CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Before Anthropic existed, Daniela Amodei reportedly developed an unconventional method for sorting through difficult decisions at work: she and her husband created an imaginary group of advisers using plush toys, according to the NY Post.

The couple gave each toy a distinct temperament and point of view, then used those characters to consider how different kinds of managers might respond to the same problem, according to an account in The Atlantic drawn from journalist Kevin Roose’s forthcoming book, The AGI Chronicles.

The Post writes that one character, Jinji, was a laid-back cat whose instinct was to lighten Amodei’s workload and skip unnecessary meetings. A pink bear called Maura represented the opposite approach — organized, demanding and focused on details. Another, Beary Bonds, was a panda meant to bring compassion and generosity into the discussion.

Despite the playful setup, Amodei apparently found practical value in the exercise. She told Roose in 2023 that it was “very useful in analyzing different personality types.”

The practice was largely unknown inside OpenAI, where Amodei had been working since 2018. It also came during an increasingly difficult period for her and her brother Dario Amodei at the company.

Daniela had moved into management of technical teams and developed disagreements with several senior OpenAI figures, including Greg Brockman and Mira Murati. Her relationship with Brockman had previously been much warmer — he had even spoken at her wedding to Holden Karnofsky in 2017 — but their working relationship deteriorated over time.

Dario, meanwhile, had his own concerns about OpenAI’s leadership and the direction of its AI development. He became particularly wary of Sam Altman and Brockman and began organizing with researchers who wanted greater emphasis placed on the risks posed by increasingly powerful AI systems.

That faction communicated privately and held meetings outside the company's usual structure. Some colleagues reportedly referred to it as “Dario’s clique.”

Eventually, the internal disagreements turned into plans for an entirely new company. In 2020, Dario began assembling a team willing to leave OpenAI and pursue advanced AI research under a different safety philosophy.

Daniela became a central figure in that departure, including negotiating with OpenAI as the group prepared to leave. Those involved reportedly referred to the split privately as “the divorce.”

The Amodeis exited OpenAI in December 2020 and helped establish Anthropic with Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Tom Brown, Chris Olah and Jared Kaplan. Ben Mann was subsequently recognized as another co-founder.

What began with ambitions of building a comparatively small research operation eventually became something much larger. Anthropic expanded to thousands of workers and developed into one of OpenAI’s most significant competitors.

Daniela today serves as Anthropic’s president and board chair, with authority extending across much of the company’s research, engineering, product and business operations. Karnofsky, who once sat on OpenAI’s nonprofit board, also eventually joined Anthropic.

The revelation about Amodei’s plush management advisers arrives as Anthropic has transformed from a small AI-safety startup into one of the industry's most valuable companies, with reports suggesting a potential IPO could eventually carry a valuation approaching $2 trillion.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A California labor-and-delivery nurse says her Fresno hospital went from a handful of stillbirths a year to more than 20 in a single month once COVID shots were pushed on pregnant women, then answered the pile-up with an email on how to handle the dead.

The same product is now sitting in a federal file parents were told not to worry about. An analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, published yesterday, finds COVID-vaccinated children had higher odds of autism, ADHD, anxiety and special-education use than children who never received the shot, and the authors say the shots in children should stop.

Michelle Spencer has worked the antepartum, postpartum and labor-and-delivery floor at Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno since 2017. In interviews that Children's Health Defense aired, she described the unit before the pregnancy rollout as a place that saw about four stillbirths a year. After the shots started going into pregnant women, she said, it became four a week, and it did not stop.

A California nurse says her hospital went from four stillbirths a year to 22 in a SINGLE MONTH after COVID shots were pushed on pregnant women.That's more stillbirths in 30 days than the previous FIVE YEARS combined.The hospital sent an email, telling nurses to BRUSH UP ON HANDLING DEAD BABIES' BODIES. But not a shred of concern about WHY they were dying.Stillbirths are up 6,500% in a single month, and the hospital doesn't want to get to the bottom of it.Nurse Michelle Spencer questioned the COVID shots. Her colleagues? They figured it was GLOBAL WARMING.

— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) October 6, 2026

A total of 22 stillborn babies in 30 days against a baseline of four a year is more than the previous five years combined, on the order of a 6,500 percent jump in a single month. Spencer's July 30, 2025 complaint in Fresno County Superior Court used a baseline of one fetal death a month before spring 2021 and about 20 a month after, and calls the rise a statistically significant surge of more than 400 percent.

She has said she cannot pull the hospital's full record, so the monthly figure is her estimate from the floor. The document that is not an estimate is the email.

In September 2022, nurse manager Julie Christopherson wrote to nursing and technical staff about what the hospital called "demise patients."

"Well, it seems as though the increase of demise patients that we are seeing is going to continue," she wrote. "There were 22 demises in August, which ties the record number of demises in July 2021, and so far in September there have been 7 and it's only the 8th day of the month."

She told the bedside nurses the work was burying her other patients. "I know of a few more that are scheduled to deliver in the week ahead, so unfortunately the process is going to be very familiar with all of you." The note walked staff through handling remains after a dead fetus had been mishandled. It did not ask why the babies were dying.

Spencer's complaint says she "was gaslit by management who continued to make unsubstantiated excuses such as 'pesticides' as a more likely cause of the record high dead babies." The institution's documented move was procedural, not investigative.

When she leaked the email, the hospital opened an investigation into her, denied her a $5,000 retention bonus in December 2022 on the grounds she was no longer in good standing, and reprimanded her for telling patients about vaccine risk. Children's Health Defense is funding the suit.

Her lawyer, Greg Glaser, put the allegation in one line: "The hospital possessed vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparison data. The numbers proved the vaccines were causing miscarriages and more in the vaccinated group. We know hospital management analyzed the data because they said so, and we see they concealed it from regulators because that file requested by regulators is empty."

The complaint says one managing nurse told a staff member that nearly all of the stillbirths were in vaccinated mothers, and that fetal deaths in mothers who did not get the shot stayed at the old rate of about one a month. Spencer told The New American: "Healthy moms and healthy babies were suddenly being replaced by babies born dead, and nobody seemed to care. I saw a pattern, clear as day, and I couldn't stay silent."

Nurse Sounds Alarm on Stillbirth SurgeMichelle Spencer, a labor & delivery nurse in California, says she witnessed a heartbreaking rise in stillbirths after the 2021 COVID vaccine rollout - and when she spoke up, the hospital retaliated.This isn't just a lawsuit. It's a moral reckoning.Read more on CHD's The Defender https://t.co/mK3lS5ordc

— Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) August 13, 2025

The hospital has never accepted that framing. In 2022, after the email first leaked, Sarah Putman, then director of women and newborn health at Community Regional, said the memo was about policy, that fetal demise has many causes, and that "neither COVID-19 nor vaccines were mentioned."

The California Department of Public Health said at the time it had seen no significant statewide rise in stillbirths since the shots arrived, and no stillbirth certificate naming vaccination.

The case is still open. What the email itself records is the count, and the decision to train nurses on the bodies rather than on the cause.

The full interview with Spencer:

A Nurse's Moral Conviction00:00 - CHD Advocacy 06:43 - Doctors & Scientists 07:34 - Guest Introduction: Michelle Spencer, RN Whistleblower 08:57 - Michelle's Background & Moment of Truth with Hepatitis B Vaccine 10:50 - Refusing Hep B Vaccines, Informed Consent, & Current Disciplinary Action 12:55 - Stillbirth Surge Post-COVID Vaccines (Data & Email Evidence) 15:59 - Blowing the Whistle: Email to RFK Jr., Media Appearances & Investigation 19:58 - Loss of Michelle's Mother to Hospital Protocols 22:18 - Ongoing Retaliation, Lawsuit, & Continued Work at Hospital 25:27 - Michelle's Remote Healing Work (NAET / Body Code) & Session with Host's Son 29:59 - NAET Training, Vaccine Injury Experiences & Quantum Healing 35:41 - How to Contact Michelle (Healing Ground) & Closing ThanksHost of "Doctors & Scientists" Brian Hooker, Ph.D. asks his guest, Nurse Michelle Spencer, about her journey - including how her opinion on vaccination changed over the years, her experience with COVID hospital protocols and the way she utilizes alternative approaches to healing health conditions in family and friends. Don't miss this interview!

— Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) July 3, 2026

As we have previously highlighted, a Nobel laureate warned Anthony Fauci in February 2021 that COVID shot contents were reaching the placenta and the fetus and provoking an immune response in the amniotic fluid. Fauci told the public there were no red flags.

Meanwhile, yesterday's paper, posted on Zenodo by epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, cardiologist Peter McCullough and colleagues, pools the 2022-2024 National Health Interview Survey Sample Child files: 21,990 children aged 0-17 with a recorded COVID vaccination status, and 19,882 aged 2-17 for the autism, ADHD and learning-disability items. "Unvaccinated" here means no COVID shot. It does not mean the child skipped the routine schedule.

Set against children who never received a COVID shot, COVID-vaccinated children had 32 percent higher odds of current autism, 26 percent higher odds of a lifetime autism diagnosis, 33 percent higher odds of ADHD, 23 percent higher odds of any neurodevelopmental diagnosis, 19 percent higher odds of special-education use, 24 percent higher odds of asthma, 27 percent higher odds of daily or weekly anxiety, 57 percent higher odds of mental-health medication and 60 percent higher odds of mental-health therapy.

The odds climbed with the dose count. Against children who received none, current-autism odds were 3 percent higher after one dose, 25 percent higher after two, and 40 percent higher after three or more. Among children aged 5 to 7, three or more COVID shots were linked to 154 percent higher odds of current autism.

Hulscher told The Gateway Pundit the association "persisted across numerous adjustment strategies, strengthened with increasing dose count, and reached its largest estimate in some of the youngest multiply vaccinated children."

He added: "This is a safety signal that must not be ignored. Endangering the developing brain is a red line. COVID-19 'vaccination' of children should cease immediately."

The authors say the autism signal held after controls for age, sex, race, income, parental education, insurance, region, healthcare access, wellness visits, emergency-room use, hospitalization, prescription use and influenza vaccination. Influenza and HPV shots, run as comparison exposures, did not reproduce it. Children who received a COVID shot but not a flu shot had 45 percent higher autism odds than children who received a flu shot but not a COVID shot.

The design is cross-sectional. It cannot put the shot before the diagnosis on a calendar, and the authors say so. That limit is real. It is also the comparison the CDC, the FDA and the manufacturers did not run on their own books while the product was being sold to pregnant women and then to toddlers as a routine precaution. Pediatric trials were never powered for autism, ADHD or a special-education placement.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had already put the wider denial in plain language in April 2025. "It's clear that the rates are real. Year by year there is a steady, relentless increase," he said. "This is a preventable disease. We know it's an environmental exposure. It has to be. Genes do not cause epidemics."

CDC surveillance now puts autism at 1 in 31 American 8-year-olds, 1 in 20 boys, and about 1 in 12.5 boys in California, the state where Spencer works. President Trump's line at the same moment was shorter: "They pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it's a disgrace."

Spencer is still on the Fresno floor. The complaint says the deaths have not gone back to the old rate. The federal survey says the children who made it out of those wards are carrying a dose-linked signal the agencies spent four years calling a conspiracy.

Leaders of Sunrise Movement, a far-left climate nonprofit legally classified as a 501(c)(4) organization, said in a recent online meeting that they want to "engage in civil disobedience and get arrested."

