Mental illness has become a political identity — and SURPRISE, it's on the left: Study



There have been numerous studies in recent years highlighting correlations between political affiliation and mental health.

A 2021 study published in the journal SSM-Mental Health, for instance, concluded — on the basis of an analysis of depressive attitudes among conservative and liberal 12th graders from 2005 to 2018 — that "conservatives reported lower average depressive affect, self-derogation, and loneliness scores and higher self-esteem scores than all other groups."

'These findings have far-reaching consequences.'

A 2023 study conducted by Gallup on behalf of the Institute for Family Studies found that adolescents with "very conservative parents are 16 to 17 percentage points more likely to be in good or excellent mental health compared to their peers with very liberal parents."

A 2025 study published in the journal PLOS One found that "even after accounting for a variety of other factors, there is a clear propensity of conservatives to provide more positive assessments of their mental health in comparison to liberals" — although the researchers ultimately attempted to credit this tendency to stigma or survey terminology.

The American left's mental health issues show no signs of clearing up. In fact, while conservatives continue to enjoy relatively superior mental health, the sickness on the other side appears to be attracting sufferers into a political identity all its own.

In a study strongly recommending "replication and further exploration" that was recently published in the journal Political Behavior, Lauren Van De Hey of Utah State University found that "mental health identity has begun to function as a political identity for some individuals," particularly among "younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans."

RELATED: Actress Elliot Page mocked ruthlessly after trying to define 'healthy masculinity'

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Utilizing data from the national Cooperative Election Study administered by YouGov in 2022, the Utah researcher determined that a great many people now "categorize themselves as having had a mental illness, the vast majority of whom view mental illness identity and mental illness alienation as important to their sense of self."

"People who have experienced mental illness feel close to others who have experienced mental illness," wrote Van De Hey. "They are also likely to self-categorize as having or having had a mental illness, share a sense of group consciousness with others who have or had mental illness, and recognize the need to work together to change laws that are unfair to people with mental illness."

This obviously has political implications, explained the researcher, as it correlates with "support for increased state spending on health care, education, and welfare."

The study cited Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) as an example of a political elite for whom mental health appears to have become a "politicized identity."

Smith has on numerous occasions discussed her past experiences with depression, grouped herself with sufferers, and identified "mental health parity" as a legislative priority.

"Those more likely to categorize as having a mental illness are more likely to have a college degree; be a Democrat, liberal, and white; and have slightly lower family income," said the study. "For both the [Mental Illness] Identity and [Mental Illness] Alienation scales, the only consequential variable is ideology: Those with higher MI identification or MI Alienation are more likely to be liberal."

Van De Hey concluded, "These findings have far-reaching consequences for mental health advocacy and the role mental health identity will play in the political sphere — especially as Gen Z matures as a cohort."

Dealing with a sample of 860 respondents, Van De Hey found that 26% categorized themselves as having had a mental illness in their lifetime, 22% categorized themselves as having had a physical disability, and 168 categorized themselves as having had a serious chronic physical illness.

Of the 220 respondents who said they had mental illness in their lifetime, 70% identified as "liberal" or "very liberal," 24% identified as "moderate," and 32% identified as "conservative" or "very conservative."

Of the same 220 respondents, about half stated that their identity as a person with a mental health illness was "important" or "very important to them."

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

The utopia trap: Glenn Beck warns America is living this disturbing experiment that ENDS in extinction



What happens when every problem disappears? In one of the most unsettling social experiments ever conducted, scientist John Calhoun created a perfect paradise for mice — complete with unlimited food, safety, and comfort.

“1968, a scientist comes out, and he’s decided he’s going to make utopia, not for people, but for mice and rats. OK? His name was John Calhoun. He worked at the National Institute of Mental Health, and he wanted to answer the question that I think should interest all of us,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.

That question is, “What happens with a society when every problem is removed?”

“So he builds this paradise. It’s a mouse world. Unlimited food, water that never runs out, no predators, no disease, perfect temperature, endless nesting material. Every danger, every want, every stressor that a mouse has ever faced in the history of mice — completely gone. The only thing he gives them, besides protection, was each other and time,” Glenn says.


