Here's why major corporations are striking inappropriate marketing partnerships with transgender 'influencers'

Image: Here’s why major corporations are striking inappropriate marketing partnerships with transgender ‘influencers’

(Natural News) The executives who run companies like Nike, Anheuser-Busch, and Kate Spade, whose brand partnerships with controversial trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney have elevated her to today’s popular woke “It girl” (who is biologically male), are not just engaging in virtue signaling.

They are doing so because they have to, in order to avoid failing their all-important social credit score, which could make or break their businesses, the New York Post reported in recent days.

The Human Rights Campaign oversees the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) score, which is crucial for businesses to maintain in order to avoid a negative impact on their social credit score, The Post continued. The CEI score is issued by HRC, the largest LGBTQ+ political lobbying group worldwide, and evaluates how well companies adhere to its rating criteria.

The HRC receives funding from various sources, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and as we all know, Soros has used his billions to systematically destroy American and Western society for decades because he obviously derives some perverse pleasure from it.

According to the latest report, more than 840 US companies have achieved high CEI scores. Companies that achieve a total of 100 points receive the highly desired title of “Best Place To Work For LGBTQ Equality.” HRC data from last year revealed that 15 of the top 20 Fortune-ranked companies received a 100 percent rating, the report continued.

The HRC was established in 1980 and created the CEI in 2002, with Kelley Robinson as its current president since 2022, who previously worked as a political organizer for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. The HRC has five main rating criteria, each with its own detailed subsets, that companies must meet to earn or lose CEI points.


The main categories are: “Workforce Protections,” “Inclusive Benefits,” “Supporting an Inclusive Culture,” “Corporate Social Responsibility and Responsible Citizenship.”

A company or corporation will lose CEI points if it doesn’t comply with HRC’s demand for “integration of intersectionality in professional development, skills-based or other training” or if they don’t use a “supplier diversity program with demonstrated effort to include certified LGBTQ+ suppliers.”

James Lindsay, a political podcaster who runs a site called New Discourses, compared the Human Rights Campaign to the Mafia, stating to The Post that they administer the CEI ranking “like an extortion racket.”

HRC is not a passive organization and sends representatives to corporations every year, giving them a list of demands to comply with in order to earn a high CEI score. If the corporations fail to comply, there is a threat that they will lose their CEI score, The Post continued.

The CEI is one component of the expanding ethical investing movement known as ESG (Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance) which is actively promoted by the top three investment firms in the country. ESG funds invest in companies that oppose the use of fossil fuels, advocate for unionization, prioritize racial and gender equity over merit in hiring and board selection, among other criteria.

Several sources have told The Post that some American CEOs are more concerned with pleasing BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Bank, who are among the top shareholders of most publicly-traded US corporations, than with potentially angering conservatives, The Post said, noting that those firms are top shareholders in Nike, Anheuser-Busch, and Kate Spade.

This week, Dylan Mulvaney’s new ad campaigns with Bud Light and Nike have caused controversy, drawing criticism from country star Travis Tritt and Kid Rock, female Olympians, and Caitlyn Jenner, who said about Nike: “It is a shame to see such an iconic American company go so woke! … This is an outrage.”

The Post noted that Mulvaney, a 26-year-old transgender influencer who claimed to transition from male to female in March 2021 but is still biologically male, of course, has reportedly earned over a million dollars from various brand endorsements, including fashion and beauty brands such as Ulta Beauty, Haus Labs, and CeraVe, as well as Crest and InstaCart.

In addition, he has more than 10 million Instagram followers.

Experts suggest that neither Kid Rock nor Mulvaney is the primary audience that America’s top executives are trying to impress with this woke nonsense.

“The big fund managers like BlackRock all embrace this ESG orthodoxy in how they apply pressure to top corporate management teams and boards, and they determine, in many cases, executive compensation and bonuses and who gets re-elected or re-appointed to boards,” entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running for president as a Republican and authored “Woke Inc.: Inside America’s Social Justice Scam,” told the outlet. “They can make it very difficult for you if you don’t abide by their agendas.”

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who manages assets worth $8.6 trillion and is recognized as the “face of ESG,” wrote a well-known letter to CEOs titled “A Sense of Purpose” in 2018. This letter advocated for a “new model of governance” that aligns with ESG principles, emphasizing the importance of a company’s social and environmental impact.

