RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2024/01/03/florida-surgeon-general-joseph-ladapo-calls-for-a-halt-in-the-use-of-covid-19-mrna-shots/

On Wednesday, Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo called for a complete halt in the use of COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines” due to DNA contaminants in the products that can affect unintended parts of the body and lead to “turbo cancers” among recipients.

Without a proper assessment of the risks of DNA integration, “these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings,” the surgeon general said in a press release.

Dr. Ladapo’s move comes after sent a letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Mandy Cohen last month demanding answers to his questions regarding the discovery of billions of DNA fragments per dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA injections.

Ladapo, a Harvard-trained MD and PhD, was not satisfied with the FDA’s response

In his December 6 letter, the Surgeon General had outlined his “concerns regarding nucleic acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, particularly in the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes, and Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA.”

https://thespectator.com/topic/code-red-dei-is-in-the-icu/

One of the most important political developments of 2023 was the growing pushback against “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Those DEI programs and the ideology that underpin them are under siege politically and legally, and they are losing. They had grown rapidly, thanks to a mixture of support, indifference and timidity. But that began to ebb last year and will continue to recede in 2024.

The wounded patient was wheeled into the intensive care unit when the Supreme Court undermined a crucial foundation for DEI and related affirmative action programs. The decision came in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and a similar case against the University of North Carolina. SCOTUS ruled the universities were illegally discriminating when their admissions favored some minorities and effectively penalized others. Neither public nor private universities had the right to do that.

Those lawsuits were brought against universities on behalf of Asian-Americans, but their victory has reverberated through the world of corporations, non-profits and government agencies. That’s not surprising since those institutions have a host of programs and practices similar to those at Harvard and UNC. They, too, discriminate in hiring and promotion, in hopes their “affirmative” policies will create more inclusive, racially-diverse workplaces. One question sure to reach the High Court is whether these programs are illegal.

The programs also raise practical questions. One is whether they actually achieve their aim of creating more inclusive workplaces. Or do they create more hostile, racially-divided ones and wider public resentment beyond them? Another question is whether institutions committed to these programs can find ways to work around the court decisions and hide their efforts.

The policies used to pursue these goals are sometimes called “reverse discrimination” because they benefit groups, primarily African-Americans, who had long been subjects of pernicious discrimination, segregation, and, indeed, racial hatred.

The terminology of “reverse discrimination” is outdated and misleading. We live more than half a century after the tectonic changes of the mid-1960s, when President Lyndon Johnson and a supportive Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act and a series of massive government programs, many of them meant to assist historically-disadvantaged groups. After that long span, the beneficiaries today are the children and grandchildren of those who were harmed by segregation and Jim Crow laws.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/12/29/a-health-care-checkup-on-justin-trudeaus-canada/

For decades, Americans have been told that the only humane, decent health care system is one run by the government. The oft-uttered complaint is that it’s a shame that the richest country in the world doesn’t have universal medical care. The reality is that the universal systems in other wealthy nations are cruel, cold bureaucracies.

If there are any doubts that this is true, look northward, to Canada, where waiting lists for treatment are leaving “patients frozen in line,” Pacific Research Institute President and Chief Executive Officer Sally Pipes recently wrote in Forbes.

“When everyone within a country is trapped in a public health insurance system,” says Pipes, patients suffer through a median waiting time “for medically necessary treatment from a specialist after being referred by a general practitioner” for an average of 27.7 weeks.

“That’s over six months – the longest ever recorded,” she adds.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/its-dei-or-bust-for-the-american-college-of-surgeons/

The organization has launched a diversity, equity, and inclusion tool kit to ‘help’ doctors, advocating principles that have no place in medicine.

America’s surgeons are not woke enough, according to the American College of Surgeons (ACS). Such is the message of the leadership to fellows of the ACS. In a previous column on this site, I described how the ACS doubled down on anti-racism and DEI at its annual Clinical Congress in Boston this October with courses in its educational program for surgeons. To underscore its ongoing commitment to anti-racism and DEI, the ACS just launched its DEI Toolkit and continues to promote this ideology as though its life depended on it.

To say this is puzzling is an understatement, especially given recent trends. Diversity, equity, and inclusion departments throughout the country are being shut down, DEI administrators are being handed their walking papers, and the ideologies of anti-racism and DEI are being increasingly recognized for their illiberal, divisive, and fraudulent nature. Take anti-racism. Even Ibram X. Kendi, who coined the term, is incapable of defining this in a coherent manner. When asked to define anti-racism, he offered: “Antiracism is a collection of antiracist policies leading to racial equity that are substantiated by antiracist ideas.” This is a classic circular argument that no critically thinking person would accept.

And, yet, the American College of Surgeons has grabbed onto the ideology of structural racism and just won’t let go. After embracing anti-racism and DEI in 2020 and promoting the ideologies at the 2023 annual Clinical Congress in October, the leadership of the ACS is seeking to further embed anti-racism and DEI in the college and into surgical practices. The tool kit is an exhaustive, some might say exhausting, compilation of everything related to pushing the narrative of systemic and structural racism as the source of disparities including minority representation within the ACS and clinical outcomes in minority surgical patients. If it promotes anti-racism and DEI, it is in the tool kit. Time and space do not permit a thorough dissection of the entire tool kit, but a few examples will suffice to demonstrate the profound ideological tone.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/most-transgender-kids-turn-out-to-be-gay-gender-affirming-care-conversion-therapy-58111b2e?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

As a medical professional who happens to be gay, I’ll be celebrating Dec. 15, the 50th anniversary of the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. The longstanding designation was based on prejudice, not medical research, and the revision marked the beginning of the end for so-called conversion therapy, which sought to “cure” gays and lesbians of a nonexistent malady.

Half a century later, the medical establishment is pushing a new kind of conversion therapy under the guise of transgender identity. No one is suffering more than gay kids. In Canada, where I practice, and in the U.S., physicians provide what’s euphemistically known as “gender-affirming care” to patients as young as 8, and the leading transgender health association has opened the door to interventions at even earlier ages. Under this framework, those who feel uncomfortable with their bodies may receive a medical regimen including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries. These interventions typically stunt, remove or irreversibly modify a patient’s sexual development, genitals and secondary sex characteristics. Any endocrinologist or other physician who rejects this approach is alleged to be endangering the health and even the life of his patients.

But are these patients really “transgender”? Research shows that some 80% of children with “gender dysphoria” eventually come to terms with their sex without surgical or pharmaceutical intervention. Multiple studies have found that most kids who are confused or distressed about their sex end up realizing they’re gay—nearly two-thirds in a 2021 study of boys. This makes sense: Gay kids often don’t conform to traditional sex roles. But gender ideology holds that feminine boys and masculine girls may be “born in the wrong body.”

In this light, “gender-affirming care” looks a lot like conversion therapy. In the past, it took the form of electroshock therapy, chemical castration and even lobotomy. Now it takes the form of rendering teenagers sterile and sexually dysfunctional for life. Clinicians from the main U.K. transgender service referred to prescribing puberty blockers as “transing the gay away”—a play on the description of old-fashioned conversion-therapy as “praying the gay away.” A clinician who resigned from the U.K. service accused it of “institutional homophobia.” Clinicians at the service had a “dark joke” that “there would be no gay people left at the rate Gids”—the Gender Identity Service—“was going.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/12/subverting_medical_science_for_a_racebased_political_agenda.html

The story of the change in testing standards for chronic kidney disease is a warning about the politicized degradation of American medical care.

For almost two years, everyone has ignored an important “health equity” story affecting 87% of Americans. It concerns the medical definition of chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is an impairment of the kidney’s ability to filter waste, toxins, and excess fluids from the blood. Affecting approximately 37 million US adults, the disease can lead to dialysis, kidney replacement, and death.

Physicians and health care providers rely on laboratory measurements of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to diagnose CKD and to qualify patients for treatment, Medicare-paid education, referrals to a nephrologist (kidney specialist), and kidney transplants. GFR is usually estimated from a chemical in the blood called “creatinine.” High creatinine levels signify that the kidneys are not functioning well. Nearly 250 million creatinine measurements are made each year in the US.

On average, blacks have higher creatinine levels than non-blacks with the same kidney function. Their higher creatinine levels may arise because blacks in America have greater average muscle mass than non-blacks.

For over two decades, the formulas used to estimate GFR have included a correction for the higher creatinine concentrations in blacks in order to obtain the very best estimate of their directly measured GFR (the gold standard of kidney function.) This correction factor increased black GFR between 16% and 21%.

One might assume that CKD and GFR would be defined with scientific impartiality. However, one consequence of the race adjustment is that, at the same blood creatinine level, a black patient might not receive the same kidney treatment as a non-black patient. Thus, whites with lower creatinine numbers will receive medical intervention, while blacks will not.

This has led medical students and physicians-turned-activists to cry discrimination. Activists collected petitions at major hospitals calling to remove the race correction. Medical journals published no fewer than fifty commentaries, editorials, and articles calling for its abolition. Print and internet news articles dutifully reported that the formulas were racist.

There was little published opposition once the race correction was framed as a civil rights issue. Scientists’ reticence to speak out was not unexpected, given that research funding requires nearly unanimous endorsement from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and no scientist can risk alienating even one grant reviewer.