Sex-changing frogs and infertile humans: Will MAHA target infamous herbicide contaminating America's water?



Atrazine is one of the most extensively used herbicides in the United States. On average, well over 70 million pounds of atrazine is sprayed every year on agricultural crops like corn and sugarcane.

This chlorotriazine herbicide — reportedly the most commonly detected herbicide in American tap water — is a potent endocrine and metabolic disruptor linked to numerous adverse health effects including birth defects, cancer, reduced sperm counts, and infertility.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recognized atrazine as "a surface water and groundwater contaminant that can enter waterways in agricultural runoff from row crops" and "cause human health problems if present in public or private water supplies in amounts greater than the drinking water standard set by EPA."

Atrazine, first registered for use in 1958 and banned by the European Union in 2004, enjoys continued support stateside by the agricultural industry despite having contaminated thousands of American communities' water supplies.

Despite years of pushback from concerned citizen and activist groups — including a class action lawsuit against agrichemical giant Syngenta, for instance, which resulted in a $105 million settlement with a number of impacted communities — the chemical compound continues to be sprayed, continues to adversely impact wildlife, and continues to leak into water systems.

That could soon change.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly raised alarm about the herbicide, its ubiquity, and its adverse impacts on various forms of life. While campaigning for president last year, he promised he would ban the chemical outright if given the chance.

'It's a gay bomb, baby.'

Now that Kennedy is running both the Department of Health and Human Services and President Donald Trump's Make America Healthy Again Commission, he can press the issue of atrazine's ruinous health effects and perhaps even change some minds over at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates herbicides.

The meme

Various activists and advocacy groups have campaigned for decades against atrazine — the use of which farmers claim helps increase production revenue. However, one of the most effective critics in terms of drawing the public's attention to the herbicide's undesirable effects appears to have been Infowars founder Alex Jones.

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

 OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

In an October 2015 Infowars segment, Jones discussed the Pentagon's consideration in the early 2000s of a so-called "gay bomb" — a non-lethal chemical weapon that could hypothetically disperse unrelated sex pheromones among enemy forces and trigger homosexual engagements.

Jones segued to atrazine, saying, "What do you think tap water is? It's a gay bomb, baby."

What followed has since been memorialized in a myriad of memes.

"I don't like 'em putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay," said Jones.

'Atrazine has caused a hormonal imbalance that has made them develop into the wrong sex, in terms of their genetic constitution.'

Elements of the mainstream media appeared desperate to characterize Jones' viral suggestion about the effects of the widely used herbicide atrazine as ludicrous.

CNBC, for instance, mentioned the chemical-induced changes in frogs second in a top-5 list of Jones' "most disturbing and ridiculous conspiracy theories." Jones' claims about government-executed weather modification, which are well-documented, also made CNBC's list.

An article in Forbes titled "Alex Jones' Top 10 Health Claims And Why They Are Wrong" similarly suggested that Jones was off his rocker on the matter of atrazine and sexually impacted amphibians. Forbes not only attacked Jones over his frog remarks but insinuated his claims about weather modification and fluoride's adverse impact on IQ — which the National Toxicology Program acknowledged as an unfortunate fact in a report last year — were "ridiculous."

As with weather modification and fluoride's retarding effect, Jones was sensational in his delivery but right over target.

The studies

In his famous rant, Jones was referencing a study by University of California, Berkeley endocrinologist and amphibian biologist Tyrone Hayes, which detailed how atrazine messed up the reproductive functions of adult male frogs — emasculating three-quarters of them and prompting one in 10 to develop female sexual organs.

RELATED: General Mills to remove artificial colors from cereals. Is chemical linked to infertility next on chopping block?

 Debra Ferguson/Design Pics Editorial/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Hayes told UC Berkeley News in 2010, "We have animals that are females, in the sense that they behave like females: They have estrogen, lay eggs, they mate with other males. Atrazine has caused a hormonal imbalance that has made them develop into the wrong sex, in terms of their genetic constitution."

"These kinds of problems, like sex-reversing animals skewing sex ratios, are much more dangerous than any chemical that would kill off a population of frogs," continued Hayes. "In exposed populations, it looks like there are frogs breeding but, in fact, the population is being very slowly degraded by the introduction of these altered animals."

