Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP
In an astonishing turn of events, the National Health Services of England announced that most children who believe that they are transgender are just going through a “phase,” the Telegraph reported on Sunday. The publicly funded health care provider stated that it would take a more cautious approach when treating minors with gender dysphoria.
Doctors should not encourage children to socially transition, because transitioning is not a “neutral act” and it could have “significant effects” in terms of “psychological functioning,” according to the new NHS report.
The NHS also announced that it would ban prescribing minors puberty blockers “outside of strict clinical trials,” the Telegraph reported. Treatment for those under 18 years old will be heavily restricted.
In July, the NHS stated that it would be closing down the controversial Tavistock Centre, a gender identity clinic for children led by therapists and hormone specialists. Following an independent review, the gender dysphoria clinic received criticism for failing to collect data on puberty blockers and for taking an “unquestioning affirmative approach” to treating children with gender dysphoria.
Instead, the NHS will open two regional clinics based in specialist children’s hospitals led by medical doctors who are experts “in pediatric medicine, autism, Neurodisability and mental health.” The new clinics will follow guidelines that “reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence.” Therefore, the NHS recommended that medical professionals should consider that a child expressing gender dysphoria might only be going through a “transient phase.” Doctors will be encouraged to take “a watchful approach” to monitor how a child’s gender dysphoria develops.
Going forward, the NHS will no longer recommend that medical professionals urge children to change their names or pronouns. Instead, socially transitioning will be recommended only in cases in which the child “is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition” and in which a social transition may likely prevent “clinically significant distress.”
“The clinical approach has to be mindful of the risks of an inappropriate gender transition and the difficulties that the child may experience in returning to the original gender role upon entering puberty if the gender incongruence does not persist,” the NHS report stated.
A new report suggests that chest reconstruction surgeries performed on adolescents with gender dysphoria increased nearly 400% from 2016 to 2019 as concerns about the ethics and consequences of medical interventions for trans-identified youth persist.
The Journal of the American Medical Association released the report Monday examining the frequency of gender transition surgeries involving the human chest among adolescents in the United States. The report, authored by Rishub Karan Das, Dr. Galen Perdikis and Dr. Salam Al Kassis of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, analyzed data from the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample on youth with gender dysphoria who underwent “top” surgeries between 2016 and 2019.
The research analyzed the incidence of both masculinizing and feminizing chest reconstruction surgery. Masculinizing chest surgeries involve the removal of the breasts, while feminizing chest surgeries involve the augmentation of breast tissue designed to make the organs more visible in biological males who identify as females.
The report found that the number of chest reconstruction surgeries performed on minors increased from about 100 in 2016 to 489 in 2019, a 389% increase in three years. The number of chest reconstruction surgeries has steadily increased over the years, surpassing 200 in 2017 and eclipsing 300 in 2018. The study analyzed a weighted estimate of 1,130 operations performed. According to the research, masculinizing chest surgeries accounted for the overwhelming majority of chest reconstruction surgeries in the three-year period. Feminizing chest surgeries comprised just 1.4% of the total.
While the majority of children who had the surgeries were 17 years old, about 5.5% were under 14. The median age for recipients of the surgeries was 16 years old.
The research did not provide statistics about “bottom” surgeries among minors, which involve the removal of the sex organs that correspond with the patient’s biological sex and/or creating artificial sex organs that match their stated gender identity.
Many children’s hospitals, including the one at Vanderbilt University, have come under fire for performing life-altering procedures on children. Vanderbilt announced that it will halt those surgeries following backlash to reporting indicating that the hospital offered them.
While the authors contend that “gender-affirming surgery may improve the functioning and mental health” of teens with gender dysphoria, other medical organizations remain skeptical about the benefits of gender transition procedures.
The American College of Pediatricians, which describes itself as a “national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children,” warns about the long-term and short-term impacts of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which are commonly prescribed to youth with gender dysphoria. The organization identified the side effects of puberty blockers as “osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility.” Additionally, the medical organization states that cross-sex hormones come with “an increased risk of heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, blood clots and cancers across their lifespan.”
Concerns about the negative consequences of surgical interventions for trans-identified children have prompted several states to outlaw the performance of such procedures on minors. Alabama, Arizona and Arkansas have passed laws to that effect while the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have classified gender transition surgeries on minors as a form of child abuse.
Critics contend that the gender-transition procedures offer a permanent solution to what might be a temporary problem for many adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria. Detransitioners, those who formerly struggled with gender dysphoria and have since come to regret the gender transitions they underwent, have become increasingly outspoken about sharing their stories.
Last week, Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who underwent a double mastectomy at 15, discussed the regret of having her breasts removed when calling into a Conejos Valley Unified School District board meeting in Ventura County, California.
“Very quickly, I was given what I wanted, but it was far from what I needed. Two years later, I was still suffering from major complications,” she explained.
Cole suggested that as a minor, she lacked the maturity to understand the ramifications of her life-altering decisions.
“I will not be able to breastfeed any children I have in the future, and my sexuality has permanently been affected because I was allowed to make adult decisions starting at 13 and then again at 15,” she said.
Cole characterized her experience as an example of “what happens when we treat children like adults and expect them to have the mental faculties for proper long-term decision-making.”
Children in America are in need of protection now more than ever. The leftist tide is coming at them in full force, pushing a radically sexualized agenda on minors both mentally and physically, robbing them of their innocence and their childhood. That’s why legislators like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., are introducing legislation to protect children from dangerous experimental procedures such as puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones, and ill-named “gender-affirming” surgeries.
Instead of being allowed to enjoy the innocence of childhood, develop imagination, cultivate friendships, develop curiosity, and enjoy the satisfaction of learning facts, figures, and formulas, children are assaulted with sexualized content fueled by a radical agenda. If you think it’s not having an effect, just look at a sampling from Maryland schools. According to school surveys in Montgomery county, over the last two years, the number of students identifying as gender nonconforming has increased by 582 percent. This survey includes children in elementary school.
At the very least, parents should be fully aware of any and all exposure their children have to sexualized content, and they have the primary right to know of any confusion or distress their children may be experiencing in school. Yet somehow it is becoming more to push policies to keep parents in the dark. Most schools cannot even prescribe aspirin to a child without parental consent, yet they see no issue with socially transitioning a minor without parental involvement. The disparity gives every cause for concern.
And when the parents do know about their child’s gender confusion, the agenda becomes even more radical, pushing parents to “affirm” their child’s choices to extreme degrees. Whether you embrace the ideology, no amount of parental concern can justify even the slightest delay in transitioning a child.
Compliance, Not Concern
One lesbian couple had already transitioned their eldest son when their second boy started asking to be called a girl. Unlike their first child, who had preferred playing with girls and had a gentler side, the younger acted like a typical boy, so his mother suspected that he was simply mirroring his older sibling’s behavior. But what happened when she voiced her concerns to a gender therapist?
“She [their gender therapist] expressed that it was transphobic to believe there was anything wrong with our younger son wanting to be like his older transgender sibling. When I pushed back, and asserted that I was not yet convinced our younger son was transgender, she told me that if I did not change his pronouns and honor his identity, he could develop an attachment disorder,” the mom recalls.
Instead of addressing the mother’s fears, the therapist merely preyed on them further.
It’s horrible to emotionally blackmail loving parents while blatantly ignoring their genuine concerns, but this is mild compared to the psychological manipulation that’s been waged on other parents, who have been told “comply or they die,” with doctors insisting that any questioning of their child’s feelings will result in further depression and suicide.
Meanwhile, these “experts” are not basing their methods in science at all.
So Much for Science
According to the recent Heritage report, “Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, & Youth Suicide” by Dr. Jay Greene, stats show that the exact opposite may be the case. He writes, “Starting in 2010, when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became widely available, elevated suicide rates in states where minors can more easily access those medical interventions became observable.”
That’s right, here it seems that access to these “life-saving drugs” has actually increased suicide rates. The fact is, there is no golden standard study proving the “lifesaving” claims of transition, yet left-wing politicians insist that it is the only path forward.
There isproof that these drugs are dangerous on their own, and there is no certifiable data proving the long-term harmlessness of puberty-blocking drugs and wrong-sex hormones, despite leftist claims to the contrary.
This isn’t health care. This isn’t science. We need to stop using children to wage ideological warfare, and we must stop the progressive tide before every child pays the price.
A Reason for Hope
Rep. Taylor Green is trying to do just that. She recently released the Protect Children’s Innocence Act (H.R.8731), which, if passed, will charge anyone who knowingly performs “gender-affirming care” — including the administering of puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones — with a class C felony.
The bill will prohibit the federal taxpayer funding of so-called gender-affirming care, forbid institutions of higher education from providing instructions on such care, and will prevent aliens who have performed such procedures from receiving a visa. If they already have a visa, they will be eligible for deportation. It is designed to protect children from abusive experimental procedures from every angle.
Victims of surgery who realize their mistake and choose to detransition have recourse to the courts through a private right of action levied against anyone who took an active part in their transition, including administering puberty blockers and performing surgeries. There is no statute of limitations, ensuring that anyone involved in destroying a child’s life will be held accountable in perpetuity.
This bill also looks out for those victims who have already suffered at the hands of misleading therapists, doctors, and propaganda. While it does ban transition attempts on minors, it explicitly states that it in no way prohibits doctors from helping patients handle complications due to those interventions, regardless of whether they were received illegally. In every aspect, this bill holds the health of these patients as its primary object, not monetary benefits and soul-sucking propaganda.
Fighting on defense in the culture isn’t enough. We’re losing — more and more children are being subjected to these horrific “treatments” every single day. We need to fight back legislatively. We need to protect the innocence of children and demand justice for those who have already been deprived of that privilege. If the battleground is in our backyard, this bill gives us the chance to push back enemy lines, to establish a first line of defense that will allow our children the space they need to grow and thrive.
The character of our country will be determined by whether we are willing to defend our innocents. Children being mutilated and castrated openly is the moral issue of our time. Will we stand up and fight? Or will we let these evil monsters continue to wreak havoc on the helpless?
Sandra Kirby is the Government Affairs Manager at American Principles Project. Follow her on Twitter @SandraK1776.
U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss signaled support for a police investigation into the trans charity Mermaids, saying it should be “properly looked at” during prime minister’s questions in the Commons Chamber.
The Department for Education in England has stopped referring schools to the controversial charity, which promotes transgenderism to youth, amid increased scrutiny of the organization’s health recommendations for children and a scandal involving one of its trustees giving a speech for an organization that promotes resources for pedophiles.
As The Times reported Wednesday, the Charity Commission is assessing complaints against Mermaids following a report by The Daily Telegraph last week that the group sends “chest binders” to girls as young as 13 without their parents’ knowledge. Binders are often used by girls seeking to flatten their breasts to resemble a boy, and they can potentially cause breathing difficulties, damage healthy breast tissue and lead to cracked ribs.
On Wednesday, Miriam Cates, the MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, asked the prime minister: “Does my right honorable friend agree that it has taken far too long for these concerns to be taken seriously and does she also agree that it is high time for a police investigation into the activities of Mermaids?”
Truss replied: “What I would say on the subject of the investigation she raises, of course those matters should be … properly looked at.”
Earlier this month, The Times also reported that Jacob Breslow, a trustee for Mermaids, resigned after it was discovered he spoke at a U.S.-based B4U-ACT event in 2011. The organization promotes resources for individuals who are sexually attracted to children. In his presentation, Breslow reportedly claimed that pedophiles are misunderstood.
Andrea Williams, the chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, credited parents Nigel and Sally Rowe for the Education Department’s decision to stop promoting Mermaidsas a mental health resource in schools. The British charity affirms children’s gender confusion and is led by Susie Green, whose son identifies as female and was put on puberty blockers at age 12.
Williams noted that the focus must now be directed toward the Church of England, which still utilizes Mermaids’ strategies in its “Valuing All God’s Children” (VAGC) guidance. In 2017, VAGC cited Mermaids as a model of care. While this citation was removed in 2019, the content reportedly still influenced the current trans-affirming approach, according to CLC. Over 4,000 of the Church of England’s primary schools utilize the VAGC guidelines, according to a November 2017 Daily Mail report.
“The Church of England has over one million children under its care — will senior leaders finally listen and scrap this untenable advice?” Williams asked.
Christian Concern, the organization associated with CLC, launched a petition Tuesday that will be delivered to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, calling for the Church of England to scrap its trans-affirming policies. The petition currently has over 12,150 signatures.
In addition to instructing schools not to require students to wear uniforms that may “create difficulty for trans pupils,” VAGC discourages using faith or the Bible to justify refusals to accept a child identifying as the opposite gender.
You can’t be serious?!?! Valuing All God’s Children, supposedly a Christian organization, does not want scripture used to make the point that all this transgenderism is NOT of God. Do we really look that stupid? – Jerry Broussard
Last week, the Rowes penned a letter to the archbishop, urging the Church of England to discard its VAGC policies, expressing concern that the guidance allows children as young as 5 to identify as the opposite sex.
“In U.K. law you cannot change legal gender until you are 18 years old. Scientifically, you cannot change your biological sex,” the parents wrote.
“Furthermore, basic Christian teaching is that we are all created male or female and that the differences between the sexes are beautiful, designed and complementary, and should be respected in society. We are all created male and female (Genesis 1:27).”
Despite opting to homeschool their children, the parents wrote that they remain concerned about the effect that the school’s policies may have on other children. According to the Rowes, much of the “confusion” and “distress” their sons experienced in school from having to refer to their friends as the opposite sex has lifted since their parents pulled them out.
The letter follows a $24,956 (£22,000) settlement the Department of Education paid the Rowes in September for “legal costs and a commitment from the government to reform transgender policies,” according to the Christian Legal Centre.
The CLC supported the parents’ taking legal action against the department in 2021 after the Church of England’s Portsmouth Diocesan Board of Education dismissed their complaint in 2017, citing the VAGC guidelines. One of the Church of England’s primary schools had labeled their son “transphobic” for refusing to abide by the school’s trans-affirming policies.
The parents also raised concerns about the school allowing two 6-year-old boys in their sons’ classes to identify as girls without a psychological assessment. In opposition to the school’s policies, the Rowes decided to homeschool their children instead.
The letter cites an August speech at the Policy Exchange by Suella Braverman, who was then the attorney general, and said there is no “absolute legal obligation” to affirm children who might be questioning their gender identity. She noted that schools sometimes allow children to use pronouns or compete on sports teams designated for the opposite sex without their parents’ knowledge.
“Anyone who questions such an approach is accused of transphobia. In my view, this approach is not supported by the law,” Braverman said.
The Rowes contended in their letter that this statement from the then-attorney general proves that the Church of England’s VAGC policies in schools have no legal basis.
“We, therefore, ask you to commit to scrapping the Valuing All God’s Children guidance as a matter of urgency so that staff and children in Church of England schools are properly safeguarded and protected from harmful transgender ideology and practice,” the parents wrote.
“We also request a meeting with you to discuss these points and what the Church of England will do about them at your earliest convenience.”
In July, the Church of England responded to a question from the General Synod, the denomination’s legislative body, about its definition of a woman. The Rev. Robert Innes, the denomination’s bishop in Europe, responded that “There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy.”
Innes cited the church’s “Living in Love and Faith” project, which the church website describes as a “discerning way forward” for the church regarding “identity, sexuality, relationships, and marriage.”
Pointing to “the marriage complexities associated with gender identity,” Innes claimed that the project “points to the need for additional care and thought to be given in understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.”
In less than one month, if Proposal 3 passes, children will have a right under the Michigan constitution to walk into one of Planned Parenthood’s 12 so-called “gender affirming” facilities in the state and, without parental knowledge or consent, obtain puberty blockers. And with Planned Parenthood of Michigan promising “gender affirming” care “via telehealth in the coming months,” Michiganders’ kids won’t even need to leave their house to obtain these sterilizing drugs.
Passage of Prop 3 will also give boys a constitutional right to be castrated and girls the right under Michigan’s constitution to be sterilized by way of a hysterectomy or the removal of their ovaries — all without their parents’ consent.
Deceptive marketing by Planned Parenthood and far-left politicians, such as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, hides this reality from Michigan voters, leading Prop 3 to be uniformly referred to as “the abortion amendment” even though the expansive language of the proposed constitutional amendment reaches far beyond abortion. And on abortion alone, notwithstanding proponents’ claims that “passing this amendment simply restores the same protections that Michiganders had for five decades under Roe v. Wade,” Prop 3 goes far beyond the controlling Roe-Casey precedent: If passed, the constitutional amendment would create an extreme regime in Michigan of abortion on demand, at any time, for any reason, without informed or parental consent, and paid for by taxpayers.
The expansive and legalistically worded language of Prop 3, crafted by Planned Parenthood and left-wing backers, however, extends beyond abortion to create a constitutional right to several aspects of what transgender activists call “gender-affirming care,” despite it being neither affirming nor caring. And Prop 3 extends that right to all individuals, including children.
This is not merely a political point, and it is not a worst-case-scenario argument based on how some liberal activist judge or justice might interpret Prop 3. This reality flows from the plain language of Prop 3 and rests on general legal principles of constitutional construction.
It’s Right in the Text
Here is the pertinent language Prop 3 would etch into the Michigan constitution as Article 1, Section 28, with the key language underscored:
“(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. …
(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.
* * *
(4) For the purposes of this section:
A state interest is “compelling” only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.
* * *
(5) This section shall be self-executing….
Prop 3 Applies to Men and Women AND Boys and Girls
By its express terms, Prop 3 applies to “every individual” and guarantees an “individual’s right.” The proposed constitutional amendment further provides that “the state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.”
As a matter of constitutional interpretation, then, the rights guaranteed by Prop 3 would be rights that both adults and children possess as “individuals,” and the rights apply equally to males and females.
This proposal represents a huge demarcation from controlling Michigan law, under which minors must have parental consent to obtain medical treatment or receive prescription medications, with the only current exception being the judicial bypass provisions governing minors seeking abortions. Specifically, Michigan law currently provides that to obtain an abortion, females under the age of 18 must have the written consent of one parent or legal guardian, but the law allows a girl to seek permission for an abortion from a judge, called a “judicial bypass.” A court must grant a judicial bypass if the judge finds either that “the minor is sufficiently mature and well-enough informed to make the decision regarding abortion independently of her parents or legal guardian,” or “the waiver would be in the best interests of the minor.”
In the context of abortion, Prop 3 guts Michigan’s requirements for either parental consent or a judicial bypass, first by declaring that the amendment applies to all “individuals” and second by expressly providing that “the state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.” Treating females under 18 differently than those 18 or over is a textbook example of discrimination.
Section 4 of the amendment further cements the reality that minors must be treated equivalent to adults for purposes of the rights Prop 3 would establish. That section of the proposed amendment expressly limits the justifications allowed for regulating abortion or the other rights Prop 3 would inscribe in the constitution.
Under Section 4, the state may only regulate abortion and the other rights covered by the proposed constitutional amendment if it is necessary to “protect[] the health of an individual seeking care,” and “does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.”
The rights of parents do not matter; Mom and Dad have no rights. And even the health of the girl does not matter because, under the plain language of the amendment, the state’s interest cannot “infringe” on the “individual’s autonomous decision-making.”
This legal analysis flows straight from the plain language of Prop 3, but case law from other states where a state constitutional right to abortion exists confirms this analysis. For example, in Alaska and Florida, courts have declared parental consent and parental notification statutes unconstitutional. And courts in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have struck parental consent statutes.
Prop 3’s grant of such “autonomous decision-making” is not limited to abortion, however. Rather, the plain language of the proposed constitutional amendment provides that the right to “reproductive freedom,” “entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to … sterilization … or infertility care.”
Under Michigan law currently, minors cannot be chemically or surgically sterilized (or rendered infertile) without their parents’ consent, and even then most physicians would refuse to sterilize a minor — except in the case of transgender-identifying patients.
The modern medical community has embraced the transgender ideology that teaches that human beings can be born “in the wrong body,” and that the appropriate treatment for such individuals consists of making their bodies appear to conform to their “internal sense” of gender.
The first step in such wrongly named “gender-affirming” medical response consists of prescribing puberty blockers to children. Puberty blockers, at a minimum, render children temporarily infertile by preventing them from maturing sexually, and a longer-term use renders them sterile. The surgical procedures used under the guise of “gender confirmation” — castration, hysterectomy, and the removal of ovaries — likewise sterilize the patients.
In fact, it is this very destruction of children’s future fertility and the medical rendering of them sterile that has led to several states banning the use of puberty blockers and surgical “gender confirming” procedures on minors. For instance, in Iowa, the Legislature made these legislative findings to explain its proposed ban on puberty blockers and surgical procedures that sterilize children:
Puberty blockers prevent gonadal maturation and thus render children taking these drugs infertile. Introducing cross-sex hormones to children with immature gonads as a direct result of pubertal blockade is expected to cause irreversible sterility. Sterilization is also permanent for those who undergo surgery to remove reproductive organs[.] … For these reasons, the decision to pursue a course of hormonal and surgical interventions to address a discordance between an individual’s sex and sense of gender identity should not be presented to or determined for children who are incapable of comprehending the negative implications and life-course difficulties resulting from these interventions.
But in Michigan, if passed, Prop 3 guarantees children the right to “make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to … sterilization,” and without “discrimination,” giving boys and girls the right to obtain puberty blockers and surgical sterilization without parental notice or consent.
If passed, Section 4 of the proposed constitutional amendment will further guarantee that the Michigan Legislature cannot interfere in transgender minors’ decisions to obtain puberty blockers or surgical “gender reassignment” through castration, removal of ovaries, or a hysterectomy. That section, as excerpted above, provides that the state may only regulate such procedures for the limited purpose of “protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine,” and then, only so long as it “does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.”
But the “accepted clinical standards of practice” by the supposed “mainstream” medical organizations is, at a minimum, to provide puberty blockers to children, with a steady movement toward the cash cow that is surgical interventions for minors.
Planned Parenthood Targets Kids One Way or Another
Again, these conclusions flow directly from the plain language of the proposed constitutional amendment. But here the public would be wise to note two significant facts: Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan helpedlead the ballot initiative to amend the Michigan constitution through the passage of Prop 3, deceptively described as the “Reproductive Freedom for All” amendment, and Planned Parenthood nowrepresents “the second largest provider of ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy.’” In fact, less than two weeks ago, Planned Parenthood launched an ad marketing puberty blockers to minors.
What Planned Parenthood and its extremist political partners don’t want publicized, however, is that a “Yes” vote for Prop 3 will not merely make abortion-on-demand, for any reason, at any time, and without informed or parental consent the law of Michigan: It will guarantee that children have an unfettered “right” to “transition” by obtaining puberty blockers and surgical sterilization, parents be damned.
With less than one month to go before Michiganders cast their final ballots, little time remains to give proof to the left’s lie that Prop 3 is about codifying Roe. It is not. It is about sacrificing the children of the state — both born and unborn.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
During the COVID-19 EU hearing, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, admitted that the vaccine had never been tested on its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to what was previously advertised.
Robert “Rob” Roos, a politician from the Netherlands who is also a member of the European Parliament, exposed the lie that people from all over the world had been led to believe.
“If you don’t get vaccinated, you’re antisocial. This is what the Dutch prime minister and health minister told us. You don’t get vaccinated just for yourself, but also for others. You do it for all of society, that’s what they said. Today, this turned out to be complete nonsense.” Roos said in his viral bombshell video posted on Twitter.
“In a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, one of the Pfizer directors just admitted to me at the time of introduction, the vaccine had never been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus,” Roos said.
In one of the most atrocious crimes against humanity, all the governments worked together with big pharma and big tech to deceive the general public into taking the COVID shot. They lied to us. They coerced millions of people into being vaccinated on the lie of preventing transmission.
“This removed the entire legal basis for the COVID passport. The COVID passport that led to massive institutional discrimination as people lost access to essential parts of society. I find this to be shocking, even criminal,” Roos added.
