Science | What Did You Say?

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

AI Generated Police Reports: A Tool for Law Enforcement or a Potential Concern?

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor to jonathanturley.org | July 15, 2025

The expanding adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is finding utility in nearly all areas of human thought and expression. Its speed, increasing sophistication and accuracy promises not only unique ideas but shows ability in automating ordinary processes which hopefully afford people savings in time and resources, enabling them to focus on the bigger picture and more important duties. There are however some worrying trends that can come up on the reliance of such technology in areas it is not yet suited. This article will focus on one area: police and criminal justice reporting.

A common complaint expressed in the law enforcement world and for that matter many other professions, is that an officer spends more time on paperwork than performing actual duties. In recent years, one solution promises a fundamental change to reduce the amount of time devoted to report writing through GenAI. The technology has developed to such a degree that industry offers law enforcement agencies the ability to use video recordings provided by body cameras or dash cameras to not only transcribe what was said by persons in the video (via voice recognition) but assemble the pertinent audio and video information into an actual police report that can be reviewed, corrected if necessary, and signed off by a commissioned law enforcement officer as his official report of the incident.

The promise made by GenAI is that officers will spend less time on overhead and can instead devote greater time to patrol and investigative duties elsewhere and thus be more efficient and less interrupted by paperwork.

To understand the problem let’s look at a brief synopsis of some milestones of police report generation over the past forty-five years.

With most agencies in the United States, the early 1980s consisted of sparse use of computer systems by line officers—they were typically database implementations for storing information of persons, vehicles, wanted or stolen records and as communications systems between agencies—rarely used by officers when completing crime reports and such. Most reports and citations were handwritten or typed and because of the amount of time used, especially in the case of handwritten forms, the amount of information conveyed was less, yet the time requirement was high. As the 1980s began to close personal computers began to be adopted by agencies for officer use and eventually the systems became more integrated and greatly more efficient. The speed of report writing not only increased, but the retrieval time and search ability was unmatched. Paper records and microfiche now became archaic.

Yet with the ease and efficiency of record keeping greatly improved, paradoxically so did the volume of information created, or required. This is certainly not unique to law enforcement as it has also been the case with patient charting with healthcare and in other fields. The efficiency invited the opportunity to create more data, and it was then expected.

Soon it became no longer necessary for a line officer to drive to a station to complete reports as in-car systems became standard practice, eventually replacing such things as paper citation forms given to violators but instead typing it in electronically, filing it automatically with the department and the courts, and printing off a copy for the violator. Nearly all the officer’s paperwork could be completed electronically and in the field.

The next advance began with what is commonly referred to as DashCams and BodyCams, electronic audio and video of law enforcement officer encounters with the world and individuals. Both have proven to be very useful in terms of correctly capturing information for which can be used by the criminal justice system. The cameras are greatly useful in correctly documenting events witnessed by the officer and in most respects are superior to not always reliable memory of those involved. In some ways they have reduced the amount of paperwork since the officer wearing the camera can simply provide a written synopsis in the written report and then reference an attached video as evidence. Or of this is not fully permitted, watching the video while composing the written report served to prompt the officer to write the report completely and accurately as depicted in the video. The GenAI service can take this to a high level of efficiency by generating most of the report in draft form whereupon the attesting officer then makes any corrections and fills in any gaps or external details. Such reports generated by AI mimic that of the conventional standard “style” of a crime report and from a workflow perspective the officer assumes a role that is in some way more of an editor rather than an author.

On a side note, when electronic videos of police cameras came to the attention of the public, the compliance requirement of freedom of information/public disclosure law went far beyond that of ordinary written reports which could relatively easily be redacted and disseminated when appropriate. Now departments must be tasked with being video editors to redact non-disclosable information such as faces, identities, words, addresses and other private information. The storage requirement for hours of video for sometimes hundreds of officers has become costly and added an additional burden.

Any new technology does have concerns that might offset some of the benefits. Some of the concerns are at what point does the AI become the primary author and the officer the rubber stamp approver. I present some open questions on the technology:

Will a low number of GenAI providers of police reports lead to a near monopoly of companies having access and control of information of most law enforcement agencies?

Will reliance on GenAI lead to an atrophy of skill in report writing in the ordinary sense by employees and if accuracy improves make them prone to overlook the occasional but highly consequential errors?

Law enforcement agencies have strict controls over dissemination of records for current or in-progress investigations and intelligence. Is GenAI use a vector by which outside actors can infiltrate police and government agencies? Those who might hack into the GenAI providers could learn of investigations or forewarn wanted persons of an upcoming arrest, or watch the agency via the AI input it submits?

Who controls the data given to the GenAI provider and is it subject to proper oversight? Will there be a temptation to sell the information to third parties?

How can bias be controlled in the GenAI response? The output is only as good as the input or the algorithm. Could the AI develop a bias as a result of incorporating the data it generates?

Are revisions and updates to each report considered work product and/or are they subject to discovery?

If the GenAI report is mostly completed by something other than the officer, how true is the officer’s testimony as to what he believed was happening since his mind did not actually create most of the report?

Is the present implementation of GenAI reports sufficiently efficient to mitigate the time required for necessary corrections and edits by the signing officer?

If the procedure is to plug the video/audio into the GenAI application, receive the generated draft, then make corrections and certify under penalty of perjury that the report is a true and accurate declaration of facts…are officers willing to risk a false swearing or perjury charge if computer generated data was inaccurate and overlooked?

Will GenAI created reports be considered expert analysis and will the output be challenged by the courts?

Are police administrators sufficiently adept and understanding of the artificial intelligence technology to fully understand managing or configuring the software?

Ethically have we fully considered what we are doing with GenAI with regard to justice? Those civilians and others who are subject to the GenAI reports have the most to lose as their lives can be changed markedly for the better or for the worse. Have we become so lazy and indifferent to them that we cannot be bothered to completely write a report ourselves?

What would become of the future of criminal justice if artificial intelligence is incorporated without restraint or consideration of the consequences? I can foresee a few areas where it promising use such as for generating a picture of an unidentified assailant from the descriptions of a witness, analyzing trace evidence, finding trends in data, and such. I do have reservations in what is made of the technology when it can be inexpensively replicated and used in place of a commissioned law enforcement officer.

An example would be incorporating AI into actually enforcing the law, where a camera films a speeding vehicle, a stop light violation, or eventually a strong armed robbery. The AI then identifies the persons involved, generates the report, and makes a charging decision with less and less human involvement. Are we to allow AI systems standing to enforce the law and are we going to question it since we have become so accustomed to its reliability and the fact that it is used everywhere? It might sound like “future shock” but we should consider how far we are willing to accept the convenience of low-cost surrogates of our responsibility.

By Darren Smith

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

Category:

Crime, Law, Science

Tagged with:

Scientists Baffled by Mysterious Radio Waves Emanating from Beneath Antarctica’s Ice Sheet

By: Brittany Mays | June 17, 2025

Beneath the icy expanse of Antarctica, a scientific mystery has emerged, captivating researchers and enthusiasts alike. Scientists have reported the discovery of unusual radio waves originating from deep below the Antarctic ice sheet. This unexpected find has sparked curiosity and debate within the scientific community.

The Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) was responsible for this groundbreaking discovery. The New York Post detailed how ANITA, using high-altitude balloons, detected these strange signals. The original aim was to study cosmic events, but the project stumbled upon something entirely different.

Stephanie Wissel, a well-respected professor in physics, astronomy, and astrophysics at Penn State, was part of the research team. In a college release, she explained that these radio waves were discovered while searching for neutrinos. These tiny particles are notoriously elusive, making this discovery all the more intriguing.

Wissel remarked, “The radio waves that we detected were at really steep angles, like 30 degrees below the surface of the ice.” This steep angle was unexpected and defies conventional scientific understanding. Typically, such signals should be absorbed by the Earth’s rocky crust.

Adding to the enigma, the Antarctic ice sheet has seen significant changes in recent years. Between 2021 and 2023, the ice mass increased due to heavy snowfall, affecting four major ice basins. This increase in ice might have played a role in the detection of these radio waves.

