For a long time, it’s occurred to me that some kind of association or union (the choice of words is important) of ‘estrangeiros’ would at the very least make for
The post A forum for foreigners in Portugal? appeared first on Portugal Resident.
Interview with Jean-Marc Sabatier by François Cotard on emerging viruses
During a lengthy interview broadcast on alternative media platforms, Jean-Marc Sabatier shared his views on several current public health topics, including hantaviruses, the Ebola virus, and Alpha-Gal syndrome.
The interview first focused on hantaviruses, a family of viruses that can cause pulmonary syndromes or hemorrhagic fevers. Jean-Marc Sabatier noted that these viruses are generally transmitted through contact with the feces, urine, or saliva of infected rodents and are not easily spread from person to person.
According to Sabatier, Moderna’s development of an mRNA vaccine targeting certain hantavirus strains as early as 2024 raises questions, particularly because these viruses are considered to have limited pandemic potential. He also described several biological mechanisms associated with these infectious agents and discussed laboratory research involving pseudoviruses.
The speakers emphasized that, based on the information available to them, the number of reported cases in Europe remains limited and that the situation does not currently warrant major concern.
The second part of the interview addressed the Ebola virus, particularly the Bundibugyo strain, which is currently being monitored in Central Africa.
Jean-Marc Sabatier reviewed the biological characteristics of the virus, its high fatality rate under certain circumstances, and its modes of transmission, primarily through contact with bodily fluids. He stressed that Ebola outbreaks have historically been contained through targeted public health measures.
The two participants also discussed funding for vaccine research directed at this specific strain. They expressed skepticism about the possibility of large-scale vaccination campaigns being implemented if the virus were to spread beyond Africa.
In addition, several potential treatments were mentioned, including certain monoclonal antibodies and older medications such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, although their effectiveness remains a subject of debate within the scientific community.
The third topic concerned Alpha-Gal syndrome, a red meat allergy that can develop following bites from certain tick species, particularly the Lone Star tick, which is found primarily in North America.
Jean-Marc Sabatier explained that the condition results from an immune reaction to a sugar molecule known as galactose-α-1,3-galactose, which is present in most mammals but absent in humans.
During the discussion, the participants referred to various claims circulating on social media regarding Bill Gates’s alleged involvement in programs related to ticks or synthetic meat. They suggested that connections between these topics might exist, although no direct evidence was presented during the interview.
Ongoing Criticism of Public Health Institutions
Throughout the conversation, the participants expressed skepticism toward certain public health institutions, including the World Health Organization (WHO), regulatory agencies, and major pharmaceutical companies.
Jean-Marc Sabatier specifically criticized the development of mRNA vaccines and argued that dissenting voices face difficulties being heard within scientific and media circles. He stated that he himself has experienced a form of marginalization because of his views.
In conclusion, despite the concerns raised during the interview, Jean-Marc Sabatier encouraged listeners not to panic in response to new public health alerts. According to him, it is important to maintain a critical mindset, consult multiple sources of information, and closely monitor evolving epidemiological situations without resorting to alarmism.
Jean-Marc Sabatier, Director of Research at the CNRS, holds a PhD in cell biology and microbiology and a Habilitation à diriger des recherches (HDR) in biochemistry
L’article Jean-Marc Sabatier on Emerging Viruses, Vaccines, and Alpha-Gal Syndrome est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.
Let’s today change our focus from the shifting goal posts of nationality, and look at the national team instead, and in doing so, find an organic and authentic way to
The post How to win friends (and integrate with people) appeared first on Portugal Resident.
Our 1,000 little grape vines, which were delivered in a box at the local petrol station, were soaked in a bath of water to rehydrate and were planted over the
The post Off-Grid and Entertaining in Portugal – The vines are alive! But will the young grapes survive the summer? appeared first on Portugal Resident.
This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on May 22, 2026. It is shared here with permission.
On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) finally released its long-awaited autopsy of Kamala Harris’s failed presidential campaign.
The rollout was highly on-brand for the Democratic establishment. The 192-page document seems slapped together, is full of typos, and was released only because CNN obtained a copy. In an accompanying note, DNC Chair Ken Martin said the report didn’t meet his standards, but that it was being released “because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.”
