Dinarian888
News • Business • Investing & Finance
How Rockefeller Monopolized Medicine and Created BIG PHARMA
Please read and share, let the truth be known worldwide...
October 13, 2023
post photo preview

Born in 1839, John D. Rockefeller would go on to become one of the great robber barons and industrialist tycoons of American history. By the turn of the 20th century, Rockefeller controlled 90% of the oil refineries in the US through his company Standard Oil, becoming in the process America’s first billionaire.

Of course, in 1911, Standard Oil was ruled by the US Supreme Court to be an illegal monopoly in violation of antitrust laws and forced to break up. Like his father, John D. Rockefeller had built his success on illegality, cons, and scams.

Still, this was not enough for Rockefeller. He wanted more.

 

How Rockefeller Targeted Medicine

At the time, chemicals made from oil, known as ‘petrochemicals,’ were being discovered and developed in the US. This included the discovery that pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil, which Rockefeller saw as an opportunity to expand his empire. The key was that petrochemicals, unlike natural health remedies, could be patented, presenting an enormous opportunity for Rockefeller profits.

There was only one problem – at the time, natural, herbal, and traditional medicines were very popular in the US. Something like half of the doctors and medical colleges in the country were using holistic medicine, natural remedies, and knowledge taken from Indigenous Native Americans. Rockefeller needed a way to eliminate the competition, to create a monopoly in medicine as he had done with oil.

And so, he went to his good friend Andrew Carnegie, another robber baron who had gotten rich through his monopoly of the steel industry and, incidentally, one of the country’s leading eugenicists. Together, the two men hatched a plan to take over American medicine.


maxresdefault.jpg

 

The Creation of Big Pharma

From the cover of the Carnegie Foundation, they would send a man named Abraham Flexner around the country to report on its medical colleges and hospitals. After visiting all 155 medical schools existing at that time in the US and Canada, he completed the seminal Flexner Report in 1910.

Following the directions of his employers, Flexner called in his report for a total restructuring of the American medical system, most specifically, for the pushing aside of natural and traditional remedies in favor of Rockefeller pharmaceuticals. The report even specifically mentioned the eradication of “dissidents,” appropriately, since this is exactly what happened.

Almost immediately after the report was issued, medical schools teaching things like naturopathy, homeopathy, electromagnetic field therapy, and so on, were told to drop these things or close. More than half of all medical colleges in the country did close, and many non-compliant doctors were demonized and even jailed.

But Rockefeller and Carnegie went further, offering huge grants to medical schools and hospitals so long as they only taught and practiced Rockefeller medicine, and allowed Rockefeller agents on their boards of directors to ensure compliance.

It was the carrot and the stick – those who agreed got funded with big money, those who didn’t were crushed.

In this way, all medical colleges in the country were streamlined and homogenized, with doctors all learning the same thing – how to use and prescribe Rockefeller’s patented drugs.

But, like any good monopolist, Rockefeller went further in seeking to consolidate his control. He took over the AMA and emboldened it as the gatekeeper of scientific thought and witch hunter of alternative medical practices. He took control of the FDA in order to control the approval process for new drugs. He even founded the American Cancer Society in 1913. Within a few short years, Rockefeller was in total control of the American medical system in both thought and action.

The result of this takeover, the product of this monopolist son of a conman and his eugenicist partner, would become known as “Big Pharma.”

That Big Pharma took over and monopolized American medicine, promoting their own patented, profit-making products and suppressing all others, isn’t even a conspiracy theory.

In fact, it was recorded for all to see in 1953 …

 

The Fitzgerald Report

In the early 1950s, US Senator Charles Toby enlisted an investigator with the Interstate Commerce Commission named Benedict Fitzgerald to examine allegations of conspiracy and monopoly in medicine. Toby had become interested in the issue after his own son had gotten cancer and been given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine before pursuing alternative treatments and being cured.

The resulting 1953 report, known as the Fitzgerald Report, was truly shocking. It concluded that Big Pharma had been involved in “a conspiracy of alarming proportions.”

First, there was

“The organized effort to hinder, suppress and restrict the free flow of drugs which allegedly proven successful in cases where clinical records, case history, pathological reports, and x-ray photographic proof, together with the alleged cured patients, are available.”

On top of that,

“Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations.”

The report even noted that Big Pharma had conspired to suppress at least 12 promising cancer treatments, including mentioning Hoxsey Therapy by name.

It was an unfathomably damning report, making clear that the tentacles of a Big Pharma conspiracy to suppress alternative medicine were everywhere.

But as it turns out, the report did not go far enough

 

The Suppression of Laetril as a Cure for Cancer

Oftentimes when a new natural cancer treatment appears, the assertion from the medical establishment is that the new treatment is either unproven, or disproven. There is no better example of what this really means in the era of Big Pharma than the case of a cancer treatment called Laetrile.

