“If you watch the video, you’ll hear the teacher divide people into three groups: racist, anti-racist, and assimilationist.” The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
The Fairfax County School Board needs to Google “Streisand Effect”.
[The Fairfax County School Board took legal action to cover up its own mistake.] The Goldwater Institute’s Tim Sandefur reports on one of his organization’s new cases: When Debra Tisler and Callie Oettinger of Fairfax County, Virginia, suspected their local school district was wasting taxpayer money on excessive legal fees, they did what responsible and engaged citizens do in a democracy: They asked to see the receipts.
A new cancer treatment can wipe out tumours in terminally ill head and neck cancer patients, scientists have discovered.
In a landmark trial, a cocktail of immunotherapy medications harnessed patients’ immune systems to kill their own cancer cells and prompted “a positive trend in survival”, according to researchers at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London, and the Royal Marsden NHS foundation trust.
One patient, who was expected to die four years ago, told the Guardian of the “amazing” moment nurses called him weeks after he joined the study to say his tumour had “completely disappeared”. The 77-year-old grandfather is now cancer-free and spent last week on a cruise with his wife.
Scientists found the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab medications led to a reduction in the size of tumours in terminally ill head and neck cancer patients. In some, their cancer vanished altogether, with doctors stunned to find no detectable sign of disease.
We’re seeing lots of multiple drug combinations in myeloma. I haven’t heard of multiple antibody treatments yet.
I saw an article a few years ago about Israeli research into “Multiple Targeted Toxins” or “MuTaTo”. The article said the treatment might be able to cure cancer after a three month treatment session. If so, I’d love to see it. And the name sounds like a Marvel supervillain…
In the 1980s, Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened.
Source: Unlearned AIDS Lessons for Covid
Continue reading “Unlearned AIDS Lessons for Covid”
‘Follow the science,” we’ve been told throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. But if we had paid attention to history, we would have known that once a disease becomes newsworthy, science gets distorted by researchers, journalists, activists and politicians eager for attention and power—and determined to silence those who challenge their fear-mongering.
When AIDS spread among gay men and intravenous drug users four decades ago, it became conventional wisdom that the plague would soon devastate the rest of the American population. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey opened her show by announcing, “Research studies now project that 1 in 5—listen to me, hard to believe—1 in 5 heterosexuals could be dead of AIDS in the next three years.” The prediction was outlandishly wrong, but she wasn’t wrong in attributing the scare to scientists.
One early alarmist was Anthony Fauci, who made national news in 1983 with an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association warning that AIDS could infect even children because of “the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease.” After criticism that he had inspired a wave of hysterical homophobia, Dr. Fauci (who in 1984 began his current job, as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), promptly pivoted 180 degrees, declaring less than two months after his piece appeared that it was “absolutely preposterous” to suggest AIDS could be spread by normal social contact. But other supposed experts went on warning erroneously that AIDS could spread widely via toilet seats, mosquito bites and kissing.
“Our study, which was done here, it’s a randomized controlled trial, double-blind. It’s really, I would say, this is the best method that you are doing studies. And our conclusion is that it really has antiviral activities,” Shwartz told CBN News.
From the American Journal of Therapeutics:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Source: Ivermectin RCTs
Maybe not just for professors.
Over at the Chronicle of Higher Education, Donald Downs, Robert George and I provide some advice for professors who find themselves at the center of a storm over something that they said. Most professors have no idea how to react when controversy erupts and activists are demanding that something be done. Too often they wind up digging a hole that only makes things worse. Organizations like the Academic Freedom Alliance and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education can often help, but there are things professors should do even before help can arrive.
Here’s a taste from the piece:
Don’t lose faith in yourself or abandon your convictions. You have every right to think for yourself and speak your mind. Don’t rush to apologize if you have done nothing wrong and so have nothing truly to apologize for. Those who have appointed themselves as the thought and language police know that they can make you feel psychological/emotional pressure to do so, but apologizing will not help, and will almost certainly make things worse. So don’t yield to the temptation in the futile hope that a quick apology will quiet the storm.
In a similar vein, think clearly about the situation and what you said. Apply reason, not impulse and emotion, to the very best of your ability. A clearheaded attitude is essential for proper assessment of the situation and will impress — and give confidence to — potential allies and supporters.
So take a few deep breaths, and don’t react precipitously. Realize that you are not alone, that good advice and help are at hand. Be patient, and realize that you will attain justice if you take appropriate steps.
Don’t respond to public attacks until you’ve sought and received good advice. If you confess to an offense you didn’t commit, or if you concede to a claim or accusation that is factually inaccurate or not truly an offense (but simply an exercise of your right to say what you believe), the admission can and will be used against you. Recovering from such an error is extremely difficult, at best.
Not quite as aggressive as the “never apologize” advice, since the implication is that an apology may be appropriate if you actually committed an offense. But since the first impulse is to say what it takes to quiet the mob, you need to implement at least a 72-hour rule. And you may have to recognize that many mobs just won’t be quieted, and an apology merely encourages them.
TheOff-Guardian, a UK website, has published a wonderfully informed, detailed list of key facts you should understand about COVID. I am going to give you the reader’s digest version, buthere is the linkto read the whole thing. Please do.
PART I: “COVID DEATHS” & MORTALITY
1. The survival rate of “Covid” is over 99%.Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, thatthe vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid. . . .
2. There has been NO unusual excess mortality.The press has called 2020 the UK’s “deadliest year since world war two”, but this is misleading because it ignores the massive increase in the population since that time. A more reasonable statistical measure of mortality is Age-Standardised…
View original post 1,389 more words
The simplest way to understand economics is that it is a reckoning with unavoidable tradeoffs. If you spend money on something, you may obtain something in return—but you lose the ability to use those resources on something else. In the world of politics, economics helps us weigh the merits of those tradeoffs. It answers the question: Do the benefits of a policy outweigh the costs? Sometimes the benefits are larger. Sometimes they are meager or even nonexistent. But there are always costs. To acknowledge this is merely to acknowledge reality.
Under President Joe Biden, however, Democrats in Washington have decided that they can simply wish those tradeoffs away by declaring that they do not exist. Over and over again, they have argued that their policies do not or should not have any costs whatsoever.
Just this week, for example, White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question about the tax impact of the $3.5 trillion spending plan now working its way through Congress by declaring that “there are some…who argue that in the past companies have passed on these costs to consumers…we feel that that’s unfair and absurd and the American people would not stand for that.”
When taxes are raised on corporations—the “companies” in Psaki’s response—corporations often respond by passing that tax on to others. In some cases, they pass costs to consumers. In others, as the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome wryly notes on Twitter, they reduce the amount they would have otherwise spent on wages. They have to pay more to do business, and so they make adjustments accordingly. Costs create consequences and tradeoffs.
Continue reading “Puberty Blockers”
If informed consent is one of the pillars of clinical bioethics, puberty blockers fail the test, according to a leading psychiatrist and constitutional lawyer writing in the magazine Commentary. Paul McHugh, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, and Gerard V. Bradley, a law professor at Notre Dame, argue that neither young people nor their parents can possibly understand what they are missing by delaying puberty, one of the most mysterious aspects of human physiology.MercatorNet.com
In a terse essay titled “Science and Dictatorship,” Albert Einstein warned that “Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.” And on his deathbed, Einstein cautioned, “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important affairs.”