Leaked internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have provided damning insights into the pseudo-scientific practice of so-called gender-affirming care along with its ghastly consequences.
According to journalist Mia Hughes' 242-page report, published Monday by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, WPATH members "demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments."
Shellenberger, who collaborated on the report with Hughes and Tablet columnist Alex Gutentag, noted on X that the findings are especially troubling as the "American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine."
WPATH members quoted in the report can be seen discussing:
In one instance, Dianne Berg, a child psychologist at the University of Minnesota who co-authored the child chapter of WPATH Standards of Care 8, admits that it is out of children's "developmental range to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them. They'll say they understand, but then they'll say something else that makes you think, oh, they didn't really understand that they are going to have facial hair."
Canadian endocrinologist Daniel Metzger noted during an internal WPATH panel discussion, "Most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of brain space to really talk about [fertility preservation] in a serious way."
"I think the thing you have to remember about kids is that we're often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven't even had biology in high school yet," added Metzger.
— (@)
It's not just prospective child victims who are clueless about what their experimental transmogrification would ultimately entail. One WPATH member noted that parents sometimes sign off without knowing the stakes or what's involved in the medical intervention.
— (@)
The WPATH files also illuminate how some professionals in the sex-change industry appear to be freewheeling without an anchorage in ethics or reality.
One surgeon is quoted as suggesting that affirming surgeries don't have to produce looks and body parts that "exist in nature," even though WPATH condemned Republicans for suggesting that "gender-affirming health care is not experimental."
"I think we are going to see a wave of non-binary affirming requests for surgery that will include non-standard procedures," wrote the California surgeon. "I have worked with clients who identify as non-binary, agender, and Eunuchs who have wanted atypical surgical procedures, many of which either don't exist in nature or represent the first of their kind."
The WPATH files further reveal the nightmarish consequences victims have faced after receiving "gender-affirming care." There are secret stories of hormone-trigger liver cancer; pelvic inflammatory disease; pelvic floor dysfunction; atrophied uteri; painful orgasms; "[erections] feeling like broken glass"; and death.
"The WPATH Files show that what is called 'gender medicine' is neither science nor medicine," Shellenberger said in a statement. "The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It's not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent."
Environmental Progress indicated that it reached out for comment to every WPATH member named in the files and that two responded; one confirming the comments attributed to them and the other pushing back against how their remarks had been interpreted in the report.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
As the probe about the pipe bomb found on Jan. 6, 2021, at Democratic National Committee headquarters continues to gain traction, Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker and others are asking an all-important question: What does the U.S. government have to hide?
Baker — as part his ongoing analyses regarding the truth about Jan. 6 — last week broke new ground in the pipe bomb story: He asserted that the individual who found the alleged explosive device at DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., wasn't a "passerby," as had been endlessly parroted — the person was a United States Capitol Police plainclothes officer.
Baker noted that "multiple congressional staffers familiar with the investigation" confirmed this with Blaze News in the face of the FBI stonewalling inquiries into the individual's identity.
Video posted to the YouTube channel of U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) shows the individual in question — dressed in dark clothing and wearing a backpack — casually approaching a D.C. Metropolitan Police vehicle parked at the DNC just after 1 p.m., reportedly to inform law enforcement that he spotted what appeared to be a pipe bomb, Baker noted.
That same video also shows the person walking to the driver’s side of a black Secret Service SUV parked next to the Metro Police vehicle and speaking to those inside the Secret Service SUV, again without any apparent urgency, Baker said.
As it turns out, the alleged pipe bomb was located only 15 to 20 feet from the vehicles, Baker said. What's more, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris had arrived at the DNC building in that same Secret Service SUV only about 90 minutes earlier, Baker said — a fact that didn't come to light for a full year after Jan. 6.
Why Harris — who was still a U.S. senator on that date — was taken to the DNC that morning rather than to the Capitol to participate in the 2020 Electoral College vote certification remains a mystery, Baker added.
A bigger head-scratcher, Baker said, is why Harris and other Democrats haven't exploited her proximity to what the FBI called a "viable" explosive device that “could have been detonated, resulting in serious injury or death" to garner sympathy and support. Assuming that pipe bomb — and another found at Republican National Committee headquarters — was part of the violence of Jan. 6, why hasn't the Biden administration used it to underscore its narrative of that day?
Other questions Baker is continuing to explore include:
Michael Shellenberger and Alex Gutentag penned a Saturday investigative story for Public about the discovery of the pipe bombs at the Democratic and Republican HQs. Significantly, they noted that the whole thing "should have been a national scandal."
The authors said that while the pipe bombs initially were "key to the narrative that the Capitol riot was a premeditated act of domestic terrorism," for some reason they're omitted from the detailed analysis and timeline of an 841-page official report from the U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 6 — and relegated only to a brief mention in an appendix.
Shellenberger and Gutentag offered what could be a possible explanation: While the FBI called the pipe bombs "viable," Kyle Seraphin — a former FBI agent who worked on the investigation — said technicians from the Joint Program Office for Countering IEDs told him the devices lacked the necessary assembly to operate.