In 1952, a year before the Fitzgerald Report, a biochemist named Ernst Krebs proposed that cancer was a deficiency disease which could be cured with a compound called amygdalin, found in over 1,200 plants, and most specifically in the seeds of apricots. By extracting this amygdalin from apricot kernels, Krebs created a product he called Laetrile.

Over the course of many years, Krebs conducted numerous lab experiments on animals which showed that Laetrile was an effective cancer treatment, that somehow, it caused cancer cells to self-destruct.

By the 1960s, a doctor named John Richardson had picked up the research, and had even begun treating human patients with Laetrile. Unsurprisingly, the Rockefeller-controlled FDA launched a massive media campaign against Richardson and Laetrile, claiming that the treatment was toxic and dangerous. By 1971, the FDA officially banned Laetrile, and, in 1972, they stormed Richardson’s clinic and arrested him.

But even after Richardson was jailed, people kept asking about Laetrile, writing to government officials, medical journals, and scientific labs demanding answers. At this point, Big Pharma knew they had to put their foot down once and for all. They needed to undertake official testing which proved that Laetrile didn’t work.

The testing would take place at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and what would happen next would come to be described as “one of the biggest medical cover-ups the world of cancer research has ever seen.”

The tests would be led and directed by Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, known at that time as “the preeminent cancer researcher in America.” He had over 60 years of experience, publishing hundreds of academic papers on the subject. As one scientist said, “When Dr. Sugiura publishes, we know we don’t have to repeat the study, for we would obtain the same results he has reported.”

In 1972, testing began, with Laetrile being administered to mice with many different types of cancerous tumors. At its completion, Dr. Sugiura concluded that Laetrile stopped the spread of cancer, inhibited the growth of tumors, and acted as a cancer prevention. It even provided relief from pain and improved general health.

This seemed to be incredible news. Except, there were three Rockefellers sitting on the board of Sloan-Kettering, as well as a dozen more people representing companies making big money from Big Pharma. When they caught word of the test results, “all hell broke loose,” and another round of tests was ordered.

Unfortunately for Sloan-Kettering executives, the second round of testing only confirmed the first. Except this time, with two confirmed tests from the legendary Dr. Sugiura in the books, mainstream media was forced to cover it. Had a cure for cancer really been found, they asked?

Sloan-Kettering officials refused to speak with the media, refused to discuss the results or answer any questions, saying only in a prewritten statement that a third round of tests had been ordered in order to “clarify” the results, as if they had not been twice clarified already.

In this third test, a new wrinkle would be introduced – Dr. Sugiura would be blinded. He would not know which half of the mice would be receiving Laetrile, and which half would be given a saline solution, as if this eminently respected scientist was going to somehow manipulate the results.

After four weeks, Dr. Sugiura could see which of the mice were being given Laetrile, since mice in some of the cages had fewer and smaller tumors, while mice in the other cages showed no effects. Sloan-Kettering overseers who were supervising the project confirmed to Dr. Sugiura that he was correct. For a third time, Laetrile’s cancer treating properties were confirmed.

Except, arguing that Dr. Sugiura was no longer blinded since he knew which cages were which, Sloan-Kettering officials shut the tests down.

They would try yet again to get the results they were looking for with a fourth test. This time, not only would Dr. Sugiura be blinded, but the mice who were receiving the treatment would be mixed together with those who weren’t. Dr. Sugiura warned that this was dangerous because there was no dependable way to ensure the lab techs administering the treatment would be able to identify the correct mice every time. And, in fact, this is exactly what happened. Some of the mice who were purportedly only being given a saline solution saw their tumors stop growing.

“There’s something funny here,” Dr. Sugiura professed. The ‘something funny’ was that the treatments had been mixed, with many mice receiving some Laetrile and some saline solution, just as Dr. Sugiura had predicted.

Yet, in this case, the legitimacy of the results wasn’t important to Sloan-Kettering’s Rockefeller board. Immediately, they announced that “results from the experiment do not confirm the earlier positive findings of Sugiura.”

Then, they called a press conference attended by most of mainstream media and declared, “Laetrile was found to possess neither preventive, nor tumor-regressant, nor anti metestatic, nor curative anti-cancer activity” – the exact opposite of what the first three tests had shown.

At the end of the press conference, the floor was opened to questions from the media, which is when things took a dramatic turn.

“Dr. Sugiura,” someone shouted, “Do you stick by your belief that Laetrile stops the spread of cancer?”

The room fell silent as the fabled Dr. Sugiura rose to his feet and replied, “I stick.”