The video of the nonprofit's far-left radical leaders was published on X by Karlyn Borysenko, who describes herself as an anti-communist analyst and observer of the far left.

The transcript of remarks by one of Sunrise Movement's leaders is as follows:

What's holding you back from getting involved, right? Like, I would assume that everyone on this call is here because they want to do something, but what's holding you back, right? And what's holding you back from getting more involved than you already are.

And I'll share again for me, right? Like, one thing that's structural for me is like, I really would love to do a direct action. I would love to get arrested doing some good trouble, some civil disobedience, as they say, but I can't. Like structurally, that's just something I can't do. I would love to get arrested, but that would be a bad look.

SUNRISE MOVEMENT LEADER SAYS THEY WANT TO ENGAGE IN CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE AND GET ARRESTED FOLLOW @DrKarlynB ! https://t.co/W0vmFwlmXF

— BOT (@ROBO_BOT_00001) October 6, 2026

Now, why would that be a bad look?

For Sunrise specifically, organizing riots and deliberate lawbreaking can jeopardize the nonprofit's tax-exempt status in the Trump era, as a multi-agency task force led by the US Treasury has homed in on these nonprofits for their revolutionary Marxist work.

A New York Post report from late August detailed the Treasury task force that could soon strip tax-exempt status from George Soros' far-left Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

One source said Treasury Department officials were "like a dog with a bone" and reckoned that many NGOs and their donor bases could be "on borrowed time."

Publicly available records accessed through Sayari map show the organizational structure and linked entities surrounding Sunrise Movement. 

Sunrise Movement Links To The Democratic Machine 

The clearest connections are Becca Rast and Abdul El-Sayed. 

Via Linkedin:

Scrutiny of NGOs, whether used as foreign subversion networks or to carry out the dirty work of left-wing billionaire foundations waging war against the West, has been in full force this summer. 

That may help explain why there were no riots: billionaire foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, are likely afraid of losing their tax-exempt status. 

Meanwhile.... Obama.

It is my honor and privilege to announce that President @BarackObama is joining us on the trail in Detroit on Saturday, October 24. Get. Ready. https://t.co/lEXRlxnu7P

— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) October 5, 2026

Read: "The Riots Never Came: Has The Protest Machine Stalled, Or Is It Regrouping." 

President Trump addressed a full house for his Monday night midterm campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska - but his comments on the Iran war, gas prices, and musings about a nuclear weapon taking out American cities created an avalanche of controversy.

Making the case for his launching Operation Epic Fury, Trump at one point in the speech said, "They could take out a city," and then: "Let 'em take out Los Angeles. Let 'em take out San Diego." The clip went viral on various social media platforms, especially ones that didn't convey the full context. Though Trump's rhetorical ordering of what he was trying to convey was clearly mangled and off, he was actually expressing a warning and not a wish.

Regardless, it wasn't just prominent Democrats that expressed shock and outrage at what was widely construed as him suggesting he'd be okay with the Iranians nuking a couple California cities, but some Republicans too. For example a Trump-endorsed Republican who is seeking an open House seat in California, Jim Desmond, stated he "vehemently" disagreed with the comments.

"The first responsibility of our commander in chief is to protect the American people and our homeland," he wrote online. "As a Navy veteran, I served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war. Our job is to keep Americans safe, stand up to our enemies, and make sure a threat like that never becomes reality. No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage."

Naturally, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California also blasted the president's remarks. "After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California," he stated, "Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego."

Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles said she was "just shocked" at Trump's remarks and called for an immediate retraction and apology. "It would really be helpful to our city if you would apologize and say, of course, you would never stand for a foreign power attacking a U.S. city," she said. "That is the appropriate response the day after from the president of the United States." She has of course frequently been on the receiving end of Trump's attacks.

The White House issued official response on Tuesday, pointing out that intent matters and implying that Trump's off-the-cuff, hyperbolic, and rambling style are being willfully misinterpreted. Here's the explanation by White House's communications director, Steven Cheung:

"The media freakout over President Trump’s comments is not rooted in reality. He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped. America is safer because of the president. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money."

