Who’s afraid of the Amish data?



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

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

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

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

The legal fight continues and so does the coercion.

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious liberty demands no less. Neither does science.

National Academy Of Sciences Pulls ‘Biased’ Climate Guide Used To Advise Judges

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) retracted a “biased” judicial guide on Friday that was designed to influence federal judges in cases involving so-called “climate science.” The announcement came following The Federalist’s extensive reporting on the subject. “Our core mission is to deploy science in service to the nation while employing procedures that are rigorous, […]

My son’s disease progressed while the FDA waited



Birthdays should mark milestones, offer hope for another year, and remind us to cherish the people we love.

But on the first anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to restrict access to Elevidys, a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, there will be no cake or candles in our home.

The only birthdays Duchenne families want to celebrate are the ones our children are still here to have. The FDA should help us light those candles.

My 14-year-old son, Ryu, is still fighting to reach another birthday.

A year ago, I was exploring Elevidys as a treatment that might help him live a longer, fuller life. Then, almost overnight, that hope disappeared. The FDA first halted use of the therapy entirely before restoring access only for boys who could still walk. Ryu, who already uses a wheelchair, was left behind.

By age 14, more than 82% of Duchenne patients use a wheelchair. After age 15, the share exceeds 90%.

I have spent my life living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a rare, progressive genetic disease that causes muscles to waste away and almost always leads to premature death. It has shaped every chapter of my family’s story. I watched my brothers, Angelo and Antonio, die from Duchenne in their early 20s.

I began considering Elevidys because I trusted the science and the physician who brought it to my attention. I believed my son deserved the same opportunity other eligible patients were receiving.

Instead, the past year has been heartbreaking.

Ryu’s disease has progressed. His breathing is weaker, and he relies on his BiPAP machine more than he did a year ago. Duchenne families measure time differently. Every lost ability is marked by a clock that never turns back.

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

MarioGuti/iStock/Getty Images

The FDA said it restricted Elevidys after reports of three patient deaths. Those boys died from liver complications, not complications caused by wheelchair use. Families like mine struggle to understand why patients with advanced disease lost access to a treatment because of risks that were not unique to them.

Safety must remain paramount. We are not asking regulators to approve every experimental therapy or ignore serious adverse events. Elevidys had already passed through years of research and clinical trials and had been administered to Duchenne patients before access was narrowed.

We are asking for something more modest and more humane: When a disease is progressive and fatal, families should be allowed to work with their doctors to decide whether the potential benefit justifies the risk for their own children.

The anniversary of the Elevidys restriction also marks the moment I turned 40 years of helplessness into action. I learned what an op-ed was and wrote my first one. I entered the intimidating world of social media.

On my first trip to Washington, D.C., I learned how to call an Uber and met with senators, staff members, other rare-disease mothers, and patients. I did not go because I wanted to become an activist. I went because I am a mother. I had to speak for my son and honor the memory of my brothers, who never lived to see the possibilities available to patients today.

My brother Angelo volunteered for experimental research in the 1990s, when almost no treatment options existed. He wanted future children with Duchenne to benefit from his courage. Years later, one of those children would be his nephew — my son.

RELATED: Medicare red tape turned insurers into villains

stevegraham/iStock/Getty Images

The FDA is entering a period of new leadership. The next commissioner should put patients first, recognize that rare diseases demand urgency, and trust families and physicians to make informed decisions together. Returning to the old approach would cost families the one thing no regulator can restore: time.

Hope has a birthday too. We celebrate it whenever a scientist makes a breakthrough, a doctor refuses to give up, a parent fights for one more chance, or the FDA chooses urgency over bureaucracy.

I pray this dark anniversary is the last time FDA policy leaves Duchenne families behind — and the beginning of a new era in which boys like Ryu have the chance to live as fully and as long as possible.

The only birthdays Duchenne families want to celebrate are the ones our children are still here to have. The FDA should help us light those candles.

Have pop music lyrics made America meaner?



Ask almost anyone why America seems angrier than it did a generation ago, and you'll hear the usual suspects: social media, partisan politics, cable news. But what if another culprit has been hiding in plain sight all along — inside the songs we play every day?