“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose,” Fink wrote. “To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society.”

Fink also let it be known “that if a company doesn’t engage with the community and have a sense of purpose “it will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.”

Our society is bifurcating into woke and non-woke factions, and that includes companies. Frankly, it’s past time that it happened.

Sources include:

Article Video – Why We Blame the Civil Service – Friday, April 7, 2023 By Anna Von Reitz

Watch and comment on Rumble:

Help support the work of Anna and the Living Law Firm here or if you have Cash.App, send to $AnnaReize.

Link to original article
Download and print

These article videos are made using Speechify ( and recorded with ScreenPal (

Video Platforms
Anna Article Video Channel on
Anna Webinar Snippet Channel on

Cancers and other diseases are “rapidly developing” among people vaccinated against COVID-19, warns expert

Image: Cancers and other diseases are “rapidly developing” among people vaccinated against COVID-19, warns expert

(Natural News) There are many recorded cases of vaccine injuries and vaccine deaths during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. An oncologist in the U.K. has written an open letter to the editor-in-chief of the medical journal The BMJ to warn about the harmful effects of coronavirus vaccines that must be “aired and debated immediately,” especially since cancers and other diseases are quickly progressing among vaccinated people.

Dr. Angus Dalgleish is a professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London. He sent his letter to Dr. Kamran Abbasi, the editor-in-chief of The BMJ.

Dalgleish’s letter was written in support of a colleague’s plea to Abbasi that the journal should make valid informed consent for COVID-19 vaccination a priority.

COVID-19 no longer requires a vaccine program

In the letter, Dalgleish wrote that the coronavirus doesn’t need a vaccine program since the average age of death from COVID-19 in the U.K. is 82 while the average age of death from all other causes is 81 and below.

Dalgleish added that the link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is currently well accepted, along with the link with health issues like myelitis and neuropathy.

Myelitis is inflammation of the spinal cord while neuropathy is characterized by nerve damage that occurs due to different health conditions like diabetes.

Dalgleish added that he and his colleagues have already predicted these side effects in their June 2020 article published in the journal QRB Discovery. Their blast analysis also revealed 79 percent homologies to human epitopes, particularly PF4 and myelin.


Dalgleish warned that there is another important reason to halt all vaccine programs: He has seen stable disease rapidly progress in individuals after they were forced to get a COVID-19 booster shot.

Dalgleish has also witnessed people develop B cell-based disease after getting coronavirus booster shots. When asked, these people told him they felt unwell at least several days to weeks after getting the booster.

Among Dalgleish’s personal contacts, one developed leukemia and two work colleagues developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

An old friend of Dalgleish reported feeling like he has had long COVID-19 since getting a booster shot. He also experienced severe bone pain and was diagnosed with multiple metastases from a rare B-cell disorder.

Dalgleish warned that, based on his experience, these cases are not the coincidental anecdotes that other experts may suggest. The same pattern is being reported in other countries like Australia, Germany and the U.S.

The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA injection for several weeks also fit, particularly since all of these patients, to date, have melanoma or B-cell-based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control. All this has been recorded even before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments.

Dalgleish warned that his concerns “must be aired and debated immediately.” (Related: HISTORY REPEATS: Pfizer paid out $1.2B after its drug caused thousands of BREAST CANCER cases.)

What is B cell-mediated disease?

In his letter, Dalgleish talked about B cell-based diseases and cancers. According to the British Society for Immunology, B-cells have a crucial role in regulating immune response.

Dysregulation of B-cell function may result in adverse effects like:

  • Autoimmunity
  • Cancer
  • Non-autoimmune inflammatory disease
  • Transplantation, chronic graft-versus-host diseases
  • The spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Boosters also no longer necessary

While treating cancer patients at the frontline, Dalgleish was shocked and dismayed by what he saw. He watched his relatives and friends gradually succumb to cancer after getting vaccinated.

Dalgleish also witnessed rapidly growing and fulminating cancers, and recurrences among people long cured or in remission from their cancers. In some cases, the cancers have been gone for 25 years or more.