During the hearing, when asked by Ross if the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market, Janine Small responded while smiling:
“Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market? No. We have to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.”
Watch the video below:
🚨 BREAKING:
In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission.
“Get vaccinated for others” was always a lie.
The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.
Remember when the globalists and elites told us to take the vaccine to stop the transmission? This is scandalous.
Watch the video below:
Dr. Ladapo recommended that young males from 18 to 39 refrain from taking the COVID Vaccine.
Today, we released an analysis on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines the public needs to be aware of. This analysis showed an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39. FL will not be silent on the truth.
Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
Parents in San Diego, California, are outraged over a flyer that was sent to public school children advertising the “queerest” Halloween party with a “family-friendly” drag show and sponsored by a gay bar and a gender reassignment surgery center. The flyer for the show was sent to parents of students in the Encinitas Union School District using its email platform. The event is being organized by Trans Family Support Services; a group based in San Diego that helps provide transgender support services for people across the country. The flyer advertised a “family-friendly drag show” as well as other Halloween events like a costume contest and trick-or-treating.
The school district explained that the email went out through PeachJar, a service that offers optional information about other events in the district. It added that the emails contained the notice, “Distribution of this flyer does not imply endorsement by the Encinitas union school district, its schools or staff and is distributed in compliance with federal and state law.”
Some parents are planning to attend the school district’s board meeting to protest the event and to denounce a comment made by a district employee calling them homophobes. Attorney Paul Jonna told KGTV-TV that a concerned parent called him and that he was requesting information from the school district.
“A lot of people are just generally not comfortable with the idea of pushing drag queen shows on little kids, but separate and apart from that, I think the biggest concern with this event are the sponsors,” Jonna said.
“We submitted a public records request to find out more about their involvement, their communication with these sponsors and sort of this event,” he added.
He added that the event was sponsored by Align Surgical Associates, which advertises as offering “gender confirmation surgery for transwomen, transmen, non-binary, and gender diverse individuals.” He said another sponsor, Rich’s San Diego, advertises itself as “San Diego’s largest and most popular gay nightclub.”
Kathie Moehlig, the founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said they will not cancel the show.
“We’re not going to back down from doing what we know is right and appropriate to support these youth and their families, just because some people think they can use it as their mega piece to get talking points and get attention,” said Moehlig.
Here’s more about the planned drag show:
Parents to protest Encinitas Union School District for hosting ‘Queerfest’ drag show Halloween event www.youtube.com
“The Detransition Diaries: Saving Our Sisters” is a cautionary tale that exposes not only how influential the spread of trans ideology is on social media and in doctors’ offices, schools, and therapy sessions, but also how that same ideology weaponizes vulnerable young women’s identity struggle against them.
The film from the Center for Bioethics and Culture documents the testimonies of three women — Helena, Cat, and Grace — who went through various forms of so-called “gender-affirming” prescriptions and procedures only to discover that the wrongly named “treatments” marketed to make them feel better about their bodies did more harm than good.
The featured women do not shy away from mentioning the irreversible procedures and damage this mutilative movement had on their bodies and souls, but they also don’t leave viewers feeling hopelessly doomed in a world that works overtime to normalize the destruction of healthy bodies.
Social Contagion
The documentary starts with the women explaining not just how they learned about transgender ideology but why it appealed to them.
“I don’t think anybody would have described me as gender nonconforming, or a tomboy or anything like that,” Helena admitted.
Though Helena said she never would have been considered “gender nonconforming” or even a tomboy, after hours of scrolling Tumblr, the social contagion of transgender ideology took root in her mind and began fueling her mental health problems.
“By the time I was about 13, I started to feel really depressed. I started self-harming. I started developing an eating disorder. That kind of isolation led me to go on Tumblr because I was spending a lot of time online generally,” Helena said. “I was introduced to a belief system that it had a lot to do with gender, but it was more like, ‘If you don’t fit in, that’s a sign that you’re trans. If you don’t like your body, that’s a sign that you’re trans. And if you transition, all these problems will be fixed.’”
Similar to Helena, Cat’s interest in “transitioning” was piqued when she was 13 after she visited a website boasting all things trans, prompting her to determine she had gender dysphoria.
Grace testified that she had “a lifelong like preoccupation and discomfort with my body” that turned out to be a “very normal sort of young adult female issues.” It’s not uncommon for children and young adults like Grace to feel uncomfortable in their growing bodies, but the vast majority outgrow their sex-related woes if left alone. For instance, in one Canadian study of boys with gender-identity disorder released last year, over time, nearly 88 percent of the subjects “desisted,” or abandoned their desire to identify as the opposite sex.
Grace, however, wasn’t left alone. After years of feeling “lost,” suicidal, and depressed, she jumped at the opportunity to alter her body. Grace also attributed her eventual decision to take testosterone and go through with a double mastectomy at 23, something she said she regrets, to “trans influencers” online.
“I was looking at trans influencers who had the body that I wanted and reading all of that stuff like the happy testimonials, also feeling the hysteria of the online trans community which was really freaking out because Donald Trump was president and they’re like, ‘Oh, it’s going to be illegal to transition.’ It felt like it was a little bit of time pressure,” Grace said.
How could vulnerable young women not entertain the idea of “transitioning” when it is marketed as the end-all to their mental distress? Especially since it is plastered all over social media, and “doctors” advertising castration and mutilation get endless positive press coverage.
There’s plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that kids, especially girls, are heavily influenced by this shameless online trans peddling and the ideology’s popularity among their friends. That’s why “transition” procedures on U.S female adolescents alone quadrupled between 2016 and 2017.
The online world of trans ideology is so pervasive that when Grace began to question whether amputating her breasts was a wise decision, she admitted that she believed she was experiencing “internalized transphobia.”
As Helena explained, it was easy to get swept up into the world of “social justice ideology” with just a few taps on a screen:
In this social justice ideology, there’s kind of a hierarchy of who is the most oppressed versus who is the most privileged. The further along you are on the oppressed scale, that means you know that your opinion is listened to more. I found myself in this place where I had found the only community of other girls who are more like me in terms of personality. I could relate to them, but it was so enmeshed in this kind of belief system that made me feel really guilty about being a cis, straight, white girl. You begin to feel a kind of pressure to constantly apologize for yourself. “OK, well, how do I not be this privileged person anymore?” And one thing that’s really easy to do is just change your pronouns.
Changing pronouns, of course, was just the beginning. Eventually, Helena, Cat, and Grace all began taking testosterone.
Beyond the Screen
When Helena didn’t get the affirmation she wanted from her parents over her gender confusion, she sought help from her school’s guidance counselor and psychologist, both of whom were more than willing to push the teen to “transition” behind her parents’ backs.
“Ironically, one of the things that really kind of supported my idea of being trans was that before I was trans, none of the adults in my life at school or anything really cared that much. They didn’t really see that I was struggling. But when I said I was trans, then they all wanted to like bend over backwards to help me be trans,” she said.
Helena eventually found an in with a medical office that, after she requested it, prescribed her the maximum dosage of testosterone on her first visit.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for public school officials to urge and aid kids who want to reject their sex. This is documented well on the Libs of TikTok Twitter account. But schools aren’t the only trans-crazed accomplices.
“After just a 30-minute conversation, the doctor prescribed testosterone over the phone,” Cat said. “It was pretty clear she did not look at my chart, because she would have seen some things that would at least be cause for concern, because like I had a history of suicide attempts, I had been institutionalized before, I had been to inpatient eating-disorder treatment. The outcome of that conversation was, ‘Here’s your drugs.’”
At first, the young women saw what they believed was an improvement in their sex-related confusion and other problems.
“It did kind of feel like, you know, one of the better antidepressants that I’d ever taken in my life,” Cat recalled.
Eventually, however, Helena, Cat, and Grace all learned that taking drugs designed to inhibit their bodies’ natural functions was not the cure they’d hoped it would be. It ultimately left them feeling physically ill, angry, and even more depressed than before.
But in the case of Helena, who was on testosterone for 17 months, her health professionals never considered her symptoms to be a result of the male hormone. Instead, she was prescribed more medications to combat what her hospital’s psych unit deemed borderline personality disorder and psychosis.
“My life just became like a total disaster,” Helena said. “I wasn’t functioning at all. I wasn’t holding down a job. I wasn’t going to school. I just felt like a monster. Once I stopped the testosterone, the symptoms all went away and I started feeling like myself again.”
It was then that Helena gave up on the idea of doing surgeries, saying, “I just became so dysfunctional that I wasn’t really able to have the mental wherewithal to go through the process of calling surgeons, dealing with insurance.”
Cat, a singer, had plans to dive deeper into the trans world with a double mastectomy and legal name change but paused those when she realized “how detrimental the changes to my voice had been and how devastated I was that I had made irreversible changes to myself.”
Grace, who went through with her double mastectomy, experienced regret and the unnerving feeling that no matter how much she altered her body, “this will never be over for me.”
“I just was realizing that there might not be a light at the end of the tunnel like I thought there was. I also don’t really feel like a man, I just feel like a woman who has had her breasts cut off,” Grace admitted.
It was then that she began thinking about all of the irreversible damage her body was subjected to because she was told it was necessary to combat her gender confusion.
“I’m concerned that the testosterone may have affected my fertility and potentially will cause me some like infertility issues, but I really don’t know,” Grace said. “…I feel, I think more than anything else, regret over that. I just hadn’t been thinking about having children at that time. I didn’t think I really wanted them, and that’s something that I began to really want in my mid-20s.”
All Hope Is Not Lost
There were plenty of people, organizations, and resources available to Helena, Cat, and Grace when they first considered “transitioning,” but support for their “detransition” was severely lacking — so they started doing their own research.
“I started looking into a lot of studies, and what I found is that there actually isn’t much quality evidence supporting medical transition as the best treatment,” Cat said. “I started to grow concerned with scientific and medical misinformation being tried by the trans community.”
These young women found a way around the smokescreen with help from truthtellers such as Posie Parker, who ignored the threat of censorship from Big Tech to state hard and fast truths about sex.
“I went on YouTube, and I just searched ‘trans women aren’t women’ because I had never ever listened to gender-critical people or TERFs because I was just told they were hateful people,” Cat explained.
Helena found solace in talking to others like her who had started taking hormones and considering surgeries before waking up to the deception.
“I realized that like, oh, OK, there’s a lot of people going through this. It’s not just a handful of people. It’s like hundreds and thousands of people going through this. And so once I started meeting these people, I just started having conversations,” she said.
Those conversations are why it’s so important for young women like Helena, Cat, and Grace to share their stories.
“I’m really worried about other people who are getting sucked into thinking that gender transition is the answer to problems that would be better solved elsewhere,” Grace said. “I am hopeful, but I think it’s going to be a really ugly time. … The fallout is going to be really severe from all of the detransitioners. … But our voices can no longer be denied.”
Helena, Cat, and Grace will be labeled transphobic and hateful for speaking up, but their transparency offers a message of warning and of hope for real care that parents, policymakers, and people all around the world need to hear: Mangling healthy bodies is a sickness, not a cure.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
A hand holds up a small transgender pride flag. The blue and pink stripes represent the colors for a boy and girl, while the white stripe represents self-declared gender identities, such as transitioning, intersex, neutral and undefined gender. | Getty Images
A journalist who has extensively covered the transgender debate recently revealed why the topic has so resonated, explaining “something inside … snapped” when he learned about what was happening to children, and the “horror” immediately motivated him to action.
Brandon Showalter, a reporter for The Christian Post, is among the most well-versed and unrelenting journalists to tackle the transgender movement, exploring the impact of puberty blockers, “disfiguring surgeries,” and the moral chaos he believes is shielding so many from the truth.
“Something inside me snapped, and I just thought, ‘Well, I’ve just got to dig into this and scrutinize this more deeply, because this is absolutely insane,'” Showalter said ona recent episode of “The Inside Story” podcast. “I just remember thinking to myself, ‘They’re doing what to children?!'”
He continued, “I just realized the extent of the horror, and I realized someone needed to step up and tell the truth about it.”
Listen to Showalter share his story on “The Inside Story” (subscribe to the show here):
Showalter believes the happenings surrounding the transgender movement constitute “one of the most grotesque health scenarios” in America, which is why he continues to lend his voice to the discussion.
For Showalter, covering the transgender movement began after he started exploring the issue and realized many journalists simply weren’t covering it from a place of truth.
Watch him join CBN’s Faithwire to explain:
“I realized that within journalism … mainstream legacy publications were using false pronouns to refer to people as the opposite sex and it was so confusing even reading news articles that I couldn’t even keep the story straight,” he said. “But then … I realized that children were being given puberty-blocking drugs.”
With the reality of what was unfolding — including the prescribing of drugs to kids he believes have no basis for being prescribed — Showalter was stunned.
“I just realized the extent of the horror, and I knew that someone had to stand up and tell the truth about it because very few people in the legacy media were,” he said. “It’s crazy.”
Showalter also began to explore stories of detransitioners — people who started or fully underwent attempts to change their sex but who came to regret their life-altering decisions. The media often shield or ignore these stories, but Showalter hasn’t backed away from delving into the tragic details.
“Theologically, I just see it as we need to stand up for the integrity of the human body. This is so horrible,” he said. “You just don’t do this to the human person … this is a medical scandal. This is one of the most grotesque, horrible medical scandals the world has ever seen.”
Showalter said even non-Christians are beginning to read his investigative reports as they deal with these issues in their own lives and families.
“The truth is true, no matter who says it,” he said.
“I hope that it pulls back the curtain. I hope that people see that this is some of the most wretched, sadistic, monstrously terrible child abuse and that it’s one of the worst medical scandals that the world has ever seen,” he said. “I hope that people are punched in the gut — that they are confronted with the raw, horrific evil that this is.”
Beyond knowledge, Showalter said he hopes people are encouraged to stand up against what’s unfolding.
A devout Christian, father, and African-American, Michael Anderson didn’t feel represented by either party and until Jan. 31 of this year, remained politically unaffiliated. But a series of events has led him to align with and campaign alongside conservatives in one of North Carolina’s most liberal counties.
Anderson is an attorney for a Big Tech company in Charlotte. Headquartered just a few miles across the border in South Carolina, his company claims the fifth largest internet footprint in the United States. Higher-ups have a stated goal of widespread “influence.” They are making good on that goal.
On Nov 18, 2021, the CEO stood before an all-employee meeting at the Charlotte location and declared for the “greater good of humanity” it was no longer enough to segregate the workers who had not received a Covid-19 vaccine. They had to be removed entirely. The entire company had been working remotely for nearly two years at that point, Anderson said. The announcement came just before the holidays.
“Hundreds of people found out that day they would be fired unless they submitted to the mandate without an approved medical or religious exemption,” Anderson said.
Anderson reached out to co-workers via an internal Slack channel sharing his concerns and received a flood of responses expressing stress and fear.
“I’ve worked in some difficult places with some difficult people and that was the most difficult week of my career,” Anderson said. “I grew up in a single-parent family below the poverty level. Single mothers [were contacting me]. Pregnant women were contacting me to see whether they could receive a medical exemption. There were so many inequities and unjust consequences to this poorly thought out, draconian mandate.”
About 60 employees linked up. “All these people [losing their jobs] are super high-performing, hardworking people, some who have been in the company for 15-16 years,” Anderson said. “I asked the CEO to change the policy, the director of diversity, the General Counsel; I couldn’t change their minds.”
Anderson began using his legal expertise to assist exemption-seekers. Alongside like-minded freedom fighters, he developed a coalition, ByManyOrByFew, to inform, educate and connect voters.
“I thought we ought to do something to fight against these policies and funnel people toward politicians who were freedom-minded,” he said.
But Anderson didn’t stop there. Within weeks of the company announcement, he decided to run for a North Carolina House seat in Mecklenburg, one of the most Democratic counties in the state. Choosing a party affiliation by now was a no-brainer.
In preparation to testify before the South Carolina House and Ways subcommittee on December 7, 2021, for a workplace vaccination bill that could eventually impact the North Carolina arm of the company he works for, Anderson reached out to both political parties. Not one Democrat would respond, but many Republicans fighting for individual rights did. “Forty-four Caucasians were fighting to protect my rights,” he said.
Vaccines historically have a disparate impact on minorities. Anderson references the Tuskegee Experiment, as one horrific example. He saw history repeating itself with the Covid-19 vaccine, led by a Democratic president.
“When you had these vaccine mandates come out, I placed the blame at the feet of President Biden,” Anderson said. “Although his mandates were ultimately unsuccessful, a lot of companies were encouraged and enabled to have their own vaccine mandates and a private company has a lot more flexibility compared to the government. As a result, by their terms, that caused systemic, institutional racism because it has a disparate impact on minorities.”
That is who Anderson specifically wants to champion; and who Democrats continuously fail to support or outright harm with disastrous policies. Even with the CDC’s recently updated vaccine guidelines, Democratic leaders like Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser are pursuing policies that hurt miniorities disproportionately, like a vaccine mandate that would bar 40 percent of D.C. black teenagers from in-person learning.
“My district is 60 percent African American, 20 percent Latino,” Anderson said. “The reason why I like that and that’s where I want to be is not only because I am African American, there’s no demographic flipping faster from Democrat to Republican than Latino. And if you look at the vaccine mandates, there is no race that was hurt worse than African Americans.”
Minority voters have been impacted by other far-left policies, and are expressing their discontent at the polls. A recent interview by NPR with political scientist Ruy Teixeira revealed how Democrats are driving minority voters to flip partisanship, especially in the Latino population.
“…[T]he ultra-progressive wing of the Democratic Party privileging criminal justice reform over public safety,” has become a major concern of minority voters, Teixeira said. “People want to be safe from crime, and that includes a lot of nonwhite voters. It is not a matter for them of choosing between the two, but rather above all, you’ve got to keep our community safe.”
Anderson’s opponent for NC House District 99, Democratic Rep. Nasif Majeed, supported the “ultra-progressive” defunding of the Charlotte police in his previous campaign. Charlotte now has only 1,600 police officers for a city of 1 million people. Three hundred defections or retirements are expected in the near term and salaries start as low as $40,000. A lack of manpower has resulted in unanswered 911 calls and crimes below a felony going entirely unaddressed. “Social justice warriors” are crippling police response, according to local law enforcement.
Democrats’ leftist ideologies ruin cities and Anderson wants to get his town back on track, but he knows reform isn’t possible alongside current Democrats in North Carolina’s House, who hold a majority in the legislature.
A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Anderson grew up below the poverty level in a biracial, single-parent home. Progressive policies pressed during the pandemic are driving inequity that entrap and eliminate those the far-left claim to champion, he said. He feels there is no place for him in the Democratic Party right now.
Through door-to-door campaigning, he’s found that many registered Democrats in Charlotte agree.
“I ask people what issues they need represented and how the system is failing them,” Anderson said. “You have to have conversations with people to know.”
Empowered by a Democrat president, Democrat House, and a coalition of Democrat governors, Covid-19 tyranny has driven a new type of minority leader like Anderson to represent an increasingly diverse Republican party — one that engages in the political battle and fights for the now tenuous freedoms once taken for granted.
Ashley Bateman is a policy writer for The Heartland Institute and blogger for Ascension Press. Her work has been featured in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The American Thinker and numerous other publications. She previously worked as an adjunct scholar for The Lexington Institute and as editor, writer and photographer for The Warner Weekly, a publication for the American military community in Bamberg, Germany. Ashley is a board member at a Catholic homeschool cooperative in Virginia. She homeschools her four incredible children along with her brilliant engineer/scientist husband who lives in Virginia.
What started out as an innocent remark on Instagram has left Brittany Aldean, the wife of country music singer Jason Aldean, as the target of an unhinged wave of attacks from America’s demented “Trans the Kids” crowd.
In a late-August video reel showing herself transforming “from a relatively makeup-free face into fully ready glam,” Aldean captioned the post by saying she’d “really like to thank [her] parents for not changing [her] gender when [she] went through [her] tomboy phase” and that she “love[s] this girly life.”
While only an anodyne caption, the comment evoked the ire of self-proclaimed country artist Cassadee Pope, who took to Twitter to lash out at Aldean for comparing her “‘tomboy phase’ to someone wanting to transition.”
“You’d think celebs with beauty brands would see the positives in including LGBTQ+ people in their messaging,” Pope said.
Fellow country singer Maren Morris also decided to throw her irrelevant opinion into the mix, saying, “It’s so easy to, like, not be a scumbag human” and calling Aldean “Insurrection Barbie,” in an apparent reference to the Aldeans’ previously expressed support for former President Donald Trump.
Rather than back down and cower in the face of the latest left-wing, angry mob, Aldean is doubling down and openly criticizing the demonic practice of forcibly mutilating children seemingly being championed by Pope and Morris.
“Advocating for the genital mutilation of children under the disguise of love and calling it ‘gender affirming care,’ is one of the worst evils. I will always support my children and do what I can do [to] protect their innocence,” Aldean said on Instagram. “Some parents want to be accepted by society so badly that they’re willing to make life-altering decisions for their children who aren’t old enough to fully comprehend the consequences of those actions. Love is protecting your child until they are mature enough as an adult to make their own life decisions.”
“Karen Morris, thanks for calling me Barbie,” Aldean added in response to Morris’s tweet.
Since the social media spat, Aldean has continued in professing her advocacy for children being exploited by deranged, pro-trans leftists, with the beauty-line entrepreneur recently reaffirming her views during an interview on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
“I think that children should not be allowed to make these life-changing decisions at such a young age,” she said. “They are not mature enough; they should have parents who love them and advocate for them regardless. We have ages on everything. We have it for cigarettes, driving, military, voting. … Yet for some reason people think that we can let a child choose their gender so young? It’s very baffling to me.”
She continued, saying that “[t]here are so many consequences of doing that a[t] such a young age” and that “[s]ociety should be able to sit back, speak our minds about it and fight for these children.”
Aldean has since released a Barbie-inspired T-shirt with the phrase “Don’t tread on our kids,” with profits from the apparel line benefiting Operation Light Shine, a charity dedicated to helping “fight child exploitation and human trafficking.”
Aldean Is Right
Despite the hyperbolic virtue signaling from elitists like Pope and Morris, Aldean’s remarks about the realities of “transitioning” minors are 100 percent correct. Medically mutilating children’s genitals and pumping them full of wrong-sex hormones in the name of “care” is not compassionate; it’s satanic.
Just as is the case with any other weighty subject matter, most children have no clue what sex is, let alone transgenderism. The idea that minors are well-rounded and knowledgeable enough to understand the long-term implications associated with removing one’s penis or breasts is a hair-brained narrative that only the most hardcore leftists in society could convince themselves is true.
As noted by Federalist Contributor Samantha Stephenson, even among youth with gender dysphoria, “studies indicate that in all likelihood, symptoms will resolve in 93 percent of these children by the time they reach adulthood or even earlier — an outcome that is taken off the table for children subjected to experimental hormones with largely unknown effects, whose bodies are mutilated and fertility stolen.”
Ultimately, parents signing off on mutilating their child’s genitals are not doing what’s best for their son or daughter, but for themselves. From its inception, medically “transitioning” minors has always been about adults inflicting their will upon innocent, unsuspecting children, who are forced to live with the consequences of their parents’ ill-advised decision-making.
But rather than stand up and join Aldean in defending these kids, woke-ified celebrities like Pope and Morris will continue to attack anyone who dares to defy their twisted, pagan religion, which somehow convinces them that castrating and sterilizing children is both virtuous and humane. To them, who cares if these kids grow up to regret the procedure or become suicidal as a result? All that matters is getting a pat on the back from America’s residential, left-wing mob.
At the end of the day, Brittany Aldean has nothing to apologize for. The dangers of medically mutilating children are simply too horrific for society to sit in silence. Following Aldean’s lead, any and every sane American who understands the evils associated with this barbaric practice must speak up and get active, lest our children continue to pay the price.
Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Guadalupe Hernandez receives an ultrasound by nurse practitioner Gail Brown during a prenatal exam at the Maternity Outreach Mobile in Phoenix, Arizona October 8, 2009. The maternity outreach program helps uninsured women living in the Phoenix metropolitan area receive the proper treatment and care during and after their pregnancy. The Maternity Outreach Mobile is equipped with two exam rooms, an ultrasound machine, an external fetal monitor, a laboratory and offers pregnancy tests, referrals and immunization for children. | Reuters/Joshua Lott
A majority of Americans have a favorable view of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers even as politicians and corporations work to discourage the public from accessing them, a new poll suggests.
Polling conducted by CRC Research between Aug. 3 and Aug. 7 reviewed by The Christian Post shows that 74% of Americans surveyed support the public funding of pro-life pregnancy centers after learning about their services. Specifically, 42% of the 1,600 likely voters surveyed strongly support the public funding of pro-life pregnancy centers, and an additional 32% somewhat support the idea. By contrast, just 14% of respondents opposed the idea of providing public funding to pro-life pregnancy centers, with 8% strongly opposed and 6% somewhat opposed.
Support for publicly funding pregnancy centers cut across party lines, with 78% of Republicans, 72% of Independents and 73% of Democrats favoring the provision of taxpayer dollars to such organizations.
The poll measured support for public funding of pro-life pregnancy centers at 80% among self-described conservatives, 74% among self-identified Independents and 68% among those who categorize themselves as liberals.
Before hearing details about what pro-life pregnancy centers provide, 64% of those surveyed supported the public funding of such organizations: 70% of Democrats, 66% of liberals, 65% of moderates, 64% of conservatives, 62% of Independents and 62% of Republicans. The likely voters who participated in the survey began to change their views about pro-life pregnancy centers after learning more about them.
The survey informed respondents that pregnancy resource centers “provide resources for pregnant women in need, including prenatal care, clothing, diapers, [and] housing assistance,” “empower women to choose life for their child during pregnancy and after delivery,” “allow women to reach their goals and keep their baby” and “allow women facing unexpected pregnancies to keep their baby and give them the tools to achieve success and independence.”
The poll asked respondents if they are more or less likely to support “a candidate who supports legislation that publicly funds pregnancy centers.” Sixty-seven percent of participants classified themselves as “more likely” to vote for candidates who support the public funding of pro-life pregnancy centers. Thirty-one percent said they were “much more likely” and 35% “somewhat more likely” to do so.
Only 17% identified themselves as “less likely” to vote for such candidates, with 9% “much less likely” and 8% “somewhat less likely.” Broken down by partisan affiliation and political ideology, 73% of conservatives, 72% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, 66% of moderates, 62% of Independents and 62% of liberals are “more likely” to vote for candidates who favor the public funding of pregnancy resource centers.
Following the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization finding that the Constitution doesn’t contain a right to abortion, pro-life pregnancy centers found themselves subject to vandalism and violence.
The poll found overwhelming support (80%) for prosecuting those responsible for vandalism against pro-life pregnancy centers and churches and little opposition to the proposal (12%).
Eighty percent of respondents also agreed that “elected officials should publicly denounce this behavior and call for those engaging in it to be brought to justice.” Just 11% of likely voters disagreed with the aforementioned statement.
By a more than 2-1 margin, likely voters said they were “less likely” to “vote for an elected official who refuses to speak out against acts of rage, violence, and vandalism against a pregnancy resource center.”
Fifty-nine percent of voters are “less likely” to support an elected official who did not condemn violence against pro-life pregnancy centers, while 26% are “more likely” to support such a candidate: 63% of Republicans and Independents, 62% of conservatives and moderates and 53% of liberals and Democrats.
As Axios reported Tuesday, the internet directory service Yelp will begin adding disclaimers to listings about pro-life pregnancy centers, noting that “crisis pregnancy centers typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”
In an email to Axios, Yelp’s Vice President of User Operations Noelle Malik defended the move as part of the company’s “efforts to provide consumers with access to reliable information about reproductive health.”
“It has always felt unjust to me that there are clinics in the U.S. that provide misleading information or conduct deceptive tactics to steer pregnant people away from abortion care if that’s the path they choose to take,” Malik wrote.
At the same time, Malik acknowledged that “Not all consumers visiting a crisis pregnancy center’s business page may be seeking out abortion services.”
Yelp’s announcement comes after a group of lawmakers sent a letter to Google urging the digital media giant to “limit the appearance of anti-abortion fake clinics or so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ in Google search results, Google Ads, and on Google Maps when users search for ‘abortion clinic,’ ‘abortion pill,’ or similar terms.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, issued a statement Tuesday condemning Yelp’s move.
“Shame on Big Tech companies like Yelp for colluding with the abortion lobby in their war on compassionate pregnancy help,” she said.
“Discriminatory labels are not meant to inform, but to scare women away from receiving the support and resources they need. America’s pregnancy centers exist to serve women and families, taking financial pressures and other types of coercion out of the equation. The abortion lobby meanwhile fights tooth and nail against women’s right to informed consent, including hearing their baby’s heartbeat or seeing an ultrasound.”
Dannenfelser maintained that “pregnancy centers effectively save lives, and the radical abortion lobby and their extremist Democrat allies Elizabeth Warren are desperate to ‘crack down’ on them.” She argues, “Pro-abortion lies are fueling an unprecedented rash of attacks against them.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of pro-life pregnancy centers. She introduced a bill titled “The Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act,” which targets such organizations and prohibits “the use of misleading statements related to the provision of abortion services.”
Hardly a day goes by now that we don’t see another appalling example of transgender ideology’s aggressive intolerance in the public square. Recently, the target of that intolerance was an 80-year-old woman in the small town of Port Townsend, Washington, who was permanently banned from her local YMCA pool after she objected to a “trans woman” — a man — in the women’s locker room.
And for daring to speak out about that in public, she and her supporters were attacked this week in broad daylight by a mob of trans activists and Antifa thugs.
According a recent report in the New York Post, the woman, Julie Jaman, confronted a YMCA employee, a “trans woman” named Clementine Adams, in the locker room after Jaman observed that Adams was clearly a man. To Jaman’s credit, she did not mince words.
“I saw a man in a woman’s bathing suit watching maybe four or five little girls pulling down their suits in order to use the toilet,” Jaman told the Post. “I asked if he had a penis and he said it was none of my business. I told that man to ‘get out right now.’”
For exercising what would have been universally praised not long ago as guts and common sense — confronting a man trespassing in a women’s locker room to watch little girls undress — Jaman was accused of “being discriminatory” by the YMCA manager, threatened with the police, and ordered to leave. A member of the YMCA for 35 years, she was subsequently banned from the pool permanently.
Jaman’s ordeal wasn’t over, though. On Monday, Jaman and others gathered to speak out about the local YMCA’s dangerous policy of allowing men into the women’s locker room. As Jaman was speaking, a mob of Antifa militants, including burly, tattooed men, converged on the rally, screaming, “Trans women are women,” in an attempt to intimidate and drown her out. They ripped down the suffragette flags on display behind Jaman, who was visibly shaken and asked, “Are we going to get beat up here?” and asked supporters in the crowd to call the police.
The 80-year-old woman who was banned from her local swimming pool for raising concerns about a male in the female washroom was heckled as she gave a speech tonight.
Eventually, the Antifa mob surrounded Jaman, whose supporters, most of them middle-aged and elderly women, had to form a protective circle around her. Some women were thrown to the ground. Others had their shoes ripped off. Just as black-shirted Antifa men were beginning to tussle with Jaman’s supporters, the police showed up.
It wasn’t enough, though, simply to terrorize and physically assault women exercising their First Amendment rights. The mayor of Port Townsend, a self-described “pervert and deviant” named David J. Faber, praised the mob that went after Jaman and her supporters, calling it an “incredible night” that was “beautiful” and falsely claiming that “Trans and cis-allies alike spoke love & support.”
As copious video evidence posted on Twitter shows, they did no such thing. They engaged in the thuggish intolerance, simmering violence, and blind rage characteristic of the far left — and then they reveled in it, with the likes of Faber praising the mob for their brutality toward an 80-year-old woman who dared to speak up.
Mobs like the one in Port Townsend on Monday, however, are merely the blunt instrument, the Brown Shirts of a much larger effort on the part of the left to sever the relationship between parent and child and reshape society in a way that allows adults, especially adult men, to fulfill their every desire — often at the expense of children.
But that effort isn’t being led by black-shirted Antifa thugs, it’s being led by medical professionals at some of the most prestigious hospitals in the country. In recent weeks, Libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, Chris Elston (Billboard Chris), and others have been posting publicly available promotional videos and other information from Boston Children’s Hospital touting so-called “gender-affirming care,” which includes chemical castration, mastectomies, hysterectomies, and genital mutilation performed on minors.
Boston Children’s Hospital responded by removing all its videos and information about “gender-affirming care” from its YouTube channel and quietly updating its website to claim (falsely) that gender-related surgeries are only for those over 18.
Meanwhile, Big Tech and the corporate press predictably came to the defense of the hospital. Facebook banned Libs of Tik Tok this week, and NBC News’s Brandy Zadrozny spread misinformation by claiming BCH doesn’t perform genital surgeries on minors. Almost all media coverage of the BCH affair has been framed as far-right activists threatening the hospital and engaging in “stochastic terrorism” when in fact all that Libs of Tik Tok and others have done is post the hospital’s own materials.
The videos are genuinely horrifying. A buttoned-up surgeon calmly explaining phalloplasty to the camera over whimsical music can’t hide the horrifying fact that what’s being described is the cutting off of forearm flesh from a healthy girl to fashion a non-functioning penis. It is barbaric in the extreme, and the attempt to make it sound mundane and palatable in these videos somehow only highlights the barbarity and cruelty of it.
And it’s not just Boston Children’s Hospital. Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, has amputated the breasts of a 12-year-old girl and castrated a 16-year-old boy in the name of “gender-affirming care.” Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh promotes puberty blockers for children. The pediatric gender program director at Yale has admitted on camera she believes children as young as 2 or 3 can be eligible for medical intervention and treatment on their “gender journey.”
In other words, the people and institutions behind this movement are not fringe, they are not the pink-haired youths and black-clad Antifa thugs screaming at old ladies in the streets. They occupy the elite heights of American society. They have real power and influence.
And if you object or protest in any way, they are angling to get you labeled a bigot, a threat to child safety, a terrorist. And you know what that means.
John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.
‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Is the Opposite of Gender-Affirming and Caring
People don’t like hospitals that hurt children instead of healing them. Boston Children’s Hospital has been deluged with criticism after conservative activists highlighted its own materials promoting medical transition for minors. The hospital has tried to cover up its deeds, but it cannot escape the truth that so-called gender-affirming care isn’t. The euphemistic phrase conceals the brutal realities of medical transition, but these procedures — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and various surgeries — do not affirm patients’ gender, let alone care for them. Gender-affirming care is a lie and we must stop it.
The tide may be turning against the transgender craze. Across the pond, the United Kingdom’s infamous Tavistock pediatric gender clinic has been shut down, and a massive medical malpractice action has begun against those responsible for rushing children into transition. Here in the U.S., Republican politicians are increasingly willing to stand up against the radical transgender agenda, as even the spineless are realizing that this is a winning issue. And it seems only a matter of time until trial lawyers target America’s aggressive and unregulated gender clinic industry.
Thus, there is hope that regulations and lawsuits will curb the craze for rushing people, especially children, into medical transition. It is even possible to imagine a quiet climb-down in which the political left, and the institutions it controls, realize that radical gender ideology is a loser and sidle away from it. There have been a few signs that this is happening, such as New York Times articles questioning transgender orthodoxy.
Will Proponents Back Down?
But there are no guarantees of victory, in large part because many people may be in too deep to back down. Democrats in general, and the Biden administration in particular, have embraced transgender ideology. They have done everything from putting men in women’s shelters to using school lunch programs for poor children as leverage to force schools to adopt the rainbow agenda, including letting males into girls’ locker rooms. And, of course, pretty much every major left-wing group has followed the LGBT lobby into pushing a radical transgender agenda.
Nor is it only politicians and activists who have staked their credibility on the trans agenda. From education to entertainment to Big Business, a lot of people have embraced transgender ideology, including medically transitioning children. The medical industry in particular has a lot to lose, both in credibility and cash, if the transition train slows down. This may explain why pro-trans research is routinely published even though the studies are mostly lowquality, with some being demonstrably terrible. The goal isn’t to publish good research, but to provide cover for an ideology that is chemically and surgically sterilizing children.
And, of course, there is pride — no, not the rainbow celebrations sponsored by big business, but actual personal pride. Will parents who bought into gender transition admit the harm they have done to their children? Will liberals admit not only that they were wrong, but that Christian conservatives were right? These and similar truths may be too hard for many to accept.
Consequently, we opponents of the transgender agenda must keep the pressure on. We must make sure that those in thrall to transgender ideology — from politicians to academia to the media to Big Tech and Big Business — either abandon it or are defeated. In doing so, it will help to show how the horrifying harms inflicted by gender transition are the result of denying the truth of sex and gender.
Gender-Affirming Care Is a Lie
Gender-affirming care is a lie because gender is not a free-floating metaphysical substance. Gender becomes nonsensical when disconnected from sex, because gender is the social expression of the biological realities of human sex. As Matt Walsh’s recent documentary “What is a Woman?” demonstrates, gender makes no sense without reference to biological sex — it either goes around in circles (e.g. a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman) or descends into crude stereotypes (e.g. a boy who likes pink must be a girl).
We are a sexually dimorphic species; the difference between male and female is essential to the continuation of humanity. Thus, though there is variation in gender expression between individuals, and gender expectations between cultures, gender always has to refer back to our embodied realities as male or female. Thus, there cannot be a gender identity that is deeper, more essential, or more immutable than our sex. And so it is impossible to have “gender-affirming” medical care that attempts to efface the reality of bodily sex.
There are people who are unhappy with their bodies and wish that they were the other sex. But they are not, nor can they become, the other sex — at most they can be chemically and surgically altered to resemble the other sex and attempt to socially live that role. These people need compassion and help in accepting their healthy natural bodies, not chemicals and surgery to contort their bodies into facsimiles of the other sex. Transition is never medically necessary, which is why activists encourage suicide threats from those who identify as transgender — they have to take themselves hostage because they are in no medical danger.
The ugly truth hidden behind the lying promises of “gender-affirming care” is that medical transition always inflicts physical harm for no physical benefit; it damages a patient’s body, rather than healing it.
Gender-affirming care isn’t, and it must be stopped.
Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
A well-known scientist who criticized Republican efforts to investigate a potential lab leak of COVID-19 and gain-of-function (GoF) research himself took part in such research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and did not disclose it to a commission he served on. Dr. Peter Hotez, the dean of Baylor College of Medicine’s National School of Tropical Medicine, funded a scientific study authored by Dr. Shi Zhengli, also known as WIV’s “bat lady,” describing their work creating a recombinant virus from two SARS-like coronaviruses, according to U.S. Right To Know (USRTK),
The scientist was also awarded an NIH grant between 2012 and 2017 for the purpose of researching a vaccine against SARS “due to possible zoonotic reintroduction into humans, accidental release from a laboratory or deliberate spreading of the virus through bioterrorism,” USRTK reported.
Peter Hotez said a congressional investigation into gain-of-function research was a “a plan to undermine the fabric of science in America”
Hotez also serves on The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, an investigative group formed by the scientific journal seeking to find the origin of COVID-19. Jeffrey Sachs, the former chairman of the commission before resigning due to conflicts of interest compromising several members, said Hotez routinely rejected any notion that a lab leak was possible.
Stanford microbiologist and biosecurity expert David Relman told USRTK that Hotez’s work with the WIV should probably have been subject to the NIH’s GoF research funding pause, which was active between 2014 and 2017.
“Whenever I discussed the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was a laboratory release, Hotez strongly rejected that possibility, but never explained to me or to the Lancet Commission that he actually had a grant that was based on that very kind of risk,” Sachs told USRTK. “He should certainly have been clear on that.”
Paul led a Senate hearing on GoF research last week, in which an expert panel testified that the work is too dangerous to continue without increased oversight from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and that a lab leak may have caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Hotez further accused Paul of playing politics and elevating fringe beliefs.
2/3 but it’s even worse than that. The far elements of the Senate and House have already shown their cards. If they gain power because of the midterm elections, they have a plan to undermine the fabric of science in America 🇺🇸 https://t.co/qcASp2VP41
“America is a nation built on science and technology and our great research universities and institutions. If we allow the extremists to undermine us, it’s a threat to the whole nation. Remember the scientists are the real patriots, not the chuckleheads,” Hotez tweeted in part.:
Imagine a doctor refusing to treat a patient until he stops engaging in orgies that put him at risk of contracting monkeypox. Well, he would be following the science and data a lot more than those refusing service to those who don’t get the shots or wear masks, but unlike in the latter cases, that doctor would be out of a job and up to his neck in civil rights lawsuits. The time has come to even the score on discrimination and human rights.
Rayne Barton of Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, doesn’t have the luxury of avoiding the doctor. With diabetes, chronic heart problems, kidney disease, and spinal stenosis, Barton needs to constantly see doctors and get prescriptions refilled. Yet, as the Epoch Times reports, she has been banned from all Penn Medicine facilities since Feb. 17, 2022, because of mask disputes. On July 22, Hypertension and Kidney Specialists, an independent doctor’s office in Lancaster, called the police on her after she was told to leave the premises during a mask dispute. She was forced to ride in the back of a police car with her hands behind her back, despite her painful back condition.
How is this allowed to happen in America? How can a policy as inhumane, immoral, and illogical as covering one’s breathing holes be allowed to stand after being repudiated for two and a half years? How is free breathing not a basic human right, especially for those with disabilities, or at least covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination law? Companies often spend millions of dollars complying with ADA requirements for customers, yet here they can discriminate against trauma victims when it costs them nothing and when they are free to wear masks themselves if they believe they work, a proposition refuted by the very reality of the virus still spreading unrestrained in all of the most masked places in the world.
Most Americans are no longer affected by the masks because the powers at be smartly lifted the mandates for the majority of people headed into the election. But for people affected the most – those with disabilities needing to see the doctor often – it is still a devastating human rights violation. And unless we extirpate this inhumane treatment from our society, it will be reinstated on all of us intermittently.
The Epoch Times reports that Barton is incapable of placing a mask over her face because she is a victim of childhood trauma. She was attacked by a group of boys as a kid and had dirt stuffed down her mouth, which is why she can’t cover her mouth to this day without it triggering a panic attack. Even for medical interventions that have scientific rationale (and don’t have the option of others utilizing it, as does mask-wearing), we always make exceptions for those with disabilities. What has become of us as human beings that we are still engaging in this sort of behavior long after the “my mask protects you but not me” absurdity has been thoroughly debunked?
The time has come to codify medical discrimination into civil rights and ensure that nobody can ever be denied treatment on account of not getting a shot or wearing a mask. There is never a scientific or moral rationale for such a requirement, and it is clear that it is all promoted through the misinformation propagated by the federal government. Masking only became a thing because of government intervention; it therefore must be uprooted with a display of state government power.
The slate is not clean when it comes to the private sector and discrimination law, especially in something like medical treatment, which is often (especially in a hospital) designated as a public accommodation. They cannot discriminate against people even when their behaviors are proven to cause their ailments. Can hospitals turn away the recurring patients who are on their third drug overdose in as many months? Can they refuse to treat the gunshot victim who himself had been involved in multiple gang shootings? Can they deny treatment for monkeypox if the patient attended a super-spreader orgy that is almost exclusively responsible for the spread of the virus? Until they can, there is no moral or scientific rational for allowing doctors to deny organ transplants to people without shots or care for people who don’t cover their human breathing holes.
Emerging from the past two years of COVID fascism without instituting major legal and political protections against abuse of bodily autonomy would be like not addressing box cutters on planes after 9/11. Yet few Republicans care to act. They have a pre-March 2020 mindset about what we face in government, the medical cartel, and the globalist entities like the World Economic Forum and the WHO, all manipulated by China in the background. Policymakers are slyly choosing to subject only medical facilities and the military to continued regulations so as not to enrage the majority of the electorate, but make no mistake, those people are worth fighting for. Also, we will all continue to suffer from assaults on freedom if we don’t push for new civil rights concerning medical freedom. Such a plan would include:
Updating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so that employers, retailers, hospitals, schools, and others would not be able to discriminate against individuals based on refusal to wear a mask or get a shot, just like they can’t discriminate based on sex, race, or religion. We the Patriots USA has delivered a petition to do just that to all the members of Congress. Red states with supermajorities could easily do this on the state level next session.
Subject anyone who forces someone to wear a mask or get a shot to liability for damage from masks or shots.
Threaten the nonprofit status of any hospital that engages in such discrimination.
Pass a patient bill of rights.
Pass a digital health privacy bill of rights.
Remember, none of these policies organically emerged from the free market. They were all ultimately mandated or manipulated by the federal government. States must fight power with power. If we had a true free market, even a minority of doctors who don’t believe in masks would be able to advertise and place themselves on a list for people like Barton to use. But they would be targeted for loss of board certification or even state medical licenses.
It is shocking that even as the Biden administration declares a second public health emergency on top of COVID, Republicans have not even made reversal of these policies a centerpiece of their campaign platforms. Let us not forget the admonition of founder John Dickinson: “All artful rulers, who strive to extend their own power beyond its just limits, endeavor to give to their attempts, as much semblance of legality as possible. Those who succeed them may venture to go a little farther; for each new encroachment will be strengthened by a former.” COVID fascism must be destroyed – root and branch – if we are to have a shot at precluding the next wave of encroachments on our bodies.
Radical gender idealists recently announced they are unhappy with the “current standards in forensic human identification” because those policies “do a disservice to people who do not clearly fit the gender binary.” Instead of simply discovering and classifying the past using contextual clues in human remains, including sex as determined by biological features, there’s a new academic push to project the sexual climate of today on history and offer “a gender-expansive approach to human identification.”
We should have guessed that the same progressives who want to wipe the Founding Fathers’ legacy off the face of the planet would also want you to believe that skeletons from ancient times would be miffed about being “misgendered” by archaeologists and anthropologists. The left’s war on the past shows their ferocious desire to control the future. By normalizing sexual chaos in the now and using that to contextualize the past, transgenderism activists are chipping away at the foundations of humanity. To participate in their charade, you must reject biology on all counts and accept what false narrative is force-fed to you as tolerance and acceptance.
Unfortunately, Americans are buying it. They are adding “pronouns” to their email signatures and Instagram bios. They cheer when Big Tech nukes someone like Jordan Peterson from Twitter for “deadnaming” actress Ellen Page and pointing out that no amount of mutilation will change her sex into accord with her new name, Elliot Page. They collectively moan when they hear another Republican state passed legislation affirming women’s sports or launched an investigation into puberty-blocking drug manufacturers.
The left wants a monopoly on language, definitions, and history because once you control those, you have the power to set the narrative for everyone else — past, present, and future. That’s why institutions from schools to libraries to sports leagues and all the way up to the federal government are plagued with propaganda pretending it’s perfectly fine and normal for immature, underdeveloped children to make life-changing, physically altering, and often irreversible choices.
Biden Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine: We need to “empower” kids to go on puberty blockers and get sex reassignment surgery. pic.twitter.com/CRPRaFYtzK
Thanks to elevation by the corrupt press, pharmaceutical companies, and social media echo chambers, that propaganda is working. Not only has the number of self-proclaimed trans teens nearly doubled since 2017 to 300,000, but a “study found that people 13 to 25 accounted for a disproportionately large share of the transgender population” in the United States.
As The New York Times succinctly put it, “trans identification in recent years has become political dynamite, driven in part by the rise in minors seeking medical treatments.” These “medical treatments,” often touted as life-saving, include chemical castration, genital mutilation, and other irreversible procedures and prescriptions that lack approval from the Food and Drug Administration, but those dangerous risks are memory-holed by the White House and the corporate media. This spin is present throughout the whole trans movement.
