CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: Biden USAID Nominee Lavished Praise on Saudi Arabia—Until It Stopped Funding Her Think Tank.
In a historically embarrassing decision, the FDA recently became the only international regulatory body to authorize the use of mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer for children aged six months to five years.
For the overwhelming majority of young children and toddlers, there is likely no justification or need for this concerning authorization.
They are at vanishingly small risk of serious complications from COVID, meaning that the risk-benefit calculation is precarious at best, and potentially negative at worst.
It’s also a testament to the disturbingly successful politicization of the US regulatory agencies that essentially no other internationally respected country anywhere on earth has made this bewildering decision.
Sweden, for example, has stopped the rollout of the Moderna vaccine for anyone under 30.
Not 18. Not 12. Not 5. 30.
The United States is now going to be vaccinating children as young as six months old with the same product that Sweden has banned for use in anyone under 30, citing side effects that tilt the risk-benefit numbers.
Despite this concerning difference of opinion, the White House Chief of Staff/Acting President Ronald Klain confusingly celebrated the announcement:
Interestingly, The New York Times link Klain tweeted brought up yet another concerning aspect of the authorization process, requiring an examination of the FDA’s documents and past statements.
The first interesting bit of information from the lengthy FDA release is their estimate of vaccine efficacy for older age groups.
The numbers are…bleak:
Observed estimates of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease due to the Omicron variant include the following: 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks since primary vaccination in adults; 59.5% among adolescents 12 to 15 years of age 2 to 4 weeks after dose 2, 16.6% during month 2 after the second dose, and 9.6% during month 3 after the second dose
8.8% effectiveness against symptomatic illness after ~6 months amongst adults.
Within just two months of vaccination, effectiveness against symptomatic illness amongst 12 to 15 year olds drops to 16.6%, and 9.6% by the third month. They don’t specify effectiveness afterwards, presumably because it drops to zero percent or even turns negative.
Furthermore, their estimates of vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations and emergency department visits are dramatically lower than the 95-100% rates claimed by “experts” that were used to justify discrimination and horrifying calls to exclude the “unvaccinated” from medical care:
Observed estimates of primary series mRNA vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations due to the Omicron variant in adults have been reported at 41%-57% at 6-9 months or longer after the second dose.
In one observational study among adolescents 12 to 18 years of age (median interval since vaccination, 162 days) during the Omicron-predominant period, primary series vaccine effectiveness was 40% (95% CI, 9 to 60) against hospitalization for COVID-19
Observed estimates of primary series mRNA vaccine effectiveness against emergency department/urgent care visits due to the Omicron variant in adults have been reported between 31%-38% at 6-9 months or longer after the second dose.
Whatever the claimed efficacy percentage was pre-Omicron, these percentages are greatly diminished compared to expectations.
As low as 41% for vaccine efficacy against hospitalization for adults 6-9 months or longer after the second dose.
Emergency department or urgent care as low as 31%. 40% with a confidence interval of 9-60% for adolescents 12-18 years of age.
This is yet another reason why mandates based on vaccination are completely indefensible:
These numbers are remarkably low and would fail the original 50% target that the FDA set for emergency authorization of COVID vaccines.
Remember the concerning part I mentioned earlier about the process for young kids?
Not only are the effectiveness percentages not reaching their 50% threshold in adults, for kids, they simply threw out that standard.
In order to authorize the vaccine for younger age groups, the FDA imputed vaccine efficacy by “immunobridging” and comparing antibody generation from older age groups:
Vaccine effectiveness was inferred by immunobridging based on a comparison of immunogenicity endpoints (SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMTs) and seroresponse rates 1 month after Dose 3) between participants 6-23 months of age from study C4591007 (n=146) and participants 16 through 25 years of age from study C4591001
Essentially, even though antibody creation is clearly not enough to prevent symptomatic infection, or achieve the original 95% estimates, the FDA inferred effectiveness of vaccination amongst babies and toddlers based on comparisons of antibody generation.
At this point, it’s already obvious why the U.S. is going to be the only Western country to start mRNA vaccinations for children this young.
Political pressure from Acting President Klain, activists like Ashish Jha, Jeremy Faust, Jerome Adams and others is undeniably dangerous.
This might potentially explain why the FDA changed the goal from 50% efficacy to antibody generation — to submit to political pressure from the White House and their allies in the media and “expert” community.
Last month, Vinay Prasad detailed the absurdity of this decision:
He also mentions that the 50% target initially determined was “arbitrary” and quite low.
The effectiveness of the vaccinations against hospitalization during the Omicron era for those who are “fully vaccinated” is lower than that, and they inferred efficacy amongst young kids based on antibody generation in those same age groups.
In short, they threw out their arbitrarily determined target, which was already low, and then imputed efficacy based on an end point (antibody generation) that we’ve already seen does not work particularly well against the current dominant variant.
So sure, this is extremely disconcerting and frustrating, but hey, at least Ron Klain is happy.
The FDA in their infinite wisdom also ignored that the CDC’s own estimates, which state that 75% of kids have already had COVID:
Of course, no one involved in this decision making process is willing to acknowledge that 75% of kids were infected with COVID despite masking, school closures and other “interventions” designed to prevent or “slow” the spread of the virus. But I digress.
Natural immunity is likely more protective against future infection than vaccination, as this Tracy Høeg tweet explains based on data from a New England Journal of Medicine study:
The FDA raced to authorize the vaccines for extremely young children based on antibody response instead of efficacy estimates while ignoring that 75% of young kids already had better protection.
It’s a clinic in what not to do.
Actual Efficacy Estimates
The FDA did generate some vaccine efficacy estimates for both ages 6-23 months and 2-4 years and the figures they arrived at show why they had to resort to antibody response instead of actual proven reduction.
Participants 6-23 months of age
A preliminary descriptive efficacy analysis of COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days post- Dose 3 among participants 6-23 months of age in the Dose 3 evaluable efficacy population included a total of 3 confirmed cases accrued in participants with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection up to the data cutoff of April 29, 2022. The Dose 3 evaluable efficacy population included 376 participants randomized to BNT162b2 and 179 participants randomized to placebo. The VE estimate in this preliminary analysis was 75.6% (95% CI: -369.1%, 99.6%), with 1 COVID-19 case in the BNT162b2 group compared to 2 in the placebo group (2:1 randomization BNT162b2 to placebo).Emphasis Added
There was 1 case in the vaccination group and 2 in the placebo group. That’s it.
That’s how you get to confidence intervals of -369.1% to 99.6%. The vaccine could have nearly 400% negative efficacy for babies, or it could be one of the greatest vaccines ever created with near perfect effectiveness. Who knows! Certainly not the FDA based on 3 total cases of COVID in this age group.
But don’t worry, they collected a lot more data for the 2-4 year age group.