These cancers are occurring among people who were vaccinated, and Dalgleish thinks COVID-19 booster injections could be triggering these cases.

In an interview with Dr. Tess Lawrie’s show Tess Talks, Dalgleish discussed what he is witnessing in his close contacts, like his patients, family and friends.

Dalgleish also talked about the role of cheap, established and generic medicines in treating cancer, and how these medications are being suppressed. He warned that those who have been in remission for years are now starting to relapse after receiving a coronavirus booster, at the same time asking why this is happening.

The professor also explained how his previous HIV research informed his understanding that the COVID-19 vaccines were linked to clotting and neurological issues.

Finally, Dalgleish told Lawrie that he and his colleague raised the alarm and submitted their findings to the U.K. Cabinet. Unfortunately, Dalgleish lamented that no appropriate action has been taken despite their warnings.

Visit to learn more about the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and booster shots.

Watch the video below to find out why COVID-19 booster shots are more dangerous than the first dose of the vaccine.

This video is from the Truth or Consequences channel on

More related stories:

Ben Armstrong: Bombshell report from Naomi Wolf exposed Pfizer’s illegal COVID vaccine trial on 61 kids.

CDC data reveal that multiple covid jabs can knock up to 24 years off a person’s expected lifespan.

Naomi Wolf: Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA shot a war on women, human fertility.

Sources include:

It’s time to hold the medical journals accountable

This is Adrian Gonzalez-Lopez, Editor of BMC Infectious Diseases:

He decided to retract the Skidmore paper for reasons that do not satisfy the COPE criteria. All of his concerns could have been addressed by amending the paper. Retraction was unwarranted.

For example, one doctor wrote me:

Ok.  I read through everything.  Impressions are:

  • Skidmore is a very good author; he did a very good job writing the paper and dealing with all the potential issues/challenges that could come up when he wrote it.  His language was very careful and spot on for what he was trying to do.

  • The reasons they are citing for the retraction are nonsensical and by that logic you could never publish a paper based on survey results.

  • The journal made the decision to ax the paper and weren’t interested in any argument to the contrary.

When papers are retracted post-publication, it is usually because of very serious errors like it was found that they fabricated the data. For example, the Surgisphere paper.

The COPE guidelines for retraction are described in detail in this article:

  • They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)

  • It constitutes plagiarism

  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)

  • It contains material or data without authorisation for use

  • Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)

  • It reports unethical research

  • It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process

  • The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Do any of these apply to the Skidmore paper? No. Not a single one.

In fact, Skidmore’s result was similar to data found by other researchers which puts to bed the first concern and the others aren’t even close to valid.

Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the paper was retracted unethically.

Was the Editor willing to discuss the retraction decision and answer questions? No.

Will the Editor reveal who objected to the paper and which of these items they cited? No, they keep that a secret!

They are skating on thin ice and their unwillingness to address any of the issues does not inspire any confidence.

The first step is to notify the publisher via and see how they respond.

Here is the email I just sent them:


I am an investigative journalist who writes about vaccine issues.

The retraction of the Skidmore paper was recently brought to my attention.

The retraction is described in this article.

I am baffled by the retraction because none of the COPE Guidelines for retraction are satisfied, making the decision to retract the paper perplexing.

Skidmore never said the survey results proved causality. He just estimated the number of deaths that MIGHT have been caused by the vaccine based on the survey data.

Professor Norman Fenton used a completely different approach and found similar estimates as Skidmore!

And the death estimates made in the paper are consistent with estimates made via independent methods such as the VAERS death reports. There are 16,000 excess US deaths in VAERS and VAERS is under-reported by at least 41 for serious injuries. This is a minimum of 656,000 deaths over 2 years. If the vaccine didn’t kill those people, what did? It wasn’t background deaths as those have already been subtracted. Something killed those people and until proven otherwise, we must assume it was the vaccine.

The CDC has never proven any of these VAERS deaths were not caused by the vaccine because it appears that they have NEVER done the required histopathology for ANY death. This is likely why the CDC is refusing to turn over the autopsy records to Aaron Siri as required by law. What is crystal clear is that the CDC has NEVER shown us ANY histopathology for ANYONE who has died. Why not?

So it is more than reasonable to make an estimate based on assuming that the reporters were accurate observers.