Just like it is taboo to mention that there is often regret associated with sculpting bodies into something they are not, it is almost always forbidden to mention the name and life associated with a person before he or she “transitioned.”
Any mention of a “deadname” could evoke a deranged rage because, for the radical gender idealists, any mention of the past that doesn’t comport with their perception of the future must be rejected.
That’s why leftists demand we pretend Lia Thomas wasn’t just an average swimmer in the men’s division before deciding to switch over to the women’s category and destroying the competition there. That’s why Merriam-Webster has repeatedly caved to radical gender activists and updated its definitions to reflect ideology instead of science, truth, and fact.
The left doesn’t just want you to deny biological reality in the present. They want you to ignore that biology was ever valued in the past. Refuse to accept the terms and conditions of their wordplay and reject their attempts to replace fact and science with this radical new orthodoxy on sex. It’s wrong, it’s revisionist, and it’s already harming an entire generation of moldable children at a historic rate.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
The American Academy of Pediatrics called for “reproductive justice” and advocated for pediatricians helping minors get abortions without their parents’ knowledge in the July issue of its official journal Pediatrics. Like other pro-abortion advocates who exploit young and vulnerable girls to advance their agenda — as in the recent viral story of the 10-year-old Ohio rape victim — the article used the story of a 14-year-old Guatemalan immigrant girl to argue for a more “holistic approach to reproductive rights that considers factors such as race, language, and socioeconomic status on the reproductive health of women.”
According to the article, the girl experienced complications after taking the abortion drug misoprostol and went to a facility that gave her a surgical abortion and helped her with the “judicial bypass” process so she could do it without her parents’ knowledge. After the abortion, the girl received a Nexplanon implant — a type of birth control that increases the chance that any pregnancy that occurs will be ectopic and puts the female at greater risk of blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes.
The academy’s takeaway from this story, which it foisted upon its readers, was that the “pediatric community” should “advocate for reproductive policies that expand access to care for adolescent patients.” In other words, it thinks doctors should push for making it easier for kids to abort their own children. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics wants to hide this from minors’ parents and couches its concern in terms of the “deeply intertwined social, economic, and cultural barriers” of racial minorities.
“Now more than ever, training programs should ensure that pediatric residents competently provide culturally sensitive, nonjudgmental counseling around abortion care, contraception, and judicial bypass,” the article said.
Dr. George Fidone, who has a large private practice with five clinics in Texas, told The Federalist that the journal has become increasingly left-leaning. “Years ago the lead article might be on meningitis or pneumonia or a new vaccine or whatever,” he said. “Now it’s all about trans health, gender fluidity, how we’re supposed to counsel people, starting at very young ages, about the notion of gender fluidity or whatever.”
The article also said the academy “joined 38 other physician groups in opposing the passage of Texas Senate Bill 8,” which prohibits abortions after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected.
“So the American Academy of Pediatrics is advocating for the wholesale murder of unborn children,” Fidone said. “What? What has the state of our academy become?”
Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.
A Trump-appointed judge in Tennessee temporarily blocked Biden’s woke LGBTQ policy on Friday, including transgender workers and students to use gender-appropriate bathrooms, and participate in sports teams, Reuters reported.
U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley Jr. ruled in favor of the 20 state attorneys general who sued the Biden administration saying the directives infringe on states’ freedom to establish laws governing transgender. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Knoxville by Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery last August and was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. In the ruling, Judge Atchley prohibited the federal agencies from enforcing the orders issued by the Biden regime regarding the treatment of LGBTQ people.
A coalition of 20 Republican attorneys general brought a lawsuit last year against the federal government, noting that they stood to lose significant federal funding as the Biden directives were in conflict with their own state laws.
Atchley agreed with that, writing in his order that the states “cannot continue regulating pursuant to their state laws while simultaneously complying with Defendants’ guidance.”
Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor, one of the plaintiffs, said in a written statement on Saturday that Atchley’s order “is a major victory for women’s sports and for the privacy and safety of girls and women in their school bathrooms and locker rooms.”
The Justice Department, the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are named as defendants in the lawsuit. None immediately replied to requests for comment on Saturday. The three had earlier requested that Atchley dismiss the states’ lawsuit, a motion the judge denied in his Friday ruling.
Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
Using Covid as an excuse for more restrictions, the CCP and its lackeys in Hong Kong are hoping to further assimilate the city into the top-to-bottom-run system used in China.
In a bid to further cripple the freedom of their citizens, Hong Kong government officials are ramping up their response to Covid with a series of new draconian policy measures.
On Monday, the city’s Health Secretary Lo Chung-mau announced several new restrictions allegedly aimed at curbing the spread of the virus, including a mandate that requires positive Covid patients quarantined at home to “wear an electronic tracking bracelet.” Used earlier during the pandemic to keep tabs on new arrivals to the city, the revamped policy seeks to ensure that people who have tested positive for the respiratory virus do not leave their homes without government authorization.
Moreover, Lo also announced that the city will be updating its contact-tracing app, which will now include a requirement that citizens register by name when using the software. As Reuters reported, users were previously “not required to register with their personal details, and the app was used to enter venues and display vaccination records.”
Taking a page from the Chinese communist’s playbook, Hong Kong will also be implementing a traffic light color-code system, which aims to “restrict movement of infected residents and close contacts.” As Lo described, residents who test positive will receive a red code and “be barred from entering a list of premises, including ‘high-risk’ places such as hospitals and nursing homes,” while all people arriving to the city will automatically be flagged as yellow. Lo did not, however, explain what the codes “would entail specifically in terms of access to venues.”
“I’d like to say that we would make use of technology to put in place a precision strategy,” Lo said in response to concerns about the government’s invasion of privacy. “This is to reduce our cost in our fight against the epidemic and to maximize effectiveness.”
Covid is a Means to an End for the CCP
While officials such as Lo and newly sworn-in Chief Executive John Lee will cast the city’s draconian measures as an attempt to save lives, the arbitrary policies actually serve as a mechanism for the China-backed government to further suppress the liberties of the Hong Kong people. Since the enaction of a so-called national security law in June 2020 by the Chinese government in response to the citywide protests of 2019, Hong Kong authorities — with the backing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — have initiated a government crackdown on basic freedoms throughout the administrative region.
As demonstrated in mainland China, the primary interest of CCP-aligned officials has never been to preserve life, but rather to maintain the current power structure. By using Covid as an excuse for more restrictions, the CCP and its lackeys in Hong Kong are hoping to further assimilate the city into the top-to-bottom-run system used in China, while attempting to uphold the image of Hong Kong as a free system independent of influence from Beijing.
Chinese dictator Xi Jinping alluded to such desires during his July 1 speech marking the 25th anniversary of Great Britain’s handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, in which he repeatedly emphasized the need for “patriots” to maintain their rule over the city.
“Keeping political power in the hands of patriots is a political rule commonly practiced in the world. No people in any country or region in the world will ever allow political power to fall into the hands of forces or individuals who do not love, or even sell out, or betray, their own country,” Xi said. “To keep the power to administer the Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region] firmly in the hands of patriots is essential for safeguarding the long-term governance and security of Hong Kong; at no time should this principle be allowed to be compromised.”
Just as CCP officials in China used the country’s health code system to suppress citizens protesting corruption, expect Hong Kong officials to abuse their newly adopted restrictions to carry out similar actions against their people. For the CCP and their Hong Kong allies, employing disproven lockdown policies is simply a steppingstone in maintaining greater dominion over the region’s civilian population — thus putting a final nail in the coffin for a once-free city.
Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
On Thursday, The New York Times published a “Sex Ed” quiz on “key concepts every person should know in a post-Roe era.” It contained numerous pieces of false information about fertility, contraception, abortifacients, and more. Here are their answers fact-checked by an OB-GYN.
Question 1: Doctors generally start counting pregnancy from what point?
Fertilization.
Implantation.
The day a woman started her last menstrual period.
The last time a woman had intercourse.
This answer is correct.
Question 2: Can you count on a vasectomy being reversible?
Yes
No
This answer is correct.
Question 3: What’s the difference between an embryo and a fetus?
An embryo and a fetus are the same thing.
The embryonic stage is early in pregnancy — through about 10 weeks.
A fetus is created right when the egg is fertilized.
This answer is correct.
Question 4: When is sex most likely to result in pregnancy?
Shortly before or on the day of ovulation.
While a woman is on her period.
Shortly after a woman’s period ends.
This answer is correct.
Question 5: Is it still legal for a woman to get her tubes tied in America?
Yes.
No.
This answer is correct.
Question 6: What’s the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage?
Abortions involve pills or a surgical procedure; miscarriages resolve on their own.
Abortions are for unwanted pregnancies, miscarriages occur for wanted pregnancies.
Abortions are induced; miscarriages happen spontaneously.
This question has no correct answer listed.
In a miscarriage, the baby has spontaneously died. In an elective induced abortion, the baby is purposefully killed during the process of the abortion, since the purpose of every elective induced abortion is to produce a dead baby. That is the product that the abortionist is paid to produce.
A clear illustration of this fact is that, after viability, a “failed abortion” is when the baby is born alive. The separation of the mother from her fetus did not fail to occur. What “failed” is that the baby “failed” to die.
Both an elective induced abortion and a miscarriage can leave tissue left inside, which must be removed by a procedure known as a D&C (dilation and curettage). But doing a D&C for retained tissue is not an abortion.
Question 7: Can a woman have a miscarriage and not know it?
Yes.
No.
This answer is correct.
Question 8: What is the most common cause of miscarriage?
Vigorous exercise.
Stress.
Random chromosomal abnormality.
This answer is correct.
Question 9: How soon can a woman typically find out if she’s pregnant?
Immediately after she has sex.
After her period is late.
A few days after having sex.
This answer is correct.
Question 10: What does Plan B do?
Prevents ovulation.
Kills sperm.
Causes an abortion.
This question also does not have the correct answer.
The correct answer is that the mechanism of action of Plan B depends on when in a woman’s cycle she takes the Plan B. If taken during her period or shortly after, the Plan B does nothing. If taken 4 days to 2 days before egg release, the Plan B can delay egg release.
If taken one day before egg release, the Plan B can interfere with the ability of the woman’s body to make progesterone at the correct time, thus can interfere with the development of the lining of her womb and inhibit implantation.
If taken after egg release, the Plan B doesn’t appear to do anything.
Question 11: Which of these is the most effective form of birth control?
Fertility awareness/natural family planning
An IUD
The Pill
Spermicide
Withdrawal
Condoms
This question also has debatable answers, depending on which study is looked at, whether the study is reporting “perfect use” or “normal use,” how obese a woman is, when the IUD was placed, etc. The top three for efficacy are IUD, the Pill (but depends on what formulation of pill), and fertility awareness.
Spermicide alone, condoms alone, and withdrawal alone are much less effective.
Question 12: Which of these is the most effective form of male birth control?
The male birth control pill.
Condoms.
Women can control ejaculation in the body.
This question also does not have a correct answer, since the most effective form of male birth control is vasectomy.
Question 13: Does an abortion have to take place at an abortion clinic?
Yes.
No.
This answer is correct.
Question 14: What is an ectopic pregnancy?
When the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus.
When a fertilized egg is expelled from the womb and needs to be re-implanted.
Spontaneous loss of pregnancy before the 20th week.
This question itself is scientifically incorrect, as there is no such entity as a “fertilized egg.” There exist sperm and there exist eggs. Once the sperm cell membrane and the egg cell membrane fuse (fertilization), then the entity created is a one-celled embryo called a “zygote.”
That one-celled embryo becomes a two-celled embryo then a four-celled embryo, then continues dividing to become a blastocyst, which goes on to implant and grow into a fetus, a newborn, a toddler, and an adult, etc. It is one continuous existence.
An “ectopic pregnancy” is when the embryo implants anywhere other than inside the lining of the uterus.
A school board director in Washington state who also owns a sex shop in Bellingham is planning a series of workshops for children as young as 9 to discuss “sexual anatomy for pleasure” and “safer sex practices for all kinds of sexual activities.” The classes, branded under the name “Uncringe Academy” at the WinkWink Boutique, will host 9- to 12-year-olds in the first string of courses Aug. 10-11 and 13- to 17-year-olds a few days later in the second.
“The class for 9- to 12-year-olds is an introduction to topics related to relationships, puberty, bodies and sexuality,” store owner and Bellingham School Board Director Jenn Mason told Seattle radio host Jason Rantz. “We focus on how puberty works, consent and personal boundaires, defining ‘sex,’ and discussing why people may or may not choose to engage in sexual activities.”
“There’s a lot to learn when it comes to bodies, puberty, sex, gender, and relationships!” the course description reads. “That’s why WinkWink created ‘Uncringe Academy’: honest, supportive, and inclusive sex education classes to help young people of all genders and sexual identities understand this important part of their life.”
Topics discussed under an “affirming framework” will include
“the ethics and realities of sexualized media and pornography” and
“What IS sex? Kinds of solo and partnered sexual activities.”
Students who enroll under the sliding-scale fee schedule from $5 to $50 will also be taught about “the science of puberty,” “healthy relationships and relationship models,” and “gender and sexual identities.”
Mason did not respond to The Federalist’s inquiries into how the age range was selected and whether it was appropriate to present explicit material to minors.
WinkWink is advertised as a “woman-owned, all-inclusive sex shop” where “we celebrate sexual expression and exploration, banish shame, and help our customers to better love themselves and others.”
“Pleasure is our revolution,” the website reads. “We believe that normalizing, accepting, and affirming all bodies, identities, and gender experiences is an inherently political act.”
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention just signed off on Covid mRNA experimental gene modification shots for the youngest Americans. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Saturday voted unanimously in favor of the Pfizer BionNTech and Moderna bioweapons injections for children as young as 6 months old following the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of the shots on Friday. The CDC insists severe reactions to COVID vaccines are rare, yet the US government has never conducted any research to determine the extent of the injuries caused by the COVID vaccines. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System makes clear the federal agency is brazenly committed to killing us. According to VAERS, more people have died after receiving these so-called vaccines than any vaccine in history.
A new poll published on Sunday by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation indicates more than a quarter of COVID vaccine recipients were injured after receiving the experimental shot. VSRF outsourced the polling company Pollfish to survey 500 randomly selected people exclusively on the effects of the COVID vaccine. The organization’s founder and director, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Kirsch detailed the key findings from the survey on his substack on Monday.
The survey showed the following, Kirsch notes:
20% of the respondents reported they were vaccine injured
The 20% number is remarkable because there was no pre-screening question and only 77.3% of Americans received at least one dose. That means that if you were vaccinated there is a 26% chance that you were injured (computed as 20.46/77.3). Wow.
30% of the households have a vaccine injured person
45% of the extended families have a vaccine injured person
In 87% of the cases where there was a vaccine injury, there was either a doctor visit(s) or hospital stay(s) or both.
54% of the injured are still impacted today.
45% of the vaccine injured said it would shorten their lifespan
41% of the injured are unable to hold a job.
Only 17% said their injury was a minor annoyance.
The poll results indicate that “40M Americans over 18 are COVID vaccine injured, 20M seriously,” Kirsch warns. “This may explain why there are staffing shortages everywhere, from pilots to pharmacists.”
The rate of vaccine injury gathered in the survey is comparable to the number of vaccine-related injuries reported by VAERS, he contends.
“If we take the raw, unadjusted numbers of our survey, 30% of all respondents over 18 were vaccine injured. Since there are 258M people over 18 in the US, we get 77M estimated vaccine injured, eerily close to the VAERS estimate,” Kirsch notes. “So maybe VAERS isn’t such a bad estimator after all.
Over 20 scientists, doctors, and statisticians work with VSRF to research the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, including Dr. Robert Malone who has patents on mRNA technology and Dr. Peter McCullough, a renowned internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist.
In an interview published Monday, Kirsch speaks to seven nurses who detail the rate of vaccine injury among their peers.
Alicia is an investigative journalist and multimedia reporter. Alicia’s work is featured on numerous outlets including the Gateway Pundit, Project Veritas, World Net Daily, Townhall and Media Research Center, where she exposes fraud and abuse in government, media, Big Tech, and Big Pharma and public corruption. She has a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She served in the Correspondence Department of the George W. Bush administration and as a War Room analyst for the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee. Alicia is originally from New York City and currently resides in Washington D.C.
They did this under the guise of science and saving lives. We now have a generation of children who are delayed in language, social skills, and educational attainment, while overburdened with mental, emotional, and behavioral ailments. And yet it was all done for absolutely nothing – no gain, all pain. This has been appallingly obvious since schools were shut down and then children masked in 2020, but a new study from Sweden – the global control group – demonstrates the scope of this crime with unmistakable clarity.
A study by Swedish researchers published in the International Journal of Educational Research found that in this Nordic country, “word decoding and reading comprehension scores were not lower during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic.” This is simply astounding, given what we have witnessed in almost every other country. The researchers analyzed 97,000 Swedish primary school children from 248 different municipalities, 1,277 schools, and 5,250 classrooms.
Just contrast this to a McKinsey study that analyzed more than 1.6 million K-12 students in over 40 U.S. states that found that students were, on average, five months behind in mathematics and four months behind in reading. An investigation by WBFF’s Project Baltimore from the local Fox affiliate found that 62% of middle schoolers in Baltimore County had one or more failing grades by the third quarter of the 2021 school year, up a whopping from 35% from before the shutdowns. Investigators also found that 41% of Baltimore high schoolers had a grade-point average of 1.0 or below, an increase of 24% since before the school closures in March 2020. The education situation in a state like Maryland is so dire that 81 percent of all Maryland students tested last year in grades three through five were not proficient in math, and 76 percent were not proficient in English language arts.
It makes you wonder if Swedish kids might outshine American children one day in English in addition to their native language! What was the secret to their success? They simply followed science and morality and kept schools open without dystopian plexiglass and masks. There was no fearmongering, social isolation, learning impediments, or learning stoppages. And of course, there is no evidence that a single child died from COVID as a result of schools being open. All gain and no pain.
In the light of international studies on reading skills in younger students during the pandemic, we conclude that the decision to keep schools open benefitted Swedish primary school students. This decision might also have mitigated other potentially negative effects of school closures, especially for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
Never before in our history has there been such a grave policy promulgated by government that was known up front to have no benefit but induced cataclysmic damage. It’s not just the learning disorders that are plaguing a generation of kids. A 2021 paper in the Lancet found, based on data from 204 countries, a 27.4% increase in major depressive disorders globally, accounting for an additional 53 million cases. Additionally, researchers found a 25.6% increase in cases of anxiety disorders, accounting for another 76 million cases globally.
One cannot possibly quantify the long-term effects to society of driving such a ubiquitous mental and emotional health crisis. According to the CDC, a third of high school students reported poor mental health during the pandemic, and 44% said they “persistently felt sad or hopeless.”
What is going to become of those kids? Many of them will live unproductive and sad lives, but many others will die young. A paper published recently in JAMA found that the rate of drug overdose deaths doubled among adolescents during the pandemic. In 2019, the overdose fatality rate among adolescents was 2.36 per 100,000, very consistent with the previous decade. In 2020, it shot up to 4.57 per 100,000, and for the first six months of 2021, the rate increased another 20%, to 5.49 per 100,000.
Kids should never have been made to feel anxious about the virus or about the response to it because it should never have affected them. It was known early on that not a single one of Sweden’s nearly 2 million children died of COVID during the initial wave in the spring of 2020 when Sweden kept its schools open (without mask requirements) and the rest of the world shut their schools.
Rather than admitting their mistake and committing to never shutting down schools again, governments are once again foisting a policy with all pain and no gain on the youngest of children. Later this week, the FDA will likely approve Moderna’s and Pfizer’s outdated shots on babies and toddlers, for a virus that never harmed them. We have never pushed novel therapies on children, especially those who already have numerous documented problems, for something that poses such a low risk, especially when the vaccine is outdated and doesn’t work for the variants circulating today.
As of June 3, there were already 49,878 children (ages 0 to 17) reported in VAERS who have experienced an adverse event from one of the COVID jabs. 7,547 of the childrenwere hospitalized, and 125 died. Remember, this is for a virus that no longer exists in that original form and from which there was a near-zero risk to children.
Between March 2020 and December 2021, according to researchers from the U.K. Health Security Agency, even among the rare documented pediatric COVID deaths, 56% of those under age 20 “were due to unnatural causes or due to causes unrelated to COVID-19.” Even among the remaining 81 deaths in the entire country under age 20, 75% had significant co-morbidities. Yet we are giving them a novel therapy Pfizer itself admitted is associated with hundreds of adverse maladies based on de facto zero risk, just like we shut down their classes, socially isolated them, and mummified their faces for the same nonexistent risk. What will it take to suspend these immoral experiments on our children?
Next week, the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet to likely offer emergency use authorization for Moderna and Pfizer’s biological products to be injected into babies as young as six months old. No amount of evidence demonstrating negative efficacy and enormous side effects will factor into its decision. Never mind the fact that there never was an emergency for young children to begin with, and there certainly isn’t one now.
Yet the FDA will undoubtedly approve a shot that has failed and is outdated – so much so that two weeks later, it will meet about updating the formula for new variants, of course, after having injected the outdated formula into the arms of babies and toddlers. One data point that certainly will be missing from the meeting is the observation about Portugal.
According to Statista, Portugal has the highest vaccination rate of any country in Europe aside from the tiny island of Malta. Nearly every adult is vaccinated in this nation of 10.3 million, 94% of all people (including young children) have received at least 1 dose, and 70% have received boosters. In fact, the New York Times ran an article about Portugal last year, noting that “there is no one left to vaccinate” there.
Yet, Portugal now has the highest case rate and COVID death rate per capita in Europe and the second highest COVID fatality rate in the world behind Taiwan, according to Our World in Data.
Here is the case rate map of Europe:
And here is the death rate map:
At 2,293 cases per 1 million individuals, as of June 7, Portugal’s 7-day rolling average case rate is seven times greater than that of the United States and is now higher than the worst peak of cases in America. Moreover, it’s not that Portugal never had a big wave – it has already experienced a peak in the winter that was three times as great as the worst days in the U.S. So even after many people already had the virus, officials keep testing positive for the virus despite – or perhaps, because of – the near universal vaccination rate.
It is true that Portugal has a high rate of testing, but not that much higher to account for exponentially higher case rates. As of June 1, Portugal’s positivity rate was nearly four times that of the U.S.
Then there are the COVID deaths. At 4.1 deaths per million, Portugal is now far outpacing all the other European countries with high case rates by over 60%. Its current death rate is more than four times that of the U.S. This simply should not be happening now that everyone is vaccinated and everyone who is vulnerable is boosted if the shots are anywhere near as effective as we are told.
The Portugal News reported that between May 24 and May 30, the southern European nation “recorded 175,766 infections, 220 deaths associated with COVID-19, and an increase in hospitalizations and intensive care.” Health Minister Marta Temido said last week that “Portugal is probably the European country with the highest prevalence of this sub-lineage and this partly explains the high number (of cases) we are seeing.”
But that really doesn’t explain it. Why would Portugal have a much worse problem with these variants than the country in which they were first detected — namely South Africa? Is this not a fulfillment of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s warning that the sub-optimal evolutionary pressure of these shots, originally designed for the Wuhan strain, would work against the body for future variants?
Let’s a take a look at South Africa’s BA.4/BA.5 wave from late May as compared to Portugal’s? Can you even detect it?
South Africa’s recent peak, which is now over with, was one-twentieth the size of Portugal’s – and this is after Portugal already had exponentially more cases from the previous wave. However, even as it relates to death rates, the afflicted country is outpacing South Africa.
Keep in mind that Portugal is still experiencing higher death rates even after having already incurred a lot of deaths from the original pool of vulnerable people during the first winter. It simply makes no sense for Portugal to be experiencing this many deaths with Omicron, which does not replicate well in the lungs. Remember, while Portugal has run out of people to vaccinate, according to the New York Times, less than a third of South Africans are vaccinated with very few having had boosters. Also, South Africa’s life expectancy is 18 years lower, and 20% of the population has AIDS.