The Public story also said the FBI released CCTV videos and photos of the pipe bomb suspect "holding a cell phone and possibly texting" — which would make it easy for the FBI to identify the cell phone user. However, Shellenberger and Gutentag revealed that data from the phone company that could have identified the suspected bomber was "mysteriously corrupted."
More from their Public report:
The FBI claims that the pipe bomb was planted at the DNC on the night of January 5, 2021. Yet given Harris’ presence at the DNC, it is very likely that the Secret Service would have conducted a security sweep, possibly with a bomb-sniffing dog, upon her arrival on January 6, when the bomb was supposedly already on the premises.
An independent security analyst who has worked for senior elected officials, including on Capitol Hill, wrote a Comprehensive Threat Analysis of the alleged pipe bombs, which Public obtained. Interviewed by Zoom, the expert, who asked that their name not be used, said, “Something had to have happened to not to have found the bomb, or it wasn’t there on the night of the 5th. Had they conducted a regular security sweep, they 100% would have found the bomb. It’s in plain sight. You’d have to be blind not to find it. And if you had a dog? Give me a break.”
The expert found it highly implausible that the Secret Service did not do a sweep. “I can’t believe the Secret Service would put Vice President some place and not do a security sweep. It’s hard to explain how bad that is.”
Still, the authors called attention to a CNN story from January 31, 2022, which cited a "law enforcement source familiar with the event" who told the network that the Secret Service "which was responsible for Harris’ protection that day, swept the interior of the building, the driveway, parking deck and entrances and exits prior to her arrival.”
In addition, Revolver published its own comprehensive investigative piece on the pipe bomb saga Thursday. It attracted the attention of Tucker Carlson, who conducted a compelling video interview with Revolver's Darren J. Beattie on the subject that went live the same day on X.
Carlson also offered an addendum to the below video interview that called attention to Baker's analysis on Blaze News from last week stating that the "passerby" who found the pipe bomb at the DNC was a U.S. Capitol Police plainclothes officer:
— (@)
Neither the U.S. Capitol Police nor the D.C. Metro Police immediately responded to Blaze News' request for comment on the assertions Baker outlined in his Jan. 17 pipe bomb analysis.
Shellenberger and Gutentag added in their piece for Public that "the Secret Service and the Capitol Police did not respond to our request for comment. An FBI spokesperson declined to comment and directed Public to the agency’s pipe bomb webpage and most recent statement."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Establishmentarians in the West have long harped on the need to protect democracy. Notwithstanding their rhetorical support for a politically empowered citizenry, it appears there are forces, particularly in the intelligence community, that are unwilling to trust Americans to determine — on their own and in concert with one another — how best to wield their civic power.
On Thursday, investigative journalist Matt Taibbi distilled the problem down for Congress thusly: "Take away the highfalutin talk about countering hate and reducing harm, and anti-disinformation is just a bluntly elitist gatekeeping exercise. If you prefer to think in progressive terms, it's class war."
Taibbi further indicated that recent censorship efforts by the Biden administration and elements of the intelligence community have tended to "drift in one direction," amounting in some cases to what investigative journalist Michael Shellenberg also stressed was election interference.
Since the first Twitter Files report last November, the Biden administration has been outed for assuming "a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth'" and for leaning on social media companies to both censor and cure narratives. There have, however, been recent indications that the depths of the government's weaponization have not yet been fully plumbed.
Hours after highlighting efforts by the Biden administration to pressure Google to "crack down" on undesirable communications during the pandemic, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government convened a hearing to better understand the lengths to which the government has gone to mold public opinion and suppress free speech.
After Virgin Islands Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D) rushed out a comparison of former President Donald Trump to Nazis, the Weaponization Subcommittee heard testimony from Taibbi and Shellenberger, both of whom previously detailed the extent of the collusion between the American government and Twitter, and heard also from Rupa Subramanya, a Canada-based journalist.
Olivia Troye, a former Homeland Security adviser and ardent critic of Trump, also spoke, dismissing and on at least one occasion defending censorship efforts, and serving ultimately as a sounding board for Democratic lawmakers' grievances against the Republican front-runner in the 2024 presidential election.
In his opening remarks, Taibbi noted that "there has been a dramatic shift in attitudes about speech in this country, and many politicians now clearly believe the bulk of Americans can't be trusted to digest information on their own."
"This mindset imagines that if we see one clip from [Russian news], we'll stop being patriots; that once exposed to hate speech, we'll become bigots ourselves automatically; that if we read even one Donald Trump tweet, we will become insurrectionists," said Taibbi.
"Having come to this conclusion, the government agencies like the DHS and the FBI and the quasi-private agencies who do anti-disinformation work have taken upon themselves the paternalistic responsibility to sort out for us what is and is not safe," continued the journalist.
"While they see great danger in allowing others to read controversial material, it's taken for granted that they themselves will be immune to the dangers of speech."
Taibbi, who indicated he has voted Democrat all his life, underscored the need to defund projects like the government-linked Election Integrity Project "before it's too late."
Subramanya held up Canada as a case study in how bad censorship, government overreach, and leftist identity politics can go in the West, highlighting the northern nation's race-based punitive measures; online censorship efforts; de-banking of peaceful political dissenters; and selective application of speech controls, especially as it pertains to protesters.