In fact, the report has further eroded that trust by omitting some big, obvious reasons why Harris lost. Concerns about Biden’s age and his inexplicable decision to run for reelection are barely mentioned, and there’s virtually no analysis of the Democratic policies that might have helped propel Trump to another victory.
If one were compiling such a list, support for the Gaza genocide would presumably be near the top, but the issue is not mentioned once in the massive report.
You’ll recall that Harris never distanced herself from Biden on this question. In her first interview after becoming the nominee, she maintained the party line on Israel, reciting the usual claptrap about the country’s right to “defend itself.” Asked point-blank whether her foreign policy would differ from Biden’s at all, she said it would remain the same. That is to say, the United States would continue to send weapons to Israel while the country carried out a genocide.
A couple of months later, she reiterated her position on The View, telling the hosts that she couldn’t think of anything she would do differently. Although later in the interview she said that, unlike Biden, she would put Republicans in her cabinet.
Throughout the Harris campaign, Palestine advocates called on the former Senator to shift her position and take a firm stance against Israel’s actions.
“By taking a strong stand against Netanyahu’s authoritarian policies, the Biden-Harris administration can unify the Democratic Party and regain the trust of key voter bases, including young people, Arabs, and Muslims,” read an open letter to Harris from the Not Another Bomb coalition to Harris at the time. “This decisive action will reinforce the administration’s commitment to democracy and human rights, contrasting sharply with the far-right extremism embodied by Trump and his supporters. It sends a clear message that the Democratic Party stands for peace, justice, and the protection of all people, thereby strengthening the coalition needed to secure victory in the 2024 elections and beyond.”
She wouldn’t budge.
At the Democratic National Convention that August, the Uncommitted Movement pushed for a Palestinian speaker to be included. “The difficulty in approving even a single Palestinian American speaker among the dozens of speakers on the convention stage sends a troubling message to our anti-war voters, suggesting they aren’t truly included in this party,” explained a statement from the organization’s founders.
The request was denied.
It’s inaccurate to say the campaign simply ignored these issues. On the contrary, they leaned in from the opposite direction, embracing hawkish former House member Liz Cheney and sending Rep. Ritchie Torres to Michigan, the state with the highest percentage of Arab Americans, to tell voters that Harris would stand with Israel.
There’s a certain kind of centrist pundit who likes to wax sarcastic about the 2024 election and point out that Trump is also an ardent supporter of Israel. The inference is that people concerned about Gaza accomplished nothing by voting against Harris.
However, this brand of snark often presupposes that people fed up with the genocide actually voted. Yes, some people backed Trump because they irrationally believed that the guy currently bombing Iran was antiwar, but the actual number of people that foolish is presumably negligible. Much hay is also made over the Green Party, but Jill Stein got fewer than 900,000 votes and thus had no discernible impact on the ultimate result.
One of the biggest stories of the 2024 race is how many people stayed home.
“The most telling fact in this race is the drop in voter turnout,” wrote Mitchell Plitnick days after the election, pointing out that Harris netted millions less votes than Biden did in 2020.
“Theories will emerge, but the cause of Harris’ disastrous failure will forever be debated,” he wrote. “Still, there are good reasons to believe the Middle East in general and Gaza in particular played a significant role.”
“Nobody is going to get excited about the ‘politics of joy’ and ‘endless brat summer’ when they’re watching a kid raising his hands while he’s being burned to death attached to an IV,” political consultant Peter Feld told me at the time. “It pretty much puts an end to any of the vibes that they were trying to run on.”
“I don’t think you can explain this election without explaining the non-voters, and I think some of the post-election polling that’s come out and attempts to explain it by talking to voters is going to miss this story,” he continued. “If you haven’t spoken to non-voters, you haven’t explained the election.”
Insofar as polling exists on this issue, it backs up the assertions of Plitnick and Feld. A January 2025 YouGov survey found that 2020 Biden voters who stayed home in 2024 cited Gaza as the top reason.
If you need further proof that Gaza hurt Harris at the polls, just look at what’s happened since November 2024. Israel critics are prevailing in Democratic primaries, and groups like AIPAC have become entirely toxic, and support for Israel has plummeted to historic lows amid the war on Iran. A recent NBC News poll found that just 32% of U.S. voters view Israel positively, which is down from 47% in 2023.