The next month, Sloan-Kettering executives appeared before a Senate subcommittee hearing to decide the fate of Laetrile. While it had been banned by the FDA in 1971, some states were challenging this decision.

At the hearing, Sloan-Kettering executives asserted, “There is not a particle of scientific evidence to suggest that Laetrile possesses any anti-cancer properties at all” totally ignoring the three full lab tests of scientific evidence from “the preeminent cancer researcher in America.” As a result of the testimony, Laetrile was officially banned nationwide by 1980.

Afterwards, Dr. Sugiura was asked why Sloan-Kettering was so against Laetrile. “I don’t know,” he replied, “Maybe the medical profession doesn’t like it because they are making too much money.”

When Big Pharma says an alternative treatment has been disproven, this is what they mean.

 

Is Big Pharma Suppressing Information for Profit?

But what about if tests were not done in a Rockefeller-controlled lab. What if one were to do their own tests, build their own case studies, and present them to the appropriate authorities themselves?

One man provided an answer.

Stanislaw Burzynski was a Doctor of Biochemistry who immigrated to the US from Poland in 1970, where he took up a position as a researcher and assistant professor at Baylor University in Houston, Texas. There, he discovered something which he called antineoplastons – naturally occurring “molecular switches” in the human body which, Burzynski asserted, the body used to control cancer growth.

At first, Burzynski’s discoveries were well received by colleagues. In fact, so impressive was his work that he was offered a tenured position in Baylor’s Department of Pharmacology. He should have been thrilled, yet Burzynski knew that if he accepted, he would lose his independence as a researcher. So, he refused the position, instead choosing to found the Burzynski Research Institute in order to continue his work. On his way out the door at Baylor, his boss warned him, “Just wait, Burzynski. They’re going to kick your ass.”

In short order, Burzynski and his clinic were investigated by local medical authorities for using “unapproved medications,” while the Rockefeller-founded American Cancer Society put antineoplastons on its “unproven methods” list, and those who had been funding his research pulled their support.

In 1983, the FDA filed a lawsuit to get him to shut down his operation, and when this failed, FDA agents and federal marshals simply raided the Burzynski Research Institute and seized over 200,000 confidential documents.

Still Burzynski continued on. He raised millions of dollars through his Institute to pay for clinical trials for antineoplastons, money Big Pharma companies are more than happy to spend since they know they will recoup it when their products are patented. By the mid-90s, he was able to provide the FDA with sixty clinical trials, meeting the requirement for their Phase I testing.

For another decade he worked, compiling hundreds more clinical trials, meeting the requirements for Phase II of testing on his own at the cost of millions of dollars.

In 2011, Burzynski began Phase III testing, which involves thousands of participants and can last for years, again, at the cost of many millions of dollars. He was closing in on the finish line by 2013, which is when the FDA stepped in and put a stop to the trials. Their reason? They complained that the Burzynski Research Institute was doing all of the testing, when, of course, this is simply how the FDA approval process works. The only difference is usually the testing is being done by a Big Pharma company.

Finally, in 2017, the FDA cancelled antineoplaston clinical trials for good, refusing Burzynski the right to even conduct the tests. Moreover, Burzynski had his medical license revoked and was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for his trouble.

The point made by Burzynski and his antineoplastons, by Sloan-Kettering’s Laetrile trials, is simple. It’s a case of ‘you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.’ If testing is conducted in a Rockefeller Big Pharma laboratory, it will be repeated and repeated and repeated until it gives the desired results, no matter how manipulated these results might be. And if you conduct the tests yourself, spending millions upon millions of dollars, the results will still not be accepted.

03-04-burzynski-02.webp?w=600&q=75&f=aa0b9051be2d61eaa37d43d89e96624f
Over 60 patients defended Dr. Burzynski stating they were cured by him.

Big Pharma controls the testing, they control approval, they control academic thought. But look closer, and it goes even further than that.

Big Pharma employs 1,270 registered lobbyists in the halls of government, more than two Big Pharma lobbyists for every member of congress, at a cost of over $200 million per year. They also spend tens of millions of dollars every year financing political campaigns – nearly every member of congress is funded by Big Pharma. On top of that, Big Pharma lobbyists and executives are repeatedly put in charge of the government bodies tasked with overseeing the pharmaceutical industry, like the FDA. Simply, the production and sale of medicine is tightly regulated by government, and Big Pharma controls the government.

Is it really so hard to believe that Big Pharma would use its control of academia, science, and government, to suppress valuable information for their own profit?

In reality, suppressing truth for profit is as American as apple pie – from the 1950s, when tobacco companies fought to suppress lung cancer knowledge as people died, to modern times, when oil companies insist that the debate around climate change is still ongoing, even as the consequences scientists promised decades ago are all around.

