The US Navy operates a 50,000 acre forest in Indiana whose entire job is keeping one wooden ship from 1797 afloat.
The ship is USS Constitution, still a commissioned warship with an active-duty crew. Cannonballs bounced off her in 1812 because the hull sandwiches a wall of live oak ribs between two layers of white oak planking, nearly 2 feet of solid wood so dense it barely floats. British 18-pounders hit it and dropped into the sea. A sailor yelled "her sides are made of iron" and the nickname stuck.
Here's the problem with owning a 229-year-old wooden ship: you can't buy the parts. Hull planks run up to 40 feet long and 7 inches thick, cut from single white oak trunks. A white oak takes over a century to grow that big. No lumberyard on earth stocks it.
So the Navy grows its own. Constitution Grove at Naval Support Activity Crane holds trees over 100 years old, reserved exclusively for this ship. Foresters there are managing oaks today that will become hull planking in the 2100s. The maintenance plan literally runs on tree time.
Every 20 years or so she enters dry dock and shipwrights swap out rotted timber. After two centuries of this, estimates put original 1797 wood at maybe 10 to 15 percent of the ship. The Navy keeps replacing her plank by plank because Congress mandated her preservation and because she's the only active US warship that has sunk an enemy vessel.
Every other asset in the Navy has a decommission date. This one has a tree farm.
When the dermatologist was just on Fox News debunking the idea that some chemicals in sunscreen aren't good for us, it sounded illogically dismissive of the studies and research.
I took a quick look.
I didn’t hear her disclose her paid relationships with big sunscreen makers. ☀️
This is part of a trend that I discovered decades ago. It permeates our news media landscape.
I learned that nearly every member of the national board of experts that lowered cholesterol guidelines and basically recommended that people should take more statins, worked for the statin makers.
I learned that many members of the board set up during Covid that restricted hydroxychloroquine... were paid by the companies that made other controversial treatments for Covid like remdesivir that were then prioritized over hydroxychloroquine.
It doesn’t stop there.
When the government and the cosmetics industry tried to falsely debunk the scientific studies linking antiperspirants and breast cancer, they referred me to the American Cancer Society for an interview. I learned that the expert at the American Cancer Society hadn’t even read the relevant studies, and yet was claiming the link was a myth. I asked and found out that the American Cancer Society takes money from the antiperspirant industry and other allegedly cancer, causing industries. However, they wouldn’t tell me how much.
When the nonprofit “every child by" was illogically denying the proven vaccine autism link, I dug in and found out the nonprofit was actually started by a vaccine maker in order to defend vaccine companies, and to controversialist those of us exposing the risks.
I was the first journalist to ask and report that the expert the government kept referring us to in order to debunk the vaccine autism link, Dr. Paul Offit, was not an independent expert at all, but was a vaccine inventor and vaccine industry insider… though that was never disclosed in the media at the time. He was always presented falsely as if he were an independent expert.
When I saw a lead dietary group giving questionable advice about nutrition, I learned that the group takes money from the sugar, cola, fast food, and preservative snack industry.
In short, whenever I’ve looked for a tie between experts defending a chemical or risk that could impact an industry's bottom line... I’ve always found one. Food for thought.
"Dr. Jody Levine has financial and professional relationships with several prominent consumer product companies that manufacture and market sunscreens.
Because sunscreen is legally regulated as an over-the-counter drug and is a core component of commercial skincare lines, her consulting roles inherently create potential conflicts of interest when she recommends sun protection or reviews skincare products in the media.
Her specific ties to major corporate sunscreen manufacturers include:
1. Johnson & Johnson / Kenvue
Dr. Levine has served on the Medical Advisory Board for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson’s consumer health spin-off, Kenvue, owns Neutrogena and Aveeno, two of the largest and most widely distributed sunscreen brands in the United States. In her media and print features, she has regularly recommended product categories or specific options overlapping with these brands, such as recommending Neutrogena Sport Face in broad consumer media interviews.
2. Galderma (Cetaphil)
She has acted as a consultant and advisor for Cetaphil, a brand owned by Galderma. Cetaphil produces a substantial line of daily facial moisturizers with SPF, mineral sunscreens, and broad-spectrum sun protection lotions marketed heavily toward sensitive skin and pediatric care.
3. Beiersdorf (Eucerin)
Dr. Levine has maintained consulting arrangements with Eucerin, a brand under the Beiersdorf corporate umbrella. Eucerin manufactures a wide range of daily anti-aging lotions with SPF, sensitive skin sunscreens, and body sun protection products.
Impact on Media Appearances
When Dr. Levine appears on networks like Fox News or in print publications to deliver general public health messages—such as advising viewers to apply sunscreen 15 minutes before going outside or warning against the dangers of tanning beds—she is providing standard medical advice aligned with the American Academy of Dermatology. However, because she does not routinely issue on-screen financial disclosures listing her corporate partners during short news segments, viewers are generally unaware that she is paid by the parent companies of the very products sitting on drugstore shelves."
JUST IN: Boston bars are reportedly running out of beer as Scottish World Cup fans drink the city dry — with one bar saying “We tripled St. Patrick’s Day.”
Medical "normal ranges" manipulation:
1985: Fasting glucose over 140 mg/dL = diabetic
2003: Lowered to 126 mg/dL
Suddenly 2 million more diabetics
1985: Blood pressure over 160/100 = hypertension
2017: Lowered to 130/80
Suddenly 30 million more "patients"
1985: Cholesterol over 280 = concern
2004: Lowered to 200
Suddenly everyone needs statins
They're not discovering disease. They're manufacturing patients by moving goalposts.
Lower the threshold, expand the market, sell more drugs.
So they were trying to get rid of us all along?
For decades we were told to lower cholesterol at all costs.
Statins for everyone.
Fear the eggs.
Avoid the butter.
Now research is showing that higher cholesterol, especially in older adults, is actually associated with living longer.
How many people were over-medicated based on incomplete science?