Controversy in Gender Medicine for Youth, Chemicals Banned Everywhere Except the US, We Are Not Divided
Revealing News Articles
November 12, 2024

Special note to our readers: At WantToKnow.info, we’re not afraid of even the most controversial topics. With the nation divided on medical interventions for trans youth and ongoing legal battles on all sides of the political aisle, now is a crucial time for open, uncensored dialogue on the issue for the well-being of our children and the trans community. Look out for a Mindful News Brief video very soon, where we explore the most relevant parts of this complex issue with nuance and compassion for all sides—from what these medical interventions for youth are, what the science and top experts in the field are saying publicly and in private, and who's profiting from the billion dollar industry of transgender medicine for minors.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, the highest-ranking transgender official in the Biden administration ... has supported a misinformation campaign that has turned the U.S. into an international outlier in the use of the “gender-affirming” model of care, which recommends hormones and surgeries rather than psychotherapy as the first-line treatment for adolescent distress around puberty. In 2022, Levine pressured the World Association for Transgender Health to remove age minimums for gender surgeries. Since 2017, a Manhattan Institute analysis of health insurance claims has shown, that more than 5,000 teenage girls had their breasts amputated as part of a “gender-affirming” procedure designed to help them achieve a male look. These figures ... do not include procedures performed at large health care systems like Kaiser Permanente (which is currently being sued by two young women who underwent “top surgery”). These surgeries do not seem to pose a problem for those like Levine who believe the theory that “trans kids know who they are.” Children who do not fit sex stereotypes and same-sex attracted adolescents are now given the idea they are “trans” and encouraged to perceive hormones and surgeries as a solution to the substantial difficulties that society imposes on gender non-conforming young people. Contrary to the slogans, these treatments are not lifesaving.

Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors. Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services and herself a transgender woman, urged them to drop the proposed limits from the group’s guidelines and apparently succeeded. If and when teenagers should be allowed to undergo transgender treatments and surgeries has become a raging debate within the political world. Opponents say teenagers are too young to make such decisions, but supporters ... posit that young people with gender dysphoria face depression and worsening distress if their issues go unaddressed. The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. The proposed age limits were eliminated in the final guidelines. Gender-related medical interventions for adolescents have been steadily rising as more young people seek such care. A Reuters analysis of insurance data estimated that 4,200 American adolescents started estrogen or testosterone therapy in 2021, more than double the number from four years earlier.

How is America allowed to feed us certain products that are harmful and banned in other countries? What some people may dismiss as a fixation of “granola moms” is actually a legitimate concern, says Melanie Benesh, the vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. The impact many of these chemicals have is chronic: They accumulate over time, after a lot of tiny exposures. For example, the whitening agent titanium dioxide in soups and dairy products can build up in the body and even damage DNA. European countries take a much more precautionary approach to additives in their food, Benesh says. “If there are doubts about whether a chemical is safe or if there’s no data to back up safety, the EU is much more likely to put a restriction on that chemical.” California banned four chemicals in 2023: brominated vegetable oil, Red Dye No. 3, propylparaben, and potassium bromate. This year, lawmakers in about a dozen states have introduced legislation banning those same chemicals and, in some states, additional chemicals as well. But federal oversight has been limited. When Congress wrote the food chemical law, they included an exception for things that are generally recognized as safe, or GRAS. This was intended to be a narrow loophole, an exception for ... things like spices or vinegar or flour or table salt. An analysis in 2022 ... found that 99 percent of new food chemicals were exploiting this GRAS loophole.