In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, the six month mortality rate was 31% higher in the vaccinated group. This is the “gold standard” study. A 31% mortality increase translates to approximately 697,000 excess deaths caused by the vaccine over 2 years which is again consistent with the Skidmore result.

If Skidmore’s results are unreliable, the burden is on the person complaining to explain the more likely cause of the deaths reported in the survey. What is the correct number and how do they know? How do they explain all the deaths reported in the survey? Were people lying? Where is the proof that the survey was wrong?

NOBODY has been able to provide an alternate explanation that fits all the evidence. If this exists, the Editors should have cited it in their retraction notice. For example, the VAERS numbers are not from “over reporting” as there is NO EVIDENCE of over reporting. This leaves only one possibility: it’s because the vaccine is killing people. If there is an alternate explanation, then why hasn’t anyone told us what it is?

If you reject this paper, I am requesting you to describe what did kill those people in the survey if it wasn’t the vaccine and what evidence you have of this. This would be helpful to everyone.

And why did the Rasmussen Survey come up with similar results? In fact, in the Rasmussen survey, they found as many vaccine deaths as COVID deaths. If the vaccine isn’t killing people what is?

In short, the burden on the Editors is to show the results are wrong because of a major error or fabrication of data. NEITHER OF THESE CONDITIONS IS TRUE. You can’t show an error if you can’t tell us the right answer.

The claim “Lastly, contrary to the statement in the article, the documentation provided by the author confirms that the study was exempt from ethics approval and therefore was not approved by the IRB of the Michigan State University Human Research Protection Program” is simply ridiculous.

Skidmore had to get IRB approval of the study. The IRB read the study and concluded that there was nothing in the study that could harm a human taking the poll and therefore ruled it was exempt. The study was IRB approved. And the study was exempt. But the IRB had to rule it was exempt since Mark cannot make that assessment himself. So to claim that the author is misrepresenting a material fact here is simply preposterous.

It seems clear to me that the Editors were on a fishing expedition to do whatever they could to get the paper retracted.

For example they asked about the people who helped on the study but weren’t listed as authors. Why is this all of a sudden an issue? Did someone complain about that?

One can infer that the Editors were on a mission to retract the paper and were going down a checklist to see what they could do to justify a retraction.

Skidmore responded to all their questions and the Editors provided nothing to counter any of his answers.

In short, this appears to be unethical behavior on the part of the Editors involved. They are trying to push a “safe and effective” narrative rather than on upholding scientific integrity.

The Editors could have easily suggested that the paper be amended but they clearly were on a mission to get the paper retracted.

This is not a close call. I have shown this paper to numerous colleagues in the scientific community and they are all appalled at the rationale given for retraction.

One of them wrote:

Ok.  I read through everything.  Impressions are:

·       Skidmore is a very good author; he did a very good job writing the paper and dealing with all the potential issues/challenges that could come up when he wrote it.  His language was very careful and spot on for what he was trying to do.

·       The reasons they are citing for the retraction are nonsensical and by that logic you could never publish a paper based on survey results.

·       The journal made the decision to ax the paper and weren’t interested in any argument to the contrary.

I am requesting that you have an independent review panel examine the determination of the Editors to retract the paper. The independent reviewers should be carefully chosen from those who have a reputation for scientific integrity. UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad for example would make an excellent independent reviewer. Stanford Professor John Ioannidis would also make an excellent reviewer.

I am also requesting that this not be done in secrecy like the retraction was.

In the event you still decide to retract the paper, we’d all like to know the “error” that was made and what the correct answer is. If the vaccine wasn’t a possible cause of the vaccine deaths reported in the survey, what killed those people? This is very important. If there is an error, you have to know what the “right” value is. If you don’t know the right answer, then how can you know Skidmore’s estimate of possible deaths is wrong and the paper should be retracted?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I can be reached at xxxxxx if you have any questions.


We’ve seen what happens when the authors do nothing after their papers are retracted by the journals: it keeps happening. Over and over again.

So we have to hold these people accountable for their actions, e.g., by drawing public attention to what they are doing and other legal means:

  1. the Editor,

  2. the publisher (if they do not respond to the ethics complaints)

  3. the editorial staff of other journals (who are sitting back idly and allowing this to happen without comment or challenge).