Lord Bebo’s tweet highlighted this unusual gain in Antarctica’s ice mass. The tweet pointed out how rare it is for the ice sheet to gain mass, suggesting a potential link to the discovery. Such changes in the ice could impact scientific observations in the region.

Despite the excitement, the researchers have yet to determine how these neutrinos managed to be detected. The radio waves’ presence beneath the ice is puzzling, given the expectation that they should not have penetrated the Earth’s layers. This has left scientists searching for answers.

The discovery has stirred interest beyond the scientific community. Conservative media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax have reported on the potential implications of these findings. They suggest that this could redefine our understanding of cosmic events and Earth’s geological processes.

The ANITA team’s work shows the importance of exploring uncharted territories. As researchers continue their investigations, they hope to unravel the mystery of these radio waves. The implications could extend beyond Antarctica, potentially reshaping our understanding of the universe.

ANITA’s research highlights the endless possibilities of scientific exploration. The unexpected nature of these radio waves reminds us of the many secrets our planet still holds. It encourages further study and curiosity about the natural world.

As scientists delve deeper into this phenomenon, they remain committed to uncovering the truth. The mystery of the radio waves serves as a testament to human curiosity and the drive to understand the unknown. This discovery has sparked a new wave of scientific inquiry.

The findings in Antarctica continue to challenge established scientific beliefs. With each new discovery, researchers are reminded of the complexity of Earth’s systems. This reinforces the need for continued exploration and study.

While the current focus is on understanding these radio waves, the broader implications remain uncertain. The scientific community is abuzz with speculation and anticipation. This discovery has opened new avenues for research and exploration.

As the investigation progresses, scientists remain hopeful for more breakthroughs. The radio waves beneath Antarctica’s ice may hold the key to understanding cosmic phenomena. This discovery is a reminder of the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry.

The ANITA project exemplifies the spirit of scientific discovery. By pushing the boundaries of exploration, researchers continue to uncover Earth’s hidden mysteries. The pursuit of knowledge remains a driving force in scientific endeavors.

As more information emerges, the world watches with anticipation. The radio waves beneath the Antarctic ice hold potential insights into our universe. This discovery is a testament to the power of scientific inquiry and exploration.

The ongoing research in Antarctica serves as a reminder of the planet’s many secrets. Scientists are committed to uncovering the mysteries that lie beneath the ice. This discovery is just the beginning of a new chapter in scientific exploration.

Brittany Mays

Brittany Mays is a dedicated mother and passionate conservative news and opinion writer. With a sharp eye for current events and a commitment to traditional values, Brittany delivers thoughtful commentary on the issues shaping today’s world. Balancing her role as a parent with her love for writing, she strives to inspire others with her insights on faith, family, and freedom.

Category:

Science

Tagged with:

Scam Melting Under the Heat of Truth

By: Kevin Jackson | January 16, 2025

Add climate change to the list of overhyped catastrophes that are finally biting the dust in 2025.

For nearly three decades, Leftists have spun weather phenomena into a doomsday narrative—a lucrative grift disguised as concern for the planet. And who can forget Y2K’s poster boy for failed predictions, Al Gore? The man who swapped a marriage for a mansion and financed his newfound bachelor lifestyle on taxpayer dollars under the pretense of saving the Earth.

It’s bad enough we’re forced to buy bottled water because of the toxins in the water supply we’re already taxed for. But paying for air? That was my personal line in the sand. From the alleged melting of the polar ice caps to predictions that New York would be underwater by now, the climate change narrative has produced as much hot air as the “science” it’s built upon.

Decade after decade, we’ve been bombarded with predictions as credible as the Heaven’s Gate cult’s belief in salvation by alien spacecraft. At least those poor souls had the decency to only ruin their own lives. Climate alarmists, on the other hand, have turned fleecing the public into an art form.

Take the Heaven’s Gate incident as an example of misplaced faith gone too far.

In 1997, 39 people tragically took their own lives, believing their bodies were mere “containers” to be abandoned for a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. While tragic, their actions didn’t involve imposing a global carbon tax. Climate crusaders, however, demand nothing less than a financial and behavioral overhaul of our entire way of life, all based on shaky science and apocalyptic forecasts that never come true.

As it turns out, 2025 is shaping up to be the year of the “climate deniers”—also known as people who simply trust the science of meteorology over the politics of fearmongering. Americans are waking up to the con, and even CNN’s Harry Enten has inadvertently highlighted this shift. As he pointed out, while Google searches for “wildfires” have skyrocketed by 2,400%, searches for “climate change” have actually dropped by 9%.

Americans aren't making the connection between the wildfires & climate change some would hope. While Google searches for wildfires are up 2,400%, searches for climate change are down 9%.

Indeed, the % of Americans worried a lot about climate change hasn't budged in 3 decades. pic.twitter.com/ZcooOqpcI0
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) January 13, 2025

“So, despite all these extreme weather events, Americans are really no more worried about climate change than they were, what is that, now nearly 35 years ago,” Enten noted. “I mean there’s just no real trend line here.”

The disconnect is clear. People are interested in learning about wildfires and other natural disasters, but they’re not buying the narrative that these events are tied to man-made climate change.

The recent California wildfires underscore this skepticism. Despite relentless Democratic hyperbole and their insistence that the sky is falling, the public took note of the inconvenient truth: many of these fires were manmade—and not in the way climate alarmists would like you to believe.

Take the Maui wildfire disaster as a prime example. Initial cries of “climate change” were quickly drowned out by reports of human negligence and bureaucratic incompetence. From poorly maintained power lines to a stunning lack of preparedness, it became clear that these tragedies had less to do with carbon emissions and more to do with systemic mismanagement. In other words, it wasn’t your SUV’s fault.

This decline in climate change fervor is more than anecdotal. It’s part of a larger trend: the return to common sense. Americans are no longer swayed by Greta Thunberg’s doomsday theatrics or John Kerry’s jet-setting lectures on reducing carbon footprints. They’re realizing that the Earth’s climate has always been in flux, long before humans entered the equation.

Critics like Bjørn Lomborg, author of “False Alarm,” have been vocal about the economic and scientific shortcomings of the climate change narrative. Lomborg argues that the costs of aggressive climate policies far outweigh their benefits, particularly for developing nations that can’t afford to sacrifice economic growth for hypothetical gains in global temperature regulation. And he’s not alone. Scientists like Judith Curry, once a darling of the climate establishment, have since turned whistleblowers, exposing the groupthink and funding biases that plague climate research.

The financial motivations behind climate alarmism are hard to ignore.

Al Gore’s net worth skyrocketed after he left the vice presidency, thanks in no small part to his climate ventures. Meanwhile, organizations like the United Nations continue to push for trillions in climate reparations, conveniently ignoring the rampant corruption and inefficiency that characterize many of their initiatives.

Even Hollywood—typically a reliable cheerleader for leftist causes—is losing its grip on the climate narrative. Recent box office flops with overtly environmentalist themes suggest that audiences are tired of being lectured. People want escapism, not guilt trips.

And then there’s the generational factor. Millennials and Gen Z, often portrayed as the foot soldiers of climate activism, are showing signs of disillusionment. Saddled with student debt and skyrocketing living costs, many are questioning the practicality of policies that prioritize abstract environmental goals over immediate economic realities.

In the end, the death of the climate change narrative isn’t just about science. It’s about trust. Decades of failed predictions, exaggerated claims, and financial exploitation have eroded the credibility of climate alarmists. The public is no longer willing to sacrifice their livelihoods for a cause that increasingly resembles a scam.

As 2025 unfolds, expect to see more pushback against the climate industrial complex. The hysteria that once drove policy decisions is giving way to rational debate and evidence-based approaches. And while the Al Gores and Greta Thunbergs of the world may cling to their talking points, the rest of us can breathe a little easier—both figuratively and literally. The air, after all, is still free.

Category:

corruption, Political, Science

Tagged with:

Trump discusses inevitability of death; says he wants religious revival in US

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, September 04, 2024

Former President Donald Trump discussed his own mortality and the importance of religion in coming to terms with death and maintaining “guardrails” in society, during a recent interview with podcaster Lex Fridman. | Screenshot/YouTube/Lex Fridman

Former President Donald Trump spoke about his own mortality and the need for a religious revival in the U.S. during a recent interview with Russian-American podcaster Lex Fridman.