The food system is inextricably linked to an economic system that, for decades, has been fundamentally biased against the kinds of changes we need. Economic policies almost everywhere have systematically promoted ever-larger scale and monocultural production. Those policies include: Massive subsidies for globally traded commodities, direct and hidden subsidies for global transport infrastructures and fossil fuels, ‘free trade’ policies that open up food markets in virtually every country to global agribusinesses, [and] health and safety regulations [that] destroy smaller producers and marketers and are not enforced for giant monopolies. Monocultures rely heavily on chemical inputs—fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides—which pollute the immediate environment, put wildlife at risk, and—through nutrient runoff—create “dead zones” in waters ... thousands of miles away. More than half of the world’s food varieties have been lost over the past century; in countries like the U.S., the loss is more than 90 percent. Agribusiness has gone to great lengths to convince the public that large-scale industrial food production is the only way to feed the world. But the global food economy is massively inefficient. More than one-third of the global food supply is wasted or lost; for the U.S., the figure is closer to one-half. The solution to these problems ... requires a commitment to local food economies. [Several towns in the state of Maine] declared “food sovereignty” by passing ordinances that give their citizens the right “to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing.” In 2013, the government of Ontario, Canada, passed a Local Food Act to increase access to local food, improve local food literacy, and provide tax credits for farmers who donate a portion of their produce to nearby food banks.

[Kevin] Hall’s work at the National Institutes of Health presents an existential challenge to the food industry, which has staked its business model for decades on developing ultra-processed meals that are cheap, easy to prepare. The NIH invested just over $2 billion on nutrition research last year. That includes both research, like Hall’s, done in government facilities, and grants to outside scientists at universities. The agency, meanwhile, spent nearly $11.9 billion on neuroscience, $8.9 billion on brain disorders, and $5.1 billion on neurodegenerative diseases. Hall’s first study on ultra-processed foods ... housed 20 adults at the NIH’s clinical hospital. For half the time, participants were fed a diet of ultra-processed foods, and the other half, they got unprocessed foods. Participants had no control over what they ate, except that they could eat as much or as little ... as they wanted. The study found that people ate, on average, over 500 calories more on the ultra-processed diet. The results made Hall a minor celebrity by NIH standards. “The take-home lesson from this was absolutely unambiguous: If you’re worried about weight, don’t eat ultra-processed foods,” [NYU professor of nutrition and public health Marion] Nestle said. “The idea that the NIH isn’t sinking a fortune into this is just shocking to me,” said [Nestle], who called Hall’s first clinical trial on ultra-processed foods “the most important study in nutrition that’s been done since vitamins.” "Nutrition funding represents around 4 to 5% of total obligations from the NIH ... Which is like — compared to the impact that nutrition and food can have — just a really low number.”

A small, tight-knit community of scientific sleuths has been unearthing growing evidence that many studies, including landmark papers published in top journals, contain manipulated images and falsified findings. These revelations have led to high-profile investigations, raised concerns about clinical trials, and culminated in the departure of university presidents. Their work — often posted on PubPeer, a website where users comment on published studies — has also forced a reckoning around how the crushing pressure to publish splashy results incentivizes fraud. “Claire Francis” is a pseudonym for someone who has commented on, by their own reckoning, 20,000 articles since 2010. About 2,000 of these studies were later retracted. Elisabeth Bik ... comments on papers using her real name, and she has earned a reputation for her preternatural ability to spot fishy figures. Bik has flagged issues with about 8,500 studies, contributing to 1,300 retractions and about 1,100 corrections, she told STAT. Those retractions include a study supporting a popular hypothesis for Alzheimer’s disease that has been cited more than 2,000 times, as well as a stem cell paper cited nearly 4,500 times. Her work has made her the recipient of more derisive emails, cease-and-desist letters, and legal threats than Bik can count. That’s not an uncommon experience, and Bik is an adviser to the Scientific Integrity Fund, which has set aside money to support sleuths being sued for their work.

Air fryers that gather your personal data and audio speakers “stuffed with trackers” are among examples of smart devices engaged in “excessive” surveillance, according to the consumer group Which? The organisation tested three air fryers ... each of which requested permission to record audio on the user’s phone through a connected app. Which? found the app provided by the company Xiaomi connected to trackers for Facebook and a TikTok ad network. The Xiaomi fryer and another by Aigostar sent people’s personal data to servers in China. Its tests also examined smartwatches that it said required “risky” phone permissions – in other words giving invasive access to the consumer’s phone through location tracking, audio recording and accessing stored files. Which? found digital speakers that were preloaded with trackers for Facebook, Google and a digital marketing company called Urbanairship. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said the latest consumer tests “show that many products not only fail to meet our expectations for data protection but also consumer expectations”. A growing number of devices in homes are connected to the internet, including camera-enabled doorbells and smart TVs. Last Black Friday, the ICO encouraged consumers to check if smart products they planned to buy had a physical switch to prevent the gathering of voice data.