Calhoun put four male and four female mice into the experiment, and “at first, it’s mouse heaven.”

“They breed. The population doubled about every 55 days,” Glenn explains. “And he called this the strive period. It was heaven, and it was working exactly as designed. But by day 300 or 315, something like that, there were more than 600 mice thriving in a space that he had built to hold nearly 4,000.”

“That’s the peak. Something starts to go horribly wrong. Growth slows for no physical reason. They can’t figure it out. All of a sudden. And in all 25 experiments, exactly the same thing,” he says.

“There’s no role left for a mouse to fill. And a creature with no role, no struggle, no purpose, starts to come apart. The males who had nothing to fight for either turned violent or vanished into apathy,” he continues. “Let me ask you something. What’s happening in our society right now?”

Glenn points to the young men growing up who have nothing to fight for, explaining that they’ve also turned violent and apathetic.

“Then you have the moms. The mothers stopped mothering. They abandoned their young. They began attacking their young. They forgot about their children. The whole intricate social order that made a mouse a mouse completely dissolved in 25 identical experiments 25 times,” he explains.

“Then came the most haunting part of the experiment, I think. There’s a new kind of mouse that appears. This mouse didn’t fight. They didn’t court. They didn’t mate. They didn’t compete. They wouldn’t engage with others at all,” he says.

These mice were called “the beautiful ones” because they spent all their time grooming themselves instead of foraging or fighting.

And with their emergence, the population began to decline.

“On day 600, in a world still overflowing with food, the last baby is born,” Glenn says. “Day 600. After that, nothing. Not one mouse, not ever. And on day 920, the last mice, the last of the mice dies in paradise.”

“And Universe 25 becomes the 25th tomb,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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.

Exclusive: Parents Group Finds Federally Funded ‘Independent’ Scientists Are Really Liberal Activists

NASEM claims to provide independent advice on STEM, but it has turned into a platform for pushing radical political agendas into classrooms.

'Mindfulness' meditation is no match for the power of prayer — and science can prove it



Growing up in our house, prayer was non-negotiable. Before meals, before bed, and before tests. My mother prayed before she turned the ignition. Every single time. Backing out of the driveway to grab milk? A petition went up. Driving less than a mile to church? Another one. I rolled my eyes the way Hamlet brooded, often and at length.

I figured Mom was a soft touch for superstition. A nice lady with a nervous habit dressed up as theology. Turns out the habit was sound — and the theology even sounder.

You are not emptying the mind. If anything, you are spilling the contents before a higher power who already knew what was in there.

A recent study published in Religion, Brain & Behavior by researchers in Ireland looked at 628 middle-aged adults from the Midlife in the United States project, a long-running national study that has tracked the health of thousands of Americans since 1995.

They put participants through a standardized stress test and measured what their hearts and blood pressure did under pressure. They found that people who scored higher on private religious practices showed lower systolic blood pressure reactivity to the stressor.

Essentially, when life throws a curveball, the praying person's heart absorbs the hit.

Religious but not spiritual

The researchers separated two things most people lump together: private religious practices (prayer, Scripture reading, devotion at home) and what they called daily spiritual experiences (a general sense of the sacred, feelings of connectedness, vague "spiritual" vibes). Only the first category, the one with actual prayer in it, produced the cardiovascular benefit.

This matters because the modern wellness industry has spent two decades trying to sell Americans on a defanged, deracinated version of spiritual practice. Meditation retreats. Mindfulness courses. Breath-work seminars at $400 a weekend. All of it positioned as the secular, sophisticated alternative to what your grandmother was doing for free with a worn King James Bible.

But prayer and meditation are not the same animal. The wellness industry would like you to believe they are interchangeable, two flavors of the same practice, both leading to lower cortisol and better sleep. That is a lie.

RELATED: Secular bias, fake faith — beware the new chatbot 'Christianity'

Empty promise

Meditation, in its popular Western form, is largely about emptying the mind. You sit, you breathe, you observe your thoughts like passing strangers you owe nothing to, you achieve a kind of inner stillness.