Long before the media tried spinning Jones' claims as ridiculous, Syngenta, a major manufacturer of atrazine, tried downplaying Hayes' findings.

According to the New Yorker, Syngenta's public relations team identified over 100 "supportive third party stakeholders," including 25 professors, who would defend atrazine or serve as "spokespeople on Hayes."

'It's in 63% of our drinking water.'

While some of the apparent defenders of atrazine have suggested frogs are a poor stand-in for human beings, it's abundantly clear that the herbicide can also wreak havoc on human health.

For starters:

  • A 2001 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives linked atrazine exposure to miscarriages.
  • A 2006 paper in Environmental Health Perspectives linked atrazine exposure to reduced semen quality.
  • A 2011 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research noted that atrazine was "associated with menstrual cycle irregularity and altered hormones."
  • A 2011 paper in Environmental Health Perspectives noted that "the presence versus absence of quantifiable levels of atrazine or a specific atrazine metabolite was associated with fetal growth restriction ... and small head circumference for sex and gestational age."
  • A 2018 paper in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health noted "an association between atrazine concentrations in drinking water and the odds of term [low birth weight] births within communities served by water systems enrolled in [the EPA's] Atrazine Monitoring Program in Ohio."
  • A 2020 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Endocrinology indicated atrazine might contribute to the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
  • A 2024 paper in Environmental Health Perspectives highlighted associated cancer risks among applicators of atrazine.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Panel concluded in a 2011 review of the human health impacts of atrazine that "the cancers for which there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential include: ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, hairy-cell leukemia and thyroid cancer."

The panel suggested further that the jury was out at the time regarding associations between atrazine and prostate cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, esophageal cancers, and childhood cancers.

Despite atrazine's apparent linkages to various medical issues, the EPA concluded in a 2018 human health risk assessment that "there are no dietary (food), residential handler, non-occupational spray drift, or occupational post-application risk estimates of concern for the registered uses of atrazine."

Two years later, the same agency stated, "Atrazine is likely to adversely affect 54 percent of all species and 40 percent of critical habitats."

The MAHA momentum

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized the use of atrazine on multiple occasions.

In September 2024, Kennedy tweeted, "We need to ban atrazine now."

"It's banned in Europe, banned all over the world, but we use it here. It's in 63% of our drinking water," Kennedy told Jordan Peterson in a September 2024 interview.

"We don't know what impact it's having on our children."

RELATED: BPA is no longer the stuff of baby bottles, but it still might be a big problem

 Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Kennedy noted on his own podcast in 2022, "The capacity for these chemicals that we are just raining down on our children right now to induce these very profound sexual changes in them is something we need to be thinking about as a society."

Kennedy's concerns appear to have followed him onto the MAHA Commission.

The 68-page MAHA Commission report, which came out in May, recognized that "children's unique behaviors and developmental physiology make them particularly vulnerable to potential adverse health effects" from cumulative exposures to various chemicals. In addition to microplastics, fluoride, phthalates, and bisphenols, the report mentioned crop protection tools, including atrazine, as chemicals requiring further study.

"In experimental animal and wildlife studies, exposure to another herbicide (atrazine) can cause endocrine disruption and birth defects," said the report.

'The second policy report will be a prescription for America.'

Despite the commission signaling a desire to ensure "not just the survival, but the prosperity, of American Farmers," and indicating farmers' crop protection tools won't be targeted with further restrictions or regulations without "thoughtful consideration," the Triazine Network, a coalition of groups involved in the regulation of atrazine, complained that "the assertion in the MAHA Commission's report that pesticides such as atrazine are responsible for childhood illness is irresponsible, inaccurate, and is not backed by credible scientific data."

The MAHA Report also struck a nerve with Alexandra Dunn, president and CEO of CropLife America — a trade association of agrochemical companies.

"Pesticides are thoroughly studied and highly regulated for safety," Dunn said in a statement. "This report will stir unjustified fear and confusion among American consumers who live in the country with the safest and most abundant food supply."

While it might upset manufacturers of pesticides, recent polling suggests Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo and want a closer look at what goes into their food and drink.

