The Great Swap: Will Trump’s Impossible $2,000 Promise Alter Perception?

2025-11-10

The Great Swap: Will Trump’s Impossible $2,000 Promise Alter Perception?

How Well Will This Distraction Work?

The $2,000 Tariff Dividend: Governance by Distraction

On November 7, 2025, Donald Trump announced a striking $2,000 payment to Americans, funded supposedly by tariff revenue. The timing is deliberate. This announcement came just two days after Republicans suffered nationwide election defeats. At the same time, the government is in the longest shutdown in U.S. history. The House of Representatives has remained shut down for more than eight weeks. One notable consequence is that Arizona’s newly elected representative is blocked from being seated. This is to prevent a vote that might have exposed hidden Epstein files. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of workers (and possibly over a million military personnel) are working without pay, and millions more are on unpaid leave. Trump’s approval ratings have hit the lowest point of his second term. He is also withholding SNAP benefits as political leverage, after pushing through a $3.8 trillion tax cut favoring the wealthy.

His payment proposal is mathematically impossible to fund with existing revenues. Worse yet, it is a distraction—part of a clear 2025 pattern. When political support drops and crises multiply, Trump escalates dramatic actions to capture headlines, flooding media cycles and fracturing public discourse. From timed social media blasts on Truth Social to overlapping crises like election fallout and shutdown blame games, these moves reset perceptions, portraying chaos as strategy while shielding policies from scrutiny. The goal is to continually reset the national conversation while systemic wealth extraction remains largely invisible.

Staging the Con in Real Time

The announcement of a $2,000 “dividend” from tariffs arrived just days after the November 5 midterms, which saw Republicans defeated in nearly every major race. In California, a new Prop 50 initiative pushed back against Trump’s Texas gerrymandering order, while nationwide protests had drawn some seven million participants in preceding weeks. The political environment was raw and volatile.

But the House of Representatives, embroiled in a historic shutdown, had been inactive for more than two months. Legislators blocked the seating of Arizona’s representative specifically to prevent a vote that might have exposed hidden Epstein-related documents. Republican leaders attempted to blame Democrats for the shutdown, but the public largely saw through this. The Speaker publicly declared that the House would not resume business before the year’s end. During this shutdown, 750,000 federal workers were furloughed, and 1.4 million worked without pay.

In this context, Trump withheld SNAP payments to families in need, weaponizing food assistance as political leverage. His approval hit historic lows, and Democrats capitalized on opposition to his policies to win seats. Meanwhile, Treasury officials distanced themselves from the tariff dividend proposal, revealing internal disconnects. The announcement was a deliberate attempt to seize narrative control amid mounting crises—posted on Truth Social to go viral among supporters, sparking immediate debates that overshadowed election analyses and shutdown hardships. Critics, including anti-Trump Republicans, quickly called it a “handout mirage,” but the buzz shifted focus from policy failures to speculative generosity, exemplifying how Trump uses populist promises to dominate headlines and recalibrate public opinion.

The Math That Can’t Add Up

Tariff revenues are projected at $300 to $400 billion annually, but even the high end of this estimate is insufficient. Funding a one-time $2,000 payment for virtually every American (excluding the wealthiest) would require roughly $300 billion, yet these revenues primarily offset losses from income and payroll tax cuts, leaving an actual net of around $90 billion.

More critically, the $3.8 trillion tax bill—already law—committed those funds to permanent tax breaks favoring the wealthy. Added expenditures on homeland security for massive deportations further strained the budget. Against this backdrop, the simultaneous claim that the government could not afford SNAP benefits while proposing a $300 billion giveaway exposes the announcement’s contradictions.

Trump knows the payment is unfundable. The announcement was never a serious policy proposal but a media gambit—a way to signal generosity while crafting headlines, distracting the public from real economic and political failures. The real purpose of the spectacle is to keep public attention fixed on illusion while the underlying system—one that continually transfers public wealth upward—operates without scrutiny.

The Great Swap: The Real Motive Behind the Spectacle

The spectacle masks an underlying exchange: symbolic gestures for structural losses. Americans received a modest and temporary benefit from the July 2025 tax package. Some middle- and working-class families gained small, conditional advantages—deductions for charitable donations, a slight increase in the standard deduction, and minor relief on auto-loan interest for new purchases.