During the hour-long interview posted on Tuesday that touched on topics ranging from the 2024 presidential election to the Kennedy assassination and UFOs, the conversation honed in at the end on mortality and the role religion plays in coming to terms with it and the potential of an afterlife.

“One of the tragic things about life is that it ends,” Fridman said. “How often do you think about your death? Are you afraid of it?”

Trump: "Our country is missing a lot of religion. I think it really was a much better place with religion. It was almost a guide. You want to be good to people. Without religion, there's no real guardrails. I'd love to see us get back to more religion in this country." pic.twitter.com/I2O2H5EknE
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 3, 2024

Trump, who narrowly escaped an assassin’s bullet on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, recounted that he has a “very successful” friend in his mid-80s who thinks about death constantly and often reminds him that time is slipping away.

“He said, ‘I think about it every minute of every day,'” Trump noted of what his friend said of death. “Then, a week later, he called me to tell me something, and he starts off the conversation by going, ‘Tick-tock, tick-tock.’ This is a dark person, in a sense, but it is what it is.”

Trump went on to note the place of religion in finding peace with the inevitability of death and expressed his desire that America would become more religious like it once was.

“If you’re religious, I think you have a better feeling about it. You’re supposed to go to Heaven ideally, not Hell, but you’re supposed to go to Heaven if you’re good,” he said.

“Our country is missing a lot of religion,” he continued. “I think it really was a much better place with religion. It was almost a guide. You want to be good to people. Without religion, there’s no real guardrails. I’d love to see us get back to religion, more religion in this country.”

Trump, who claims to be a Christian, has presented himself as a candidate friendly to Christians and has been outspoken in recent months about the importance of maintaining religious liberty in the U.S.

During the National Religious Broadcasters 2024 International Christian Media Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, in February, Trump accused the Biden administration of weaponizing the justice system against people of faith.

“The chains are already tightening around all of us, if you think about it,” he said. “Ultimately, the radical Left is coming after all of us, because they know that our allegiance is not to them. Our allegiance is to our country, and our allegiance is to our Creator. They don’t want to hear that.”

At the Turning Point Action’s Believers Summit in West Palm Beach, Florida, in July, Trump urged Christians to vote for him.

“I don’t care how, but you have to get out and vote,” he said. “Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed.”

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post. Send news tips to jon.brown@christianpost.com

Category:

Political, Science, Spiritual

Tagged with:

We Need to Get This Man on Television Worldwide. This is another Share.

April 6, 2024

Australian broadcaster, Alan Jones, wipes the floor with a panel of smug climate zealots:

"CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and human beings are responsible for 3% of that 0.04%… It's like saying: 'There's a granule of sugar on the Harbour Bridge. Clean the bridge up, it's… pic.twitter.com/ETtjmjpIcF
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) April 6, 2024

Category:

Science

Tagged with:

climate change

How CDC Handled Congress’ Probe of China-Tied Lab in California

By: Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / April 01, 2024

Read mor at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/04/01/how-cdc-handled-congress-probe-of-china-tied-lab-in-california/

Newly released records offer a glimpse of how federal public health officials reacted when questioned by Congress about an illegal, China-tied biolab in California. That lab contained labeled samples of the virus that causes COVID-19, as well as Ebola, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The records cover last June, July, and August and include a message from a top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warning staff that “there is some congressional oversight heading our way.”

A total of 133 pages of documents make up the first installment of records obtained by The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project through the Freedom of Information Act as part of an “interim response” to its requests. (The Daily Signal is the news and commentary outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic sought information in August on the China-linked research lab discovered in December 2022 in Reedley, California. But another House panel, the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, ultimately issued a scathing report on CDC and other agencies for their handling of the illicit lab.

The Daily Signal sought comment Thursday morning from the media relations office of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, citing the documents and requesting context.

“At the request of state and local officials, CDC participated in approximately 40 calls with federal, state, and local partners to support the review of material in the Reedley building,” CDC spokesperson Nick Spinelli responded in a written statement Thursday afternoon.

“After state and local officials notified CDC of concerns in March, the California Department of Public Health determined that no onsite assistance was needed from CDC,” Spinelli told The Daily Signal. “In April, the Department of Public Health requested on-site assistance. We promptly responded and sent a team to the site. CDC was onsite for two and a half days and conducted an extensive review.”

The illegal lab was discovered when a Reedley code enforcement official entered what she thought was an abandoned warehouse. The inspector found lab equipment, medical grade freezers, and mice for experiments. The FBI, the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the California Department of Public Health began investigating the lab and how it operated off the books. Reedley is a small agriculture city in central California, near Fresno.

Officials identified the owner of the lab as Jia Bei Zhu, a Chinese citizen with close ties to corporations run by China’s communist government. Federal authorities arrested Zhu in October and charged him with manufacturing and distributing misbranded medical devices and making false statements to FDA investigators.

The Justice Department announced a grand jury indictment of Zhu on Nov. 16, one day after the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party issued a scathing report on the U.S. government’s handling of the China-tied biolab. Before that, documents show, CDC engaged last June with the office of Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., whose congressional district includes Reedley. Kit Divine, legislative assistant to Costa, emailed CDC personnel on June 14, seeking information before a briefing call.

“Congressman Costa is requesting a briefing from the relevant individuals working on the issue to receive an update on the action(s) taken by your agency and hear the agency’s perspective on the overarching situation,” Divine’s email to CDC said. “My boss also wishes to discuss the larger national security concerns regarding this issue and wants to make sure all the relevant agencies are coordinating with each other. Based on our understanding, staff at FDA, CDC, IRS, and FBI have all been involved with this issue.”

Chris de la Motte Hurst, deputy associate director for policy in CDC’s Office of Readiness and Response, told staffers what the bottom line was for Costa briefings. But CDC redacted that information from an email released among the documents.

“The BLUF is that [redacted],” Hurst wrote in a June 15 email to CDC colleagues, using a military acronym for the words “bottom line upfront” before her conclusion was redacted from the released document. “They continue to be engaged with the partners involved in this investigation via weekly conference calls,” the CDC official wrote. “Please keep the document close hold, but some of the information might be useful context for your outreach.”

In less than two months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was preparing for more. CDC’s chief of staff, Kate Wolff, sent an email Aug. 2 to staffers, writing: “Hi – it seems like there is some congressional oversight heading our way on this and we need to pull together some additional details on this issue ASAP in the morning.”

Wolff continued: “A few followup questions.” All of her questions, however, were redacted before the documents were released to Heritage’s Oversight Project.

The next day, Aug. 3, CDC public health analyst Jennifer M. Gaines wrote to staff about the urgency of gaining more information about the lab in California for the pending congressional oversight.

“Our deadline is ASAP,” Gaines said in an email. “ASK: Develop a paper briefing for the director on your joint investigation with California Department of Health, Fresno County, FDA, and FBI in June, 2023. This should be very concise.”

She continued: “Happy to arrange a quick call if you’d like to discuss! I’m also happy to set-up a shared document in Teams so we can work on this together? Let me know.”

Before that, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, sent a letter Aug. 23 to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, seeking details on the Reedley biolab.

On Aug. 21, Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., had sent a similar letter of inquiry to HHS’ Becerra about the China-tied lab. HHS forwarded the letters from both congressmen to CDC officials with separate cover memos dated Aug. 24.

According to one congressional office, the HHS memo was standard operating procedure and CDC ultimately was responsive.

In November, the separate House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party issued a report on the California lab.

“It is unacceptable that the CDC, according to accounts of local officials, refused to take a phone call from city and county officials concerned about a biolab found in their region,” the committee report says, adding:

Even if the CDC normally works through state agencies, it could have given the necessary contact information to local officials. It should not require a member of Congress—in this case, Congressman Jim Costa—to personally call the CDC or any other federal agency for them to provide meaningful support.

A CDC spokesperson rejected the committee report’s findings about the Reedley lab owned by Prestige Biotech Inc., or PBI.