The latest Axios/Ipsos American Health Index poll revealed that 87% of Americans say "the government should do more to make sure food is safe, such as updating nutritional guidelines, adding labels to foods with artificial dyes, or reducing exposure to pesticides."

When pressed for comment about future plans concerning atrazine, an HHS spokesperson told Blaze News that "after the MAHA Report, the next step is to develop policy recommendations, grounded in gold-standard science and common sense. This report is a diagnosis."

"The second policy report will be a prescription for America," continued the spokesperson. "As the report outlines, Secretary Kennedy is committed to thoughtful consideration of what is necessary for adequate protection, alternatives, and cost of production."

Blaze News reached out for comment to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — which is working on its Updated Mitigation Proposal for atrazine — but did not receive a response by deadline.

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

Kraft Heinz, General Mills Join List Of Companies Removing Artificial Dyes From Their Products Amid MAHA Efforts

Kennedy has argued that the removal of artificial coloring is a crucial step in improving the health of American children.

General Mills to remove artificial colors from cereals. Is chemical linked to infertility next on chopping block?



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. keeps racking up the wins in his campaign to help President Donald Trump make America a healthier nation, particularly on the dietary front.

His latest victory — and American consumers' by extension — was secured at General Mills, the American ultra-processed food giant with cereal brands that include Cheerios, Chex, Cocoa Puffs, Lucky Charms, and Wheaties.

General Mills announced plans on Tuesday to remove artificial colors from all of its U.S. cereals and all K-12 school foods by next summer. The company indicated that it also intends to remove all fake coloring from its full lineup of American-facing products by the end of 2027.

How it started

In April, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration outlined a plan to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from America's food supply.

The FDA initiated the process to revoke authorization for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B in the short term and to eliminate another six synthetic dyes — FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2 — by the end of next year.

'That era is coming to an end.'

The agency also requested that companies move up their timelines for the removal of FD&C Red No. 3.

RELATED: Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown

 Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Vani Hari, a critic of the food industry who founded Food Babe, told Blaze News in November that the brighter artificial colors, which are helpful with sales and attractive to children, are harmful to their health.

"The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens," said Hari. "There are safer colors available made from fruits and vegetables, such as beets and carrots. Food companies already don't use artificial dyes en masse in Europe because they don't want to slap warning labels on their products that say they 'may cause adverse effects on attention in children.'"

Extra to seeking the removal of the harmful chemicals, the FDA indicated in April that it would partner with the National Institutes of Health to conduct research on how food additives impact kids' health and development.

"For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent," said Kennedy. "These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We're restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public's trust."

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary noted that "given the growing concerns of doctors and parents about the potential role of petroleum-based food dyes, we should not be taking risks and do everything possible to safeguard the health of our children."

How it's going

A number of companies have proven amenable to the changes advocated by the Trump administration.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

 Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Thirteen days after HHS' announcement, Tyson Foods indicated it was on track to remove all petroleum-based dyes from its production process by the end of May. Top executives from PepsiCo, Danone North America, and TreeHouse Foods similarly signaled commitments to scrap artificial colors.

'When the government sets clear, science-based standards, the food industry listens and acts.'

The American fast-food chain In-N-Out Burger revealed last month that it was removing artificial coloring from two of its drinks and swapping out its high-fructose corn syrup-based ketchup for an alternative that uses real sugar.

A spokesman for the company told CNN that the changes were part of the chain's "ongoing commitment to providing our customers with the highest-quality ingredients."

Kennedy encouraged more companies to similarly volunteer "to prioritize Americans' health and join the effort to Make America Healthy Again."

Blaze News previously reported that Kraft Heinz got on board this week, stating that it will remove artificial food, drug, and cosmetic colors from products in the United States before the end of 2027.

"This voluntary step — phasing out harmful dyes in brands like Kool-Aid, Jell‑O, and Crystal Light — proves that when the government sets clear, science-based standards, the food industry listens and acts," tweeted Kennedy.

While stressing that 85% of its full U.S. retail portfolio is "currently made without certified colors," General Mills said Tuesday it would eliminate the remainder of artificial coloring in short order.