In addition, paying the legal costs of any authors who wish to file suit is effective as well. The video depositions can be made public so we can educate the public about how ethical these “scientific” journals really are and expose the corruption that is taking place. Having them explain, for example, which of the retraction conditions was true for the Skidmore paper should be very enlightening.

According to the COPE Guidelines, each journal should have a means to complain about conduct by those associated with the publication.

In the case of BMC Infectious Diseases, the website says:


Complaints about our processes or about publication ethics will in the first instance be handled by the Editor responsible for the journal. If the Editor is the subject of the complaint, please approach the editorial and publishing management team by email to  

Please read the Skidmore article and decide for yourself whether you believe that the Editors retracted the paper ethically.

You don’t have to re-iterate what I wrote. You can write your own or simply reference my letter and note whether you agree with it or not.

We can’t keep letting them get away with it or the abusive behavior will continue.

If you would like to be involved in holding these medical journal editors and publishers accountable, please fill out this form, especially if you are an attorney or you know of how this (or similar situations) has been done successfully in the past.

Also, if you are superb in choosing team leaders from a list of candidates for special projects, please fill out the form as well and be sure to check the “I’m a master team builder” item in the Special Requests.



Fake “Criminology Research” Underlies Woke Ideology

A surprising piece of news from The Florida Standard (archive link) reports that several foundational criminology studies authored by Prof. Eric Stewart of Florida State University have been retracted amid accusations of faking data to support conclusions desired by the authors.

Prof. Stewart authored several criminology studies that were later retracted due to findings of data faking. You can examine these retractions on RetractionWatch.

Prof Stewart’s articles are as follows:

The sample “findings” (below) in one of Prof. Stewart’s retracted studies are foundational for important concepts of “woke ideology.” Specifically, he shows punitive racism to be inherent to White respondents:

I am aware that racism is real, as several people (out of very many I met and spoke to) shared their racist beliefs with me in the past. Similarly, I know that antisemitism is real also, as some people shared their dislike of Jews with me as well (I am a Jew). But how common are such beliefs?

Fortunately, the history of retracted articles by Prof. Stewart encourages us that such racism is NOT prevalent! Eric Stewart had to fake data to support his contention that punitive racism is pervasive among White respondents.

The Florida Standard explains:

The study tested if the public’s prejudicial views impacted their desire for harsher sentences for black and hispanic Americans. The published findings were that as black and hispanic populations grew, so did the public’s want for more discriminatory sentences. Except – Pickett discovered – this was not the case.

In the original data, no relationship was found between growing minority populations and demands for increased sentences. If anything, Pickett pointed out, it was quite the opposite.

Pickett found that their sample size somehow had increased from 500 to over 1,000 respondents, the counties polled had decreased from 326 to 91, and the data was altered to the point of mathematical impossibility.

Were Prof. Stewart’s articles harmless? Did they have any consequences?

Unfortunately, far from being harmless, the fake findings of pervasive racism exacerbated racial enmity and radicalized many people. This video (Twitter blocks embeds on Substack) shows an example, out of many, of violence provoked by such unnecessary radicalization. Twitter commenters cheer the beating of a defenseless woman.

Could these persons resolve their disagreements without violence? Yes, they could, had they not been radicalized by Prof. Stewart and many others in furtherance of the political goals of their sponsors.

As hard as it is for many people to describe “what a woman is,” it is similarly difficult for others to describe what is “woke ideology.” I jokingly suggest that “you are woke if you cannot define what a woman is.”

Jokes aside, without getting bogged down by definitions, I must point out that woke ideology centers around a left-wing conspiracy theory about “pervasive inequities” and evil lurking in the hearts of regular white or cisgender people. To the followers of these crazy conspiratorial ideas, such imaginary evil thoughts must be stomped out via cancel culture, disinformation committees, and other punitive measures.

A large body of “science” was created by Prof. Stewart and many similarly-minded academics that appeared to provide scientific support to such left-wing conspiracy theories.

Fortunately, the story of retractions and fake data that Prof. Stewart needed to fabricate to come up with his unwarranted conclusions shows that most people have good intentions and good hearts.