That data set had 7 total cases:
Participants 2-4 years of age
A preliminary descriptive efficacy analysis of COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days post- Dose 3 among participants 2-4 years of age in the Dose 3 evaluable efficacy population included a total of 7 confirmed cases accrued in participants with or without evidence of prior
SARS-CoV-2 infection up to the data cutoff of April 29, 2022. The Dose 3 evaluable efficacy population with and without evidence of prior SARS CoV-2 infection included 589 participants randomized to BNT162b2 and 271 participants randomized to placebo. The VE estimate in this preliminary analysis was 82.4% (95% CI: -7.6%, 98.3%), with 2 COVID-19 cases in the BNT162b2 group compared to 5 in the placebo group (2:1 randomization BNT162b2 to placebo). One confirmed case in the placebo group occurred in a participant with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days post-Dose 3.
Well at least we’re down to a possible 8% negative efficacy in the confidence intervals!
But again, don’t worry, the FDA is aware of this limitation, and many more besides:
In a combined analysis of both age groups, VE was 80.4% (95% CI: 14.1%, 96.7%) with 3 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 7 cases in the placebo group. Interpretation of post-Dose 3 efficacy data for both age groups, and for the age group of 6 months through 4 years overall, is limited for the following reasons:
- Vaccine efficacy post Dose 3 cannot be precisely estimated due to the limited number of cases accrued during blinded follow-up, as reflected in the wide confidence intervals associated with the estimates.
- These descriptive efficacy data are preliminary, as the protocol specified 21 cases have not yet been achieved.
- There were highly variable dosing intervals between doses 2 and 3, with median intervals of 112 (range 56 to 245) days among participants 6-23 months of age and 77 (range 42 to 239) days among participants 2-4 years of age in the Dose 3 evaluable efficacy population.
- The median blinded follow-up time post Dose 3 in the analyses was only 35 days for participants 6-23 months of age and 40 days for participants 2-4 years of age.
The protocol specified 21 cases were not achieved. But they authorized the vaccines anyway!
Amongst the 2-4 year age group, there was a significantly higher rate of cases that “met the criteria for severe COVID-19” in the group that received the vaccine:
Seven cases in participants 2-4 years of age met the criteria for severe COVID-19: 6 in the BNT162b2 group, of which 2 cases occurred post unblinding, and 1 in the placebo group.
This does not imply that those who get vaccinated are more likely to have a severe case of COVID, but it once again underscores the problem of such small sample sizes and abandoning the original targets.
And it should be noted that the severe cases were determined to not be “clinically significant:”
All of which were considered by the investigator as not clinically significant based on examination at the illness visit and contributing circumstances such as the participant crying during examination
The FDA knows that most Americans will never look at the data tables, especially those in the media and activist Twitter “expert” class.
But anyone who does examine them can immediately understand the absurdity of the FDA’s decision making process:
The confidence intervals for every single efficacy calculation for participants 6-23 months drop below zero. Every single one.
The overall estimate is 14% and even that could be as low as -21.2%.
It’s just laughable. Well, it would be laughable if it weren’t such an important decision.
If you want to be charitable, at least the overall efficacy percentage for those aged 2 to <5 didn’t have negative confidence intervals:
Although three of the four main endpoints did have negative confidence intervals, so it does still require a significant amount of charity.
It’s also worth noting that the time period between the administration of Dose 1 and Dose 2 was associated with negative efficacy in both age groups.
This has likely contributed to data reporting issues when calculating vaccine effectiveness in the real world. Any case occurring during this time period is considered “unvaccinated,” except in these age groups, which is when efficacy is at its lowest point.
The fact that the FDA authorized these vaccines for kids based on this data is quite simply inexcusable.
The sample sizes didn’t meet their protocol specified 21 cases.
Vaccine efficacy calculations, even excluding the gigantic confidence intervals, were far below the arbitrary 50% target they created for emergency use authorization among adults.
Including the confidence intervals shows the possibility of negative efficacy, which while unlikely, is still possible given the extraordinarily small amount of cases in both the vaccine and placebo groups.
They simply used “immunobridging” to infer protection based on antibody generation, instead of predetermined efficacy rates.
It’s yet another terrifying indicator of just how politically motivated the FDA has become, and how activism has distorted intellectual honesty.
“Experts” are so desperate to maintain their reputations and avoid being labeled an “anti-vaxxer” by influencers like Eric Feigl-Ding, Angela Rasmussen and others that they appear to be unwilling to call out flaws in the decision making process.
It’s simultaneously hard and easy to believe that this was all it took to justify an “emergency” use vaccination for age groups at extremely low risk of severe illness.
This decision deservedly will be yet another reason for the ever-increasing erosion of trust in public health’s supposed “experts,” an embarrassment for U.S. regulators captured by politics.
Biden’s Red Queen Justice: Long After the Sentence, the Biden Administration is About to Render a Verdict on the Border Agents
Below is a slightly augmented version of my Hill column on the report that the Biden Administration will go forward with administrative punishment for border agents who were falsely accused of “whipping” Haitian migrants in Texas.
Here is the column:
At the height of the Stalinist purges, Soviet internal affairs minister Lavrentiy Beria famously boasted: “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
U.S. Border Patrol agents may be wondering if the Beria standard is back in vogue with the Biden administration. The reason: Fox News has reported that the Department of Homeland Security is moving to charge several agents with administrative violations after they were falsely accused of whipping Haitian migrants last September in Texas.
The agents likely felt their fates were sealed the minute that President Biden promised to punish them, before an official investigation had even started. Either the president was wrong, or the agents must be guilty … of something.
The controversy began when the Border Patrol responded to a large influx of undocumented migrants in Del Rio, Texas, on Sept. 19. Officials ordered a mounted unit to an under-defended part of the border. Mounted units are commonly used by federal, state and local police agencies for crowd control. The agents found themselves facing a large group of Haitian migrants crossing the border, and they positioned themselves on the river’s edge to block entry.
A photographer captured the scene, which included agents using bridle reins to guide their skittish horses. While the entire videotape clearly shows the agents using the reins on their mounts, not on the migrants, some clearly misleading still shots appeared to make it look like the opposite was happening. Condemnations immediately erupted from politicians and pundits; some media reports presented the abuse allegations as fact — as the “whipping (of) Haitian asylum seekers.”
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) declared that the alleged whipping was “worse than what we witnessed in slavery” and condemned “the cowboys who were running down Haitians and using their reins to whip them.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) decried “images of inhumane treatment of Haitian migrants by Border Patrol — including the use of whips,” and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) described the incident as “white supremacist behavior.”
For his part, President Biden rode the wave of media outrage, declaring: “It was horrible what — to see, as you saw — to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay.”
Of course, the Soviet Union’s Beria was a model of efficiency compared to Biden’s Homeland Security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, who promised last September that the investigation would be “completed in a matter of days, not weeks.” Then months dragged on, and Mayorkas and his department went into virtual radio-silence.
The problem for Mayorkas was that the whipping story was not just false but was clearly false from the outset. The photographer who captured the images of the incident, Paul Ratje, stated within the first 24 hours that it was false and “nobody saw a Border Patrol agent whipping” migrants. That was obvious from the videotape, too.
However, the president, some congressional Democrats and many in the media had already adjudicated the case. The agents had to be guilty of something.
