Who’s afraid of the Amish data?



Nothing scares the vaccine establishment more than a meaningful control group. Some vaccine trials do use inert placebos, but most compare a new product with an existing vaccine or another formulation. What we almost never get is long-term randomized evidence comparing children who receive the full schedule with children who receive none of it.

Thanks to ubiquitous mandates, cultural taboos, and pressure from pediatricians, truly unvaccinated children are also increasingly difficult to find in large numbers. That is why the Amish data are so revealing — and why they should be studied rather than waved away.

Why treat a naturally occurring unvaccinated cohort as an inconvenience rather than an opportunity?

Last year, the Supreme Court vacated a shocking Second Circuit decision siding with the state of New York against Amish parents who declined to vaccinate their children. In Miller v. McDonald, the parents argued that forcing the Amish to violate their religious beliefs in their own private schools violates the First Amendment. Yet after the Supreme Court sent the case back for reconsideration in light of its recent religious-liberty precedent, the Second Circuit last month again ruled for New York.

The legal fight continues and so does the coercion.

Putting aside the legal and moral issues at stake, the facts presented during discovery about the health of the unvaccinated Amish should be newsworthy across the world, especially as we debate both the new mRNA flu shot and the discovery that Anthony Fauci was aware of COVID vaccine injuries from the beginning.

Siri & Glimstad LLP, which represents the Amish families, provided the federal district court in New York with sworn expert medical evidence about the health status of 168 students in the three Amish schools targeted by the state for financial penalties.

The doctor’s declaration states: “I am advised that there are 26 families across the three Amish schools at issue, which have a total of 168 unvaccinated children (meaning they have received no vaccines) and that none of them have any health issue that arose after birth.”

The declaration then compares those 168 children with national background rates for allergies, autism, asthma, and ADHD. Using those rates, a random sample of 168 U.S. children would be expected to include several cases of each condition. According to the declaration, however, there were no documented cases of autism, ADHD, asthma, or food allergies among the 168 Amish children.

RELATED: Fauci is yesterday’s fight. Medical freedom is today’s.

Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg/Getty Images

No, that does not magically turn 168 Amish children into a randomized clinical trial. The Amish differ from the broader population in diet, lifestyle, environment, genetics, health care use, and countless other ways. But it does make them a rare, naturally occurring cohort of completely unvaccinated children — exactly the kind of population serious researchers should want to examine.

And the court filing does not rely only on the Amish. It also presents records from 99 unvaccinated children who had religious exemptions in four contiguous school districts in Ulster County, New York. Those records were drawn from state school health examination forms completed by physicians. Here is the comparison presented in the filing:

The numbers are striking. The filing reports zero cases of autism and diabetes in the Ulster County group, lower rates of ADHD and allergies, and a much lower asthma rate than the cited background figures.

Those differences do not prove vaccination caused the higher general population rates. They do raise an obvious question: Why not study the difference rigorously?

The court-filed evidence also notes that the expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule has occurred during the same decades in which autoimmune, developmental, and neurological diagnoses have risen sharply. Correlation is not causation, and anyone pretending otherwise is doing bad science. But correlation can be a reason to investigate — especially when government is mandating the products in question.

RELATED: What happened to RFK Jr.’s red line on risky vaccines?

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

These retrospective comparisons do not prove that vaccines cause autism, asthma, allergies, ADHD, or any other condition. They cannot control for all the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. But when government mandates a growing schedule of products for healthy children, shouldn't the burden be on public health authorities to pursue the strongest possible long-term safety evidence?

Why treat a naturally occurring unvaccinated cohort as an inconvenience rather than an opportunity?

That problem remains with the latest mRNA flu vaccine, which is being compared against another flu vaccine rather than an unvaccinated cohort. If officials want to mandate these products, why not demand the strongest possible evidence about their long-term effects? And why did the New York Department of Health decline to engage the data the Amish families placed before the court rather than explain why the comparisons are misleading?