“CDC strongly disputes the report’s conclusions critical of the agency,” the spokesperson told Newsweek. “The report includes numerous inaccuracies, including both the charge that CDC did not respond to local requests for aid and the false implication that CDC had the authority to unilaterally investigate or seize samples from PBI’s Reedley building.”

“Indeed,” the spokesperson added, “CDC has and continues to be actively engaged, within its regulatory authorities, in the intergovernmental efforts to address issues surrounding the facility.”

The Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party concluded that the illegal biolab was run by a Chinese citizen, Zhu, who was a top official at a Chinese government-controlled company. Zhu was a wanted fugitive in Canada with a $330 million judgment against him in that country. The biolab received millions from Chinese banks, the committee found.

“Approximately 1,000 mice were kept in inhumane, overcrowded conditions,” the committee report says. “When local officials asked a worker who ‘appeared to be in control’ of the mice, she replied that they were transgenic mice that simulate the human immune system that were ‘genetically engineered to catch and carry the COVID-19 virus.’”

The report notes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention refused to test any of the samples:

Despite the probability that the unlabeled or coded vials contained additional unknown and dangerous pathogens, CDC officials refused to take any further investigative steps. The fact that they seemingly took the word of biolab operators and noted fraudsters and concluded that the named labels are wholly correct is also strange.

Category:

Political, Science

Tagged with:

The Return of Anthony Comstock: The Abortion Pill Case Raises a Law with a Dark and Troubling Past

By: Jonathan Turley | April 1, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the return of the Comstock Act to the national debate. The controversial law came up in oral arguments over the access to the abortion pill in the Supreme Court. The history of the Act, and its namesake, remains a blot on our legal system. The repeal of the Comstock Act is long overdue.

Here is the column:

For the free speech community, the recent oral arguments over the expanded access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, contained a chilling jump-scare as two justices raised the applicability of the Comstock Act. That 151-year-old law banned the mailing of materials that were deemed “obscene, lewd, [or] lascivious.” The ban included everything ranging from contraception to pornography. It remains one of the most glaring attacks on free speech principles in our federal code.

The relevance of the Comstock Act to the issue of the availability of mifepristone is highly contested and unlikely to draw a majority on the Court. Indeed, while this same argument has been embraced by lower court judges, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito appear to be outliers on the Supreme Court in raising its possible relevance in this case.

For some of us, this is a painful reminder that the law continues to linger on our books. In my forthcoming book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I criticize the Comstock Act and call for Congress to repeal it as a protection of free speech. It still reflects the intolerance and arbitrariness of its namesake, the poisonous figure Anthony Comstock.

For the free speech community, naming a law after Comstock is akin to naming a law on business ethics after Bernie Madoff. Comstock personified the hate and intolerance that sustains censorship systems. He was born to a large, religious Calvinist farming family in New Canaan, Conn. Even in that deeply religious community, he was viewed as especially rigid in his moral views. During the Civil War, when most people were dealing with the horrors of mass casualties, Comstock was denouncing other soldiers for their use of profanity. Comstock was so widely disliked that, when a reporter once asked an assistant whether he had been punched in the face that morning, the assistant responded, “Probably.”

As the founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Comstock set about his work of “saving the young from contamination” and “Devil traps.” His view of obscenity stretched from lascivious lifestyles to feminism to contraception. He campaigned against women who challenged social and business barriers. For example, he was unrelenting in his efforts to imprison Victoria Claflin Woodhull and her sister Tennessee “Tennie” Claflin. The two women had committed the offenses of not only setting up their own brokerage house in New York, but also publishing a newspaper openly discussing sexual freedoms.

Comstock was able to secure the appointment as a mail inspector and promised to use the position to perform a needed “weeding in God’s garden.” He ramped up his campaign against blasphemy and the writings of “infidels” and “free lusters.”

In the case of Woodhull and Claflin, Comstock pushed to have them arrested over the publication of their newspaper. After they defied him and continued to publish, he went to Connecticut to mail copies of the paper to an alias. He then used the mailing to have the sisters re-arrested for a federal misdemeanor for the interstate mailing. When supporters bailed them out, he had them arrested again.

Despite his lack of success, Comstock was able to get members of Congress to pass the Comstock Act. Always eager to prove their own virtue, members codified his agenda against “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” material. There he remains, lurking in codified form within our federal code. The act survives for the same reason it was first enacted: Members fear the stigma of rescinding a law purportedly barring obscene material.

It does not matter that we have ample laws criminalizing the transmission of material such as child pornography. Moreover, the Justice Department has maintained in an internal memo that the law should only be enforced where prosecutors can establish intent by the sender that the material will be used for unlawful purposes. Medically harmful or threatening material can also be subject to criminal or civil actions under other laws.

The applicability of this law to “lewd and lascivious” speech would likely be struck down, but it remains on the books as a statutory affront to our free speech values. Some Democratic members, such as Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), have called for the Comstock Act to be rescinded.

For the free speech community, these members are uncertain champions in any fight against censorship. Democrats in Congress have overwhelmingly supported censorship and blacklisting of those deemed spreaders of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Some of these members are now using McCarthyist attacks against those who criticize the president or testify for free speech. However, the free speech community is used to fleeting allies that rise and recede with the politics of the moment.

The Comstock Act is a relic from one of the most anti-free speech periods in our history. Countless citizens were abused under Comstock and his later-eponymous law. They are the victims of those who professed to “weed God’s garden” to rid our nation of “infidels” and “free lusters.”

The repeal of the Comstock Act will not materially change the case over the abortion pill or other related cases. It would, however, bring closure to a disgraceful period of history where social and political dissenters were isolated, ostracized, or imprisoned for their views. Ultimately, the most indecent thing revealed by Congress in passing the Comstock Act was the act itself.

The question is whether our current leaders have the courage to stand with liberty over zealotry and repeal the Comstock Act.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Category:

Health, Law, Science

Tagged with:

Scientists Refute Olympic Committee’s Misguided Policies On ‘Fairness’ And Testosterone Levels

BY: GEORGE M. PERRY | MARCH 29, 2024

GEORGE M. PERRY

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) developed its 2021 framework on sex and “gender” around the concepts of fairness, inclusion, and non-discrimination. This framework leaves it to each sport’s governing body “to determine how an athlete may be at a disproportionate advantage against their peers.” However, they admonish sports organizations against “targeted testing … aimed at determining [athletes’] sex, gender identity and/or sex variations.” Instead, it’s up to each sport to “[provide] confidence that no athlete within a category has an unfair and disproportionate competitive advantage.”

The IOC’s sophistic gymnastics to deny sex-based categories in sport prompted 26 researchers from around the world to rebut the IOC’s framework. Their paper, published last week in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, is the latest peer-reviewed study providing evidence of the obvious about sex in sports. The researchers reviewed studies from “evolutionary and developmental biology, zoology, physiology, endocrinology, medicine, sport and exercise science, [and] athletic performance results within male and female sport” to refute the IOC’s position that male athletes warrant “no presumption of advantage” over female athletes based on “biological or physiological characteristics.”

That statement “is ridiculous on its face,” says Kim Jones, co-founder of the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS). “This is the basic knowledge we all understand and see play out in front of our eyes every day. [This new] paper is brilliant at laying out how clear the differences are between men and women. There are thousands of differences between male and female development in humans across the entire maturity path that result in these huge performance gaps.”

John Armstrong, a mathematician at King’s College London who was not affiliated with this research, highlights this “central flaw” of the IOC’s framework. “To say we should not presume male advantage in a sport unless we have specific data for that sport is like saying that just because most of the apples in a tree have fallen to the ground, one shouldn’t presume the remaining apples are also subject to gravity,” he said.

“There is overwhelming evidence of male advantage from across different sports and there is little to be gained from demonstrating this again and again, sport by sport,” Armstrong noted.

The Illusion of Testosterone Suppression

But even sports that have copious research into sex differences in performance have permitted males to compete in the female category at all levels of competition and age. One path has been through misguided policies based on testosterone levels.

Over the last decade, various sports governing bodies — including the IOC and USA Boxing — have attempted to define females through testosterone levels. Those organizations relied heavily on a publication by Joanna Harper, a trans-identifying male medical physicist. The paper consisted of eight self-reports by trans-identifying male recreational runners who had suppressed their testosterone pharmacologically and recalled that they ran slower after doing so. Harper excluded the one respondent who said he ran faster and then concluded that males who were suppressing their testosterone could compete fairly in the female category.

