"You're An Idiot & A Lunatic if You Question 'Safe Spaces' Or 'Microaggression'" – President Of Northwestern

Submitted by Mark Glennon via WirePoints.com,

Never mind that he’s talking about many who his university educated, including me. Any of you who question campus preoccupation with safe spaces, trigger warnings and microaggressions are idiots and lunatics. That’s what Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro told new students this past week in his welcoming address. Articles about his comments include those in CampusReform and The Daily Northwestern.

“Look for safe spaces,” Schapiro told the freshman, and he pledged that “if you can’t find them, we will help you find them.” Regarding traumatic ideas, Schapiro says, “If they say that…you shouldn’t be warned to prepare yourself psychologically for that, that somehow that’s coddling, those people are lunatics.”

Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Words like “idiot” and “lunatic” are just the kind from which the safe space crowd thinks it should be protected.

Contempt for stereotyping is also high among their pieties. Yet Schapiro told his students, “The people who decry safe spaces do it from their segregated housing places, from their jobs without diversity — they do it from their country clubs. It just drives me nuts.”

But it’s the microaggression thing that’s most interesting. Those who deny their existence are “idiots,” Schapiro says.” They “cut you to the core” and aren’t easily forgotten.

Seems to me that’s why they’re great. I like them. They piss you off. They force you to decide who you are and what you stand for.

Daislyland. Safe from the horrors of “microagression.”

Like that girl from Manhattan in the dorm at Northwestern who told me she could never see any reason to go to the south suburbs (where I am from). Or the union thug when I worked at Jewel who threatened me with retaliation for questioning the political contributions I was forced to make. Or the people in the Cook County Recorder of Deeds office who would shake you down to get a lien search done when I was a young lawyer. Or some of the comments and emails I get here.

I bet everybody who reads this – anybody with motivation, that is, in whatever direction – has their own stories. That’s what gets you out of bed in the morning.

It’s far worse for gays, blacks and certain others. I get that. No comparison. Nobody is defending slurs or bigotry against them. But Schapiro’s obsession with microaggressions extends to everybody, and “micro” just isn’t big enough to worry about.

“If you want to play in the NFL, you gotta play hurt,” football guys say. That’s true everywhere in everything, grownups know.

Except at universities like Northwestern has become under Morton Schapiro.

*  *  *

Schapiro has defended safe spaces before: In a Washington Post op-ed published in January, he wrote that “the best hope we have of creating an inclusive community is to first create spaces where members of each group feel safe.”

So – to translate – the ‘final’ solution’ to creating a community where we are all equal is to segregate everyone into like-minded groups who do not feel ‘safe’ in the broad community?

"I Think It’ll Be A Clown Show" – Why Tomorrow's Debate Is So Important

Craig Bell, a 55-year-old software engineer from Columbus, Ohio, will be one of the 100 million estimated Americans set to tune in on Monday night at 9pm for the first debate between the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.  As profiled by Bloomberg, what he sees will be as important as what he hears. “I don’t know how to say this nicely, but I just want to see which one can act more presidential and more trustworthy,’’ Bell said at a table outside North Market in downtown Columbus.

Bell, and millions of “undecideds” like him, is why tomorrow’s debate has such huge significance:  according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 34% of registered voters think the three presidential debates would be extremely or quite important in helping them decide whom to support for president. About 11% of voters are considered “debate persuadables”—that is, they think the debates are important and are either third-party voters or only loosely committed to either major-party candidate.

Slightly more Republicans than Democrats said the debates would be important to them, 37% to 31%. But voter groups that seem poised to pay the most attention include several that Hillary Clinton is counting on to win. Some 49% of Hispanics, 42% of African-Americans and 39% of voters under age 35 say that the debates will be extremely or quite important to them.

The breakdown of the millions of Americans yet to decide who they will vote for is shown below (apologies to Gary Johnson fans: he will not make it tomorrow): 


According to Bloomberg, interviews conducted in key precincts of Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as other battleground states found voters who said they’ve ruled out either Clinton or Trump but aren’t yet comfortable with the alternative. Some are considering a third party contender, such as Libertarian Gary Johnson or not voting at all for president. While they care about the issues, most say they’ve heard where the candidates stand and aren’t expecting any new ground to be broken when they meet Monday night at Hofstra University in New York for the first of three scheduled debates.