So, the agents wallowed in suspension for months. On the six-month anniversary of the incident, I wrote a column on President Biden’s “Red Queen Justice,” noting that the case followed a “classic response to such scandals [which] is to bury them in investigation to wait for public attention to wane.” I noted that officials also could avoid responsibility “by changing the question. For example, what began as an investigation into whether agents used reins to whip migrants might be converted into a long investigation into the use of horses in crowd control operations. That will take a lot of time and, when the report is issued, the actual whipping allegation can be buried in a broader policy debate. That will allow the media, as well as the administration, to focus on the policy as opposed to the personnel involved.”
It is not clear if the administration will clear the agents of whipping migrants, though such a charge would presumably have been treated as a criminal matter. Moreover, it is not clear why, if such an assault did occur, it would take nearly ten months to find a violation. Whipping migrants is not commonly treated as an administrative matter.
If the Fox News report is true, however, the border agents may be found guilty of still unknown administrative offenses.
For many in Washington, the important thing would be that the agents are found guilty of something — anything.
It is all reminiscent of how President Biden rushed to public judgment about the fatal shooting of two men and the wounding of a third during riots in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020. At the time, Biden strongly implied that accused shooter Kyle Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist” despite no evidence supporting that claim. Even after many accusations about Rittenhouse were debunked and a jury acquitted him of all criminal charges, Biden said publicly that the verdict left “many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included.”
Similarly, after protests in Washington’s Lafayette Park in June 2020, Biden repeated a now-debunked claim that the park was cleared with teargas to enable a photo op for then-President Trump, an allegation that falsely impugned the integrity of then-Attorney General Bill Barr. From the outset, there was ample evidence undermining that claim, but neither Biden nor many in the media waited for an investigation to establish the facts. Later, the Justice Department’s inspector general disproved the claim.
Now, as with those previous debunked claims, Biden knows he will have a cooperative media that is unlikely to challenge his version of what the Border Patrol agents did — because they are equally invested in the earlier, inaccurate condemnation of the border agents’ actions.
In announcing the agents would be punished before an investigation had even begun, Biden — like Alice in Wonderland’s Red Queen — insisted on “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.” The agents likely do not hold out much hope, given how there has been little acknowledgment, let alone an apology, from the president, who remained silent for months after his original claim was debunked. They will finally have the verdict to go with the sentence . . . the offense, of course, to be named.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
THIS SEEMS WRONG: Supreme Court Ignores Constitutional Violations by Federal Police, Green Lights A…
A research paper found that people who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine had a lower rate of suffering a severe case of the virus amidst the pandemic. The article, which has been uploaded to the preprint server ResearchGate, relied on data from over 18,500 respondents across 175 countries. Analysis revealed that individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 reported fewer instances of hospitalization in comparison to their vaccinated counterparts. MSN – a news website launched by vaccine enthusiast Bill Gates’s Microsoft in 1995 – covered the study, titling its article “Severe COVID-19 ‘Rare’ In Unvaccinated People,” but appears to have taken down
The post MSN Quietly Deleted a Story Revealing That Severe COVID-19 is Rarely Found in the Unvaccinated. appeared first on The National Pulse..
"They always go for young children because they have [not] lived their life enough to... have critical thinking skills."The post North Korean Defector Says She’s Terrified of Indoctrination Coming From the Left in Public Schools first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.
Back in 1983, Ronald Reagan colorfully described the Soviet Union as “the focus of evil in the modern world.” Today, it seems we have a new candidate for the headquarters of all evil: the World Economic Forum headed by Klaus Schwab.
The WEF has no borders, includes all nationalities, embraces governments, NGOs and big business, has no military, nuclear arsenal, flag or anthem, and purports to solve all the world’s problems at its annual conference each year while delegates down champagne and caviar. It sponsors a leadership training program that boasts such covid cultists as Emmanuel Macron, Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau. Is Klaus Schwab the first honest-to-goodness Bond villain, bent on taking over (or depopulating) the world?
Professor Schwab certainly looks the part with his German accent and his prize place on top of the Swiss mountains. He also certainly pretends to run the world. In fact, he has been pretending to run the world since the 1970s, when he started his yearly conferences, hoping to get noticed. Getting noticed took decades. Many of the WEF Young Leaders program graduates presently in power around the world only entered his ‘classes’ 30 years after the WEF started. For decades Klaus has lived the ‘fake it till you make it' adage. Has he finally made it?
The title of Klaus’ 2020 book “The Great Reset”, coauthored with Thierry Malleret, was catchy enough to be taken on as a slogan during 2020-21 by a slew of political leaders wanting to communicate for myriad local political reasons that the pandemic has opened up some kind of grand reinitialization opportunity in global politics.
Few of these leaders will have read the book though, because if they had, they would have been taken aback by some of its contents. For example: “First and foremost, the post-pandemic era will usher in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the rich to the poor and from capital to labour.”
Such a view is not commonly spouted by the über-rich barons running global corporations or the governments they influence, for the obvious reason that it constitutes a direct attack on their stash. Certainly they might publicly express the wish for less inequality – who wouldn’t? – but many would baulk at a “massive wealth redistribution,” Robin-Hood style, to labourers and away from capitalists like themselves.
In fact, over the last two years the exact opposite has happened: the world now contains more billionaires and more poor people. “You will own nothing and be happy,” another oft-quoted and much-maligned Schwabism, also describes the opposite of what has actually happened, which can be summarized instead as “the rich own lots more while the poor own nothing and are miserable.”
This year, the WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland held from May 22-26 triggered the usual outpouring of hatred on Twitter and other platforms. The gossip implies that the WEF is secretly plotting to take over the world by means of a secret collaboration between government and big business, as if rich and powerful people needed a vehicle like the WEF for that. It feels satisfying to those wronged by covid policy to think they have identified the head of the snake responsible for the mess.
The WEF, they claim, is the coordinating platform for all the secret deals that make the rich richer and the entrenched heads of government more powerful, while national and local sovereignty is being clandestinely forfeited, leaving the ordinary person to rot away slowly with neither resources nor rights.
These accusations against the WEF are accompanied by misrepresentation and outright fakery. Photos were recently circulated on social media of hundreds of private planes lined up on an airfield, claimed to be those of attendees at Davos 2022 who were (for shame!) flouting their own pretensions to reduce carbon emissions. According to Reuters, one of the two widely circulated photos was in fact taken years ago at Las Vegas Airport around the time of a boxing title fight between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao, while another was taken in January 2016 at a Swiss air force base that is often used by Davos attendees and was probably associated with the event that year.
None of us was able personally to fly to Davos this year (though some of us have attended such events in the past), but no matter: every session of the 2022 meeting from May 22-26 was posted online. This included the opening address, via video link, by none other than Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, resplendent in his trademark brown tee and staring down the camera with unblinking intensity. Invigorated by the President’s defiant address, attendees turned their attention to the remaining 220 or so sessions that covered every weighty and worldly topic under the sun.
We took the time to watch a few, and found them to share a few characteristics. First, those involved expressed overblown expectations of what would be achieved during the discussions. Second, the discussions themselves were intelligent and informative. Third, the discussions all led to no particular kind of action.
The basic model of a WEF conference session is to subsidize smart people (the presenters) to say smart things to rich people (the audience), who themselves pay the exorbitant conference registration fees in order to network with each other and have smart people pretend to take them seriously for a few days.
