The People Carving Up Healthy ‘Trans’ Kids Have Literal ‘Blood On Their Hands’
Amid an epidemic of mutilated and distraught youth who should have received real help, it’s obvious whose hands are dirty.Amid an epidemic of mutilated and distraught youth who should have received real help, it’s obvious whose hands are dirty.Mosquitoes inject human test subjects with parasite in study at Bill Gates-linked center
Researchers at the Bill Gates Foundation-backed Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands have joined an international effort to transform mosquitoes into flying syringes. According to a study published late last month in the New England Journal of Medicine, they apparently now have an effective way of using mosquitoes to deliver some protection against malaria in unsuspecting humans — and possibly other payloads in the future as well.
Scientists have long toyed with the idea of transforming mosquitoes into "flying vaccinator[s]."
Shigeto Yoshida, the lead researcher on a 2010 study that modified mosquitoes' saliva such that they would deliver leishmania vaccines to mice when sucking their blood, noted that vaccination by insect was "just like a conventional vaccination but with no pain and no cost."
"What's more, continuous exposure to bites will maintain high levels of protective immunity, through natural boosting, for a lifetime. So the insect shifts from being a pest to being beneficial," added Yoshida.
Despite the Japanese geneticist's optimism, his study acknowledged that "medical safety issues and concerns about informed consent mitigate the use of the 'flying vaccinator' as a method to deliver vaccines."
Robert Sinden, professor emeritus of parasite cell biology at Imperial College London, told Science at the time that in addition to vaccinating people without their informed consent, no regulatory agency would sign off on the initiative.
The issue of informed consent, apparently an ongoing issue for elements of the scientific community, was evidently not enough to hinder the continued development of flying vaccinators. Hiroyuki Matsuoka of Jichi Medical University in Japan, for instance, announced that with the help of a 2008 Gates Foundation grant, he was preparing work on an engineered mosquito that could produce and secrete a malaria vaccine protein into a host's skin.
In 2022, Sean Murphy and his team at the University of Washington demonstrated the workability of that idea, testing mosquito-borne malaria vaccines on humans, establishing what they called a "proof of concept" for the technology.
'The parasite dies before it infects the blood cells and evolves into its deadly phase.'
Concerned about the short-lived and marginally effective nature of the malaria vaccines currently approved by the World Health Organization, Dutch researchers at the LUMC similarly turned to genetically modified parasites and mosquito carriers as a potential alternative.
In an earlier trial, the researchers tested the effectiveness of GA1, a malaria parasite genetically modified to stop developing after roughly 24 hours of infection in humans, but found that it only provided low protective efficacy against malaria. Hoping for a better outcome, the researchers crafted another parasite, GA2, to stop developing around six days following invasion in preclinical humanized mouse models.
The Bill Gates-backed Gavi, also known as the Vaccine Alliance, noted that "because the parasite dies before it infects the blood cells and evolves into its deadly phase, it instead acts as a way of priming the immune system, as a vaccination usually would."
Afforded a test group of 43 adults between the ages of 19 and 35 who previously had no record of malaria infection, the researchers subjected subjects to 50 bites from GA2-infected mosquitoes, 50 bites from GA1-infected mosquitoes, or 50 bites from uninfected mosquitoes (placebo), in three vaccination sessions at 28-day intervals. Three weeks following their third devouring by mosquitoes, the human test subjects underwent malaria infection with five bites from infected mosquitoes.
According to the study, eight of the nine participants in the GA2 group received effective protection against the malaria infection. Only one of eight participants in the GA1 group received protection, and none of the participants in the placebo group received protection.
The Dutch researchers now seek to replicate their results in a larger human trial.
"These findings represent a significant step forward in malaria vaccine development," Julius Hafalla, an immunologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told Nature. "The ongoing global malaria burden makes the development of more effective vaccines a critical priority."
Leiden University Medical Center received a $1,578,317 grant from the Gates Foundation in September 2023 for the purpose of understanding "population and geographic factors affecting response to malaria vaccines in endemic countries." In November, the center received a Gates Foundation grant "to improve health outcomes and prevent premature death in populations around the world suffering from high rates of Malaria infection by developing next generation malaria vaccine candidates."
Bill Gates has demonstrated, both directly and through his foundation, a desire to shape public health, the news landscape, education policy, AI, insect populations, American farmland, the energy sector, foreign policy, and the earth itself.
Gates, who took issue in a January 2021 MSNBC interview with content encouraging "people not to trust the advice on masks or taking the vaccine," has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into malaria vaccine research. He noted on his blog in August, "Malaria is caused by a remarkably adaptable parasite that's constantly changing and developing resistance to our drugs and interventions. Fighting it is like playing a global game of high-stakes whack-a-mole: Just when we think we've got it under control, it pops up somewhere else or in a new form."