Still, they may be persuaded, and that’s what the campaigns are betting on. Indeed, as the WSJ adds, the campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton acknowledged the huge stakes of Monday’s televised presidential debate. “In many ways, with this debate coming up, we’re just starting,” said Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, on ABC Sunday. Added Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, speaking on the same network: “This will be the first time Americans have seen Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the same stage, and they’re going to be able to make their choice based on what they see.”

The risk, of course, is that the two most unpopular presidential candidates in history succeed in turning away even more potential voters.

“I feel like they are both bad choices,” said Melissa Huber, a 39-year-old day-care provider in Oklahoma. “I’m hoping that through the debate one of them will come out as a preferred option.”

Ms. Huber is thinking of supporting Mr. Johnson, but added that like the abovementioned Craig Bell, Trump could win her over in the debate if he was to “show a little decorum. Show that he can be presidential.”

Arnitress Dowdy, 39, an African-American who hasn’t settled on a candidate and quoted by the WSJ, is inclined to support Mrs. Clinton and is hoping to hear her address issues of race and police violence in the wake of the unrest in Charlotte, N.C.

“I’m not sure who is really well equipped; I just need to hear more,” said Ms. Dowdy, a mother of two in New York. “I know she has advocated for children. I want to know what she will do so things will calm down.”

* * *

The most likely outcome from tomorrow’s debates, however, is that those who have decided on either Trump or Hillary will not change their minds, while the truly undecided will remain undecided. Worse, their confusion may be exacerbated: in that vein, Bloomberg reports that some 74 percent of likely Colorado voters deemed Trump “risky,” to 59 percent for Clinton, and 62 percent said Trump was “scary,” versus 57 percent for Clinton.

A bigger risk, this time for Hillary, is that in a rerun of the seminal 2000 debate between Dubya and Al Gore, she passes off as even more robotic than usual: while more than eight in ten Colorado Democrats described Clinton as “competent” and “responsible,” only about 40 percent said she was “exciting,” CBS News said. When the latter group were asked specifically why they didn’t find her so, the top answer was they had wanted Senator Bernie Sanders as the party nominee, followed closely by the response that Clinton is too close to politics as usual.

Trump did well within his own party in Colorado, being seen as “inspiring” by 72 percent of Republicans. And many Republicans who described him as risky are voting for him nonetheless, the poll showed. Some 91 percent of Republicans felt Trump would change Washington and 86 percent said he can fix the economy.

* * *

For those who do hope to be persuaded, here are some clues during the debate for what kind of leader the candidates will be.

Reece Pavlovich of Columbus, 23, who works in sales for the Columbus Blue Jackets, said whether the candidates try to answer questions directly or dodge them will help him decide.

“It’s a small tell-tale sign, if you can’t answer this one simple question that was asked of you without diverting or trying to blame it on someone else,’’ he said. “I don’t think that you’re fit to make massive world decisions or political decisions that can impact millions or billions of people.’’

Judy Thacker of Palmetto, Florida, 58, a laid-off cook who considers herself an independent, doesn’t like either Clinton or Trump. She wants to see how they interact with each other as a cue for how they would handle themselves on the international stage. “If you watch them speak with each other, that’s how they would speak with a foreign leader if they were in a tight situation and they were trying to work something out and things were getting really hot and heavy like they will be at the debate,’’ Thacker said.

Stephanie Frederick-Weber, 38, who lives near Reno, Nevada, doesn’t think either candidate has articulated a broader vision for the U.S. beyond standard rhetoric and hopes the debate will be an opportunity to get more than prepared speeches and talking points. “The debates are kind of integral because they kind of catch them off guard a little bit,’’ she said.

To all of the above, and millions like them who honestly hope to be swayed, good luck.

The rest, however, will merely be watching tomorrow’s debate just for the shock and entertainment value. As Bloomberg concludes, some undecided voters are so fed up with the race and their choices, they doubt the debate will matter or don’t plan to watch it.

“I think it’ll be a clown show, more than I’ll get a good bombshell out of it,’’ said Ryan Porter of Columbus, 29, a financial adviser. It will be up to Trump and Hillary to prove him wrong, and – in the process – win.