"Across the long arc of our history, General Mills has moved quickly to meet evolving consumer needs, and reformulating our product portfolio to remove certified colors is yet another example," said General Mills CEO Jeff Harmening.

RELATED: Meat the enemy: How protein became the left's newest microaggression

 Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"Knowing the trust families place in us, we are leading the way on removing certified colors in cereals and K-12 foods by next summer. We're committed to continuing to make food that tastes great and is accessible to all," added the executive.

The removal of synthetic dyes from the food supply is a giant step, though there remains at least one chemical in cereals with effects that may warrant further action.

No artificial colors — but infertility?

A peer-reviewed study published last year in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology suggested that current concentrations of chlormequat chloride in oat-based foods "warrant more expansive toxicity resting, food monitoring, and epidemiological studies."

Researchers on the study from the Environmental Working Group, a chemical watchdog accused in recent years of exaggeration, indicated that food samples purchased in 2022 and 2023 "show detectable levels of chlormequat in all but two of 25 conventional oat-based products."

Quaker Oats and Cheerios were allegedly among the affected cereals.

'Do we really need more chemicals in our food?'

Chlormequat, first registered in the U.S. in 1962 as a plant growth regulator and recognized decades later by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as "toxic to wildlife," has been linked in animal studies to disrupted fetal growth, damage to the reproductive system, delayed puberty, and reduced fertility.

While the EPA suggested in 2023 that there were no dietary or residential risks of concern associated with human exposure to chlormequat, the 2024 study suggested that "more recent reproductive toxicity studies on chlormequat show delayed onset of puberty, reduced sperm motility, decreased weights of male reproductive organs, and decreased testosterone levels in rats exposed during sensitive windows of development, including during pregnancy and early life."

RELATED: HHS scraps COVID vaccine schedule for children and pregnant women: 'It's common sense, and it's good science'

 

  Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

Secretary Kennedy has criticized the use of chlormequat chloride, which he deemed "one of those 'forever chemicals,'" on grains.

He noted in July 2023, "This chemical was prohibited by the very same EPA in 1962 for use on anything but ornamental plants in greenhouses. That was before the agency was captured by industry."

Kennedy added, "Chlormaquat is linked to disruption of fetal growth, metabolic alterations, lower sperm motility, deceased testosterone, delayed development in puberty, and other effects. At a time when chronic disease is at an all-time high, do we really need more chemicals in our food?"

Blaze News reached out to HHS about the removal of artificial dyes as well as about chlormequat in the food supply but did not immediately receive a response.

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

RFK Jr. torches vaccine panel to make consequences count again



Consequences. The word means little when applied to the failures of America’s so-called expert class. COVID-19 exposed the rot. Officials failed again and again at precisely what they were paid to understand — and escaped unscathed. Lockdowns failed. Masks failed. The mRNA shots failed. Yet, Anthony Fauci walked off the stage wealthier than ever. That’s the problem.

But nearly halfway into year one of Trump 2.0, America finally seems hungry to Make Consequences Great Again.

Choosing a freer, healthier, more dignified path is not just possible — it’s the rightful consequence of reclaiming citizenship in a nation built on liberty and courage.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pulled the COVID-19 jab recommendation for healthy children and pregnant women. The move strips the shot of its legal basis for mandates now or in the future. Then, in a sweeping housecleaning, Kennedy announced he would “retire” all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee.

Of those members, 13 were appointed by Joe Biden as recently as 2024. I wonder who was running the autopen to make that happen. Since most of those members have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies, I’ll let your imagination fill in the details.

Children’s Health Defense cites a 2000 U.S. House investigation that found conflict-of-interest rules for the CDC’s vaccine committee went largely unenforced. A 2009 report by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General reached the same conclusion. Follow-up investigations in 2021 and 2024 showed no improvement, even as the path was cleared for mRNA shots to be hailed as the next biomedical miracle.

How deeply do the vaccine high priests on this committee worship their pharma gods? When RFK Jr. began removing them like Elijah at Mount Carmel, he noted that the committee had never recommended against adopting a vaccine. Not once.

