The Secretary of Defense is out of commission, and no one&#8217;s even pretending anymore that the commander-in-chief has any idea what&#8217;s going on in the world. 
So, unless you&#8217;re heavily invested in weapons manufacturing, or sit on the board of Raytheon, you probably have a lot of urgent questions about last night&#8217;s U.S. military strikes in Yemen. You might wonder, for example, who exactly the Houthis are, and why they made the decision to shut down a critical international trade route by terrorizing ships in the Red Sea. It&#8217;s the kind of provocation that obviously justifies a response. It&#8217;s almost like they&#8217;re asking for U.S. military involvement in the region. You might also have questions about whether this is somehow a &#8220;wag the dog&#8221; scenario, given the Biden administration&#8217;s disastrous poll numbers.
Regardless of your position on yesterday&#8217;s missile strikes, these are fair concerns. You&#8217;re not a conspiracy theorist for asking about them. After years of relentless lies from cable news &#8220;experts&#8221;, the skepticism isn&#8217;t really noteworthy at all. In fact, at this point, even the experts themselves have basically conceded that they can&#8217;t be trusted. That&#8217;s become particularly clear in just the past few days. From the airline industry to medicine, we are witnessing the collapse of the expert class in this country. They have lost their legitimacy, and they know it.
You may have heard about Tony Fauci&#8217;s admission in a closed-door House committee hearing the other day. Fauci began by denying that he ever played a role in shutting down any schools in this country. That&#8217;s a lie, of course. Fauci&#8217;s agency provided official guidance calling on schools to shut down, which exposed those schools to civil liability if they refused. Then Fauci was asked about his infamous guidance that everyone needed to &#8220;socially distance,&#8221; or stand six feet apart. As you probably remember, this six-foot rule became gospel in this country, virtually overnight. Every business and school and government building and airport put up little placards and stickers on the floor, instructing everyone to obey. At the time, we were told that &#8220;the science&#8221; mandated this rule. But the other day, Tony Fauci admitted what he always knew all along, which is that there was, in fact, no scientific data justifying this whatsoever. He says, essentially, that they just made it up on the spot. Here&#8217;s a New York Post reporter describing Fauci&#8217;s closed-door testimony:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="COVID ‘6-ft’ social distancing ‘sort of just appeared,’ likely lacked scientific basis, Fauci admits" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oQSLls9COUw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The guidance “just appeared,” miraculously, like manna from heaven. Nobody knows where it came from or why, but there it was. Six feet apart they said, for no reason. Why not seven? Why not 10? Why not 100? Why not three? No reason. Literally no reason. Six feet is just what was decided, by whoever decided it.
This isn&#8217;t the first time that Tony Fauci has admitted to lying to the public about COVID. At one point, you may remember, he told the New York Times that he had deliberately misled Americans about the concept of &#8220;herd immunity,&#8221; by continually moving the goalposts. 
Remember herd immunity? That was the idea that, once a certain number of people became immune to COVID — whether through infection or vaccination — then the virus becomes less of a threat, and we can resume our normal lives. Somehow, Fauci&#8217;s threshold for herd immunity kept changing throughout the pandemic. He kept saying that a bigger percentage of Americans needed to get the virus before herd immunity would apply. And then, when the Times asked him why he kept changing the percentage, he admitted it was just social engineering.
This week, though, Fauci dropped the pretense of &#8220;science&#8221; entirely. He just admitted he was making stuff up. He was misleading us about pretty much every aspect of COVID — from social distancing to masks to the COVID shot to herd immunity. And now that he&#8217;s out of power, he can finally admit it because he knows he won&#8217;t suffer any consequences.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1292-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
This is one of those stories that&#8217;s getting buried, for obvious reasons. For one thing, no one wants to hear about Fauci anymore. For a lot of different reasons, liberals and conservatives alike would prefer not to revisit that time in our recent history when Fauci was the most visible and powerful person in the country. Also, admittedly, there&#8217;s a lot going on in the world. Fine. But if you take ten steps back, you&#8217;ll see that the new expert class — the people who demand to be taken as seriously as Fauci — are struggling to replace him. They simply have no credibility. 
Recall again the story that broke the other day in Axios. Here&#8217;s what they <a href="https://x.com/axios/status/1744702577512509893?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>: &#8220;BREAKING: The climate of 2023 was the hottest seen in at least 125,000 years; for the first time in instrument records, daily global average temperatures went well above a Paris guardrail of 2°C.&#8221; 
Along with that scary headline, Axios includes a chart that only goes back until the 1970s, strangely enough. But all the same, they&#8217;re insistent that 2023 was the hottest climate the world has seen in at least 125,000 years. Now, I could reference a bunch of experts who contradict this theory. I could tell you all about Steve Milloy, a senior fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, who <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/hottest-days-ever-dont-believe-it-global-temperature-north-sole-poles-6e64a991" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debunked</a> this garbage science in the Wall Street Journal recently. Milloy pointed out that — if you can believe it — we didn&#8217;t have satellites or temperature stations to measure temperature 125,000 years ago. He also writes that even today, most of the world isn&#8217;t covered by temperature stations, and the temperature stations we do have are still quite inaccurate. In fact, he wrote, &#8220;it&#8217;s been estimated that 96% of U.S. temperature stations produce corrupted data.&#8221; So we can’t trust temperature data today — much less data from before human civilization was formed. But I really don&#8217;t have to cite any of this, because it&#8217;s all obvious to anyone with any common sense whatsoever. That’s why the comments on that Axios article are uniformly negative because people aren&#8217;t buying the lies anymore. 