Dr. Lisa Bardack’s Faustian Bargain

Submitted by Jay Michaels via AmericanThinker.com,

“Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive.”  Sir Walter Scott

When Dr. Lisa Bardack was asked to become Hillary Clinton’s personal physician in 2001, it had to have been a crowning moment in the career of the Mt. Kisco internist.  Dr. Bardack could have anticipated little downside.  She already had the responsibility — and legal obligation under HIPAA — to protect the of her patient.  She and her staff would have to be especially scrupulous in the case of a senator with presidential ambitions, but this should not have posed a serious problem.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton corrupts everyone who serves her.  And this year Bardack encountered difficulties she could not have foreseen in 2001:

1.  Clinton developed serious medical issues.

 

2.  The candidate was being videoed, not only during campaign stops, speeches, townhalls, and the rare press conference, but before and after events — by individuals with cell phones who were under no obligation to obey orders given to servile journalists to turn off their cameras.

 

3.  The internet not only permitted the mass distribution of these videos and photos, but it enabled those who were curious to check Bardack’s reports against information available on reputable medical sites.  It also enabled skeptical physicians to share their doubts with hundreds of thousands of readers.

In July 2015, the Clinton campaign asked Bardack to give the candidate a clean bill of health.  She was to disclose, selectively, some of her patient’s medical history.  But the letter was not widely analyzed until after the disturbing September 11 video by Zdenek Gazda, the Zapruder of 2016.  It was no longer possible to dismiss those asking questions about Hillary’s health as right-wing conspiracy theorists, and the campaign now requested a second letter from Dr. Bardack explaining the event.  The physician duly issued a report on September 14.  Now her real problems began.

Let’s take a look at the two letters and some of questions doctors have asked about the diagnoses and treatment.

I.  The letter of 12 July 2015

Bardack’s summary revealed a couple of major health problems that had not been previously disclosed.  We had been told that Clinton suffered an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012.  The fact that a woman in her mid-60s would fall twice ought perhaps to have raised some red flags.  In particular, unless you’re being tackled or attacked, a concussion can usually be avoided by the body’s reflexes.  Arms are extended to break the fall.

But now the public learned that some time in 2009 and in December 2012, the month of the concussion, Clinton had suffered blood clots.

She already had a history of clotting.  Running for the Presidential nomination in the fall of 2007, Hillary gave an extended interview on her 60th birthday in which she disclosed that she’d had a life-threatening medical emergency in 1998.  The crisis had been kept a secret not only from the public, but from her staff, who were told she had a sprained ankle.  Clinton’s foot had swollen and she was in great pain.  A White House doctor told her to rush to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where the diagnosis of a blood clot was made.  “That was scary,” Hillary said, “because you have to treat it immediately — you don’t want to take the risk that it will break lose and travel to your brain, or your heart or your lungs.  That was the most significant health scare I’ve ever had.”  Clinton assured the reporter that she was no longer on blood thinners. This was probably the last time Hillary spoke candidly about her health.

What Clinton had was a deep vein thrombosis, or venous thromboembolism (VTE).  The blood clot is usually in the leg, and in Hillary’s case, it was behind the right knee.

Now Dr. Bardack revealed that Hillary had had two others.  The first, in 2009, was another VTE, but the second was still more serious.  It was a right transverse cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST).  This is a clot in one of the two channels between layers of the dura, the membrane enclosing the brain, which receive blood and cerebrospinal fluid.  A clot here means that blood flow out of the brain is impeded, and there is the potential for a hemorrhage if there’s leakage into the cerebral tissues.  The Johns Hopkins Health Library refers to it as a rare form of stroke affecting only five in one million individuals.  It’s treated with anti-seizure medicines as well as anticoagulants, and the complications range from impaired speech, difficulty moving parts of the body, and vision problems to death.

There were two problems in the 2015 letter relating to the clot:

1)  Clinton, her physician wrote, “began anticoagulation therapy to dissolve the clot.”  But this is not something anticoagulants do.  Two of these drugs are mentioned by Bardack:  Lovenox, which was discontinued beuing administered to her in 1998, and Coumadin (warfarin). 

Bristol-Myers-Squibb, its manufacturer, says explicitly that the medication doesn’t dissolve clots: 

COUMADIN has no direct effect on an established thrombus, nor does it reverse ischemic tissue damage.