Last week’s paper builds on research by lead authors Tommy Lundberg, Emma Hilton, and others who demonstrate the persistence of male advantage after testosterone suppression.

While testosterone suppression decreases various measures of anatomy, physiology, and physical performance, those changes are a small fraction of the differences between men and women on these metrics. A testosterone-suppressed male will have less muscle mass than his former self, but as a category, testosterone-suppressed men remain larger and stronger than women. Further, testosterone suppression does not change attributes like height, bone length, or hip and shoulder width.

Even before puberty, though, males outperform females in athletic competitions. Greg Brown is an exercise physiologist at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and was a co-author on the Lundberg paper. Brown recently published research based on national youth track and field championships. He found that by age 8, the boys ran faster in their final rounds than the girls did in theirs, at race distances from 100 meters to 1,500 meters.

When ‘Obvious’ Sex Differences Are Not Enough

Brown’s article came out a few months after John Armstrong (mentioned above), sociologist Alice Sullivan of University College London, and I published a paper on the role of sex versus gender expression in distance running. Having been on the receiving end of many tweets and articles saying, “Duh, obvious, did we need research to prove this?” I asked Brown if we really needed quantitative research to prove that boys run faster than girls.

“Some court cases regarding transgender athletes competing in girls’ sports said there’s no evidence of prepubescent sex-based differences. This kind of work does matter to inform policy. Moreover, it can be useful to evaluate the obvious because some of the things we take for granted as truth, maybe they’re not,” Brown said.

The obvious question in response to this accumulation of “obvious” data is: What will it take to restore and enforce sex-based categories in sports at all levels? Even if the International Olympic Committee aligned its policies with the Lundberg paper, the IOC is not binding on youth sports, grassroots sports, or even the NCAA.

Brown is optimistic about “the grassroots level, where girls and women’s sports will start being limited to female athletes. Some school districts and other local organizations are making female-only sports policies when state or higher-level organizations won’t.”

Brown noted the lawsuit against the NCAA by female athletes will “make those in charge of sports have second thoughts about their transgender inclusion policies. Before there was a fear of lawsuits from transgender activists, but now the shoe is on the other foot.”

He also called on “scholarly journals, sports science organizations, and sports scientists to speak out and keep the reality of sex-based differences in sports performance in the news to counteract the 20-year head start the transgender activists have.”

ICONS is funding the lawsuit that Brown mentioned. “We need people to realize there can be no fear and no shame in standing up for women. It’s a basic message that we all have the responsibility to communicate clearly,” said ICONS co-founder Kim Jones. “The stories of women and girls being robbed of fair sport, or even facing injury, are the path of change. It shouldn’t take women and girls being hurt, but everyone has the clear evidence.”

Jon Pike, a sports philosopher and a co-author of the Lundberg paper, advises sports organizations to look to the evidence and not to the IOC.

“They are training and developing athletes who aspire to international competition. They owe female athletes the same level playing field that they will get at the international level. Female athletes at all levels are entitled to fair sport,” he said.

Objective empirical data that accord with everyday experience and observation are the most powerful counters to the emotion, rhetoric, and threats that often accompany attempts to deny the validity of female-only spaces and categories.

The value of studies like those of Lundberg, Brown, Armstrong, and their respective colleagues will play out in board rooms and courtrooms, not to mention the living rooms where so many grassroots sports decisions are made. The more decision-makers can rely on research rather than earnest but shallow plaints of “But it’s obvious!” the more women and girls will flourish in fair and competitive sports.

George M. Perry is a sports performance coach, sports businessman, and writer. Before going into the sports industry, he was a submarine warfare officer in the United States Navy and briefly attended law school.

Category:

Health, Science, Sports

Tagged with:

Climate Models Exaggerate Effects of Global Warming

By: Roy Spencer / @RoyWSpencer / Kevin Dayaratna / @kdd0211 / February 09, 2024

Climate models overestimate the effects of global warming, a Heritage Foundation research paper shows. We need the best available science. (Photo illustration: Alistair Berg/Getty Images)

Policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to minimize the effects of climate change should be guided by the best available science.

A new research paper from The Heritage Foundation provides compelling evidence—as indicated in the chart below—that warming in the past 50 years or so has been overestimated by most computer models when compared to temperature observations by thermometer.

The Heritage Foundation’s Backgrounder paper, written by the first author of this commentary, is titled “Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news outlet.)

A vocal minority of scientists often criticizes work such as this paper because their careers depend upon continued climate alarmism.

For example, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician by training who now oversees a subset of the climate models at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, took issue with a few of the Heritage paper’s arguments, to which the author responded in detail here and here.

>>> Read the entire Heritage Backgrounder here.

So, how well do climate models predict the warming that actually has occurred?

Let’s look at trends in surface air temperature, averaged over the United States since 1945. Why 1945? For two reasons. First, CO₂ emissions began to dramatically increase after World War II. Second, when one compares the future warming response in 33 computer models to a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ above preindustrial levels (called “2x CO₂“), 1945 is the starting year that produces the highest correlation between those warming trends and the eventual total amount of global-average warming in response to 2xCO₂.

In other words, 1945 is the starting date when computer models’ past warming trends best predict future rates of global warming. The distribution of those past model trends is shown here:

Note that 33 out of 34 climate models produced warmer trends than those observed in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s official reanalyzed thermometer data. The warming trend produced by the computer models (1945-2023) is 64% greater than the observed temperatures.

If we instead (as Schmidt suggested) restrict analysis to those computer models deemed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to have the most likely response to 2X CO₂ (2 to 5 degrees Celsius of net warming), then the model-average warming trend is still 54% greater than that observed, with 25 of 26 models producing more warming than was observed.

Why is this important? Well, for example, the United States does a congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, now in its fifth iteration, in which a panel of climate activists interpret what the U.N. organization’s projections of climate change mean for U.S. residents.

A reading of the National Climate Assessment leaves one with the impression that every weather disaster, whether floods or hurricanes or wildfires or whatever, now can be blamed on climate change caused by humans.

No mention is made of the fact that almost all climate models exaggerate warming and associated effects in the U.S. In fact, the National Climate Assessment tends to lean toward the model projections showing the greatest projected effects in the U.S.

More fundamentally, regardless of one’s perception of climate change, carbon-based regulation in the U.S. will not alter global temperatures.

Heritage Foundation research has shown that using the Environmental Protection Agency’s preferred Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change, the associated policies would reduce global temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, even using alarmist assumptions about the extent of climate change.

At the same time, China will continue to pump CO₂ into the atmosphere as it has done for years.

Policies such as congressional Democrats’ proposed Green New Deal would reduce household income by at least $165,000 over 20 years. Similar policies suggested by lawmakers also would have detrimental effects economically.

Computer models can be useful for understanding real-world phenomena. However, until scientists and lawmakers stop relying on demonstrably biased climate models, such models can’t be trusted to guide public policy.

Read the entire Heritage Backgrounder here.

Category:

Political, Science

Tagged with:

Neuralink to Start Human Trial for Brain Implant Chip

Tuesday, 19 September 2023 03:08 PM EDT

(Dreamstime)

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s brain-chip startup Neuralink said Tuesday it has received approval from an independent review board to start the first human trial of its brain implant for paralysis patients.

The study aims to test the safety and efficacy of Neuralink’s wireless, implantable brain-computer interface, to enable people with paralysis to control external devices with their thoughts, the company said.

Neuralink said patients with paralysis due to cervical spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis may qualify for the trial.

Category:

Health, Political, Science

Tagged with:

Second Nobel Prize Winner Signs Letter With 1,600 Scientists Declaring Climate ‘Emergency’ A Myth

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | SEPTEMBER 01, 2023

A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists critical of their peers’ hyperbolic claims about climate change drew a prominent recruit to sign their 2019 declaration that the climate “emergency” is a myth.