This is a trend that&#8217;s been causing a lot of panic among experts and institutions that aren&#8217;t used to being challenged — including pretty much every corporate backer of the anti-white scam known as &#8220;diversity, equity and inclusion.&#8221; These are institutions that insist that DEI is a core part of their mission. They say their companies and universities simply cannot survive without it. But the moment you expose them, they run away in horror. All you have to do is shine a light on what they&#8217;re doing, and they give it up.
That&#8217;s what just happened to Spirit AeroSystems. That&#8217;s the manufacturer of the door that blew out on that Alaska Airlines flight recently, while the plane was taking off. Yesterday, I came across a TikTok video that was uploaded by a Spirit AeroSystems employee (or intern, possibly) about a year ago. This is footage from a conference for women in engineering. The video caught my eye, because the hashtags were &#8220;Women in Engineering&#8221; and &#8220;Spirit&#8217;s Dream Team.&#8221; So naturally I clicked on the video. I wanted to see what an engineering &#8220;dream team&#8221; looks like at a company that very clearly is incompetent at engineering. Here&#8217;s what I found:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the “dream team” at the manufacturer that made the plane door that just blew off in the middle of a flight <a href="https://t.co/gZ2AboGnpR">pic.twitter.com/gZ2AboGnpR</a>
&mdash; Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1745524322138018064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well, hey, what they lack in engineering talent and skill, they make up for in sass. Now you can shout “girl power” while you’re being sucked out of the giant hole in the side of the plane at 30 thousand feet. This the &#8220;dream team&#8221; at the company that made the door that fell off a passenger plane flying over Portland the other day. And within about an hour of me posting that video on Twitter, the Spirit AeroSystems employee (or intern) took it down. They know this is absurd. They know it&#8217;s completely incompatible with their mission. All you have to do is expose it, and they fold.
The same thing just happened at Johns Hopkins Medicine. Hopkins&#8217; &#8220;DEI office&#8221; — which exists, for some reason — sent out an <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1745161772057649648" target="_blank" rel="noopener">email</a> to employees alerting them to potential patients who have unearned &#8220;privilege&#8221;. The list includes &#8220;Males, Christians, White People, English-speaking people, Middle or owning class people, Cisgender People, Heterosexuals, and Able-Bodied people,&#8221; among others. I&#8217;ll say that again. Johns Hopkins Medicine believes that &#8220;males, Christians, White people, English-speaking people, Middle or owning class people, cisgender people, heterosexuals, and able-bodied people&#8221; are inherently &#8220;privileged.&#8221; And of course the word &#8220;privilege&#8221; is a very thinly veiled code. What Hopkins is really saying, of course, is that they don&#8217;t like Christians, or whites, or heterosexuals. They&#8217;re not looking at any real markers of privilege. They&#8217;re just indulging their bigotry. That&#8217;s the unmistakable message there.
Keep in mind, this is a hospital and a medical school we&#8217;re talking about. They have the ability to administer treatments that can save people or kill them. Their only job is treating people. They should not be making lists about groups of people who are inherently inferior to other groups of people. This kind of thing is threatening, actually. And they know that. That&#8217;s why, as soon as this was published online by the X account &#8220;End Wokeness,&#8221; Hopkins took their little hit list down. Their DEI office issued a completely insincere apology and scampered away.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Again, this is a pattern. Also yesterday — the same day that Hopkins took down its DEI list, and Spirit took down its TikTok video — Southwest Airlines <a href="https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1745592257254654264?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deleted a post</a> on X about its &#8220;all-female flight crew.&#8221; The post read: &#8220;All female flight crew? Go off, queens!&#8221; But as it turns out, people don&#8217;t care about the gender diversity of their flight crew. They care about competence. They care about not dying. And in no uncertain terms, thousands of people let Southwest know that. So, once again, they erased the post and pretended it never happened.
It&#8217;s easy to take this kind of thing for granted. But just a few years ago, it would have been unheard of. Fauci never would have admitted fault. Neither would Johns Hopkins, as they told us to stay socially distant and wear masks. Neither would the airlines, as they bombarded us with propaganda about the importance of DEI hiring. But now these frauds are being held to account. When they try to lie, like Axios did with their climate alarmists, no one buys it anymore. When they try to push their ham-fisted social engineering, people call them out on it.
What this means is that the rule of the experts is over.
They can&#8217;t tell us to swallow DEI anymore than they can tell us to wear a mask or stand six feet apart. For everyone who cares about competence and public safety, this is the best possible outcome. For bloated DEI bureaucracies, this development marks — at long last — the beginning of the end.