A study recently published in Scientific Reports suggests our playlists may tell us more about the country's moral trajectory than we realize. Researchers analyzed nearly 400,000 songs spanning six decades, tracking how often lyrics invoked virtues such as care, loyalty, and compassion versus themes of cheating, revenge, vice, and harm.

Nobody racks up a billion Spotify streams with a breakup anthem called 'I Respect Your Boundaries and Wish You Well.'

The results were difficult to ignore.

Monetize the misery

Lyrical themes centered on betrayal, cruelty, and moral transgression have surged, while old-fashioned virtues like loyalty, empathy, and basic decency have steadily faded. Grandma's favorite crooner asked for your hand in marriage. Today's streaming superstar wants to key your car, burn down your house, and monetize the misery.

The statistics read like a rap sheet for the Billboard charts. References to cheating and betrayal rose by more than 70%. Themes of degradation climbed by over 60%. Meanwhile, expressions of genuine care steadily declined. The charts increasingly reward revenge, resentment, and contempt while rewarding compassion far less than they once did. We have moved a long way from "We Can Work It Out" to "I hope you choke on your lies."

Naturally, the researchers include the obligatory academic disclaimer: Correlation does not equal causation. Fair enough.

The real question isn't whether every listener imitates every lyric. It's whether hundreds of millions of people, absorbing the same emotional scripts year after year, gradually reshape the emotional climate of a culture.

RELATED: Pop star Olivia Rodrigo hosts all-female music fest to fund Planned Parenthood; 'I am so ecstatic'

Michael Le Brecht II/Disney/Getty Images

Despair in D

Music has never been mere background noise. It reinforces emotional habits. Songs teach us which reactions deserve applause, which resentments should be nurtured, and which kinds of people become heroes or villains. They don't dictate behavior, but they help define what feels normal.

For anyone who still insists lyrics are just harmless poetry, consider the grunge explosion of the early 1990s. That era produced extraordinary music, but it also made alienation, despair, and emotional detachment strangely glamorous. Grunge didn't invent teenage angst, but it undeniably gave it a soundtrack and, for many young listeners, an identity.

If a generation could absorb that emotional atmosphere through music, it isn't unreasonable to wonder what six uninterrupted decades of increasingly cynical and vengeful lyrics might accomplish.

Betrayal with a beat

Of course, the counter-argument deserves serious consideration. Perhaps musicians are simply cultural weather vanes rather than cultural architects. When public trust collapses, institutions weaken, and family life frays, songwriters naturally gravitate toward darker material. Popular music may simply be documenting a society already in decline. The songs are less the explosion than the soundtrack playing while the building burns.

Even if that's true, it still leaves us with an uncomfortable feedback loop. Society grows harsher. Music reflects that harshness. The music then normalizes it for the next generation, making cruelty ordinary and contempt emotionally familiar.

We also can't ignore the incentives of the modern attention economy. One doesn't have to become a card-carrying Marxist to recognize that outrage is profitable. Streaming platforms, much like social media, reward intensity over restraint. Nobody racks up a billion Spotify streams with a breakup anthem called "I Respect Your Boundaries and Wish You Well." Audiences crave betrayal, public humiliation, vengeance, and emotional spectacle because those emotions command attention.

Did pop music single-handedly make America meaner? Probably not.

But for more than half a century, our most popular songs have steadily sung less about forgiveness, loyalty, sacrifice, and reconciliation and more about revenge, narcissism, betrayal, and score-settling.

Culture is an ongoing conversation. If, decade after decade, the soundtrack of everyday life increasingly celebrates contempt over compassion, we shouldn't be surprised when public life begins to sound the same way.

Trump Orders Probe Into ‘Biased’ Manual Used To Advise Judges On ‘Climate Science’

'Our Taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it,' wrote President Trump.

EXCLUSIVE: Share of NSF Grants With DEI Language Reaches Lowest Point Since 2001

The share of successful National Science Foundation grants containing DEI language has plummeted during the Trump administration, falling to 9 percent in 2025 from 34 percent in 2022, according to data obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Share of NSF Grants With DEI Language Reaches Lowest Point Since 2001 appeared first on .

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.