The goal is detachment. You are training yourself to step back from your own mental chatter and watch it from a distance. The self is the subject, the object, and the audience all at once. If it works, you feel calmer. If it doesn't, you feel like you spent 20 minutes wondering if you turned off the stove

Prayer is the opposite. Prayer is a conversation. There is a Person on the other end of the line, and that Person is listening. You are addressing someone, asking, thanking, confessing, repenting, interceding for your sister’s job interview. You are not emptying the mind. If anything, you are spilling the contents before a higher power who already knew what was in there.

Meditation looks inward. Prayer looks up. Meditation is a monologue performed for an audience of one, who is also the performer. Prayer is a dialogue with the Creator of the universe. Meditation assumes the cosmos is indifferent and that the best you can do is make peace with that.

One assumes you are a bundle of neurons talking to itself. The other assumes you are a soul talking to its Maker.

That difference is the whole game.

Praying together, staying together

And the benefits extend well beyond the cardiac. A 2016 systematic review examined a dozen randomized trials and found prayer reduced anxiety in mothers of children with cancer, helped chemotherapy patients cope, and improved spiritual well-being across the board.

Then there is collective prayer, which deserves its own paragraph. Something happens when believers gather and pray together that doesn’t happen alone in your kitchen.

A hospital-based study published in ScienceDirect documented measurable benefits among patients and staff at an outpatient clinic that began every workday with group prayer. The faithful have known this for 2,000 years. Fears that felt enormous at three in the morning shrink to a manageable size when spoken aloud in the presence of people who love you and a God who loves you more.

Burdens get distributed. A timid believer hears a confident prayer spoken aloud and realizes that confidence is available, not reserved. A confident believer hears someone else struggle to find words and remembers that brokenness is not a disqualification. The result is a kind of mutual restocking.

Kneeling and dealing

Which brings me to the deeper point. America is in a mental health crisis. Antidepressant prescriptions keep climbing. In 2023, loneliness was declared a public health emergency by the surgeon general himself. Suicide rates among the youth are at generational highs.

Pundits offer theories that include smartphones, social media, economic precarity, and polarization. All are real, but all are partial. The fuller explanation is the one your pastor has been preaching for years. You cannot evict God from a culture and expect the building to stand. A nation that traded the sanctuary for the self-help aisle was always going to drown in despair. There is a God-shaped hole in the modern Western psyche; stuffing it with meditation apps and microdoses is like trying to plug a dam with Kleenex.

Prayer is older than the problem. Prayer is bigger than the diagnosis. The studies show it, and Christians know it.

Meet The Left-Wing Organization Influencing Federal Judges On Science Litigation

A Federalist inquiry into the Federal Judicial Center uncovered the influence of a left-wing advocacy group in a manual advising judges.

Alarming levels of heavy metals found in protein powders, sparking investigation from Texas AG Paxton



Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Monday an industry-wide investigation into protein powder manufacturers following the release of a pair of damning reports that confirmed the presence of various heavy metals in popular powders and ready-to-drink shakes.

Roughly 15 years ago, Consumer Reports tested 15 protein drinks in a laboratory and found that all of the drinks "had at least one sample containing one or more of the following contaminants: arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury."

'Far too many corporations have snuck harmful ingredients in their products.'

The investigators determined that while the heavy metal levels detected in most drinks were in the "low to moderate range," certain drinks had enough to warrant concern if consumed multiple times a day.

Last year, Consumer Reports conducted a new round of tests, scrutinizing 23 protein powders and read-to-drink shakes from popular brands. The CR investigators discovered that the problem facing the protein products of yesteryear is now not only commonplace but supercharged.

"For more than two-thirds of the products we analyzed, a single serving contained more lead than CR’s food safety experts say is safe to consume in a day — some by more than 10 times," said the report.

Lead is toxic to humans. Exposure in adults — for which there is no known safe level — can cause numerous health conditions including decreased kidney function, heart problems, infertility, and joint weakness.

RELATED: Disembodied human brains kept 'alive' for drug testing by controversial American startup

Alexandre Simoes/Borussia Dortmund/Getty Images

According to the Food and Drug Administration, "The most serious effects of lead exposure can occur during times of active brain development. High levels of exposure to lead in utero, infancy, and early childhood can lead to neurological effects such as learning disabilities, behavior difficulties, and lowered IQ."