What is self-evident is that vaccine mandates make these questions harder to answer by shrinking the pool of children who remain completely unvaccinated. New York is willing to coerce Amish families in the name of public health? Then public health officials should be willing to confront the data those families have put before them and show their work.

Religious liberty demands no less. Neither does science.

The dating data nobody is telling men: ‘You were both lied to’



Why are so many young Americans struggling to find lasting relationships? According to BlazeTV host Nick Freitas, the answer has a lot to do with the way modern dating has not only been influenced by feminism — but has been reshaped by the apps.

These apps, Freitas says, have created a “fake environment” where men get far less attention than women do.

“On Tinder, men’s average match rate is 5.26%. Women’s is 44.4%. So that’s an eight times difference, roughly. On Hinge, men swipe right on 61% of profiles. Women swipe right on 5% of profiles,” he explains.

“This part blew my mind. There’s a huge gender skew, like on Tinder, 67%-76% of the people on there are male. For Hinge it’s 60%-40%; for Bumble it’s 54%-46%,” he continues.


“On all these platforms where, again, we’re being told to go find people … it’s even worse, because one of the things that women typically need to truly be attracted to a man is they actually need to be able to be in proximity toward them,” he adds.

And an Institute for Family Studies study found that couples who meet in real life are much happier than ones who met online — and there’s good reason for it.

“Modern dating is already set up for failure, which is to say that you’re essentially putting on a performance for another human being. But your ability to perform outside of who you really are is far more limited in person than it is online, especially when we have all kinds of enhancements and filters and everything else that are going on,” Freitas explains.

However, as men and women begin to point the finger at each other for the growing issue of modern dating, Freitas points out that there’s something they both need to realize.

“As we go into this final phase talking about what should you be doing is men, you have every right to be pissed at the system that was set up for you,” he says.

“What I want you to understand is that it’s harder sometimes to understand how the women were also lied to because the women were lied to in a very, very different direction. You were put down by the system; they were built up by it,” he explains.

“But you were both lied to,” he adds.

Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

Bad guys can make your chatbot steal your private data. Here's how to watch out.



Generative AI has gained all kinds of new skills over the years, one of which is permanence, or the ability to remember details from past conversations. These days, your favorite AI platform may know a lot about you, such as your occupation, hobbies, and likes/dislikes. But what would happen if your AI chatbot had its memory hijacked to steal your data? That’s exactly what can happen with this latest fatal flaw that was discovered in some AI platforms.

This concerning trick was first uncovered by a research team at New Mexico State University. Dubbed GhostWriter, it has the ability to use hidden prompts to carry out tasks without the user’s knowledge. These can be innocuous, like capturing information currently saved in the clipboard on your device, or they can be malicious, like logging into your bank account and routing funds to an external bank, as well as stealing files, passwords, and other personal information.

It lies dormant for weeks, months, or even years.

According to the researchers, GhostWriter works in two stages:

  • First, it requires a prompt injection, where the attacker leaves a command for the AI to carry out a specific task when the user writes an unrelated prompt. In this case, the attacker could tell the AI to look for its user to type a certain keyword or phrase to trigger the hidden command.
  • The second stage is activation. In this phase, the user unknowingly initiates the GhostWriter command, prompting the AI agent to carry out the intentional task the user requested, as well as the hidden task the attacker requested. At this point, the AI completes both tasks as instructed.

From the AI agent’s point of view, the tasks were both valid commands, and it will complete them to the best of its ability. From the user’s point of view, he often won’t know that a secondary task was carried out on his device, leaving him unaware of any malicious activity connected to his account. And for the attacker, he receives the stolen data with little fanfare.

RELATED: Protect yourself now from Apple's latest privacy fail

itsarasak thithuekthak/Getty Images

What makes GhostWriter especially dangerous is that it’s not a virus or a hack in itself. It's simply a tweak to the AI’s memory — a simple hidden command to do something its original user didn’t intend for it to do, nor could the user know to issue his own command to stop the act.

