels like I’d have no security at all. He said if we ever broke up, he’d “do the right thing,” but that doesn’t really reassure me. My friends say don’t move in unless my name is on it. His friends apparently think I’m being entitled. Now I feel stuck between trusting him and protecting myself. Is this a red flag I’m trying too hard to rationalize?

I have two stacks on my desk. The left stack is financial disclosure forms from members of Congress. The right stack is waivers for members who filed their financial disclosures late. The right stack is always taller. On Wednesday morning, I watched a soldier get arrested on CNN. I am a Disclosure Analyst for the House Ethics Committee. I have held this position for eleven years. My job is to receive the forms, verify their completeness, and file them. I do not investigate. I do not flag. I do not refer. I file. I have a lanyard. The lanyard says ETHICS. The soldier's name is Gannon Ken Van Dyke. He is thirty-eight years old. He was stationed at Fort Bragg. He was Special Forces. In December, he created an account on a prediction market called Polymarket. On January 2nd, he bet $32,500 that the president of Venezuela would be removed from power. On January 3rd, he helped remove the president of Venezuela from power. He collected $409,881. He has been charged with five federal crimes. Commodities fraud. Wire fraud. Unlawful use of confidential government information. Theft of nonpublic government information. Unlawful monetary transaction. The Department of Justice called it "the first-ever insider trading prosecution on event contracts." I watched this on the television in our break room. Then I walked back to my desk and processed a late financial disclosure from a member of the House Financial Services Committee who purchased $250,000 in bank stocks eleven days before his subcommittee held a closed-door hearing on proposed capital reserve changes. The filing was forty-seven days late. The STOCK Act requires disclosure within forty-five days. The penalty for late filing is $200. I waived it. I waive most of them. In 2021, fifty-four members of Congress and senior staff violated the reporting rules. The fines were minimal. Most were waived. I have a form for the waiver. The form has a box that says "Reason." I write "administrative delay." In ethics, "administrative delay" means the member's office forgot and then remembered when a reporter called. My approval rate is one hundred percent. In any other field, that number would trigger an audit. In mine, it is called thoroughness. Let me show you what I processed this year. January. A senator on the Armed Services Committee sold defense contractor shares worth $1.2 million. Three days later, his committee received a classified briefing that the Iran campaign had exceeded its projected cost by 340%. The stock dropped 8%. He filed the disclosure sixty-one days late. I calculated the fine. $200. His chief of staff asked if it could be waived. He did not ask what the senator traded on. Nobody asks that. The form does not have a field for it. I waived the fine. The senator's portfolio returned 23.4% in 2025. The S&P 500 returned 16.8%. February. A representative on the Energy and Commerce Committee bought pharmaceutical stocks worth $400,000. Two weeks later, her committee advanced a bill that would extend patent exclusivity for the exact drug class she purchased. The stocks rose 14%. She filed on time. There was no fine. There was no investigation. There was nothing to investigate because buying stocks in companies regulated by your own committee is not illegal. It is legal. The STOCK Act made it legal by making it disclosed. In Congress, disclosed means legal. In my office, legal means filed. March. A member whose spouse manages a portfolio worth $9.2 million reported forty-three separate transactions in a single quarter. Twelve of them were in sectors directly affected by legislation the member co-sponsored. The timing on eight of those twelve was within a two-week window of committee action. I logged all forty-three. None were flagged. We do not flag. We file. I asked my supervisor once what would happen if I flagged a filing. She said we do not have a form for that. I never asked again. In 2020, I processed 847 disclosures. In 2023, 1,211. In 2025, 1,614. The number of enforcement actions in each of those years was zero. The numerator changes. The denominator does not. I want to tell you about the soldier again. He made $409,881. He tried to delete his Polymarket account by calling customer service and saying he lost access to his email. He moved his profits into a foreign cryptocurrency vault and then into a new brokerage account. He used his real identity. He placed thirteen bets. Every single one was connected to an operation he personally participated in. In my eleven years, I have processed disclosures from members of Congress who traded on: Pending FDA approvals they learned about in committee. Defense appropriations they voted on. Trade policy they negotiated. Pandemic response measures they drafted. Interest rate decisions they were briefed on before the public. None of them have been charged. None of them have been investigated by the Department of Justice. None of them have been referred to the SEC. The STOCK Act has produced zero prosecutions since it was signed on April 4th, 2012. Fourteen years. Five hundred and thirty-five members. $635 million in trades last year alone. Zero cases. My daughter asked me once what happens when someone breaks the rules. I told her we write it down. She asked what happens after that. I said it depends. She was nine. She is twenty now. It does not depend. Nothing happens after that. The soldier made $409,881 and faces decades in prison. Nancy Pelosi entered Congress in 1987 with a portfolio worth approximately $785,000. It is now worth $133.7 million. That is a return of 16,930%. The Dow Jones returned 2,300% over the same period. Professional fund managers who beat the market for three consecutive years are considered exceptional. She has beaten it for thirty-seven. If a hedge fund produced those returns, the SEC would subpoena the records on a Thursday. She produced them from a building with a chapel and a gift shop. She announced her retirement last year. No investigation was opened. No disclosure was flagged. Her filings were on time. In my office, on time means compliant. Compliant means closed. I want to tell you about the fine. $200. That is the maximum penalty for violating the STOCK Act's disclosure requirements. $200 for a member of Congress whose portfolio gained $4.7 million in a single quarter. I calculated what $200 represents as a percentage of $4.7 million. It is 0.004%. I could not find a comparison that made it meaningful. It is less than the price of the parking pass in the Rayburn garage. It is less than lunch at the members' dining room if you order the crab cakes, which I am told are excellent though I eat at my desk. Since 2012, thirty-one bills have been introduced to restrict congressional trading. I keep a list. The list is longer than the STOCK Act itself. On March 5th, 2026, a representative from Michigan introduced the thirty-second. He called it the "No Getting Rich in Congress Act." The bill would prohibit the President, Vice President, members of Congress, and their spouses from trading individual stocks, cryptocurrency, futures, and commodities while in office. The bill was referred to committee. The committee has not scheduled a hearing. The committee is chaired by a member whose spouse executed $2.1 million in trades last year. The bill will be reviewed. In my office, reviewed means read. Read means acknowledged. Acknowledged means a status has been assigned. A status is the absence of an action that has been given a name so it looks like one. The soldier used classified information to make $409,881 on a prediction market. He has been charged with five federal crimes. The Department of Justice announced the case on the same day I processed three disclosures from members who traded on committee knowledge worth a combined $3.8 million. The difference between the soldier and the members is not what they did. It is the building they did it in. He did it from Fort Bragg. They did it from the Capitol. He used a prediction market. They used the New York Stock Exchange. He bet on a military operation. They bet on the legislation they write. He did not write the law. They did. They wrote the STOCK Act. Then they funded its enforcement at zero dollars. Then they set its maximum penalty at $200. Then they gave my office the authority to waive it. Then they traded $635 million. The soldier flew to Caracas. He breached a compound. He put his body between a mission and a bullet. The people who ordered the operation were in a building with a credenza and sparkling water. They did not go to Caracas. They went to their brokerage accounts. The soldier made $409,881 and is now in federal custody. The people who knew what he was going to do before he did it made more and filed less. His prosecution is not a failure of the system. It is the system. One conviction per decade, at the lowest level, so the briefing slides can say enforcement exists. The $409,881 is not the crime. It is the cost of making $635 million look supervised. In my field, we call this self-regulation. The soldier's Polymarket account has been frozen. His military career is over. He will spend years in federal prison. My office will process every congressional disclosure filed this year. Every trade logged. Every $200 fine calculated and waived. The system is immaculate. Fourteen years. Zero prosecutions. $635 million a year. A 16,930% return. I have not leaked a document. I have not filed a complaint. I have not deviated from the process one single time. The process was written by the people whose forms I process. As long as the disclosures go up and the cases don't, my performance review says I am meeting expectations. My lanyard still says ETHICS. In eleven years, nobody has asked me to define the word.