But pharmaceutical companies? Those purportedly tasked with providing health? Would they really suppress a cure for cancer? And kill people?

Actually, that Big Pharma would knowingly and intentionally kill people for profit is not conspiracy, it is established fact, admitted on record in American courts.

 

How Big Pharma Created the American Opioid Crisis

In October of 2020, Big Pharma flagbearer Purdue Pharma pled guilty in court to criminal charges for its role in the American opioid crisis, agreeing to pay some $8.3 billion in the settlement.

Opioids were a new type of synthetic pain medication that emerged in the early-1990s, which Big Pharma companies like Purdue aggressively promoted while suppressing information about the dangers, most specifically, the extreme addictiveness. Today, not only is chronic pain more prevalent than ever in the US, but nearly a million people have died from opioid overdoses, and another 3 million have fallen victim to addiction.

In pleading guilty at trial, Purdue Pharma admitted on record to having supplied drugs “without legitimate medical purpose.” In other words, the purpose of opioids wasn’t medical, it wasn’t to cure pain; it was to get people addicted so they’d buy more. Purdue even admitted to paying off health insurance companies to deny coverage for alternative care, forcing people to take opioids, and paying off doctors to overprescribe their product to patients.

depositphotos_178773006-stock-photo-macro-of-oxycodone-opioid-tablets.jpg

By February of 2022, four more of the largest Big Pharma companies had reached a $26 billion settlement for their own role in the crisis. These, along with Purdue, are the largest and most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the country, the ones who lobby governments and sit on medical boards. And here they are, on the record, poisoning people for profit.

 

Chemotherapy - The Only Legal "Cure" for Cancer

Apply this knowledge to cancer specifically, and think about what chemotherapy is.

The treatment was first conceptualized by doctors examining soldiers who had been exposed to mustard gas during World War II. Noticing that mustard gas had toxic effects on the blood cells of soldiers, doctors surmised that it could be used against cancer cells.

This was how the first version of chemotherapy, and model for all subsequent versions, was created, from a compound used as an agent of chemical warfare. This is what Big Pharma is telling cancer patients to put in their body.

Of course, it is no big secret that chemotherapy is toxic. Cancer patients are warned that side effects can include everything from vomiting and nausea, to infertility, to organ damage, and even death. They are even warned it can lead to a “second cancer.” In other words, patients are told chemotherapy might treat their cancer, but that it might also cause cancer; it might save their life, but it might also kill them. As one former president of the American Chemical Society succinctly put it, “chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”

A bit like opioids …

But that’s the point; there are no profits in the cure. Big Pharma needs people sick, so that people need more and more expensive “treatment.”

In this, the era of Big Pharma is alone in the history of medicine …

Link

The Dinarian On Locals is a labor of love that I pour my heart and soul into during my personal time. Countless hours are dedicated to delivering you the most up-to-date, unfiltered, and authentic news and information. Your support means the world to me, and I invite you to consider making a donation or becoming a dedicated supporter of this project. Any amount of XRP donations can be sent by scanning the QR code below and are greatly appreciated. ~ Namaste🙏🏼The Dinarian

 

 

community logo
Join the Dinarian888 Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
​🚨 BREAKING: The Final Clarity Act Bill Text is Official! 🇺🇸🔥

​After more than a year of back-and-forth, the final draft is here—incorporating 126 last-minute amendments requested by Democrats just 24 hours before the vote. 🤯

​Key updates in the final text:

​Strict Ethics Oversight: Expanded restrictions now cover federal officials, judges, and spouses, with Senator Lummis noting Trump opted in voluntarily.
​Banking Safeguards: Treasury gains authority to step in if high-yield stablecoins start draining liquidity from community banks.

​Builder Protections: Civil safe harbor provisions have been strengthened to explicitly cover crypto miners and network validators.

​Market Integrity: Added guardrails target conflicts of interest and affiliate trading while leaving state consumer protection laws intact.

​Does it have enough momentum to secure 60 votes tomorrow? 👀

00:00:09
September 13, 2026
RFK Jr: "The Pandemics are coming from labs. ALL OF THEM... Lyme, COVID, RSV, HIV & Spanish Flu came out of a vaccine lab." ☠️ 💉

"Gain-of-Function Vaccine research has created the worst plagues in our history."

"We can go down the whole list of diseases... It’s just a disaster. It’s given us no benefits. It’s given us everything from Lyme disease to Covid, and many many other diseases. RSV, which is now one of the biggest killers of children, came out of a vaccine lab."

"There’s strong evidence that even Spanish flu came from vaccine research."

"There’s plenty of evidence that HIV also came from a vaccine gain-of-function lab program. "

"The 'PANDEMICS' are coming from labs... ALL OF THEM."