It’s difficult to overstate the incompetence of the DNC, but leaving this kind of stuff out of the “autopsy” report certainly feels like much more than oversight. Officials formerly connected to Biden and Harris are openly admitting as much.
“What’s important is what’s missing, what they’re not releasing,” Harris’s former communications director, Ashley Etienne, told Politico. “It feels like what the DNC is doing is cherry-picking the parts of it that it wants to actually release, that [are] less problematic for the party going forward.”
It’s an oversimplification to say Gaza is what cost the Democrats the election. There are multiple factors in every presidential race, and many of them have nothing to do with foreign policy. However, ignoring the genocide’s obvious impact on voters is malpractice and suggests that Democratic leadership could be poised to repeat the same mistakes in 2028.
Amazon founder and Executive Chairman Jeff Bezos made news earlier this week by claiming the reason he fired 30 percent of the Washington Post’s staff and rebranded it as a more conservative media outlet is because its previous iteration was not a “profitable enterprise” and it needed to be. This is consistent with previous arguments he’s made as to why he moved the traditionally centrist—if neoconservative on foreign policy—newspaper more visibly to the right wing since Trump took office in early 2025.
SORKIN: Why lay people off at the Post? Why fire people?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 20, 2026
BEZOS: Because the Post needs to be a profitable enterprise that stands on its own two feet
SORKIN: Does it? Some people say it should be a trust
BEZOS: Yes. It's a measure of its relevance. If people aren't paying for… pic.twitter.com/ENtR4t6S58
CBS News, after its parent corporation Paramount was purchased by the multibillionaire Ellison family last year, also had a similar, more overt right-wing rebrand, bringing in self-identified “zionist fanatic” Bari Weiss to run CBS News and crack down on stories deemed too critical of Trump while disciplining anything perceived as too progressive. This culminated with a much-mocked statement of “10 journalistic principles” a la Citizen Kane, followed by “5 guiding principles” for CBS Evening News, both of which read like LLM-generated marketing copy for a local Dodge dealership.
“Our foundational values of liberty, equality and the rule of law,” reads the third principle, “make us [Americans, presumably] the last best hope on Earth. We also believe in Franklin’s famous line about America as a republic—if we can keep it. We aim to do our part every night…”
The views for [the Washington Post’s] last 20 YouTube videos—combined—are less than the downloads I get for a single episode of my own podcast, which I record in my kid’s bedroom next to a stuffed elephant.
Both the Ellisons and Bezos—and their respective functionaries—framed their pivot explicitly in marketing terms. Which, of course, they would. Being ideological, or concerned with other unrelated business interests, is considered gauche and even may run afoul of securities law which requires them, at least in theory, to use business properties to expand the shareholder value of those invested in said properties, not unrelated business interests or their own ideological agendas.
But there’s only one problem with this alibi: there’s no evidence there’s a market for yet another generic, right-of-center publication pumping out Club for Growth and regime change schlock. The Post’s opinion page is now a dreary, manifestly unpopular torrent of stuffy Republican talking points with none of the vaguely populist appeal of raw MAGA-ism. Indeed, in the first year of the right-wing pivot, the Post still lost $100 million, which is roughly what it lost in 2024, the last year of its more center-left branding. Let us take a look at the sizzling view counts and viral sensationalism of their Opinion page rebrand, “Make It Make Sense”:
The Post, as I noted at the time for TRNN, purged its opinion page of its actually popular writers and replaced them with charmless Economist and Wall Street Journal also-rans so they can spew libertarian cliches, tedious anti-woke screeds and––for some reason––revisionist positive takes on Herbert Hoover.
Washington Post hip vertical content update!
— Adam Johnson (@adamjohnsonCHI) March 4, 2026
1) an unaccountably sweaty James Hohmann bashing Bernie’s wealth tax
2) mindless cheerleading of Trump’s Iran attack
3) Herbert Hoover (??) hagiography
4) an unaccountably sweaty James Hohmann defending Congress trading stocks pic.twitter.com/sHV93GHjc4
This is clearly the content kids these days are crying out for. Their X account for these videos often gets only one or two retweets, and the views for their last 20 YouTube videos—combined—are less than the downloads I get for a single episode of my own podcast, which I record in my kid’s bedroom next to a stuffed elephant.