Anthony Fauci Returns To Capitol Hill For House Interview On COVID

The ‘Expert’ Class Is Crumbling Before Our Very Eyes

Airlines

Anthony Fauci

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Johns Hopkins University

Matt Walsh

Readers Pass

A new study released Thursday estimates that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/texas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Texas</a>’ abortion ban resulted in almost 10,000 more babies being born in the state.
Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/4074606-texas-abortion-ban-led-to-almost-10000-additional-live-births/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimated</a> that between April and December 2022, 9,799 more babies were born likely because of the Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion with few exceptions after a fetal heartbeat is detected — usually five to six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual cycle.
“Every baby saved from elective abortion should be celebrated,” Texas Right to Life president John Seago <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/30/texas-abortion-johns-hopkins-study/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> The Texas Tribune. “This new study highlights the significant success of our movement in the last two years, while we look forward to helping the mothers and families of our state care for their children.”
Through statistical modeling and analyzing historical birth data from all 50 states, researchers were able to estimate that 287,289 Texan children would have been born in the nine-month period if the Heartbeat Act was not in place. In that time period, 297,088 babies were actually born, presumably because of the abortion ban.
The Heartbeat Act went into effect in September 2021, before the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, which <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allowed</a> private individuals to sue abortion providers, effectively banning the practice in the state.
The Johns Hopkins study is the <a href="https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/analysis-suggests-2021-texas-abortion-ban-resulted-in-nearly-9800-extra-live-births-in-state-in-year-after-law-went-into-effect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">first</a> to examine how the Texas law impacted the number of births in the state, and it was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
“Although our study doesn&#8217;t detail why these extra births occurred, our findings strongly suggest that a considerable number of pregnant individuals in Texas were unable to overcome barriers to abortion access,” <a href="https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/analysis-suggests-2021-texas-abortion-ban-resulted-in-nearly-9800-extra-live-births-in-state-in-year-after-law-went-into-effect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Dr. Alison Gemmill, one of the study’s lead authors.
An earlier <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2798216#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> released before Dobbs suggested that Texan women were traveling to neighboring states like Oklahoma and Louisiana to get abortions. However, since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, every neighboring state except New Mexico restricted the practice. The authors of the study believe that this may lead to even greater increases in births.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“If, previously, people were able to leave the state to go to a neighboring state to seek an abortion, that’s no longer an option,” Gemmill said. “So it’s possible that we could be seeing even greater increases [in children born] post-Dobbs.”
Earlier this year, the Texas Legislature voted to allocate an additional $20 million per year to the <a href="https://www.hhs.texas.gov/services/health/women-children/alternatives-abortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alternatives to Abortion</a> program, which funds crisis pregnancy centers and nonprofits that offer material support, like car seats and formula, to new parents.

father hand with baby feet

Texas Heartbeat Act Resulted In 10K Additional Babies Born Last Year, Study Suggests

Texas Abortion Ban Resulted In 10K Additional Babies Born Last Year, Study Suggests

Abortion

Heartbeat bill

Social Issues

Texas

U.S.

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/johns-hopkins-university" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Johns Hopkins University</a> pulled its controversial definition of &#8220;lesbian&#8221; after relentless online mockery, but the school&#8217;s website still promotes extremely progressive transgender language.
The prestigious Baltimore research university’s LGBTQ glossary <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230612183338/https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defined</a> a lesbian as “a non-man attracted to non-men.”
“While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label,” the definition adds.
The entire glossary has since been taken down, pending review.
However, Johns Hopkins&#8217; website still links to resources that attempt to destroy gendered language altogether.
The school website has a <a href="https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">section</a> called &#8220;Gender &amp; Sexuality Resources&#8221; under &#8220;Diversity &amp; Inclusion.&#8221;
The &#8220;Gender &amp; Sexuality Resources&#8221; site includes a <a href="https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/intro-trans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">page</a> called &#8220;Introduction to Transgender Identities,&#8221; which includes a section called &#8220;Practicing Inclusion.&#8221;
The &#8220;Practicing Inclusion&#8221; section firmly forbids people from making any reference to a trans-identifying person&#8217;s pre-transition identity.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-36700">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Do not ask transgender people about the names they used before they transitioned,&#8221; the section says.
&#8220;Regardless of how someone identified in the past, use their current pronoun and name,&#8221; the section continues. &#8220;You would not say &#8216;Back then, I knew Julie as Frank. Frank told me that he saw the funniest thing in the library.&#8217; You would say, &#8216;Julie told me a story about how she saw the funniest thing.’”
The &#8220;Practice Inclusion&#8221; <a href="https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/intro-trans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">section</a> also includes resources on how to de-gender various languages.
&#8220;Some languages regularly use grammatical gender for most words, meaning that people come up with creative ways to modify the language,&#8221; the section reads.
The Johns Hopkins website then links to an &#8220;inclusive Spanish&#8221; resource that attempts to reinvent the Spanish language with gender-neutral terms.
&#8220;As you learn Spanish, you&#8217;ve probably noticed that every single noun, pronoun and adjective is either based on, or changes with, gender. And that makes the language rather inflexible when it comes to a fast-developing society around it!&#8221; reads the linked Spanish resource.
&#8220;It only takes one man in a group of a hundred women to make a group masculine! For some people, this is unfair to women. And not to mention non-binary people, who are not even on the map! Inclusive Spanish is a way to avoid all these issues,&#8221; the Spanish resource reads.
The Johns Hopkins website also links to a resource about how to make Mandarin Chinese and French more inclusive.
The &#8220;Values&#8221; <a href="https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">section</a> of the Gender &amp; Sexuality Resources page references the &#8220;systems of oppression&#8221; they are working to resist.
&#8220;We acknowledge that doing work centering gender and sexuality is also necessarily work that aims to resist the oppressive impacts of ableism, antisemitism, classism, colonization, colorism, ethnocentrism, fatphobia, islamophobia, racism, white supremacy, xenophobia, and other intersecting systems of oppression,&#8221; the section reads.
During the &#8220;lesbian&#8221; definition controversy, conservative commentators and gender ideology critics were quick to point out the absurdity in the definition from one of the country’s most distinguished universities.
“Lesbians are now officially squirrels,” The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1668583204347867136" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a>.
“Harry Potter” author J.K Rowling, who has been an outspoken critic of gender ideology in recent years, tweeted her criticism as well.
“Man: no definition needed. Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there’s no man-ness,” Rowling tweeted.
After criticism, the university took down the glossary to review its definitions and replaced it with an explanatory <a href="https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>.
The university said it is working to determine the &#8220;origin and context&#8221; of the glossary definition and has removed the glossary in the meantime.
In recent years, critics have accused transgender activists of erasing women by defining female in reference to male and allowing men into women’s spaces.