Not helping matters was that the crowd loudly cheered at the moment he mentioned "let them take out Las Angeles... San Diego...".

Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay https://t.co/Fc4BcjVDKj

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) October 6, 2026

What follows is an exact transcript of what Trump said:

I want to see a tremendous victory. You want to see a tremendous victory because it verifies all the things we did. And again, remember, with the war, it’s just artificial. It’s a little bit high. It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe.

They can take out a city. Let them take, let them take out Los Angeles; let them take out San Diego. That’s — this is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over with very soon. It’s essentially almost over with.

And they might keep going a little long. You know, they always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it. Let me tell you, they need it. But it’s going to end very soon. And it’ll end one way or the other. And your gas and your gasoline and all of the things.

And don’t forget, we also took on a country known as Venezuela. They never talk about that. They never talk about Venezuela. And we’re taking in hundreds of millions of barrels of oil every week. We’re pouring oil. We’re pouring oil into this country like nobody’s ever seen before.

Deleted post griping about what Trump said about Los Angeles and San Diego being nuked by Iran. Now that I've seen the clip, it was clear that he simply wasn't speaking clearly, that he was WARNING that this could happen, not wishing for it. I apologize.

— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) October 6, 2026

With all of the above having been laid out, it remains that even what Trump was trying to say is bad enough. He's engaging in a pattern of classic fearmongering which seems to borrow straight from the NeoCon Bush-era playbook on the Iraq war.

He just days prior did the same in Alabama, though it was much more coherent.

TRUMP SAYS HIGH OIL PRICES A SMALL PRICE TO PAY, IRAN WOULD HAVE NUKED ALABAMA *** https://t.co/MH17sEhNZp

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) October 3, 2026

Read our: Mushroom Cloud Over Alabama: Trump Just Pulled A Condoleezza Rice. Ultimately, there's no need to misinterpret the comments - the classic fearmongering itself is bad enough and is what should form the crux of the debate over Trump's stance.

Authored by Noosheen Hashemi via RealClearMarkets,

At the White House on Tuesday, President Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson and leaders of America's major AI companies emerged with a voluntary accord calling for robust internal controls, independent auditing and safeguards against AI systems accessing technical systems in unintended ways. The agreement is limited and its implementation will matter. It also offers a useful example of government bringing fierce competitors together around a concrete problem while leaving competition intact.

That example matters because much of the federal machinery is already in motion. The White House AI Action Plan spans more than 90 federal actions across innovation, infrastructure and international policy. The American AI Exports Program is organizing full-stack offerings that include chips, cloud infrastructure, models, cybersecurity and applications. A June executive order created an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse and a voluntary framework for frontier-model security while expressly declining to authorize mandatory federal licensing, preclearance or permitting. This week, America.gov put advanced AI directly into federal service delivery, while the new U.S.- China Super Intelligence Dialogue created a bilateral channel for incidents related to advanced AI. Taken together, these efforts show how much activity is already underway.

The phrase "AI race" is too singular for the competition now unfolding. The United States and China are competing across at least seven fronts, and leadership in the most capable model does not guarantee leadership across the other six.

Frontier intelligence.

The most obvious contest is over who develops the strongest systems in reasoning, coding, science, agents and robotics. Frontier capability still matters enormously because breakthroughs at the top eventually propagate through products, research and the wider economy.

Capacity.

AI is digital, while its limits are increasingly physical. Chips, advanced packaging, networking, data centers, electricity generation, transmission, interconnection, cooling and skilled labor all determine how much intelligence can actually be trained and deployed. The administration already treats infrastructure as a core condition of AI leadership, and its June national-security directive also calls for next-generation high-security computing capacity. National-security AI directive.

Industrial AI.