Meanwhile, the wealthy secured lasting advantages. These included permanent estate-tax exemptions, pass-through income deductions that cut annual liabilities indefinitely, and higher limits on state-and-local tax deductions. Layered atop decades of prior tax breaks, these measures embed privilege across generations, converting temporary legislation into permanent hierarchy.

The $3.8 trillion deficit created by these changes highlights the massive transfer of assets from the public to private fortunes. Since 1975, roughly $79 trillion in wealth has moved from the bottom 90 percent of earners to the top 1 percent in the United States. This is the invisible outcome that constant crises and theatrics protect—the steady diversion of national wealth from labor to capital, from public to private hands.

Even if the $2,000 payment had been real, it would have been only a brief, symbolic gesture. Each promise of quick relief becomes part of the distraction cycle: the public debates its feasibility while structural extraction proceeds unchallenged. This is the great swap—Americans trade a lifetime of labor for ongoing economic advantages concentrated among the elite. The illusion of generosity ensures attention stays on fleeting relief while the machinery of wealth transfer runs quietly in the background.

The illusion of generosity is one act in a larger performance. Having established the appearance of “helping Americans,” Trump returns to his core tactic: flooding the media with crises and announcements that obscure the mechanisms of power beneath them.

Crisis as Stagecraft

Throughout 2025, Trump has followed a clear political pattern. His approval ratings have plunged to historic lows—down to 41 percent in recent polls—as off-year elections delivered stinging defeats for Republicans, including in Virginia and New Jersey. The government shutdown, now the longest in U.S. history at over 40 days, has dragged on amid partisan blame games, while scandals like the alleged DOJ cover-up of Epstein co-conspirators have dominated headlines.

He counters each crisis with escalating distractions, deploying a mix of aggressive actions and media spectacles to overwhelm the narrative and redirect public outrage. These range from deadly military strikes on alleged drug boats in the Pacific and Caribbean—with the 16th such operation announced just days before the November elections, killing multiple suspects and shifting focus to foreign “wins”—to threats of air strikes in Venezuela or troop deployments in Nigeria. Social media plays a starring role: viral Truth Social rants and algorithmic amplification spread accusations, promises, and divisive statements, as seen in recent posts mocking critics while praising “lunatics” in leadership amid shutdown chaos.

In this way, overlapping announcements—like the $2,000 tariff dividend unveiled on November 9, right after election losses and as the Senate voted 60-40 to end the shutdown—create a barrage of content that inundates X and news feeds. Within hours, thousands of posts debated the promise: supporters celebrated it as a “stimulus win” with bonuses for workers, while critics labeled it an “unfundable handout” or “mirage,” splintering discourse and overshadowing the shutdown’s human toll or Epstein revelations.

The playbook remains deny, divert, and discredit. First, Trump denies responsibility—for the shutdown or economic strains; then he diverts with fresh subplots, like the tariff-dividend promise or boat strikes timed to low ratings. Finally, he discredits critics as “partisan enemies” or “fake news.” As approval hit rock bottom in early November, a flurry of strikes and posts drowned out discussions of the shutdown’s human cost, fracturing public debate and buying time for Senate compromises.

Each engineered crisis resets the national conversation, saturating media with spectacle to limit scrutiny and conceal ongoing economic inequality—including the systemic wealth extraction that benefits the elite.

Governance by Distraction

This pattern fits within a wider authoritarian strategy. Instead of transparent governance, power is maintained through spectacle and distraction. Impossible promises like the $2,000 payment create narrative dominance while avoiding accountability.

Steve Bannon once described this tactic as “flooding the zone,” saturating media with events so no single story can receive sustained attention. In 2025, that strategy plays out vividly: the tariff-dividend announcement, dropped amid election defeats and the shutdown’s end, sparked immediate partisan clashes on X, diverting attention from policy critiques like tariff-induced inflation. Political theorists such as Jason Stanley describe this as performative authoritarianism, where leaders stage crises to project strength over substance. Timothy Snyder calls it eternity politics, where spectacle replaces governance. Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written that disorientation becomes a tool of domination—a pattern visible in Trump’s Epstein diversions amid collapsing approval ratings.