For how much longer is the FDA going to be allowed to ignore a year’s worth of signals not just indicating cataclysmic safety concerns but negative efficacy – and downright perpetuation – of the virus? Just look at this week’s Walgreens COVID-19 testing index, and you can once again see that higher positivity rates are associated with those with more shots, especially as time goes on.
The mendacity of obfuscating the truth about these shots has gotten so ludicrous that the media and medical associations are now chalking up the rash of sudden cardiac deaths among young people as an unexplained “sudden adult death syndrome.” And now they want to inject these products into the final group of unvarnished children. What does that say about who we are as a people if we let it happen?
In the New York Times article from October crowing about “no one left to vaccinate” in Portugal, Laura Sanches, a Portuguese clinical psychologist, is quoted as bemoaning the fact that Portugal doesn’t “really have a culture of questioning authorities.” Well, here in America, we once did have such a culture. Reagan once said that “freedom is the right to question, and change the established way of doing things,” an understanding “that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions … to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people.” Will we finally exercise that freedom?
As the Supreme Court considers a case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, the abortion rights lobby has focused on the mantra of “my body, my choice.” But a gruesome series of cases from Florida demonstrates what some abortionists do to women’s bodies — and why the pro-life movement seeks to protect both women and their unborn children in equal measure.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the leftist media has thus far failed to report about a Pensacola, Florida abortion facility state authorities recently shut down for numerous safety violations. But the American people need to know about the horrors one “doctor” inflicted on numerous women who trusted him to terminate their pregnancies. In one incident this March, a woman started bleeding during her abortion, necessitating a transfer to a local hospital. When emergency technicians arrived at the facility, they found “pools of blood on the floor” — and a patient with extremely low blood pressure and no pulse detected at her wrist. At the hospital, surgeons discovered “a big hole on the left wall of the uterus and another on the right side,” along with cuts to her cervix. The woman in question ultimately required an emergency hysterectomy and 10 pints of blood. That’s roughly as much as in an average person’s body.
Just a few short weeks ago, another patient at the same facility also received lacerations to her cervix and uterus during an attempted abortion. When this patient also required hospitalization, the abortionist’s staff told the patient’s spouse to drive her to a facility in Mobile, Alabama — an hour away, and across state lines — rather than the nearby hospital in Pensacola. Staff at the Mobile facility reported that, when the woman arrived, she had no blood pressure and a dangerously low blood oxygen reading of 80 percent.
The problems with the Pensacola abortion facility didn’t end there. In both the March and May cases, staff didn’t properly document patients’ vital signs and did not communicate with the hospitals about the patients. In the May instance, they left a patient waiting in her car after she was administered drugs before her abortion. In these two cases, and in an August 2021 case where a patient receiving an abortion had to have parts of her colon removed, the abortion facility failed to report these hospitalizations within 10 days, as required by state guidelines.
Abortionists’ ‘War on Women’
It’s truly ironic that the left attacks the pro-life movement for a supposed “war on women,” when this Pensacola facility has been inflicting harm on females, who have the literal and figurative scars to prove it. Only time will tell if other brave women will come forward to tell about physical or psychological harm they suffered at the hands of these Florida abortionists.
The pro-abortion movement has liked to portray Kermit Gosnell — the Philadelphia abortionist ultimately convicted of murder and dozens of other felonies — as an aberration. But the phrase “house of horrors” accurately describes the treatment the Pensacola victims faced, just as it did to the babies Gosnell murdered.
The discovery of the Pensacola facility comes as pro-abortion lawmakers and activists are looking to expand the abortion industry in friendly states. These pro-abortion states seek to accommodate women from states that may restrict or prohibit the procedure if the Supreme Court overturns Roe. But the Pensacola facility shows the dangers of an approach that allows less qualified individuals to perform abortions without the proper training and supervision.
As a mother, my heart aches for all the women so grievously injured by this horrific abortion facility, as well as the lives of their unborn children — precious creatures snuffed out far too soon. I hope and pray for their physical and emotional healing — and that our nation can build a culture of life that values and respects all individuals, including the vulnerable and unborn.
Mary Vought is the founder of Vought Strategies and an Independent Women’s Forum Fellow. You can follow her on Twitter @MaryVought.
It’s truly hard to overstate the damage done to a generation of children by the two-year masking regime. From language and developmental inhibition to social and behavioral anxiety, these Chinese cloths have created a generation of bumbling fools. So, was it worth it?
In a preprint published in the Lancet, Ambarish Chandra of the University of Toronto and Tracy Beth Høeg of the University of California at Davis replicated a CDC study comparing counties with school mandates to those without mandates. However, rather than using the CDC’s artificial and arbitrary number of counties and duration of study, they extended the study using a larger sample of districts and a longer time interval, employing almost six times as much data as the original study. Using this updated method to measure the relationship between mask mandates and per-capita pediatric cases, they found “no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates.”
The study observed over 1,800 counties from July through October 2021, which is presumed to be the largest observational sample ever conducted on the mask issue.
In fact, for most weeks, there was a non-statistically significant higher case rate among the masked counties. What this demonstrates is that with all of the CDC’s observational studies, arbitrary endpoints were clearly manipulated to show results they knew did not reflect reality.
Similarly, a study of fatality rates in 35 European countries during the 2020-2021 winter peak found no positive relationship between reduced mortality rates and mask compliance. If anything, there was a reverse correlation. “While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e., during the strong 2020-2021 autumn-winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission,” concluded the author in an April study published in Cureus. “Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”
Several months ago, an observational study published in Medicineby German doctor Zacharias Fögen compared the overall case fatality rate in 81 counties in Kansas without mask mandates compared to the 24 with mandates. He actually found a statistically significant higher fatality rate in the mask counties. “Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.”
Dr. Fogen posits as a potential reason for negative efficacy that the mask-wearing can make the virions smaller and cause them to penetrate deeper into the alveoli, where they can cause pneumonia instead of bronchitis. “A rationale for the increased RR (risk ratio) by mandating masks is probably that virions that enter or those coughed out in droplets are retained in the facemask tissue, and after quick evaporation of the droplets,hypercondensed droplets or pure virions (virions not inside a droplet) are re-inhaled from a very short distance during inspiration.”
While negative efficacy is still a hypothesis, there have been documented negative side effects to mask-wearing. A preprint Italian study from earlier in May found that short-term surgical mask usage was associated with an increased inhaled CO2 level greater than 5000ppm in 90% of 10- to 18-year-olds in the sample. “Shortly after wearing surgical masks, the inhaled air CO2 approached the highest acceptable exposure threshold recommended for workers, while concerningly high concentrations were recorded in virtually all individuals when wearing FFP2 masks,” concluded the authors. “The CO2 concentration was significantly higher among minors and the subjects with high respiratory rate.”
Yet here we are, over two years into this saga, and schools are still masking children, while some that stopped are bringing back this barbaric practice. To this day, people with severe mental and physical disabilities are being forced to wear masks when seeking medical attention at health care facilities. Trauma survivors who suffer panic attacks from having their faces covered are forced to choose between panic attacks and loss of medical care.
But children will, by far, be the most harmed by this policy. The language development impediment that will result from the past two years of inhumane mask mandates is incalculable. The head of the U.K.’s Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills found that children suffer from “limited vocabulary,” while some babies “struggled to respond to basic facial expressions,” partly due to interacting with people wearing face masks.
Talk about a cost-benefit analysis!
To this day, only a few states have banned mask mandates from coming back. The New Hampshire governor recently vetoed a bill from the state legislature banning local school boards from implementing such immoral policies upon children. What we really need is a ballot initiative in every state to spell out in the state’s constitution that a person has a fundamental right to refuse to wear a medical device and cannot be discriminated against in the realm of public accommodations for exercising that right. Moreover, there should be criminal penalties for any adult who forcibly masks a child. If we plan to wait for “the science” to catch up to reality and morality, we will be waiting a long time. It might be obvious to us that masking is cruel and ineffective, but not to the megalomaniacs in power. That power needs to be stripped permanently.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt. | Facebook/ Governor Kevin Stitt
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a new law Wednesday that bans most abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, with the measure being enforced via litigation brought by private citizens. Stitt signed House Bill 4327, which was modeled off of a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy but uses private civil actions to enforce the legislation. While Stitt had previously signed a six-week abortion ban, this new law bars abortions through the entire length of a pregnancy, making it one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States. Exceptions include rape, incest and life-threatening medical emergency for the mother.
In a statement, Stitt said he promised to “sign every piece of pro-life legislation” that came across his desk.
“l and I am proud to keep that promise today,” he declared.
“From the moment life begins at conception is when we have a responsibility as human beings to do everything we can to protect that baby’s life and the life of the mother,” Stitt said.
“That is what I believe and that is what the majority of Oklahomans believe. If other states want to pass different laws, that is their right, but in Oklahoma, we will always stand up for life.”
The law allows for private individuals to sue abortion providers and anyone who “aids or abets” a woman seeking an abortion.
The Center for Reproductive Rights said in a statement that Oklahoma is the first state to enact a “citizen-enforced total ban on abortion.” A coalition of abortion providers and a “reproductive justice” organizations will imminently file a lawsuit hoping to block the law in court.
“Banning abortion after six weeks was not extreme enough for Oklahoma lawmakers,” Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup said in a statement. “The goal of the anti-abortion movement is to ensure no one can access abortion at any point for any reason.”
The Oklahoma bill was denounced by the White House last week when it passed the state legislature. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called abortion a “fundamental right” and labeled HB 4327 “the most extreme effort to undo these fundamental rights we have seen to date.”
“In addition, it adopts Texas’ absurd plan to allow private citizens to sue their neighbors for providing reproductive health care and helping women to exercise their constitutional rights,” she continued.
“This is part of a growing effort by ultra MAGA officials across the country to roll back the freedoms we should not take for granted in this country.”
Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case of Dobbs v. Jackson, which centers on a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks into a pregnancy. If the high court upholds Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, it could overturn or weaken the landmark 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade, which prohibited laws restricting abortion before the unborn child attains viability.
Earlier this month, Politico published a leaked draft opinion in the Dobbs case, which indicated that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe and allow states to decide their abortion laws. Although Politico acknowledged that the draft opinion was not final and did not necessarily mean Roe would be overturned, the report nevertheless sparked numerous protests and several acts of vandalism against churches and pro-life pregnancy resource centers. A ruling is expected by the end of June. If Roe is overturned, 21 states would either ban or severely restrict abortion, 16 states will continue to allow abortion throughout most or all of pregnancy. Existing abortion restrictions would remain in effect in 10 states.
Virologica Sinica is an international journal which aims at presenting the cutting-edge research on viruses all over the world. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original research articles, reviews, and letters to the editor, to encompass the latest developments in all branches of virology, In February 2022, Virologica Sinica published a recent gain of function research project performed by scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in August 2021 while the COVID-19 pandemic was still raging around the world.
The study was published in February 2022.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology assembled a monkeypox virus genome, allowing the virus to be identified through PCR tests, using a method researchers flagged for potentially creating a “contagious pathogen,” The National Pulse can reveal.
Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
Although most Americans oppose allowing surgeons to perform sex-change operations on children and teenagers suffering from gender dysphoria and teaching young children about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, many are afraid to speak about such hot-button issues due to fear of retribution.
Summit Ministries, in conjunction with McLaughlin & Associates, conducted a poll of 1,000 general election voters between April 22-26 and asked respondents for their views on LGBT issues, specifically the debate about body mutilation surgeries for minors and teaching matters related to sexual orientation and gender identity to young children. One question asked participants to share their “personal opinions about transgenderism,” specifically whether they
“believe it is a healthy human condition that should be celebrated” or
“do not believe it is a healthy human condition.”
Those who selected the latter option had the opportunity to clarify whether they “stay silent on the issue to not offend others” or are “willing to say so.”
A majority of respondents (56%) indicated that they do not believe transgenderism is a “healthy human condition.” Twenty-seven percent hold that view and are willing to share it in public, while 29% elect to remain silent about their true beliefs on the issue. Thirty-two percent of Americans characterized transgenderism as a “healthy condition.”
The differing responses to that question reflect the partisan divide among demographic subgroups, with majorities of liberals (61%), those who approve of President Joe Biden’s job performance (52%), Democrats (51%) and those who plan on voting for Democrats in the upcoming congressional elections (51%) viewing transgenderism as healthy, and pluralities or majorities of all other subgroups seeing it as “not healthy.”
An overwhelming majority of those surveyed (78%) told pollsters that minors suffering from gender confusion should “be required to wait until they are legal adults” before undergoing life-altering surgeries, such as removing breast tissue and genital mutilation, including removing one’s testicles (an orchidectomy) or severing the penis to create a cavity (a vaginoplasty).
By contrast, 9% said gender-confused children “should be encouraged to undergo permanent gender alteration.” Majorities of all subgroups agreed that children should have to wait until adulthood before they undergo elective, life-changing elective operations.
Requiring “medical professionals performing gender-altering procedures” to “disclose the common, long-term medical and psychological impact of such procedures” received an even higher level of support among all demographic groups. Eighty-one percent of respondents supported requiring the disclosure of side effects associated with body mutilation surgeries, while 9% opposed the idea.
The questions about body mutilation surgeries for minors come as some states, including Arizona and Arkansas, have banned the procedures for children due to concerns about their longterm effects.
As Florida continues to face pushback from LGBT activists for enacting a law prohibiting school officials from engaging in discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity with students in kindergarten through third grade, the poll demonstrated opposition to such discussions among the American public.
When asked to weigh in on “schools teaching about sexual identity and sexual behavior with elementary-age children,” 38% of respondents described such instruction as “inappropriate in a school setting,” while an additional 28% said it was “dangerous because it could lead to children being groomed for sexual encounters at a young age.” Slightly more than one-fourth (26%) of participants thought such material was “appropriate in a school setting.”
Liberals are the most likely demographic subgroup to view the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity at school as “appropriate” (54%), followed by those who approve of President Joe Biden’s job performance (47%), those planning on voting Democrat in the upcoming congressional elections (46%), Democrats (44%), those who supported Biden in the 2020 presidential election (43%), those residing in urban areas (32%) and African Americans (30%).
Besides rural Americans, pluralities of all other subgroups believe that such instruction is “inappropriate.” A plurality of those living in rural areas (40%) think teaching children about sexual orientation and gender identity is “dangerous.”
Another question asked whether it was “possible to distinguish between men and women.”
An overwhelming majority of those surveyed (89%) answered in the affirmative, while 7% said “no.” A narrower majority of respondents (53%) disagreed with the idea that “a person’s biological sex and their gender are two separate things.” Thirty-six percent of the sample agreed with the proposition that an individual’s biological sex is different from their gender.
Majorities of liberals (62%) planning on voting for Democrats in the upcoming election, those who voted for Biden in the 2020 presidential election (53%), Democrats (52%), and those who approve of Biden’s performance as president (52%), view biological sex and gender identity as distinct, while majorities of all other subgroups do not.
A separate poll conducted by the American Principles Project of voters in battleground states from May 2-6 yielded similar findings. The poll surveyed 1,200 likely voters in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states that have competitive U.S. Senate races this year. The survey found that 56% of respondents residing in battleground states supported laws banning minors from obtaining puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and medicalized gender transition surgeries, while 31% opposed them.
The American Principles Project poll also revealed that 60% of Americans living in battleground states supported laws banning school officials from discussing sexual orientation and gender identity with students in kindergarten through third grade, while 34% opposed such laws.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services building is shown on August 16, 2006, in Washington, D.C. The HHS building, also known as the Hubert H. Humphrey building, is located at the foot of Capitol Hill and is named for Humphrey, who served as a U.S. senator from Minnesota and vice president of the United States. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images
A federal court has placed a temporary block on the enforcement of a Biden administration mandate requiring an alliance of Christian employers to pay for or provide health plans that cover gender transition surgeries. Judge Daniel Traynor of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued an order Monday granting the Christian Employers Alliance, an organization that provides support to Christian businesses and nonprofits, a preliminary injunction on grounds the mandate would “irreparably harm” the Christian group.
Last October, the CEA filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Health & Human Services, seeking to block the enforcement of the mandate that requires coverage of trans-affirming counseling and medical services that violate the beliefs of its members. At issue were two mandates from the EEOC and HHS interpreting Title VII civil rights discrimination protections based on “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The Alliance must either violate its sincerely held beliefs or face monetary losses, fines, and even civil liabilities. The Plaintiffs and their members face a very real irreparable harm if they are either forced to comply or if they refuse to comply,” wrote Traynor, a Trump appointee.
“The Alliance has already shown it faces an injury. Absent a preliminary injunction, the Alliance and its members will be forced to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs or incur severe monetary penalties.”
The CEA is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has successfully argued religious liberty cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. ADF Legal Counsel Jacob Reed said in a statement that he believes the “court was on firm ground to halt enforcement of these unlawful mandates that disrespect people of faith.”
“All employers and healthcare providers, including those in the Christian Employers Alliance, have the constitutional right to conduct their business and render treatment in a manner consistent with their deeply held religious beliefs,” Reed said.
“The employers we represent believe that God purposefully created humans as either male or female, and so it would violate their religious beliefs to pay for or perform life-altering medical procedures or surgeries that seek to change one’s biological sex.”
The Obama administration instituted the mandate in 2016 and the Trump administration repealed the mandate in 2018. The Biden administration reinstituted the policy in 2021 and justified the rule by citing the 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County. In the employment case, the high court ruled that Title VII applied to sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The Supreme Court in Bostock recognized that to discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation or transgender status is to discriminate against that individual based on sex,”stated the EEOC last year.
“Therefore, the Supreme Court held that Title VII makes it unlawful for a covered employer to take an employee’s sexual orientation or transgender status into account in making employment-related decisions.”
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor granted an injunction against the HHS mandate on behalf of the Franciscan Alliance last August, concluding that the HHS’ mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“When the RFRA violation is clear and the threat of irreparable harm is present, a permanent injunction exempting Christian Plaintiffs from that religion-burdening conduct is the appropriate relief,” ruled O’Connor.
President Joe Biden’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may have directly contributed to the ongoing nationwide baby formula shortage without proving any babies died from baby formula.
The FDA announced Feb. 17 that a major Abbott Nutrition plant in Michigan, responsible for producing massive quantities of baby formula, was under investigation for links to bacterial outbreaks, including salmonella. The agency helped Abbott initiate a recall of its baby formula. Yet neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nor the FDA have been able to prove that any babies got sick from Abbott’s formula, according to The Wall Street Journal.
There were two types of infections initially reported to the FDA, and linked back to the Abbott facility: Cronobacter sakazakii and salmonella. FDA inspectors found bacteria at the Abbott plant, but the company has strongly denied that it’s actually responsible for the reported infections, according to the outlet.
The company claims the evidence is on their side. The places at the facility where FDA inspectors found bacteria were not in contact with formula products, and genetic tests performed by the CDC determined that the cronobacter strains in the facility did not match those which caused the infections, according to The WSJ, citing Abbott. That hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from blaming Abbott for the shortage. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the cause of the shortage was not anything to do with the Biden administration, but was caused by Abbott making “unsafe” baby formula. (RELATED: Lawmaker Says Migrants Are Getting ‘Pallets’ Of Baby Formula Amid Nationwide Shortage)
“The issue here is that a manufacturer was taken offline because they did not produce a safe baby formula,” Psaki said Thursday. “I think it’s also important to note that the reason we’re here is because the FDA took a step to ensure that babies were taking safe formula. There were babies who died from taking this formula, so they were doing their jobs.”
Abbott said it will begin ramping production back up next week, if approved by the FDA, the WSJ reported. But it will take weeks for the facility to get fully back online, the company said, meaning the shortage intensified by supply chain woes and inflation could continue.
Typically, a lack of efficacy and a cataclysmic level of hundreds of different side effects would be reason to take a therapeutic off the market. But in the post-Nuremberg Code era we find ourselves in, such outcomes serve as a resume enhancer for the product. The FDA is planning a blitz of increased approvals of the shots on the youngest of Americans, yet not a single national Republican has stood up and said “No.” Only one governor, Ron DeSantis, has recommended against their use in children. Which will be the first state to block implementation of the FDA’s new therapeutic jihad on behalf of Big Pharma?
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has an ambitious schedule for this coming June. Here are its upcoming meetings.
June 7: Approval of Novavax first time for those over 18.
June 8: Approval of Moderna in teenagers.
June 21: Approval of Moderna in kids under 6.
June 22: Approval of Pfizer in kids under 5.
June 28: Exploring new shots for new variants.
Isn’t it interesting how they are meeting about the need for new shots for the current variants after already likely approving old shots on babies who don’t need the shots and for a variant that hasn’t existed for over a year?
Here we have many European countries banning the Moderna shot on those under 30 because of myocarditis, yet our government will likely expand its use to babies at a whopping dose of 25 micrograms! We now have over 1.2 million adverse events reported to VAERS, and CDC researchers admitted in a JAMA paper that the myocarditis numbers – just shy of 40,000 – are “likely” underreported. Also, we now know that Pfizer and the FDA knew about 1,223 deaths shortly after release. As for Moderna, we don’t have a single court-released document from the company yet, so who knows what they are hiding?
It would be one thing to approve something that worked amazingly for COVID despite terrible side effects. But the shot is a complete bust.
The expectation of negative efficacy from these shots has become so widely accepted that now the only question is who is the next famous politician or celebrity to get COVID multiple times after having gotten three or four shots. Take a look at this chart from the Walgreens COVID-19 index of all its testing this past week broken down by vaccination status:
Have you ever seen a vaccine of which the more doses you get, the more likely you are to test positive? Notice how the unvaccinated account for a lesser share of cases than either their share of the population or of Walgreens-administered COVID tests. The results are based on 81,818 tests administered nationwide in Walgreens stores from May 2 through May 8.
So now they want to take vaccines with such counterproductive outcomes and foist them upon children? Remember, the FDA has already demanded the manufacturers produce a study on subclinical myocarditis. In its Pharmacovigilance Plan Review Addendum for Comirnaty, the agency cited one study at the time of Pfizer’s approval noting that subclinical myocarditis might be 60 times as prevalent as clinical myocarditis. That would bring down the 1 in 1,000 rate among young males to as low as 1 in 17 for subclinical ticking time bombs!
Let’s not forget that in all the children’s trials, there were zero deaths and hospitalizations in the placebo groups. So, what exactly were we trying to protect against – even before we knew the shots weren’t effective and possibly negatively effective? Cold or flu-like symptoms? Well, here is the data of side effects from Moderna’s 5-11 trial:
“The most frequently reported adverse reactions were pain at the injection site (92%), fatigue (70%), headache (64.7%), myalgia (61.5%), arthralgia (46.4%), chills (45.4%), nausea/vomiting (23%), axillary swelling/tenderness (19.8%), fever (15.5%), injection site swelling (14.7%) and redness (10%).”
So even before we get to more serious side effects like heart inflammation, we have a massive percentage of children getting flu-like symptoms from the shots, which is what they would get anyway from the virus. How can this pass the threshold of any principle laid out in the Nuremberg Code or the Helsinki Declaration?
It’s gotten so bad that Pfizer and Moderna can no longer rely upon dubious trials showing a 90% reduction in COVID. Especially for young children, even for mild infection, they couldn’t even manipulate any data showing any degree of efficacy, so they had to rely on an arbitrary measure of antibody titers rather than clinical outcomes. In shocking statement before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, conceded they would approve the shots on young children even if the manufacturer’s own dubious data shows less than 50% efficacy (and even that is only for minor illness).
“If these vaccines seem to be mirroring efficacy in adults and just seem to be less effective against Omicron like they are for adults, we will probably still authorize” because they nonetheless reduce the risk of severe disease in the mildest COVID variant, Marks revealed during the May 9 briefing.