Johns Hopkins University Pulled ‘Non-Man’ Lesbian Definition, But Website Still Promotes New Transgender Language

Johns Hopkins University Pulled 'Non-Man' Lesbian Definition, But Website Still Promotes New Transgender Language

Gender

Transgender

Johns Hopkins University has referred to a woman as a &#8220;non-man&#8221; in the school&#8217;s new <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/lgbtq" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LGBTQ</a> glossary, prompting backlash from critics.
The prestigious Baltimore research university&#8217;s LGBTQ glossary <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230612183338/https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defined</a> a lesbian as &#8220;a non-man attracted to non-men.&#8221;
&#8220;While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label,&#8221; the definition adds.
The entire glossary has since been taken down, pending review.
Conservative commentators and gender ideology critics were quick to point out the absurdity in this definition from one of the country&#8217;s most distinguished universities.
&#8220;Lesbians are now officially squirrels,&#8221; The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ben Shapiro <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1668583204347867136" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a>.
&#8220;Harry Potter&#8221; author J.K Rowling, who has been an outspoken critic of gender ideology in recent years, tweeted her criticism as well.
&#8220;Man: no definition needed. Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there&#8217;s no man-ness,&#8221; Rowling wrote in her tweet.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-36700">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Man: no definition needed. Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there&#39;s no man-ness. <a href="https://t.co/cpSaSR2Vfg">pic.twitter.com/cpSaSR2Vfg</a>
&mdash; J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1668589229046112258?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Some critics on social media <a href="https://twitter.com/fjw09080/status/1668650764418314240" target="_blank" rel="noopener">questioned</a> why “gay men” were still referred to as just “men.”
After criticism, the university took down the glossary to review its definitions and replaced it with an explanatory <a href="https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>.
&#8220;Upon becoming aware of the language in question, we have begun working to determine the origin and context of the glossary’s definitions. We have removed the page from our website while we gather more information,&#8221; the university said in its statement.
The glossary was meant to serve only as an &#8220;introduction&#8221; to the range of LGBT identities, not &#8220;as the definitive answers as to how all people understand or use these terms,&#8221; the university said.
&#8220;Johns Hopkins strives to create a campus culture that is inclusive and welcoming for all gender identities, sexual orientations, experiences and viewpoints, and we are committed to ensuring Johns Hopkins is a place where LGBTQ people feel supported,&#8221; the statement said.
In recent years, critics have accused transgender activists of erasing women by defining female in reference to male and allowing men into women&#8217;s spaces.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Paula Neira, who is program director of LGBTQ+ Equity and Education at Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity, was responsible for approving the &#8220;lesbian&#8221; glossary definition.