John Clauser, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in physics, became the second Nobel laureate last month to sign the document with 1,607 other scientists rebuking the idea of a climate crisis.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration organized by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) reads. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

Last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) debuted a roadmap to net-zero emissions that became the model for corporate bishops of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. A June report from the Energy Policy Research Foundation criticized the initiatives outlined as a “green mirage.” The IEA roadmap, researchers wrote, “will dramatically increase energy costs, devastate Western economies, and increase human suffering.”

“The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times,” reads CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration. “There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.”

Norwegian-American engineer Ivan Giaever, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973, is also a signatory to the declaration.

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience,” Clauser said. “In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.”

The document makes several claims that contradict popular narratives peddled by climate hysterics. For example, the planet is warming slower than predicted and has not driven a spike in natural disasters.

Mega-disasters are actually on the decline, while the destruction from natural events such as hurricanes and wildfires is on the rise. The increase in billion-dollar disasters, however, is a result of there being more to destroy. But that hasn’t stopped legacy outlets from blaming every natural event on the “climate crisis.” Two years ago, The New York Times published “Postcards From A World On Fire” despite natural disaster deaths declining by 90 percent.

The World Climate Declaration also notes that carbon dioxide is plant food, “not a pollutant.” “It is essential to all life on Earth,” the document reads.

In fact, reforestation is on the rise, promoted by a global “greening” effect proliferating plant growth.

Deforestation is not unique to the modern world. Humans have been cutting down trees for millennia.

Reforestation, however, is modern. Once countries reach a certain level of economic development, forests begin to rebound.

Explore the data: https://t.co/GzKlzeUE1H pic.twitter.com/47XExXVLoA
— Human Progress (@HumanProgress) August 31, 2023

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. 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. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

Category:

Science

Tagged with:

Scientists create synthetic human embryos, eliminating need for sperm and eggs, thereby raising major ethical concerns

By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | June 15, 2023

Photo by AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP via Getty Images

Scientists at the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology appear to have successfully accomplished what abortionists and libertines have only managed in a piecemeal fashion over recent decades: They have severed reproduction from fertilization.

Researchers have produced synthetic human embryos using stem cells, bypassing the need for sperm or eggs altogether, reported the Guardian.

According to Quanta Magazine, Cambridge professor Magdalena Żernicka-Goetz and Jacob Hanna at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, have worked in recent years to craft mouse embryo models from stem cells, then grow them in nutrient-filled bottles, which served as “a kind of crude artificial uterus.”

Their monster creations soon developed the basis of what would “become a spinal column, along with the bulbous blob of the nascent head and even a primitive beating heart.”

While they were meddling with mice, a multi-institutional team of researchers, led by Chinese reproductive engineer Zhen Lu at the State Key Laboratory of Neuroscience in Shanghai, reportedly generated synthetic embryos using monkey embryonic stem cells, then successfully initiated pregnancies in monkeys via a process resembling in vitro fertilization.

Rather than abandon rodents to retread Lu’s monkey business, Żernicka-Goetz and Hanna endeavored to tinker with the world’s top primate.

Żernicka-Goetz detailed her latest work in a plenary address Wednesday before the International Society for Stem Cell Research in Boston, noting, “We can create human embryo-like models by the reprogramming of [embryonic stem] cells.”

Żernicka-Goetz described cultivating human embryos beyond the equivalent of 14 days of development for a natural embryo, when the synthetic embryo “reached the beginning of a developmental milestone known as gastrulation, when the embryo transforms from being a continuous sheet of cells to forming distinct cell lines and setting up the basic axes of the body. At this stage, the embryo does not yet have a beating heart, gut or beginnings of a brain, but the model showed the presence of primordial cells that are the precursor cells of egg and sperm,” noted the Guardian.

Żernicka-Goetz called the dehumanized process and its monstrous result “beautiful,” adding, “Our human model is the first three-lineage human embryo model that specifies amnion and germ cells, precursor cells of egg and sperm.”

Janet Rossant, a developmental biologist and International Society for Stem Cell Research steering committee member, told the MIT Technology Review that such synthetic embryos, if equipped with all the right cell types, could possibly survive to become viable humans.

Żernicka-Goetz stressed to CNN that “they are not human embryos. … They are embryo models, but they are very exciting because they are very looking similar to human embryos and very important path towards discovery of why so many pregnancies fail, as the majority of the pregnancies fail around the time of the development at which we build these embryo-like structures.”

Żernicka-Goetz’s previous synthetic mouse embryos were virtually indistinguishable from the real thing after eight days, according to Quanta magazine.

The difference between an embryo model and the real thing, according to Christine Mummery, developmental biologist in the anatomy and embryology department at Leiden University Medical Center, is that they have “not been derived by fertilization.”

While it is illegal to implant these embryos in a woman’s womb, the novelty of the stem cell-derived embryos presently affords scientists leeway they would not otherwise have if dealing with embryos resultant of sperm-and-egg fertilization.

“Unlike human embryos arising from in vitro fertilization (IVF), where there is an established legal framework, there are currently no clear regulations governing stem cell derived models of human embryos. There is an urgent need for regulations to provide a framework for the creation and use of stem cell derived models of human embryos,” said James Briscoe, associate research director at the Francis Crick Institute.

Robin Lovell-Badge, the head of stem cell biology and developmental genetics at the Francis Crick Institute, told the Guardian, “If the whole intention is that these models are very much like normal embryos, then in a way they should be treated the same. … Currently in legislation they’re not. People are worried about this.”

IVF-sourced embryos are presently subject to the ethics-informed “14-day rule.”

Professor Martin Pera with the Jackson Laboratory noted in the journal Development that the 14-day rule, whereby the in vitro culture of the human embryo is not allowed to proceed beyond day 14 of embryonic development in various jurisdictions, was the result of bioethical discussions that took place in the early days of the IVF field in the 1970s, especially after the first successful birth of a British child conceived by IVF.

While the prevailing wisdom appeared to be that it was ethically questionable to conduct experiments on human beings during their embryonic stage of development, according to Pera, the four key arguments advanced in support of a 14-day limit on embryo culture were as follows:

“14 days is the last stage in development at which twinning can occur and therefore represents the point of individuation”;
“not even the founding cells of the nervous system have been specified prior to this stage”;
“there is substantial embryo loss from the time of fertilisation up to this point”; and
“until the process of implantation is complete, the embryo has no potential for further development.”

While regulatory bodies at American universities and other research institutions in the U.S. allegedly adhere to the “14-day rule,” the International Society for Stem Cell Research issued a recommendation in its 2021 guidance that the possibility of increasing the permitted culture time be considered by “national academies of science, academic societies, funders, and regulators.”

NPR reported that the creation of so-called embryiods, living entities made from human stem cells that are increasingly complex and comparable to human embryos, has “added pressure to extend the rule so scientists could compare these new entities with naturally conceived embryos.”

Dr. Ildem Akerman, from the University of Birmingham, told the BBC, “These findings suggest that we would soon develop the technology to grow these cells beyond the 14-day limit, with potentially more insights to gain into human development. … Nevertheless, the ability to do something does not justify doing it.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Category:

Science

Tagged with:

California Bill Would Make Insurance Fund Unlimited Attempts to Create Motherless and Fatherless Children

BY: KATY FAUST | JUNE 14, 2023

Two adults hold hands, newborn infant is in a hospital bed in the background

KATY FAUST

Marriage, once the most child-friendly institution in the world, has now been redefined in the name of equality. It was argued same-sex couples just wanted to visit one another in the hospital, have access to the same inheritance laws, and get the same tax breaks as heterosexuals. We were told ad nauseam that marriage had nothing to do with children.

Eight years post-Obergefell and it is clear we were lied to. As we have seen in every country that has redefined marriage, the redefinition of parenthood follows quickly on its heels. Court decisions mandating the state-sanctioned falsification that children have “two moms” at birth; deeming the term “mother” and “father” unconstitutional; Andrew Cuomo supporting commercial surrogacy in the name of “fairness and equality” for “LGBTQ+ New Yorkers” — in all of this, it is clear that children are the permanent victims of gay marriage.

Gay marriage and children’s right to their mother and father cannot coexist.