CBS News ratings have similarly continued to decline since their anti-woke rebrand. This is most apparent with Weiss’ pet project, the revamped CBS Evening News, where she brought on her preferred company-man himbo, Tony Dokoupil, to awkwardly loiter in Real America-coded diners, Sparks and Steam factories, and other such homespun imagery, while delivering a recap of the day’s events with all the gravitas of a local plaintiff’s attorney commercial.
Dokoupil’s most notable journalistic contribution before being awarded the coveted Evening News anchor desk by Weiss was dressing down author Ta-Nehisi Coates and implying he was a terrorist because he wrote too sympathetically of Palestinians. This is consistent with Weiss’ history of promoting tabloid propaganda for Israel, and the Ellisons, who are the largest private donors to Israel’s military.
Ratings for CBS Evening News have declined by about 20 percent since Weiss’ Real American Values rebrand.
This “marketing pivot” narrative is largely repeated uncritically by US media, who all have to act like there’s nothing else going on but organic marketing concerns. “The billionaire newspaper owner, dissatisfied by years of losses, wants the newsroom to double productivity with half its budget,” read one typically credulous New York Times subheadline on his “shake up” of the Post.
This isn’t to say these oligarchs want to lose money on their ventures, but they want to be profitable within the narrow confines of very specific ideological goals that align both with other business interests and their own political agenda.
“What’s so confounding about the attempt to meddle with/potentially gut 60 Minutes is it’s arguably the one thing that’s working,” wrote Vanity Fair’s Aidan McLaughlin on social media incredulously about Weiss’ interventions. “10 – 12 million people tune into every episode. It’s the most watched primetime broadcast in America. Why destroy that audience?”
This “shaking up dying business model” framing is uniformly adopted by Weiss’ elite media peers. “For Bari Weiss critics two mull,” Axios co-founder Jim VandeHei wrote in January. “If your business is built on shows with shrinking audiences, made up of old people with shrinking years left, watching a shrinking medium w/ a shrinking future, it’s Mission Impossible. Only a revolutionary/radical shift can adjust this reality.”
But Weiss and Bezos’ right-wing turns have very little to do with ratings, clicks, eyeballs, or market demands. It’s not at all “revolutionary” or “radical,” it’s simply a more supercharged and nakedly ideological orientation of the typical pro-capitalist, pro-war media consensus the public has been fed for decades. It’s the same pro-corporate framing despite Americans growing increasingly populist on matters of economics; the same pro-Israel, pro-war schlock despite Americans becoming increasingly anti-Israel and anti-war. This dubious “market demand” framing was made most absurd when Weiss insisted last November that to win over Middle America—which she assessed had “lost trust” in mainstream media—CBS ought to hire the “charismatic” Alan Dershowitz, an 87-year-old Trump partisan best known for defending the increasingly unpopular Israel and befriending and apologizing for Jeffrey Epstein and pedophilia more broadly.
The reality is the Washington Post’s annual losses are only 0.03 percent of Bezos’ net worth. The Paramount purchase was less than 10 percent of the Ellisons’ net worth (and most of it wasn’t their money, in any event) and CBS’s right-wing turn has been essential to building political support for the Ellisons’ real prize: the purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes control over HBO and CNN. This isn’t to say these oligarchs want to lose money on their ventures, but they want to be profitable within the narrow confines of very specific ideological goals that align both with other business interests and their own political agenda. For Bezos it’s clear that means generic pro-capitalist, pro-war, more conventional Republican content. For the Ellisons, and Weiss, it’s pro-capitalist and pro-security state ideology mixed with anti-woke hobby horses like trans and college kid-bashing and, of course, defending and promoting the long-term PR goals of Israel. It’s under this rubric that these somewhat bizarre and manifestly unpopular rebrands make sense. They’re not chasing “middle America” or an increasingly cynical public turned off by mainstream media; they’re turning a relatively small part of their overall investment portfolio into an ideological playtoy, either to suck up to Trump, channel their their own right-wing grievances, shore up their massive security state investments, or—as is most likely the case—a combination of all of the above. It’s essential we understand this, or we’ll continue to misdiagnose what motivates these overt and illiberal media rebrands.
Login