00:04:00
September 13, 2026
🚀The industry has gotten incredible at teaching robots

🚀The industry has gotten incredible at teaching robots to move, sprint, and imitate body dynamics. But as Michael Parker (@bittensormax) points out in The UMI Thesis, there’s still a massive missing piece in Physical AI: Motion Understanding.

✨ Key Takeaways:

🔹Looking Human vs. Understanding Humans: Robots can execute impressive physical feats, but they still struggle to reliably read non-verbal human cues in context.

🔹Motion is Meaning: A gesture, hesitation, or glance changes completely depending on posture, timing, and surrounding context.

🔹Beyond Pixels: True intelligence requires mapping human intent and sequence across time—not just processing raw frames.

🔹The UMI Intelligence Layer: As robots enter hospitals, factories, homes, and stores, Bittensor’s SN78 @umi_sn78 UMI (Universal Motion Intelligence) aims to own the critical layer that translates human movement into real meaning.

The future of robotics isn't just about how machines move—it's about how ...

00:04:54
🚨 Chutes is being framed as a Hyperliquid-style breakout for decentralized AI inference, with live revenue, verified GPU infrastructure, and a direct challenge to centralized cloud AI 🚨

Chutes is gaining attention as a decentralized AI inference platform that claims to combine real usage, cryptographic verification, confidential computing, and open-source infrastructure into a working production system. The thesis is simple: instead of trusting Big Tech clouds with AI workloads, users get a distributed compute layer built around verification and privacy.

🔑 Key points

🔹 Chutes is live in production and reportedly scaled to more than 1,170 active GPU nodes, including large numbers of Nvidia H200s and Blackwell-class hardware.

🔹 The platform says it has processed nearly 38 trillion tokens since launch across 53 deployed applications and more than 700,000 registered users.

🔹 The team reportedly cut unprofitable usage programs, reduced total token volume, and still improved revenue efficiency, with revenue per GPU rising sharply after removing subsidized traffic.

🔹 Chutes is using post-quantum cryptography, trusted execution environments, and Nvidia confidential ...

🚨 Chutes is being framed as a Hyperliquid-style breakout for decentralized AI inference, with live revenue, verified GPU infrastructure, and a direct challenge to centralized cloud AI 🚨
🚨 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚨

A new clash is emerging between legacy finance and crypto legislation after JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly warned that the CLARITY Act could let crypto firms offer bank-like products without bank-level oversight. The dispute is quickly turning into a larger fight over regulation, competitiveness, and who controls the future architecture of digital finance in the United States.

🔑 Key points

🔹 Jamie Dimon reportedly called the CLARITY Act a threat to the financial system, arguing it could allow crypto firms to offer yield-like products while avoiding the capital, reserve, and oversight burdens traditional banks face.

🔹 Senator Cynthia Lummis pushed back publicly, framing the issue as a global strategic race and warning that if the U.S. does not set digital asset standards, other powers will.

🔹 The core tension is whether the bill creates legitimate regulatory clarity or simply opens the door to regulatory arbitrage for crypto platforms operating outside the traditional banking...

🚨 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚨
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚨 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Taiwan equities are now live on Pvth Pro

Pyth Pro is Pyth's real-time market-data service, giving exchanges, fintechs, trading platforms, and financial applications one consistent way to access prices across asset classes, regions, and local market sessions.
This launch is the next step in Pyth Pro's broader Asian equities expansion, bringing six Taiwan-listed companies into the same market-data laver used across Pyth Pro's cross-asset catalog:

• TSMC
• Foxconn
• Quanta Computer
• Wistron
• MediaTek
• Unimicron Technology

Each feed follows Taiwan's local market schedule, sc applications can access Taiwan equity data during regular trading hours through the same integration used across Pyth Pro.

For teams building global products, this makes it simpler to add Taiwan market data alongside other assets without creating a separate workflow for every new market
Taiwan, in real time

post photo preview

⚙️ Refinery turns Bittensor Subnet 125 into an optimizer research market ⚙️

Refinery (SN125) is creating a competitive marketplace where miners develop optimization techniques for AI systems, while validators evaluate how much those improvements increase speed, efficiency, or model performance.

🔑 Key points

🔹 Optimization is the product: Miners compete to improve models, workloads, algorithms, and infrastructure rather than simply producing larger systems.

🔹 Multiple objectives can be tested: Optimizers may target speed, cost, memory usage, accuracy, energy consumption, or hardware efficiency.

🔹 Validators measure real gains: Submissions must be evaluated against consistent workloads to determine whether improvements are genuine.

🔹 Competition encourages discovery: Independent contributors can explore optimization strategies that a centralized research team may overlook.