Just keep in mind that, according to the CDC, 74.2% of kids 0-11 already got natural immunity from prior infection. So not only will they fail to test kids for antibodies before injecting them, but even the remaining quarter who might be COVID-naive, they are trading risk of death and severe side effects (and pervasive mild side effects) for a possible tiny degree of very short-term efficacy against sniffles, but a long-term negative efficacy against those sniffles. A preprint study by the NY State Department of Health in February showed that the Pfizer shot was just 12% effective against the first Omicron variant for 5- to 11-year-olds, but drops to -41% after just 42 days!
How can any of these shots be administered until we understand why so many data points seem to show intensifying negative efficacy with time? It’s like investing in a stock that first goes up for a few weeks, but then you erase all the gains within a few days and then gradually lose all your principal investment. Every Republican claims to be pro-life, but distributing these shots to young children is not pro-life, even if they are not quite mandated. Would they sit idly by if the federal government distributed abortifacients throughout their states?
The pro-life group Wisconsin Family Action had its headquarters attacked with two Molotov cocktails and graffiti following the leaking of a draft opinion of a United States Supreme Court case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide. | Screenshot: Twitter/AlexanderShur
Authorities are investigating after groups of pro-abortion advocacy organizations identifying themselves as “Jane’s Revenge” claimed credit for vandalizing the headquarters of a pro-life advocacy group in Wisconsin, vowing to carry out future attacks if their pro-life counterparts do not “disband.”
Robert Evans, a reporter with the Netherlands-based news operation Bellingcat, took to Twitter Tuesday to share the contents of a message he received from Jane’s Revenge, which purportedly claimed responsibility for the vandalism at Wisconsin Family Action’s headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin, on Sunday.
The exterior of the pro-life organization’s headquarters was vandalized with graffiti, a molotov cocktail was thrown through a window and an office at the facility was set on fire.
Earlier this week the office of a Wisconsin anti abortion organization was firebombed.
I have received a statement from the group claiming responsibility. They call themselves “Jane’s Revenge” (a reference to the Jane Collective).
The incident at Wisconsin Family Action is one of several examples of violence directed at pro-life groups and churches following Politico’s publication of a draft U.S. Supreme Court opinion that suggests the court could reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
Jane’s Revenge, which described itself as “not one group, but many,” attributed the act of vandalism to outrage over the leaked Supreme Court opinion. The Christian Post has not independently verified the validity of the statement shared by Evans. Evans said the statement was sent to him through an anonymous intermediary that he trusts. The statement is titled “first communique.”
The Madison Police Department told NBC15 that it is aware that a group claimed responsibility for the attack on the Wisconsin Family Action office and is working with federal law enforcement to determine the claim’s validity. A spokesperson for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told The Guardian that the agency is aware of the claims of responsibility but couldn’t offer further comment.
The message began with an insistence that “[t]his is not a declaration of war” as “war has been upon us for decades,” which “they did not want and did not provoke.” The group stated that “we been attacked for asking for basic medical care.”
“[T]oo long have we been shot, bombed, and forced into childbirth without consent,” the message stated.
The reported Jane’s Revenge communication said the vandalism at Wisconsin Family Action “was only a warning.”
“We demand the disbanding of anti-choice establishments, fake clinics, and violent anti-choice groups within the next thirty days,” the group added. “This is not a mere ‘difference of opinion’ as some have framed it. We are literally fighting for our lives. We will not sit still while we are killed and forced into servitude.”
The message proclaimed: “We have run thin on patience and mercy for those who seek to strip us of what little autonomy we have left” before accusing the pro-life movement of instigating violence in the forms of “bomb[ing] clinics and assassinat[ing] doctors with impunity.”
The most notable example of violence against abortion doctors is the assassination of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009. Still, for the most part, violence against abortion clinics and doctors has been rare.
“Medical imperialism will not face a passive enemy,” the statement reads. “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings. And we will not stop, we will not back down, nor will we hesitate to strike until the inalienable right to manage our own health is returned to us.”
Evans said the group told him that “we are in your city” and “we are in every city,” promising that “next time the infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive.”
Wisconsin Family Action had initially attributed the vandalism at its headquarters in Madison to “Anarchy 1312,” noting that a logo featuring the phrase was painted on one of its exterior walls.
Last year, before the Supreme Court announced its intention to hear the challenge surrounding Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence included “ideological agendas in support of pro-life or pro-choice beliefs” on a list of domestic violent extremists that “pose an elevated threat to the homeland in 2021.”
The document referred to them as “abortion-related domestic violent extremists.” Examples of pro-abortion violence include the 2009 murder of pro-life activist Jim Pouillon and the 2016 arson at a pro-life pregnancy center in New Mexico.
More than a year after the DNI included “abortion-related domestic violent extremists” on a list of national security threats, abortion has emerged as a flashpoint in American politics following the publication of the draft opinion in the New Mexico case, which is not final.
The attack on the Wisconsin Family Action office is not the only incident of vandalism targeting pro-lifers since the Dobbs draft was leaked last week. Other examples of such violence include the targeting of Catholic churches in Colorado and Texas with graffiti containing pro-abortion messages, the theft of the tabernacle at another and an arson attack at Oregon Right to Life’s headquarters.
A series of dueling protests are scheduled to take place this weekend, with Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Women’s March collaborating to hold“Bans off our Bodies” events in Washington, D.C. and several other cities Saturday. At the same time, Students for Life of America plans to hold counterprotests in Washington and eight other cities.
Long the nation’s chief abortion provider, Planned Parenthood has branched out. Its latest endeavor? Sterilizing America’s youth. Planned Parenthood has quietly been in the gender transition business since at least 2017. Today, more than a third of its offices — 239 clinics in more than 40 states — provide transgender services. And it’s not stopping there.
While those seeking puberty blockers or surgical procedures are referred elsewhere, Planned Parenthood is offering access to cross-sex hormones, promoting gender ideology in sex ed programs, and establishing “well-being centers” in local high schools. The organization is looking to cash in on gender transition for years to come.
Easy Access
Just how readily does Planned Parenthood provide the gender-confused with cross-sex hormones? Consider the case of detransitioner Helena Kirschner. She received testosterone during her first visit — without blood work or a mental health referral.
Sadly, Kirschner is not the exception. Offices guarantee that patients can receive hormones without an evaluation of their mental health. They also promise that, in most cases, patients can expect same-day prescriptions.
Already thousands of kids are getting hormones like candy. Three California regional offices of Planned Parenthood recorded almost 4,000 gender-related visits from July 2019 to June 2021. In one California region, more than 750 cycles of hormones were prescribed in a year. These numbers are not representative for California; other Planned Parenthood offices in the state don’t even bother reporting these services.
Planned Parenthood offices state they only offer hormones to minors aged 16 or older with parental consent, but that is not the whole truth. In California, minors may receive “sensitive care,” like transition services, without parental permission. Given Planned Parenthood’s past deception, there’s no reason to think the organization won’t bend its own rules for profit.
And that’s just California. Thirty-three states plus D.C. have laws that, to some degree, allow minors to obtain routine health care without parental consent. In states where “gender affirming care” is deemed “medically necessary,” minors may be able to transition without parents knowing. And hormones may just be one Planned Parenthood appointment away.
All of this is deeply troubling. Despite Planned Parenthood’s deceptive marketing, transition is not proven to be the best medical practice. We know that 88 to 98 percent of gender dysphoric kids will reconcile with their biological sex if allowed to go through puberty “untreated.” Moreover, those who do transition are estimated to be 19 times more likely to commit suicide than their peers.
Comprehensive Sex-Ed
Even before Planned Parenthood helps minors transition, it teaches them to desire it. Across the country, schools hire Planned Parenthood or its affiliates to lead sex ed. And its reach is not insignificant. Nationally, 1.2 million students receive Planned Parenthood’s affiliate sex ed programming each year, according to the organization’s last annual report.
While curriculum requirements vary by state, these programs promote everything from abortion and the morning-after pill to gender fluidity and transition. By indoctrinating youth, the abortion giant creates the demand it needs to profit from gender services.
Well-Being Centers
But creating demand does not stop with sex ed. Planned Parenthood wants to cement a permanent school-to-clinic pipeline. In 2019, the abortion giant announced it would open 50 “wellbeing centers” in Los Angeles high schools. These centers will offer “health and wellness education services, sexual health services,” and more. Innocuous as these services appear, they exist to market Planned Parenthood’s services. Handpicked staff will provide transition support and chemical abortion.
Ultimately, Planned Parenthood’s rapid expansion of services should raise alarm. Planned Parenthood is no longer a danger just to the pregnant and the unborn, but to every teen as well.
Legislation Needed
Thankfully, state and federal policymakers can help protect minors from falling prey to these “services.” By enacting bills like Arkansas’ SAFE Act, states could stop Planned Parenthood and others’ efforts to mislead minors. Instead of passing bills that undermine parental rights (as California has done), states should work to ensure parental rights are upheld and respected.
In Congress, members must remain vigilant against the Equality Act, which would make the school-to-surgery pipeline a permanent fixture of American society. Lawmakers should also consider Hyde-like riders to ensure the Biden administration can’t redirect federal dollars to help Planned Parenthood sterilize our kids.
Elected officials who haven’t been bought out by woke corporations can learn from the far-left’s tone deafness. Policies that protect kids and empower parents are popular with voters, especially parents. By championing parents and children, legislators can stop bad actors like Planned Parenthood from preying on the vulnerable.
Jared Eckert is a research assistant in The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family. Emma Sofia Mull is a graduate of the think tank’s Young Leaders Program.
Leftists do not like legislative bodies and believe they should wield the least power precisely for the very reason Madison said: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Legislators are elected by the people, constantly stand for re-election (most state legislators are in cycle every two years), all the proceedings are publicized, there are several layers of public votes, and the process in every state (except Nebraska) is bicameral. This is why leftists instead love the courts and bureaucracies, because they can achieve their goals without the disinfecting power of public scrutiny and without the deterrent of public reprisal.
Anyone who supports democratic values should embrace the opportunity to steer contentious issues away from the courts and toward legislative bodies. Obviously, state legislatures are the best suited to deal with contentious issues – not only because they are the closest to the people but also because there are 50 states. We have a divided country and can easily sort out our divisions through a degree of political and even physical self-separating. The reality is that not a single Democrat-controlled state will vote to curtail abortions, because the Supreme Court did nothing but reverse the judicial interference in the issue to ensure that legislatures are free to deal with it.
In light of the fallout from the impending reversal of Roe, there is an uncanny and somewhat perverse political dichotomy unfolding between the two parties. Republicans seem to be defending the “independence” of the court and exalting it to this supreme status above the other branches. Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to delegitimize judicial power because of the perception that they will face a long-term conservative majority on the court. However, if both sides really placed democratic values over politics, they would agree to a grand bargain to devolve power on every contentious issue to the states. This would mean that all cases adjudicating novel rights that only leftists believe in would be dealt with in the respective states. But it would also mean that cases dealing with gun rights would be up to the states.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that there is a difference between bogus rights and foundational rights spelled out in the federal Constitution, such as self-defense, and that should be binding on the states. Ideally, we have the right to petition a federal court for redress if our gun rights are infringed upon. But if that is going to allow courts to perpetuate judicial supremacy and use it as a cudgel over red states, I’m more than glad to devolve all these issues to the states.
Such an arrangement would unfortunately cement the status of blue states as incorrigible Marxist dictatorships, but they are already there anyway. The courts – including the so-called conservative Supreme Court – have barely laid a glove on the COVID fascist regime in blue states. And many courts have prevented red states from blocking these tyrannical laws, such as federal courts requiring red states and counties to have mask mandates.
Conservatives would be naive not to push for a grand bargain ending judicial supremacy. We would benefit so much more than we lose. At present, we rarely benefit from judicial oversight when blue states violate foundational rights, yet we get crushed in red states by the courts vitiating every commonsense policy by creating phantom rights. As of now, we have a “conservative” Supreme Court that has prevented red states from cleaning up homeless encampments, from defining marriage, from keeping the sexes separate in private bathrooms and dressing rooms, from keeping sports sperate, from enforcing immigration law, and from many aspects of fighting crime.
However, let us not forget that for those who still like judicial oversight over broadly political issues, it’s not like the state legislatures won’t have competition. Overshadowed in the politics of the U.S. Supreme Court is the fact that all 50 states have their own constitutions and state judiciaries, including courts of last resort. Let’s not forget, it wasn’t until 1875, in the twilight of the Reconstruction era, that Congress transferred authority over most constitutional questions from state courts to lower federal courts, and it wasn’t until 1914 that Congress granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all cases heard by state supreme courts.
Thus, all these decisions we see from the federal courts creating phantom rights can still be done on the state level with regard to the state constitutions – for better or worse. If Democrats so fervently want to enshrine their morals and political aspirations into constitutions, they can do so in the states they control.
Except there is one difference. State judiciaries, for the most part, are elected either initially or through retention ballot. There are only seven states where the voters never get a crack at judicial selection: Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Most of them are solid blue states, and Rhode Island is the only state that mirrors the federal system, in which the judges are never subject to review by the voters and serve a lifetime tenure. In four of those states, the judges are subject to a specific term and must at least stand for re-nomination before the legislature, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts have an age tenure limit of 70.
Inevitably, given the polarization of our society, we disagree not only on policy but on the Constitution itself. This is why any case implicating a constitutional right will invariably be political. Thus, if we are going to place politics in the courts, it’s better to do it in the bodies that are elected and closer to the people.
Collectively, this will make state judicial elections great again and will make state legislatures more consequential and powerful. If we are going to have the courts decide every political and social issue, let’s at least have this debate at the local level. Yes, there will be times when the labyrinth of state laws and constitutionally protected rights might get confusing and even clash, but I’d rather a patchwork of law than uniformity of tyranny.
This is also a wake-up call to conservatives in red states. Many conservatives focus solely on congressional elections, but they need to pay attention to state judicial races. A lot of red states have non-partisan elections, which allows stealth leftists to glide into office. It might be a good idea to make these elections partisan. Let’s face it: There is nothing in politics that is not partisan, especially as it relates to the most consequential legal questions. Let’s be open about it and sort out our disagreements through the diversity of the 50 states. That is the only way to agree to disagree in an agreeable fashion.
A transgender high school science teacher — during a video conference that included a U.S. Department of Education senior adviser — declared that students should be taught that “not all egg producers are women” along with other gender-inclusive principles.
In a Twitter video posted by Libs of TikTok, the teacher in question — Sam Long — tells other conference participants — including Christian Rhodes, senior adviser to the secretary at the Department of Education — that it’s necessary to be a “stickler for inclusive language” in the classroom. Rhodes — who previously served as chief of staff for the DOE’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education — is seen nodding as Long speaks about inclusivity. Long adds that “I mostly taught biology,” which is about “life and living things” — and that “we need to be clear that we’re including all living things, including all people …”
Long then says when teaching about “cell division or reproduction, a lot of textbooks, a lot of existing teaching will say, ‘Women produce eggs; males are more likely to be colorblind; the mother carries the fetus for this many months.'” Long then says “some ways we can show our support for trans and non-binary students is to clean up that language … we can be more accurate and be more inclusive.”
The teacher then declares, “I would say, ‘No, it’s not women that produce eggs; it’s ovaries that produce eggs.’ That’s accurate. That’s precise. We’re acknowledging that not all women produce eggs, and not all egg producers are women, for example. And we’re teaching students that language matters.”
Long — the only individual heard speaking in the video — is in the bottom-left square in the following screenshot; Rhodes is in the bottom-right square:
Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @libsoftiktok
The date and purpose of the video conference aren’t clear, although Libs of TikTok said in the text accompanying the video that the Department of Education “held a training for teachers to learn how to be inclusive” toward “tran[s] and non-binary K-12 students.” Libs of TikTok also said the USDE is “promoting” the ideas the teacher espoused in the clip:
The Department of Education on Wednesday didn’t immediately reply to TheBlaze’s request for comment regarding its position on gender-inclusive language — such as “not all egg producers are women” — or the video conference’s purpose.
In the video, Long mentions a website — Gender-Inclusive Biology — that Long founded with “two other trans-identified high school teachers” as well as the site’s “language guide“ that helped inform Long’s inclusive-language push stated in the clip.
Long wrote last month in a National Education Association member spotlight that “when students learn biology, they are entitled to see their lives reflected in this so-called study of life. I grew up learning that a baby is made when a sperm cell from the dad meets the [egg cell] from the mom and that’s not good enough. For today, that language doesn’t represent our diverse genders, sexualities, and families in our schools. So, I created genderinclusivebiology.com, a growing collection of resources and training on how to teach accurate inclusive and future-ready biology, and I look forward to continuing the work of creating classrooms where every student belongs.” The essay’s bio states, “Sam Long is a Science Teacher in Denver, Colorado.”
Now that a judge has stayed the federal mask mandate on public transportation, it’s important to have an honest accounting of what this entire mask situation was truly all about. A lot of people will make a lot of claims. A tiny sliver will continue to claim mask mandates actually helped mitigate the spread of Covid-19. They will be the outliers because, in terms of stopping the spread of Covid or any other virus, wearing a mask is the equivalent of doing a rain dance: it might make you feel better, and some quacks will tell you it works, but ultimately it does nothing except make you look foolish and give you a false sense of security. (Vaccine mandates were the modern equivalent of burning witches at the stake.)
It was all so stupid and foisted on us by people we’re supposed to trust, which is why we need this honest accounting of what it was really all about. A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. That’s fair, but it wasn’t their primary purpose. The primary purpose of the mask mandates was to make every person who wore one a walking advertisement for fear. If you were wearing a mask, then you were doing your job, because you had given up your right to free expression and replaced it with one, constant sentiment: “I’m afraid, and you should be too.”
That was the main purpose of the masks. That’s why they wanted everyone to keep wearing them. It was about control, yes, but far more than that, it was about promoting fear. That’s why they lied about the threat Covid poses. That’s why they inflated the number of deaths, counting so often all who died with as having died from. That’s why they convinced so many Americans that the threat of hospitalization or death is exponentially higher than it actually is. (For the record, the survival rate for Covid is 99.7 percent for unvaccinated adults, 99.9 percent for vaccinated adults, and 100 percent for unvaccinated children.)
All they did the entire time was work as hard as they could to promote as much fear as possible, and masks were an excellent weapon they could force on you to help spread their message of constant fear, division, and dehumanization. The mask stripped you of your right to free expression and replaced whatever you wanted to communicate with one single piece of speech: “Be afraid.”
That was the primary purpose. That’s why they were all so fired up about it. That’s why they were all so desperate for you and everybody else to wear them.
It’s important we have our heads around that because it will help us avoid letting them do it again in the future. It wasn’t just about control. It wasn’t just about dividing and dehumanizing us. It wasn’t just about turning us against each other and forcing us to deny science so we could devastate each other’s social, psychological, and emotional health.
All of those were welcome byproducts to the “public health experts” and other elites who to this day claim masking provides value. But the primary purpose was to promote fear, and to stifle your speech and expression so you perpetually signaled that fear to everyone else.
You were obedient, yes. But more than that, you were afraid. That was the message, whether you wanted to send it or not. It was the primary reason they made everyone wear them, and it’s important we never let them do that to us again.
Hrand Tookman is a Cleveland, Ohio native with a background in interpersonal communications. He writes with an objective of exposing media bias, and inspiring unity in defiance of so many forces today that thrive off of division.
The nation’s public-health establishment lost all credibility during the Covid era by either ignoring or politicizing scientific data. But health bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. With respect to the highly charged issue of gender dysphoria, they continue to substitute politics for science when necessary to advance the leftist narrative.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released an official document designed to enshrine experimental medical interventions as the standard treatment for transgender-identifying children. Prepared by HHS’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA), the document is a political statement unmoored from actual medical research.
According to “Gender-Affirming Care and Young People,” medical interventions such as puberty-blocking drugs, wrong-sex hormones, and surgical mutilation are “crucial to overall health” of young people confused about their sex. (For what it’s worth, OPA falls under the supervision of Dr. Rachel Levine, a man who identifies as a woman.) The document complements a proposed rule announced by HHS in March, mandating insurance coverage for such “gender-affirming care.”
But the claims made in HHS’s new release have been deftly dismantled by an organization of physicians and scientists who still care about reality, and about ethical medical practice. The Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) — which exists “to promote safe, compassionate, ethical and evidence-informed healthcare for children, adolescents, and young adults with gender dysphoria”—points out that HHS’s discussion is deeply misleading and indeed dangerous. SEGM identifies seven serious misrepresentations of fact crammed into the two-page HHS document. Most of these involve cherry-picking, distorting, or simply ignoring the results of studies on the many facets of so-called gender-affirming treatment.
HHS Mischaracterizes Studies
For example, HHS flatly mischaracterizes a study that failed to find any benefits of “social transition” (presenting oneself as the opposite sex, with a new name, hairstyle, dress, etc.). As SEGM notes, the HHS document cites that study for the opposite conclusion, “wrongly assert[ing] that social transition improves functioning.” HHS presumably assumes readers won’t read the actual study and thus will accept the agency’s false claims about its findings.
SEGM identifies other falsifications of the supposed mental-health benefits of wrong-sex hormones and surgeries. HHS’s “claims of benefits coming from cherry-picked studies do not hold up when the entire body of evidence is properly evaluated in a systematic and reproducible way,” according to SEGM.
The design of the studies cited by HHS made it impossible to link medical interventions and improved mental health, SEGM observes. By contrast, multiple European studies “concluded that there is a lack of convincing evidence for the mental health benefit for children and adolescents of either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.”
SEGM notes, in fact, that the Swedish health authority warned that “the risks of puberty suppressing treatment . . . and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases.”
HHS ignored all this research, which would have led honest medical professionals to at least acknowledge the scholarly debate about the wisdom of these interventions. But HHS isn’t run by honest medical professionals. It’s in the grip of ideologues determined to drive troubled children and their families into the clutches of the trans industry.
Dishonest Use of Data on Suicide
SEGM also criticizes the HHS document for dishonesty about the related issue of suicide among trans-identifying youth. In claiming alarmingly high rates of suicidal ideation in this population — a claim routinely used to pressure desperate parents into consenting to dangerous medical interventions — HHS relies only on “a low quality, non-probability online survey.”
In fact, SEGM reports, “recent research from one of the world’s largest pediatric gender clinics estimated the rate of suicide in trans-identified youth as 0.03% over a 10-year period, which is comparable to youth presenting for care with mental health problems.”
Even more critically, despite HHS’s strong implication that drugs, hormones, and surgeries reduce suicide rates, SEGM clarifies that “no study to date has demonstrated that transition reduces the rate of serious suicide attempts.” Is HHS afraid that telling the truth about suicide will make parents less likely to place their troubled children on the trans-industry conveyor belt?
Puberty Blockers Are Not Fully Reversible
The mendacity of HHS extends beyond misrepresenting or ignoring studies. For example, the document states, without supporting citation, that puberty blockers are fully reversible (i.e., natural puberty will resume once the drugs are discontinued). But SEGM warns about the utter dearth of research supporting this claim. In fact,
concerns have been raised that puberty blockers are psychologically irreversible (since over 95% of all treated youth proceed to cross-sex hormones), that they may harm bone development, may permanently alter the brain, that it is not yet known how they affect other vital organs, all of which undergo significant structural changes during uninterrupted puberty.
Once again, public-health agencies in Europe are more honest. As SEGM reports, Britain’s National Health Service says that “[l]ittle is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.”
But ignoring the risks of these interventions is HHS’s modus operandi. SEGM calls out the HHS ideologues for mentioning only the supposed (in some cases imaginary) benefits of interventions while failing to mention documented risks to bone development, cardiovascular health, and the mental health of patients who later regret their transition decisions.
Sterility Expected After Trans Treatments
SEGM particularly targets HHS’s failure to mention the effect on reproductive health, which is supposed to be the focus of Levine’s Office of Population Affairs. “When puberty blockers are administered in early puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones,” SEGM notes, “sterility is expected.”