Public debate fractures over misleading promises while systemic losses grow. Distraction becomes governance. Controlling information flow limits democratic accountability.

The Final Act: The Con Completed

Trump’s $2,000 announcement is theater, not policy. While Americans debated its feasibility, the biggest wealth transfer in modern history quietly proceeded.

The government shutdown stretched on, and approval ratings tumbled. But spectacle dominated media coverage. The payment promise was never meant to deliver relief—it was designed to manufacture distraction. Its real purpose was to prevent serious scrutiny of who truly benefits from current policies.

The political game is not about solving problems. It is about controlling narratives and shielding entrenched power while the machinery of extraction keeps running.

Originally published in Substack at https://lfitzhugh.substack.com/p/trumps-impossible-deal

2025-11-102025-11-10

The Buffalo Billion Boondoggle

Introduction

New York State poured $959 million into a solar-panel manufacturing plant in Buffalo, promoted as the cornerstone of the state’s Buffalo Billion and a model for high-tech economic renewal. ^[1] The project was meant to create thousands of advanced-manufacturing jobs, attract new industry to western New York, and demonstrate how public investment could drive a clean-energy future.

What emerged instead was a publicly financed facility that never met its goals. The promised high-tech jobs became mostly data-annotation and assembly work. The solar-manufacturing equipment—purchased for $240 million—was sold for scrap at nineteen cents on the dollar. ^[2] A 2019 state audit found the project returned only fifty-four cents in economic benefit for every public dollar spent.^[3] Nearly all of the state’s $959 million investment was written off.^[1]

Tesla now leases the factory and remaining equipment for one dollar per year. ^[4] The facility functions largely to preserve head-count targets rather than produce solar panels,^[5] while Buffalo’s hoped-for economic revitalization never arrived. Construction firms with political ties, state officials who gained publicity, and Tesla itself all retained their advantages. Taxpayers absorbed the loss.

The Buffalo solar factory is more than a failed project. It is a dramatic demonstration of how public risk and private capture can be engineered into economic-development policy. The sections that follow trace how that structure formed, who benefited at each stage, and why failure was its predictable outcome.

Table of Contents

The Buffalo Billion Promise

In 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo launched the Buffalo Billion—a $1 billion economic-development initiative intended to revive western New York’s economy through state-led investment. ^[6] Its flagship project would be a state-owned solar-panel manufacturing plant on the Buffalo River, envisioned as the largest in the Western Hemisphere. The factory would symbolize a clean-energy future, create 3,000 high-tech manufacturing jobs in Buffalo and 5,000 statewide, and demonstrate that government could catalyze private innovation.^[7]

Under the plan, New York would build the 1.2-million-square-foot facility and purchase all manufacturing equipment. SolarCity, founded by Elon Musk’s cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive, would lease the plant for one dollar per year and operate it as a solar-panel production hub. ^[8] Cuomo placed the project under the direction of Alain Kaloyeros, president of SUNY Polytechnic Institute and chief architect of the state’s high-tech investment strategy.

Before construction was even complete, two developments reshaped the project. In 2015 the state quietly amended its agreement with SolarCity: the definition of “high-tech” jobs disappeared, the number of required manufacturing positions dropped from 900 to 500, and oversight language weakened. ^[9] That same period also brought a corporate shift with lasting consequences—Elon Musk moved to acquire SolarCity through Tesla, turning the publicly funded Buffalo plant into an asset of his company before it had produced a single panel.^[10–13] Whether that outcome was foreseen or merely convenient, it ensured that control of the state’s billion-dollar investment would pass to Tesla once construction ended.

The amended contract and the impending takeover set the pattern that would define the Buffalo project: the state assumed the cost and risk, while private partners retained flexibility and future gains.

The Public Paid

Every dollar that built Buffalo’s solar factory came from the public. Every decision about how to spend it came from state officials. New York committed $959 million in taxpayer funds—about $350 million for construction, $240 million for solar-manufacturing equipment, and the remainder for site preparation and ancillary costs. ^[14]

A fiduciary decision prioritizes the financial interests of the people whose money is being spent. These were were political decisions, not fiduciary ones. The state agencies directing the Buffalo Billion program—Empire State Development and SUNY Polytechnic Institute—used public funds to build and equip a facility that would then be leased to SolarCity, and later Tesla, for one dollar per year. ^[15] The company has no obligation to repay the capital costs and faced only minimal penalties if job targets were missed.^[16]

The structure guaranteed that the public carried all risk while private interests retained all flexibility. If the venture failed, taxpayers would absorb the loss; if it succeeded, Tesla would capture the gains. By separating financial responsibility from financial control, the state created the conditions for the extraction that followed.

