Injecting Babies: 1986 v Today
Important reminder regarding the explosive growth in the vaccine schedule since 1986
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | August 7, 2024
If you have not seen this before, please take a moment to really let this image we created sink in—and keep in mind that this only reflects the vaccines given during pregnancy and the first year of life (there are far more thereafter on the current schedule):
Also keep in mind that virtually every single one of today’s vaccines was developed by a pharma company knowing it would not face liability for injuries caused by these products. This is because, as most of you know, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave them immunity from having to pay for harms.
And chronic childhood diseases, many of which are autoimmune or immune-mediated, have exploded from 12.4% in the early 1980s to over 50 percent of children today. CDC and public “health” authorities cannot figure out the cause despite desperately searching (though they haven’t studied vaccines, even though smaller independent studies have indicated vaccines are a major contributor).
With that in mind, let this chart also sink in, comparing the clinical trials relied upon to license Pfizer’s top five selling products (excluding the COVID-19 vaccine) with vaccines given in the first six months of life:
For a more in-depth treatment, read my written testimony to Congress.
Judges Back Meta in Vaccine “Misinformation” Battle, Free Speech Advocates Vow to Fight On
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 10, 2024
The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled this week in favor of Meta, Facebook’s parent company. The case was brought forward by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) over allegations that the social media giant violated free speech rights.
The lawsuit, initiated in August 2020 and later updated in December, claimed that Facebook, along with its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and two fact-checking entities, Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact site, was complicit in an unconstitutional act of privately exercising governmental censorship. CHD alleges that Facebook, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal institutions, is censoring content and discussions that the government is barred from suppressing under the First Amendment.
We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.
The plaintiff specifically accused these sides of working in tandem to unfairly stifle valid attempts to discuss vaccine safety on Facebook, often through indirect yet sensorial measures like the use of warning labels. According to CHD, this type of arrangement between public entities and private corporations represents a breach of the First Amendment due to its perceived status as “state action.”
Despite these arguments, the 9th Circuit court concluded that CHD was not successful in meeting the initial requirement for state action, as the censorship inflicted was more a result of Meta’s content moderation policies and not any directive under federal law. Further, the court also asserted that CHD did not present any evidence of a binding agreement requiring Facebook to execute any particular action in response to misinformation about vaccines.
Although all judges did not share the same opinion, Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins presented a partially dissenting viewpoint. He opined that the interactions between Meta and the Government involving the suppression of specific types of vaccine-related speech were substantial enough to evoke First Amendment considerations.
Expressing disappointment and worry, CHD CEO Mary Holland stated, “If we cannot stop the government’s joint action with Big Tech to censor unwanted information, our First Amendment is a pyrrhic victory — it means almost nothing in our real world of social media.” While she was pleased with the non-unanimous nature of the decision, Holland hinted at the possibility of appealing to the US Supreme Court after further review.
At the heart of the court battle, ongoing for almost four years, were claims, primarily leveled by CHD’s then-Chairman and Chief Executive Counsel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that tactics employed by the US Government to pressure Facebook into censoring vaccine “misinformation” were existential threats.
Be Careful What You Say
How honesty leads to the trauma of unnecessary psychiatric hospitalization
By Dr. Roger McFillin | Radically Genuine | August 8, 2024
Picture a soul in turmoil, wrapped in the suffocating embrace of despair. In the sanctuary of a therapist’s office, they finally find the courage to voice the unspeakable:
“Sometimes, I think about not being here anymore.”
The words hang heavy in the air, a testament to the crushing weight of their pain, loneliness, and emptiness. This confession, born from a place of vulnerability and trust, should be the beginning of a deeper healing journey.
During these intense emotional struggles, it’s important to understand that thoughts of escape, including suicide, are a common human response to overwhelming pain. There’s a vast chasm between contemplating an end to suffering and actively planning to end one’s life.
Context is everything.
The mind, overwhelmed by anguish, may grasp at any perceived exit, including the idea of nonexistence. But voicing these thoughts doesn’t signal imminent danger. Rather, it’s often a cry for understanding, a desperate reach for connection in the depths of isolation.