Every doctor prescribing Coumadin knows this.  Because of patient expectations, all reputable medical sites, like the NIH’s PubMed, repeat the warning.

There are thrombolytic (clot-dissolving) drugs, injected by catheter or infused through an i.v., but none are mentioned by Bardack.  In any case, the embolisms for which thrombolytic agents are indicated don’t correspond to Clinton’s, and these drugs are never referred to as anticoagulants.

2.  A second problem comes with the duration of the symptoms.  Bardack says that these lasted for less than two months.  But according to Bill Clinton, his wife’s injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”

Of course it could be that the four addition months of symptoms were the result not of the concussion, but the CVST.  However, it would not be easy to differentiate these symptoms.  One is instinctively disinclined to take the former President’s word on anything, but there’d be no reason for him to exaggerate the length of time it took his wife to recover.

In any case, what the public was told was an elbow fracture (Hillary sported a State Department sling) and a concussion (she was jokingly presented with a football helmet by her minions) coincided with problems much more ominous.

3.  A third issue in the 2015 letter is Bardack’s final evaluation of her patient.  Twice she calls Clinton “a healthy female” and concludes that “she is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as President of the United States.”

While Bardack could hardly have been expected to write otherwise, the truth is that anyone who is on lifelong Coumadin is not in excellent physical condition.  As is well known, warfarin was developed as a rat poison, and increases significantly the risk of intercranial intracranial bleeding.   A recent ten-year study of 32,000 veterans found that nearly one-third developed intercranial intracranial bleeds while on warfarin.  The vets were over 75, but the high figure was still very disturbing, though probably not surprising to most physicians.

Dr. Milton Wolf, a board-certified radiologist, writes, “Coumadin carries a substantial risk for patients, particularly those with fall risk. Spontaneous hemorrhage common, intracranial and elsewhere. I see it commonly, including life-threatening brain bleeds. Normal, healthy patients are NEVER, NEVER prescribed Coumadin.”  There are safer anticoagulants.  “Coumadin is typically given to those who can’t afford the newer drugs or reserved for cases that are refractory to the safer drugs.”  Wolf speculates that Clinton probably has a hypercoagulable blood disorder.  Coumadin would otherwise be given only to patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (like the vets) or with prosthetic heart valves, both of which can cause hypercoagulation.

The interactions with warfarin are also sobering.  In addition to avoiding both NSAIDs and acetaminophen, users are advised not to use, or to use with caution, antibiotics, anti-fungal medications, anti-depressants, and seizure medication — carbamazepine (Carbatrol, Equetro, Tegretol), phenobarbital (Solfoton), and phenytoin (Dilantin).

Whether or not Hillary has been put at risk by seizure medications, the whole world now knows about her propensity to fall.  The airplane and podium stumbles and her being helped up a short flight of steps had gone viral long before the 9/11 collapse.  And we know nothing about the falls that have occurred off-camera, except for the one that gave her a concussion.  Family friends have told Ed Klein these falls are frequent.  And head trauma is the number one concern for patients on Coumadin.

4.  Still another disclosure in Bardack’s July 2015 letter raised eyebrows.  In addition to taking Coumadin for the rest of her life, Hillary will also be on Armour thyroid until she dies.  Unlike CVST, hypothyroidism, an underactive thyroid gland, is common.  In fact, the most frequently prescribed drug in the U.S. (though not the most lucrative) is Synthroid, synthetic levothyroidoxine, the major hormone the gland produces.

Armour thyroid is an extract of desiccated pig’s thyroid.  The therapy dates to the 19th century, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends that it not be used.  But a case can be made for natural thyroid therapy, and one recent study found that more patients prefer it, though there was no difference in the control of symptoms.  These include memory problems and difficulty thinking clearly.  A physician who is one of the most vocal advocates of natural thyroid switched to a different brand of natural thyroid after Armour changed the tablet formula in 2009.

II.  The letter of 14 September 2016

1.  Bardack disclosed that Clinton was given a brain scan for an ear infection after she had “experienced significant improvement in her symptoms.”  The physician of a patient “in excellent health” would not normally order a CT scan for an ear infection that was being successfully treated by antibiotics and a myringotomy tube.  Bardack’s caution, however commendable, suggests she was worried about some underlying problem.