HHS is silent about this potentially devastating consequence. Nor does it acknowledge the “serious ethical questions about whether adolescents can be considered competent to waive their future reproductive rights at an age when they are unlikely to be able to appreciate or predict the importance of fertility to their adult selves.”
Ethics, it appears, is not HHS’s strong suit.
HHS also misleads in stating that mutilating surgeries are “typically used in adulthood or case-by-case in adolescence.” In fact, as SEGM notes, draft recommendations from the influential (though highly politicized) World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) urge broad availability of mastectomies to patients at age 16.
Even worse, patients as young as 13 had their healthy breasts removed as part of a study funded by the National Institutes of Health – i.e., by you and me through our tax dollars. The HHS bureaucrats who prepared this report surely knew this, but distort the facts.
This HHS document, then, is a farce. As SEGM summarizes, HHS inadequately reviewed the scientific literature, issued “biased recommendations that do not acknowledge the low quality of evidence,” failed to solicit input from professionals and patients whose experiences contradict the government narrative, and utterly ignored possible alternatives to medical interventions, such as psychotherapy. The result:
This incomplete representation of the relevant issues is likely to mislead the public to believe that this is the best and only alternative, particularly when no other alternatives are mentioned. The public is also likely to erroneously assume that the risks of affirmative care are low. Patients and families are not capable of providing valid informed consent when the information they receive is inaccurate and incomplete
If the public-health establishment wants to rehabilitate its tattered reputation after the Covid debacle, this isn’t the way to do it. Health policy is too important to be entrusted to political hacks.
Jane Robbins is an attorney and a retired senior fellow with the American Principles Project in Washington DC. In that position she crafted federal and state legislation designed to restore the constitutional autonomy of states and parents in education policy, and to protect the rights of religious freedom and conscience. She is a graduate of Clemson University and the Harvard Law School.
Harris County, Texas – Two of Judge Lina Hidalgo’s staffers were indicted this week after prosecutors expanded the investigation into an $11 million ‘vaccine outreach contract’ awarded to one of the judge’s political cronies.
Texas Rangers last month raided the office of Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and executed a search warrant related to an $11 million ‘vaccine outreach contract’ awarded to one of the judge’s friends. Recall, radical far-left judge Lina Hidalgo was one of the most aggressive Covid tyrants in Texas during the pandemic. While she was threatening to jail and fine people for violating her Covid rules, she was secretly trying to award one of her political cronies an $11 million ‘vaccine outreach’ contract.
Hidalgo panicked and canceled the $11 million vaccine contract after questions were raised that it was with a one-person firm with no experience.
Two of Hidalgo’s staffers were indicted this week after Texas Rangers obtained a new search warrant and requested the Google accounts of Lina Hidalgo and 6 of her senior staffers. Hidalgo lashed out at county prosecutors during an interview with ABC 13, calling the charges ‘partisan politics.’
“At best, this is going forward with a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts and at worst, it is the weaponization of the criminal justice system for political purposes so I’m not going to play into that,” Hidalgo whined to ABC13 on Wednesday. “My staffers are hardworking people. They work day and night for the people of Harris County and we’ve got work to do, like this catalytic converter issue or like childhood education, homelessness, huge wins.”
In her first on-camera comments about the indictment of two current and one former staffer, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo attacked county prosecutors for weaponizing the system with a “flimsy” case.
Alex Triantaphyllis, who is Hidalgo’s current chief of staff but was her deputy chief of staff at the time the allegations took place; Aaron Dunn, then a senior advisor for public safety and emergency management at the county; and Wallis Nader, who is Hidalgo’s deputy policy director, were indicted Monday. Each one of them was indicted on one count of misuse of official information and one count of tampering with a government record.
Investigators allege Triantaphyllis, Dunn and Nader steered a nearly $11 million COVID-19 vaccine outreach contract to a small Houston-based firm and shared proposal documents with the company before they were made public.
Search warrants include text messages and emails between Triantaphyllis, Dunn and Nader about the contract before it was awarded, but Hidalgo’s legal team has said the snippets of messages in the warrants doesn’t offer the full picture.
“The facts just don’t add up as they’re being presented,” Hidalgo said during her interview. “It’s the middle of an election year and I think it’s very clear that the motivations around this are just to harm me politically and it’s very sad to see the criminal justice system used that way.”
When ABC 13 reporter Steve Campion asked Hidalgo, who still hasn’t been charged, if she’s afraid she will be indicted, she said, “No. I mean, look, I don’t know how far this is going to go and it’s very easy when you present one-sided facts to the grand jury. Everybody knows a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if that’s all they see.”
As previously reported, Fox News reporter Benjamin Hall was critically injured last month while covering the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Details of the attack, which killed Hall’s colleagues, cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski and fixer Oleksandra “Sasha” Kuvshynova, are still unclear, but Hall updated the public on his injuries.
“It’s been over three weeks since the attack in Ukraine and I wanted to start sharing it all. But first I need to pay tribute to my colleagues Pierre and Sasha who didn’t make it that day. Pierre and I traveled the world together, working was his joy and his joy was infectious. RIP” Benjamin Hall said next to a photo of Pierre Zakrzewski.
Benjamin Hall said he feels ‘pretty damn lucky to be here’ after he lost limbs, one eye no longer works and his hearing is blown.
“To sum it up, I’ve lost half a leg on one side and a foot on the other. One hand is being put together, one eye is no longer working, and my hearing is pretty blown… but all in all I feel pretty damn lucky to be here – and it is the people who got me here who are amazing!” Hall said next to a photo of him in a stretcher.
President Joe Biden declared his support for allowing children and adolescents with gender dysphoria to undergo body mutilating surgeries or use puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to look more like the opposite sex despite unknowns about longterm side effects. In multiple documents released Thursday, which is observed by some as the Transgender Day of Visibility, the Biden administration backed what it described as “gender-affirming health care” for children.
The document states that “early gender-affirming care” for non-binary or trans-identified minors “is crucial to overall health and well-being as it allows the child or adolescent to focus on social transitions and can increase their confidence while navigating the healthcare system.”
The document lists “top” surgeries — elective mastectomies and breasts enhancements — and “bottom” surgeries — removal of genitals — as “gender-affirming care.”
The document states that the surgeries are “[t]ypically used in adulthood or case by-case in adolescence.”
“Gender-affirming care is a supportive form of healthcare. It consists of an array of services that may include medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people,” stated OPA.
“Medical and psychosocial gender affirming healthcare practices have been demonstrated to yield lower rates of adverse mental health outcomes, build self-esteem, and improve overall quality of life for transgender and gender diverse youth.”
HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Child Traumatic Stress Network released a document titled “Gender-Affirming Care Is Trauma-Informed Care.”
The network’s document defined gender-affirming care as including so-called “evidence-based interventions such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones” and proclaimed that “gender-affirming care is neither child maltreatment nor malpractice.” The statement comes as officials in Texas have defined administering puberty-blocking drugs on children who question their gender as “child abuse” and experimental since the Food and Drug Administration has not approved such drugs for that use.
“There is no scientifically sound research showing negative impacts from providing gender-affirming care,” the network’s statement adds. “[Transgender, gender diverse, and intersex] youth can thrive when they are supported and affirmed in their identities and their identity development.”
An entry on Mayo Clinic’s website states that drugs aimed at blocking puberty “might” help reduce depression among youth. “However, puberty suppression alone might not ease gender dysphoria,” said the clinic, adding, Using medication to delay puberty “beyond one’s peers can be stressful,” and thus, a child “might experience lower self-esteem.”
The conservative American College of Pediatricians, an association of physicians and healthcare professionals “dedicated to the health and well-being of children,” has long voiced its opposition to using puberty-blocking drugs on children suffering from gender dysphoria.
“There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth,” the organization said in a statement.
“This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.”
“Temporary use of puberty blocker Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility,” the American College of Pediatricians added. “In addition to the harm from Lupron, cross-sex hormones put youth at an increased risk of heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, blood clots and cancers across their lifespan.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued medical guidelines that supportthe surgical and hormonal transition of trans-identified children and adolescents.
“Often, pubertal suppression creates an opportunity to reduce distress that may occur with the development of secondary sexual characteristics and allow for gender-affirming care, including mental health support for the adolescent and the family,” an October 2018 AAP guideline states.
Supporters of puberty blockers have long claimed that puberty blockers’ impact on children is reversible and are designed to give children with gender dysphoria more time to decide which gender they identify as. Proponents also claim that once adolescent users stop taking puberty blockers, their puberty resumes. The new OPA document claims that puberty blockers are reversible.
However, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service reports that “[l]ittle is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.”
“Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be,” the NHS website explains. “It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.”
As teens who are 16 or over and have been on puberty blockers for at least a year are eligible to start cross-sex hormones in the U.K., the NHS warns that those “hormones cause some irreversible changes,” such as breast development and deepening of the voice.
“Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility,” the NHS website added. “There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.”
The state of Texas has made headlines in the last year as Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and the state’s child services agency have questioned whether prescribing puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones to minors could constitute “child abuse.” In February, Paxton issued a formal opinion stating that prescribing puberty blockers or conducting sex-change surgeries on children with gender dysphoria “can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code.” Texas is also investigating whether AbbVie Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., manufacturers of puberty blockers, have been engaging in deceptive advertising practices. Paxton’s office had issued Civil Investigative Demands against the two companies, seeking to determine “whether these manufacturers of puberty-blocking drugs deceptively advertised and promoted hormone blockers for unapproved uses without disclosing the potential risks to children and their parents.”
“Companies should never promote or supply puberty blockers for uses that are not intended or approved,” stated Paxton. “I will not allow Big Pharma to misleadingly promote these drugs that may pose a high risk of serious physical and psychological damage to Texas children who cannot yet fathom or consent to the potential long-term effects of such use.”
The Biden administration has challenged Texas, with the president claiming that his administration is putting “Texas on notice that their discriminatory actions put children’s lives at risk.” The administration issued guidelines saying that it may violate federal law for Texas to charge doctors who administer gender reassignment surgeries or puberty blockers on children with “child abuse.”
Earlier this month, Paxton sued the Department of Health and Human Services and argued that the federal government is misinterpreting federal law and that Texas law does allow him to label such acts as “child abuse.” A state appellate court struck down Abbott’s directive instructing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to “conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of any reported instances of these abusive procedures.”
The attorney general’s office has asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the lower court decision blocking the directive.
As a result of the governor’s directive and attorney general’s opinion, the Houston-based Texas Children’s Hospital stated earlier this month that it will pause “hormone-related prescription therapies for gender-affirming services.”
In the case of nuclear war, the federal government wants Americans to know they should socially distance and wear face masks when sheltering from nuclear fallout.
The Ready Campaign, a government program meant to prepare Americans for emergencies, advises Americans to maintain six feet of social distancing and to wear face masks when sheltering indoors to avoid nuclear fallout. Nuclear fallout is the dangerous aftermath of a nuclear explosion, when the highly toxic radioactive particles expelled into the atmosphere fall back to earth.
According to the Ready Campaign, you should find shelter in the nearest brick or concrete shelter following a nuclear explosion. After removing contaminated clothing and washing areas of unprotected skin, you should protect yourselves from COVID-19. 🤣
“Go to the basement or middle of the building. Stay away from the outer walls and roof. Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them,” the recommendations say.
“Stay inside for 24 hours unless local authorities provide other instructions. Continue to practice social distancing by wearing a mask and by keeping a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who not part of your household,” they continue. 🤣😂
And in the case that authorities mandate evacuation to an emergency shelter, the government wants you to bring resources to stop the spread of COVID-19.
“If you are told by authorities to evacuate to a public shelter, try to bring items that can help protect yourself and your family from COVID-19, such as hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, cleaning materials, and two masks per person,” the government says.
The website indicates that it was last updated on Feb. 25, but was updated in November 2020 to include information related to COVID-19. The threat of nuclear war has reached its highest point in decades over the weekend after Russian President Vladimir Putin put Russian nuclear forces on high alert.
Russian media outlets, which are propaganda machines for the Kremlin, are also stoking nuclear tensions. One state media anchor even floated nuclear war by wondering why “we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?”
Russian state TV: “Our submarines alone can launch more than 500 nuclear warheads, which guarantees the destruction of the US and NATO for good measure. The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?” https://t.co/hvYkhz9DpE
The Canadian pharmaceutical company SaNOtize Research & Development Corp., (SaNOtize), and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (Glenmark), announced earlier this month the successful outcomes of a nasal spray in its Phase 3 clinical trials and now approved by India’s drug regulator as a treatment for adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease. TrialSite is the first to report on this.
“The study confirmed that SaNOtize’s Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) represents a safe and effective antiviral treatment that shortens the course of COVID-19, and could prevent the transmission of COVID-19,” according to their news release.
The SaNOtize Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) is designed to kill the Covid-19 virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs. It contained anti-microbial properties with a direct virucidal effect on Covid-19.
Read their news release published at Business Wire and below:
In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study at 20 clinical sites across India that evaluated 306 patients, NONS reduced the SARS-CoV-2log viral load in COVID-19 patients by more than 94% within 24 hours of treatment, and by more than 99% in 48 hours as compared to saline control.
Treatment also demonstrated, in the high-risk group (n=218), a statistically significant greater proportion of patients who achieved a combination of clinical and virological cure, based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Progression Scale. Moreover, the median time to negative PCR, in this group, was 4 days in the treatment group compared with 8 days in the control. Test subjects included patients infected with different variants, likely including Delta and Omicron. There were no significant adverse health events recorded in the Phase 3 trial, or in over 500 subjects treated so far with NONS in clinical trials.
The reduction in log viral load corroborates the reduction of viral load in the UK Phase 2 trials (a reduction of 95% in 24 hours and 99% in 72 hours), conducted in March 2021 by Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services, and published in the Journal of Infection in August 2021.
“These results definitively substantiate the safety and efficacy of NONS in the fight against COVID-19,” said Dr. Gilly Regev, SaNOtize Co-Founder and CEO. “We are thrilled to be able to provide COVID patients with an affordable product that has been shown to deliver a faster cure. And with the proven safety profile of NONS, we look forward to this becoming the first line of treatment and potentially defense for COVID infection worldwide.”
The SaNOtize treatment is designed to kill the virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs. It is based on nitric oxide (NO), a natural nanomolecule produced by the human body with proven anti-microbial properties shown to have a direct effect on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The pharmacology, toxicity, and safety data for NO use in humans has been well-established for decades. The NO molecule released from NONS is identical to the one delivered in its gaseous form to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, or Blue Baby Syndrome, in newborn babies.
With the receipt of manufacturing and marketing approval from India’s drug regulator, SaNOtize’s strategic partner, Glenmark, will launch NONS commercially in India under the brand name FabiSpray®. The approval is for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease, which includes either persons over the age of 45, non-vaccinated people and/or those with comorbidities. Glenmark entered into an exclusive long-term strategic partnership with SaNOtize in August 2021 to manufacture, market and distribute NONS for COVID-19 treatment in India and other Asian markets including Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Nepal, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.
NONS has a marketing authorization as a Class I Medical Device in the EU. NONS is also approved and being sold in Israel, Thailand, Indonesia, and Bahrain, under the name enovid™ or VirX™.
“As viral load is an important determinant of disease severity and transmission of COVID-19 infection, demonstration of reduction in the viral load is expected to have significant clinical consequences from a patient and community perspective,” said Dr. Monika Tandon, Senior Vice President and Head – Clinical Development, Global Specialty/Branded Portfolio for Glenmark. “In the current scenario, with new emerging variants exhibiting high transmissibility, this novel product provides a useful option in the world’s fight against COVID-19.”
Glenmark will submit the clinical trial data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in order to share its findings.
Patients in the Glenmark Phase 3 clinical trial in India self-administered a dose of 2 sprays per nostril, six times a day for a seven-day treatment period, along with standard supportive care.
The primary and secondary outcome measures demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the NONS treatment arm over the control arm, which was administered normal saline nasal spray as placebo in double-blind manner.
The trial also included a subgroup analysis for patients with a high risk of disease progression, including either non-vaccinated patients, patients in middle- and older-age groups, and/or patients with co-morbidities.
Reduction in log viral load in the NONS group was statistically significant and superior to the control group in the full population and high-risk population (p < 0.05). Similar results were seen in the un-vaccinated group. The primary endpoint was achieved and confirmed in all analyses.
Significantly higher proportion of patients became negative on the RT-PCR test in the NONS group as compared to the placebo group. The time to virological cure was four days in the NONS group and eight days in the placebo group (p < 0.05).
A significantly higher proportion of patients demonstrated a 2-point clinical status improvement on the WHO Progression Scale, the most clinically validated point system used in clinical trials, in the NONS group as compared to the placebo group in the high-risk group (p < 0.05).
Data suggests role of NONS in prevention of COVID-19, which is consistent with a faster viral reduction.
NONS was safe and well tolerated by all patients who were part of the clinical trial. There were no reports of moderate or severe or serious adverse events or death in the study. An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) concluded that NONS was safe in COVID-19 patients.
“NONS destroys the virus, blocks entry into the nasal cavity and halts replication of the virus, which rapidly reduces viral load. This is important because viral load has been linked to infectivity, poor health outcomes and complications from Long COVID,” said Dr. Chris Miller, Chief Science Officer and co-founder of SaNOtize. “Amid evidence of waning efficacy for some vaccines and higher breakthrough rates, there is currently a lack of an antiviral therapy that is effective against COVID-19 and its variants that can be made widely and affordably available to the public. This is what makes NONS a critical weapon in ending the pandemic and preventing future outbreaks.”
Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
A sign outside a classroom taken in 2016. | REUTERS/Tami Chappell
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has released a formal opinion concluding that performing certain gender reassignment procedures on children constitutes child abuse under state law. In Opinion No. KP-0401, released last Friday, Paxton said that certain sex-change procedures and treatments “can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code.” Such procedures and treatments include castration, the removal of healthy body parts as well as the prescription of puberty-blocking drugs among others.
“Beyond the obvious harm of permanently sterilizing a child, these procedures and treatments can cause side effects and harms beyond permanent infertility,” the opinion states.
“The medical evidence does not demonstrate that children and adolescents benefit from engaging in these irreversible sterilization procedures.”
Paxton argued that such invasive gender reassignment procedures, like removing private parts, “would deprive the child of the fundamental right to procreate, which supports a finding of child abuse under the Family Code.”
“Because children are legally incompetent to consent to sterilization, procedures and treatments that result in a child’s sterilization are unauthorized and infringe on the child’s fundamental right to procreate,” the opinion continued.
“The lack of authority of a minor to consent to an irreversible sterilization procedure is consistent with other law. The federal Medicaid program does not allow for parental consent, has established a minimum age of 21 for consent to sterilization procedures, and imposes detailed requirements for obtaining that consent.”
In a statement Monday, Paxton said that there was “no doubt that these procedures are ‘abuse’ under Texas law, and thus must be halted.”
“The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) has a responsibility to act accordingly. I’ll do everything I can to protect against those who take advantage of and harm young Texans,” he added.
Last August, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Commissioner Jamie Masters published a letter asserting that “genital mutilation of a child through reassignment surgery is child abuse, subject to all rules and procedures pertaining to child abuse.”
Masters’ letter came after Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott requested that the agency “issue a determination of whether genital mutilation of a child for purposes of gender transitioning through reassignment surgery constitutes child abuse.”
Last December, Paxton’s office announced an investigation into Endo Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie Inc. under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act due to the promotion of medications as puberty blockers. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of puberty-blocking drugs for the sake of gender transition but has approved such medication for children who start puberty at a very young age. Some medical organizations, however, contend that puberty blockers and other gender transition procedures for minors can be beneficial to children suffering from gender dysphoria.
The American Medical Association, for example, released an open letter last April arguing that state governments should not prohibit gender reassignment procedures for youth.
“Such decisions must be sensitive to the child’s clinical situation, nurture the child’s short and long-term development, and balance the need to preserve the child’s opportunity to make important life choices autonomously in the future,” stated the AMA in a letter.
“We believe it is inappropriate and harmful for any state to legislatively dictate that certain transition-related services are never appropriate and limit the range of options physicians and families may consider when making decisions for pediatric patients.”
According to the Mayo Clinic, the benefits of puberty-blocking medicines for gender dysphoria “might” include reducing depression among youths and preventing the need for future surgery. Nevertheless, the clinic warns that taking puberty blockers remains a “big step” that can have a long-term impact on bodily growth, bone density and fertility.
“In addition, delaying puberty beyond one’s peers can be stressful,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Your child might experience lower self-esteem.”
The conservative American College of Pediatricians, an association of physicians and healthcare professionals “dedicated to the health and well-being of children,” has long voiced its opposition to using puberty-blocking drugs on children with gender dysphoria.
“There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth,” the association says in an online statement. “This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.”
On August 6, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that the agency claimed showed “Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection.” This assertion came amidst a public battle with Sen. Rand Paul, as the CDC released this data from Kentucky, Paul’s home state.
Yet after indisputable scientific evidence continued to pile up in favor of natural immunity, the CDC finally capitulated on January 19, 2022, recognizing the superiority of natural immunity over vaccination alone: “Between May and November 2021, people who were unvaccinated and did not have a prior COVID-19 infection remained at the highest risk of infection and hospitalization, while those who were previously infected, both with, or without prior vaccination, had the greatest protection.”
The CDC’s reversal came after its previous discounting of natural immunity caused mass layoffs, nursing home resident isolation, and hospital staffing shortages. It must not be forgotten or overlooked, and the CDC must be held accountable.
Last summer, guided by the CDC, President Biden claimed, “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” Biden also spread misinformation about vaccinations preventing the spread of Covid-19 by stating, “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.”
Who is harmed the most by health misinformation produced by our president and his agencies? Those with low health literacy. Our rich-poor gap is growing in this country and lying about health issues only exacerbates it.
A Positive Test Doesn’t Always Mean Infectiousness
A deeper dive into the August natural immunity study reveals methodology that can be recognized as illogical, even to those without medical experience. The CDC researchers created two groups. The case group included people who tested positive in 2020 and then tested positive again during a two-month window in 2021. The control group included people who had a positive test in 2020 without another positive test during this artificial two-month window.
The study observed that non-vaccinated group registered a positive test 34.4 percent of the time, compared to 20.3 percent of fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC falsely defined the case group’s second positive test as a “reinfection.” This is the central lie of the study. This data conveniently omitted data on people actually becoming symptomatic or what a common person would call “reinfected.”
To illustrate this point, consider if a Covid-recovered person comes into contact with Sars-Cov-2 in their community. They might test positive on a PCR test. Their body can remember the virus, fight it off, and the person never becomes ill. However, shortly after the exposure, a PCR swab can detect bits of genetic material (even if it’s unviable virus). Therefore, this study could be more of a reflection of people’s likelihood of re-exposure to Sars-Cov-2, not reinfection, as the CDC claimed.
By conflating exposure and reinfection, the CDC misled the public. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated, “This study shows you were twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”
This guidance came when mounting evidence indicated Covid vaccines quickly lose their effectiveness against infection and transmission, which the CDC loathed to admit. Unfortunately, Walensky’s guidance undermined the credibility of the CDC for generations to come.
As a physician, it’s frightening that a public health official made a policy recommendation based on such a flawed study. We should encourage critical thinking and scientific skepticism, but such a blatantly flawed study design should not be tolerated in our leading health institutions.
Not an Isolated Incident for the CDC
This isn’t the only time the CDC has been caught misleading the public. Drawing ire from the medical community, the was an uncontrolled study of students in Arizona that Walensky referred to in discussing the CDC’s mask guidance for schools. This study defined a “covid outbreak” as “two or more” positive lab tests among students or staff. So, if your school had two asymptomatic third graders, you’ve got a “covid outbreak” on your hands. Even worse, the study weighted such an “outbreak” equally to a school with dozens of symptomatic teachers or students. According to the CDC, two equals 50—at least for “covid outbreaks.”