That’s not science. That’s idolatry. That’s how children went from receiving fewer than 20 shots in my generation to more than 70 on today’s schedule. At this point, after so many miraculous infusions of “health care,” shouldn't we all be glowing, levitating, and reading each other’s minds?

Instead, as RFK Jr. keeps pointing out, Americans today suffer from staggering rates of chronic illness, obesity, and mental distress. That’s what happens when the expert class convinces new parents their babies are born defective — ticking time bombs of disease in constant need of pharmaceutical salvation. Go for a run? Nah. Take a pill instead. Live prayerfully? Try pharmaceutically.

This is what you get when a culture forgets it was made in the image and likeness of God.

We may be the most formally educated society in human history, but we’ve been conditioned — psychologically and emotionally — like lab rats. Decades of programming have trained us to fear life itself and trust the experts to manage it. That’s why RFK Jr.’s purge of the vaccine committee goes far beyond health care. It strikes at the heart of the worldview — because worldview shapes everything.

My partner in crime, Todd Erzen, has long said that most young Christian parents would probably vaccinate their children before baptizing them. He’s not wrong. Fear — not faith — drives too many of our most important decisions. And without realizing it, no matter how many comforts we enjoy, we’ve traded a life of color for one in black and white.

RELATED: CDC knew the COVID jab was dangerous — and pushed it anyway

  Photo illustration by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The vaccine committee had to go. It had morphed into a cult of flat-earthers — deniers of reality in service of profit and power. For too long, Americans wore their chains, obedient to the credentialed class that promised safety while delivering sickness and dependency.

But we don’t have to live that way.

Choosing a freer, healthier, more dignified path is not just possible — it’s the rightful consequence of reclaiming citizenship in a nation built on liberty and courage. That’s the good, the true, and the beautiful.

And for once, we have unlikely allies to thank: Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Both have reminded Americans that the door out of this madness isn’t locked. We just needed the will to kick it open.

Let God back into the lab: Why science without God is failing us



In recent decades, a subtle and sinister revolution has occurred in our scientific and educational institutions. It's not the kind of revolution that makes headlines or sets off protests in the streets.

No, it was a quiet shift: an erosion, not an eruption. One classroom, one textbook, one policy at a time, faith was quietly displaced by a dogmatic secularism masquerading as neutrality.

It’s time we return to a posture of humility — a recognition that science, at its best, is the study of God’s handiwork.

Science and faith once walked hand in hand in this great nation, but they have since parted ways — to our detriment.

Our founding fathers, many of whom were devout Christians, believed that the natural world was a testament to a supernatural Creator. In declaring the 13 colonies’ independence from England, the founders sought to build a nation that honored “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” They signed one of the most iconic and carefully thought-out documents stating that “our Creator” gave us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — not our government.

Traditionally heralded as the most elite of educational institutions, Harvard and Yale were once proud of the fact that they taught Christian and biblical morals along with the sciences.

Today, representatives of prominent scientific institutions speak as if they are the sole gatekeepers of truth. But science is a process of discovery, not a guaranteed path to certainty. And truth, by its very nature, is not limited to what can be placed under a microscope or replicated in a laboratory.

For centuries, some of the most brilliant minds — Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Pasteur — understood that the wonder of creation points us back to the Creator. Yet in much of modern academia, the mention of God is not only unfashionable, it’s taboo. A “scientism” has replaced true scientific pursuit, where ideas are acceptable only if they are in vogue and aligned with an atheistic agenda of naturalism.

This calculated extraction of faith from science is not merely an academic shift; it’s a symptom of America’s spiritual crisis.

When a culture teaches its children that they are nothing more than biological accidents in a purposeless cosmos, should we really be surprised when those children grow up uncertain about their identity, worth, and purpose?

Like our scientific and university institutions, our public schools used to operate on a foundation of faith. Public school classes once opened with prayer. Scripture served as a moral compass. But everything changed in 1962 when the Supreme Court banned prayer in schools with the Engel v. Vitale decision.

Traditional government-funded education traded the pursuit of eternal truths for moral confusion, and it’s not just our culture that pays the price — so do our children.

The statistics speak for themselves. Depression, suicide, and social isolation rates among adolescents are rising at unprecedented levels. At the same time, belief in God, church attendance, and biblical literacy are plummeting. The two trajectories are connected. We are reaping the fruit of a generation taught to look to the stars without ever learning to look beyond them, to the One who placed them there.

