ULTIMATE IN BRAINWASHING: An Unbelievable 22% Of Democrats Believe A Male Can Get Pregnant

Brainwashing: the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.

We have been reporting on how Democrats have become unbelievably unhinged to the point where we now believe that they have become victims of long term brainwashing.

After WWII the concern about brainwashing became headlines. In 1946 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was so worried about the spread of Communism, by brainwashing, that it proposed removing liberals, socialists and communists from places like schools, libraries, newspapers and entertainment. Prophetic isn’t it.

The Daily Wire’s Christina Buttons in her column Nearly 1 In 4 Democratic Voters Believe Men Can Get Pregnant wrote,

A new poll finds that significant numbers of Democratic voters believe things that are false.

Nearly one in four Democratic voters believe men can get pregnant, according to a new poll.

The online survey, conducted by WPA Intelligence from August 22-25, found 22% of Democrats agreed with the statement, “Some men can get pregnant.”

Read more.

But it gets worse. You would thing that those who Democrats who are well educated would disagree. But the didn’t!

Christina continues,

The percentage [of those who believe men can get pregnant] rose when only including women, and a whopping 36% of white, college-educated female Democrats concurred. 

“Overall, few Americans think men can get pregnant,” said WPAi Managing Director Conor Maguire. “But with 36% of a core Democratic constituency (college-educated white Democratic women) and one out of five Democrat voters believing this, one can see why Democratic leaders coddle the radical gender theory movement.

A Pew Research poll found that about 5% of young adults in the U.S. believe it’s possible to identify into a gender that differs from their biological sex.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and numerous liberal media outlets, including CNN and MSNBC, are increasingly opting for terms such as “pregnant people,” or “birthing parent,” instead of “women” when referencing pregnancy, fertility and abortion.

Of course we now have Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Ketanji Brown Jackson who cannot define the word “woman” because she’s not a biologist.

This idea of gender identity is pure brainwashing.

It appears that the more educated women have been brainwashed the most.

Does this survey data mean that the more education the more brainwashing.

It appears so because Wisconsin schools have been sued for helping children ‘transition’ their gender identity. The Daily Wire’s Dillon Burroughs reports,

A school district in Wisconsin was sued on Wednesday over its gender identity training which allows teachers and school staff to hide student gender transitions from parents.

America First Legal (AFL) and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) filed the lawsuit on behalf of a group of parents against the Eau Claire Area School District (ECASD), along with its board members and superintendent, claiming the current policies violate their freedom of religion and parental rights.

“Policies like Eau Claire’s blatantly violate parents’ constitutional rights to raise their children. School staff do not replace parents while their children are at school. A gender identity transition is a major event in a child’s life; schools must defer to parents about this,” WILL Deputy Counsel Luke Berg said in a statement.

Read more.

Are K-16 schools indoctrinating rather than educating?

We report. Your decide.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Brainwashed America: The Ultimate Weapon of Globalists.

The Left is SO Tolerant



Children’s Hospital Gave Schools Material Pointing Students to “LGBT-Friendly Sex Shop for Teens”

Disney-Owned FXX Network to Air “Little Demon” Series About 13-Year-Old Antichrist

Prison Chaplain Who Used the Bible to Manipulate Sexual Abuse Victim Sentence to 7 Years

Pakistan: Mosque teaches girls how to behead people for blaspheming Muhammad

Islamic Republic of Iran sentences to female gay activists to death for ‘spreading corruption on earth’

Miami Surgeon Using TikTok To Promote Sex Change Procedures To Teens

Doctors, Scientists and Professionals from More than 34 Countries Declare “International Medical Crisis” due to Diseases and Deaths Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines

CNN Medical Analyst Says Masking Stunted Her Toddler’s Language Development—and Taught Her an Important Lesson about Tradeoffs

Why You Shouldn’t Need a Doctor’s Permission to Get Prescription Drugs

Are We Living Under a Kakistocracy: Government by the Worst?

HISTORIC: Miami-Dade School Board votes 8-1 to reject a resolution declaring October as LGBTQ History Month

“Our students should go to school to learn their ABC’s, not their LGBT’s.” — Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Núñez

We have written about how the LGBTQ agenda has entered our public school systems nationwide. Initially is began as an anti-gay bullying program, then is moved to creating gay clubs like GLSEN in public schools, then it morphed into teaching about sex to underaged children.

Then is moved to actual grooming of children to have sex with perverts, pedophiles and pederasts by public school teachers and sodomites.

Today if you as a parent criticize any of these policies, programs or  behaviors in public classrooms you are designated a domestic terrorist.

In Florida the epicenter for child abuse has been in the Miami-Dade school system. We have seen child molesters like Jason Edward Meyers a teacher at Palmetto High School in Miami-Dade, Florida who is a pedophile who stalked his underaged students for sex for a decade.

Governor Ron DeSantis has made it his mission to protect the innocence of Florida’s children.

But there may be a ray of hope.

In an email The Christian Family Coalition Florida wrote,

In a historic turnaround victory for parental rights and children’s protection, the Miami-Dade School Board voted 8-1 on Wednesday to reject a resolution declaring October as LGBTQ History Month in Miami-Dade Schools.

The decision was a major reversal from last year, when the same board voted 7-1 in favor of declaring October 2021 as LGBTQ History Month in the public schools.

The stunning about-face reflected the new political reality in Florida schools and in much of the nation as outraged parents have stood up over the last year to oppose the extremist LGBTQ indoctrination of our children.

That movement of concerned parents was on full display at Wednesday’s school board meeting, as more than 200 residents packed the chamber to oppose the “LGBTQ History Month” resolution, which was sponsored by liberal school board member Lucia Baez-Geller.

Many parents pointed out that Baez-Geller’s resolution – which called for special lesson plans to celebrate same-sex marriage and the transgender movement – would have violated the state’s Parental Rights in Education Act signed this year by Gov. Ron DeSantis, which prohibits LGBT indoctrination in grades K through 3.

The overwhelming majority of the school board agreed, as all eight of Baez-Geller’s colleagues of both parties voted to reject her resolution.

“This is a huge win for parents, and it proves that we can force the extremist LGBTQ movement into retreat if enough folks stand up and say enough is enough,” said Christian Family Coalition Founder and Executive Director Anthony Verdugo. “CFC Florida rallied well over 200 parents to come to the school board meeting and speak their minds, and many more responded to our email alerts to contact their board members to let them know how they feel. That definitely made a difference. We also want to thank all the school board members who voted to defend parental rights and protect our children from sexual indoctrination.”

Please take a moment to email the following board members your thanks for rejecting LGBTQ indoctrination.

Now there is a documentary titled Keep This Between Us about Jason Meyers and other predators in our public school classrooms.

In this documentary three women re-examine their past relationships with predator teachers, exposing the shocking statistics of widespread grooming in U.S. high schools, including Florida.

This is just one part of the larger war against the sodomites and their enablers.

Never give up. Never surrender to them and their sick policies.

Get them out of our public schools and the public square. Pride is a sin.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


It Took Over 6-Years and 9 Months to Bring to Trial a Teacher Accused of Being a Sexual Predator. Why?

Wisconsin Schools Sued For Helping Children ‘Transition’ Gender Identity

Men Can Get Pregnant, 22% of Democrats and Head of Pro-Abortion Activist Group Claim

New Hampshire Can Blaze The Trail To Plentiful Carbon-Free Energy

As energy prices continue to crush families and businesses, the future looks bleak for northern New England and its heavy reliance on carbon-belching fossil fuels.

But there’s a bright spot up ahead. This summer, Governor Chris Sununu signed into law House Bill 543, an act “establishing a commission to study nuclear power and nuclear reactor technology in New Hampshire.” That culminated a multi-year effort on the part of local New Hampshire citizens, activists, and elected officials to meet the state’s challenges in energy security and environmental stewardship.

Given the plights of neighboring Vermont and Maine, which shut down their nuclear plants and have no major carbon-free energy solutions in sight, the commission’s work could make the Granite State a net exporter of clean electricity.

The initiative has support across the spectrum, from environmentalists who see nuclear energy as a vital bridge toward more sustainable alternatives in the future, to political conservatives.

Valerie Gardner, co-founder of the California based Climate Coalition and Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, said “the wording of NH HB 543 is very smart, direct and no-nonsense and it should be a model for every state in the nation!”