The strategic question reaches far beyond model benchmarks. It includes how rapidly intelligence moves into factories, robotics, logistics, healthcare, energy systems and supply chains. A country can extract enormous economic and strategic value from capable AI if it deploys that intelligence broadly and compounds the productivity gains across its industrial base.

Global diffusion.

The technology stack that becomes easiest to buy, finance, integrate and operate can shape markets and dependencies for years. America's export program recognizes this as a full stack competition. China is pursuing another form of diffusion through inexpensive and open models. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission reported this year that Alibaba's Qwen ecosystem had produced more than 100,000 derivatives on Hugging Face, creating a feedback loop in which adoption drives iteration and iteration drives further adoption. USCC analysis.

National security and control.

Advanced AI increasingly touches cybersecurity, intelligence, critical infrastructure, autonomous systems and the security of the models themselves. Tuesday's White House accord sits squarely in this lane, as does the June security order. The emerging challenge is to build credible safeguards while preserving the competitive pressure and speed that drive technical progress.

Productive power at home.

The country that invents the most capable AI and the country that absorbs AI most effectively throughout its economy may end up capturing very different amounts of value. Productivity depends on deployment across businesses, workers, science, healthcare and government. America.gov is a visible example of the federal government putting AI directly into service delivery, alongside private-sector adoption.

The information layer.

AI is becoming an intermediary between people and knowledge. Increasingly, users will ask a model a question and receive an answer instead of navigating dozens of links. Accuracy, provenance, language coverage, resilience to manipulation and trust therefore carry strategic significance well beyond conventional software competition.

These fronts interact constantly, which is where the current architecture becomes harder to read. A decision about advanced-chip exports can affect national security, the economics of American semiconductor companies, the cost of frontier development, the attractiveness of the U.S. stack abroad and the incentive for other countries to build around Chinese alternatives. A rule written for frontier safety can also change fixed compliance costs and market structure. A transmission bottleneck can delay a data center, constrain compute, slow industrial adoption and alter the economics of exporting American AI. Each policy lane has its own logic, but the competitive effects travel across lanes.

The missing capability is a better operating picture across the machinery already in place. Three questions would make the existing architecture much more legible. The first is whether we have a real scoreboard across all seven fronts. GAO has already built a framework for assessing U.S. AI competitiveness across science and technology, human capital, governance and the economy. The next step is a current view of frontier capability, compute, energy, cost, industrial adoption, global deployment and productivity, so policymakers can see where America is actually gaining or losing ground.

The second question is what a major decision on one front does to the other six. That discipline would make tradeoffs visible before they become unintended consequences. Export controls, open-weight policy, safety standards, data-center rules and federal procurement can all improve one objective while changing incentives somewhere else in the system.

The third question is ownership when a strategic bottleneck crosses institutional lines. Global deployment can involve Commerce, State, financing agencies, cybersecurity authorities and private companies at the same time. Infrastructure can involve Energy, permitting agencies, states, utilities and capital providers. Many institutions can perform their assigned tasks well while an outcome that spans them remains nobody's job to deliver.

Tuesday's White House meeting offers one possible operating habit. A specific problem was defined, the companies with the relevant capability were brought together, responsibilities were made more explicit, and competition remained intact. The accord will ultimately be judged by what the companies implement. The method is worth applying more broadly when problems fall between established lanes.

China's centralized system gives Beijing a natural view across infrastructure, industrial policy and national strategy. America is built around distributed power, private capital, competing firms, universities and experimentation, an architecture that has produced extraordinary technological dynamism. The work now is to add visibility across the system while preserving the forces that make it move quickly.

Seven fronts are moving at once, and every major decision changes the position on more than one of them. Seeing those interactions early would help the United States compound its strengths, expose tradeoffs before they become expensive, and clear bottlenecks while they are still solvable. America already has extraordinary companies, capital, universities, infrastructure programs and diplomatic tools. The advantage now is to see them as one strategic picture and move at AI speed.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.