Construction

The construction phase turned public funds into private gains. While New York officials promoted the Buffalo solar factory as a symbol of renewal, the real project advanced behind closed doors—through quiet contract revisions, politically connected developers, and decisions that reshaped the deal long before a single panel was produced.

Two firms, LPCiminelli and COR Development, received the principal construction contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. ^[17] Both had been major contributors to Governor Cuomo’s campaigns, donating between $150,000 and $225,000.^[19] The bid requirements were written with extraordinary specificity: the request for proposals demanded a developer with “fifty years of local experience,” a description that fit LPCiminelli precisely and excluded almost everyone else.^[18] These were political decisions, not fiduciary ones.

Federal prosecutors later determined that the process had been rigged to steer contracts to favored companies. In 2018, Alain Kaloyeros, head of SUNY Polytechnic and Cuomo’s chief economic-development official, was convicted of bid rigging. ^[17] In 2023, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction on procedural grounds, and prosecutors have indicated plans to retry the case.^[20] By that point, the public had already paid and the private parties had already collected. LPCiminelli captured roughly $25 million in proceeds from the RiverBend contract, and COR Development executives about $8 million each.^[21]

As construction wrapped up, the project’s corporate foundation collapsed. SolarCity, the original lessee, was deep in debt and losing cash. In 2016, Tesla announced plans to acquire the company, closing the deal before the Buffalo factory even opened. ^[22] The acquisition transferred control of a nearly billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded facility—and $240 million in state-purchased equipment—to Tesla for a lease of one dollar per year. The change was legal and publicly filed but never emphasized in the state’s announcements or press events. While officials celebrated the arrival of a world-famous innovator, they did not mention that the plant’s purpose, ownership, and risk profile had already shifted.^[23]

By the time the factory opened, the transfer was complete. Developers had secured guaranteed profits; Tesla had inherited a fully built, debt-free facility; and Governor Cuomo had banked political credit for bringing “high-tech jobs” to Buffalo. The public, having financed every stage, owned a facility whose economic purpose was already dissolving.

Job Requirement Manipulation

When Tesla acquired SolarCity, it also inherited the Buffalo factory’s job-creation mandate and a $290 million penalty clause for failing to meet it. ^[24] Internal due-diligence reports later showed that Tesla even considered paying that penalty and abandoning Buffalo altogether before concluding that the political cost would be too high.^[29] The company never built the solar-manufacturing operation that the state had financed, but it learned how to satisfy the letter of its contract without fulfilling the purpose.

The original agreement promised 3,000 high-tech jobs in Buffalo and 5,000 statewide. By 2015—before the factory opened—the state had already amended those terms. The definition of “high-tech” work disappeared, and the number of required manufacturing positions fell from 900 to 500. ^[25] The new standard allowed almost any on-site employment to count toward compliance.

Tesla used that flexibility to meet its quota on paper. By the end of 2021, the company reported 1,460 total jobs, just over the revised requirement. ^[26] About a third of those workers performed data annotation for Tesla’s Autopilot software—labeling images and video to train self-driving systems. These were entry-level clerical positions, not advanced-manufacturing or clean-energy jobs. Another several hundred assembled Supercharger components for Tesla’s vehicle network, while roughly 300 to 400 employees worked on solar-related tasks.^[27]

Employment at the facility has fluctuated between 1,600 and 1,800, enough to maintain formal compliance and avoid penalties. ^[28] The numbers remain technically accurate and substantively misleading. The Buffalo factory exists as a workplace but not as the manufacturing center taxpayers funded.