The new CR investigation, led by chemist and food safety researcher Tunde Akinleye, found that the average level of lead in the protein powders was much higher than that observed in the previous CR tests and that there were fewer products with undetectable amounts of it.

Yesteryear's worst in show apparently have nothing on today's outliers.

According to the report, Naked Nutrition's Vegan Mass Gainer powder — the product found to have the highest lead levels among those tested — had twice as much lead per 315-gram serving as the worst product analyzed in 2010. It reportedly contained 7.7 micrograms of lead per serving, which is roughly 1,570% of CR's level of concern for the heavy metal.

Lead levels in a 90-gram serving of Huel's Black Edition powder — reportedly 6.3 micrograms of lead, or 1,288% of CR's daily lead limit — similarly raised concerns among testers, as did the levels in Garden of Life's Sport Organic Plant-Based Protein and Momentous' since-discontinued 100% Plant Protein powder, which allegedly contained lead between 400% and 600% of CR's level of concern.

The report concluded:

  • roughly 70% of the products tested contained over 120% of CR's level of concern for lead, which is 0.5 micrograms per day;
  • three products exceeded CR's level of concern for inorganic arsenic and cadmium — Huel's Black Edition powder, for instance, contained 9.2 micrograms of cadmium, which is more than twice the level that health experts say could be harmful to have daily;
  • consumers should avoid Naked Nutrition's Vegan Mass Gainer and Huel's Black Edition and limit consumption of Garden of Life Sport Organic Plant-Based Protein and Momentous' 100% Plant Protein to once a week; and
  • plant-based protein powders had, on average, nine times the amount of lead found in products made with dairy proteins like whey and twice as much as beef-based products.

Naked Nutrition's chief marketing officer James Clark told CR that his company takes "customers' health very seriously"; sources its ingredients from "select suppliers" that provide documentation attesting they were checked for heavy metals; and had requested a third-party test of its product Mass Gainer.

A spokesman for Huel stressed that the company was "confident in the current formulation and safety of the products," adding that its ingredients undergo "rigorous testing."

Will McClaren, a spokesman for Momentous, claimed his company had executed a "massive overhaul" of its lineup and discontinued the products that CR had tested, namely the company's Whey Protein Isolate and its 100% Plant Protein.

A spokesperson for Garden of Life US said the company's products were safe for daily use and that the company's limits for heavy metals were determined by closely following food safety guidance from the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other safety authorities.

Both Garden of Life and Momentous told CR that they tested their ingredients and finished protein products for heavy metals.

The Clean Label Project, an advocacy organization committed to greater transparency in product labeling, similarly found from a review of over 160 of the top-selling protein powders — according to Nielsen and Amazon best-seller lists — that heavy metals were a common issue.

The advocacy and research group stated in its January 2025 report that "47% of products exceeded at least one federal or state regulatory set for safety."

Texas AG Paxton said on Monday, "Protein is a vital macronutrient for human health, and Texans deserve clean protein powders without having to worry whether the products contain heavy metals or other harmful chemicals."

"Far too many corporations have snuck harmful ingredients in their products, and I am committed to doing everything I can to help Make America Healthy Again," added Paxton.

Paxton's investigation will "examine whether companies falsely marketed or misrepresented the safety and contents of their products and whether they failed to disclose known information about heavy metal contamination in violation of Texas law."

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

Disembodied human brains kept 'alive' for drug testing by controversial American startup



Several years ago, a team of researchers obtained numerous pig brains from a slaughterhouse and revived them off-site for experimentation purposes. That team has since moved up the food chain. Now it obtains human donors' brains, restores their functions, and uses them to test experimental drugs.

Bexorg, a Connecticut-based biotech startup spun out of Yale University, boasts about having created a "platform that leverages the untouched potential of nature's most complex and enduring mystery: the human brain."

'It’s a remarkable brain bank.'

Whereas other researchers might be limited to experimenting on lab-grown, human pseudo-brains or cell cultures, the team at Bexorg meddles with "full mature, intact, and isolated brains for days on end" with the stated aim of advancing brain disease therapies.

Unlike the company's slick pitch, the reality appears to be something of a horror show. After all, the over 700 brains that have been subjected to experimentation at Bexorg so far were apparently far from inert.