🔹 Results can benefit other subnets: Better optimization could improve inference, training, robotics, scientific ...

⚡ While frontier labs debate AI’s pace, Bittensor is accelerating through open competition ⚡

As major AI labs debate timelines, safety, and the limits of scaling, Bittensor is taking a different path: allowing independent subnet teams to build, test, and deploy specialized AI systems in parallel.

🔑 Key points

🔹 Parallel experimentation: Bittensor allows multiple teams to work on inference, compute, robotics, cybersecurity, scientific research, data, and agent systems at the same time.

🔹 No single roadmap controls the network: Progress does not depend entirely on one company deciding which research direction deserves funding.

🔹 Subnets specialize: Each subnet can target a narrow problem and compete using its own evaluation rules and incentives.

🔹 Real products are emerging: Recent subnet activity includes AI models, GPU rentals, autonomous drones, confidential computing, scientific research tools, and security services.

🔹 Competition accelerates iteration: Miners and developers are ...

September 13, 2026
post photo preview
Revolut Leak Shows the Cost of Constant ID Collection
Revolut’s mistake is the news, but the bigger problem is the growing number of companies being encouraged or required to keep copies of our most sensitive identity documents.

Online bank Revolut has revealed that it gave out sensitive personal and financial information of an undisclosed number of its customers in response to a fake government request.

The information that was handed over to an “unauthorized third party” reportedly includes names, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, transaction histories (including Bitcoin), and even copies of government-issued IDs and onboarding verification selfies.

Revolut claims that derived biometric face data was not.

The company said that the data was handed over in response to an email that came from a real government agency’s domain, but was not actually sent or authorized by that agency.

The email passed several authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) that are designed to establish the authenticity of a message’s origin and integrity, but do not verify the legitimacy of the legal request itself.

Revolut said that it complied with the request “under the reasonable belief that it was an authentic government agency request” – and only later found out that it was not.

Revolut said it later realized its mistake, blocked the email address, and reported the incident to the relevant authorities.

Revolut said that only a “limited” number of its customers were affected by the data leak, and that the company’s systems were not hacked, nor was any money stolen.

The story broke on September 11 when Revolut customers started receiving an email notice about a data leak, and the news was picked up by media outlets the following day.

Revolut notice explaining customer identity and financial data was shared after an unauthorized government email request.

The reason this is a recurring problem is that companies are keeping highly sensitive information about their customers’ identities, and sometimes even financial transactions, for a long time, and this data is then available to be disclosed to third parties – either in response to valid legal requests, or, as in the case of Revolut, fake ones.

One reason for this is know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) rules. Revolut’s current UK customer privacy notice spells it out: the company generally keeps personal data of UK customers for no more than seven years after the relationship ends, and sometimes longer – for legal reasons.

This means that even if you close your account, your identity documents don’t disappear.

And while the incident with Revolut happened in the financial sector, it’s by no means the only one that requires customers to hand over sensitive identity information. Discord, a popular chat service, said in an October 9, 2025 security update that government ID photos of approximately 70,000 users may have been exposed after a third-party customer service provider got hacked.

This was not a financial service, nor the same type of attack. But the result was similar – because the underlying business process was the same: requiring and storing sensitive identity documents. In the case of Discord, these were used to review age-related appeals.

It’s hard to do anything about a copy of your old passport, or a photo of your face, or a record of your past transactions. These can be used to identify and profile you, and can be used to carry out targeted fraud. And this can happen even if the initial disclosure didn’t result in financial loss.

The more companies are forced to collect and store such information, and the more of it they have, the more opportunities there are for this data to be leaked, either by the company itself or a third party it works with. That's what makes governments' push for more ID checks just to access ordinary parts of life so reckless.

Source

🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian

👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here

👇 Crypto Donations 👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
post photo preview
This Is The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State

Here’s the short version of what it takes for a family of four to live comfortably in 2026 by state:

In Massachusetts, you’d need nearly $330,000 a year - the highest figure in the entire country. Only three states clear the $300,000 mark: Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California. At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is the most affordable at about $188,000. That’s a full $142,000 less than what you’d need in Massachusetts.

So… how much does a family of four need in your state?

This map shows the pre-tax income a household with two working adults and two kids needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

The numbers come from SmartAsset (as of February 2026). They’re based on the familiar 50/30/20 budget: 50% for necessities, 30% for discretionary spending, and 20% for savings or other goals. These aren’t bare-minimum survival numbers—they’re what it takes to live pretty well while still putting money aside.

And as Visual Capitalist notesMassachusetts sits at the very top of that list. Massachusetts tops the ranking, with a family of four needing $329,555 per year to meet the 50/30/20 benchmark.

Hawaii follows at $313,165, while California ranks third at $302,682.