Not all people are perfect; some seem to be consumed by hate; dislike of those not similar to us, groupthink, and ethnocentrism are far from rare – but they are not pervasive or defining of who we are.

I hope that all of us will be fair and polite to all people of all races and genders. I am fortunate and proud to live in the United States, which strives to be an increasingly more perfect Union – and where all people are created equal. As we evolve, the definition of equality expands. I would not want to live in a country consumed by hate or racism — and I am very glad that I live in a mostly fair and even-keeled society, as the retractions of Prof. Stewart’s articles show.

Nobody should vilify regular people who want to pursue happiness and live in harmony and safety. Fake studies that ascribe evil motives to large groups of people, and encourage hate and radicalism, do not help with that.

What do you think?


718% profit from largest US egg producer sparks calls to BREAK UP Big Ag

Image: 718% profit from largest US egg producer sparks calls to BREAK UP Big Ag

(Natural News) Calls to break up Big Ag have resurfaced after a large egg producer in the U.S. announced windfall profits.

A March 28 press release by Cal-Maine Foods said the Mississippi-based egg producer recorded a total revenue of $997.5 million – a 109 percent increase – for the quarter ending Feb. 25. Cal-Maine Foods’ profit for the same period shot up by 718 percent to $323.2 million.

“Our results are reflective of a dynamic market environment with higher average selling prices and favorable demand,” said Cal-Maine President Sherman Miller. “Elevated market pricing continues, primarily due to the impact of the ongoing epidemic of highly pathogenic avian influenza, which has significantly reduced the nation’s egg-laying capacity.”

“U.S. egg inventories were 29 percent lower in the final week of December 2022 than at the beginning of the year,” said the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It added that more than 43 million egg-laying hens were lost to either the avian flu itself or culling measures to stop the disease since the outbreak began in February 2022. (Related: Government says “bird flu” responsible for rising egg prices.)

Back in April 2020, Cal-Maine was included as a defendant in a class action lawsuit alongside Costco, Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods. The complaint filed in federal court accused egg producers and grocery chains of jacking up egg prices amid the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

According to the lawsuit, egg prices have not only tripled at the aforementioned groceries – but prices have stayed 10 percent higher than they were prior to the March 4, 2020 emergency declaration by California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It continued: “Because the price of eggs has risen more than 180 percent during the COVID-19 emergency, it is clear that some or all of the defendants have raised their prices to an extent that violates the law.”


Sanders, other lawmakers challenge Big Ag

Several lawmakers decried the windfall profits announced by Cal-Maine.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted Cal-Maine in a tweet: “Why are the American people angry? Maybe it has something to do with the largest producer of eggs in America increasing its profits by 718 percent last quarter, after doubling the price of eggs and reporting zero cases of avian flu. We must break up Big Ag and enact a windfall profits tax.”

Sanders took on agricultural monopolies during his failed presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted in response: “While working families paid record prices for eggs, Cal-Maine raked over 700 percent more in profits – without reporting a single case of avian flu. We need to crack down on corporate price gouging to provide Americans with relief at the grocery store.”

“Corporate greed is driving inflation,” tweeted Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA). “We need more competition to drive down prices. In the meantime, I’m demanding answers from Cal-Maine directly.”

This demand for answers came in the form of a Feb. 16 letter Warren and Porter wrote to Cal-Maine and four other giant U.S. egg producers. They expressed concern over the massive spike in egg prices and the extent to which egg producers may be using fears about avian flu and supply shocks as a cover to pad their own profits.

“American families working to put food on the table deserve to know whether the increased prices they are paying for eggs represent a legitimate response to reduced supply or out-of-control corporate greed,” the two Democrats wrote.

Watch this news report about skyrocketing egg prices.

This video is from The 100% Clean Food Lifestyle channel on

More related stories:

WEF promises to ban “dangerous” eggs following scientific discovery that eating them cures covid naturally.

Egg shortage and inflation strangely timed with revelation that yolks naturally mitigate covid “vaccine” spike proteins.

ANOTHER fire devastates Minnesota chicken farm, killing tens of thousands of chickens that provide eggs for the food supply.

Commercial egg farm in Connecticut goes UP IN FLAMES over the weekend; more than 100,000 chickens lost as egg prices explode.

Sources include:

Warren.Senate.Gov [PDF]