In a Georgia study that actually had a sufficient control arm, the CDC minimized the fact that there was no statistically significant difference between masked and unmasked student groups. They’ve also minimized the importance of diet and exercise during the pandemic. They failed to effectively communicate evidence-based, life-saving outpatient treatment protocols. The list goes on.
Why This Matters So Much
How does minimizing natural immunity cause harm in the real world? There are at least three deadly repercussions.
First, many hospitals following the CDC’s guidance mandated that only vaccinated health-care workers be allowed to work at their facilities. This means naturally immune health-care workers were wrongly excluded from the workforce. Based on a toxic lie fabricated by the CDC, hospitals continue to experience staffing shortages, contributing to the hospitalization overcapacity narrative they’ve used to demonize the unvaccinated.
Second, the same problem arose for nursing homes, where seniors were denied visitation rights from unvaccinated, naturally immune family and friends, even though less protected vaccinated people were allowed in. Lack of care workers also prevents patients from being discharged from hospitals to care facilities.
Third, the natural immunity lie also stripped countless Americans of their health coverage and livelihoods. During the delta wave, for example, a worker at Los Alamos National Laboratories was fired from his job for religiously objecting to vaccination, despite working entirely from home and having recovered from a previous Covid infection. The CDC now admits this worker’s immunity provides protection superior to that of his co-workers who had merely vaccine-induced immunity at that time. He lost his job while the less protected did not. By denying natural immunity’s superiority to vaccine-induced immunity, how many others have been fired and lost health-care access the moment we need our population to be at its healthiest?
Punishing People We Should Have Praised
Naturally immune people should have been identified early in the pandemic as the most protected, ushered into hospitals and nursing homes to serve our vulnerable, and certainly should have been allowed to keep their jobs. By refusing to acknowledge the harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination, the CDC has brought everlasting shame to itself. There is clear evidence these types of interventions carry measurable risk. A better approach would have been to honestly discuss the risks and benefits with the public, much like I discuss surgical risks and benefits with my patients. This is the very tenet of informed consent, and better communication always results in a better relationship.
Americans need an unbiased, incorruptible, and credible CDC that provides reliable and scientifically sound public health guidance. These lies have de-legitimized and undermined public confidence in the institution of the CDC itself.
The consequences of lying about Covid-19 will spill into other areas of health care. Millions of Americans have lost trust in our hospitals and institutions and are now resorting to “under the table” health care. In health care, loss of trust equals lack of access. The CDC must return to the basics of evidence-based medicine to overcome its crisis of legitimacy.
If the truth hurts your narrative, you must censor it. But what if your own information harms your own narrative? Well, then you stop publishing it. For the past few months, Scotland has been publishing age-stratified case rates by vaccination status in a very well broken-down chart every Wednesday afternoon, similar to the way the U.K. published the data every Thursday. The common thread observed from these trends was that the unvaccinated had the lowest case rate, the double-vaccinated had even higher death and hospitalization rates, and the triple-jabbed gradually had increasingly higher case rates, which clearly doesn’t portend good news even for hospitalization and death in the long run. When people like me started using their data, we were lambasted by the “fact-checkers” paid for by Big Pharma. Now Scottish health officials announced they will not be publishing the data at all.
“Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status — over concerns it is misrepresented by anti-vaxx campaigners,”reports the Glasgow Times.
The notice of change was published on page 29 of the latest, and evidently final, Wednesday report from Feb. 16. “PHS is aware of inappropriate use and misinterpretation of the data when taken in isolation without fully understanding the limitations described below,” they decried.
You mean like screenshotting their own charts?
Obviously, there can be confounding factors, but those factors actually cut both ways. However, at the end of the day, these are age-stratified adjusted case rates per 100,000 and are completely fair game to use. No vaccine that is anywhere near as effective as they make it out to be should be netting these results.
Here is the latest case rate chart from the final report:
As you can see, for the past two weeks they have been placing disclaimers at the bottom of the charts.
What the chart clearly shows is what we have been seeing throughout the world — from the U.K., Canada, and Israel, for example — namely, that the second shot has gone negative a long time ago and the third shot is gradually following in the same direction. The public health officials themselves are demanding that people get boosters because they say the other shots wane. Well, logic would dictate that now that we are three to five months into the boosters in most places, they are waning as well. We also know that waning efficacy is potentially associated with a Trojan horse effect of antibody dependent disease enhancement, something the FDA admitted was never studied in the long run (at the time they thought the shots wouldn’t wane) but would be a risk “potentially associated with waning immunity.”
The main argument of those who are against us screenshotting their own charts to point out what they themselves have admitted is a speculative theory that perhaps the vaccinated test more often than the unvaccinated. That is a purely speculative confounding factor in the favor of the vaccine, but here is a concrete proven confounder against the vaccine: Scotland counts the first 21 days of the first vaccine as unvaccinated and the first 14 days of the third vaccine as double-vaccinated. We already know from Alberta’s data (which of course they also took down since we cited it) that roughly 40% of cases, 47.6% of hospitalizations, and 56% of deaths among the vaccinated occurred within 14 days of vaccination! So if anything, many of the cases and deaths ascribed to the unvaccinated are caused by the immune suppression of the first shot, and many cases and deaths ascribed to the double-vaccinated makes that cohort look even worse than it already is in order to ameliorate the image of the boosters.
Furthermore, if the higher case rates among the vaccinated are the result of a higher testing rate, then why would the double-vaxxed also be worse off than the unvaccinated for hospitalizations and deaths, as PHS has been showing for weeks in its other charts?
It’s quite evident that everyone is tested in the hospital. If anything, it stands to reason that the unvaccinated would be more aggressively tested even when admitted for other ailments and therefore potentially be roped into incidental hospitalization counts more often than the vaccinated. For example, in June 2021, Scripps Health in San Diego announced it would only test unvaccinated asymptomatic patients but not the vaccinated. Clearly, the testing requirements of the unvaccinated and the counting of the (immune-suppressed) partially vaccinated as unvaccinated would be confounding factors for woefully overestimatingunvaccinated hospitalizations, not the other way around.
Also, why would the triple-vaxxed test less often than the double, who test more often than the single or unvaccinated? And why would the waning always continue in the same direction throughout the pandemic? As you can see from the U.K. Health Security Agency weekly reports, the efficacy of the shots constantly wanes with every new weekly report, a phenomenon that cannot be explained away by testing rates.
2.17.22: UK infection rates, since Omicron arrived, rose much faster among the boosted vs the unvaxxed & remain higher in all boosted adult cohorts. Both boosted & unvaxxed continue to get infected & spread – and in adults, the boosted much more so – invalidating vaxx mandates. pic.twitter.com/cpDsOkcuSb
Clearly, this picture points to dangerous waning efficacy that plagues every cohort within a few months.
The bottom line is that during the final week of reporting in Scotland, just 12% of the deaths are among the unvaccinated, and that is including the 21-day grace period of counting the single-jabbed as unvaccinated. Nobody is suggesting that there is no efficacy for some people for a period of time against serious illness before the shots wane. But to suggest that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, to ignore the negative efficacy on infection which has been true across the board since last summer, and to obfuscate the concern of waning efficacy on critical illness even as they themselves demand boosters defies willing suspension of disbelief.
Unbelievably, PHS admits that the shots first suppress the immune system before they ramp up antibodies. But instead of using this as a strike against the shots, they use that is a strike against the unvaccinated and assert that it is a factor for why you can’t even compare hospitalization or death rates. “Individuals who have not completed their vaccine schedule may be more susceptible to a severe outcome and could result in higher COVID-19 case, hospitalization and death rates in the first and second dose vaccine groups,” claims PHS in the report.
But if that is true, that is the fault of the manufacturers who made a shot that first makes you vulnerable during an ongoing pandemic. It’s one thing to have a shot that makes you more vulnerable for a few weeks during the off-season of a virus. But to do so during the pandemic is akin to telling someone in a foxhole during a firefight that they will be safer in a bunker 100 yards ahead but must first run across the field to get there. The risk of making that run should be counted against the bunker option, not the foxhole.
In other words, as I wrote in my original piece on the Scottish data that was “fact-checked,” “You have to look in totality where we are headed rather than manipulating a snapshot of time.” You can’t just pull out one period of time of some efficacy for some people. You need to consider the following:
Vaccine injuries short term and long term, known and unknown;
Other safer treatment options for COVID itself;
A leaky vaccine that wanes in efficacy and runs the risk of enhancing the virus itself even while offering temporary protection for some;
The cost to the immune system of constantly boosting people to deal with the abovementioned concern of waning efficacy and enhancement.
The bottom line is that the social media guardians are looking at a snapshot of time. If they were to study the trajectory and progression of the virus and the vaccine throughout the year, they would recognize an unmistakable pattern of waning and then negative immunity. A large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Weil Cornell Medicine-Qatar found (table 3) that the Pfizer vaccine waned very quickly after four months. By seven months, when adjusted for those in Qatar who already had prior infection, the Pfizer shot was -4% effective against transmission and just 44.1% effective against severe illness. Also, effectiveness against asymptomatic infection was -33% after seven months.
A Swedish preprint study in October 2021 looked at 1.6 million people in Sweden to examine infection rates and critical illness rates by vaccination status. They found a sliding scale of efficacy that wanes with time, but eventually turns negative. Here is a presentation of fully adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection for various demographics after 210 days:
Clearly, it was known early on that the vaccine wanes and has the potential to go negative even with Delta, for which both natural infection and the vaccines offered better immunity. It stands to reason that this is certainly the case with Omicron, making it abundantly clear that the negative efficacy rate has more to do with potential Trojan horse antibodies than it does with vaccination-status bias of testing rates.
So what’s the solution? Go for a fourth and fifth shot? This week, Israeli researchers published a preprint study on the efficacy of the fourth shot, which found that after just one month, Pfizer’s shot is down to 30% efficacy and Moderna is down to 11%. At the same time, “Local and systemic adverse reactions were reported in 80% and 40%, respectively.” They conclude, “Low efficacy in preventing mild or asymptomatic Omicron infections and the infectious potential of breakthrough cases raise the urgency of next generation vaccine development.”
Remember, the FDA’s industry guidance for EUA status (p. 13) requires a 50% threshold of efficacy to even get emergency use authorization, much less full approval!
Thus, who is actually misreading or inappropriately using data here?
The Israeli study also concluded that “most of these infected HCW [health care workers] were potentially infectious, with relatively high viral loads. Thus, the major objective for vaccinating HCW was not achieved.” Full stop. The biggest public policy debate is over the fact that somehow you not getting the shot affects other people. Here we see that even people with four shots were still infectious with high viral loads. To what degree the shot offers some degree of protection from serious illness for some people for some period of time should be a decision left to the people. Perhaps other people would like to choose therapeutics that offer protection that don’t run the risk of severe adverse reactions. But none of that should have bearings on another human being, and none of that should justify human rights violations. This entire saga began with censorship of the work of others because the narrative assertions could not withstand peer review. Now we’ve come full-circle, in which the governments’ own data must be censored because the narrative assertions cannot withstand the scrutiny of their own data.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing to discuss the ongoing federal response to COVID-19 on May 11, 2021, in Washington, D.C. | Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images
In late January, Johns Hopkins published an intensively researched and explosive study about the destructive results of COVID-19 lockdowns: “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality.” Researchers concluded “while this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted … In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
The report asserted that while the lockdowns cut death rates by, at most, .2%, they indirectly caused substantial deaths associated with the lockdowns, like the increase in drug overdose deaths of 78,056. The study went so far as to conclude, “Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand.” This is in stark contrast to the claims by many leading health experts, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who have claimed the lockdowns saved “millions” of lives and were worth the damage it has caused to the American people and the economy. John Hopkins is arguably the top university in the world in health care-related fields, so this report is unimpeachable and demanding of full coverage.
Unfortunately, the media’s stake in previously defending lockdowns while slamming lockdown critics has caused a dangerous censoring of the report. Let me explain.
As reporter Joseph A. Wulfsohn has observed “the John Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Gabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as ‘superspreaders’.” It wasn’t just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings.”
This is part of a disturbing media trend Americans have seen with other stories like the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and the censoring/downplaying of the lab leak theory of COVID origin. When information disputes the progressive talking points, the information is suppressed.
The John Hopkins researchers not only showed the indirect damage of lockdowns, but even found the lockdown policies likely helped further the spread of COVID: “[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness … often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places.”
This is in addition to a survey showing around 97% of American teachers claim students experienced learning loss. Skyrocketing unemployment and the shuttering of small businesses caused further havoc. The lockdowns turned out to be worse than useless. This information is critical as we must prepare to handle further waves, or even new pandemics.
During the lockdowns, which were primarily pushed and enforced by Democratic politicians, the media was relentless in denigrating the critics. They went so far as to claim, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has, that opponents of lockdowns are actually opponents of “science.” The following quote from the Global News was repeated in substance by much of the mainstream media over the past two years: “But defying lockdowns because you’re fatigued by the pandemic is completely different than what many of these protesters are doing, which is denying the science … (their actions) seems so counter-rational that it has to be emotionally fueled.”
It’s time for the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and much of the mainstream media to show a modicum of humility. They have been proven wrong about the lockdowns. At the same time, some level of accountability is demanded of those who attacked lockdown critics. Freedom of speech was attacked over and over the past two years by those screaming about the dangers of “misinformation” or “disinformation.” It continues to this day.
As with the Global News article, the Left has even questioned the psychological well-being of lockdown critics, similar to what was done in the Soviet Union to those criticizing the party line. We have seen the same treatment of those who questioned the “party line” about COVID coming from a wet market, and not the Wuhan Institute of Virology (which most scientists now agree was the likely origin of COVID-19).
The Progressive Left, including allies in the media, cannot be allowed to continue their monopoly on what constitutes “science” and suppress everyone else. Science comes from continually questioning and demanding proof. That didn’t happen with lockdowns, and hundreds of millions suffered. Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). When it comes to determining the truth in this world, let’s allow the debates and disagreements necessary to find the truth.
Bill Connor, a retired Army Infantry colonel, author and Orangeburg attorney, has deployed multiple times to the Middle East. Connor was the senior U.S. military adviser to Afghan forces in Helmand Province, where he received the Bronze Star. A Citadel graduate with a JD from USC, he is also a Distinguished Graduate of the U.S. Army War College, earning his master of strategic studies. He is the author of the book Articles from War.
It’s utterly senseless. Pfizer is now asking to authorize a dangerous, outdated shot for babies and toddlers, for whom the virus does not pose a statistical risk and for a virus against which the shots have failed to show any benefit. Yet, just as taxes and death are a certainty in life, you can bank on the FDA never turning down any Pfizer request. This is where Republican governors must serve as the safety net for the people. They must actively oppose expanding the shots to the final control group against the greatest experiment on mankind.
In one of the most shocking and immoral moves since the beginning of the pandemic, Pfizer is submitting its request this week for emergency use authorization of its COVID shot for babies as young as 6 months old through 5 years old. They are quite literally pushing a shot with the hopes of ameliorating symptoms (not stopping transmission) of a virus that is a cold for young children and much less dangerous than RSV. But here’s the kicker: The trial they conducted showed that two doses failed to even produce positive results, and they are still working on a trial for a three-dose regimen. Plus, we have a new variant. So, what exactly are they seeking authorization for?
As other countries are already recommending against vaccinating those under 12, our government will likely approve this shot for babies and young children based on a failed trial. There was never any efficacy in the shot because no child in the trial got seriously ill to begin with. So, they chose a trial endpoint around levels of antibody titers. Putting aside for a moment the premise that higher antibody titers (as opposed to T cells) are necessarily a good thing and won’t cause original antigenic sin, their own trial failed to achieve these endpoints in 2- to 4-year-olds. Which is why Pfizer announced in December that it was beginning a trial on a three-dose regimen. So how can they seek authorization of the failed two-dose trial for what is essentially a new virus?
One of the precepts of the Nuremberg Code: “The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.” There is no way pursuit of an already flawed vaccine can be justified on young children, even if it still had a degree of efficacy and wasn’t outdated. A recent study from the U.K. showed that even immunocompromised children were not at an elevated risk for severe COVID. The study of 1,527 immunocompromised children and young adults found “no increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.” None of those even more vulnerable children died.
While there likely have been a tiny number of severely ill children who have died of the virus, it’s extremely hard to tell how many of the recorded deaths were legitimately caused by the virus itself. A large COVID study conducted in Germany found just three pediatric COVID deaths out of a million. The same analyst found zero deaths occurred in children under 5.
Already among older children, no positive benefit was found in the vaccine, even when the vaccine was working better. An Israeli study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found ZERO deaths or severe illnesses BOTH in the vaccinated and in the control (unvaccinated) groups of 12- to 18-year-olds in a 29-day follow-up of their vaccination. Under what pretext could the government possibly justify COVID as an emergency in this age group, and based on what evidence does this vaccine address that “emergency?”
On the flip side, the CDC, in a study in published in JAMA just conceded that the VAERS data on myocarditis was indeed an accurate reflection of an increased risk of heart inflammation following the vaccines. “Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men,” concluded the CDC researchers. “This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.”
More broadly, over 22,600 vaccine deaths and over 1 million injuries have been reported to VAERS. We already know from previous studies that VAERS only captures 1% of adverse events, and no other shot has come with such a stigma against reporting it for harm, often at the threat of the physician losing his job. Medicare data seems to hint at a much broader cohort of vaccine casualties. The military’s epidemiological database also seems to indicate a very disturbing trend of neurological and cardiological disorders rising in association with the take-up of the vaccine.
How can this be foisted upon the youngest children — with no apparent benefit — when they concede, “Long-term outcome data are not yet available for COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases”?
There are no long-term cancer studies, there are no long-term studies on what this does to one’s immune system, and there are no long-term studies on autoimmune diseases, even though the VAERS data and the Pfizer surveillance data from early 2021 raises some concerns. Plus the vaccine is for a virus that is not a threat to children.
Think about it: Monoclonal antibodies can get their existing EUA pulled based on the arrival of a new variant, yet shots that have already proven to be outdated – and are associated with greater infection rates – can secure official full approval and then EUA for babies with a new variant that was never run through a clinical trial.
As such, for a governors to merely take a neutral stance while allowing this travesty to plague the children of their states is unacceptable. Governors have a responsibility to direct their respective health departments to conduct the proper oversight that the FDA has abdicated and demand a moratorium on shots for children until a proper cost-benefit analysis can be conducted. At a minimum, they should join together in a lawsuit to enjoin the EUA because Pfizer has failed to prove the shots meet the eligibility thresholds in the EUA statute.
Moreover, Republican governors and legislators have an obligation to treat Pfizer like Planned Parenthood and cut all political ties with the company’s lobbying groups. Bio-medical fascism and the breach of informed consent is a greater pro-life cause than opposition to abortion right now, because its practitioners are encouraging all children to get something with only a potential downside. It is the equivalent of forcing abortions upon us, not just permitting them.
The final precept of the Nuremberg Code reads as follows: “During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.” If after everything we have learned, they won’t even discontinue this experiment on babies, then we truly have learned nothing since that dark era of history.
Goldie Hawn warned that the national trauma inflicted on children by the COVID-19 pandemic is approaching and “could very well surpass” the dread brought on by the 9/11 terror attacks and the Cold War. In an op-ed for USA Today, Hawn described how she saw her “entire world get ripped apart” by the threat of all-out nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1956 when she was in the fifth grade. After being shown a graphic and grim educational film about the dangers of nuclear war, the then-11-year-old Goldie Hawn ran home during lunch to call her mother at work and told her, “Mommy, come home quick! We’re all going to die!” Hawn said the threat of nuclear holocaust inflicted trauma on her for years.
“Even in high school, I’d hear a siren in the morning and be too terrified to go to school that day,” Hawn wrote. “This was a specific trauma that affected me, but it was a collective trauma, too – an entire generation of American children was, in some form or another, taught to think of nuclear holocaust as a real threat.”
Hawn compared the collective trauma endured by her generation to the upheaval other generations experienced – such as children who watched the Challenger space shuttle disaster happen live on Jan. 28, 1986, the kids who witnessed the Twin Towers collapse from the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the youngsters who have had their lives turned upside down by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We all know how magical a child’s imagination can be – the wonderful worlds they create in their minds. But there’s a flip side to the joyful creativity that can turn a big cardboard box into a spaceship,” the “Overboard” actress articulated. “A child’s mind exposed to real-world fear, without the ability to properly process it, can go down dark passages leading to nothing less than existential dread.”
Hawn explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has robbed adults and children of critical “support structures that all humans depend on for perspective, encouragement, and love.”
“The COVID era has changed our children’s lives in far more real, tangible ways — social distancing, school closures, daily mask use,” she added. “Kids are afraid of people, spaces, even the air around them – a level of constant fear not seen in decades.”
Hawn cited a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found emergency room visits for suspected suicide attempts by adolescent girls spiked nearly 51% in 2021 and almost 4% for boys. The movie star noted that U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy cautioned in December that the COVID-19 pandemic has had “unprecedented impacts on the mental health of America’s youth and families.” She also linked to a declaration of national emergency in child and adolescent mental health by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association.
“As health professionals dedicated to the care of children and adolescents, we have witnessed soaring rates of mental health challenges among children, adolescents, and their families over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the situation that existed prior to the pandemic,” the declaration stated in October. “Children and families across our country have experienced enormous adversity and disruption.”
Hawn commented on the alarming concerns about the mental health of America’s youth, “This tells us that as a nation, we have failed our children.””We are not properly funding preventive care and early interventions that normalize the mental struggles every individual has at some level,” the Academy Award-winning actress wrote. “There are everyday tools for mental fitness, just as there are for exercise and healthy eating; we just don’t teach them in any systematic way to our nation’s children.”
Hawn called for “helping children understand the chemical reactions that occur in their mind” when they hear the “latest horrifying statistic or headline on the evening news.” She said that understanding how the brain works will provide children with “the patience and confidence to put things in perspective, rather than fall victim to the emotions of the moment and end up in a helplessness that leads to depression and sometimes self-harm, the kind we are seeing in record numbers among children.”
She warned that the answer is not to allow kids to “be over-diagnosed or shuffled through a system that screens and treats extreme cases after they are too late.”
“We will survive the COVID-19 pandemic, but I’m not sure we can survive an entire generation whose collective trauma sends them hobbling into adulthood. We need more research, more preventative care and more early intervention. And there’s still time,” Hawn concluded. “If we get it right, today’s kids could emerge as the strongest generation America has ever produced.”
Hawn also made headlines this week when she appeared on “The Megyn Kelly Show” and proclaimed that Hollywood celebrities need to entertain the public no matter what political affiliations they have. “I stay in my lane,” Hawn declared when it comes to spouting political opinions.
The family of a patient who is fighting for his life is speaking out after a Boston hospital removed him from its heart transplant list because he is unvaccinated against COVID-19.
David Ferguson told WBZ-TV this week that his 31-year-old son DJ Ferguson’s heart has deteriorated to the point that it will no longer work on its own. Thankfully, he was first in line to receive a heart transplant. Yet because of his unvaccinated status, the hospital ruled that he was no longer eligible for the transplant.
“My son has gone to the edge of death to stick to his guns, and he’s been pushed to the limit,” Ferguson told the outlet, adding that his son simply won’t get the shot. “It’s kind of against his basic principles, he doesn’t believe in it. It’s a policy they are enforcing and so because he won’t get the shot, they took him off the list of a heart transplant.”
In a statement, Brigham and Women’s Hospital confirmed its decision to remove Ferguson from the list, saying, “Like many other transplant programs in the United States — the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors required for transplant candidates in the Mass General Brigham system in order to create both the best chance for a successful operation and also the patient’s survival after transplantation.”
Man Can’t Get Heart Transplant Because He’s Not Vaccinated Against COVID www.youtube.com
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
.jpg)
Monkeypox
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.