Coronavirus Pandemic Causes Climate Of Anxiety And Changing Routines In America

Johns Hopkins University Says A Woman Is A ‘Non-Man’ In New Glossary

Johns Hopkins University Says A Woman Is A 'Non-Man' In New Glossary

LGBTQ

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ben Shapiro</a> blasted <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/johns-hopkins-university" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Johns Hopkins University</a> Tuesday for defining a lesbian as a “non-man attracted to non-men,” in an “LGBTQ glossary” posted to its website. 
Amid the backlash, Johns Hopkins removed the glossary, which had been featured as part of the prestigious university’s &#8220;Gender and Sexuality Resources.” Prominent commentators, including Daily Wire co-founder Shapiro, mocked the definition which has also been removed from the website as the university <a href="https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> it gathers “more information.” 
“So if you are a lesbian, you are now a non-man attracted to non-man, which is great because that includes squirrels. Squirrels are now lesbians because they&#8217;re non-men attracted to non-men. Zebras are now lesbians. In fact, the entire animal kingdom is now lesbian,” Shapiro said, reacting to the definition on his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1745-if-no-one-is-above-the-law-when-does-biden-get-investigated-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tuesday podcast</a>. “Slow clap for the geniuses over at Johns Hopkins University, one of the foremost medical institutions in America.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Lesbians are now officially squirrels <a href="https://t.co/wx3htjgPjt">pic.twitter.com/wx3htjgPjt</a>
&mdash; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1668583204347867136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The glossary said that the definition of lesbian had been updated to be more expansive. 
&#8220;While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label,” the definition of &#8220;lesbian&#8221; read. 
During his show, Shapiro also pointed to Daily Wire host Matt Walsh’s documentary, “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What is a Woman?</a>” and said that the medical university had failed to answer one of life’s most important questions. 
“We literally have gone all the way on Matt Walsh&#8217;s “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman">What is Woman?</a>” There is no definition. There&#8217;s no definition of the word woman. It&#8217;s just a non-man,” Shapiro said.  
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Other commentators ripped the university for its definition, accusing the glossary of erasing women. 
“Man: no definition needed. Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there&#8217;s no man-ness,” Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling wrote. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Man: no definition needed. Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there&#39;s no man-ness. <a href="https://t.co/cpSaSR2Vfg">pic.twitter.com/cpSaSR2Vfg</a>
&mdash; J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1668589229046112258?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In response to the backlash, Johns Hopkins announced it would be re-examining the glossary. 
&#8220;The LGBTQ Glossary serves as an introduction to the range of identities and terms that are used within LGBTQ communities, and is not intended to serve as the definitive answers as to how all people understand or use these terms,” the page for the glossary now says. “Upon becoming aware of the language in question, we have begun working to determine the origin and context of the glossary’s definitions. We have removed the page from our website while we gather more information.&#8221;

Gilchrest Hall

‘Squirrels Are Now Lesbians’: Ben Shapiro Mocks Johns Hopkins Over ‘Non-Man’ Definition

Ben Shapiro

Lesbian

Woke Culture

Young men face an elevated risk of heart inflammation after getting <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pfizer-biontech-pressured-twitter-to-censor-activists-demanding-generic-covid-vaccine-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vaccinated for COVID</a>, a virus that poses very little threat to them in the first place, a top medical expert told <a href="https://www.dailywire.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Wire</a> Friday.
Speaking on the “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire">Morning Wire</a>” podcast, Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and an oncology surgeon at the school’s affiliated hospital, noted a recent study from Cedars Sinai found a disturbing 30% increase in heart attack deaths among adults between the ages of 25 and 44 during the first two years of the COVID pandemic. One theory holds that the uptick could be the result of COVID itself, while another places blame on the vaccine. Makary said there is evidence for the latter.
“We did not see the uptake before the vaccine was rolled out, but, young people were primarily affected around that same time as well,” he said. “The state of Florida did their own study, looking at heart attacks after the vaccine in particular, and found that there was an 81% increase in sudden death from heart attacks in the months following the vaccine compared to baseline rates. So many people do believe that the vaccine is one of the causes of heart problems in young people.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire">CLICK TO DOWNLOAD THE LATEST EPISODE OF &#8220;MORNING WIRE&#8221;</a>
Although the federal government and pharmaceutical industry initially downplayed or even denied it, the vaccine has increasingly been linked to myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. Makary said myocarditis appears most prevalent after the second dose of the vaccine. He noted that parts of Europe, unlike the U.S., have discouraged giving the second dose to young, healthy people.
Makary also dispelled what he called a “myth” pushed by the medical establishment that myocarditis is more common after actual COVID infection than after the vaccine, saying the data does not support that claim. In fact, figures show a young male is 28 times more likely to suffer myocarditis after getting the vaccine than after contracting COVID, he said.
According to Makary, all the data suggests it may be a bad idea for young healthy adults, especially males, to get the vaccine. Young males between 16 and 30 have a higher risk of myocarditis than their female peers by a factor of nine to one, he said.
“They have the lowest benefit from a vaccine because they are the lowest risk of any COVID complications,” Makary said. “We still don&#8217;t know if any young, healthy person has ever died of COVID in the United States. The CDC won&#8217;t tell us, and they&#8217;ve never broken the data down by young people who are healthy versus had a comorbidity like leukemia or an immunosuppression condition.”
Doctors still don’t know the long-term effects of the type of myocarditis being associated with the vaccine.
“MRIs of people&#8217;s heart three months after myocarditis from the vaccine found there were still abnormalities on those MRIs, which make people worry in the medical field, that the inflammation may resolve in some kind of scarring. That&#8217;s a general pattern and physiology we see is that after something&#8217;s inflamed, some scar tissue can set in.”
“And the concern is that could affect the conduction of the heart,” he added. “That is the electrical. rhythm and beat of the heart.”

Dr. Marty Makary

COVID Vaccine Brings Higher Heart Risk, Little Benefit To Young Men, Medical Expert Warns

COVID-19 Vaccine

What are parents to do when their gender-conflicted child says it’s either transition or suicide? What are we to make of the stories from individuals who claim that sex-change surgery saved their lives? And how does this line up with the argument that there is no such thing as gender transition and that, in the end, attempts to transition do more harm than good?
Without a doubt, there are children and adults who feel so tormented by their internal gender conflict that they truly believe it’s either transition or suicide. The inner anguish must be intense.
To cite one example, about 10 years ago, I spoke with a Christian man who identified as, and lived as, a woman. As a result, he told me candidly, he destroyed his marriage, rendering his wife a virtual widow and alienating his children.
I asked him, “What about the biblical command to love your wife as yourself and to lay your life down for her? Why didn’t you put her needs first?”
He answered, “It was either transition or suicide.”
To the core of his being, he believed this to be true, and to this day, he is still living as a woman. Others have shared similar stories, claiming that sex-change surgery and hormone treatments saved their lives. At last, they say, they have peace of mind. There are even major surveys that <a href="https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-transgenders-regret-surgery/">claim</a> the vast majority of those who transition do not attempt to go back to their biological sex. Surely, this speaks of success.
Reality, however, is stubborn. Here’s why. 
 