Let me be clear: I love science. I’ve spent my life exploring the wonders of the earth, sea, and sky. But science, when divorced from faith, becomes sterile. It loses its soul.

Science can tell us how something works, but it can never tell us why. It can explain how to split atoms and sequence DNA, but it cannot explain beauty, justice, or love. It cannot answer the questions that ache in our hearts: Who am I? Why am I here? What happens when I die?

Only God can answer those fundamental questions.

That’s why it’s so important that we revitalize a faith-based perspective of science, one that acknowledges not only natural laws but the lawgiver. We — along with our scientific and educational institutions — need to affirm the laws of nature and nature’s God.

Let’s celebrate the harmony between Genesis and genetics, between Scripture and cell structure, between faith and fact. Such harmony will not plunge us back into the Dark Ages nor suppress discovery. It will deepen our scientific curiosity.

It’s time we return to a posture of humility — a recognition that science, at its best, is the study of God’s handiwork.

That harmonious vision is alive and well at the Wonders Center & Science Museum in Dickson, Tennessee. It unapologetically views science through the lens of biblical faith. Like the museum, we shouldn’t shy away from scientific exploration. Instead, we ought to embrace it as a form of worship.

We need not choose between being people of faith and people of reason. God calls us to love Him with all our heart, soul, and mind. That includes a mind that inquires, a heart that wonders, and a soul that seeks meaning.

We’ve spent too long teaching our children to marvel at creation while denying the Creator. It’s time for pastors to speak boldly about the harmony of science and Scripture and for parents to ask what kind of worldview their children are being taught in school. It’s time for believers to stop ceding the realm of science to those who say faith has no place in the lab.

Let’s let God back into the lab and watch scientific discovery catapult to new heights.

The more we learn about the universe, the clearer it becomes: We were made on purpose, for a purpose, by a Creator who calls the stars by name — and He knows yours, too.

Crazy 'cat lady' parasite decapitates sperm, 'colonizes' testes



Toxoplasma gondii is a protozoan parasite that can infect any nucleated cell in any warm-blooded animal and can cause a wide range of health complications — some fatal, such as miscarriage or inflammation of the brain. Over 40 million Americans are infected with the parasite, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it infects an estimated 30%-50% of the total world population.

This parasite is stereotypically associated with crazy "cat ladies" on account of the parasite's presence in cat feces — cats are its only known definitive hosts — and its association with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and suicidal behavior.

Researchers from Chile, Germany, and Uruguay confirmed in a new peer-reviewed study published in the FEBS Journal that the rapidly dividing asexual form of Toxoplasma gondii, generally known as tachyzoites, "colonize and proliferate" within testes and in the coiled sperm-storing tube behind each testicle.

RELATED: Lancet study: Fertility is plummeting globally, with over half of countries below replacement level

 Toxoplasmosis from AIDS-infected patient. Photo By BSIP/UIG Via Getty Images

Besides its capacity to behead and deform sperm, the researchers indicated that the parasite's alterations to "mitochondrial activity can cause oxidative stress leading to male infertility."

Bill Sullivan, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Indiana University, recently noted that "testicular function and sperm production are sharply diminished in Toxoplasma-infected mice, rats, and rams. Infected mice have significantly lower sperm counts and a higher proportion of abnormally shaped sperm."

While the researchers indicated in the new study that the parasite's impact on sperm could be a factor contributing to the global declines in male fertility in recent decades, Sullivan suggested that "studies to date that show defects in the sperm of infected men are too small to draw firm conclusions at this time."

The CDC indicated that infections can occur as the result of eating contaminated under-cooked meat or shellfish or unwashed contaminated produce; contact with cat excrement; mother-to-child transmission; and receipt of an infected organ transplant or blood transfusion.

The agency recommended a number of precautions that might reduce the risk of infection, including wearing gloves when gardening or touching sand possibly contaminated with the parasite; ensuring food is cooked to a safe internal temperature; keeping meat frozen at sub-zero temperatures for several days before cooking; ensuring vegetables are properly rinsed before cooking and/or consumption; and, in the case of cat owners, changing litter boxes daily.