TD Bank will pay $3 billion to settle charges that it failed to properly monitor money laundering by drug cartels. The fine includes a $1.3 billion penalty that will be paid to the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a record fine for a bank. TD also intends to pay $1.8 billion to the US Justice Department and plead guilty to resolve the US government’s investigation that the bank violated of the Bank Secrecy Act and allowed money laundering. More than 90% of transactions went unmonitored between January 2018 to April 2024, which “enabled three money laundering networks to collectively transfer more than $670 million through TD Bank accounts,” according to a legal filing. In one instance, TD Bank employees collected more than $57,000 worth of gift cards to process more than $470 million in cash deposits from a money laundering network to “ensure employees would continue to process their transactions” and not declare them in required reports, the DoJ said. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a US agency that regulates banks, said TD processed hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions the clearly indicated highly suspicious activity. The Canadian bank will be subject to four years of monitoring [to] ensure it is following the agreement. The US Federal Reserve also fined TD Bank and will force the company to relocate to the United States its anti-money laundering compliance office.

Mexico is fighting to phase out genetically modified (GM) U.S.-grown corn. The Mexican government says this will protect its citizens’ health and the country’s native corn varieties. Yet the announcement provoked strong objections from the U.S., whose largest annual customer for GM corn is often Mexico—between 2018 and 2020, Mexico bought nearly 30 percent of all U.S. corn exports. The dispute has escalated to formal negotiations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Mexico ... insists that GM corn threatens human health, and that modified seeds threaten Mexico’s agricultural traditions and cultural identity. What began as a wild grass called teosinte nearly 10,000 years ago ... has evolved through millennia of domestication and selective breeding to yield the corn that we know today. Mexico is concerned that GM corn poses the risk of genetic contamination—genes from U.S. corn have a history of crossing the border and entering Mexican varieties. Pollen from GM crops can travel considerable distances and cross-pollinate with the native varieties, potentially altering their genetic makeup and, in some cases, making them less suited to the specific conditions they were bred for. In the U.S., most corn is grown with seed produced by large corporations, which create just a handful of genetically identical corn varieties grown at mass scale.

AstraZeneca is being sued by a woman who claims she was disabled by the company’s Covid-19 vaccine. Brianne Dressen said she was “the picture of good health” when getting the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine in 2020 at the age of 39 through a Salt Lake County, Utah, clinical trial. In the hours that followed, her arm began to tingle and the feeling spread up to her shoulder, then to her opposite arm. Later, other symptoms followed, including blurred vision, a headache, ringing ears, and vomiting. In 2021, National Institutes of Health neurologists diagnosed her with “post vaccine neuropathy.” Dressen is the co-chair of React19, an interest group for people alleging injury from Covid-19 vaccines. Now, she’s suing AstraZeneca over medical expenses and more, arguing she’s still disabled and unable to work and carry on with many activities as she once had. The lawsuit, which accuses AstraZeneca of breaching contractual obligations, comes days after AstraZeneca pulled its Covid-19 vaccine off the market. AstraZeneca has said it was doing so due to a lack of demand and not for safety reasons. The vaccine, however, has faced concerns over its efficacy and safety. As of April 1, over 10,000 claims alleging injury or death from a Covid-19 shot have been filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, according to the HHS. In a separate lawsuit, Dressen’s React19 and people alleging vaccine injuries are suing the HHS over the program.

Psychological science suggests that it is both possible and imperative for members of our society to find common ground. “Some of this divide is a matter of perception,” says Tania Israel, PhD, professor of counseling psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Most people are not on the extremes of any of these issues, but most of what we hear is from people who are more on the extremes.” (More in Common, 2018; More in Common, 2019) People have a natural tendency to conceptualize everyone on the other side of the political spectrum as if they were the same as the leaders and spokespeople of that side. “[Leaders] can be very effective at creating and strengthening ‘mutual radicalization,’” says Fathali Moghaddam, PhD, using a term he coined to describe the growth of two opposing sides toward more and more extreme stances. One way to mitigate the divisiveness is to physically bring people together in safe, highly structured dialogue groups. We must also let go of our tendencies to want to bring someone to our own side of the political divide. “People are married to the notion that they can change minds—this almost always isn’t true,” says [psychotherapist Jeanne] Safer. In our personal relationships, Tania Israel [at the University of California, Santa Barbara] stresses to keep in mind our own sometimes-faulty perceptions of the other side. “Don’t make assumptions about someone based on their vote. Instead, I encourage people to be curious about what their vote meant to them. That’s an opportunity to open up a conversation to learn more about people that are important to us.”