No amount of surgery or hormones can genetically <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170504104342.htm">change</a> a man into a woman, or vice versa. Several <a href="https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence">other studies</a> indicate that the suicide rate for trans-identified people, after surgery, is massively higher than that of comparable peers, and this cannot simply be blamed on societal marginalization. There is more <a href="https://sexchangeregret.com/">sex-change regret</a> than is widely reported, in fact a growing chorus of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/while-other-countries-hit-the-brakes-on-transitioning-children-america-is-hitting-the-gas">disparate voices</a> is speaking out boldly against trying to transition children. The <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gender-dysphoria-in-children/">vast majority</a> of kids who identify as transgender, if left alone to develop and grow, will not identify as such after puberty (this is even <a href="https://www.transgendertrend.com/children-change-minds/">admitted</a> by trans activists). And even in cases of “success,” there is always a better way – unless you believe that mutilating (or removing) perfectly healthy organs and subjecting someone to a lifelong regimen of hormones is the best-case scenario.
According to the Sex Change Regret <a href="https://sexchangeregret.com/">website</a>, “<a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093034">Up to 20% have regrets</a> about their sex change. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth">Sex change procedures are not effective</a>, say researchers.” So, even though many of those who attempt to change their sex through surgery do not express regrets, some do.
Obviously, something is still wrong – terribly wrong – meaning that mutilating or removing healthy body parts and manufacturing new ones does not cure the inner pain and conflict. Otherwise, why the high suicide rates? The pro-transgender community has their <a href="https://genderanalysis.net/2020/06/swedish-study-meet-the-dutch-study-suicide-rates-among-trans-people-are-elevated-but-not-by-20-times/">own response</a> to the topic. 
Some have argued that the reason we don’t hear more reports from people experiencing sex change regret is because they have dropped off the map, not responding to follow-up questions and surveys. In many cases, tragically, this is because they have taken their own lives.
Kellie (“Scott”) Newgent, featured in Matt Walsh’s documentary “What Is a Woman,” told me that she has spoken to hundreds of people who have tried to change their gender. Only a few of them, she claims, are happy today with their decisions. The Left has <a href="https://genderanalysis.net/2016/11/paul-mchugh-and-the-johns-hopkins-gender-clinic-the-perils-of-cherry-picking-more-trans-module-2-1/">a rebuttal</a> to this as well.
As for Kellie herself, who is, in trans terminology, a female-to-male (or, trans man), she deeply regrets her own sexual change efforts, recognizing that no amount of surgeries or drugs can make her into a man. Kellie also pointed to the emotional collapse she experienced about seven years after her transition attempts. At that point, she claims, reality begins to settle in, leading to deep depression, if not worse.
Experiences like Kellie’s are why Dr. Paul McHugh, upon becoming psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1975, <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/11/surgical-sex">decided</a> “to test the claim that men who had undergone sex-change surgery found resolution for their many general psychological problems,” and demanded more information before and after surgery. With the help of a fellow psychiatrist, he “found that most of the patients [his colleague] tracked down some years after their surgery were content with what they had done and that only a few regretted it.”
But that was only part of the story. McHugh noted that “in every other respect, they were little changed in their psychological condition.”
They had many of the same problems with relationships, work and emotions as before. The hope that after transitioning they would emerge from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled.
McHugh explained further, “We saw the results as demonstrating that just as these men enjoyed cross-dressing as women before the operation so they enjoyed cross-living after it. But they were no better in their psychological integration or any easier to live with. With these facts in hand I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”
He continued: “As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their ‘true’ sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.”
In short, McHugh concluded the problem was in the mind, not the member. (His conclusions remain the same to this day, for which he is widely reviled. In his <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/01/psychiatrist-paul-mchugh-transgender-folly-will-collapse-just-as-eugenics-folly-collapsed/">words</a>, he is “absolutely convinced” the transgender movement is “folly and it’s going to collapse, just as the eugenics folly collapsed.”)
As for his views about attempting to transition children, Dr. McHugh stated explicitly in a November 18, 2009, email, “I hold that interfering medically or surgically with the natural development of young people claiming to be ‘transgendered’ is a form of child abuse.”
Tragically, today, there are <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seducing-Daughters/dp/168451228X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=6RY8OEBR9FDR&amp;keywords=irreversible+damage+book+by+abigail+shrier&amp;qid=1654745169&amp;sprefix=irrever%2Caps%2C87&amp;sr=8-1">thousands of children</a> being subjected to this child abuse. How many more Keira Bells do we need to <a href="https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story?s=r">read about</a> before this madness comes to a screeching halt? I do not deny that many of those who have transitioned feel at home in their reconstructed bodies and believe that they are finally whole. And I do not deny that many parents genuinely believe they are helping their children by encouraging their transition.
But, just as we do not give liposuction to an anorexic &#8211; to quote the much-maligned Dr. McHugh again &#8211; and instead seek to address the root of the cause, we should devote our medical, psychological, and spiritual efforts to helping these trans-identified people from the inside out.
Surely, that&#8217;s the compassionate way. 
 