Karen Testerman of Franklin, who is challenging Sununu from the right in the September primary, worked with Grafton County Commissioner Omer Ahern Jr., to bring nuclear energy experts to the state. Their goals: to explore both the necessity of keeping Seabrook Station, northern New England’s last nuclear power plant and the largest generator in the six-state electrical grid, operating for its entire useful life; and to explore next generation nuclear technology to go online well before Seabrook’s license expires in the year 2050.

Those experts included Steve Curtis and Tom Dolan, who traveled throughout the state to brief citizens and leaders about the economic and national security benefits of nuclear power and the need for America to embrace spent nuclear fuel as a new sustainable source of energy. They stirred interest in the promising concept of recycling spent nuclear fuel in next-generation fast reactors – for which America has a domestic supply equivalent to 250 years of clean, carbon-free power – sitting unused on reactor sites nationwide, including at Seabrook, and in Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont.

“As a grassroots state, we in New Hampshire realize we can’t wait for others to take care of our challenges,” said Testerman.  “By presenting the issue to the House Science and Technology Committee members, and through radio outreach on New Hampshire’s Common Sense radio program, we became the catalyst to initiating the potential pathway to energy independence,” she said.

The initiative could supply everyone on the New Hampshire grid with clean electricity and make the state a major exporter of planet-friendly power to its neighbors.

The primary sponsor of the legislation was Representative Keith Ammon. His legislative approach received applause by advocates of clean energy nationwide.

Gardner, of the Climate Coalition, explained that New Hampshire is not alone in studying the benefits of nuclear for clean energy. “Michigan is already there, and WY, IN, WV, AL, WI, IL and CT have already repealed bans and/or passed pro-SMR” bills,” she wrote, referring to state-level actions meant to explore the next generation nuclear revolution.

With the U.S. Department of Energy in Washington slow-walking recommendations to embrace a carbon-free future with next-generation reactors and recycled spent nuclear fuel, New Hampshire’s new commission has the potential to make a historic difference for the state and the nation.


Tommy Waller

Executive Vice President, Center for Security Policy.

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Meadows: We went from energy dominance to energy beggars


Tommy Waller joins WSHO radio to discuss electric grid vulnerabilities, what must be done

60 Minutes highlights vulnerabilities of the electric grid and Biden administration inaction

Tommy Waller: Electrical grid security is national security

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

CFACT Brings ‘Energy Reality’ to Television, Radio, Social Media and in Movies!

CFACT constantly speaks pro-energy truth to green anti-energy propaganda.

Any given day you’ll catch CFACT’s team on TV, the web, social media, radio, movies… you name it.

Institutional leftism has grown so prevalent, it takes an unrelenting voice of reason, creatively utilizing media of all kinds to compete and win through.

Unrelenting is a fine word to describe CFACT.

Watch Marc Morano, the force behind our award-winning Climate Depot news and information service, take to the screen to debunk myths about EV’s and China on Centerpoint TV.

Hear me take on Biden’s outrageous “30×30” land grab on VCY America Radio.

Listen to Gabriella Hoffman expose the absurdity of banning Canadian imports of game birds on her District of Conservation Podcast.

Check out the crowd that gathered to watch CFACT’s feature film Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy in Dallas!

In August, CFACT went over 50 million monthly viewers on social media!

CFACT has been warning about radical attempts to wreck America’s energy economy since 1985.  Sadly, our words have proven all too prophetic.

I’m proud of the ability of CFACT’s staff to unrelentingly out debate the Left every day, on EVERY form of media at our disposal.

©CFACT. All rights reserved.

Amazon Takes Solar Rooftops Offline Following Major Fires, Electrical Explosions

Grids going down, Rolling blackouts, EVs that can’t be charged – “green ain’t green but it is an epic failure.

Another Green Disaster: Amazon Took Solar Rooftops Offline Following Major Fires, Electrical Explosions

By: Breitbat News, September 7, 2022:

A new report from CNBC reveals that Amazon powered down all of its solar rooftops in the U.S. last year following a series of major fires at facilities throughout the country.

CNBC reports that over a year, at least six Amazon fulfillment centers caught fire or experienced electrical explosions due to failures with their solar energy rooftop systems. Internal documents obtained by CNBC reveal that between April 2020 and June 2021 Amazon experienced “critical fire or arc flash events” in at least six of its 47 North American sites with solar installations.
Workers install solar panels on the roof of factory buildings at a small and medium-sized enterprises park on July 5, 2022 in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province of China. (Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images)

Workers install solar panels on the roof of a factory building (Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images)

In the internal reports, an Amazon employee wrote: “The rate of dangerous incidents is unacceptable, and above industry averages.” In June of last year, Amazon took all of its U.S. solar facilities offline temporarily to ensure its systems were designed and installed properly for continuing their use any further.

An Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the incidents involved systems run by partners and that the company responded by voluntarily turning off its solar-powered roofs. “Out of an abundance of caution, following a small number of isolated incidents with onsite solar systems owned and operated by third parties, Amazon proactively powered off our onsite solar installations in North America, and took immediate steps to re-inspect each installation by a leading solar technical expert firm,” the spokesperson said.

However, those details were absent in Amazon’s 100-page sustainability report for 2021, in which it stated that solar was powering 115 of its fulfillment centers across the globe by the end of 2021. “Many of our fulfillment facilities throughout the U.S., Europe, and India are powered by on-site solar, where a rooftop installation can power up to 80% of the facility’s energy use,” the report said.

“As inspections are completed, our onsite solar systems are being powered back on,” the Amazon spokesperson said. “Amazon also built a team of dedicated solar experts overseeing the construction, operations, and maintenance of our systems in-house to ensure the safety of our systems.”

By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Amazon has blamed third-party partners and vendors for most of the significant problems with its solar systems. “Over the past five years, solar malfunctions have been caused by improper installation techniques, improper commissioning of a new system, inadequate system maintenance and equipment malfunction,” the documents said.



GREEN DISASTER: California Activates 4 Gas Generators for the First Time as Electric Grid Suffers Major Defeat

Gov. Glenn Youngkin vows to stop ‘ridiculous’ state ban on gas vehicles

Dutch Farmers Topple Agriculture Minister Leading Climate Agenda

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin Vows to Stop ‘Ridiculous’ State Ban on Gas Vehicles

The totalitarian Newsom government on the communist state of California has banned gas vehicles.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin vows to stop ‘ridiculous’ state ban on gas vehicles

Former Virginia Gov. Northam signed legislation in 2021 tying state’s emissions policies to California’s Air Resources Board

By: Anders Hagstrom, Fox Business, August 28, 202

Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin is working to dismantle Virginia’s push toward electric vehicles, calling the move “ridiculous” in a Sunday statement.

Virginia’s former governor, Democrat Ralph Northam, signed legislation in 2021 tying the state’s emissions policies to the California Air Resources Board. The board has imposed a regimen to eliminate the sale of gas and diesel vehicles by 2035, forcing Virginia to do the same thanks to the 2021 law.

“In an effort to turn Virginia into California, liberal politicians who previously ran our government sold Virginia out by subjecting Virginia drivers to California vehicle laws,” Youngkin wrote in a statement on Twitter. “Now, under that pact, Virginians will be forced to adopt the California law that prohibits the sale of gas and diesel-fueled vehicles.”

“I am already at work to prevent this ridiculous edict from being forced on Virginians. California’s out of touch laws have no place in our Commonwealth,” he continued.

Keep reading…



GREEN DISASTER: California Activates 4 Gas Generators for the First Time as Electric Grid Suffers Major Defeat

MEDIA COVERUP: Another Massive GREEN DISASTER, Amazon Took Solar Rooftops Offline Following Major Fires, Electrical Explosions

California To Ban Sales of All New Gas-Powered Cars

Democrat California Tells Drivers to Stop Charging Cars, Right After Banning Gas Vehicles

Washington and Massachusetts to follow California’s gas car sales ban|

VIDEO: Six Feet Of Blood Clots Removed From Vaxxed High School Football Player’s Legs

His calves were swelled up four inches larger. Watch:

Six Feet Of Blood Clots Removed From High School Football Player’s Legs Days Before Season Starts [VIDEO]

“His calves were swelled up four inches larger, in circumference, than they are now. So, he was very uncomfortable.”

By Gregory Hoyt, Red Voice, September 6, 2022

WAUSEON, OH – A high school football player has had his athletic career cut short after doctors found and removed approximately six feet of blood clots from the teenager’s legs. The cause of the blood clots is not yet known, but the teen now requires a regimen of blood thinners to ensure the issue doesn’t crop up again.