GhostWriter is also persistent, meaning that it can’t be overridden or erased as long as the potential victim is unaware it exists. Instead, it lies dormant for weeks, months, or even years until the right user prompt triggers the command that causes the malicious activity to be carried out.

Now, the good news

If there’s any silver lining, it’s the fact that GhostWriter largely affects agentic AI, or agents. Most AI platforms on the market today — including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok — are all simple chatbots that require human input to carry out tasks. That means for most casual users, GhostWriter shouldn’t pose a threat to their personal information.

That said, while AI agents are still quite rare, many of the top AI companies in the world are scrambling to build functional versions to carry out work projects, complete personal tasks, and more. NVIDIA, a hardware leader in the space, wishes to outfit companies with enterprise AI that can work alongside (and even replace) human employees. Then there’s Google, which wants to load an agentic version of Gemini into Android devices called Gemini Intelligence. Although agents are scarce today, all the major AI platforms are working hard to make agents ubiquitous in the next five years or less.

As for those who do rely on agentic AI today, the New Mexico State University researchers believe that Agentic Memory Sentry, a defense system that uses refined memory saving and retrieval mechanisms to lower the likelihood of a successful GhostWriter attack, is the best way to thwart potential attacks, though even this method isn’t perfect yet. Ultimately, users will either have to trust agentic AI with these built-in risks, or avoid it altogether. I know which option I’ll pick.

Private companies are tracking your location without notice or a warrant — and it's all perfectly legal



Bluetooth seems harmless enough. It connects your phone to your car stereo to play music or pairs your fitness tracker with your phone to relay data. But did you know Bluetooth hides a hidden danger that could expose your location? Even worse, private companies and law enforcement can use this exploit to monitor your activity without giving notice or obtaining a warrant.

Your phone tattles on you in public (even if you don’t know it)

By its own admission, a marketing technology company called Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions revealed that it can use Bluetooth and WiFi to “identify people of interest by the signals emitted from their electronic devices they travel with” through a service called SignalTrace.

Its immense power can easily be abused to follow practically anyone.

All electronic devices emit signals that exchange data and information. Cellular data connects to local cellphone towers in the area. WiFi connects to the nearest router in a building. Bluetooth talks to other devices within the vicinity, just in case it needs to send or receive a message, a photo, or a song.

These technologies are especially precise these days. For instance, Bluetooth 6.0, the latest version of this protocol, features proximity-level location tracking that can pinpoint the position of a target device down to 10cm. At the same time, WiFi 7 includes indoor device positioning that can help identify the placement of a device inside buildings. Together, they offer powerful location-tracking capabilities that reveal where a device exists in real time.

From a marketing perspective, this kind of technology is used in combination with Bluetooth Low Energy beacons for proximity marketing campaigns. BLE beacons are tiny devices that can be placed on store shelves beside certain products. When you walk beside the product, the beacon notices your phone and sends a notification or discount code for that item directly to your device via Bluetooth. It’s a clever marketing tool, and while it’s a bit creepy, it’s virtually harmless.

However, groups like Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions can also gather this data and hand it over to law enforcement to create digital profiles of people of interest. Targets can include anyone from suspected criminals to the average citizen who’s simply trying to mind his or her own business.

Which devices are trackable with SignalTrace?

If you’re wondering which electronic devices are most likely to reveal your location, the sad truth is that it’s most of them.