Gates noted further that it is important to use existing interventions while "laying the groundwork for a malaria-free future." According to Gates, that future might depend on the use of mRNA vaccines or the genetic modification of mosquito population.
According to the utopian billionaire, "One of our biggest challenges isn't scientific; it's financial and political."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Scientific American attacks Jay Bhattacharya for prioritizing Americans' autonomy over 'the science'
Scientific American, a 179-year-old magazine published by the German-British Springer Nature Group, appears increasingly keen to dirty itself with politics rather than engage in clean science.
Just weeks after Laura Helmuth stepped down as the magazine's editor in chief after an ugly rant in which she effectively called over 77.3 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump both "fascists" and "bigoted," and months after the magazine pushed gender ideologues' pseudoscientific narrative, Scientific American published a piece claiming that Trump's choice of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to run the National Institutes of Health is "the wrong move for science and public health."
Extra to insinuating that Bhattacharya was not actually censored during the pandemic and arguing that the destructive approach championed by the scientific establishment during the pandemic was not authoritarian, the author of the piece, Steven Albert, concern-mongered that Trump's pick might prioritize Americans' personal autonomy if confirmed as head of the NIH.
Debate over therapeutics, health protocols, and the origin of COVID-19 was stifled during the pandemic. Bhattacharya, among the experts whose views were suppressed at the urging of Biden health officials, refused to uncritically accept the prevailing wisdom of medical establishmentarians who advocated for lockdowns, vaccine mandates, masking for kids, and other ruinous COVID-19 policies.
Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which suggested that geriatrics and other higher-risk groups should engage in shielding, whereas healthy individuals should "immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." According to the declaration, healthy individuals were better off catching the virus and developing natural immunity.
Scientific establishmentarians keen on coercive medicine and blanket lockdowns attacked Bhattacharya for proposing this alternative approach. President Joe Biden's former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense." Former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins conspired to issue a "quick and devastating takedown" of Bhattacharya's criticism.
In the weeks since Trump announced that Bhattacharya would "restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research," establishmentarians have resumed their attacks on the esteemed epidemiologist both at home and abroad.
'Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks.'
Steven Albert, Hallen chair of community health and social justice at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health, jumped on the bandwagon, griping in the pages of Scientific American about Bhattacharya's criticism of the "authoritarian tendencies of public health" and his advocacy for turning "the NIH from something that's sort of how to control society into something that's aimed at the discovery of truth to improve the health of Americans."
"The claims of authoritarianism are a screen for pushing a particular agenda that is likely to damage the NIH. Bhattacharya's science agenda is political: to set concerns for personal autonomy against evidence-based public health science," wrote Albert. "This is not appropriate for NIH leadership."
Albert expressed concern that Bhattacharya's apparent prioritization of Americans' God-given and Constitution-secured rights over health policy might prompt him to take a stand against "enforced vaccine requirements for children attending public schools" or perhaps even against the introduction of fluoride in drinking water, which the National Toxicology Program recently admitted can cause mental retardation in kids at the exposure levels seen in various places around the country.
"Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks, but inappropriate for NIH leadership. If he would rather focus on promoting personal autonomy in pandemic policy, perhaps he is being nominated to the wrong agency," wrote Albert.
Albert further suggested — in the pages of a magazine that not only platformed the claim on the heels of a rushed vaccine rollout that "there is no question that the current vaccines are effective and safe" but also echoed the discredited thesis of a paper in its sister journal that the COVID-19 virus likely had zoonotic origins — that Bhattacharya's critical views "are one more unfortunate legacy of the COVID pandemic."
Albert defended the failed pandemic policies that Bhattacharya previously criticized, claiming that "science supported school closures, work-from-home policies, large gathering restrictions in public spaces, and face mask requirements as effective ways to lower hospital surges and buy time for vaccine development."
The "science" that Albert trusted in the case of school closures clearly needed the kind of second-guessing advocated by Bhattacharya, given that the closures put multitudes of school children years behind in math, reading, science, and general learning and have been linked to massive spikes in mental illness, suicide, and obesity.
After making the grossly ahistoric claim that "it is not authoritarian to use science for policy" and accusing Trump of dealing in falsehoods, Albert claimed that "income inequality and access to health care," not "authoritarianism in science or public health," were responsible for the devastation wreaked upon the country during the pandemic.
Albert wrapped up his hit piece by complaining about Bhattacharya possibly decentralizing the agency's functions and shifting NIH grant funding to the states; banning dangerous gain-of-function research and experiments using aborted baby parts; and depoliticizing science.