Kaden Clymer is a junior at a high school located in Wauseon and was looking forward to the start of the football season at school. However, playing the sport is no longer in the cards after an anomaly was discovered this past August.

Kaden’s mother, Maurine Clymer explained the bizarre medical issues that seemingly came out of nowhere on August 1st, telling a local news crew, “His dad took him to the emergency room after he was having severe pain in his back and legs.”

Tyson Rodriguez, one of Kaden’s teammates, remarked on when the issues first began fleshing out in the teen, saying, “I was a bit confused because I didn’t really know what was happening. He just told me that he wasn’t feeling good.”

On the evening prior to the high school football team had their first practice in the fall, Kaden was rushed to Toledo Children’s Hospital, with his mother explaining, “His calves were swelled up four inches larger, in circumference, than they are now. So, he was very uncomfortable.”

Looking back on his time at the hospital, Kaden stated, “I just wanted to go home, honestly. I didn’t really care what they did to me. I just wanted to go home.”

The teen and his family would eventually get the news of blood clots being the culprit behind the severe leg swelling. When Kaden learned of the underlying issue, he said he felt “really sad. I was crying and upset because I’ve played football my whole life, and I just wanted to play with my friends.”

An astonishing six feet of blood clots were removed from the teen’s legs, and has since been prescribed blood thinners that have ended his football career. After spending nine days in the hospital, the teenager returned to school while barely being able to walk.

Keep reading….



Are you being ‘othered’ by Team Biden?

Embalmers Have Been Finding Numerous Long, Fibrous Clots That Lack Post-Mortem Characteristics

How Teachers Are Secretly Taught Critical Race Theory

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

World’s Most Lethal Virus the Spanish Flu, Revived by Fauci’s Mad ‘Scientists’

National Institutes of Health Scientists Have Recreated World’s Deadliest Flu Virus


  • Scientists in the U.S. and Canada have resurrected the Spanish flu virus through reverse genetics. Not surprisingly, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) are involved
  • The scientists appear frustrated by the fact that their reverse engineered Spanish flu virus — even at the highest doses tested — was not lethal enough to kill the macaque species selected for the experiment. They argue we need to make a more dangerous version of the Spanish flu to be able to make better vaccines for it. This despite the fact that, until they resurrected it, it no longer existed in nature
  • The argument that we need to create dangerous viruses “just in case” Nature comes up with something similar, so we can create vaccines for said viruses in advance, simply doesn’t hold water. This is science gone mad, and it must be stopped
  • Evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being the product of gain-of-function research, and a number of U.S. institutions need to come clean about their work, including the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
  • All of these agencies and institutions have conducted and/or collaborated on research that may be able to solve the mystery of where SARS-CoV-2 came from. But instead of transparently sharing their data, they’ve merely declared that they’ve “not been involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.” Blanket denials are no longer enough. They must produce the data for independent review and analysis

Evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being the product of gain-of-function (GoF) research. Indeed, attorney Tom Renz will soon release the results of a major legal investigation, which he claims will demonstrate — beyond a reasonable doubt — that SARS-CoV-2 was created as part of a GoF project.1

Whether the outbreak was accidental, intentional or the result of negligence, the end result is the same — devastation of health, commerce, finance and civil life worldwide for years on end.

Now imagine what might happen if something like the Spanish flu got out — or worse, a turbo-charged, genetically engineered version of it. Incomprehensible as it may seem to the average person, scientists in the U.S. and Canada have resurrected this devastatingly lethal virus and, not surprisingly, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) are involved.

Mad Scientists Are Testing Recreated Spanish Flu on Monkeys

As reported by Renz, August 19, 2022:2

“… this is so absurd that I am just starting with the reference document because I am concerned no one will believe it. Here it is: ‘Spanish Flu GoF.’3 Yes, that is right, Fauci and crew are now actively performing gain-of-function (GoF) work and infecting primates with the Spanish Flu … Here is a quote from the document:

‘… Influenza virus A/South Carolina/1918 (H1N1) was generated by reverse genetics and handled in biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) containment at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML).

Sequences of the 1918 influenza viral segments were based on data reported under GenBank accession numbers DQ208309, DQ208310, DQ208311, AF117241, AY744935, AF250356, AY130766, and AF333238.

1918 influenza virus was cultured using Madin-Darby canine kidney … cells. MDCK cells were grown in minimum essential medium … supplemented with 5% fetal bovine serum … and 1 L-glutamine …

A passage 2 (P2) virus stock was prepared using MEM supplemented with 0.1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) … 1 L-glutamine, and 1 mg/mL N-tosyl-L-phenylalanine chloromethyl ketone (TPCK)-treated trypsin …

This stock was used for animal inoculation. The mouse 50% lethal dose (MLD50) for this stock was determined previously to be 103.2 PFU; this value was confirmed prior to the use of the stock for macaque infection.’

I frankly do not care to debate the nuance of whether the recreation of generally extinct virus ‘generated by reverse genetics’ using pieces and parts of other animals qualifies as GoF; what I care about is that we have recreated the Spanish Flu and are experimenting with it on other animals.”

Spanish Flu ‘Not Lethal Enough’

As noted by Renz, the scientists appear frustrated by the fact that their reverse engineered Spanish flu virus — even at the highest doses tested — was not lethal enough to kill the two macaque species selected for the experiment.

Macaques were therefore deemed “not ideal for the development and testing of novel pandemic influenza-specific vaccines and therapies,” necessitating “other physiologically relevant nonhuman primate models.” Renz continues:4

“… given the result of the previous coronavirus GoF, can ANYONE possibly argue GoF work on the Spanish Flu is a good idea? Even the simple recreation of the disease demonstrates an incredible lack of respect for the disaster created by the coronavirus GoF.

So you may be asking, what moron could possibly be oblivious enough to support GoF work on the Spanish Flu while the world is still dealing with the nightmare that is COVID? The answer should not be surprising … NIH and NIAID are involved.

Apparently Fauci does not mind what he did with funding the creation of COVID and is at it again. You might also note the vaccine development crew’s involvement. A foundational point in this article is that the newly recreated Spanish Flu is not dangerous enough. Here is a pull-quote:

‘However, 1918 influenza was uniformly nonlethal in these two species, demonstrating that this isolate is insufficiently pathogenic in rhesus and Mauritian cynomolgus macaques to support testing novel prophylactic influenza approaches where protection from severe disease combined with a lethal outcome is desired as a highly stringent indication of vaccine efficacy.’

This means that these people are arguing that we need to make a more dangerous version of the Spanish Flu so they can make ‘better’ vaccines for it … despite the fact that until they recreated it, it likely no longer existed in nature.”

As noted by Renz, elected officials really need to answer the question, “Why is this kind of research allowed to continue on your watch?” Why are we reverse engineering the most lethal viruses the world has ever seen — after they’ve already been eradicated?

The argument that we need to create dangerous viruses “just in case” Nature comes up with something similar, so we can create vaccines for said viruses in advance, simply doesn’t hold water. Stop creating these monstrosities, and we won’t need the vaccines! This is science gone mad, and it must be stopped.

Besides, what are the chances that a virus would emerge naturally that just so happens to perfectly match the virus we now have a vaccine against? The entire premise is irrational from start to finish. It’s biowarfare research and nothing else

The Intentional Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2’s Origin

Fauci, former NIH chief Dr. Francis Collins, EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak and other members of the scientific community have spent the last two and a half years actively stifling debate about the genesis of SARS-CoV-2.

And, coincidentally, most of them have clear-cut connections to bat coronavirus GoF research and/or the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which appears to be the lab from which the virus somehow escaped.

So, it appears those who insist SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin, despite all the evidence to the contrary, are doing so because they don’t want risky virological research to be blamed for the COVID pandemic. That would “blow their cover” and raise questions about the sanity of funding such research.

Some may be so enamored with their chosen careers, they cannot imagine doing anything other than tinkering with pathogens. For them, pulled funding is a threat to their livelihood. But for others, the underlying incentive may be more nefarious. Like I already said, there’s really no reason for this kind of research other than the creation of weapons of mass destruction.

Whatever incentive any given player may have had, what’s clear is that Fauci, Collins, Daszak and many others intentionally undermined efforts to get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from.

Corrupted Science

Attesting to this corruption of science is Jeffrey Sachs, Ph.D., professor of economy at Columbia University, a senior United Nations adviser and chair of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, convened in June 2020.

Sachs originally assigned Daszak to lead and organize the COVID-19 Commission’s task force to investigate the virus’s genesis (one of 11 task forces under the COVID Commission). Sachs ended up dismissing Daszak from the task force in June 2021, after he realized just how serious Daszak’s conflicts of interest were,5 and that Daszak was lying to him.6

Eventually, he realized Daszak wasn’t the only rotten apple in the bunch. Other members of The Lancet Commission’s COVID Origins task force were also working against their mandate to investigate the pandemic’s origin. The final straw came when Sachs sacked Daszak and several task force members suddenly attacked him for being “antiscience.”

Shortly thereafter, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request brought previously hidden NIH documents to light, and Sachs realized that those who were attacking him also had undisclosed ties that made their ability to get to the truth doubtful at best. At that point, in September 2021, he disbanded the whole task force.

Lack of Transparency Breeds Mistrust

In mid-May 2022, Sachs published a frank opinion piece in the journal PNAS,7 together with Neil Harrison, calling for a truly independent inquiry into the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

In their article, Sachs and Harrison argued that while transparency on the part of Chinese authorities would be “enormously helpful,” much may be gleaned from information found in U.S.-based research institutions that were working with Wuhan-based institutions, including the WIV. Yet such material has not been disclosed for independent analysis. Here’s an excerpt:8

“This lack of an independent and transparent US-based scientific investigation has had four highly adverse consequences. First, public trust in the ability of US scientific institutions to govern the activities of US science in a responsible manner has been shaken.

Second, the investigation of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has become politicized within the US Congress; as a result, the inception of an independent and transparent investigation has been obstructed and delayed.

Third, US researchers with deep knowledge of the possibilities of a laboratory-associated incident have not been enabled to share their expertise effectively. Fourth, the failure of NIH, one of the main funders of the US–China collaborative work, to facilitate the investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 has fostered distrust regarding US biodefense research activities.

Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), but involving researchers at several other US institutions.

For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information …”

Sachs and Harrison go on to name a number of U.S. institutions that need to come clean about their work, including the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, NIAID and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

All of these agencies and institutions have conducted and/or collaborated on research that may be able to solve the mystery, but instead of transparently sharing their data, they’ve merely declared that they’ve “not been involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.”

Blanket Denials Are Not Good Enough

As noted by Sachs, before we can believe such claims, we need to be able to confirm their veracity, and that requires independent analysis of all the data.

“Blanket denials from the NIH are no longer good enough. Although the NIH and USAID have strenuously resisted full disclosure of the details of the EHA-WIV-UNC work program, several documents leaked to the public or released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have raised concerns,” Sachs and Harrison wrote.9

“These research proposals make clear that the EHA-WIV-UNC collaboration was involved in the collection of a large number of so-far undocumented SARS-like viruses and was engaged in their manipulation within biological safety level (BSL)-2 and BSL-3 laboratory facilities, raising concerns that an airborne virus might have infected a laboratory worker.

A variety of scenarios have been discussed by others, including an infection that involved a natural virus collected from the field or perhaps an engineered virus manipulated in one of the laboratories.”

Suspicious ‘Coincidences’ Abound

Sachs and Harrison go on to discuss the problem of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV-2 that makes it more transmissible and pathogenic than related viruses.

While it’s not yet known how this feature came to be within SARS-CoV-2, whether by natural evolution or intentional insertion, “We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (‘DEFUSE’) that was submitted to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),” Sachs wrote.

That particular DARPA proposal was never funded, but as noted by Sachs, “we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding.”

“Information now held by the research team headed by EHA, as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2,” Sachs and Harrison wrote.10

“We do not assert that laboratory manipulation was involved in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, although it is apparent that it could have been. However, we do assert that there has been no independent and transparent scientific scrutiny to date of the full scope of the US-based evidence.”

In an August 2, 2022, Current Affairs interview,11 Sachs again reiterated that he believes the NIH and allied scientists colluded to impede The Lancet Commission’s investigation, for the simple reason that the virus was the result of U.S. research.

Indeed, aside from what Sachs brought up in his PNAS article, there are patents spanning decades to suggest that’s true (see “Patents Prove SARS-CoV-2 Is a Manufactured Virus“).

Sachs also opened up about his concerns and misgivings in an August 20, 2022, interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (video above). He admits believing in the zoonotic spillover theory early on, only to, over time, come to change his mind as he realized he was being lied to, over and over again.

Today, he believes the lab-leak theory is the most likely explanation for the pandemic — and that the U.S. government, the NIH, the NIAID and the rest are suppressing the truth for the simple reason that they’re responsible for its creation, even if only in part.

Final Thoughts

To circle back to where we started, is it really prudent to reverse engineer the Spanish flu virus, and further tinker with it to make it even more lethal — all in the name of vaccine development?

Think back over the past few years. Mull over the deaths — an estimated 18 million from COVID-19 alone12 — the suicides (deaths of despair), the lost businesses, lost education years, the loss of freedoms and Constitutional rights, the COVID jab injuries, and the massive wealth transfer that has occurred.

All of that may have been because of this kind of mad science. Do we really want to repeat it in the future, but with a far more lethal pathogen? Most sane persons would say no. It’s time for legislators to take definitive steps to ensure mankind is not wiped out by scientific hubris.

Sources and References

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

LGBTQ+ Activists Aim to Unseat DeSantis because he wants children to learn their ABC’s not their LGBT’s

“Our students should go to school to learn their ABC’s, not their LGBT’s.” — Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Núñez

The LGBTQ+ community in Florida are a very small minority yet they think their attempts to indoctrinate our children with their thinking and behavior is a winning political issue. They think they should have special rights and privileges because of their sexual orientation. They are upset over Parents’ Rights being inculcated into law in Florida.

One just needs to have attended Polk County Public School Board meetings since last December as well as being aware of the plethora of Gay Pride proclamations passed by the school board. Most Polk county City and County Commissioners realize Governor DeSantis is right with his focus that we should be educating not indoctrinating our children.

Governor DeSantis is not a villain but is doing what the vast majority of parents and voters want him to do.

Parents do count and should be involved in the education, not indoctrination, of their children.

Among the 45 Goals of Communism read into the Congressional Record in 1962 are the following five (5) pointedly designed to take over our schools:

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents

Charlie Crist is a bought and paid for Marxist protégé’ who has stated publicly, “Thank God for Joe Biden.”

Every God loving, law abiding, conservative Florida voter knows Crist must be defeated and Gov DeSantis re-elected as our Governor on November 8th, 2022.

DeSantis targeted LGBTQ Floridians like no previous governor. Now they’re working to defeat him


Zander Moricz started his freshman year at Harvard last month, but he’s still keeping an eye on Florida after clashing with Gov. Ron DeSantis throughout the last year.

The first gay student body president at Pine View School in Sarasota County, Moricz led a student walkout at the school to protest HB 1557, which was derided by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. He later sued to overturn the law signed by DeSantis.

Now Moricz is working to derail DeSantis’ reelection bid from his Harvard dormitory room in Cambridge, Mass. He plans to rally the 2,000 members of an activist group he organized in Florida and nationwide in opposition to DeSantis’ reelection campaign.

“As November approaches the 2,000 of us will be doing everything in our collective power to ensure Charlie Crist is our governor and DeSantis is not put in a position of power in any way ever again,” Moricz said, referencing DeSantis’ Democratic opponent.

That type of commitment to unseating DeSantis highlights the intense emotions the governor has stirred up over the last year with a steady stream of policies impacting Florida’s LGBTQ community. No governor in recent decades has centered his political agenda on LGBTQ issues more than DeSantis.

When Florida students headed back to school last month, DeSantis took to Twitter to tout his efforts to rid classrooms of alleged “transgender ideology.”

The governor then repeated one of his favorite refrains over the last year, saying schools will “educate children. Not indoctrinate them.”

A few weeks later, DeSantis’ Lt Gov. Jeanette Núñez told a crowd in Miami that “Our students should go to school to learn their ABC’s, not their LGBT’s,” according to the New York Times.

DeSantis has drawn national attention for actions on everything from transgender sports and health care to what school officials can say about sexual orientation and gender identity. He is leaning into that record in the final months of his reelection campaign against Crist.

Read the full article.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.


Anti-CRT Group Crows About Flipping School Boards Conservative

Ron DeSantis Releases ‘Top Gun’-Inspired Campaign Ad Attacking Media

Five Key Takeaways From the Latest Primary Election Results

Teacher Sent To Jail After Refusing To Use ‘Gender-Neutral’ Pronouns At Ireland School

Joe Biden is Breaking Federal Law to Make VA Hospitals Do Abortions

What Drugs Have the Highest Risk of Causing Suicidal Thoughts?

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) reports that suicide is the 12th leading cause of death in the United States and that an estimated 1.2 million suicide attempts took place in 2020 alone. Our society must deal with this problem, but we have to know where to look. While many contributing factors are associated with attempted suicide or suicidal thoughts, one that deserves special consideration is drug use. Here’s what drugs have the highest risk of causing suicidal thoughts.

Who Are the Culprits?

Deciding which drugs have the highest risk of suicidal thoughts is tricky. This is because many illicit drugs affect the central nervous system (CNS), which is how the brain communicates with the rest of the body. CNS depressants work by slowing down or suppressing this messaging process. CNS depressants include benzodiazepines, opioids, sedative drugs, and even alcohol. Other drugs known as CNS stimulants work in the opposite way to CNS depressants by increasing central nervous system activity in the brain and the body. Stimulants include cocaine, crack, ecstasy, methamphetamine, and prescription stimulants, such as Adderall and Ritalin. Next to these, there’s marijuana, which is sort of a wild card drug because it can produce stimulant and depressant effects.

While it might sound like we’ve gone down the list of all available drugs rather than a list of drugs that cause suicidal thoughts, the reality is all these drugs, and many others, can lead to suicidal thoughts. Each of these drugs manipulates the central nervous system. As a result, they can influence our emotions, our cognitive decision-making, and our awareness. Additionally, underlying factors or mental health conditions can increase the possibility of experiencing suicidal thoughts from drug use.

Concerning Findings

With that said, it’s still true that certain drugs carry a higher potential for suicidal thoughts. While it is an oversimplification to associate stimulants or “uppers” with happiness and depressants or “downers” with sadness, the reality is that even uppers can cause severe depression, which can lead to suicidal thoughts. However, statistics show that most suicidal thoughts or acts are more commonly linked with depressants use. For example, a 2020 study revealed that suicidal drug overdoses ranked highest when people used opioids or barbiturates. Following those drugs, the third-ranking included antidepressant drugs. It is ironic that the medications that seem to carry a high risk for suicide and/or severe depression are, in fact, antidepressants. While benzodiazepines can treat anxiety-related depression, most instances of depression are treated with antidepressant medications, generally belonging to either the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) class, though there are other less commonly used antidepressants as well.

Brand names that belong to these classes include drugs such as Cymbalta, Celexa, Prozac, and Zoloft. These drugs are more effective in treating depression than other options because they work in very specific ways to regulate serotonin in the body, which results in a stabilized mood. According to a study examining the link between SSRIs and suicidal thoughts, there is no clear connection between the two for adults. However, there was a higher risk of suicidal thoughts for children and adolescents. Researchers recommended that clinicians closely monitor and follow up with patients who use the medications they prescribed. In fact, this is exactly what we see in advertisements for antidepressant medications. The ads state the risk of the potential for depression and suicidal thoughts, followed by a warning to contact a doctor right away if these symptoms occur.

What to Do

Part of the controversy centered around the safety of antidepressant use concerns whether suicidal thoughts are pre-existing conditions of antidepressant drug use or if they are actually caused by taking the drugs. Additionally, mixing antidepressants with other drugs can create risks that can be detrimental to mental health. This information should not deter anyone from getting medical treatment for suicidal thoughts or depression-related symptoms. However, we can use it to educate ourselves about just how complex the problem is and what drugs to pay close attention to as we maintain our mental health and the mental health of others around us.


American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. (n.d.). Suicide Statistics. Retrieved https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/

Delphi Health Group. (n.d). Guide to Drug Addiction: Symptoms, Signs, and Treatment. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/addiction/

Medical News Today. (2018 Oct 9). What is Central Nervous System (CNS) Depression? Retrieved https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314790

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Guide to Alcohol Detox: Severity, Dangers, and Timeline. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/alcohol/detox/

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Stimulant Addiction. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/stimulants/

Healthline. (2019 May 6). Is Weed a Depressant, Stimulant, or Hallucinogen? Retrieved https://www.healthline.com/health/is-weed-a-depressant

Vox. (2018 Jun 15). Depression and Suicide Risk are Side Effects of more Than 200 Common Drugs. Retrieved https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/14/17458726/depression-drugs-suicide-side-effect

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). A Guide to Dual-Diagnosis Treatment. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/treatment-guide/dual-diagnosis/

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Guide to Cocaine Addiction and Treatment. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/stimulants/cocaine/

JAMA. (2020 Mar 23). Incidence and Lethality of Suicidal Overdoses by Drug Class. Retrieved https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2763226

NIH. (2010 Sep 3). Antidepressants and Suicide Risk: A Comprehensive Overview. Retrieved https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034101/

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.) Mixing Alcohol and Antidepressants – Can You Do It Safely? Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/alcohol/and-antidepressants/

NIH. (2012 Jan). Suicide and Antidepressants: What Current Evidence Indicates. Retrieved https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353604/

Medical News Today. (2017 Dec 14). What is Prozac (fluoxetine)? Retrieved https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263773

NHS. (2021 Dec 8). Cautions- Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Retrieved https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/talking-therapies-medicine-treatments/medicines-and-psychiatry/ssri-antidepressants/considerations/#:~:text=Interactions%20with%20other%20medicines,known%20as%20%22serotonin%20syndrome%22.

Navy SEALs Are Fighting For Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandates, And The Battle Is Far From Over

  • U.S. Navy SEALs continue fighting in the courts to obtain religious exemptions to the military’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination while the Biden administration lets exemption requests stack up, unaddressed.
  • Legal experts argue that the administration’s argument to national security no longer applies in light of changing CDC guidelines.
  • “The Constitution, federal law, and DOD regulations all protect religious liberty in the military, and our courts have repeatedly reminded us that there is no [COVID-19] exception to the Constitution,” Mike Berry, senior counsel at the First Liberty Institute that is representing the SEALs, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Some Navy SEALs’ case for religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccination trudges along in the Fifth Circuit court as defense leaders remain wedded to the Biden administration’s military vaccine mandate.

Pandemic restrictions have loosened significantly in most sectors, with federal guidelines changing to reflect the lessened threat of the virus, but the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to maintain that vaccination is critical to ensure readiness of the armed services. It will take continued litigation to convince the military to respect religious accommodation laws that would prevent thousands of service members from facing discharge or confinement to low-skill jobs, the SEALs’ attorneys told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The law is on our side. The Constitution, federal law, and DOD regulations all protect religious liberty in the military, and our courts have repeatedly reminded us that there is no (COVID-19) exception to the Constitution,” Mike Berry, senior counsel at the First Liberty Institute that is representing the SEALs, told the DCNF.

First Liberty filed suit in November 2021 on behalf of 26 Navy SEALs and other Special Warfare personnel against the Biden administration, arguing that the mandate violates servicemembers’ right to free exercise of religion.

In January, a Texas judge, relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), temporarily blocked the Navy from considering vaccination status when making assignment decisions for the plaintiffs. The case reached the Supreme Court in March when the Biden administration asked the court to reverse the ruling, and the court granted a partial stay to the order.

“Generally, military members are required to follow orders, but in this case, the military has shown sheer hostility toward religious exemptions rather than using the least restrictive means possible. In its effort to be draconian, the military refused to even recognize the now proved science of natural immunity,” Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told the DCNF.

Out of the 3,375 sailors who have requested religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine as of Aug. 24, only 46 have been approved, according to Department of Defense data. So far, the Navy has recorded 105,277 COVID-19 cases and 17 deaths.

“Did the Navy, in good faith, apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in these cases, or did they predetermine that they were going to deny all religious accommodations?” R. Davis Younts, an Air Force reservist and attorney representing several military members seeking religious exemptions, told the DCNF. Referring to the latter possibility, he claimed, “It’s clear that they did, and I think the facts continue to bear that out.”

The military needs to consider exemption cases individually instead of stonewalling requests or issuing blanket denials that no longer reflect the Biden administration’s own COVID-19 guidance, Younts added. The compelling interest of the military to require vaccination — that COVID-19 posed a direct threat to military readiness — no longer exists.

Sailors, soldiers and airmen, many of whom have years of highly-specified training and experience under their belts, remain in limbo while court cases play out, unable to receive promotions or continue their training, Younts explained. Thousands of service members may be dragooned out of a force that is already falling vastly short of its recruiting goals amid blatant threats of war from foreign powers.

“We’re being treated like pariahs,” he said.

The only way forward is continued litigation and “individual military members taking a stand,” Younts said, adding that any policy change among DOD leaders is unlikely.

“This is a public interest issue with significant implications … that has to make a difference,” he added.

Virginia on Tuesday joined 21 other states in filing an amicus brief, dated Aug. 29, supporting the religious liberty of Navy SEALs and other U.S. Navy members to seek vaccine exemptions. The Biden administration has asked the court to give the military “extraordinary” deference in its decision to mandate and enforce vaccination, undermining the fundamental liberties of Navy service members, according to the brief.

“Navy SEALs are some of our best and brightest, willing to sacrifice their lives to protect our freedoms. Those who have filed religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine deserve to be heard and taken seriously,” Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said in a statement.

The states argued that they have effectively managed COVID-19 within their borders without infringing on religious liberties, and the government should be able to do the same. They decried the administration’s “overreaching and flawed claims of legal authority.”

“The Administration’s near-blanket refusal to grant religious exemptions is not credible … its denial in this case is not entitled to deference,” the brief stated.

“The evidence strongly favors the sailors. The Navy’s own testimony indicates that their decision was based on politics. There is no military or scientific justification for their assault on religious freedoms,” Gohmert said.

However, the Supreme Court had argued that the previous injunction overstepped the judiciary’s authority by overturning an order of the Executive made in an apparent effort to safeguard national security.

“RFRA does not justify judicial intrusion into military affairs in this case. That is because the Navy has an extraordinarily compelling interest in maintaining strategic and operational control over the assignment and deployment of all Special Warfare personnel — including control over decisions about military readiness,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the concurring opinion.

Discharges for sailors seeking religious exemptions have been postponed pending the court case, according to the Navy. Of those who either did not seek exemptions or whose requests were denied, 1,533 have been separated with honorable characterization of service.

The Navy and the White House did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: Pentagon Ignores Biden Admin Order To Stop Testing Unvaccinated For COVID-19

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Here’s How Much The Federal Government Has Spent Studying Impact Of Sex Change Meds We’re Already Giving Kids

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent at least $17,576,200 since 2008 researching the impact of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, NIH records show, drugs that are already widely administered to children who identity as transgender.

Researchers used NIH funds to study the impact these medications have on bone density and strength, reproduction, immunity, cardiometabolism and mental health, along with several other issues. Most of these grants were issued after 2017 as interest in the subject grew, although some date back as early as 2008.

Although researchers are still learning about the long-term effects of these drugs and whether they actually help reduce depression and suicide rates for youths, they are already widely administered to children who identify as transgender; the Gender Identity Development Service at Tavistock in the U.K., the largest pediatric gender clinic in the world, has referred about 1,000 patients to endocrinologists to be assessed for puberty blockers, a spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The NIH gave the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles more than $7.7 million in grants for a project studying the impact of puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones on children as young as 8, according to various documents reviewed by the DCNF.

The study aims to determine whether early medical interventions for youths reduce the health issues that disproportionately impact transgender people, including anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Researchers observed 391 patients aged 8 to 20 at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and the Benioff Children’s Hospital; 90 went on puberty blockers and 301 went on cross-sex hormones, researchers reported.

“Ultimately, we aim to understand if early medical intervention reduces the health disparities well known to disproportionately affect transgender individuals across their lifespan,” researchers wrote. “The lack of data supporting medical interventions for transgender youth, combined with a shortage of providers knowledgeable of the complex psychosocial risk factors facing these young people, contributes to a health disparity and public health crisis of considerable magnitude.”

An activist who goes by Billboard Chris drew attention to the NIH grants online, highlighting the young age of some of the participants in this taxpayer-funded study.

Researchers in this observational study have been collecting data on existing models of care for trans-identified youths for about a decade in response to an Institute of Medicine report calling for further research on the subject, according to the study. The NIH contributed $7,748,467 to the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in several separate grants for this project since 2015, according to the NIH website.

When undergoing medical sex change procedures beginning at an early age, children are administered puberty-blocking drugs then eventually put on cross-sex hormones such as testosterone or estrogen. The FDA has warned of a possible link between puberty-blocking drugs and serious symptoms like vision loss, and researchers in this study note the link between the drug and diminished bone density.

The drugs that are used to halt healthy puberty for transgender children have an official on-label purpose of delaying precocious puberty in young children, and they have also been used to chemically castrate sex offenders. Marci Bowers, a famous transgender surgeon, has publicly admitted that “every single child who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2 [around 9 to 11 years old] has never experienced orgasm.”

Activists and medical professionals justify the administration of these drugs to children by claiming that, without them, transgender youths will commit suicide. Researchers have said that receiving these treatments in youth can reduce the risk of suicide and depression in numerous methodologically flawed studies which failed to control for confounding variables, failed to find causality and in some cases were funded by transgender activists groups and pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs themselves, according to multiple DCNF investigations.

The DCNF calculated the sums of grants the NIH gave for projects specifically examining the effects of medications administered as part of the gender transition process; its funding of transgender-related research generally is far more expansive.

The NIH, the project’s contacts and the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.



Social issues and cultural reporter.


Michigan Public School Appears To Hide ‘Gender Support Plans’ From Students’ Parents

California becomes sanctuary state for medical gender transition for kids, teens

Yes, Doctors Are Performing Sex Change Surgeries On Kids

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Why Nuclear Power Is [Quietly] Making a Big Comeback All Around the World

From California to France to Japan and beyond, nuclear power is all the rage suddenly.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that California Gov. Gavin Newsom was spearheading an eleventh-hour effort to pass legislation to extend a lifeline to Diablo Canyon, a 2,250-megawatt nuclear plant that supplies some 8 percent of the energy produced in the Golden State.

Under pressure from lawmakers and environmental activists, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) agreed in 2016 to decommission Diablo when its operating licenses expire in 2024 and 2025. But in light of the recent energy policy environment, California lawmakers had second thoughts.

On the very final day of the legislative session, lawmakers passed a bill that will extend the plant five more years.

This is a sharp turn for Newsom, who had long intimated that the Diablo Canyon plant should be closed.

“I just don’t see that this plant is going to survive beyond 2024, 2025. I just don’t see that,” Newsom said while running for governor in 2016. “And there is a compelling argument as to why it shouldn’t.”

California is hardly alone in giving nuclear power a second look.

Belgium is one of several European nations looking to extend set-to-expire licenses to keep nuclear plants operational. France, meanwhile, has proposed building up to 14 new nuclear plants in the coming years. Japan, which shuttered its nuclear reactors following the 2011 Fukushima crisis, now wants to restart up to nine reactors. Meanwhile, Morning Brew reports that the UK, Poland, and the Czech Republic are all unfurling plans to build new nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power is suddenly in again, and it’s not hard to see why. Natural gas prices have skyrocketed globally. In the United States, natural gas prices recently hit a 14-year high, but that’s nothing compared to Europe, where they recently hit an all-time high and are the equivalent of $600/barrel oil prices.

This has sent shockwaves throughout Europe, where businesses are reporting five-fold year-over-year price increases.

There is now little debate that Europe is in the middle of a full-blown energy crisis, in no small part because the nations pursued a “green” energy agenda that shifted from domestic production (especially in fossil fuels and nuclear power) and led to a reliance on natural gas imports from Russia, which have been disrupted by the invasion of Ukraine and Russian geopolitics.

The situation in California is different than that in Europe, but there is also a clear reason the state is second-guessing its decision to shut down its single largest power station—namely, its battered energy grid.

California grid operators last week warned of blackouts and encouraged citizens to “set thermostats to 78 degrees or higher, avoid using large appliances and charging electric vehicles, and turn off unnecessary lights.”

This is nothing new in California, which has an extensive history of blackouts even though it has one of the lowest per capita energy consumption rates in the country (largely due to its mild climate).

The reason for this isn’t complicated. California is seen as a green energy success story, and in some ways it is. Earlier this year, on one mild May day, California produced enough renewable electricity to meet 103 percent of demand, setting a new record.

The problem is some of these energy sources are intermittent. On most days renewable energy production falls well short of consumer demand, which is why roughly half of California’s electricity is still produced by natural gas—which is getting quite expensive as noted above.

But the real problem is energy supply.

California’s energy grid is already stretched, which means that suddenly aborting nuclear power is a recipe for disaster. As even progressive California lawmakers concede, Diablo Canyon generates more than 8 percent of all of California’s electricity, and accounts for 17 percent of carbon-free production.

If you think California’s blackout problem is bad now—and it most certainly is—try abruptly losing 18,000 GW·hrs of electricity annually and see what happens … after adding a million more electric vehicles to the economy, all of which must be charged with electricity, when the state’s ban on gas-powered vehicles goes into effect.

As NPR notes, the twist over Diablo Canyon is noteworthy because the Golden State is the birthplace of the anti-nuclear movement in the United States. Environmentalists for years have opposed nuclear power, “primarily from fears about nuclear waste and potential accidents as well as its association with nuclear weapons.”

As Fukushima shows, these fears are not entirely unfounded. Nuclear accidents do occur (albeit rarely). Nuclear plants do create radioactive waste. There are clear tradeoffs to nuclear energy.

Where environmentalists go wrong, however, is to think tradeoffs are unique to nuclear power and fossil fuels. The fact is ,all energy production comes with tradeoffs, and proponents of so-called “green energy” have a nasty habit of overlooking these tradeoffs.

Your neighbor with a “green means go” sign in his yard might point out that your F-150 guzzles a gallon of gasoline for every 25 road miles, but he probably ignores that it took tens of thousands of pounds of CO2 emissions to produce the battery that charges his Tesla. (And don’t even tell him where the cobalt in the battery comes from.)

Your aunt might proudly talk about the new solar panels on her roof, but probably doesn’t know that even on utility scale solar power has a carbon footprint higher than nuclear power, or that solar panels produce literally tons of toxic waste.

Your niece at Columbia might talk about how important it is to become a “zero emission” economy. But she probably doesn’t realize the environmental costs, let alone the economic ones, of getting there—which include mining 34 million metric tons of copper, 50 million tons of zinc, 40 million tons of lead, 5 billion tons of iron, and 160 million tons of aluminum (give or take).

The point is clear: all energy production comes with tradeoffs. Many might believe that politicians are uniquely capable of weighing the pros and cons of energy tradeoffs, but both economics and our own eyes reveal this is untrue.

Facing what many environmentalists say is a climate apocalypse, did it make sense for European governments to scrap nuclear plants—one of the cleanest forms of energy in existence—and important fossil fuels from Russia, a country hostile to freedom and historically inclined toward authoritarianism?

Similarly, did it make sense for California to scrap nuclear power in its quest to become a “100 percent zero-emission” economy?

Clearly the answer to these questions is no. The reality is politicians do not have any special knowledge when it comes to deciding which tradeoffs make the most sense, which might explain why a world abundant in energy is suddenly facing an energy crisis unlike any it’s seen in generations.

So while we should be grateful that so many politicians, environmentalists, and countries are finally recognizing the benefits of nuclear power, we should also be asking why we gave them such broad power in the first place.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New Study Shows Wearing Disposable Mask Did More Harm Than Good

And still, it won’t make a bit o difference or propel immediate policy changes. They are forcing our children to mask in schools. We are in the throes of a stealth, brutal takeover.

New Study Shows Wearing a Disposable Mask Did More Harm Than Good

By: Daniel, Civil Deadlinee, September 2, 2022

Do you recall when the “Patron Saint of Wuhan” declared to the country that masks were not needed? Do you remember when the same Dr. Anthony Fauci advised Americans to wear one, even two, or even three masks at that time?

You’re not the only one if you’re one of the millions who were completely perplexed by the random counsel given by the renowned immunologist of the country. Even other scientists have refused to follow Fauci’s advice. It now seems that Fauci’s advise to wear a mask might have made things worse.

Actually, using a disposable mask does very little to block the transmission of a virus like COVID-19. These masks, however, contain “four times the acceptable carcinogen exposure levels,” according to a verified new study. You did read that right.

This confirmed study indicates that the disposable face mask releases dangerous levels of titanium dioxide (TiO2). Have you bothered to notice what type of mask many schools are still mandating their students wear, “all day long?”

Virtually every school child still ordered to wear a mask is wearing a disposable one. Dozens of renowned scientists have exposed the health risks of continuously covering our mouths with a mask. The study says the TiO2 levels quadrupled the acceptable exposure levels.
But liberal bureaucrats and so-called “medical professionals” are still insisting masks must be worn, even in the craziest of circumstances. Once again, the same clowns who order us to “follow the science” are defying the science. This is medical malpractice.

Children are rarely susceptible to the COVID-19 virus. Requiring them to wear a mask during their learning time is not only useless, it’s medically dangerous. So, why do they continue to make kids wear masks? It’s all about compliance. The radical liberals thirst for compliance.

They ordered Americans to get a hastily approved vaccine or give up their jobs. They’ve written policies and made recommendations that are worthless. In fact, it appears that their “mask-wearing decrees” could kill you. Masks do not work against the spread of the virus.

But they certainly work to indoctrinate the masses into compliance. The game isn’t to protect Americans. It’s to teach us to be quiet and comply. We must do as the “Patron Saint of Wuhan” says. He “is science!” It turns out Fauci is more of a “blowhard” than he is a patron saint.


RELATED ARTICLE: Embalmers Have Been Finding Numerous Long, Fibrous Clots That Lack Post-Mortem Characteristics

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Ethics of Playing God: Designing our Children with Gene Editing Technology

A recent article in Nature Biotechnology reports on the risks and benefits of the therapeutic use of CRISPR-Cas9 “gene scissors” technology. A comment on the article in the Jerusalem Post explains, “CRISPR – an acronym for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats” – allows genetic material to be added, removed or altered at particular locations in the genome… [The researchers at Tel Aviv University found] that while the CRISPR genome-editing method is very effective, it is not always safe and that sometimes, rearranging pieces of DNA compromises genomic stability, possibly triggering cancer in the long run.”

So what ethical issues are raised by this technology?

Good ethics depends on good facts. Broadly defined, the human genome is the DNA, including genes, which constitutes each of us. We will pass on some of our genes to our descendants and manipulating these, which is possible with CRISPR-Cas9, is an unprecedented ethical issue, because it means we can attempt to design our children and their descendants.

We also have somatic cell genes, some of which can produce disease. These can also be changed with CRISPR-Cas9 technologies used as medical treatment, but the changes are not inheritable. This is the type of intervention discussed in the Nature Biotechnology article, where the main ethical issue, as with all new medical interventions, is whether the benefits of the treatment outweigh its risks and harms.

“Genetic scissors” technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, are a relatively recent and an ethically controversial addition to the exploding field of reproductive technologies, because, as explained, they can be used to “design” a human embryo and its descendants. To understand the ethical issues they raise in this respect, we need to locate them in a broader reproductive technology context, rather than simply viewing them in isolation.

Once upon a time, before the late 1970s, there was only one way that a new human life could come into existence: sexual intercourse between a fertile woman and a fertile man. Many couples saw the life they created as a gift from God and, whatever their child’s characteristics, loved and accepted them without question.

Unconditional parental love

The widely accepted societal value was that parents should love their children unconditionally, simply because they were their children. Women, especially, carried this value of parents’ unconditional love for their children for society as a whole.

A woman who abandoned her child was condemned much more forcefully than a man. Think of the young man from a wealthy family, who impregnated a maidservant, being shipped off by his parents to the colonies to “sow his wild oats”, while the maidservant was left destitute and caring for the child. People sometimes regarded the man, somewhat admiringly, as “clever” to escape responsibility, while the woman was shamed and scorned even more than just for being pregnant out-of-wedlock, if she abandoned or failed to care for the child.

One reason surrogate motherhood was met initially with such condemnation was that it overtly contravened the societal value, carried largely by women, of a parent’s unconditional love for their children. In short, this value was based on an assumption that a woman automatically and unconditionally bonded to the children to whom she gave birth; it was unthinkable that a woman would intentionally become pregnant with a prearranged plan to give up her baby as the recognition of surrogacy instantiated.

The reproductive technology revolution

The reproductive technology revolution changed not only the reality of having no option other than sole reliance on Nature to conceive a child, but also, for many people, their values governing reproduction. The most dramatic herald of this revolution was the birth in the United Kingdom in 1978 of Louise Joy Brown, the first “test-tube” baby. It is estimated that now more than eight million babies have been born worldwide using in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

Louise Brown was conceived from her father’s sperm and her mother’s ovum in a laboratory. Sexual intercourse was no longer the only way to transmit human life and interventions on the in vitro embryo, the earliest form of human life, were now possible.

This opened up the possibility that we could now choose our children, rather than loving them unconditionally just because they were our children, and, as time went on, we could increasingly intervene to design them according to the characteristics of the child we wanted.

CRISPR-Cas9 and subsequent developments of this technology are the most recent means for undertaking such design.


CRISPR-Cas9 was discovered in 2012 and is best imagined as a molecular scissors. Scientists can use it to edit the human genome. Sometimes those genes are harmful or damaged. CRISPR-Cas9 allows the scientist to cut out such sequences of DNA and to insert replacement genes.

An ethically important distinction between genes in the germline and in somatic cells needs to be kept in mind. Changes to somatic cell genes are not inheritable and while such interventions can raise important ethical issues, they are not of the same kind or seriousness as those raised by changes to genes in germline cells.

Alterations to the genes of an embryo will be passed on to all descendants of that embryo. This type of intervention constitutes pre-empting evolution as the agent of genetic change. When there was no possibility of intervening intentionally to alter the human genome, which is estimated to have evolved over up to six million years, there was almost universal agreement that it would be wrong and unethical to do so. Many jurisdictions, including Australia, had laws prohibiting altering a human embryo’s genes in any way that would be inheritable. (That law has now been repealed.)

The consensus was that the human genome was the common heritage of humankind that must be held unmanipulated by us on trust for future generations.

By 2015, scientists were actively lobbying to change this view. An invitation-only meeting in Atlanta was attended by around 400 participants to discuss what the future position on altering the human germline should be.

Harvard geneticist George Church and his colleague, social psychologist Steven Pinker argued powerfully for allowing this research to proceed. They relied heavily on the technologies’ promise of doing great good in eliminating devastating genetic diseases. I argued against allowing this with respect to germline genes, a position on which I have since modified my views to a strictly limited extent. Pinker’s conclusion was that if bioethicists, such as myself, opposed this research, society should not prohibit it. Rather, it should get rid of the bioethicists. He won the argument. With certain controls, the research has gone forward.

So, why did I argue against intervening on the human germline?

My long preamble to this article situates the questions we need to ask about CRISPR-Cas9 in the larger context of the extraordinary development of reproductive technologies. This is necessary if we are to keep its use within ethical parameters.

IVF enabled the development of these technologies, because having a human embryo in a test-tube makes it much easier to manipulate it. If IVF, itself, is immoral and unethical, then genetic interventions on embryos become much more difficult and for some purposes impossible. The leading opponent of IVF, the Catholic Church, teaches that IVF is immoral because in separating the unitive and procreative characteristics of the passing on of human life through sexual intercourse, it unavoidably offends human dignity. However, its view is widely challenged.

Multitudes of thorny ethical problems have been raised both by IVF, itself, for example, the respect required for the transmission of human life outside the body of a woman, an issue we had not faced before IVF, and by the deluge of technological interventions and social changes to which IVF gave rise.

I will not discuss those here; rather, I will identify some of the specific ethical concerns raised by CRISPR-Cas9 when it is used to alter genes of the germline. Some of these concerns are common to many reproductive technologies, not just CRISPR-Cas9.

Ethical concerns raised by CRISPR-Cas9

First, let us find where we can agree. Everyone wants to eliminate or reduce suffering. The scientists wanting to use CRISPR-Cas9 to change an embryo’s germline genes want to eliminate horrible genetic diseases, such as Huntington’s chorea, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and so on. They make a distinction between therapeutic or curative germline interventions with CRISPR-Cas9 and enhancement ones, altering genes, for example, to augment intelligence or sporting ability, or to change eye colour, height, and so on. They argue for allowing the former, if not the latter.

But no matter how worthy their intentions, scientists would be designing or redesigning a human being. Transhumanists see this as creating a human utopia of the future. They speak of “unmodified humans” as inferior beings and foresee a future of immortality made possible by the genetic modification of genes responsible for aging. Do all humans, however, have a right to come from unmodified natural human origins and should this right be absolute or should some strictly limited exceptions be allowed?

The American Jewish philosopher, the late Hans Jonas, put it this way. “Every human being has a right to their own unique ticket in the great genetic lottery of the passing on of human life. A right not to be designed. A right to live their life as a surprise to themselves.”

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has pointed out that the designed person is not free, because freedom requires us to have non-contingent origins to enable us to go back and recreate ourselves from scratch.  Moreover, they are not equal to the designer, because the designed entity is never equal to the designer. This analysis takes the issues raised by designing our progeny beyond concern just for the individual who is designed. It has political implications, because two of the pillars of democracy are respect for every individual’s freedom and accepting that everyone is equal.

To return to the earlier discussion of unconditional parental love as a personal and societal value, wanting to design one’s child to enhance them sends the message that “you were not perfect enough as you were naturally, we needed to improve you to conform to our specifications for us to accept and love you.”

Australian bioethicist Robert Sparrow from Monash University has raised another issue. He pointed out that just as our laptops and iPhones become obsolete models as the technology continuously improves, so earlier conceived children will be obsolete compared with their later designed siblings. What would this do to family cohesiveness and harmony?

A central, ubiquitous characteristic of the worldwide fertility Industry, which mostly markets reproductive technologies, is its overwhelmingly adult-centred focus and almost complete failure to place the future child at the centre of the decision-making. This is understandable: adults make the decisions to use reproductive technologies. The fertility industry is estimated to be worth US$8 billion each year in the US and $15 billion worldwide and continues to expand rapidly.

Child-centred decision-making

Child centred decision-making would ask, among many questions: can we reasonably anticipate, if this person were here and able to decide for themselves, that they would consent to what we are planning to do?

Child centred decision making would also look at the risks and harms of the technology to the child. Even if the technology were used only for therapeutic purposes, there are substantial risks, including unknown ones. For example, some genes exhibit a complex phenomenon called pleiotropy – one gene can code for multiple different proteins, possibly up to one thousand. Moreover, depending on its placement in the genome, the gene may function differently and a gene inserted with CRISPR-Cas9 might not position correctly. The presence of risk is not, however, an insurmountable ethical obstacle, it can be managed and an ethically acceptable risk/benefit ratio achieved.

Larger ethical questions raised by CRISPR-Cas9 at the societal level include treating our children as products or things that we own – as “somethings” not “somebodies”, a phenomenon called “reification” – rather than unique individual human beings with respect to whom we have obligations, but not rights to design.


The possibility of eliminating or treating dread diseases with “genetic scissors” technologies must not blind us to the ethical risks and harms involved.

It is very difficult, as I know from personal experience, to say to a scientist, who only wants to do good, “No, you must not change a seriously harmful gene in an embryo’s germline”. My concern about allowing such changes includes the precedent this would create that it is ethically acceptable to genetically-design a human being and where that would lead.

When CRISPR-Cas9 therapeutic interventions that do not involve inheritable changes, such as the ones discussed in the Nature Biotechnology article, are used to treat serious debilitating disease, they raise important ethical issues and concerns, but not the one of designing a human being and their descendants. They should be governed under the generally applicable medical research ethics principles, especially with respect to risk-harm/benefit calculations.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of Gattaca, the brilliant dystopian sci fi film about a future in which all children are supposed to be genetically engineered. The hero is an “in-valid”, a rare human who was naturally conceived. At one point he reflects, “I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the colour of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.”

CRISPR could make such a future possible, at least for those who can pay for it. Before we arrive there, we need to ask many more questions about the ethical dilemmas genetic engineering is creating.

An earlier version of this article first appeared in News Weekly.


Margaret Somerville

Margaret Somerville AM, DSG, FRSC, FRSN, DCL is Professor of Bioethics at the University of Notre Dame Australia School of Medicine (Sydney campus). She is also Samuel Gale Professor of Law Emerita, Professor… More by Margaret Somerville


Here’s How Much The Federal Government Has Spent Studying Impact Of Sex Change Meds We’re Already Giving Kids

Is “trust the science” going to solve our demographic woes?

Our civilizational crisis is really a crisis in parenting

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.