RELATED: The latest iPhone security threat has a nasty fix

Moor Studio/Getty Images

Virtually any gadget with a WiFi and/or Bluetooth connection can be tracked. Here’s just a quick list of the types of devices that may reveal your public whereabouts:

  • Smartphones (including iPhones and Android devices)
  • Smartwatches (Apple Watch, Pixel Watch, Galaxy Watch, etc.)
  • Fitness trackers (Fitbit, Garmin, Whoop, etc.)
  • Smart rings (Oura Ring, Galaxy Ring, etc.)
  • Wireless earbuds/headphones (AirPods, Galaxy Buds, etc.)
  • Smart wallets (some models include location tracking technology to help users find a lost wallet)
  • Tracking tags (AirTag, Galaxy SmartTag, Tile, etc.)
  • Other devices (laptops, tablets, e-readers, etc.)

Is SignalTrace legal?

The question on everyone’s minds is whether or not this type of tracking is legal. The answer, unfortunately, is yes.

Private companies and law enforcement are able to skirt legal hurdles and warrants due to the fact that Bluetooth and WiFi signals coming off of electronic devices are all publicly visible. SignalTrace is merely capturing this information and drawing correlations between the data. For instance, it can see when a device is in motion, where it’s located, if a group of devices regularly travel together (like in a convoy), and it can even monitor devices inside buildings and other locations. All of this data is openly available and fair game for collection.

For what it’s worth, Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions claims to respect users’ privacy rights by not decrypting any information it receives from targeted devices, not that that will matter all that much if law enforcement simply wants to pin your location to the scene of a crime.

How to protect yourself from signal spies

With SignalTrace in place, effectively every gadget you own can be a tracking device. Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions only intends to work with law enforcement to target and track criminals, but its immense power can easily be abused to follow practically anyone.

The only way to thwart tracking attempts through WiFi and Bluetooth is to nullify your devices’ electronic signals. This means you would need to put your devices into Airplane mode with all connection features turned off, lock them in a Faraday cage that manually blocks electronic fields, or simply leave your devices at home when out in public.

Otherwise, you can assume that your phone, watch, ring, or any other gadget on your body is broadcasting your location to anyone who wants to see it at all times.

CNBC: ‘Best States To Live In’ Mutilate Kids, Free Criminals, Take All Your Money

CNBC wants you to believe states run by Democrats are the best to live in. But they rigged the data.

Five standout denunciations and warnings in Pope Leo XIV's new papal encyclical



Pope Leo XIII issued a papal encyclical in 1891 titled "Rerum Novarum," which the Vatican notes "became the document inspiring Christian activity in the social sphere and the point of reference for this activity."

In that groundbreaking document about the just ordering of society, Leo XIII applied Catholic doctrines to the modern conditions that manifested as a result of the Industrial Revolution.

Besides rejecting socialism as a means of remedying social ills and setting the stage for localism, the late pope expounded on the Church's doctrine on work, private property, the rights of workers, the obligations of the rich, the dignity of the poor, and other timely terms and issues.

'It can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal.'

The current pope, Leo XIV, has set out in his first encyclical, "Magnifica Humanitas," to do for his era what his predecessor did 135 years ago.

The Roman pontiff has, accordingly, scrutinized "the great trends of our time, particularly technological advances," through the lens of the Church’s Scripture- and tradition-based social doctrine — that living "legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria for discernment and judgment, and concrete guidelines for action."

While the pope covers a great deal of ground in his encyclical, five remarks stand out as especially provocative and/or memorable.

1. The two cities

At the outset, Pope Leo XIV raises the questions of where man is going and toward which goal does he wish to orient himself.

Leo XIV notes that in the era of AI, mankind is faced with a choice — not whether or not to embrace technology, which he does not regard as a force intrinsically antagonistic to humanity — but of whether to "construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together."

RELATED: It’s not easy being pope — Leo's big new tech encyclical proves it

Alessandra Benedetti - Corbis/Corbis/Getty Images

The American pope suggested that the choice will inevitably dictate how the transformative technology of the age is employed, given that this technology takes on the "characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it."

Following in the footsteps of Nimrod and choosing the first option would mean giving way to an ancient temptation and pursuing "a single language, a single technology, a single direction"; building a society "on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency"; and working toward a "future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means."