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

Why President Trump’s Prescription Drugs Order Promotes A Freer Market

Those bemoaning Trump’s tariffs should celebrate this opening of international markets to free trade and the flow of goods across borders.

Did science kill God? How the 'Big Bang' actually disproves atheism



In the modern West, “scientific proof” is considered the gold standard for separating truth from falsehood. The popular belief is that if you don’t have scientific proof of something, then it doesn’t exist or is just a matter of subjective opinion.

This is a viewpoint known as "scientism," which holds that “science” is the only (or the best) means of discovering truth.

'The entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural "constants" were off even slightly.'

But there are many truths about the world that are outside the realm of science. For example:

• Philosophical truths (such as the laws of logic)
• Moral truths (murder is an evil act)
• Historical truths (Columbus set sail in 1492 to discover a sea route to Asia)
• Aesthetic truths (sunsets are beautiful)

So when it comes to providing reasons to believe that God exists, we need not limit ourselves to scientific evidence.

We can appeal, for example, to the existence of objective morality (as C.S. Lewis did in "Mere Christianity"), to religious experience, or to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Nonetheless, there is powerful scientific evidence that points to God’s existence, and we’ll discuss two lines of this evidence below.

One final caveat before we proceed relates to the term "proof." Merriam-Webster defines proof as evidence that “compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.” This is the everyday meaning of "proof," in the sense of demonstrating something beyond any doubt.

It’s important to note, however, that science is unable to provide this level of assurance. As the philosopher Karl Popper famously argued, scientific theories can’t ultimately be proven or confirmed because other theories and observations may arise later that explain a phenomenon better. Thus, most leading scientists today recognize that scientific explanations are always provisional and may be modified or replaced in the future.

This is important to understand because science always deals with probabilities rather than proof. Some piece of scientific evidence can point to God’s existence and make it more probable, but scientific evidence can’t conclusively demonstrate that God exists. It’s simply beyond the purview of science to give us definitive proof about anything.

The evidence we’ll discuss below provides solid reasons to believe that God exists, but it can’t prove beyond any doubt that God exists. Science is incapable of reaching that high bar.

The existence of the universe

The most widely accepted account of how the universe came into existence is the standard Big Bang model. Based on a number of different scientific observations, physicists have concluded that the universe sprang into existence out of nothing about 14 billion years ago.

The most immediate question that comes to mind in light of this account is: Who or what caused the Big Bang?

Significantly, the standard model holds that all space, matter, energy, and time suddenly came into existence — from nothing — with the Big Bang. This means that whatever brought the Big Bang about is beyond space and time, immaterial, personal (this being made a decision to create), and unbelievably powerful. Of course, this is an excellent description of many of the attributes of God.

Who else but God could have brought a universe into being?

Some scientists have proposed alternative scenarios seemingly designed to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe, but none have proven persuasive enough to replace the standard model. While scientific theories, as we’ve noted, are always subject to change, the Big Bang as currently understood certainly points to the existence of God.

The fine-tuning of the universe

Although the fact that the universe exists at all is remarkable, another fascinating aspect of the universe is that it is fine-tuned for the existence of life.

Some examples include:

The strength of gravity: The strength of gravity is determined by the gravitational constant. If gravity were significantly stronger, stars would burn out much faster, leaving less time for life to develop. On the other hand, if gravity were much weaker, stars might not form at all, preventing the creation of essential elements for life.

The cosmological constant: This constant relates to the expansion speed of the universe. If it were just a little bit larger, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form. Conversely, if it were smaller, the universe might have collapsed back on itself before life had a chance to emerge.

The strong nuclear force: This force holds together the protons and neutrons in an atom’s nucleus. If it were slightly weaker, protons and neutrons wouldn’t stick together, making complex atoms impossible. Without complex atoms, the chemical diversity necessary for life wouldn’t exist. If it were stronger, protons could potentially bind to each other more readily, which could lead to a universe without stable hydrogen, an essential element for life.