Bexorg takes human brains from their newly deceased donors' bodies, places them in what are effectively vats, and feeds them liters of blood substitute and other fluids that provide oxygen from an artificial lung and carry away waste to a fake kidney. The tubes that carry the sustaining fluids are connected to blood vessels in the brain via four plastic ports.

RELATED:Famed neuroscientist claims he's disproven free will — but his peers say he failed miserably

RDB/Dukas/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

According to the peer-reviewed academic journal Science, the company's proprietary life-support system BrainEx keeps the disembodied brains alive and preserves their key functions so that they can metabolize experimental drugs and react to other stimuli.

After roughly 24 hours in a state of drugged limbo, donors' brains are cut up into hundreds of pieces for further study.

Although the brains are alive and reactive for the benefit of "drug discovery," Bexorg CEO Zvonimir Vrselja has stated that "higher-level brain functions are not restored."

According to a 2019 study in which Vrselja and other members of what became the Bexorg team used their technology to revive pig brains obtained from a food processing facility, "The observed restoration of molecular and cellular processes following 4h of global anoxia/ischemia should not be extrapolated to signify resurgence of normal brain function. Indeed, quite the opposite: at no point did we observe the kind of organized global electrical activity associated with awareness, perception, or other higher-order brain functions."

To ensure against the re-emergence of consciousness among the subjects of their "wet-lab" experiments, researchers suppress the human brains' electrical activity with anesthetics, specifically the drug propofol.

Propofol apparently causes brain activity to become unstable until the brain loses consciousness.

"The brains are already almost devoid of the coordinated neural firing necessary even for minimal consciousness," Brenand Parent, a bioethicist from New York University Langone Health who sits on Bexorg's board, told Science.

Despite the company's reassurances and use of multiple measures to block neuronal activity, some have raised serious ethical concerns about Bexorg's technology, which initially developed with the help of funding through the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative. A source familiar told Blaze News that the company is not presently receiving NIH funding.

"This is brand-new, and there's no kind of institutional oversight," Yale bioethicist Stephen Latham told ScienceAlert in 2019 regarding the earlier experiments on pig brains.

"This is not animal research, because the brain comes to the researchers from an already dead animal," continued Latham. "But if consciousness were somehow induced in the brain, we don't have ethics committees … that are constituted to even think about how to do the kinds of trade-offs you do when you do research on human subjects or on animals."

Vrselja claimed in a December 2025 study published in the Alzheimer's Association's journal, Alzheimer's and Dementia, that the 5-year-old startup's "perfusion‐based postmortem brain model can recapitulate the complexity of the brain at the cellular and systems level."

The December study claimed further that "utilizing human disease brains as a preclinical model promises to substantially increase the probability of success in developing new therapies for AD."

Bexorg did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Bruna Bellaver, a research assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, told Science that BrainEx is "a huge step up from mouse models."

Bruce Car, the chief science officer at Biohaven, one of Bexorg's collaborators, has used roughly 130 of the Bexorg-sustained brains to test drugs. Car told Science that one of the drugs, the intended use of which is to prevent toxic proteins from building up in the brain, didn't perform as desired in a mouse, but worked in the disembodied human brains at a lower-than-expected dose. This apparently saved Biohaven a year of development.

"It’s a remarkable brain bank," said MIT neuroscientist Li-Huei Tsai, who instead uses pseudo-brains grown from human stem cells.

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

'GOOD RIDDANCE': Trump dunks on climate alarmists over ridiculous doomsday scenario



President Donald Trump mocked climate alarmists on Saturday after another one of their doomsday scenarios was shown to be utter nonsense.

The admission by scientists that prompted Trump's derision is but the latest in a long series of embarrassments for those activists keen to use climate prophecies as an excuse to socially engineer human beings and regulate society.

Narrative collapse

The imagined threat of anthropogenic climate change has driven numerous public officials, scientists, and impressionable people bonkers in recent decades.

While Western politicians sacrificed energy security and hobbled industry in hopes of slowing natural phenomena and defeating the arch-villain carbon dioxide (plant food), similarly minded scientists proposed blotting out the sun; "culling" the emission-generating human population with a deadly pandemic; reducing or eliminating meat consumption; putting the population on a diet of bugs, weeds, and micro-algae; and having fewer children.

'Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs.'

This madness has been driven and exacerbated in large part by bogus claims and laughably wrong predictions. In most cases, all that's required to debunk such claims is time and a functional set of eyes.

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, for instance, said at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 that new research indicated there was "a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."

Just as Gore was wrong about a 20-foot rise in the global sea level "in the near future," polar bear drownings, and the snows of Kilimanjaro, he was wrong about the future of Arctic ice.

A paper published late last year in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters concluded that over the past 20 years, "Arctic sea ice loss has slowed considerably, with no statistically significant decline in September sea ice area since 2005."

RELATED: Bizarre academic paper about releasing ticks resurfaces amid surging bites

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

If, perhaps, Gore confused the Arctic with the Antarctic, he'd still be wrong. Antarctica has enjoyed a massive gain in ice mass — at a rate of 119 billion tons per year from 2021 to 2023.

Polar ice is hardly the only planetary feature alarmists mistakenly suggested would fall victim to climate change.

Alarmists suggested in a 2017 study and elsewhere that climate change posed an existential threat to the world's coral reefs and that "immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs."

While dutifully claiming that "climate change mitigation" was still essential, researchers admitted in 2024 that "widespread and diverse coral species all exhibit the potential to adapt to the changing climate."

Former Jeffrey Epstein associate Bill Gates is one of the few alarmists to admit to having pie on his face.

Gates alleged in a 2021 work of climate alarmist agitprop that if humanity failed to eliminate so-called greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic."

After years of fear-mongering, he apparently felt compelled to admit that he too had gotten it wrong.

Gates noted in October that the "doomsday view of climate change" that says "cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization" and that "nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature" is wrong.

UN wrong, again

The United Nations, like Gates a longtime proponent of climate hysteria, was recently confronted with evidence that it too is wrong.

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project, an outfit led by a committee of top climate scientists, admitted in a study published last month in the journal Geoscientific Model Development that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's worst-case future emissions scenarios are "implausible based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends."

Taking into account the world's future population, emission trends, energy sources, climate policies, and other factors, researchers have cooked up various climate scenarios for use in scientific modeling and activist propaganda.

In the early 2010s, such researchers developed a set of four scenarios for climate modeling, called "representative concentration pathways" or RCPs. The most extreme of these was RCP8.5.

The number 8.5 here signals the level of radiative forcing — the extra heat supposedly trapped in the Earth's system, expressed in watts per square meter — projected by the year 2100.

The IPCC projected in 2013 that under this scenario, there would be a temperature rise of 4.3°C by 2081-2100 when compared to the pre-industrial period.

Government of Canada

RCP8.5's successor, "shared socioeconomic pathway"-8.5, projected warming of 4.4°C by 2081-2100, with a "very likely" range of 3.3°C to 5.7°C, the Carbon Brief reported.

It was all nonsense.

Roger Pielke Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted, "The four scenarios were never apples-to-apples. They were four different fruits from four different trees. Yet, over more than a decade and in tens of thousands of papers, RCP8.5 was treated as where the world was headed and the other three scenarios — but especially RCP4.5 and 2.6 — as a world with climate policy interventions."

Despite numerous scientists stressing that the alarmist scenario was not only unlikely but misleading, the RCP8.5 scenario "came to dominate the literature to a degree that is impossible to overstate," Pielke said.

"RCP8.5 accounted for more than half of all RCP references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, nearly 60 percent in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere, and about a third of all RCP references in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report," Pielke wrote. "By early 2020, researchers were publishing studies invoking RCP8.5 at a rate of roughly 20 per day. So far in 2026, studies using RCP8.5 (or its even more extreme successor, SSP5-8.5) are being published at a rate of ~30 new studies per day."

Now, the scientific community must contend with the acknowledgment that this scenario is bogus.

Science journalist Maarten Keulemans noted in a post that has been translated from its original Dutch, "The IPCC acknowledges what has been circulating for a long time: The highest disaster scenario, 8.5, no longer aligns with reality. WHAT CONSEQUENCES this has. ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT CLIMATE FUTURE IS WRONG."