The second option would similarly mean dominating the heavens but rather patiently cultivating a "space in which humanity rediscovers its solid foundations and its final end" — a place "less visible and less spectacular" that is founded on the common good and has for its bedrock a firm relationship with the Almighty.

Building for the common good necessitates resisting the "Babel syndrome" that animates transhumanism and other vainglorious efforts to correct what God has created and instead "accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected," said the pope.

2. Falling victim to achievement

Leo XIV observed that within the ascendant technocratic paradigm previously denounced by Pope Francis, there is a "tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control, and profit alone shape personal, social, and economic decisions."

'Speed and efficiency should never be the supreme motivating force for the irreversible decisions.'

This contagious way of looking at the world — which threatens to reduce "creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency" — has spread in concert with "the expansion of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, nanotechnology, robotics, and biotechnology," said the pope.

Pope Leo XIV warns that unless technological progress advances with corresponding ethical and social progress, "the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: 'having more' without 'being more.'"

3. More dehumanization on the battlefield

Sensitive to the increasing ease of war-making, "tragically marginal" efforts to prevent conflicts, and the "perpetuation of conflict as a source of power and income," the pope discussed the need to rein in and regulate the use of AI where the battlefield is concerned.

Leo XIV noted that moral judgments of a lethal or irreversible nature cannot be reduced to calculation and should not be entrusted to artificial systems.

RELATED: Killer drones have conquered the skies. Can we ever be safe again?

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Leaving the work of killing and ruination to machines neither makes war more morally acceptable nor removes the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict, said the pope; rather "it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data."

'Decisions now seem to be driven almost exclusively by economic calculations, justified through media distortions.'

Where AI and automated systems are involved, the pope advocates for:

  • holding those who design, train, authorize, and employ the technology used in strikes accountable;
  • ensuring that "speed and efficiency should never be the supreme motivating force for the irreversible decisions made in the context of war";
  • requiring technology that facilitates attacks to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and factor in the impact on defenseless populations;
  • requiring weapons systems to retrace and reconstruct their decision-making processes "so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into 'the machine'";
  • keeping decisions to use lethal force under human control; and
  • avoiding an international AI arms race.

Leo XIV notes, "While AI can enhance the defense and protection of civilians, it can also lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility, and foster a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic and the victim to 'collateral damage.'"

4. The new colonialism

After noting that the "Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking, and the commodification of persons," Leo XIV discussed a novel form of colonialism incubated in the digital economy that "appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information."

The pope railed against the mining, aggregation, and analysis of individuals' data — especially information about their health and genetics — noting that such information affords the powers that be "structural leverage over the future, for they can shape needs and markets. They can also decide, before others, to whom medicines, investments, and protections will be allocated."

The remedy, according to the pope: restore "to individuals not only the data that describes them, but also the ability to decide how it is used, by whom, and for whose benefit."

5. A false realism

The pope rails in his encyclical against realpolitik — politics based on doing what is regarded as expedient rather than what is understood as morally or ethically right — particularly as it relates to war.

Leo XIV, certain that "we live at a time of significant spiritual and cultural blindness," characterized realpolitik as a "truly irresponsible" form of false realism that "sows in consciences and in society an attitude of resignation to the inevitability of war and dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions that ignore the risks at stake."

While stressing that "peace is neither a naïve hope nor merely the absence of war" and is "always possible as the fruit of justice and charity," the pope recognized that the prevailing climate of pragmatism and nihilism has nevertheless set the stage for "new wars that are perhaps even more dangerous than those of the past, since they tend to disregard all ethical limits."

"Decisions now seem to be driven almost exclusively by economic calculations, justified through media distortions, manufactured enthusiasm, and 'dreams' that inevitably shatter, generating frustration and further violence," wrote the pope. "When people come to believe that nothing is genuinely true and that principles are hollow words, then the fuse in their hearts is lit for new eruptions of intolerance and aggression."