Dr. Michael Brown (<a href="http://www.askdrbrown.org/">www.askdrbrown.org</a>) is the host of the nationally syndicated <a href="http://www.lineoffireradio.com/">Line of Fire</a> radio program. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and is the author of 40 books. Connect with him on<a href="https://www.facebook.com/AskDrBrown"> Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/DrMichaelLBrown">Twitter</a>, or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbINn3x-intLp88Zrf8acpg">YouTube</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers Pass – Brown – Can Sex-Change Surgery Really Save Someone’s Life_16x9

Can Sex-Change Surgery Really Save Someone’s Life?

transgender surgery

It was October 1965 and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIOysM1briU">Arthur King</a> was undergoing treatment for severe alcoholism at the Spring Grove Psychiatric Hospital in Maryland. Nothing seemed to alleviate his urge to drink, so his doctor decided to try something unconventional: he gave him a dose of lysergic acid diethylamide, more commonly known as the psychedelic drug LSD.
About half an hour after taking the drug, King started to experience vivid hallucinations of bright colors and complex geometric shapes. A single rose in a vase in the room seemed to come alive, opening and closing &#8211; even breathing. As King was staring at that rose, his doctor asked him if he felt like drinking. The moment King thought about alcohol, the rose appeared to turn black, whither, and die.
The 14-hour-long session was full of intense emotions, hallucinations, and epiphanies for the young father. He thought of his children and his wife and began to experience feelings of intense love for them. The things that troubled him before and caused him to drink seemed to slide into irrelevance. He realized that he was capable of accomplishing so much more with his life and that alcohol had been holding him back. By the end of the session, King had lost all desire to drink. He was cured of his addiction.
When CBS <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMm3SJeWDxQ">followed up</a> with King nearly three decades after the experiment took place, King was still sober. “I wouldn’t take a million dollars for the peace of mind I obtained from this therapy,” he told the reporters.
The so-called <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309477954_Thirty_Years_of_Psychedelic_Research_The_Spring_Grove_Experiment_and_Its_Sequels">Spring Grove Experiments</a> were part of a revolutionary effort in the 1950s and 60s to explore the therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs &#8211; most notably LSD and psilocybin, the active ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.
Researchers saw astonishing results from treating <a href="http://www.psychonautdocs.com/docs/dyck_hittinghighs.pdf">alcoholism</a>, depression, and a host of other mental illnesses with psychedelics. Many study participants saw more progress from a single “trip” on mushrooms or LSD than they did from years of psychotherapy alone. These mysterious compounds were poised to revolutionize the way we treat mental illnesses.
Then came the hippies.
Eventually, LSD escaped the lab. The head of the Harvard Psilocybin Project, Timothy Leary, began to recklessly <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/23/trip-down-memory-lane/">promote</a> the frequent and widespread use of psychedelics. Leary was eventually forced out of Harvard, but he continued to call on American youth to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/turn-on,-tune-in/10199310#:~:text=Most%20of%20us%20associate%20psychedelic,in%20the%20US%20by%201966">“turn on, tune in, and drop out”</a> with the help of psychedelic drugs.
The widespread improper use of psychedelics, which has been <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269881119827891?journalCode=jopa#:~:text=Psychedelic%20preferring%20users%20had%20significantly,significant%20difference%20in%20Openness%20score">found</a> to cause users to become more open to unconventional ideas, fueled the turbulent counterculture movement of the 1960s. Young psychedelic users began to reject the assumptions that underpinned our society, like the value of the nuclear family structure and the importance of organized religion in public and private life. The social fabric appeared to be tearing, prompting Richard Nixon to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/01/05/575392333/nixons-manhunt-for-the-high-priest-of-lsd-in-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america">call</a> Leary “the most dangerous man in America.” In 1968, LSD and a wide range of other drugs were <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-lsd#:~:text=(The%20U.S.%20federal%20government%20didn,drugs%20on%20the%20students'%20consciousness">outlawed</a> as Schedule I substances, a category of drugs deemed dangerous and with no accepted medical uses.
From that moment on, funding for psychedelic research dried up, and the astonishing benefits documented in previous studies were largely forgotten or ignored.
That’s all changing now. An explosion of research on psychedelics has been taking place over the past two decades, and the findings thus far are even more impressive than what researchers documented half a century ago. In fact, many researchers believe FDA approval for the medical use of certain psychedelic drugs in a <a href="https://www.schatz.senate.gov/news/press-releases/schatz-booker-call-for-more-research-on-therapeutic-potential-of-psychedelic-drugs">clinical setting</a> is just around the corner. 
MDMA, more commonly known as ecstasy, is one of those drugs. Researchers are currently in Phase 3 <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-psychedelic-may-soon-go-to-the-fda-for-approval-to-treat-trauma/">clinical trials</a>, the final step before FDA approval, to test the safety and efficacy of using MDMA to treat PTSD. One recent <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3">study</a> showed that three MDMA doses, in conjunction with 18 weeks of talk therapy, was far more effective at treating PTSD than any other FDA-approved treatment.
In a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02698811211073759">study</a> published earlier this year from Johns Hopkins University, which has been leading the current renaissance in the study of psychedelics, researchers gave psilocybin to patients suffering from long-term moderate to severe depression, along with eight weeks of therapy. 75% of study participants experienced a significant decrease in depression, and 58% saw their depression enter remission. Astonishingly, these results held up one year later without additional psilocybin treatments. Researchers also found that there were no negative side effects associated with the treatment.
Dr. Roland Griffiths, the director at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, <a href="https://maps.org/news-letters/v20n1/v20n1-22to25.pdf">believes</a> the benefits of psychedelics derive in part from the “mystical experience” they can induce. In one <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050654/#:~:text=Even%20at%20the%2014%2Dmonth,indicating%20that%20it%20was%20the">study</a>, 67% of participants rated their experience on psilocybin as among the top five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives.
Interestingly, those who do not have this “mystical experience” during their therapy sessions are far less likely to see relief from depression as those who do. Perhaps this suggests that the benefits of psychedelics are brought on through the experience itself, rather than any biochemical reaction alone. 
If a single “mystical experience” brought on by magic mushrooms can cure long-term depression, as a growing number of studies have found, the implications are nothing short of revolutionary. Rather than being prescribed a daily regime of antidepressants &#8211; which only relieve depression for about <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK361016/#:~:text=Studies%20involving%20adults%20have%20shown,within%20one%20to%20two%20years.">20% of people</a> and can cause a host of <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/ssris/art-20044825">side effects</a>, ranging from weight gain to the loss of sexual desire &#8211; patients may soon be able to experience long-term relief from depression from just one full-blown psychedelic trip in a clinical setting.
Despite the promising results seen by researchers so far, great caution should be used by anyone seeking to treat mental illness with psychedelics. While most conventional psychedelic drugs &#8211; like LSD and magic mushrooms &#8211; are non-toxic, non-addicting, and among the <a href="https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/09/26/psilocybin-scheduling-magic-mushrooms/">safest</a> drugs available (both legal and illegal), they are not without <a href="https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/01/04/bad-trips-mushrooms/">risks</a>. If taken in an improper setting or without the appropriate preparation, psychedelics can elicit a “bad trip,” potentially aggravating any underlying mental health problems or causing new ones to emerge. Since psychedelics alter one’s perception of reality, the experience can also be disorienting, even frightening. As mentioned earlier, psychedelics can also result in a permanent change in personality, significantly increasing a person’s openness to new ideas and experiences. For many, this could be a good thing, but one need only look at the “free love” hippies of yesteryear to see that there is a point of diminishing returns to being open-minded. 
Given the powerful nature of these drugs and their illicit status, prudence demands that psychedelics only be used in a clinical setting under the guidance of trained professionals. It is under those conditions that study participants, like Arthur King, have been able to experience such profound relief from mental illness. 
There is still far more that needs to be learned about psychedelics and how they operate, but as our nation struggles with increasing rates of depression, anxiety, and addiction, psychedelics may end up being the miracle cure our country needs.
The opinions expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers Pass – Garner – How Psychedelics Are Revolutionizing How We Treat Mental Illness_216x9