Rank State Income needed for family of four (2026)

  • 1 - Massachusetts - $329,555
  • 2 - Hawaii - $313,165
  • 3 - California - $302,682
  • 4 - Connecticut - $298,189
  • 5 - New Jersey - $295,110
  • 6 - New York - $291,533
  • 7 - Colorado - $283,213
  • 8 - Washington - $281,798
  • 9 - Oregon - $280,966
  • 10 - Vermont - $280,384
  • 11 - Alaska - $272,064
  • 12 - New Hampshire - $267,904
  • 13 - Rhode Island - $264,659
  • 14 - Minnesota - $263,078
  • 15 - Maryland - $257,837
  • 16 - Maine - $250,931
  • 17 - Montana - $249,434
  • 18 - Pennsylvania - $247,936
  • 19 - Illinois - $244,109
  • 20 - Virginia - $242,944
  • 21 - Nevada - $242,278
  • 22 - Indiana - $241,696
  • 23 - Wisconsin - $238,451
  • 24 - Arizona - $236,870
  • 25 - Utah - $235,789
  • 26 - Delaware - $228,134
  • 27 - Ohio - $226,221
  • 28 - Idaho - $226,054
  • 29 - Florida - $223,392
  • 30 - New Mexico - $223,142
  • 31 - Nebraska - $223,059
  • 32 - Missouri - $217,734
  • 33 - Georgia - $214,573
  • 34 - Michigan - $214,323
  • 35 - South Carolina - $212,909
  • 36 - North Carolina - $212,410
  • 37 - Wyoming - $212,410
  • 38 - Oklahoma - $211,910
  • 39 - North Dakota - $210,496
  • 40 - Kansas - $207,917
  • 41 - Iowa - $204,422
  • 42 - Texas - $203,424
  • 43 - West Virginia - $202,592
  • 44 - South Dakota - $201,760
  • 45 - Alabama - $198,931
  • 46 - Louisiana - $197,933
  • 47 - Tennessee - $197,267
  • 48 - Arkansas - $195,437
  • 49 - Kentucky - $194,854
  • 50 - Mississippi - $187,533

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York aren't far behind, bringing the number of states with comfortable-income thresholds above $290,000 to six.

Colorado and Vermont Make the Top 10

As expected, many of the highest income thresholds are concentrated in the Northeast and along the West Coast.

However, Colorado has the seventh-highest threshold in the country at $283,213, ranking above Washington and Oregon.

Vermont rounds out the top 10 at $280,384, despite having the second-smallest population of any U.S. state. Meanwhile, nearby states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island all fall outside the top 10.

Just Six States Come in Below $200,000

Despite the wide range in living costs across the country, only six states have a comfortable-income threshold below $200,000 for a family of four.

Mississippi ranks lowest at $187,533, followed by Kentucky. The states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama also fall below the $200,000 mark.

The gap between Massachusetts and Mississippi exceeds $142,000 per year, meaning the Massachusetts benchmark is about 76% higher.

Source

🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian

👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here

👇 Crypto Donations Always Welcome 👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
post photo preview
🤖Can Decentralized AI Stop Big Tech from Owning the Future of Robotics?🤖
The race to build the future of robotics is no longer just about robots. It's about who controls the intelligence behind them.
 
Over the last three years, a small group of companies has emerged as the backbone of the AI revolution. Microsoft provides cloud infrastructure. NVIDIA supplies the chips. Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and others develop the models. Together, they control much of the compute, data, and software stack powering modern AI.
 
Now that AI is moving into the physical world, many are asking a bigger question:
 
Will these same companies end up controlling robotics too?
 
It's a valid concern.
 
The latest generation of robots relies on enormous amounts of compute, simulation, training data, and foundation models. Many robotics startups today are built on infrastructure provided by large technology companies. NVIDIA's Omniverse is becoming a key simulation environment for robot training. Microsoft Azure is powering the training of robotics foundation models. Physical AI startups increasingly depend on hyperscale cloud infrastructure to train and deploy intelligent systems. Recent partnerships across the industry show just how central Big Tech has become to robotics development.
But while Big Tech is building the highways, another movement is trying to ensure it doesn't own every destination.
 
That movement is decentralized AI.
 
Why Decentralized AI Exists
 
The idea behind decentralized AI is simple. Instead of a handful of companies owning the models, compute infrastructure, data pipelines, and intelligence networks, these resources are distributed across thousands of participants.
 
This means anyone can contribute compute, contribute models, validate outputs and can participate.
The most visible example today is the decentralized AI network known as Bittensor (@bittensor). The network has evolved into a large ecosystem of specialized AI markets called subnets, where participants compete to provide useful machine intelligence and are rewarded based on performance. Rather than relying on a single company, intelligence is generated and validated by a distributed network of miners and validators.
 
