RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/government-deceit/

“Experts” were confident that they knew what America should do about Covid. They were wrong about so much.

Officials pushed masks, including useless cloth ones. Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “Don’t wear masks” — then, “Do wear them.”

Some states closed playgrounds and banned motorboats and Jet Skis. Towns in New York banned using leaf-blowers. California pointlessly closed beaches and gave people citations for “watching the sunset.” The list goes on.

Sen. Rand Paul’s new book, “Deception,” argues that government experts didn’t just make mistakes; they were purposely deceitful. A few weeks ago, this column reported how Paul was correct in accusing Fauci of funding virus research in Wuhan and lying about it.

In my new video, we cover other government deceit.

Paul says, “There’s been one set of truths in private and another set of truths for the people who aren’t smart enough to make their decisions.”

He points out that Fauci, in private, told fellow bureaucrats that masking is pointless. Fauci wrote in one email: “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/dhfc_videos/revealed-coverup-of-covid-vaxs-severe-damage-to-teens-hearts/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/yellow_fever_coming_to_the_us.html

The 19th-century viral scourge of the U.S. South known as “yellow fever” seems to be on the brink of a resurgence. Tropical disease experts predict a return of the historically devastating disease to the U.S. 

Yellow fever is still active in Latin America and Africa, causing 30,000 deaths annually, but local outbreaks have been absent here since 1905. Other tropical diseases, however, have landed on our shores. Earlier this year, several cases of malaria turned up in Florida. Mosquitoes have recently tested positive for West Nile virus in Texas. Locally-transmitted cases of Zika, dengue, and chikungunya have also been  identified in the past few years.

WHAT IS YELLOW FEVER?

Yellow Fever is a member of the Flaviviridae family of viruses and is a known arbovirus (transmitted through the bite or sting of an insect). In this case, the culprit is a mosquito known as Aedes aegypti.

Symptoms may appear within three to six days of the virus entering the body. Some experience no symptoms, but those who do experience headache, muscle pain, and nausea/vomiting. Fortunately, in most cases, symptoms subside in three to four days. If you survive the disease, it usually means lifelong immunity.

Yellow fever has no cure, and an unlucky 15-20 percent of victims, progress to a more serious second phase shortly after an apparent recovery. These develop high fever and inflammation of the liver and kidneys. Liver malfunction leads to a condition called “jaundice,” a yellowing of the skin and eyes (hence the name “yellow fever”). Damage to the GI tract leads to vomiting black blood in late stages. At this point, a death rate of 20-60 percent due to organ failure can be expected.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/30/berenson-no-question-govt-policy-was-to-encourage-vax-by-every-means-short-of-force/

Alex Berenson criticized recent attempts by the Left to make us forget about the vaccine mandates enacted just two years ago.

“We were all around for it,” Berenson told host Dan Proft on the “Counterculture” podcast. “It was not fifty years ago, it was two falls ago.”

“There was tremendous pressure to get vaccinated at tremendous societal cost or lose your job or potentially be excluded from shopping, as happened in some places, or being at university,” Berenson said. “There was no question that the government policy was by every means short of force, to encourage vaccination.”

Berenson is a former NY Times journalist and author of “Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives.”

He and Proft discussed “Covid 1.5” and the recent return of mask mandates and “vaccine” pressure.

This full interview is available on Rumble, YouTube, and Spotify.

Proft launched “Counterculture” — American Greatness’ newest podcast — earlier this month. He also is the co-host of “Chicago’s Morning Answer” weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. on AM 560 Chicago. A former Republican candidate for Illinois Governor, Proft attended Northwestern University and received his J.D. from Loyola University-Chicago.

https://media5.manhattan-institute.org/iiif/2/wp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F5%2Fbreast-cancer-screening-DEI-based-political-pressure.jpg/full/!99999,960/0/default.jpg

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—a volunteer panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that makes recommendations for clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or medications—has generally been considered an honest broker, willing to buck political and popular pressures to give advice consistent with the available evidence. New USPSTF draft recommendations on breast-cancer screening suggest that this may have changed.

When the USPSTF last updated its breast-cancer screening recommendations about eight years ago, it found that, for women under 50 with an average risk of cancer, the harms of screening outweighed the benefits. It recommended routine screening for women 50 or older and advised younger women to consult with their physicians to discuss whether their history and individual risk factors warrant screening.

This recommendation echoed guidelines used around the world. The U.K, France, Denmark, and Germany, for example, screen women 50 and older, but there is no organized screening of women in their forties. Switzerland has no screening program for women of any age.

The USPSTF recently issued a draft recommendation lowering the starting age for mammography screening from 50 to 40 years. This will affect approximately 20 million additional women. It is not clear what prompted the change.

The USPSTF acknowledged that no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their forties have been conducted since the previous recommendation was made. Nor have new, follow-up findings emerged from the eight previous randomized trials in this age group, all of which found no significant benefit.

Instead, the task force relied on modeling studies to provide information about the benefits and harms of breast-cancer screening in different age groups. As with any model, the results depend on the assumptions made. The model assumed that screening mammography reduces breast-cancer mortality by 25 percent and concluded that lowering the starting age from 50 to 40 would result in 1.3 fewer deaths over a lifetime for every 1,000 women screened.