Skilled and experienced therapists understand this.
The very act of sharing these dark musings with a trusted professional can be profoundly cathartic. It’s in these raw, unfiltered moments that true therapy has the potential to work its magic. A skilled therapist, one who can navigate these turbulent waters without succumbing to panic, becomes a lifeline. They offer not just a listening ear, but a steady hand to guide the patient through the storm, helping them to contextualize their pain and find hope in the midst of despair. This is the essence of healing – not in avoiding the darkness, but in facing it together, unafraid.
Fast forward to mental healthcare in 2024.
As the demand for mental health services skyrockets, we’re witnessing a disturbing trend: the proliferation of ill-equipped therapists flooding the market. What was once a skilled profession has, in many cases, devolved into little more than paid listening.
The rise of virtual therapy platforms, while increasing accessibility, has created a cohort of isolated practitioners. Lured by the promise of higher profits without the overhead of a physical office, many therapists now find themselves cut off from the vital support networks of supervisors and mentors. Without this crucial guidance, they’re left to navigate treacherous emotional waters alone, often defaulting to a “cover your ass” mentality when confronted with challenging situations.
Simultaneously, as large hospital networks muscle into the mental health arena, therapy is increasingly reduced to an appendage of psychiatry. The nuanced art of healing is replaced by a simplistic “take your pills and manage your mental illness” approach. This medicalization of human suffering is fundamentally dehumanizing, reducing complex emotional states to mere chemical imbalances.
The consequences of this shift are stark. Individuals brave enough to voice thoughts of death are no longer met with understanding, but with fear. Their pain is hastily labeled as emerging “mental illness,” triggering a rigid psychiatric protocol that leads to overmedicalization and unnecessary hospitalization.
“I want you to go to the emergency room”
The knee-jerk mantra of risk-averse therapists and doctors who’ve been brainwashed to treat every fleeting suicidal thought like a ticking time bomb.
They herd the emotionally vulnerable into sterile, overpriced hospital rooms, mistaking cold fluorescent lights and paper gowns for actual care. It’s a convenient way to abdicate responsibility, slap a band-aid on deep-seated pain, and pad the pockets of our broken healthcare system – all while patting themselves on the back for “saving lives.”
A Rise In Psychiatric Hospitalizations
The U.S. mental health care system is at a breaking point, buckling under the weight of an insatiable demand for inpatient care. Recent federal data, as reported by CBS News, reveals a system in crisis: hospitals and clinics are operating at a staggering 144% capacity for inpatient psychiatric beds. This alarming statistic, courtesy of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), exposes the raw nerve of a long-festering problem – a dire shortage of psychiatric inpatient facilities.
Yet, this begs a crucial question: Is this surge in demand a genuine need, or merely a symptom of a more insidious systemic failure?
The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a long shadow over youth mental health, with alarming consequences. A recent study comparing mental health emergency admissions among young people before and after the outbreak reveals a disturbing trend. In the two years following March 2020, youth psychiatric emergencies surged by an astonishing 116.7% compared to the same period in 2018-2020. Even more concerning, this new wave of patients skewed younger and were less likely to have prior psychiatric histories.
These findings suggest a troubling shift: the pandemic appears to have triggered new, earlier onset psychiatric manifestations in previously unaffected youth. Moreover, these emergencies lead to psychiatric drugs as a matter of course.
Which leads to worsening outcomes.
Primary Care Driving Hospitalizations
The mental health crisis among youth has been sensationalized to a dangerous degree, leading to misguided interventions that may do more harm than good. In pediatric offices across the country the use of quick, invalid screening measures that reduce complex emotional states to simple checkboxes is the primary assessment approach. These cursory assessments, administered by primary care doctors ill-equipped to handle nuanced mental health concerns, are causing undue panic.
A single checked box on these questionable screening measures can set off a chain reaction of fear-mongering, with parents being urgently directed to emergency rooms for what may be nothing more than typical teenage angst or temporary emotional struggles. This knee-jerk approach not only overwhelms emergency services unnecessarily but also risks pathologizing normal developmental experiences.
The media’s portrayal of primary care doctors drowning in a youth mental health crisis obscures a more insidious reality: these physicians, despite their best intentions, are conducting mental health evaluations in alarmingly short timeframes without the proper training to contextualize their findings.
The result is a perfect storm of misunderstanding, where the vulnerability and complex emotions inherent to adolescence are stripped of their context and hastily labeled as mental health emergencies. This approach not only fails to address the real needs of struggling youth but also potentially traumatizes families and clogs a healthcare system already stretched to its limits.
Even if these youth are not hospitalized they are going to placed on a drug that will at least double the risk of suicide, if not more. Lexapro is often prescribed despite the 6-fold increase in suicide risk!
The Trauma of Psychiatric Detention
When desperate parents drag a sullen teenager to the ER, or a vulnerable adult finds themselves cornered by an ER social worker, a grim dance begins. The fluorescent-lit stage is set for a performance of “crisis management theater,” where real human suffering collides with bureaucratic checklists and liability concerns.
Parents, gripped by fear that their child might take their own life, often feel coerced into consenting to psychiatric hospitalization and medication. This fear becomes a potent weapon wielded by hospital staff, despite the lack of evidence that such interventions actually prevent suicide.
Ironically, within academic circles, it’s widely acknowledged that these very interventions may increase the likelihood of suicide. This grim reality makes a perverse kind of sense: patients are prescribed powerful, mood-altering drugs and then discharged back into the very circumstances that initially drove them to contemplate suicide.
The experience of psychiatric detention is frequently described as traumatizing. Patients are stripped of their dignity – quite literally during invasive searches – and their autonomy, as their phones and personal belongings are confiscated. Many report being treated like cattle by burned-out, unprofessional staff.
Young women often feel unsafe, surrounded by men who are also experiencing mental health crises. For women struggling with the aftermath of sexual violence – a common precursor to psychiatric hospitalization – the hospital stay itself can be profoundly re-traumatizing.
This system, designed ostensibly to help, often inflicts further harm. It substitutes genuine care and understanding with a one-size-fits-all approach that prioritizes risk management over true healing. In our rush to “do something,” we’ve created a revolving door of trauma, where those seeking help often emerge more damaged than when they entered.
When parents, armed with knowledge and a desire to protect their children from potentially harmful interventions, attempt to resist the pressure to medicate, they’re often met with a dismissive and exasperated “What do you want us to do then?”
It exposes a mental health apparatus that has become reliant on the false promise of quick-fix pharmaceutical solutions, lacking the resources, training, or willingness to explore alternative approaches. This attitude effectively holds families hostage: either accept potentially harmful psychiatric drugs or be left with no support at all.
This false dichotomy – drugs or nothing – is a damning indictment of a system that has lost sight of its purpose. It reveals a profound lack of creativity and compassion in addressing mental health crises. Instead of working collaboratively with families to develop comprehensive, individualized care plans, hospital staff often default to a one-size-fits-all approach that prioritizes expediency over efficacy.
Moreover, this response subtly shifts blame onto the parents, implying that by refusing medication, they’re somehow obstructing their child’s care. It’s a manipulative tactic that exploits parental fear and guilt, further eroding trust between families and mental health providers.
Fear Based Therapy
The mental health industry has a dirty secret: it’s terrified of the patients it claims to help. Therapists, those supposed bastions of understanding and support, turn into protocol-driven robots at the mere whisper of suicide. Gone is the empathy, replaced by a checklist of CYA questions designed more to protect their licenses than to save lives.
This is how they are trained.
This fear-based charade masquerading as care has created a toxic environment where honesty is punished. Patients learn quickly: bare your soul at your own risk. Admit to dark thoughts, and watch your therapist’s eyes glaze over with panic as they mentally rehearse their mandatory reporting script.
In my years of specializing in treating chronically suicidal clients, I’ve witnessed firsthand the deep-seated trauma inflicted not just by their original experiences, but by the very system purporting to help them.
A disturbing pattern emerges, particularly among women survivors of sexual violence. Their acute trauma reactions are frequently misunderstood and hastily misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illnesses, leading to a cascade of inappropriate treatments and interventions. The psychiatric hospitalizations that often follow are not just ineffective; they’re actively traumatizing.
When these survivors finally find their way to my office, the damage is palpable. Trust, the very foundation of effective therapy, has been shattered by their previous encounters with mental health professionals. It can take months of patient, careful work to rebuild that trust, to convince them that it’s safe to be open and honest in therapy. This process is painstaking, requiring us to undo layers of iatrogenic harm – harm caused by the very institutions and individuals tasked with healing.
The tragedy here is twofold: not only are these women denied proper care for their actual traumas, but they’re also subjected to a secondary trauma at the hands of a mental health system that fails to recognize the complexities of their experiences. This cycle of misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and subsequent re-traumatization doesn’t just delay healing – it actively impedes it, sometimes for years. Many never recover.
What Genuine Help Looks Like
True healing begins with the compassionate ear of a skilled, experienced therapist who can create a safe space for emotional expression and validation. This approach recognizes a fundamental truth: everything, including emotional pain and suicidal thinking, is temporary. By understanding struggles in their proper context, therapists can help clients navigate their darkest moments without resorting to extreme measures.
A competent therapist knows that most expressions of suicidal thoughts are not declarations of intent, but rather desperate attempts to communicate profound suffering. This nuance, while seemingly obvious, often eludes less experienced or inadequately trained professionals who are paralyzed by fear and uncertainty. Instead of reacting with panic, skilled therapists help clients explore their pain and envision a life worth living, even in the midst of emotional turmoil and trauma.
When someone is in emotional turmoil and suicidal risk is present, truly skilled therapists know that a gentle, personalized approach can make all the difference. Instead of rushing to hospitalization, these compassionate professionals take the time to really listen and understand. They work hand-in-hand with the person in crisis, crafting a safety plan that feels right and makes sense for their unique situation. It’s not about imposing rules, but about finding inner strength and support.
Effective therapy often involves teaching clients how to regulate intense emotions and tolerate distress. This might include techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) or other evidence-based approaches. For many, additional support such as telephone coaching and family-based therapies can create a plan to weather crisis periods. These interventions recognize that suicidal crises tend to be episodic and often resolve when the underlying problems are addressed.
Primary care doctors should not be administering mental health screening measures or prescribing psychiatric drugs for complex emotional issues. Their well-intentioned but misguided interventions often exacerbate the situation, medicalizing normal human experiences and setting patients on a path of unnecessary and harmful treatments.
Working in “mental health” requires patience, understanding, and a willingness to sit with discomfort – both from the client and the therapist. By moving away from a fear-based, reactionary model of care towards one that embraces complexity and prioritizes genuine human connection, we can create a mental health system that truly serves those in need.
When the storm of the mind rages, feel-good therapy buzzwords and empty reassurances are as useful as a paper umbrella in a hurricane. What’s needed isn’t another degree or certification, but something far rarer: the guts to stare unflinchingly into the abyss of another’s pain without flinching. In the end, perhaps the most radical act in modern mental health care is simply having the backbone to shut up, sit down, and bear witness to suffering without trying to sanitize it.
Debunking the debunkers on the “myths” of antidepressants
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | August 5, 2024
Recently, The Conversation ran an article which claimed to “debunk” a range of myths about antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
Natalina Salmaso, a clinical psychologist at Carleton University in Canada, highlighted five common myths that make people hesitant to take antidepressants.
Salmaso said hesitancy is often “unfounded” and “may not be grounded in science” and that “debunking the myths surrounding antidepressants is critical to permitting educated treatment decisions for those who suffer.”
However, Salmaso’s article was full of omissions and falsehoods, so we decided to debunk the debunker.
Myth 1 – I am stronger if I do this without meds
Salmaso says that a person with depression is like an athlete with a broken leg.
An athlete cannot compete effectively with a broken leg, in the same way a person with depression cannot function effectively, because their brain “is no longer responding to everyday life.”
She adds that a person’s brain needs to “heal” before they can expect it to function like they did pre-depression and implied antidepressants can help.
This is grossly misguided. This feeds into the false narrative that depression is a brain disease that can be cured by antidepressants.
Antidepressants don’t cure people with depression and their symptomatic effects are so small that they lack clinical relevance.
Studies show that patients actually do better with psychotherapy, which has enduring effects. Further, psychotherapy halves the risk of suicide whereas antidepressants double this risk, in people of all ages.
Myth 2 – I will be dependent on antidepressants to be happy
Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t make people ‘happy’ per se, but they “allow people to experience all emotions in an appropriate and balanced way.”
However, this is not what patients report. SSRIs tend to make people feel “numb” and unable to experience emotions. Some describe it as an inability to feel love, attachment or sexual excitement.
Some experience sexual dysfunction, which can continue long after the drug is discontinued.
Salmaso says that antidepressants “are a long-term (typically at a minimum for a year) and (hopefully) curative treatment, much like chemotherapy for certain types of cancer.”
This is also misguided. Most people become depressed because they have stressful or depressing circumstances, which no drug can cure.
People have been misled to believe that antidepressants can “correct” a chemical imbalance in the brain. A systematic review in 2022 thoroughly debunked the hypothesis that depression is caused a serotonin imbalance.
Salmaso even says that “most studies show that if you take antidepressant medications for a year before coming off of them, the majority of people will not relapse.”
This is also incorrect. The majority of studies on relapse are flawed because they involve subjects already on antidepressants and when they suddenly stop them for the trial they experience withdrawals, which interferes with the assessment of relapse.
Also, the longer someone takes an antidepressant, the higher the probability of that person experiencing withdrawal effects.
Myth 3 – Meds will change who I am, I will be different or feel high
Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t change you, but rather “allow you to view things from a more balanced perspective.”
However, Danish psychiatrists have reported that half of the patients on antidepressants agreed that the treatment could alter their personality and that they had less control over their thoughts and feelings.
Far from rebalancing the brain, antidepressants alter the normal functioning of the brain and disrupt biological processes with potentially devastating consequences.
As far as “changing who you are,” there have been ample reports of out-of-body experiences (including akathisia) where people became suicidal or homicidal on antidepressants, even in people with no history of this behaviour.
A systematic review found that taking antidepressants increased aggression three times more than taking a placebo, in children and adolescents.
Myth 4: I will become addicted
Salmaso says that antidepressants “are generally not addictive and have a low potential for misuse.”
This is not correct. Antidepressants can lead to dependency. Many people experience withdrawal symptoms, which are very similar to those that people experience when they try to come off benzodiazepines.
Salmaso claims that some patients get headaches and other withdrawal symptoms when the stop taking antidepressants “suddenly” but says they are “generally short-lived and can be minimised by tapering off treatment slowly.”
However, it is well-documented that about half of patients on antidepressants cannot stop them without experiencing withdrawals symptoms, which for some, can persist for many years. These symptoms are very difficult to “minimise” even with slow tapering.
Myth 5: Meds should only be used as a last resort
Salmaso disagrees that antidepressants should be used as a last resort.
She says that reserving antidepressants only for extreme cases “doesn’t make sense” because depression can reduce “work productivity and has immense societal consequences.”
“The financial repercussions that can be attributed to depression in terms of the number of workdays missed, jobs lost, accidents caused, etc. are enormous,” she added.
However, studies examining the efficacy of antidepressants have not shown any meaningful effects, such as improvements in quality of life, and they make it more difficult for people to function.
In all countries where this relationship has been examined, the increased use of antidepressants has been accompanied by an increase in disability pensions for mental health reasons.
Salmaso argues that, “Depression significantly increases risk of cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, respiratory disease and Parkinson’s disease, to name a few. It also seems to worsen the outcomes for cancer.”
Antidepressants do not improve these conditions either. Overall, it is our view that Salmaso’s evidence and arguments are flawed and misguided.
UK High Court upholds Tory emergency order protecting minors from puberty blockers
By Susan Berry, Ph.D. | CatholicVote | July 29, 2024
A High Court judge in the United Kingdom (UK) ruled Monday that the previous conservative British government’s emergency order safeguarding children and teens from experimental puberty blockers is lawful.
The LGBT activist group TransActual and an unnamed young person brought a challenge to the Tory order issued in May in the wake of the release of a report detailing a comprehensive independent review led by British pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass.
Cass and her team conducted a systematic examination of studies and guidelines related to the use of puberty blockers and other procedures associated with so-called “gender-affirming care” for children suffering with gender dysphoria.
They concluded the so-called “gender-affirming care” model of medical intervention for young people is based on “remarkably weak evidence.”
“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass wrote, observing that puberty blockers were found in “multiple studies” to compromise bone density and fertility and lead to other harmful effects. The majority of minors who receive prescriptions for puberty blockers move on to cross-sex hormones, the study also found.
Justice Beverly Lang noted in her decision that she is “satisfied that the decision to make the emergency Order on 29 May 2024, was a rational one”:
Parliament has entrusted the Ministers to exercise the powers in section 62 MA 1968, in the exercise of their discretionary judgment. This decision required a complex and multi-factored predictive assessment, involving the application of clinical judgment and the weighing of competing risks and dangers, with which the Court should be slow to interfere.
Lang also observed, “There was cross-party support for this approach as the then Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Wes Streeting) said in response to the Statement: ‘I also welcome what she said about the justifiably cautious and responsible approach she is taking in relation to puberty blockers in the light of the Cass report.’”
The Labour Party’s Streeting said he planned to safeguard children against the controversial drugs “via any means, subject to the outcome of a legal hearing.”
Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), told CatholicVote the High Court’s decision is “very encouraging news.”
“Governments have the right and responsibility to protect citizens from danger and from crime,” Orient observed, adding:
Giving minors drugs that will interfere with their normal development and likely sterilize them is criminal. It is not possible for minors to give informed consent, even if a judge or counselor asserts that they are “mature.” Puberty blockers keep them from becoming mature, and it is deceptive to claim that the effects are reversible. The drugs have a long list of very severe adverse effects, including osteoporosis with frequent fractures.
In a statement reflecting TransActual’s reaction to the High Court’s ruling, the group said it “condemns” the decision and will decide whether to appeal it.
Chay Brown, TransActual’s director for healthcare, called the ruling “disappointing,” noting that it “leans heavily” on what the group calls “the widely discredited Cass review”:
We are seriously concerned about the safety and welfare of young trans people in the UK. Over the last few years, they have come to view the UK medical establishment as paying lip service to their needs; and all too happy to weaponise their very existence in pursuit of a now discredited culture war. It is essential that NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care now take urgent steps to reverse this perception.
In its statement, the group cited a white paper published in July by Professor Anne Alstott of Yale Law School and Dr. Meredithe McNamara, assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine – both co-founders of Yale’s activist Integrity Project, which tracks and attempts to “correct” and “oppose” efforts to protect children from life-altering transgender medical activists throughout America.
According to the Integrity Project:
Underserved and marginalized people are harmed most by the absence of sound science in law. U.S. states recently have adopted a number of measures based on scientific misinformation, in reproductive health, gender-affirming care and HIV prevention. The Integrity Project acts quickly to correct the scientific record and oppose these harmful measures.
The white paper that attempted to discredit the Cass report is co-authored by other transgender activist medical professionals such as Johanna Olson-Kennedy, M.D., professor of clinical pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and Jack Turban, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.
In a May 2018 paper, Olson-Kennedy recommended that girls as young as 13 with gender dysphoria be subjected to top surgeries (elective double mastectomies). Drawing that conclusion only from 136 “completed surveys” at her gender clinic, she and her colleagues determined:
Chest dysphoria was high among presurgical transmasculine youth, and surgical intervention positively affected both minors and young adults. Given these findings, professional guidelines and clinical practice should consider patients for chest surgery based on individual need rather than chronologic age.
Turban was found in January 2022 by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) to have authored a controversial study at Stanford University that concluded childhood hormone treatment was associated with “favorable mental health outcomes.”
The study was funded by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), which opposes restrictions on gender-affirming care for children. AACAP, in turn, is supported financially by pharmaceutical companies Arbor and Pfizer, both of which manufacture hormonal drugs used for gender transitions, DCNF reported.
“This study is particularly relevant now because many state legislatures are introducing bills that would outlaw this kind of care for transgender youth,” said Turban in the press release about his study. “We are adding to the evidence base that shows why gender-affirming care is beneficial from a mental health perspective.”
Orient underscored in her comments to CatholicVote that “one effect” of hormone drugs to treat gender dysphoria “is to make the recipients life-long patients for a very lucrative industry.”
“Puberty itself is probably the best treatment for ‘gender dysphoria,’” she added. “After experiencing normal puberty, the vast majority of teens will accept their biological sex and escape from the pipeline leading to harmful cross-sex hormones, mutilating surgery, and life-long psychiatric care.”
In the UK, James Esses, co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists and co-ordinator of Declaration for Biological Reality, posted to X that the High Court’s ruling was “seismic.”
“We must never allow children to be irreversibly harmed in the name of an ideology again,” he added.
Shocking testimony regarding Remdesivir
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | July 30, 2024
Some rather shocking testimony has emerged from the USA.
An American doctor working in Everett, Washington (just north of Seattle) called James Miller, recently published an attestation which can be downloaded from here.
This was written to be filed as evidence with some attorneys who are petitioning state Attorney Generals to investigate hospital administrations and others responsible for what some regard as homicides. More about that can be read here.
The whole statement is worth reading, but in our view the following in particular stands:
From just that small extract, the following can be surmised:
- treatment was entirely protocol-driven — this person was well enough to be in a car and her “covid-19” was incidental; there were, however, recommendations in place that notwithstanding that, she should receive remdesivir just because a protocol said so
- usually these protocols were followed, regardless of clinical need, but just because a person had a positive test
- the protocols, however, could be flexibly applied and in this case a doctor decided that a valid criterion for making a decision was how “nice” the patient was
- a treatment was actively avoided here “because she was nice” — indicating that the doctors knew that per-protocol they ought to be giving treatments which they themselves knew to be harmful
The core departure from medical norms on display here from which this fortunate patient escaped — the rigid application of “protocols” by compliant unquestioning doctors resulting in harmful treatment being given — is an extremely disturbing phenomenon. It would be naive to think this only happened in the USA, and was seen only in association with the particular treatment — remdesivir — mentioned here.
It’s worth noting that the tenacious Jessica Hockett has written this article in which she suggests a series of further questions she’d like to ask Dr Miller.
Featured Video
Israel and the Palestinians — It’s about Mind Over Matter
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Putting Nukes in Finland Won’t Make Country Safer, Finnish Politician Cautions
- Ukrainian drone strike kills worker at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant
- What the West Hides About Soviet Role in De-Colonization
- Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith
- US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel
- US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops
- What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say
- ‘An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership’: Merz
- Pakistan Throws Open Its Gates for Iran’s Transit Trade to Third Countries
- Iran to charge ships passing Strait of Hormuz in rial: Lawmaker
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s neighbors are irate about its treatment of religious sites
- Israel escalates in Gaza: killing, torture, hunger – Daily Update
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- In Gaza, 17,000 infections linked to rodents and external parasites – Daily Update
- Lobby group taking journalists on propaganda tours of Israel
- The Shattered Figure of Jesus Is Not an Exception. It’s a Pattern
- Israel’s idea of ceasefire includes killing 21 in one day – Daily Update
- Christians in Israel and Palestine, past and present
- Israel eager to restart Iran war, Gaza genocide – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 