Think of it as an attempt to build an open marketplace for AI instead of a world where intelligence is rented from a few centralized providers.
 
Why This Matters for Robotics
 
Robotics has a unique problem. Unlike chatbots, robots operate in the physical world. They need to perceive environments, make decisions, move safely and they need to learn continuously.
 
The challenge is that collecting and training on real-world robotic data is incredibly expensive. That's one reason large companies have such an advantage. They can afford the compute, simulation environments, and data infrastructure needed to train robotics models at scale.
 
This is where decentralized systems become interesting.
 
Instead of one company collecting all the data and training all the models, decentralized networks could allow thousands of contributors to participate in building robotic intelligence.
 
Imagine a future where:
  • Warehouse robots contribute operational data.
  • Delivery robots contribute navigation data.
  • Factory robots contribute manipulation data.
  • Developers contribute models.
  • Validators evaluate performance.
The resulting intelligence becomes a shared network rather than a proprietary asset.
 
That vision is beginning to emerge.
 
Bittensor's Move Toward Physical AI
 
While many people associate Bittensor (@bittensor) with language models and AI services, parts of the ecosystem are increasingly exploring embodied intelligence and robotics.
 
One example is Kinitro, a subnet focused on incentivizing the training and evaluation of embodied AI systems. The goal is to create competitive environments where developers build robotic intelligence and are rewarded based on performance.
 
The broader Bittensor ecosystem has also expanded into compute marketplaces, distributed inference systems, bandwidth infrastructure, and AI coordination layers that could eventually support robotics workloads. Several subnets now focus on decentralized compute, confidential inference, data transfer, and model training, critical components for future robotic systems.
 
In other words, the pieces are starting to appear.
 
Not a decentralized robot network yet.
 
But the infrastructure that could support one.
 
Beyond Bittensor: The Rise of Physical AI Networks
 
Bittensor isn't alone.
 
Across the industry, researchers and builders are experimenting with decentralized approaches to physical AI.
 
New research published in 2026 introduced the concept of DAO-enabled decentralized physical AI, or DePAI. The idea combines robotics, decentralized infrastructure, AI models, governance systems, and human oversight into a single framework. Instead of centralized control, robots and physical infrastructure could be coordinated through transparent rules and distributed ownership models.
 
At the same time, developers are exploring decentralized operating systems for robots that allow machines to communicate directly with each other and with distributed compute resources. These architectures are designed to make robotic systems more resilient and less dependent on a single cloud provider.
 
The goal is not simply decentralization for its own sake.
 
The goal is resilience.
 
If one server fails, the system continues.
 
If one company disappears, the network survives.
 
If one participant leaves, innovation continues.
 
But Here's the Reality
 
Decentralized AI faces the same challenge every decentralized technology faces.
 
Big Tech has resources. A lot of resources.
 
Training advanced robotics models requires enormous compute budgets, sophisticated simulation environments, access to specialized hardware, and vast amounts of real-world data.
 
That's why many robotics startups still partner with major cloud providers and AI companies. It's often the fastest path to deployment.
 
And there are legitimate concerns about whether decentralized networks can maintain quality, reliability, and security at the scale required for industrial robotics. Even researchers studying decentralized AI systems have highlighted risks around concentration, incentives, governance, and network security.
 
The challenge isn't just decentralizing intelligence.
 
It's decentralizing intelligence while maintaining performance.
 
That's much harder.
 
The Most Likely Outcome
 
The future probably won't be fully centralized. And it probably won't be fully decentralized either. Instead, we're likely heading toward a hybrid model.
 
Large technology companies will continue providing chips, cloud infrastructure, simulation platforms, and foundational research.
 
At the same time, decentralized AI networks will emerge as alternative coordination layers where intelligence, data, and economic value can be shared more openly.
 
The companies building robots may use NVIDIA hardware.
 
Train on Azure.
 
Run foundation models from OpenAI.
 
But they may also participate in decentralized data networks, decentralized compute markets, and decentralized intelligence protocols.
 
The future of robotics could end up looking less like a monopoly and more like an ecosystem.
 
The Bigger Question
 
The real question isn't whether decentralized AI can eliminate Big Tech.
 
It can't.
 
At least not anytime soon.
 
The real question is whether decentralized AI can prevent a future where a handful of companies control every robot, every model, every dataset, and every decision made by the machines operating around us.
 
As robots become workers, assistants, delivery drivers, factory operators, and even economic agents, that question becomes increasingly important.
 
Because the battle for the future of robotics is no longer about hardware.
 
It's about who owns the intelligence.
 
And that battle is just getting started.
 
 

🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian

👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here

👇 Crypto Donations 👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals