Articles have resurfaced from 2015 in which a doctor uncannily predicted that vaccinations would be used as a pretext to annul freedom and liberty.&nbsp;On February 4, 2015, Dr. Lee D. Merritt M.D. (nee Hieb) first wrote an <a href="https://www.wnd.com/2015/02/how-vaccine-hysteria-could-spark-totalitarian-nightmare/">article</a> in WND titled, “How vaccine hysteria could spark totalitarian nightmare”.In the piece, Merritt defends then-Governor Chris Christie, who came under fire for saying that parents have the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children.&nbsp;Merritt then methodically broke down the pro-mandate argument using the very same logic and philosophy used today.&nbsp;First, she said, the proponents of forced vaccinations are the same who are proponents of Roe v. Wade. These individuals believe that a woman should have autonomy over her own body, but only up to a point. That point – where the woman’s autonomy ends – is where the government says that public health begins.&nbsp;Second, she explained that medical ethics are clear when it comes to informed consent for vaccinations.&nbsp;“We condemn the forced sterilization of the '20s and '30s, the Tuskegee medical experiments infecting black inmates and the Nazi medicine that included involuntary ‘Euthanasia,’ experimentation and sterilization,” Merritt wrote. “How can we force vaccination without consent? Vaccination is a medical treatment with risks including death. It is totally antithetical to all ethics in medicine to mandate that risk to others.”&nbsp;Third, she discussed the fallacy of the oft-repeated&nbsp;statement&nbsp;by politicians that “the science is indisputable”. The science, said the surgeon, is always disputable – and that is, in fact, the point of science.&nbsp;Newtonian science was refuted by Einstein, and even Einsteinian physics has been modified in the modern era. In a piece called, “The Half-Life of Truth”, a&nbsp;team of cardiologists reviewed their old papers and found that only 50% of the science was still true.&nbsp;Fourth, Merritt asks the fundamental question many ask today. If the vaccines work, why force others to get them? If they don’t work, why get them?&nbsp;In her own words:&nbsp;<blockquote>If you believe absolutely in the benefit and protective value of vaccination, why does it matter what others do? Or don't do? &nbsp;. . . If you believe you need vaccination to be healthy and protected, then by all means vaccinate your child and yourself. Why should you even be concerned what your neighbor chooses to do for his child – if vaccination works? The idea of herd immunity is still based on the idea that in individual cases&nbsp;vaccines actually are protective.</blockquote>Lastly, she suggested that with forced vaccinations, it won’t end there.&nbsp;“If you think the government has the right to forcibly vaccinate people – for the good of society – what is to prevent them from forcibly sterilizing people, or forcibly euthanizing people, or forcibly implanting a tracking device – for the good of society?”&nbsp;“At the end of the day, the issue here is one of freedom, and freedom is the freedom to choose – even if we make a bad choice,” Merritt concluded. “The argument that I must vaccinate my children for the good of the community is not only scientifically questionable, it is an unethical precept.”&nbsp;Merritt went on to say that it is an argument as old as time.&nbsp;“It is the argument all dictators and totalitarians have used. ‘Comrade, you must work tirelessly for the good of the collective. You must give up your money and property for the good of the collective, and now … you must allow us to inject your children with what we deem is good for the collective.’”&nbsp;She then called on Americans to defend their liberty.&nbsp;“If American's don't stand up against this, then we are lost. Because we have lost ownership of ourselves. Our bodies are no longer solely ours – we and our children are able to be commandeered for the ‘greater good’.”&nbsp;The day after Merritt wrote the article, the Obama administration drafted the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP), a 67-page proposal for forcibly vaccinating the adult population. It was a five-year plan, to reach its climax in 2020.&nbsp;For most, the NAIP quietly slipped by without objection or comment. But Merritt caught it.&nbsp;“Is it just my sense of irony or is it a signal to fellow travelers that this is a ‘Five-year Plan’?” she wrote in an <a href="https://www.wnd.com/2015/03/the-feds-plan-to-force-vaccines-on-adults/">article</a> on March 10, 2015. “Did they hire old Soviet central planners or come up with this all on their own?”&nbsp;Merritt once again exposed the hypocrisy of those who are pro-forced vaccinations.&nbsp;“...you can't have both. You cannot scream for a ‘woman's right to choose’ when it applies to abortion but give her no right to choose what gets administered to her in a syringe.”&nbsp;Regarding the claim that vaccination is different because it’s a “public health” issue, she asserted that it&nbsp;shouldn’t be.&nbsp;“Let me be clear,” she wrote.&nbsp;“Public health does not trump individual liberty. End of story.”&nbsp;Merritt then concluded with words that would emerge five years later&nbsp;as near-prophesy.&nbsp;"If you Americans do not stand against this, it's over. What liberty do you have if the federal government can force you to have a medical procedure, can force you to surrender your very body to their control? Answer: none. Because there is nothing that cannot be justified on the basis of "the good of society". &nbsp;She then cited the world’s worst atrocities, such as the Holocaust, which were perpetrated on the back of the “public good”. &nbsp;As for doctors – Merritt&nbsp;said that they can easily hide behind a government mandate.&nbsp;“Even doctors start believing that they can determine who should die or be sterilized for the good of the whole society. And if you as a doctor have qualms, it is much easier to just throw up your hands and say you have no choice – it's a government mandate.”&nbsp;“There is no ‘general public’ when it comes to decisions about your personal health,” she added. “No one cares more about the risks versus benefits of vaccination than you do personally. To leave it to a group, to treat you as a member of a group for medical care, is not ethical medicine. It is the stuff of jails and forced labor camps and socialist hellholes – and apparently American academia and bureaucrats. It is time to say no.”&nbsp;

iStock-1201866026.jpg

US News

Pushback_Resistance

'If Americans don't stand against this, then we are lost'

Doctor predicted tyranny via vaccination in 2015

Over 60 years have passed since the thalidomide disaster, when around 10,000 babies were born deformed due to a drug their mothers had taken during pregnancy. Thalidomide was <a href="https://usthalidomide.org/german-family-behind-thalidomide-apologises-to-victims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">promoted </a>as being “as harmless as a sugar cookie,” but almost half of all children exposed to the drug in the womb <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/thalidomide-babies-birth-defects-caused-by-a-harmless-pill-60-years-ago/a-59952155" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">died </a>shortly after birth. To this day, the majority of healthcare providers are still extremely cautious when it comes to pronouncing any drug safe for pregnant women. Quietly, however, researchers and others are working to change this, and while they claim to have the welfare of pregnant women in mind, their plans indicate that other interests are also at play.&nbsp;<ul style="list-style-type:disc;"><li>An article in a prestigious medical journal points the way toward research on pregnant and lactating women</li><li>Main obstacle: fear of legal liability</li><li>Pregnant women no longer considered “vulnerable” in official guidelines; including them in research to become the default position</li><li>Permitted level of risk raised above “minimal” and to be determined by “stakeholders" (which include Pharma)</li><li>Focus on providing researchers and Pharma with protection from liability in case of injury</li><li>Doctors &amp; other healthcare workers (broadly defined to includes doulas and others) to be barred from warning pregnant women against use of medications</li><li>Doctors to be co-opted to recruit patients as trial participants, using both inducements and implied threats</li><li>Large-scale "public awareness” campaign with the aim of creating a “cultural shift”</li></ul>&nbsp;Breaking tabooA recent article in <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817621?guestAccessKey=8b28a9e3-629c-4219-b51d-a2548613cb26&amp;utm_source=silverchair&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&amp;utm_content=olf&amp;utm_term=041024&amp;adv=" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JAMA </a>(the Journal of the American Medical Association), written by Margaret Foster Riley JD, is titled “Including Pregnant and Lactating Women in Clinical Research; Moving Beyond Legal Liability,” and the clue is in the title. In this article, Prof. Riley notes that research into use of drugs by pregnant and lactating women is being held back by fears of legal action if anything goes wrong, but that such fears are unfounded.<blockquote>... until now, there has never been a systematic examination of legal liability in the US for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research and whether this fear of liability is supported by evidence. A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine asserts that while fear of legal liability is pervasive, actual legal liability is not, and is often conflated with other concerns, such as reputational risk, increased costs, and trial complexity.</blockquote>Riley also expresses concern that the lack of research means that women many cease taking necessary drugs while pregnant or nursing, with adverse results; or that they take drugs regardless, without having safety data to inform them. While her concerns may be well-founded, it is noteworthy that she does not mention even in passing the risk that research itself would pose to women in vulnerable states.<blockquote>By excluding pregnant and lactating women from clinical studies due to perceived liability risks, these populations, as well as their fetuses and breastfeeding children, are harmed. In an ideal world, pregnant and lactating women would have the ability to make informed decisions that optimize their perinatal and postpartum health and the health of their children…</blockquote>Riley has been involved in crafting recommendations for Congress, which, several years ago, tasked the <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/27595/chapter/2#3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">National Academies</a> of Science, Engineering, and Medicine with examining the issue of research and associated liability. Their 83-page <a href="https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/PRGLAC_Implement_Plan_083120.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">report</a> contains a wealth of information from which one may derive the direction in which research is going, not only in the United States, but also in Europe and beyond.Following is an assessment of the report with selected quotations.&nbsp;Fetuses and neonates no longer considered “vulnerable”Pregnant women have historically been considered “vulnerable” when it comes to research (due to concern for the fetus), as have other populations such as prisoners, who are vulnerable to being coerced into participation, and also children, who are unable to give informed consent. <a href="https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/PRGLAC_Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">No longer</a>. The report's recommendation that pregnant women no longer be classified as vulnerable has already been implemented, with the report’s authors claiming that:<blockquote>Not surprisingly, a consensus has arisen in recent years that the more ethical and responsible course would be to include pregnant and lactating women in clinical research.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Pregnant women to be included in trials absent “strong” evidence of riskThe report also recommends a paradigm shift in the attitude toward including pregnant and/or lactating women in clinical trials, making inclusion the default position:<blockquote>Instead of justifying inclusion of pregnant women or lactating women in clinical research, investigational new drug applications (INDs) for new drugs or biological products (including a proposed study for a new indication to an already approved drug or licensed biological product) should now include justification for excluding these groups…</blockquote>Pharmaceutical companies will only be granted a waiver from including these populations if:<blockquote>… available evidence strongly suggests that the drug or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in pregnant women and/or lactating women…</blockquote>&nbsp;Permitted level of risk raised above “minimal”The official code of ethics governing the protection of those who participate in domestic research is called the <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/about-research-participation/protecting-research-volunteers/principal-regulations/index.html#:~:text=The%20Common%20Rule%20generally%20requires,in%20language%20they%20would%20understand." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Common Rule</a>. Clause 46:204 governing “Research involving pregnant women or fetuses” <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">includes</a> as one of the necessary conditions permitting this research:<blockquote>(d) If the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the pregnant woman, the prospect of a direct benefit both to the pregnant woman and the fetus, or no prospect of benefit for the woman nor the fetus when risk to the fetus is not greater than minimal&nbsp;and the purpose of the research is the development of important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained by any other means... [emphasis added]</blockquote>One of the report’s recommendations is to raise the permitted level of risk entailed in research, permitting not only research “of minimal risk” but also research that involves a “minor increase over minimal risk” (as is currently the rule for research on children).&nbsp;‘Stakeholders’ to decide what constitutes acceptable riskWho will define what constitutes a “minor increase” in risk? The report states:<blockquote>… experts and stakeholders should be convened to reach consensus on the definition of what constitutes a minor increase over minimal risk for both the pregnant woman and the fetus…</blockquote>Elsewhere, it defines stakeholders as “government, industry [i.e., Pharma], clinicians, and women":<blockquote>... stakeholders, including industry, could work on topics of mutual interest to further research on therapeutics used by pregnant women and lactating women. Examples include agreeing on the parameters of reproductive/toxicity studies, such as the weight of evidence for reproductive or teratogenic risk required, data standards, and developing a business case around the risk of studying drugs earlier in pregnant women…</blockquote>The report is light on what can be practically done to ensure that research itself does not pose dangers to women, fetuses, and neonates, merely mentioning the need for more funding to develop more preclinical models and methods, given that, “Current preclinical (animal) models have limitations for extrapolating the findings to humans.”<blockquote>Appropriate preclinical studies, such as reproductive toxicology studies using animal models, should be conducted for therapeutics still in development with the potential to be used by pregnant women and/or lactating women. Based on data from preclinical studies, decisions about whether to include pregnant women or lactating women in phase III clinical trials should be refocused; the assumption should be inclusion, with a decision on exclusion only if clearly justified by the preclinical data.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Protection for researchers — but what about mothers?It is illegal to bribe citizens to participate in medical research which involves a risk (as much, if not all, medical research does). Providing a substantial safety net for those inadvertently injured due to participation in a clinical trial is not considered an improper inducement. The report, however, does not mention providing enhanced compensation to reassure women that if anything goes wrong, they’re covered. Rather, it focuses on “providing researchers with protection against liability."<blockquote>Convene a panel ... to make recommendations for conducting research that substantially mitigates or avoids incurring liability (absent negligence or malfeasance). These recommendations may include ways to maximize the use of informed consent procedures ... without waiving research participants’ legal rights, while still providing researchers with protection against liability.&nbsp;</blockquote>The report also suggests using the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as a model for regulating compensation for mothers injured due to their involvement in a clinical study.&nbsp;Doctors who don’t play along may lose their licensesNext, the report turns its attention to the practicalities of recruiting women to clinical trials, and notes that doctors are in a unique position to influence their patients, since,<blockquote>… studies repeatedly show that healthcare providers remain a trusted source of information about health…</blockquote>Furthermore, “any hesitation on the part of the trusted healthcare provider about participation diminishes the chance” that women will join a trial, so various measures are proposed to ensure that healthcare providers actively promote participation in research:<blockquote>… continuing medical education (CME) modules that would be linked to maintenance of board certification or licensure. In addition to content about current knowledge of the therapeutics used by pregnant women and lactating women, these modules should explain how to access and how to communicate this information to a diverse group of potential participants, including information about balancing the risk of taking a medication with that of not treating an underlying condition... [emphasis added]</blockquote>&nbsp;Warning against drug use during pregnancy or lactation to be outlawedFor those doctors who succeed in recruiting patients to clinical trials, the report suggests a program of rewards:<blockquote>Explore incentives for healthcare providers to discuss clinical trials with their patients … Behavioral incentives, such as formal feedback that gives credit to healthcare providers for getting their patients involved in trials, or grading metrics from payers, should also be included in this discussion.</blockquote>However, not only doctors are to be included in the new drive to recruit pregnant and lactating women. The report mentions many other groups who are to be co-opted:<blockquote>… healthcare providers (including but not limited to clinicians, pharmacists, lactation consultants, dietitians, nursing and allied health professionals, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners); academic and industry researchers; medical, health, and pharmacy associations; teratology information specialists and genetic counselors; and pregnant women and lactating women and family members ... organizations representing women’s and family health interests, such as doula and social work organizations...</blockquote>If the report’s recommendations are adopted, all the above-mentioned groups will be barred from warning their patients or clients against using any medication during pregnancy or lactation unless there is clear evidence of risk:<blockquote>For example ... until more studies on medications used by lactating women are completed, the interim messaging to women and their healthcare providers may only reflect that data are lacking, and that they must balance risks and benefits&nbsp;of medication use with continuation of breastfeeding [emphasis added].</blockquote>How healthcare providers can calculate the risk-benefit ratio in the absence of data is not explained. Furthermore, the report stresses that data that becomes available in the future due to new research is to be shared with doctors, who will be responsible for presenting it in the form of “handouts written for a lay audience.” That is to say, the raw data will not be made available to the public.&nbsp;Aim: To create a ‘cultural shift’Parallel to its strategy vis-à-vis the healthcare profession, the report recommends a public awareness campaign to encourage pregnant and lactating women to participate in scientific research:<blockquote>Rec[ommendation]. 5: Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and healthcare providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women. For any cultural shift to occur, the associated behavioral change requires a targeted communications strategy. When communicating information relevant to treating pregnant women and lactating women, messages must be concise, consistent, tailored, and actionable for women and their healthcare providers … Highlight the importance of research on therapeutic products in pregnant women and lactating women, including the impact of not taking the medication during pregnancy and lactation…</blockquote>To provide maximal impact for public messaging, the report suggests that anecdotal evidence be used, even though in general, the scientific community dismisses this kind of evidence as either inferior or misleading and irrelevant:<blockquote>To assist in illustrating these issues, educational efforts need to include real-life stories about pregnant or lactating women’s experiences to illustrate absolute risk, relative risk, and the trade-off of risks and benefits. These stories may include the consequences of stopping treatment for ongoing conditions, failure to treat emerging conditions, and unintended incorrect dosing due to the physiological changes during pregnancy. Once developed, these messages should be pilot tested to ensure comprehension and acceptability prior to being rolled out to a wider audience.</blockquote>&nbsp;Tax breaks for Pharma companies that include pregnant and/or lactating women in clinical studiesWhile behavioral incentives are proposed to encourage doctors to recruit clinical trial participants, for another group of stakeholders, the pharmaceutical companies, the report suggests financial inducements, as JAMA’s article describes:<blockquote>... the report’s recommendations include a call for Congress to develop incentives, such as extended market exclusivity or tax breaks, to encourage the conduct of clinical studies with pregnant and lactating women…</blockquote>In fact, the government-appointed task force on research in this area is already collaborating with European Union partnerships between industrial and philanthropic interests, such as the ConcePTION initiative,<blockquote>… a public-private partnership between the European Union and the European pharmaceutical industry to develop the next generation of vaccines and medications for pregnant women and lactating women...</blockquote>The report also notes that,<blockquote>The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding MHRA in the UK to create repository of information for assessing drug exposure in pregnancy…</blockquote>&nbsp;Abortion laws and experimenting on pregnant womenProf. Riley notes that the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion “could further discourage the conduct of clinical research with pregnant women.” Her concern may be well-founded, but the parallel between laws governing clinical trials and those governing abortion is an intriguing one.It is claimed, although reliable data are hard to come by, that most pregnant women (perhaps as many as 70 percent) and the majority of lactating women (over 50 percent) use medications during these periods. Riley’s main justification for broadening the permissibility of research rests on the assumption that “drug use is happening anyway, so we should at least find out if it’s safe (even if we risk a few women and babies along the way).” A similar argument is used by those in favor of “safe, legal, and rare” abortions.&nbsp;However, just because people are doing something “anyway” does not mean it should be condoned or encouraged by the government. Furthermore, doing so may have deleterious effects that legislators often fail to anticipate.&nbsp;Large, uncontrolled experiments?Riley also notes that:<blockquote>The absence of a sufficient evidence base means that almost all pregnant and lactating women with a condition for which a medical product might be appropriate are, in effect, participants in large, uncontrolled experiments that typically will not produce useful data.</blockquote>Unwitting and often unwilling participants in another “large, uncontrolled experiment” may have something to say on the topic…

preg woman.jpg

Medical

Healthcare providers to be co-opted in recruiting trial participants; Pharma to be granted tax breaks

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

By Alex Newman&nbsp;What comes after LGBTQIA+ in the rainbow alphabet being taught to captive children? Many critics of the movement assumed it would be P for pederasty and pedophilia, and in some places, it is. But in Australia, it seems that “B” might be the next letter added to the ever-longer list of sexual and gender deviance.&nbsp;According to whistleblowers and outraged parents, children as young as 13 in a South Australia school were forcibly taught about sexual activities with animals as part of a “queer” LGBTQIA+ “sex education” class. The revelations drew outrage from parents and half-hearted apologies from “education” officials.&nbsp;The presentation in question at Renmark High School was delivered to 9th&nbsp;grade students under the guise of teaching about “respectful relationships.” It was so graphic and grotesque that multiple girls asked to leave the classroom to go to the “bathroom” just to get away before seeking help from their parents, according to ABC News Australia.&nbsp;Some students spoke out. “There was a slide for what the ‘plus’ means [in LGBTQIA+], and they just started randomly saying words that no-one knew, like bestiality,” explained Emelia Wundenberg, 14, one of the victims of the homosexuality- and transgenderism-promoting session. “It was on the board when they were showing what the ‘plus’ meant.”&nbsp;After the first refence, the presenter then got even more graphic, explaining human sexual acts with animals in detail while implying that it was normal and accepted by homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and others. “They said [the queer community] just accepts all of it, even though … isn’t it illegal?” Wundenberg wondered.According to Wundenberg, the “sex educator” who presented the material was also extremely graphic when describing her own sexual perversions and fetishes, describing herself as “confused.” The presenter also said that growing up she could not tell whether she idolized people or wanted to have sexual relationships with them.&nbsp;Another student, Courtney White, said she felt “confused” and “blindsided” by the indoctrination session. Among other concerns, White, 14, said teachers left the students alone with the “queer” sex ed staff. And then the brainwashing began. “The first slide of the PowerPoint on the board was ‘You can see queerly now’ and ‘No point hiding,’” she said.&nbsp;As the perversion became increasingly outrageous, Courtney and other girls became so uncomfortable that they had to leave. “We’re all just sitting there like, ‘What the hell? What are we doing here? Why are we learning about animals having sex with humans?’” she said. “It was really disgusting, it was really uncomfortable.”The experience was so extreme that some parents have now formally pulled their children from the school. “My kids are in limbo,” said Courtney’s mom after removing all three of her children. “They’re not in an education department at this point. I’m not putting them anywhere until I know this won’t happen again.”The school, meanwhile, is in damage-control mode, apologizing to parents and offering “counseling” to the traumatized students. “Sexuality educator” and “LGBTQIA+ inclusion” advocate Eleonora Bertsa-Fuchs, who as a “nonbinary” uses “Mix” or “Mx.” Instead of Mr., Ms., or Mrs., said it was important that all children learn about every kind of perversion.However, she added, lessons on gender confusion and perverse sex acts including sodomy, fornication, and more should be conducted in a way that is “safe and appropriate.” Ironically, perhaps, she claimed the LGBTQIA+ “community” was the real victim in this latest scandal, too.The explosive news comes just weeks after a transgender UN “expert” from Australia working on global regulations for children’s medical care from the World Health Organization was exposed sharing photos of bestiality with dogs. The expert, a woman impersonating a man who uses the name “Teddy Cook,” is an LGBTQ+ “community health” director in Sydney.&nbsp;Another perverted sex fiend down under, a popular academic from Charles Darwin University who specialized in crocodiles, was arrested late last year and charged with sexually abusing dozens of dogs, the BBC reported. The perversion was so horrific the judge asked security officers to exit the court. The perpetrator, Adam Britton, was also charged for child-abuse material.&nbsp; &nbsp;In California, as first exposed by The Newman Report years ago, government schools have already been caught normalizing sex between adults and children. When confronted by a mom about why they were teaching pedophilia, Brea Olinda School District Assistant Superintendent responded that raping children is a “sexual orientation that has existed in history” and so, “it’s really important” to teach it. &nbsp;<img class="image_resized" style="width:384px;" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.freedomproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/3364780_1225x377_2500.jpg?resize=696%2C214&amp;ssl=1" alt="">Just as critics warned, it was only a matter of time before the perversion alphabet being forced on captive children in government schools grew to include more letters. It seems that P and B may be next as Western societies turn away from God, truth, morality, and common sense. Unfortunately, the devastating harm done to children is just getting started.&nbsp;Originally published at <a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2024/04/10/tnr20240410/">FreedomProject Media</a>.<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/">Alex Newman</a> is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.

student.jpg

World News

What comes after LGBTQIA+ in government schools?

Bestiality Taught in Australian School’s “Queer” Sex Class

<h2>The Biden Administration keeping pornography in the public schools</h2>Most Americans believe the health and well-being of children should always be first and foremost, yet child pornography has now found its way into public school libraries. This has sparked a fierce debate among parents and officials about what children should be exposed to, as Frontline News recently <a href="https://frontline.news/post/pornography-now-in-public-school-libraries-did-you-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>. &nbsp;While parents all over the country have been fighting local school boards and some states have passed legislation giving parents control over sexually explicit materials in schools, the federal government may have just made the parents' job more difficult. A Fox News report by Hannah Grossman in July 2023 <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-admin-disrupting-parents-removing-pornography-schools-frighting-civil-rights-office" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained</a> that the Biden Administration “is starting to weaponize [the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights] to combat parents' efforts in local districts under the threat of withholding funding, according to education experts.”Grossman quoted Max Eden, a research fellow focusing on K-12 education at the American Enterprise Institute who said “[t]he move signals that the DOE can investigate a district for simply reviewing parents' concerns about sexually explicit content in schools.”Oli London tweeted highlights from the Fox News article:&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The Biden administration has began weaponizing the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to punish schools that remove sexually explicit books targeting children from libraries. The DOE can investigate a school district simply for reviewing parental concerns about… <a href="https://t.co/V3KGKRAW1L">pic.twitter.com/V3KGKRAW1L</a>— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1682191529341861888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 21, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>In another article, Grossman <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/rhode-island-dad-accuses-district-sick-agenda-use-abuse-children-pornography-book" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a> on a Fox News Digital interview with Rhode Island father Rob Chiaradio who has been fighting the Westerly School District board to remove the book “Gender Queer,” which includes pornographic images, from its library bookshelves. Chiaradio told Fox that he believed that schoolchildren are being used and abused for a sick agenda:<blockquote>Rather than teaching these kids about math, English, and science…, these kids are being used and abused in order to help these people achieve some kind of sick agenda that they have.</blockquote>He also expressed concern that “destroying” children is one way in which officials may ultimately take down the country:<blockquote>These… so-called leaders of the district are trusted by these kids. The only thing that I can think of here is that these people have other motivations," he said. "And that's the thing that really, really gets me. Because the best way to take down a country or a society… is to destroy a generation of its youth.".</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">"Rather than teaching these kids about math, English, and science, these kids are being used and abused in order to help these people achieve some kind of sick agenda that they have," Robert Chiaradio told Fox News Digital in an interview. <a href="https://t.co/KhZM1dydVf">https://t.co/KhZM1dydVf</a>— (@DIHart1727) <a href="https://twitter.com/DIHart1727/status/1616828379914715141?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div><h3>&nbsp;</h3><h3>Books in school libraries “unequivocally erotica”</h3>Senior Fellow of the Education Freedom Center for the Independent Women’s Forum Nicole Solas <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ED/ED14/20231019/116471/HHRG-118-ED14-20231019-SD004.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">penned</a> a Written Statement Before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce Hearing: Combatting Graphic, Explicit Books in School Libraries. In her October 19, 2023, statement, she described the gravity of the situation including what is in the pornographic and sexually explicit books available to public school children.&nbsp;<blockquote>. . . This is not an occasional problem. On the contrary, the amount of sexually explicit books in school libraries is extensive and vast. . . . These books do not simply provide clinical sex education describing anatomy and reproduction. They contain numerous pornographic passages and pictures meant to instruct children on sexual pleasure, sexually excite children, or push a radical, ideological viewpoint of sex and sexuality. In many cases, these books are unequivocally erotica with both homosexual and heterosexual storylines framed against the youthful backdrops of high school, family, and friends. In one reported incident, hardcore pornography for adults was removed from a high school library and you can read an excerpt.&nbsp;</blockquote>Solas included a list of the books and links to excerpts, imploring the committee members to “take some time to review the listed excerpts and graphics list provided. . . You will be astonished,” she wrote.<h3>Significant harm to children</h3>To explain the impact that pornography has on children, Solas referred to the American Academy of Pediatrician's description of its harm to children:<blockquote>These negative effects include mental disturbance and unrest for the young school age child, including acting out and violent behavior. Because of its harmfulness to children, pornography must never be used as a tool to teach children human sexuality.”&nbsp;</blockquote>The Academy is quite <a href="https://acpeds.org/position-statements/the-impact-of-pornography-on-children" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">detailed</a> in its description of the harms that pornography holds for elementary school children. The academy lists maladaptive behaviors and psychopathology that young children who have viewed pornography may display.<blockquote>. . . Pornography exposure at these young ages often results in anxiety for the child. &nbsp;Children also report feelings of disgust, shock, embarrassment, anger, fear, and sadness after viewing pornography. These children can suffer all of the symptoms of anxiety and depression. They may become obsessed with acting out adult sexual acts that they have seen, and this can be very disruptive and disturbing to the child’s peers who witness or are victimized by this behavior. Children under twelve years old who have viewed pornography are statistically more likely to sexually assault their peers. In sum, children exposed to pornographic material are at risk for a broad range of maladaptive behaviors and psychopathology.</blockquote>The Academy referred to a study done in the 1980s to explain the effect pornography had on older adolescents and young adults, They found that their moral compass was skewed and that their attitudes toward marriage, rape, and fidelity were compromised.&nbsp;<blockquote>The following observations were noted regarding young adults exposed to pornography compared to the control group:<ul><li>Male subjects demonstrated increased callousness toward women.</li><li>Subjects considered the crime of rape less serious.</li><li>Subjects were more accepting of non-marital sexual activity and non-coital sexual practices such as oral and anal sex.</li><li>Subjects became more interested in more extreme and deviant forms of pornography.</li><li>Subjects were more likely to say they were dissatisfied with their sexual partner.</li><li>Subjects were more accepting of sexual infidelity in a relationship.</li><li>Subjects valued marriage less and were twice as likely to believe marriage may become obsolete.</li><li>Men experienced a decreased desire for children, and women experienced a decreased desire to have a daughter.</li><li>Subjects showed a greater acceptance of female promiscuity.</li></ul></blockquote><h3>UK concerned about effects of porn on kids, too</h3>A 2023 <a href="https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/resource/pornography-and-harmful-sexual-behaviour/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">report</a> by the UK's Children's Commissioner regarding online pornography, in preparation for an online safety bill, emphasizes the harm that pornography inflicts on children. The report was the result of an analysis of 502 cases reports of child-on-child sexual abuse. The commissioner reported that it shapes and fuels violence against women and girls and promotes harmful sexual behaviors and children abusing children. Much of the abuse is like that depicted in pornography. &nbsp;<blockquote>It is incredibly concerning that I found references to specific acts of sexual violence commonly seen in pornography in half of the interviews carried out following these cases of sexual abuse. Additional review of some of these cases found children suggesting direct links between pornography exposure and the harmful sexual behaviour exhibited.</blockquote><h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>Books that help parents teach kids to stay safe</h2>Fortunately, there are books to help parents educate their children to recognize pornography when they see it and know what to do, as Louise Chambers <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/bright/porn-proof-your-children-mom-pens-book-after-friends-son-sexually-abused-his-siblings-5610160" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a> for The Epoch Times. <a href="https://www.defendyoungminds.com/about" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kristen Jensen</a> who was shocked to discover that a friend's son sexually abused his siblings after exposure to pornography was surprised that she could find no resources to help the family and soon found herself on a mission to address the issue.&nbsp;To do this, Chambers explained, Jensen met with parents, read a lot, and watched videos on YouTube by experts on the neurological effects of pornography. Her efforts have resulted in the books “Good Pictures Bad Pictures: Porn-Proofing Today’s Young Kids“ for children aged 7 to 11, and ”Good Pictures Bad Pictures Jr.: A Simple Plan to Protect Young Minds“ for children aged 3 to 6, and other resources for parents and children.&nbsp;<blockquote>Mrs. Jenson’s book offers an age-appropriate definition of pornography so kids can recognize porn when they see it.“Bad pictures show the private parts of the body that we cover with a swimsuit,” reads the book, which goes on to explain why these “bad pictures” are harmful, and offers a plan so that kids know what to do when they see them.Mrs. Jenson said: “Educating kids on the harmful effects of pornography gives them good reasons to reject it. The book for older children describes the process of addiction, while the book for younger children presents the analogy of ‘picture poison.’”</blockquote>The books appear to have been successful at accomplishing their goals, as Chambers shared Jensen's stories about two children's experiences with recognizing pornography and reacting appropriately. The first happened on the school playground where one child showed porn to another child.<blockquote>One mom shared on social media that she read ‘Good Pictures Bad Pictures’ to her 9-year-old son, and three days later, he was shown pornography by another student on the playground during recess. Her son came home and told his mom what had happened. He said, ’I was scared, but I knew what to do.' Can’t you just feel the burden coming off of his young shoulders? No child deserves to face the porn industry alone!</blockquote>The second incident occurred when an adult approached a child, showing him porn on his cell phone.&nbsp;<blockquote>The second anecdote came from a mother who had read “Good Pictures Bad Pictures” to her 6-year-old son. The incident occurred while dining at a friend’s home.Recounting the incident, Mrs. Jenson said: “A renovation project caused their friends to put the children’s toys downstairs, so each child was allowed to run down and grab a toy to play with. While the 6-year-old stayed looking at the toys, the man who rented the downstairs apartment approached him and showed him a video of gay porn on his phone. The boy immediately recognized that he was seeing porn, and he ran up and told his mom. He got himself out of a very harmful situation.”&nbsp;</blockquote><h3 style="margin-left:auto;">Look inside the books</h3>Below are two book reviews of Good Pictures Bad Pictures and Good Pictures Bad Pictures Jr.&nbsp;The first is by Katie “a wife and home school mom of 6 kids who range from 13 years to 4,” on her YouTube channel “Life in the Mundane.”&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWr9-3PYah0" title="The BIGGEST Mistake We Can Make When Protecting Our Kids Online" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>The second is by Sarah Kimmel on her channel Family Tech. She is a “Microsoft Certified IT Manager, who is also a mom. She currently helps families understand and manage the technology in their homes.”<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kHwQkLW8Mlk" title="Unveiling the hidden gems in Good Pictures Bad Pictures Jr and the Standard Version - Book Review" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>In a day and age when parents are being marginalized and bypassed, when it comes to their children's welfare, these books can give parents a little peace of mind, knowing they have a resource to help their children navigate a potentially less-than-friendly world.&nbsp;Learn more:<ul><li><a href="https://www.defendyoungminds.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Defend young minds</a> (Jensen's website with additional resources)</li><li><a href="https://www.truthloveparent.com/taking-back-the-family-blog/tlp-339-good-pictures-bad-pictures-kristen-jenson-interview-part-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Taking back the family</a></li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/family-and-trauma/202308/silent-educator-the-impact-of-porn-on-young-minds" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Silent Educator: The Impact of Porn on Young Minds</a></li><li><a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/videos/6-things-to-do-if-your-kid-sees-pornography" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">6 Things to Do If Your Kid Sees Pornography</a></li><li><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64451984" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Children as young as nine exposed to pornography</a></li><li><a href="https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/marriage-and-family/parenting/should-we-teach-kids-about-porn-s-harms-yes-and-here-s-how.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Should We Teach Kids about Porn's Harms? Yes, and Here's How</a></li><li><a href="https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The effects of pornography on children and young people</a></li><li><a href="https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/2022/helplines-insight-briefing-legal-but-harmful-content" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Children's experiences of legal but harmful content online</a></li></ul>Related articles:<ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/pornography-now-in-public-school-libraries-did-you-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pornography now in public school libraries. Did you know?</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/appellate-court-upholds-texas-right-to-protect-children-from-online-porn">Appellate court upholds Texas' right to protect children from online porn</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/virginia-school-board-official-sworn-in-on-child-pornography-books">Virginia school board official sworn in on child pornography books</a></li></ul>