Product Failure

The Buffalo factory never became the solar-manufacturing hub New York had paid for. Production goals that once defined the project’s promise were quietly abandoned as the equipment aged and the technology moved on. The product had struggled from the start—the Solar Roof prototype unveiled in 2016 was later revealed to have been a nonfunctional mock-up built to bolster investor confidence before Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity. ^[35–38]

Panasonic, Tesla’s partner in solar manufacturing, withdrew from the venture in 2020, citing lack of profitability and weak demand. ^[30] Tesla’s Solar Roof, unveiled years earlier as the centerpiece product for the Buffalo plant, remained at a “nascent” stage—incapable of mass production. Even the company’s own installations fell far short of projections: around 21 roofs per week, compared with the promised 1,000.^[31]

The factory’s operations shifted toward other uses. Tesla repurposed portions of the facility for Supercharger assembly, data operations, and other internal projects unrelated to solar energy. The solar-manufacturing equipment, purchased by the state for roughly $240 million, became obsolete for its intended purpose. Between 2020 and 2021, New York State sold or scrapped nearly all of it. At public auction, machinery originally bought for $207 million brought in $39 million—about nineteen cents on the dollar. ^[32] The rest was recycled, scrapped, or transferred to other sites. The state retained about $32 million in usable assets.^[33] Some equipment was trucked to a scrap yard in Corfu after months in storage that cost the state roughly $250,000.^[39–42]

In a further irony, Tesla later installed Chinese-manufactured LONGi solar panels on the Buffalo factory’s roof rather than panels made at the site. ^[34]

The Buffalo plant still operates, but its mission is unrecognizable. Tesla occupies a publicly funded facility—leased for one dollar per year—that was built for renewable-energy manufacturing and now serves corporate logistics and component assembly. What was once presented as a cornerstone of New York’s clean-energy strategy functions instead as a subsidized workspace for private enterprise.

Audit Results

The state’s own audits confirmed what the project’s outcomes had already made visible: New York’s billion-dollar solar venture produced losses rather than returns. A 2019 audit by the State Comptroller found that for every public dollar spent on the Buffalo factory, the state received only fifty-four cents of economic benefit. Successful economic-development projects typically generate about thirty dollars in returns for each dollar invested. The Buffalo facility performed ninety-eight percent worse than that standard.\[1\]

Independent auditors had already written down the investment the previous year. In 2018, New York recorded an $884 million loss, acknowledging that nearly the entire $959 million commitment had lost its value.\[13\] Depending on the measurement method and timing, the cost per job ranged from $525,000 to $959,000—levels far beyond any rational standard for job creation.

These numbers did not come from critics or opponents; they came from the state’s own accountability mechanisms. The audits did not uncover a hidden failure—they certified a public one. And by the time those findings were released, the political and financial beneficiaries had already moved on.

Political Benefits

Governor Cuomo’s administration gained politically from the Buffalo project long before the audits revealed its failure. The Buffalo Billion program was designed as an economic-development showcase, and the solar factory became its centerpiece. Cuomo announced the project, held press events during construction, and later stood beside Tesla executives to celebrate the factory’s opening. These appearances generated headlines, speeches, and campaign material that reinforced his image as a champion of upstate renewal.

The rewards were immediate and risk-free. Political credit accumulated at the announcement stage, while accountability lagged years behind. By the time audits documented the losses, the narrative of success had already served its purpose. For the governor and his allies, the project’s real value lay not in production or employment but in publicity—the visible evidence of investment and ambition, regardless of outcome.\[2\]

The political structure mirrored the financial one: benefits were captured early and insulated from reversal. The same pattern that protected corporate and contractor gains also protected political reputations. Audit findings were delayed until after key public statements and appearances.

Extraction Pattern

The Buffalo solar factory illustrates how wealth extraction can occur through official channels rather than overt corruption. Public officials authorized nearly a billion dollars in spending, structured in ways that guaranteed the public would bear all risk. Developers with political ties secured contracts that could not lose money. Tesla acquired state-built assets for almost nothing, repurposed them for its own use, and met its obligations through technical compliance rather than performance.

Each stage of the project followed the same logic: public cost, private gain, and political credit. The construction phase rewarded connected firms; the operational phase rewarded a corporation able to redefine success; and the political phase rewarded officials who could present each announcement as progress. When the system failed, none of those beneficiaries were required to return what they had gained.

Whether any participant intended fraud is secondary. The structure itself ensured the outcome. Once public money was committed without enforceable accountability, extraction was not a risk—it was the predictable result.