California’s Senate Bill 729 offers one of the clearest connections between adult “equality” and child victimization. Take it from the child-violating bill’s co-author Sen. Caroline Menjivar who notes that this legislation “is critical to achieving full-lived equality for LGBTQ+ people.” The bill has passed in the Senate and advanced to the Assembly. As of June 1, it’s been referred to the Committee on Health and is awaiting a hearing date. But how does this bill provide full-lived “equality” for LGBT couples?

First, SB 729 redefines infertility. For the purpose of insurance coverage, infertility is typically defined as 12 months of unprotected heterosexual sex without pregnancy or birth. But what about gay couples? Twelve months — or 12 years — of unprotected homosexual sex will never produce a baby. Thus, California’s more “equitable” definition of infertility will include “a person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention.”

Never mind that every adult operating under this expanded infertility definition will be creating a child who is intentionally motherless or fatherless — a child who will experience the inevitable mother-hunge r or father-hunger as they are deprived of their natural right to both. True “equality” seems to require that children lose a parent (or two).

Next, because same-sex couples cannot create children organically, synthetic baby-making is required. SB 729 will force insurance companies to cover in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for the medically and relationally infertile. Never mind that children created in-vitro (in glass) experience higher rates of physical and developmental struggles. “Equality” demands that a child’s conception be directed by a technician rather than in the loving embrace of his or her own mother and father.

Third, while two female bodies have double the eggs, and two male bodies have double the sperm, bigoted biology requires one sperm and one egg for every new life to begin. Therefore, SB 729 will require insurance companies to fund the participation of reproductive third parties — someone else’s, sperm, egg, womb, and/or embryo — to make sure single men, lesbians, or gay couples are not disadvantaged. Never mind that this will subject children to the identity struggles often experienced by children created via sperm or egg donation. Never mind that womb-rental infants suffer intentional severing of the maternal bond — largely regarded as a foundation for life-long trust and attachment. (And no, surrogacy is not just like adoption.) “Equality” must be achieved, even at the expense of denying children a relationship with a biological parent and/or their birth mother.

Finally, biology puts no limit on a heterosexual couple’s pregnancy attempts, while single and same-sex couples are limited by the high cost of IVF. That’s why SB 729 will grant everyone unlimited embryo transfers. Once you’ve selected your child’s genetic parent from that sperm or egg catalog, created your dozens of embryos, discarded or donated the undesirables, sex-selected to your preference, and frozen the majority for later — or possibly for never — then the sky’s the limit! You can implant however many tiny humans you want in your womb, or that of a hired stranger.

Never mind that only 7 percent of lab-created babies will be born alive due to the high-risk nature of IVF pregnancies, eugenic screenings, and the ~~abortion~~ selective reduction to which they’re subjected. We already have 1 million babies on ice in this country, many of whom have been functionally abandoned — but at least the 93 percent of lab-created babies who die in California will do so at the hands of a truly diverse population.

California’s proposed bill is not unlike other recent attempts in Minnesota, Washington, and nationally to treat children as items to be cut and pasted into any and every adult relationship. But this is the inevitable result of equating two things that can never be equal: opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. There is only one kind of marital relationship capable of producing children and thus only one coupling that deserves to be incentivized and institutionalized.

In the marriage and family world, the pursuit of “Equality” based on adult emotions and preferences will always result in true inequality for children. And unfortunately for America’s children, our highest court insists that there is no distinction between these two types of parental pairings, even though one leads to wholeness for children, and the other to lifelong loss.

Katy Faust is President of Them Before Us, author of the book “Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights Movement” and the forthcoming book “Raising Conservative Kids in a Woke City.” You can follow her on Twitter @Advo_Katy.

Category:

Culture, Family, Political, Science, Society, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Missouri AG imposes ‘guardrails’ on gender transition interventions for minors

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2023

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

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has implemented an emergency regulation imposing what his office calls “guardrails” on gender transition interventions for minors as the push to ban the controversial practices continues on a state-by-state basis.

In a statement Monday, Bailey said he is “issuing an emergency regulation clarifying that, because gender transition interventions are experimental, they are covered by existing Missouri law governing unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable business practices, including in administering healthcare services.”

“As Attorney General, I will protect children and enforce the laws as written, which includes upholding state law on experimental gender transition interventions,” Bailey said. “Even Europe recognizes that mutilating children for the sake of a woke, leftist agenda has irreversible consequences, and countries like Sweden, Norway, and the United Kingdom have all sharply curtailed these procedures. I am dedicated to using every legal tool at my disposal to stand in the gap and protect children from being subject to inhumane science experiments.”

The new regulation “clarifies that state law already prohibits performing experimental procedures in the absence of specific guardrails.” The guardrails require medical professionals to inform patients that “the use of puberty blocker drugs or cross-sex hormones to treat gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria is experimental and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)” and that “the FDA has issued a warning that puberty blockers can lead to brain swelling and blindness.”

The Attorney General’s office characterized the move as “necessary due to the skyrocketing number of gender transition interventions despite rising concerns in the medical community that these procedures are experimental and lack clinical evidence of safety or success.”

The emergency regulation will hold the force of law for either 30 legislative days or 180 days, “whichever is longer.”

Additional mandatory disclosures outline how Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare determined in a February 2022 report that the risks associated with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones “outweigh the possible benefits.”

The regulation also urges providers to cite the Endocrine Society’s finding that “the large majority (about 85%) of prepubertal children with a childhood diagnosis did not remain GD/gender incongruent in adolescence.”

“One scientific study notes that an individual whose friend identifies as transgender is ‘more than 70 times’ as likely to similarly identify as transgender, suggesting that many individuals’ incorrectly believe themselves to be transgender and in need of transition’ because of social factors,” the release from the attorney general’s office states.

The regulation also bans gender transition interventions if the patient has not “received a full psychological or psychiatric assessment” consisting of at least 15 hour-long therapy sessions over a period of 18 months “to determine, among other things, whether the person has any mental health comorbidities.”

An additional requirement imposed on providers seeking to perform gender transition interventions on minors seeks to ensure that “any existing mental health comorbidities of the patient have been treated and resolved.”

The regulation also stipulates that doctors must “adopt and follow a procedure to track all adverse effects that arise from any course of covered gender transition intervention for all patients beginning the first day of intervention and continuing for a period of not fewer than 15 years.” Doctors seeking to provide such interventions must also screen patients for autism and examine whether or not their gender dysphoria results from “social contagion” on an annual basis.

The regulation comes after the attorney general announced an investigation into the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital after a former employee submitted a sworn affidavit stating that the clinic has sterilized hundreds of children and even lied to parents. The clinic has denied Bailey’s request for a moratorium on prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones as his office investigates the claims.

The new regulation is opposed by LGBT advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood. Dr. Colleen P. McNicholas, the chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, called the claims made in the announcement “medically false and harmful.”

“Scientific evidence shows — and the medical community agrees — that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and life-saving,” McNicholas said in a statement shared on Twitter. “We denounce this government interference in the practice of medicine, and we demand politicians leave health care between providers and their patients. Shame on any politician who uses trans youth for political theatrics.”

More than a half dozen states have implemented bans on some or all gender transition interventions for minors, specifically Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah.

In the absence of action by the state legislature, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Commissioner of Family and Protective Services Jaime Masters have issued formal opinions characterizing gender transition services as a form of child abuse. The moves by state legislatures and executive officials related to gender transition interventions for minors come in response to concerns about the long-term impacts of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and gender transition surgeries.

The American College of Pediatricians has identified the potential side effects of puberty blockers as “osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment” as well as sterility. The organization has listed “an increased risk of heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, blood clots and cancers across their lifespan” as some of the potential long-term impacts of cross-sex hormones.

As for gender transition surgeries to remove and/or create synthetic body parts in order to align a person’s sexual organs with their stated gender identity, graphic images posted on social media last week by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office reveal scars left behind from double mastectomies that remove healthy breasts from trans-identified females as well as scarred forearm tissue used to create synthetic penises in trans-identified females.

Last year, the U.K’s National Health Service proposed new guidelines warning doctors not to so easily encourage minors to socially transition by changing their names and pronouns because many children dealing with gender dysphoria may be going through a “transient phase.”