In a word, Klaus Schwab is a glorified and very talented conference planner selling flattery. He pretends that $60,000 provides the attending customer with access to crucial world decisions, all made in 4 days. The hordes paying the entry fee schmooze together, down vast quantities of wine and canapes, and participate in panel discussions that purport to solve problems associated with the world’s economy, environment, and society in end-on-end blocks of 45 minutes each. (Actually, it is closer to 35 minutes, because of 10 minutes of Q&A from the audience squeezed in at the end of each session. Given the price tag of attendance, the organizers rightly expect some delegates to feel justified in having their moment on the mic.)
Typical of the level of ambition evident in WEF conference sessions, in his introduction to this year’s session on global taxation, host Geoff Cutmore announced that the incipient panel discussion was about getting to a point where “we all feel comfortable about what we’re paying, and we feel comfortable about what other people are paying and we feel comfortable about what corporations are paying and we all feel comfortable about where that tax revenue is ultimately going.”
Whoa. He might have added, “And if we have a few minutes left over at the end, we’ll work out how to restore the Amazonian rain forest.” The panel consisted of the heads of both Oxfam and the OECD, plus a heavily masked economics professor from Harvard. Imagine what the head of Oxfam would have thought about Cutmore’s pronouncements, given how critical Oxfam has been of the tax evasion and self-enrichment of elites, particularly in the last 2 years. If only he could get the conference delegates to pay their taxes and stop robbing poor people, he could axe Oxfam altogether!
Some sessions do make the stomach turn. For example, in one, Pfizer announced an “Accord for a Healthier World,” with its CEO sitting alongside Bill Gates and two African potentates. Announcements like this are made at the WEF, but would they really not exist if not for the WEF? Unlikely. By providing a platform for such announcements, however, it becomes a lightning rod for suspicion. The WEF styles itself an “International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation,” and like any large entity of its kind, it wants to get even bigger and more influential. But at heart, this is business. Klaus Schwab’s business.
The WEF claims serious positive impacts. For example, its ‘First Movers Coalition’ consists of 50 companies that have committed to investing in green technologies and removing carbon. Sounds great, right? The snag, of course, is that they have set up the measurement in such a way that they are able to decide themselves what is meant by ‘green’ or by ‘removing’ carbon. You can count caretaking a forest today as ‘removing’ carbon, and as long as the audience doesn’t know that you cut down and burned a mature forest in the same place last year, they will applaud!
Similarly, the WEF champions a system of reporting called ‘Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics’ (containing environmental, social, and governance, or “ESG,” measures), developed in a cooperative effort with major accounting firms and adopted by 70 companies. Paying a reasonable amount of taxes is not in those KPIs. Nor is free speech. Metrics, but not as you know them.
But what about the smoking gun represented in the many top politicians of today’s world who graduated from the WEF’s Young Leaders program? What about the creepy 2019 WEF conference about what to do in a pandemic?
On the Young Leaders program, it is undoubtedly true that the WEF has become a very successful job networking organization. But it did not invent networking. Networking societies for the rich and powerful have existed for centuries. Think of the Freemasons, the Rotary society, Chatham House, private high schools, Oxbridge, or the Ivy League. The rich and powerful will network with each other, come hell or high water, WEF or no WEF.
Perhaps those who met at the WEF have gelled together on an evil ideology that is bad for the world, but that ideology is clearly not the “Great Reset” ideology articulated by Schwab, since they are not following it in the slightest. Why then does Schwab not protest at how politicians are pretending to enact a Great Reset that is the very opposite of what he advocated in his book? Because he does not really care about his own ideas. A puffed-up conference organizer, Schwab follows his flock of customers rather than leading them. He is being used as a stooge.
OK, but what about that 2019 pandemic simulation conference? Again, you can read all about it online, a level of publicity for their plans that is surely not what you would expect of Bond villains. In these simulations, the WEF folks came to the conclusion that during a pandemic, movement and trade should not be disrupted because of the high costs to society. Yes, you read that right. Once again, this is the very opposite of what was actually done.
The WEF pandemic conference was just one of the many ‘war games’ simulations that entertain people continuously all around the world. Pandemic simulations this week, asteroid simulations next week, killer bee simulations after that. Rather a lot of problems can be covered off in 220 sessions, and one of them is bound to be tomorrow’s news.
The total disconnect between what his pandemic conference said should be done and what actually happened during covid times is once again proof that Klaus is not led by his principles. If he were, he would have been loudly protesting what has gone on over the past two years. Instead, he is merely riding his “good luck” that the leaders who came to drink champagne at his events have now embraced him as their supposed figurehead.
Since he is well into his 80s, Klaus probably figures that if an angry world population came to believe that he was responsible for the disaster that has befallen them, he’d be dead long before they came for justice. Thierry Malleret, his younger co-author on “The Great Reset,” has more to worry about in that regard!
The WEF, in sum, is hot air all the way. It is led by a man who epitomizes pomp, which is nothing new in the circles of the rich and powerful. WEF-approved hot air is no different to the regular variety.
Sure, it’s a place where schmoozing and coordination happen, but the WEF invented neither schmoozing nor the idea of an old-boys club. It is simply the current clubhouse. The real culprits will find another venue the day after the WEF’s shingle is taken down.
COLORADO: Demand grew for educator firearms classes after Texas school shooting. “Demand to enroll i…
COLORADO: Demand grew for educator firearms classes after Texas school shooting. “Demand to enroll in the program typically jumps in the days and weeks after a mass shooting. However, Carno said the demand since the mass school shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas is 10 times greater than anything she’s experienced before.”
Uvalde police sent quite the warning — to teachers.
At this point, it’s no longer news that The Experts™ have lied to the public about masks.
It’s been proven time and time again that masks and the mandates enacted by terrified politicians do not work.
And yet, the inaccuracies spread by “experts” and their allies in the media have permanently taken hold for a significant portion of the population.
For example, Taylor Lorenz, Washington Post writer and excellent avatar for the modern (young? middle aged?) urban progressive, remains committed to following their ideology no matter the evidence. She’s continually provided an example of how far down the rabbit hole susceptible people have gone:
At its heart, the debate around masks revolves around ideology.
For years, “experts” decried the importance of masking, quite literally laughing at suggestions that they would make a significant difference:
Ideology and groupthink has become so important and pervasive among “experts” that they easily abandoned their previously stated positions in order to conform to what’s expected of them politically.
When there was no pressure or tribalism connected to behavioral interventions, “experts” were honest about masking.
Now it’s consistently been the opposite. And additional research confirms their pre-tribalism assertions were correct. Far from “The Science,” changing, their post-COVID actions can be explained by political signaling and lying to suit their needs.
Fortunately, intellectually honest researchers are continually striving to combat the dangerous, pernicious misinformation from “experts” that masks work and should become a permanent part of life moving forward.
One of the largest and most comprehensive examinations on masking was released recently, covering most of Europe.
And importantly, it didn’t look at just mask mandates, it looked at mask usage.
It’s often repeated by the defenders of the new mask faith that comparing outcomes in different locations based on mandates isn’t sufficient, because mandates don’t necessarily mean people are complying.