Current Status

As of 2025, the Buffalo factory continues to operate under Tesla’s lease of one dollar per year. The company briefly announced plans to manufacture Dojo supercomputers and other components at the site—projects unrelated to solar energy—but those plans were later canceled.\[14\]

Employment at the facility remains between 1,600 and 1,800, sufficient to maintain contractual compliance though far below the original vision for a large-scale solar-manufacturing hub.\[15\] A limited number of employees continue to assemble Solar Roof materials, but mass production never materialized.

New York State still owns a facility that cost taxpayers $959 million and has returned only fifty-four cents for every public dollar spent. The solar-manufacturing equipment that once justified the investment has been sold for scrap, and the “high-tech” jobs that were supposed to transform Buffalo’s economy largely exist in clerical or assembly work.

Tesla retains a publicly funded industrial complex at negligible cost. The developers who built it have been paid. The officials who promoted it have moved on. What remains is a case study in how an economic-development program became a mechanism for wealth transfer—from the public that financed it to the private interests that captured it.

We note that while the flagship project failed, some smaller Buffalo Billion initiatives had modest success.

References

2025-11-072025-11-07

Katie Hobbs and the Fight to Keep Arizona a Democracy

Arizona stands at a political crossroads. In 2026, voters will decide whether to preserve a balanced state government or hand unchecked power to a single party. Governor Katie Hobbs, the incumbent Democrat, is the last structural counterweight in a system where Republicans already dominate both chambers of the legislature and most statewide offices. Her veto pen has become the only thing preventing Arizona from sliding into one-party rule: a condition that would make state government functionally indistinguishable from those that have been remade under Trump-aligned control elsewhere.

This is a struggle over the survival of Arizona’s democratic architecture—the citizen-led systems that were designed to protect voters from partisan overreach. It is about preserving democracy in Arizona.

Contents: The Long Project of Consolidation → Redistricting Reforms → Citizen-Initiated Democracy → Hobbs’ Record → The Money Behind the Push → It Matters

Continue reading “Katie Hobbs and the Fight to Keep Arizona a Democracy”

2025-11-062025-11-06

A Day for Decency and Democracy

[/video]

2025-11-062025-11-06

Hold the Line: Postcards for Healthcare

This action exists for one reason: to tell Democrats in Congress not to reopen the government on the strength of Republican “later” promises about ACA subsidies. Republicans have already made and broken these promises twice in the past year. A third time would not be an accident. It would be a choice. ACA marketplace subsidies are how millions of people keep health insurance within reach. If Congress reopens the government without a binding, written guarantee to extend those subsidies, they are gambling with people’s lives and finances on the basis of empty deals.

The Postcard Message

Keep it short, clear, and firm. Suggested text:

No deal without a binding, written guarantee to extend ACA subsidies. Keep your oath. Hold the line.

Send this message to your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative, regardless of party.

Where to Send It

Look up mailing addresses here: house.gov/representatives and senate.gov/senators. Address one postcard to each member of Congress and mail as soon as you can.

Optional: Add a Digital Signal

If you use Resistbot, you can also sign the linked petition: text SIGN PDKKRH to 50409 or visit https://resist.bot/petitions/PDKKRH.

Share the Action

After you mail your postcards, you can share a photo of the front (no address visible) and invite others to join. Suggested hashtags: #HoldTheLine, #PostcardsToCongress, #ProtectTheACA.

2025-11-042025-11-04

DGL Licorice: Strengthening the Gut’s Natural Defense

Many people reach for acid-reducing drugs when heartburn or reflux appears, assuming the problem is too much stomach acid. In reality, excess acid is rarely the root cause. Most reflux and gastritis symptoms begin when the protective mucosal lining of the stomach or esophagus becomes thin, inflamed, or slow to repair.

Acid itself is essential for digestion and defense—it breaks down proteins, absorbs nutrients, and prevents infection. The real issue is often a weakened barrier that allows normal acid levels to irritate exposed tissue.

Deglycyrrhizinated licorice (DGL) supports this barrier. Instead of suppressing acid, it strengthens the mucous layer and promotes healing of the digestive lining. For many people, this makes it a logical alternative or companion approach to acid-blocking medications.