Whether revealed in a post on social media, a short video on TikTok, or the latest piece of news on Fox or NBC, it is hard to ignore political divisions in the U.S. We ... conducted a survey of over 2,400 Republicans and Democrats in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential elections. We included questions about each person's moral and sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs. We found considerable similarity in their moral and political attitudes. At least 75% of responses overlapped. Both groups endorsed the importance of considering how fair or harmful their actions are for others, and they both believed that upholding democracy and finding bipartisan solutions is important for the U.S. In a series of subsequent experiments involving more than 4,400 participants, we presented our findings to people who had not participated in the survey. Participants all saw the same findings, but they were randomly assigned to see the information described in different ways. For some participants, our results were described as showing small differences between Democrats and Republicans, whereas for others they were described as showing a high degree of similarity between the two groups. When findings were described as showing similarities, participants thought that their political opponents had attitudes and beliefs that were more similar to their own group. They were more willing to find common ground with their political opponents on major social issues like gun control and abortion. Focusing on group differences might inadvertently contribute to political tension.

For Alexandra Hudson, working in Washington, D.C., was a culture shock. Ms. Hudson hails from Canada, land of the nice. "I realized that these people would smile at you, flatter you, and stab you in the back the moment that you no longer served their purposes," [said Ms. Hudson]. Her first book, "The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles To Heal Society and Ourselves," looks at how to bridge gaps and find commonalities. "Clarity came when I understood there was a difference between civility and politeness," [said Ms. Hudson]. "That politeness, I argue in my book, is a technique. Civility, by contrast, is a disposition of the heart, a way of seeing others as our moral equals and worthy of respect because of our shared dignity as human beings. When we are cruel and malicious to others, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s not just us hurting someone else. We are hurt as well. It deforms us, our souls, as well. The soul of civility [is] acting in ways that cultivate our soul. We further appreciate the humanity and dignity and personhood of those around us. The differences that may exist between us are far outweighed by the commonalities we have as members of the human community. If we go through life without a care in the world for how our actions affect others, that has a negative, vicious ripple effect. If enough of us choose to reclaim the soul of civility, I think we might be able to change the world."

In Lamoille County, Vermont ... everywhere you look, bursts of Lucy Rogers green, and Zac Mayo red, white and blue. "We don't need as much government," Zac said. He's the Republican. She's the Democrat. "I'm pretty centrally focused on healthcare," Lucy said. They're aggressively competing for a state House seat. Both have visited, or plan to visit, every single home in the district all 2,000 plus. The locals say they've never seen anything like it. But this highly competitive race took a dramatic turn recently. During their debate ... the candidates asked for a few extra minutes at the end. They stood up from their tables and began moving the furniture. No one knew what was coming. Indeed, what happened at the local library that night was totally unexpected and unprecedented in modern American politics. Political rivals Lucy Rogers and Zac Mayo shocked voters by coming together for a duet." Because we asked them if we could have a few minutes at the end to play a duet," Lucy said. "It strikes a chord," Zac said. "To say to the world that this is a better way." With that, the Democrat and the Republican united in perfect harmony. There weren't enough tissues to go around. "It marked a turning point for us," one person said. "It gave me a lot of hope," said another. The song they played that night -- and for us after -- is about longing for a less competitive society. Their rendition so resonated with folks in northern Vermont, CBS News actually saw houses that had signs for both candidates -- a clear indication that the winner of this race has already been decided: A landslide victory for civility.

www.peerservice.org - PEERS websites: Spreading inspiration, education, & empowerment
www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
www.personalgrowthcourses.net - Dynamic online courses powerfully expand your horizons
www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all