One should expect the arguments from the pro-mask zealots is that measuring outcomes based on mandates isn’t enough, because mandates don’t mean people are complying.
That argument has never made much sense, as anyone who’s lived in a major city during the past few years would tell you.
Walk into a store in New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles without a mask during a mandate and there will most assuredly be enforcement. There may have been the possibility of remaining maskless at certain businesses at certain times, but as Los Angeles County public health determined, more than 95% of people were complying with their mandate as late as December 2021.
Of course, within a few weeks of this awe inspiring release, cases in LA had obliterated all previous records, rising more than 20x higher than in December 2021 when the 95% compliance was measured.
There is undeniable evidence that compliance has proven to be utterly irrelevant.
But it’s reassuring to have a now peer-reviewed study to refer to when dealing with those who refuse to accept reality.
The study goals explain what the researcher was hoping to accomplish with his examination:
This analysis aimed to verify whether mask usage was correlated with COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Daily data on COVID-19 cases and deaths and on mask usage were obtained for all European countries. The rationale behind the choice of European countries for comparison was fourfold: (1) availability and reliability of data; (2) a relative population homogeneity and shared history of epidemics (comparing countries from different continents may bring too many confounding factors); (3) similar age stratification and access to health assistance; and (4) divergent masking policies and different percentages of mask usage among the different populations, despite the fact that the entire continent was undergoing an outburst of COVID-19 at the time period analysed in this study.
In the absence of further randomized controlled trials on masking, after the two which once again showed that masks do not work, the comparisons presented here are the best method to measure the potential efficacy of an intervention in similar populations.
The researcher correctly identifies that many of the studies conducted in 2020, often referred to in desperate attempts to justify masking, are subject to the biases of early outbreaks when seasonality played a major role in controlling outbreaks in the Northeastern United States:
However, these studies were restricted to the summer and early autumn of 2020. From March 2020 onwards, country after country instituted some form of mask mandate or recommendation. The stringency of these measures varied among the different countries and they, therefore, resulted in different proportions of mask compliance, ranging from 5% to 95% . Such heterogeneity in mask usage among neighbouring countries provided an ideal opportunity to test the effect of this non-pharmaceutical intervention on the progression of a strong COVID-19 outburst.
We’ll get into the details shortly, but the conclusion gives a fantastic overview of the results:
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. 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.
Not only was there no benefit, but there was a disturbingly positive correlation between mask usage and reported COVID deaths in Western Europe.
More mask usage correlated to more COVID deaths.
As he states, that does not imply causation, but the fact that this is even possible is a direct repudiation of Fauci, Walensky and the rest of the “expert” industrial complex claiming that masks are “science” or that we “know they work.”
If masks were effective, this would be impossible. Full stop.
There may be claims about variables, other factors, demographics — it doesn't matter. This would not happen if masks worked.
Remember, this isn’t just about mandates, it’s measuring compliance. It’s irrefutable that the more people wore masks, the worse the results.
Of course there was no positive benefit to mask usage in terms of reducing cases either.
The correlation chart makes it clear how completely useless masks were during the surge of fall and winter 2020-2021:
It just doesn’t matter.
And this is just 2020-2021! It doesn’t account for the emergence of the Delta or Omicron variants with enhanced transmissibility.
The correlation coefficient chart also highlights the absence of any clear correlation between mask usage and cases in different parts of Europe:
The strongest correlation was mask usage and deaths in Western Europe.
Visualizing the data differently also shows how ineffective masking was throughout the continent:
The lowest death rates, visible as the black dots towards the bottom left of the chart, are from the areas with the least amount of surveyed mask wearing.
It’s the same story with case rates; there’s simply zero connection between mask usage and cases reported.
Placing mask usage rates on a map of Europe and comparing the same map with death rates also creates a stark image of the disconnect between masking and outcomes.
Several other highlights from the dataset:
- The lowest death rate in Europe was in Norway, which had the third lowest mask compliance at 29%
- The highest death rate was the Czech Republic, famous for the USA Today article praising their mask usage and how their “remarkable progress” was the “lifesaving lesson”
- Spain had the highest compliance at 95% and ranked in the middle of the pack
- Portugal had the eighth highest death rate with the third most mask wearing
- Italy was thirteenth in mortality with the second highest mask usage
- Hungary was second in death rate despite the sixth highest mask compliance
Everywhere you look, there’s either no benefit or a correlation with negative outcomes. The Czech Republic had the highest case rate. Finland and Norway had the lowest case rates with some of the lowest masking rates. Denmark had the seventh fewest cases with the second lowest mask compliance.
This study was conducted with the intent of attempting to confirm or contradict older studies claiming benefits from masking or mask mandates from spring 2020.
The results were unequivocal that mask wearing rates made no difference to outcomes, whether it be cases or deaths. Yet this doesn’t cover the Omicron/seasonal surge of 2021-2022 when the numbers worsened, regardless of mask wearing.
No matter the region, no matter the compliance level, there is zero benefit, and oftentimes the results are profoundly negative.
Actual science had always confirmed that mask do not work to stop the transmission of respiratory viruses.
Experts, the media and politicians around the world panicked and inflicted masking on the population anyway. We did the experiment, we tried masks everywhere. And every bit of available evidence continues to confirm that they do not work.
There has been observational evidence, comparisons and charts, and now it’s confirmed in published studies.
Masks don’t work. And jurisdictions and school districts continuing to enforce masking based on misinformation and fear are engaging in disgraceful theater. “Experts” continuing to push permanent masking are either dangerous, incompetent, or intellectually dishonest.
No matter how hard they keep trying, all the evidence shows that no matter how many people wear masks, they truly accomplish nothing.
Reprinted from the author's Substack.
You really can’t make this stuff up. You gotta watch this video… it’s only 2 minutes. And it will be a key piece of evidence in my next move which you’ll learn about shortly.
In a nutshell, Pfizer admits in court to fraud, but says it isn’t fraud because the government was in on it. I bet you never heard that defense before.
DISPATCHES FROM THE LAPTOP FROM HELL: Listen: The moment Hunter Biden says his father will do anythi…
DISPATCHES FROM THE LAPTOP FROM HELL: Listen: The moment Hunter Biden says his father will do anything he tells him to.
Hunter Biden recorded himself boasting that his father will adopt political positions at his command, footage obtained from a copy of his abandoned laptop shows.
“He’ll talk about anything that I want him to, that he believes in,” Biden said in reference to his father, Joe Biden, in the Dec. 3, 2018, recording. “If I say it’s important to me, then he will work a way in which to make it a part of his platform. My dad respects me more than he respects anyone in the world, and I know that to be certain, so it’s not going to be about whether it affects his politics.”
“All those fears you think that I have of people not liking me or that I don’t love myself … I don’t fear that. You know why I don’t fear that? Because the man I most admire in the world, that god to me, thinks I’m a god,” Hunter Biden added in the 77-minute recording, which was taped about five months before Joe Biden launched his successful 2020 presidential campaign in late April 2019. “And my brother did, too. And the three of us, it was literally — I had the support to know I can do anything.”