Subramanya indicated that what is taking place in Canada is "a gradual suffocation of free expression," stressing that while "draped in a cloak of niceness, inclusivity, and justice ... it is regressive, authoritarian, and illiberal."
"I came here today not simply to warn you about what lies ahead, but to plead with you to do something about it," said the Canada-based journalist. "Now is not the time to be polite. Now is the time to defend, loudly, liberties and rights that have given us the greatest freedoms in human history."
Subramanya later told Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) that it doesn't take long to lose free speech, suggesting it more or less happened in Canada in under ten years.
In his opening remarks and answers, Shellenberger made repeated reference to the "CTI League files."
Days ahead of the hearing, Shellenberger detailed damning findings from documents brought forward by a whistleblower concerning a so-called "anti-disinformation" group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League "that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defense and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security."
The whistleblower was allegedly recruited to participate in CTIL "through monthly cybersecurity meetings hosted by DHS."
The documents appear to show that American, Israeli, and British intelligence contractors led by a former U.K. defense researcher, Sara-Jayne Terp, developed a sweeping censorship framework in 2019.
Wired touted Terp in 2020 as a data scientist who "uses the tools of cybersecurity to track false claims like they're malware. Her goal: Stop dangerous lies from hacking our beliefs."
Of course, "lies" might just amount to unfavorable truths or beliefs.
"Beliefs can be hacked," Terp told the magazine.
"The CTIL framework and the public-private model are the seeds of what both the U.S. and U.K. would put into place in 2020 and 2021, including masking censorship within cybersecurity institutions and counter-disinformation agendas; a heavy focus on stopping disfavored narratives, not just wrong facts; and pressuring social media platforms to take down information or take other actions to prevent content from going viral," Shellenberger noted further in his breakdown of the whistleblower's documents.
According to the documents, this censorship cabal attempted to shape public opinion by discussing ways of promoting "counter-messaging"; co-opting hashtags to advance preferred narratives; actively suppressing undesired ideas and trends; astroturfing online; and infiltrating private groups.
While not strictly governmental, Shellenberger noted that government employees were nevertheless "engaged members" of the cabal. Additionally, the whistleblower indicated that CTIL sought ultimately to become part of the federal government.
It did not become its own agency, but it certainly collaborated with extant U.S. agencies.
Shellenberger indicated during the hearing Thursday that government operatives who grew accustomed to "waging disinformation campaigns and psyops in foreign countries" have turned those tools against the American people.
When confronted about directing these campaigns homeward, the journalist suggested the agencies responsible have refused accountability. For instance, Shellenberger noted that Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and FBI Director Christopher Wray "misled Congress" when claiming their agencies weren't involved in demanding censorship by social media platforms.
Shellenberger recommended making Section 230 liability protections contingent on social media platforms allowing adult users "to moderate our own legal content through filters that we choose and whose algorithms are transparent to all of us" as well as prohibiting government officials from asking platforms to remove content.
Should the Supreme Court ultimately determine in Missouri v. Biden that some government calls for censorship are permissible, the journalist urged Congress to require that such censorship requests are immediately reported publicly so that "such censorship demands occur in plain sight."
Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government youtu.be
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Freedom of speech takes yet another hit as the biotechnology company Moderna has begun “monitoring celebrities for spreading anti-vaccine beliefs.”
Moderna “hired a former FBI analyst to head its 'disinformation department' tasked with compiling internal reports about celebrities who criticized the COVID-19 vaccine from Moderna,” reports Glenn Beck.
“If they spoke out against the vaccine mandates or shared any anti-vaccine sentiments,” these celebrities have now been “color-coded and ranked from low-risk to high-risk based on how problematic their narratives are to vaccine confidence.”
“Low-risk reports don't currently warrant any action, according to their own Moderna documents,” but when a response is required, the company's team will "notify appropriate stakeholders with recommendations.”
“Notice the word ‘stakeholders,”’ says Glenn. “That is ESG.”
You’re probably wondering whose “stakeholders” are being contacted with “recommendations” (or perhaps threats would be a better word).
“Celebrities that made Moderna’s high-risk list include: Russell Brand, Elon Musk, and Novak Djokovic.”
Djokovic, who “wasn’t even an activist” and simply advocated for autonomy, has been blacklisted for becoming an “anti-vaccine hero.”
According to Moderna’s own report, “the optics of Djokovic, whose vaccine opposition barred him from competing in the US Open, returning to, and winning the Moderna sponsored competition, bolsters anti-vaccine claims that vaccines and mandates are unnecessary.”
To get the full story, watch the clip below.
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The American Academy of Pediatrics relied on leftist politics that contradict medical research to create its influential recommendations for transgendering children, say the AGs.
In many parts of the world a perfectly peaceful tweet could land you criminal charges or even a prison sentence.
Special Counsel Jack Smith admitted federal prosecutors mishandled evidence in former President Donald Trump's classified documents case.
A foreign left-wing think tank that sought to de-platform The Federalist misled the IRS to obtain tax-exempt status, says Racket.
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com