Keuleman suggested further that this admission effectively torpedoes claims that global surface temperature will increase 4-5°C by 2100; summers will all hit 104°F and agriculture in Western Europe will be unsustainable by century's end; tuna, swordfish, and other marine creatures will go extinct; there will be millions of climate refugees every year; and that there will be no more Winter Olympics by 2040.

Trump similarly weighed in, stating, "GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that 'Climate Change' is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"

"For far too long Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs," the president continued. "Unlike the Dumocrats, who use Climate Alarmism nonsense to push their GREEN NEW SCAM, my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT!"

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

23 State AGs Probe Federal Judicial Center’s Distribution Of ‘Biased’ Climate Guide To Judges

'Rather than offering the federal judiciary an objective guide to scientific principles, the chapter functions as an ex parte brief for one side of ongoing litigation.'

Marty Makary left behind an FDA families learned not to trust



With so much bad news in the world, it is worth pausing for one encouraging development: Marty Makary finally resigned as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration last week.

Makary’s tenure at the FDA was marred by internal scandals, forced resignations, dreadful morale, and record staff turnover. More important, he actively sandbagged President Trump’s push to expand clinical trials for rare diseases through the aptly named “right-to-try” framework.

Trump’s next appointee should restore the spirit of right to try and make safe, effective treatments available to children as quickly as possible.

The idea behind right to try is straightforward. Patients with rare conditions, especially those for whom conventional medicine has failed, should have the freedom to pursue experimental treatments that have not yet received full FDA approval. Families fighting the clock have little left to lose. Government should not stand between them and a potentially lifesaving breakthrough.

Makary did.

Members of the MPS community sent more than 10 letters asking Makary for a meeting. They got a form letter in return. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) later announced an investigation into the FDA’s denials. Makary’s agency responded by claiming approvals were already “at their peak.” The Wall Street Journal took notice of the FDA’s foot-dragging last year, yet the agency kept rejecting relevant rare-disease treatments in early 2026, including RGX-121 and drugs from Biohaven and Saol Therapeutics.

That stonewalling forced families to escalate.

In March, more than 100 mothers and other advocates staged a mock funeral outside FDA offices. Dressed in black and carrying a real coffin, they sought to draw attention to a group of rare metabolic disorders known as mucopolysaccharidoses. These disorders can show up as mild symptoms such as depression or hyperactivity, or as devastating conditions such as heart disease and skeletal abnormalities.

Many MPS disorders still have no approved treatments, even though they can severely diminish children’s quality of life or kill them outright. The FDA’s regulatory process serves a legitimate purpose. But when a bureaucracy grows so rigid, self-protective, and arrogant that it blocks desperately ill children from access to promising therapies, it stops functioning as a safeguard and starts functioning as a death sentence.

Mark Dant of the Ryan Foundation told Newsweek that some of these drugs were denied because of the FDA’s institutional “dislike” of the accelerated-approval pathway. “For decades we waited for science to find our tomorrows,” he said. “Now it has, and bureaucrats within the agency we pay for are keeping those treatments from our children. We know they are there. … We just cannot reach them.”

RELATED: The FDA seems to care more about celebrities than sick Americans

Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Makary’s resignation will not undo the damage. But it does create an opening. We may not yet know what the FDA’s next leadership will look like, but Trump’s appointee should restore the spirit of right to try and make safe, effective treatments available to children as quickly as possible.

Across the world, in the nation of Georgia, parents have staged a protest lasting more than 500 consecutive days, maintaining a round-the-clock presence outside the main government building in Tbilisi. They are willing to risk everything to give their children the best chance at life. Americans should not have to camp outside federal offices for 500 days to get their government to listen.

The new FDA leadership must explain denials of right-to-try clinical trials with enough specificity that sponsors and families understand what evidence could change the decision. Patient and caregiver testimony should shape decisions early, not get folded in at the end as a token gesture. And Congress must demand transparency without turning each drug review into a partisan circus.

Children’s lives are not bargaining chips. The FDA exists to serve the public, not to protect its own bureaucracy from embarrassment. If Makary’s departure opens the door to that truth, families battling ultra-rare diseases may finally have reason to hope.