Exit question: “Is Hunter Biden calling the shots in the White House? Someone is. Joe Biden has many times intimated that he is not the one who is doing so and that he knows this. ”
In the eyes of group leaders dealing with similar moments, staff were ignoring the mission and focusing only on themselves, using a moment of public awakening to smuggle through standard grievances cloaked in the language of social justice. Often, as was the case at Guttmacher, they played into the very dynamics they were fighting against, directing their complaints at leaders of color. Guttmacher was run at the time, and still is today, by an Afro Latina woman, Dr. Herminia Palacio. “The most zealous ones at my organization when it comes to race are white,” said one Black executive director at a different organization, asking for anonymity so as not to provoke a response from that staff.
These starkly divergent views would produce dramatic schisms throughout the progressive world in the coming year. At Guttmacher, this process would rip the organization apart. Boonstra, unlike many managers at the time, didn’t sugarcoat how she felt about the staff’s response to the killing.
“I’m here to talk about George Floyd and the other African American men who have been beaten up by society,” she told her staff, not “workplace problems.” Boonstra told them she was “disappointed,” that they were being “self-centered.” The staff was appalled enough by the exchange to relay it to Prism.
The human resources department and board of directors, in consultation with outside counsel, were brought in to investigate complaints that flowed from the meeting, including accusations that certain staff members had been tokenized, promoted, and then demoted on the basis of race. The resulting report was unsatisfying to many of the staff.
Perhaps satisfying the staff isn’t the key to an effective organization. Plus:
For progressive movement organizations, 2021 promised to be the year they turned power into policy, with a Democratic trifecta and the Biden administration broadcasting a bold vision of “transformational change.” . . .
And then, sometime in the summer, the forward momentum stalled, and many of the progressive gains lapsed or were reversed. Instead of fueling a groundswell of public support to reinvigorate the party’s ambitious agenda, most of the foundation-backed organizations that make up the backbone of the party’s ideological infrastructure were still spending their time locked in virtual retreats, Slack wars, and healing sessions, grappling with tensions over hierarchy, patriarchy, race, gender, and power.
“So much energy has been devoted to the internal strife and internal bullshit that it’s had a real impact on the ability for groups to deliver,” said one organization leader who departed his position. “It’s been huge, particularly over the last year and a half or so, the ability for groups to focus on their mission, whether it’s reproductive justice, or jobs, or fighting climate change.”
Woke white people are annoying, stupid, and frequently vicious. Fortunately they’re also usually self-destructive and incompetent. But ultimately, this is just Trump exercising a magical power to destroy his enemies via their own ideology:
Sooner or later, each interview for this story landed on the election of Trump in 2016 as a catalyst. Whatever internal tension had been pulling at the seams of organizations in the years prior, Trump’s shock victory sharpened the focus of activists and regular people alike. The institutional progressive world based in Washington, D.C., reacted slowly, shell-shocked and unsure of its place, but people outside those institutions raced ahead of them. A period of mourning turned into fierce determination to resist. Spontaneous women’s marches were called in scores of cities, drawing as many as 5 million people, a shocking display of force. (Their collapse in a heap of identitarian recriminations is its own parable for this moment.)
Heh. Richly deserved.
IT’S NOT JUST THE WAPO AND THE GRAY LADY: How Meltdowns Brought Progressive Groups to a Standstill. …
IT’S NOT JUST THE WAPO AND THE GRAY LADY: How Meltdowns Brought Progressive Groups to a Standstill.
Executive directors across the space said they too have tried to organize their hiring process to filter out the most disruptive potential staff. “I’m now at a point where the first thing I wonder about a job applicant is, ‘How likely is this person to blow up my organization from the inside?’” said one, echoing a refrain heard repeatedly during interviews for this story. (One executive director noted that their group’s high-profile association with a figure considered in social justice spaces to be problematic had gone from a burden to a boon, as the man now serves as an accidental screen, filtering out activists who’d be most likely to focus their energy on internal fights rather than the organization’s mission.)
Another leader said the strife has become so destructive that it feels like an op. “I’m not saying it’s a right-wing plot, because we are incredibly good at doing ourselves in, but — if you tried — you couldn’t conceive of a better right-wing plot to paralyze progressive leaders by catalyzing the existing culture where internal turmoil and microcampaigns are mistaken for strategic advancement of social impact for the millions of people depending on these organizations to stave off the crushing injustices coming our way,” said another longtime organization head. “Progressive leaders cannot do anything but fight inside the orgs, thereby rendering the orgs completely toothless for the external battles in play. … Everyone is scared, and fear creates the inaction that the right wing needs to succeed in cementing a deeply unpopular agenda.”
During the 2020 presidential campaign, as entry-level staffers for Sanders repeatedly agitated over internal dynamics, despite having already formed a staff union, the senator issued a directive to his campaign leadership: “Stop hiring activists.” Instead, Sanders implored, according to multiple campaign sources, the campaign should focus on bringing on people interested first and foremost in doing the job they’re hired to do.
The reckoning has coincided with an awakened and belated appreciation for diversity in the upper ranks of progressive organizations. The mid-2010s saw an influx of women into top roles for the first time, many of them white, followed more recently by a slew of Black and brown leaders at most major organizations. One compared the collision of the belated respect for Black leaders and the upswell of turmoil inside institutions with the “hollow prize” thesis. The most common example of the hollow prize is the victory in the 1970s and ’80s of Black mayors across the country, just as cities were being hollowed out and disempowered. Or, for instance, salaries in the medical field collapsed just as women began graduating into the field.
“I just got the keys and y’all are gonna come after me on this shit?” one executive director who said he felt like a version of those ’70s-era mayors told The Intercept. “‘It’s white supremacy culture! It’s urgent!’ No motherfucker, it’s Election Day. We can’t move that day. Just do your job or go somewhere else.”
Found via John Sexton, who writes:
There’s so much more to say about this but for now I’d just recommend reading all of it. Also, I have to give the Intercept credit for publishing this and Ryan Grim especially deserves credit for reporting on something that really is red meat for people like me who’ve been arguing for years that woke culture was a destructive force that was sweeping its way through society. I think this article represents the death of the kind of leftist denialism that was put forward for years by people like Alex Pareene and many others. For a long time they treated conservative claims about woke extremism on campus as either unfounded or exaggerated. Now that it’s eating their own institutions alive I think it’s clear they were wrong and we were right.
Flashback: Is Safetyism Destroying a Generation?
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE JOE’S ABILITY TO, WELL, YOU KNOW: Get ready for the catastrophic DEF shortage. …
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE JOE’S ABILITY TO, WELL, YOU KNOW: Get ready for the catastrophic DEF shortage. “DEF is the acronym for Diesel Exhaust Fluid. Every diesel truck that has been made since 2010 is required to use it. It’s a product made of 67% urea (made from natural gas) and 33% de-ionized water. DEF is kept in a separate tank in the truck and the trucks using it will not start unless the DEF system is working properly. There are regulators inside the engine that mix DEF with the diesel exhaust to reduce diesel emissions. That’s the purpose of DEF. . . . So: US urea imports are falling, US DEF imports are falling. And US domestic manufacture of DEF is likewise falling and may very quickly turn critical. But what about consumer sales? How will that be affected? Let’s connect some dots. Here is dot one, Flying J and the Union Pacific railroad. . . . Remember that the trucks will not run if their DEF tanks run dry. DEF is sold through the same pumps at fuel stations as diesel fuel is. If a driver cannot fill both tanks, he can only park the truck.”