The proposed guidelines followed an independent review led by Dr. Hillary Cass, the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which found that “social transitioning” is not a “neutral act” and could have “significant effects” in terms of “psychological functioning.”

“The clinical management approach should be open to exploring all developmentally appropriate options for children and young people who are experiencing gender incongruence, being mindful that this may be a transient phase, particularly for prepubertal children, and that there will be a range of pathways to support these children and young people and a range of outcomes,” the guidelines state.

Detransitioner Chloe Cole has emerged as a prominent voice for a community of young adults who formerly identified with the opposite sex but saw their gender dysphoria subside as they got older.

Cole is suing doctors, attributing the suicidal thoughts and deteriorating state of mental health she experienced as a teenager to the life-altering double mastectomy she received at the age of 15.

While Cole was “advised that the distress she experienced because of her gender dysphoria would resolve as she transitioned,” she discovered that her “distress always came back worse” following the “initial relief” that occurred after “each phase of transition.”

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

Category:

Family, Political, Science

Tagged with:

Michael Brown Op-ed: Major scientific study confirms what we all knew about male, female

By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor | Thursday, January 05, 2023

Every so often, a moment of sanity prevails in our culture, quite unintentionally. At such times, reality hits home, and most people don’t even notice it. But that’s exactly what happened with the announcement of the findings of a major scientific study. For a split second, reality overtook ideology, as left-leaning journalists shared the results of this study without thinking through the implications.

I’m referring to the news, first reported widely on Fortune.com that, “Women are more empathetic than men, study of hundreds of thousands of people finds — at any age and in any country in the world.”

In response I tweeted sarcastically, “A major new study has revealed that ‘women are more empathetic than men.’ This leads to two startling revelations: 1. there is such a thing as women and men. 2. there are real differences between women and men. What do you know!”

Yes, presupposed in this major international study, which involved 300,000 participants, is the fact that there is such a thing as males and females. They really exist, and their existence can be defined, despite efforts to make “woman” (and, by extension) “man” undefinable. (Think of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s now infamous answer to the “What is a woman?” question and see Matt Walsh’s “What Is a Woman?” documentary.)

Without this presupposition, namely, that there is such a thing as women and men, the study would have no meaning. In fact, it would be impossible even to conduct the study. Otherwise, all we would have is the difference between humans and humans. That’s it!

We could not report on differences between women and men, since sex and gender are merely what we perceive them to be. Instead, we would have differences between humans, and the results would be, “On average, certain humans are more empathetic than other humans.”

It would be like doing a major survey comparing the health of taller people (let’s say people 6 feet tall or more) to shorter people (here, under 6 feet tall). The only way it could work would be if height was definable and tangible. But if my height was whatever I perceived it to be, so much for the study. I would have no meaning or purpose at all.

It’s the same with differences between the sexes. If sex (and, consequently, gender) is whatever I perceive it to be, then scientific studies like this are worthless. After all, if I’m a biological male who identifies as a female, then I have undermined the whole premise of the study.

How, then, did the makers of this health study craft their questions so as to get tangible, substantive answers?

When you click on the test itself, conducted under the auspices of the University of Cambridge, you are asked a series of background questions, beginning with, “What is your age?” This reminds us that “age” is not a matter of perception, even if we feel younger or older than our actual years. Our age is identifiable, going back to the year we were born. That is a fact.

The second question is: “What was your biological sex assigned at birth?” What do you know! Despite the use of radicalized leftist language, as if your sex was arbitrarily assigned to you at birth by the doctors and nurses, the survey must ask for biological reality. Otherwise, to repeat, the survey has no meaning at all.

Quite tellingly, in today’s upside down culture, you can’t simply ask, “What is your sex?” Instead, you need to ask what was written on your birth certificate when you were born. Your actual, biological sex matters!

Even so, the survey listed the options of: “Male; Female; Intersex; I prefer not to say; I do not know.” (Are we really supposed to believe that some people do not know if they were born male or female? We’re not talking here about the very real biological category of Intersex, where there is potential ambiguity.)

Not surprisingly, given the madness of our woke society, the next question asks, “What is your gender?”

Here the choices are more expansive (but of course!): “Female; Male; Transfemale; Transmale; Non-binary; Other; I prefer not to say; I do not know.” (Enough said. I don’t need to make any commentary here.)

What is remarkable, though, is the test results page (I took the test to see how I scored).

Under, “Your Empathy score (EQ)” we are told that, “Most females score 6 to 16” and “Most males score 4 to 15.”

What happened to all the other categories? What happened to the transfemales and transmales and non-binary people? Those categories no longer exist, displaced by differences between “females” and “males,” and that information was gleaned in question 2: When you were born, what was your biological sex? That’s what really matters.

Later, the test results page explains that, “On average, more men than women have a Type S brain type and more women than men have a Type E brain type. It is suggested that these brain types are caused by genetic and prenatal hormonal levels (2,3), as well as by environmental factors.”

Accordingly, the Fortune.com article reported that, “Females, on average, score significantly higher in cognitive empathy scores than males regardless of nationality, language spoken, and age, a massive new study published on Monday in the journal PNAS found.” And the 250-word abstract of the study references “females” 8 times — without qualification or equivocation.

Accordingly, David Greenberg, a psychologist and social neuroscientist at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University and lead author on the study, commented, “Our results provide some of the first evidence that the well-known phenomenon — that females are on average more empathic than males — is present in a wide range of countries across the globe. It’s only by using very large data sets that we can say this with confidence.”

My wife, Nancy, saw this reported on CNN in the most matter-of-fact way, with both the CNN newscaster and the doctor brought in for commentary seeming to forget that is bigoted and transphobic to speak of differences between women and men. In the words of NARL (the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws), “We use gender-neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it is not just cis-gender women who get pregnant.” But of course. And men can menstruate too. All clear!

As I wrote in 2017 (with reference to “menstruating men”), “There is an all-out war on sexual difference (often referred to as ‘gender’), and if it wins the day, it will lead to societal chaos.”

That chaos is already here, growing by the day. But for a moment this week, quite unintentionally, reality crept back in and sanity prevailed as news outlets reported the simple, verifiable (and, widely known) fact that women, on average, are more empathetic than men.

Men and women do exist, and there are differences between the two.

What do you know?

Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Revival Or We Die: A Great Awakening Is Our Only Hope. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Category:

Opinion, Political, Science

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor to jonathanturley.org | July 15, 2025

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

Share this:

By: Brittany Mays | June 17, 2025

Share this:

By: Kevin Jackson | January 16, 2025

Add climate change to the list of overhyped catastrophes that are finally biting the dust in 2025.

Take the Heaven’s Gate incident as an example of misplaced faith gone too far.

The disconnect is clear. People are interested in learning about wildfires and other natural disasters, but they’re not buying the narrative that these events are tied to man-made climate change.

The financial motivations behind climate alarmism are hard to ignore.

Share this:

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, September 04, 2024

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post. Send news tips to jon.brown@christianpost.com

Share this:

Share this:

By: Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / April 01, 2024

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | April 1, 2024

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Share this:

BY: GEORGE M. PERRY | MARCH 29, 2024

The Illusion of Testosterone Suppression

When ‘Obvious’ Sex Differences Are Not Enough

George M. Perry is a sports performance coach, sports businessman, and writer. Before going into the sports industry, he was a submarine warfare officer in the United States Navy and briefly attended law school.

Share this:

By: Roy Spencer / @RoyWSpencer / Kevin Dayaratna / @kdd0211 / February 09, 2024

Share this:

Tuesday, 19 September 2023 03:08 PM EDT

Share this:

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | SEPTEMBER 01, 2023

Share this:

By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | June 15, 2023

Share this:

BY: KATY FAUST | JUNE 14, 2023

Katy Faust is President of Them Before Us, author of the book “Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights Movement” and the forthcoming book “Raising Conservative Kids in a Woke City.” You can follow her on Twitter @Advo_Katy.

Share this:

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2023

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

Share this:

By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor | Thursday, January 05, 2023

Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Revival Or We Die: A Great Awakening Is Our Only Hope. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Share this:

In His Service

Email Subscription

Recent Posts

Family

NEWS

Opinion

Personal

Political

Spiritual

Archives

Spam Blocked

Tag Cloud