The size and distance of the Earth from the sun: Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the "Goldilocks Zone," where it’s not too hot and not too cold, allowing for liquid water to exist on its surface. The size of Earth also ensures that it has the right gravity to retain an atmosphere suitable for life without being too strong to inhibit the mobility of organisms.

Those unfamiliar with the evidence for fine-tuning will sometimes claim that it’s a concept held only by Christians or theists. Yet, scientists who claim no religious affiliation or are openly agnostic or atheist acknowledge this fact about the universe.

Fred Hoyle, an eminent physicist and agnostic, stated, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” In his book "A Brief History of Time," the late Stephen Hawking wrote, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Physicist P.C.W. Davies, also religiously unaffiliated, insists that “the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.”

The existence and fine-tuning of numerous constants and parameters of the universe is unexpected and mysterious if naturalism is true. But it makes perfect sense if Christianity is true, and God desired to create beings He could have a relationship with.

Although acknowledging the provisional nature of science, there are good scientific reasons to believe that God exists, and these reasons seem to grow stronger the more we learn about the universe.

This article is adapted from a post that originally appeared on the Worldview Bulletin Substack.

Why Trimming NASA To Focus On The Lunar Space Race Is The Right Move

NASA has long suffered from shifting political winds, its mission rewritten every few years. This move gives NASA the right goals.

American innovation is dying — and Congress is the culprit



The United States once led the world in manufacturing, producing more than 25% of global industrial output. Today, China holds that title, controlling over 30%, while the U.S. struggles to maintain even half that share.

Plenty of factors drove this decline — decades of offshoring, the collapse of industrial job bases, and an obsession with short-term profits over long-term strength. But if America wants to reclaim its industrial leadership and restore economic self-reliance, we need more than reshoring slogans and infrastructure bills.

Innovation isn’t an expense. It’s an investment — in national security, in American workers, and the future of US leadership.

We must fix and expand the research and development tax credit.

A recent Wall Street Journal analysis focused on our loss of industrial capacity. But capacity starts with innovation. Every new factory, process, and product begins with research — and that remains our greatest untapped advantage.

Yet Congress has punished companies for investing in R&D. Since 2022, the tax code has forced businesses to amortize R&D expenses over five years instead of deducting them immediately. That change has choked innovation, especially among small and midsized manufacturers that depend on near-term tax relief to fund future growth.

The result? Reduced domestic innovation, fewer advanced manufacturing breakthroughs, and an economy less equipped to compete with subsidized foreign rivals.

R&D incentives work

The research and development tax credit was meant to drive economic growth. It helps businesses offset the steep costs of developing new technologies, improving production, and staying competitive.

But today’s credit falls short. It’s too small, too complicated, and — after the amortization change — actively harmful.

Now compare that to China. Beijing offers “super deductions,” direct subsidies, and aggressive industrial policies tailored to national priorities. The results speak for themselves: China leads in semiconductors, solar, electric vehicles, and other strategic industries.

Four immediate fixes

To reverse course and restore American competitiveness, Congress must act.

  • Restore full expensing of R&D investments so businesses can deduct costs in the year they’re made — not years later.
  • Expand the R&D credit to reach startups, family-owned manufacturers, and small tech firms that often drive innovation but struggle to access support.
  • Streamline eligibility rules and reduce audit risks that discourage many companies from claiming the credit at all.
  • Create bonus credits for R&D tied to domestic manufacturing in key sectors like semiconductors, energy, defense, and infrastructure.

R&D as economic infrastructure

American manufacturing won’t come back without innovation. You can’t revive the auto industry, reshore chip production, or scale clean energy without continuous investment in research and development. And without smart tax policy to back it, capital won’t go where it’s needed.

Lawmakers in both parties love to talk about supporting U.S. industry. But support doesn’t come from speeches — it comes from policy. If Congress is serious about restoring American manufacturing, it should start by fixing the one tax tool designed to keep us competitive.

The auto industry didn’t boom just because someone built a car. It took Ford’s innovation of the assembly line and the machines to make it work. Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb — he made it viable. Steve Wozniak didn’t invent the microchip, but he made the personal computer scalable.

Inventors didn’t build the modern economy. Innovators did.

Innovation isn’t an expense. It’s an investment — in national security, in American workers, and in the future of U.S. leadership.