Bottom line: “Unless the nation’s truckers can refill with Diesel Exhaust Fluid, the trucks will stop. Literally. DEF production is about to crater and the country’s largest truck-fueling company, Flying J, has been directed by Union Pacific railroad to decrease its DEF-receiving shipments by 50 percent or be 100 percent embargoed. Unless resolved, this demand may cause countless thousands of 18-wheelers to be force-parked very soon, perhaps starting this month. That would be a very, very terrible event, because according to the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the trucking industry transports almost three-quarter of all goods shipped in the country. Union Pacific’s largest two shareholders are Vanguard and BlackRock. Vanguard’s largest shareholder is BlackRock. BlackRock’s key figure for strategy and policy is Tom Donilon, President Obama’s former National Security Advisor. Donilon’s wife, daughter, and brother work at the Biden White House. There is no wand to be waved to make the DEF shortage simply disappear. But doing nothing is both reprehensible and indefensible. There is no one better positioned to bring this looming catastrophe to the front burner than two men and two women named Donilon. Yet nothing is exactly what is being done. Why? Well, draw your own conclusions.”
UPDATE: A Knoxville friend writes: “Ha, Rural King literally had pallets of 2.5 gallon DEF containers in their stores. $6.99, then $9.99. Now none. Same at Walmart. Tractor Supply etc. All of the newer ag equipment, tractor’s, combines etc require DEF. Talk about food shortages!”
We just need a hack so it’ll run without it. But EPA will probably block this. I liked it better when Atlas Shrugged was just a novel.
ANOTHER UPDATE: They were warned this was coming 6 months ago: The DEF Shortage – As Prices Rise, Supply Challenges Continue.
A TRILLION HERE AND A TRILLION THERE…: China’s High Speed Rail Network Is A Trillion Dollar Debt Sinkhole. “China’s high speed rail network is a giant, unprofitable sinkhole of $1.8 TRILLION worth of debt.”
CRISIS BY DESIGN: Rash wolf policy already wrecking ranches.
Range riders are present overnight but it’s an expense he won’t be able to continue indefinitely. Right now, they’re on the dime of wolf-advocate groups but he doesn’t expect that to last and with five of the six damage claims unpaid and $5 diesel fuel, it doesn’t pencil. The most recent kill, he said, was while range riders were in the area. The wild burros that were gifted to Gittleson in the hopes that they would serve as guardians are, he said, able to noisily signal danger but certainly don’t fight off wolves.
The bottom line, he said, is that non-lethal hazing methods are ineffective if the wolves don’t have a fear of the use of lethal methods. The wolf pack is emboldened and unafraid. Without lethal methods, the next generation will learn to kill livestock and on and on until there is a large number of problem wolves across a large area. All of this, of course, playing out prior to the first released wolf ever hitting the ground.
The misguided ballot initiative, one that left the hands of actual experts tied, flung wide open the door to out-of-state activist groups and their cash. The state-level protection of wolves has taken more tools out of the management toolbox. It has become, and will continue to be, urban and suburban voters drowning out the votes of the rural areas that actually have to deal with the fallout.
The prevailing urban attitude is: “What do those dumb hicks know about anything important?”
We know where your food comes from, for starters.
Recommend reading this. Puts medication effectiveness into perspective.
I recently gave a lecture to 70 primary care physicians here in Stockholm, titled “should the patient really get the drug?”. The lecture seemed to generate quite a bit of cognitive dissonance among some in the audience, based on the somewhat aggressive discussion that followed the lecture, which suggests to me that much of what I was saying was stuff they had literally never been … Read more
THE BUREAUCRACY STRIKES: FAA requires SpaceX to make environmental changes to Starbase in Texas. “The Federal Aviation Administration on Monday said SpaceX will be required to make more than 75 changes to the orbital launch program at its Starbase launch site in Texas after determining there would be some environmental impacts to the surrounding area. Elon Musk’s SpaceX must obtain either an experimental permit or a vehicle operator license from the FAA for Starship and Super Heavy launch operations from the Boca Chica facility. . . . The FAA decision Monday was made as part of a required environmental review as a part of that process and the agency noted that fulfilling the environmental changes necessary as described by the review would not guarantee that it would issue the permit.”
A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, cited in The Australian and in a New York Times op-ed, reveals over 170,000 non-Covid excess deaths among young Americans in 2020 and 2021, most likely attributable to measures implemented to combat the coronavirus—i.e., deaths by lockdown.
The Economist puts the number even higher, at 199,000. This rate of non-Covid excess deaths among young people holds constant across European Union countries that employed strict lockdown measures, but disappears for Sweden, which did not employ such measures.
According to the NBER study:
Summing our estimates across causes and age groups, we estimate 171,000 excess non-Covid deaths through the end of 2021 plus 72,000 unmeasured Covid deaths. The Economist has assembled national-level mortality data from around the world and obtains a similar U.S. estimate, which is 199,000 (including any unmeasured Covid) or about 60 persons per 100,000 population (Global Change Data Lab 2022). For the European Union as a whole, the estimate is near-identical at 64 non-Covid excess deaths per 100K. In contrast, the estimate for Sweden is -33, meaning that non-Covid causes of death were somewhat low during the pandemic. We suspect that some of the international differences are due to the standard used to designate a death as Covid, but perhaps also Sweden’s result is related to minimizing the disruption of its citizen’s normal lifestyles.
Hauntingly, the results of the NBER and Economist studies are a near-perfect match of the simple calculations of lockdown deaths performed in my book, Snake Oil.
As the New York Times notes euphemistically: “The rate of death from all causes for younger adults has risen by a bigger percentage than has the rate of death from all causes for old people.” It’s nice of the New York Times to finally print this fact, but they would appear to be, euphemistically, a day late and a dollar short—the “dollar” in this case being 200,000 young American lives.
I had recently been thinking about how to do such a study. Glad someone looked into it.
State policies that allow children to access so-called gender-affirming care without parental consent have created a significant increase in suicides, according to a new Heritage Foundation study.
The Heritage study released Monday found that 2020 saw 1.6 more suicides per 100,000 residents ages 12 to 23 in states that allow minors access to puberty blockers and other gender-reassignment procedures without parental consent. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)
Jay Greene, a Heritage research fellow in education, found little evidence that such procedures prevent suicide. In fact, they may be fueling an increase in suicide among young people, the study finds.
A common argument of those in favor of so-called gender-affirming care is that such medical procedures prevent suicide.
Gender transition advocate Sarah Harte, for instance, said that “laws and systems barring gender-affirming health care will contribute to higher rates of significant mental health problems, including deaths by suicide.”
When Alabama passed legislation making gender-transition procedures and “treatments” illegal to perform on children, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the new law would interfere with “lifesaving health care.”
The Biden administration threatened states with a warning that they may be in violation of civil rights law if they put limitations on “gender-affirming care,” which includes hormone treatment, puberty blockers, social affirmation, and surgery.