In response to Bhattacharya's nomination last month, Matt Kibbe, BlazeTV host of "Kibbe on Liberty" and "The Coverup," which recently featured the epidemiologist, noted, "Jay Bhattacharya was deemed a 'fringe epidemiologist' by former NIH Director Francis Collins, who demonized him for asking obvious questions about the government's authoritarian response to COVID. Now, Jay will take the helm at NIH and clean house of all those who corrupted public health and did so much damage to Americans during the pandemic. Karma is a b****."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here
The Left’s Takeover Of ‘Science’ Is Obvious When It Comes To Sex Differences
Bill Maher’s exchange with popular science commentator Neil deGrasse Tyson underscores how extraordinarily unscientific scientists can be.The overwhelming science behind the benefit of dogs: Why we're especially thankful for our dogs this Thanksgiving
This Thanksgiving, we reflect on all of the things for which we are thankful. We should absolutely be grateful for our immediate and extended family because they provide so much support and love. We should also be thankful for our furry friends who are part of our families because science showcases the significant and countless benefits that dogs provide to humans.
Any pet owner will tell you that dogs are way more than just pets. Dogs are loyal allies, stress relievers, comforting canine companions, emotional support animals, reliable confidants, and faithful friends.
A Harvard Medical School study found that dog owners were 31% less likely to die from a heart attack or stroke than those who don't own dogs.
Dogs have increasingly become integral members of the modern family, transcending their traditional role as modest pets to become best buddies with their human owners. Dogs undeniably have deep emotional connections to the American family.
Dogs have an innate ability to sense and respond to human emotions on the entire spectrum. Thanks to the unique evolutionary history of dogs, our canine friends have adapted behaviors to read human body language and emotional cues.
A 2017 study from the University of Vienna found that dogs can notice emotions in humans and can distinguish between positive and negative feelings. The study claimed that dogs could have "insights into intra- and interspecies empathy."
VCA Animal Hospitals highlighted a United Kingdom study in which dogs were shown pictures of people and other dogs along with vocalizations depicting happiness or anger.
"When the auditory cue matched the visual image, dogs spent longer examining the picture," the outlet noted. "By combining two different sources of sensory input these researchers, like pet owners, believe that dogs actually have the cognitive ability to recognize and understand positive and negative emotional states."
During the stressful holiday season, dogs can calm nerves.
A 2018 National Institutes of Health article points out that dogs help reduce stress.
"Interacting with animals has been shown to decrease levels of cortisol (a stress-related hormone) and lower blood pressure," the NIH stated. "Other studies have found that animals can reduce loneliness, increase feelings of social support, and boost your mood."
Another study highlighted by the NIH found that pet owners were 36% less likely than those who don't own pets to report loneliness.
Johns Hopkins Medicine reported, "In fact, an astonishing 84 percent of post-traumatic stress disorder patients paired with a service dog reported a significant reduction in symptoms, and 40 percent were able to decrease their medications, reported a recent survey."
The American Heart Association stated in 2019 that dog owners who lived alone had a 33% lower risk of dying after being hospitalized for a heart attack than those without dogs. The health organization added that dog owners had a 24% less risk of dying from any cause than people who don't own a dog.
Harvard Medical School spotlighted a 2019 study that found that dog owners were 31% less likely to die from a heart attack or stroke than those who don't own dogs.
A study published in 2022 in the journal BMC Public Health found that dog owners on average walk 22 minutes more per day compared to people who don't own a dog.
A 2023 study noted that pet owners among older adults had improved cognitive function.
Psychologists at Miami University and Saint Louis University discovered in a 2011 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that dogs and cats are excellent for mental health of "everyday people."
“We observed evidence that pet owners fared better, both in terms of well-being outcomes and individual differences, than non-owners on several dimensions,” said lead researcher Allen R. McConnell, Ph.D., of Miami University in Ohio. “Specifically, pet owners had greater self-esteem, were more physically fit, tended to be less lonely, were more conscientious, were more extraverted, tended to be less fearful, and tended to be less preoccupied than non-owners.”
But it isn't just the health benefits of dog ownership.
Yahoo Finance recently reported that workplaces that allow dogs saw a 17% increase in productivity.
So this Thanksgiving, it should be stressed that dogs give exponential benefits to humans. Science shows the countless benefits of having a dog as part of your family. We should all be thankful for our canine companions this Thanksgiving.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Karma is a b****': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an esteemed epidemiologist and professor of health policy at Stanford University, refused to accept the premise advanced early in the pandemic by medical establishmentarians and lawmakers that lockdowns, vaccine mandates, masking for kids, and other ruinous COVID-19 policies were the best ways to prevent infection and get back to normal.
Although he and other principals behind the Great Barrington Declaration were ultimately vindicated, at the time, he faced incredible abuse. President Joe Biden's former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins conspired to issue a "quick and devastating takedown" of Bhattacharya's criticism while many of the professor's peers personally attacked him. Adding injury to insult, Bhattacharya was censored online.
This prime target for suppression by the current administration is now the nominee to serve as director of the next administration's National Institutes of Health.