Continue reading “DGL Licorice: Strengthening the Gut’s Natural Defense”

2025-10-132025-11-03

Avocado Seed Extracts: Research Summary

Research summary:

A 2022 review published in Science Direct}} examined the chemical makeup and biological properties of avocado seed extracts. Here’s what the research found:

Chemical Composition

Avocado seeds contain concentrated amounts of bioactive compounds including catechin, epicatechin, procyanidins, acetogenins, flavonoids, triterpenes, phytosterols, and polyhydroxylated fatty alcohols.

Laboratory and Animal Studies

In test-tube studies and animal models, these seed extracts showed several biological activities:

Anti-inflammatory effects by suppressing inflammatory markers like TNF-α, IL-1β, and nitric oxide
Strong antioxidant activity, neutralizing reactive oxygen species and stabilizing free radicals
Blood sugar and cholesterol reduction in diabetic or high-cholesterol rats, possibly by promoting glycogen storage and affecting liver metabolism
Inhibition of cholinesterase enzymes (AChE and BChE), suggesting potential cognitive support
Induced cell death and inhibited growth in several cancer cell lines (breast, colon, liver, lung) through polyphenol and triterpenoid mechanisms

Limitations

All these findings come from preclinical research. There are no confirmed human clinical trials demonstrating safety or effectiveness for topical or oral use. The authors conclude that while avocado seeds show promising pharmacological potential and could be developed as functional ingredients, further toxicological testing and controlled human studies are needed before any home or medical use can be considered evidence-based.

Reference

Comprehensive review article: Tremocoldi MA, Rosalen PL, Franchin M, et al. Avocado seed discoveries: Chemical composition, biological properties, and industrial food applications. Food Chem X. 2022;16:100525. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590157522003054

2025-10-062025-10-07

Comprehensive Tincture ABV Reference – pdf

The comprehensive tincture ABV reference is available as a downloadable PDF for offline use. This 22-page document contains alcohol percentages and extraction ratios for 300+ herbs. For the searchable online version, see Herbal Tincture ABV Reference Guide

2025-10-062025-10-06

Herbal Tincture ABV Reference Guide

Whether you’re a home herbalist or clinical practitioner, getting the alcohol percentage right is crucial for both effective extraction and long-term preservation of your tinctures. This comprehensive reference combines field-tested data from two respected sources to help you make informed decisions about your herbal preparations.

How to Use This Reference

Simply type any herb name in the search box to instantly find: *** Recommended alcohol percentages

Fresh vs. dry preparation methods
Weight-to-volume ratios
Water and glycerin percentages where applicable
Important safety notes**
Understanding the Data

This reference synthesizes: Pacific Northwest field data from Scott Kloos (2010) – tested ratios for fresh and dry preparations General extraction guidelines from Nikki Hess/Monarch Herbs – broader ABV ranges for dry herbs Where sources differ, both are listed so you can make informed choices based on your materials and methods.

Key Principles to Remember

Alcohol Percentage Basics:

High alcohol (70-95%): For resins, volatile oils, and alkaloids (e.g., propolis, myrrh, fresh aromatic herbs) Medium alcohol (40-70%): For most standard extractions, balanced constituents Low alcohol (20-40%): For water-soluble constituents like polysaccharides, minerals, and mucilage

Fresh vs. Dry Considerations:

Fresh plants contain significant water content, so they typically require higher alcohol percentages to achieve the desired final concentration. Dry herbs have moisture removed, allowing lower initial alcohol percentages.

Preservation Note:

While some references show alcohol as low as 20-25%, this is the absolute minimum for preservation. For long-term storage (5+ years), 30% or higher is recommended. Remember that alcohol evaporates faster than water, so percentages decrease over time.

Safety First

Several entries include important safety notes – particularly for toxic plants (like Yew), photosensitizing herbs (Cow Parsnip), or those requiring special preparation (Cascara Sagrada must age one year). Always research thoroughly before working with unfamiliar plants.

[table “1” not found /]

About This Project

This reference was compiled to make tincture-making information more accessible to the herbal community. The data represents decades of combined experience from respected herbalists and should serve as a starting point for your own practice. For educational purposes only. Always verify plant identification and safety before use. Consult qualified practitioners for medical advice.