Excuse me. But banned why? Are we seriously saying Farage UK should have its own 24/7 news and propaganda channel with barely a peep from @Ofcom but if another party uses what Farage and Co have said in an election broadcast they can’t show it. Madness. Anyway do watch it. It is very powerful

I urge everyone to watch this report by Channel 4 News about Israel’s killing of Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil. “Under international humanitarian law, journalists are afforded the same protection as civilians… If that journalist has a particular sympathy with a particular cause, that doesn’t mean that protection is removed… … the IDF said the incident is under review. Don’t hold your breath…” Providing the necessary context and not taking Israel’s claims at face value. This is how every journalist should be reporting.

According to Reporters Without Borders, Israel accounted for almost half of the world's journalist deaths this year. It says Israel has now been the deadliest country for journalists for three consecutive years.

Remember this shocking detail : ‘Throughout the ordeal, the journalists made repeated calls for help. But Israel prevented the Lebanese Army and the Lebanese Red Cross from reaching them, informed sources told us’ - @MaucourantNada

@Simi_2210_ 5

No calculator. No cheating. Just use your brain

@Durenajjaf7825 6

Don’t overthink 😏 First answer that comes in your mind is probably wrong 👀

@Hania16836 D

My grandma is 98 and still more stylish than all of us 😭💚 Which dress should she wear to my wedding?