'The hammer of justice is coming.'
"I am thrilled to nominate Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, to serve as Director of the National Institutes of Health," President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday evening. "Dr. Bhattacharya will work in cooperation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to direct the Nation's Medical Research, and to make important discoveries that will improve health, and save lives."
Dr. Bhattacharya said that he was "honored and humbled" by the nomination and vowed to "reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust again and will deploy the fruits of excellent science to make America healthy again!"
Trump's selection was widely celebrated, especially by those critical of Democratic censorship as well as the scientific establishment's deadly and credibility-destroying hostility to alternative viewpoints.
"I'm so grateful to President Trump for this spectacular appointment," tweeted Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services. "Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is the ideal leader to restore NIH as the international template for gold-standard science and evidence-based medicine."
Blaze News editor in chief Matthew J. Peterson wrote, "This is what winning looks like right here. @Dr.JBhattacharya in this role is right and just. The hammer of justice is coming. The era of blackpilling is over. We live in a new era — a new @frontier_mag_. Pick up your shield and sword and get ready to rumble."
'It will be a major step forward to have an NIH Director who will fight science fraud and repudiate science fraudsters.'
Matt Kibbe, the BlazeTV host of "Kibbe on Liberty" and "The Coverup," which recently featured Bhattacharya, stated, "Jay Bhattacharya was deemed a 'fringe epidemiologist' by former NIH Director Francis Collins, who demonized him for asking obvious questions about the government's authoritarian response to Covid. Now, Jay will take the helm at NIH, and clean house of all those who corrupted public health and did so much damage to Americans during the pandemic. Karma is a b****."
Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University tweeted, "It will be a major step forward to have an NIH Director who will fight science fraud and repudiate science fraudsters. Rather than an NIH Director — like former NIH Director Francis Collins — who prompted science fraud and rewarded science fraudsters."
Earlier this year, Bhattacharya joined Ebright and other scientists in seeking accountability from those scientific journals that happily published "unsound scientific papers" by Fauci, disgraced EcoHealth Alliance boss Peter Daszak, and elements of their inner circle that downplayed the likely lab-leak origins of COVID-19 during the pandemic.
BlazeTV host Steve Deace, responding to the fact that Bhattacharya is poised to take over the job of a man who recently sought to destroy his reputation, wrote, "Do not be deceived. God will not be mocked. A man will always reap what he sows."
Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which suggested that geriatrics and other higher-risk groups should engage in shielding, whereas healthy individuals should "immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." Healthy individuals, it suggested, would be better off catching the virus and developing natural immunity. This greatly angered elements of the medical establishment who preferred coercive medicine, blanket lockdowns, and school closures.
Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense."
Scores of other so-called experts claimed in a response published in the Lancet, the "John Snow Memorandum," that the call for herd immunity and other proposals raised in the declaration were dangerous and unscientific. The memo was signed by thousands of scientists and endorsed by the Federation of American Scientists.
Extra to facing criticism from his peers, Bhattacharya was censored online. Reporting from Elon Musk's "Twitter Files" revealed that under previous management, the platform put the professor on a "Trends Blacklist," ensuring that his tweets would be suppressed, including his suggestion that pandemic lockdowns were harmful to children.
'All were suppressed.'
Bhattacharya was among the individual plaintiffs who joined the states of Missouri and Louisiana in taking legal action against President Joe Biden, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Anthony Fauci, and various Biden administration officials. The case — Missouri v. Biden,which became Murthy v. Missouri — exposed some of the ways the Democratic administration colluded with social media platforms to suppress dissenting voices and criticism of COVID-19 policies.
U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty noted that the Biden administration
used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden's policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power.
"All were suppressed," wrote Doughty. "It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech."
While the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately let the Biden administration off the hook, claiming that "the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant," the lawsuit helped paved the way for Kennedy v. Biden as well as Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al., a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration by vaccine-injured Americans.
'Make America Healthy Again!'
The ruling also helped emphasize the difference between Biden and Trump.
Bhattacharya noted on X following the court's ruling, "The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn't like."
"This now also becomes a key issue in the upcoming election. Where do the presidential candidates stand on social media censorship? We know where Biden stands since his lawyers argue that he has near monarchical power over social media speech," continued Bhattacharya.
The candidate promising to protect free speech and hold censorious tech companies accountable ultimately won the day, putting Bhattacharya in a position where, if confirmed, he is unlikely to again be shut up and shut out.
"Together, Jay and RFK Jr. will restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research as they examine the underlying causes of, and solutions to, America's biggest Health challengers, including our Crisis of Chronic Illness and Disease," Trump noted in his announcement. "Together, they will work hard to Make America Healthy Again!"
If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Bhattacharya will oversee the world's top medical research agency, its $48 billion budget, and 27 institutes and centers.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com