2.  Bardack then discusses Hillary’s pneumonia.  When an upper respiratory infection persisted for a week after Clinton had been prescribed antibiotics and allergy medicine, Bardack, on Sept. 9, ordered “a non-contrast chest CT scan, including a CTA calcium score.”

According to Dr. Wolf, a CTA (a CT angiogram) scan always requires a contrast.  On the other hand, a CT calcium score study must always be non-contrast, otherwise “the coronary calcifications would be masked by the contrast in the arteries.”  The radiologist concluded that “Hillary’s doctor just claimed Hillary got a perfect score on a test that does not exist.”

It’s likely that Bardack misstated what she’d ordered — though one would think she would be extraordinarily careful in a letter that would be read by millions.  A coronary calcium scoring CT does not use contrast, while a CTA requires it. A simple thoracic CT, which is what Hillary must have received, may or may not be done with contrast.

3.  Then there’s the finding from the scan:  “a small right middle-lobe pneumonia,” further described as “a mild non-contagious bacterial pneumonia.”

Doctors immediately questioned this diagnosis.  There is no such thing as a non-contagious pneumonia, tweeted Dr. Wolf. How did Hillary pick it up?  What about all the reports  the campaign circulated about staffers who’d come down with pneumonia, including manager Robbie Mook?

While bacterial pneumonia is not as contagious as viral pneumonia, there is no test to determine whether or not a patient is contagious.  A doctor defending Bardack listed three types of bacterial pneumonia not likely to be contagious.  The only one that Hillary could possibly have had was aspiration pneumonia.

The dubious adjective “non-contagious” may have been dictated to Bardack by Clinton.  The problem, obviously, was that after her collapse, the candidate went directly to her daughter’s apartment, where she presumably exposed her grandchildren to pneumonia, then, 90 minutes later, bounced out of the building, exulting that it was a beautiful day in New York, and embraced a little girl, exposing her, too, to the infection.

Other doctors have also pointed out how the photo-op undercut the “pneumonia” explanation.  “I’m feeling great,” Hillary said three times, not something a pneumonia patient is likely to exclaim.

4.  Apart from a case of “mild non-contagious pneumonia,” what felled Clinton on September 11th, wrote Bardack, was that “she became overheated and dehydrated.”  Even MSM reporters questioned the “overheated” pretext.  The day was partly cloudy and the temperature about 80, with a slight breeze.  Dehydration is hardly less suspicious.  First of all, it’s been used repeatedly for other falls.  And medical science has come up with a cure for dehydration.  While Marco Rubio was ridiculed for taking a swig of water in the middle his reply to the President’s 2013 State of the Union address, no one who valued his job would criticize Hillary for “re-hydrating” during an event.  One would expect that someone who had experienced multiple falls and was on Coumadin would take every precaution to avoid dehydration — especially when it’s such a simple matter.

5.  If Hillary’s dramatic recovery casts doubt on Bardack’s diagnosis, so does the fall itself.  It was not a swoon, as one might expect, where Clinton appeared woozy, lost consciousness, and her knees buckled.  Instead, she becomes stiff and immobile.  She is propped up against a bollard.  It’s only when the Secret Service agents attempt to propel her forward that she falls.  It’s not clear she’s lost conscious; she is just frozen, unable to move.

6.  Pictures taken of Clinton en route to the van also undermine Bardack’s explanation.  In one, Hillary is being given what appears to be a finger squeeze test.

The test is a neurological exam, sometimes used also as a test for arthritis.  There would be no reason to administer it to a patient suffering from pneumonia.

In the second photo, the same woman, Christine Falvo, appears to be monitoring Clinton’s pulse as they walk.  Hillary has her other hand pressed against her chest, an unusual position for someone in motion, but a good way to disguise the pill-rolling tremor associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Also present in the photos, inevitably, is the bulky African-American Secret Service agent who clearly has had some medical training.  When Hillary froze during a speech on August 4, it was he who rushed to her side, put his hand on her back, kept repeating, “Keep talking, keep talking,” and then shooed away the other agents.  Some sites have posted pictures of him holding what appears to be a diazepam injector, used for seizures, but the images are too blurry to positively identify the object.