Just as he rejects this "false realism," the pope rejects the encompassing "culture of power," highlighting an alternative: the "civilization of love."

"Christians see the darkness and acknowledge it for what it is, yet they do not merely gaze upon it passively, for they know the light and understand that the darkness has not overcome it and cannot defeat it (cf. Jn 1:5)," wrote the pope. "For this reason, even when suffering seems to have the last word, Christians serve the good and are sustained by a theological hope that gives reality both meaning and direction."

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

Feds allege this Big Tech company violated federal law with bizarre scheme to avoid hiring US citizens



An American tech company is being sued by the Department of Justice for allegedly discriminating against U.S. workers.

Instead of hiring Americans, the company allegedly favored hiring workers with temporary visas, going to bizarre lengths to prevent U.S. workers from being able to properly apply for its vacant jobs.

'Employers cannot use the PERM sponsorship process as a back door for discriminating against US workers.'

Cloudera is a software company based in Santa Clara, California, that predominantly stores data and was started in 2008 by former engineers from Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.

In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, the DOJ said the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by intentionally discriminating against Americans.

The federal lawsuit said the company "upended its normal hiring process and did exactly what the law prohibits. ... Cloudera did not consider the applications some U.S. worker candidates submitted because the company earmarked certain jobs for workers on temporary employment visas."

Cloudera was accused of posting openings for at least seven jobs — paying between $180,000 and $294,000 per year — that asked U.S. applicants to submit applications to a dedicated email address. However, the address did not accept messages from external email accounts, and applicants simply received an error message in response.

RELATED: Tesla unveils its driverless future — but you're only invited if you comply with these rules

Therefore Cloudera did not have any record of a person applying for particular roles, the DOJ stated.

The alleged end result was Cloudera attempting to fill the roles with temporary foreign workers through the permanent labor certification process, while "repeatedly" telling the Department of Labor that it couldn't find any qualified American workers.

"Employers cannot use the PERM sponsorship process as a back door for discriminating against U.S. workers," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon. "The Division will not hesitate to sue companies who intentionally deter U.S. workers from applying to American jobs."

The DOJ said an American worker alleged discrimination after attempting to apply to Cloudera via the designated email address but "received a bounce-back notification."

Cloudera spokeswoman Hannah Fairbanks said in a statement to Blaze News that the company is "proud to hire American workers."

"We do not discriminate against U.S. workers — or anyone — on the basis of citizenship status. We take the DOJ’s allegations seriously, and from the start, we have cooperated fully with the DOJ’s investigation, which stems from a recruiting email account that was simply not working as intended," she continued.

"We believe the government's claims misunderstand both our hiring processes and our intent, and we will address the matter through the appropriate legal channels. Cloudera is committed to fair, lawful, and open recruitment practices, and we will continue to cooperate with the DOJ as we work to resolve this matter. Because this is now pending litigation, we cannot comment further at this time."

RELATED: Data centers are devouring the electrical grid. Is a crash around the corner?

Cloudera co-founder Amr Awadallah. Anthony Kwan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Cloudera is charged with one count of discrimination in hiring: deterring U.S. workers; one count of discrimination in hiring: failing to consider U.S. workers; and one count of discrimination in hiring: failing to hire U.S. workers.

Cloudera had a reported revenue of $869.3 million for fiscal year 2021 and was sold that October in an all-cash deal for approximately $5.3 billion.

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

GOP Revives Federal Data Privacy Push, Setting Up Clash With States

'massive step backward'

Fixing The Fertility Rate Starts With Getting Boys And Girls To Talk To Each Other

The relationship between men and women in the United States is strained in ways data cannot fully capture.

Politico Tortures FEMA Data To Pretend Trump Is Denying Disaster Relief In Blue States

Politico reduced 2,500 disaster declarations to 45 data points, slapped a partisan label on them, and called it journalism.