pornography children.jpg

wokeness

Education

'Educating kids on the harmful effects of pornography gives them good reasons to reject it.'

How to porn-proof your kids and why you need to

Very few Russian miners merit an obituary in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/06/archives/stakhanov-a-soviet-miner-is-dead-name-was-byword-for-hard-work.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New York Times</a>. Aleksei Stakhanov was an exception; when he died in 1977, the Times dedicated an article to his life and achievements, something most DEI managers can only dream of.(More about Stakhanov&nbsp;in a moment.)&nbsp;Wind down in the comfort of your office buildingGood news for employees of Deutsche Bank in London — the company is building new “reset and recovery pods” to provide support for those with neurological conditions such as autism as well as women who may be “struggling with menopause or perimenopause symptoms.”Each private, single-occupier booth will feature a reclinable chair as well as cooling and lighting controls. But that's not all — Deutsche Bank is actually constructing an entire “wellness suite” complete with a mindfulness space, a prayer room (multifaith, naturally), and GP clinics.Not to be outdone, Shoosmiths, a British law firm, is also about to open its own “wellness rooms” for menopausal women, also featuring cooling and lighting controls but with the added perk of beds.&nbsp;Alex Bishop, head of the firm's Birmingham office, told media that the impetus came from “menopausal women” themselves, who kept telling him how they would “really like a space that I could have a lie down after lunch, because I tend to get a headache, I tend to get really light sensitive.”<blockquote>That got us thinking in a completely different way from perhaps the more obvious diversity and inclusion needs.</blockquote>Shoosmiths is now planning to introduce these so-called wellness rooms in all its offices as part of planned refurbishments. &nbsp;&nbsp;Freemarket at workShoosmiths and Deutsche Bank are large companies with thousands of employees. They can easily afford to install “reset and recovery pods,” mindfulness rooms, and the like. In the competitive environment of finance and law firms seeking the best talent to staff their offices, Shoosmiths and Deutsche Bank have gone the extra mile in catering to a subsection of their workforces, offering incentives that may woo potential employees while helping to retain current ones.What are smaller businesses to do if they too want to attract quality staff? In a totally free market, they can offer benefits that large corporations lack, which we can sum up as “the personal touch.” (The cynically-minded might add that mental health breaks in private pods are only necessary for those working in a cut-throat environment.)The problems only start when government decides to intervene and mandate companies of any size to provide what once were perquisites — and smaller businesses can't afford to keep up.&nbsp;&nbsp;Don't worry, Big Brother is looking after youProviding a certain level of accommodation for women going through menopause is now legally required in the UK. New guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission stresses that companies could be in breach of discrimination laws if they do not supply such women with fans on their desks, allow them to come in late if they slept badly the night before, and permit them to work from home on hot days.But of course regulating “consideration” for one's workforce is not restricted to worrying about women of a certain age.At a recent conference, for example, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta called for private companies to use a more “democratic process” to advance “social equities," a scheme which, if mandated, could bankrupt lower revenue competitors.&nbsp;Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute <a href="https://reason.com/2021/07/07/how-big-business-uses-big-government-to-kill-competition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">notes</a> thatmany big businesses employ similar tactics, and details Facebooks's plans to do so:<blockquote>[Zuckerberg] is calling for a mandate that platforms impose some sort of artificial intelligence to weed out misinformation or hate speech. Facebook can afford that, but Zuckerberg's smaller competitors [such as Rumble or Parler] would struggle to pay the thousands of content moderators and the expensive artificial intelligence that Congress may require.Regulation doesn't just kill businesses. It keeps new businesses from ever entering.</blockquote>&nbsp;Meanwhile, in the public sector…Not everyone is waiting for government guidance to implement their own supportive measures for employees going through tough moments. One <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/05/councillors-red-cards-leave-meetings-mental-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">town council</a> in Norfolk, England, has come up with a novel idea for catering to “psychiatric emergencies” that occur during council meetings — councilors will be able to hold up a card and get permission to leave if their mental health feels under threat.The new measure was prompted by an incident when Mr. Barrett, a member of the local Green party, experienced a “serious dissociative flashback” during a 45-second speech by another council member, and later explained that his attack was triggered by the lack of a “perceived means of escape.”