There is no photo of either the Secret Service medic or Falvo offering the dehydrated Hillary a bottle of water.

7.  Bardack’s 2015 letter mentioned the Fresnel prism glasses Hillary wore to eliminate double vision.  The 2016 letter makes no mention of the Zeiss Z1 blue lenses she was wearing on September 11th.  These are used to help prevent seizures, particularly in photosensitive epilepsy, and improve motor control.  They are not normally prescribed for patients with pneumonia or seasonal allergies.

8.  Also unmentioned by Bardack are Hillary’s repeated coughing episodes, going back at least to January of this year.  Here’s video of eight.  Has Clinton had pneumonia for nine months?  Or is this a symptom of a neurodegenerative problem causing pulmonary aspiration?

9.  Finally, the fact that Hillary was not rushed to a hospital after the collapse and given another CT suggests that her handlers knew exactly what was going on.  And it wasn’t pneumonia.

The physician who has put forward the most plausible case that Hillary is suffering from Parkinson’s disease is Dr. Ted Noel, whose videos I linked in a recent blog post.

Though there’s been no sign so far of the pill-rolling tremor or the shuffling gait characteristic of Parkinson’s, other evidence suggests Clinton is suffering from the disease, or experiencing side effects associated with the drug most commonly used to manage it, levodopa, which include disorientation and confusion and dyskinesia (involuntary muscle movements).

Examples of the latter are Clinton’s spasmodic head movements while being questioned by several reporters (attributed by Hillary to her cold chai tea) and, less dramatically, her response to the light show at the end of the Democratic convention.

Dr. Noel has a newer video out that further undercuts Bardack’s credibility.  In addition to mentioning Wolf’s point about CT angiography, he carefully describes problems with the oxygen saturation levels reported by Hillary’s physician, and her use of an outdated test to manage Clinton’s hypothyroidism.

If she doesn’t have Parkinson’s, Hillary clearly has some major neurological disorder. 

Bardack has already been targeted by Google reviewers.  Purportedly coming from Chelsea is a one-star rating and the comment, “My mother died of Parkinson’s after she was diagnosed with pneumonia.”

Lisa Bardack will be fortunate if satiric reviews are the worst consequences for the disinformation campaign she has helped wage in Hillary’s behalf.

Edward Snowden Warns, Whatever You Do, Don't Use Google Allo

Google Allo, the new “smart” chat app launched on Wednesday, is ‘dangerous’ and should be avoided, according to whistleblower Edward Snowden, because it will “record every message you ever send and make it available to police upon request.”

 

What is #Allo? A Google app that records every message you ever send and makes it available to police upon request. https://t.co/EdPRC0G7Py

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) September 21, 2016

 

As RT reports, Allo, designed to unseat chat pack leader WhatsApp, promises to deliver quick conversations with features like; “Smart Reply” that can guess your answers and respond to messages with just the tap of a button, and “Google Assistant”, which answers your questions and helps you search for things directly in your chat.

How does Allo plan on predicting your every word and witty emoji, you ask? “The more you use it, the more it improves over time,” which basically means they’ll collect and store as much of your data as possible and then use artificial intelligence to guess your replies.

Thinking about #Allo? Last year, our secret court approved 100% of requests for surveillance. They would cover Allo. https://t.co/oYtc3Pu8tx

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) September 21, 2016

However, the efficiency of time-saving typing may end up costing customers their already compromised .

When Google first announced the introduction of Allo earlier this year they, too, had planned end-to-end-encryption in “Incognito Mode” and assured they would only store messages transiently, rather than indefinitely.

However,  it now appears that Google won’t be doing that after all. Wednesday’s announcement revealed Google plans to store all conversations that aren’t specifically started in “incognito mode” by default.

Free for download today: Google Mail, Google Maps, and Google Surveillance. That’s #Allo. Don’t use Allo. https://t.co/EdPRC0G7Py

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) September 21, 2016

As Snowden pointed out, last year every single one of the NSA and FBI’s 1,457 surveillance requests was granted by the US foreign intelligence surveillance court… and Allo’s stored data (i.e. your data) will be fair game too.

In contrast, all of WhatsApp’s chats are encrypted and unreadable – although they did /”>announce last month that they will now be sharing your contacts and who you talk to with Facebook.