“Every major medical association agrees that gender-affirming health care is a best practice and, potentially, lifesaving,” Psaki told reporters.
But the evidence from what Psaki called “every major medical association” is weak. With the transformation of so many institutions into ideological enforcers of causes extremely important to the left, is this a surprise?
Greene’s research found that studies on the issue of gender transition and suicide have been badly flawed. It also found a link between minors receiving puberty blockers without parental consent and a much higher suicide rate.
You can read the report here.
“The average state suicide rate in this age group between 1999 and 2020 was 11.1, making an additional 1.6 suicides per 100,000 an increase of 14% in the suicide rate,” Greene writes.
The suicide numbers were obtained from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“If making it easier for minors to access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is protective against suicide, one should expect the frequency of youth suicide to be lower in states that have a provision allowing minors to get these drugs without parental consent,” Greene writes.
In other words, we should see a divergence toward fewer suicides in states that allowed puberty blockers and other gender hormone treatments after they became available in the United States after 2010.
But the divergence went the other way.
“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,” Greene writes.
The Heritage study did not find a similar increase in suicide among young adults who would not have been affected by the states’ hormone drug policies.
According to the study, the gap in the suicide rate continues to get larger between states that put limits on access to these treatments and those that don’t. This trend began as soon as the hormone treatments became widely available:
This increase in suicide rates in states where it is easier for minors to access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones increased at almost the same time, and to the same degree, as those interventions became available. Using Google Trends results for the terms associated with those medical interventions as a proxy for their availability shows that increased suicide rates in states with easier access almost perfectly track the prevalence of those terms.
With so much debate among Americans over transgenderism, the conversation has been contained and controlled by much of the media, Big Tech, and countless other big institutions. They’ve suppressed any opinion or evidence that contradicts the narrative that gender transitioning is an unalloyed good that is opposed only by bigots.
This messaging seems to have created a dramatic increase in young people and children who claim to be transgender.
Liberal talk show host and comedian Bill Maher recently commented that transgenderism for children has become an epidemic. Maher suggested that the spike in cases of children taking puberty blockers and transitioning is connected to explicit cultural messaging.
One recent poll suggested a huge increase in those who identify as trans in just the last few years, with most—43%—young adults and teenagers. Since 2017, according to the Heritage report, the number of young people identifying as transgender has doubled.
“If this spike in trans children is all natural, why is it regional?” Maher asked rhetorically on his late-night show. “Either Ohio is shaming them or California is creating them.”
It appears that this social contagion not only is spreading rapidly but, as the Heritage report finds, causing direct and permanent harm to children at an accelerated rate.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
The post Study Connects Jump in Youth Suicide With Transgender Treatments, Lack of Parental Consent appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Research of the Week
84% diabetes remission using an app.
The vast majority of “grains” fed to livestock are inedible to humans.
Fasting is well-tolerated and helpful in type 2 diabetics.
Could low-dose arsenic exposure be hormetic?
The combo of high fat and high fructose is particularly bad for glucose tolerance.
New Primal Kitchen Podcasts
Primal Kitchen Podcast: Becoming Unstoppable with Bethany Hamilton
Primal Health Coach Radio: Kayleigh Christina and Danielle Gronich
New Zealand plans on counting (and charging farmers for) cow and sheep burps.
Nice coverage of a different path to weight loss than counting calories.
Interesting Blog Posts
What’s American cheese, really?
Is Beyond Meat even more of a scam than we already knew?
Avoiding artificial fragrances is a no-brainer.
Things I’m Up to and Interested In
The son also rises: Despite being discriminated against and having their estates taken, the grandchildren of China’s pre-revolution elite are doing very well for themselves.
I believe it: School shooting drills do little to increase safety but increase depression and mental unwellness.
Interesting study underway: What effect will exogenous ketones have in colon cancer patients?
Love the language here: Plant-based food stocks lack sustainable finance.
Interesting research: The origin of the chicken.
Question I’m Asking
How is inflation treating you?
One year ago (Jun 4 – Jun 10)
- Sprinting, Jumping, Losing Body Fat, and Cultivating Gratitude —What it’s all about.
- Revisiting Sunscreen —All about sunblock.
Comment of the Week
“Re: dealing with food price rises… buying fewer of the “treats” that we really don’t need. Otherwise, doing what we’ve been doing. Eating up the cow we bought in November. Eating the eggs that our ducks lay. Eating greens most of the year from the garden or our attached greenhouse. Saving money elsewhere by heating with wood that we cut and split and powering the AC with solar panels on hot days. Yes, we are lucky but we made some of our luck.”
-“We made some of our luck”: exactly!
The post New and Noteworthy: What I Read This Week—Edition 181 appeared first on Mark's Daily Apple.
Maybe this is why they take so long to respond to emails...
Over the last few years, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has had a habit of playing fast and loose with taxpayer money, and setting their own priorities regardless of what those of Coloradans might be. In part, they’re able to get away with this because CDOT’s governing body, the Colorado Transportation Commission, is appointed entirely by the governor, with the approval of the state Senate.
In 2019, an audit found that “Budget-to-actuals analysis cannot be performed for nearly $1.3 billion — about 80 percent — of the department’s approved budget…” This resulted in precisely none of the commissioners overseeing CDOT tendering their resignations. Now, the state auditor is looking into possible favoritism toward an out-of-state contracting company. The commissioners have lost control of the department.
Now, the commissioners also appear to have lost touch with the citizens whose money they’re spending.
This past December, they voted to adopt a rule that could end up redirecting billions of dollars from roads and highways toward inefficient boutique “green” transit. It would also encourage denser housing, thus limiting people’s ability to buy single-family homes. The new rule even manages to work “equity” into the mix, echoing questionable arguments made by Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.
#DefundEverything, it’s all been weaponized.
I'm wondering if this is another FBI inspired crime. They do so like to talk mentally challenged people into things like this so they can get a safe, but spicy for media coverage, arrest.
WHAT’S IN THE BAG: The List of Gear Kavanaugh’s Would-Be Assassin Was Carrying Is Terrifying.
Thousands of voters have recently left the Democratic Party in Western Colorado — some as part of a grassroots effort to defeat Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert in her upcoming primary election.
Among them is Steven Hallenborg of Montrose.
“Well, I’m a lifelong Democrat, and now I’m unaffiliated,” he said. Because he changed his affiliation, he now can vote against Boebert in the June 28 Republican primary.
For the last few years, Colorado’s “open primary” system has allowed unaffiliated voters to participate in either party’s primary elections. That means voters like Hallenborg can weigh in on Boebert’s primary run — without actually joining the Republican Party.
“It’s very unfortunate what’s going on in this state. So, I mean, she has to go,” Hallenborg said in an interview at a Democratic event. Voters who oppose Boebert have one other option, Republican state Sen. Don Coram, in the June 28 primary.
Open primaries are a joke and wide-open for abuse.
He wasn't joking.
BRANDON GETS RESULTS! Biden ‘Jokes’ About Sending Political Opponents to Jail. The FBI Actually Does It the Very Next Morning. “Last night on Jimmy Kimmel’s show, Biden promised to throw his political opponents in jail. This morning, Biden’s FBI arrested a GOP candidate for governor in Michigan.”