<blockquote>It is difficult for me to leave a meeting as I feel that I need to give a reason or an excuse, which can sometimes be difficult to explain. This [new measure] will make the town council a more inclusive environment and offers a means of escape if it is needed.</blockquote>Barrett apparently is autistic and also suffers from ADHD and PTSD. He returned to the meeting after a 20-minute time-out. Reports of the incident did not elaborate on what he did during those 20 minutes, but the council now plans to set aside a special room where mentally afflicted councilors will be given water (presumably to drink) as well as advice on “grounding techniques” such as breathing exercises.The local council in Norfolk can probably afford to employ someone to be on-call in case a troubled councilor suddenly needs help doing breathing exercises — the public purse is only too open for such DEI initiatives.&nbsp;And now for something completely different (perhaps)Trigger warnings are being slapped on all over the place lately, it seems, but this most recent example deserves attention for its originality.The Lilian Baylis Studio theater in London has <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/07/theatregoers-trigger-warning-sound-of-people-eating-oranges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warned</a> those attending its performances of “Out” that during the play, performers will be eating.<blockquote>The performance contains sounds of people eating so those with misophonia might find some parts uncomfortable.</blockquote>What’s more, the play will also feature oranges, so those inquiring about ticket sales are told in advance that the performance may not be suitable for those with citrus allergies.“Out” is described as a musical event which “defiantly challenges homophobia and transphobia” and aims to “reimagine, reclaim and celebrate aspects of Caribbean culture from a queer perspective.”<blockquote>Bravely embracing personal, political and cultural dissonance, this work smashes through our violent colonial histories to reimagine, reclaim and celebrate our delicious queer future.</blockquote>(No trigger warnings have been issued for those who may find the “queer” agenda discomfiting or offensive.)Theater-goers, being of a certain class of people willing and able to purchase expensive tickets, are likely just as willing to subsidize some new “woke” scheme that makes them feel even more virtuous. However, smaller regional theaters which present more affordable options for the plebs will find all the demands for woke “sensitivity” compliance far more onerous and perhaps even prohibitive.&nbsp;So, how does Stakhanov fit in?Aleksei Stakhanov was 29 years old when, in 1935, he set a record of mining 102 tons of coal in five hours and 45 minutes, which was an incredible 14-times his quota.<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="511" height="383" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nX2MHU5kZYI" title="The Stakhanov Movement (1938)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>According to the <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/31/otd-in-1985-the-stakhanovite-movement-was-born-a67092" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moscow Times</a>, following this feat other workers “aimed to exceed their quotas and proudly become ‘Stakhanovites.’ Worker productivity and organization improved and ... the movement spread to other industries, including automobile, shoe, and textile manufacturing; timber; railroads; and agriculture.”Stalin himself was actually more circumspect about the launch of what became known as the Stakhanov movement. According to NYT, the Soviet leader noted that not everyone was altogether enthusiastic:<blockquote>The Stakhanov movement is striking in that it started spontaneously and developed to a certain extent contrary to the will of the management of Soviet enterprises. Stakhanov had to defend his movement not only against certain responsible officials but against fellow workers who slandered his “novelty.”</blockquote>Indeed, across the USSR workers lived in terror of their “norms” being upped after a patriotic Stakhanovite in their factory proved it was possible to produce more.In the USSR, people were too fearful for their lives to rise up against a movement that threatened to grind them into the dust.&nbsp;In today’s West, can the same also be said?

stressed.jpg

Is government regulation killing us with 'kindness'?

The Stakhanov Effect and the elimination of small business

Doctor predicted tyranny via vaccination in 2015

'If Americans don't stand against this, then we are lost'

Related Articles

Congressmen demand investigation into Feds' treatment of world's largest Christian school

Fired for not supporting pride rainbow; government sides with employer

Pornography now in public school libraries. Did you know?

According to 'The Science,' Paxlovid's a dud. By the same criteria, so are the shots

Latest Articles

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

Bestiality Taught in Australian School’s “Queer” Sex Class

How to porn-proof your kids and why you need to

The Stakhanov Effect and the elimination of small business