How Psychedelics Are Revolutionizing The Way We Treat Mental Illness

Drugs

Psychiatry

A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/transgender">transgender</a> professor who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-places-professor-who-defended-minor-attracted-persons-on-leave">resigned from a Virginia university</a> after sparking outrage by complaining that pedophilia is a &#8220;stigmatizing&#8221; term has been hired by prestigious Johns Hopkins University.
Allyn Walker, a former assistant professor at Old Dominion University who is a biological female but identifies as &#8220;non-binary,&#8221; created a firestorm last November by pushing the term &#8220;minor-attracted person&#8221; as an alternative to the &#8220;stigmatizing&#8221; designation of pedophile. Walker, author of a book called “A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity,” resigned after being put on leave, but has now resurfaced at the Baltimore school&#8217;s Moore Center for Prevention of Sexual Abuse.
“We are excited to share that Allyn Walker, PhD, will be joining the Moore Center as a postdoctoral fellow on May 25,” the Moore Center tweeted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We are excited to share that Allyn Walker, PhD, will be joining the Moore Center as a postdoctoral fellow on May 25.
&mdash; Moore Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse (@MooreCenter_JHU) <a href="https://twitter.com/MooreCenter_JHU/status/1524789498369953792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Old Dominion University put Walker on leave last November after an interview Walker gave to the Protasia Foundation to promote the book. In the interview, Walker insisted that the term “minor-attracted persons” was a preferable alternative to pedophile.
“It’s less stigmatizing than other terms like pedophile,” <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/old-dominion-professor-statement-minor-attracted-persons?utm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=news_tab">Walker said</a>. “A lot of people when they hear the term pedophile, they automatically assume that it means a sex offender. And that isn’t true. And it leads to a lot of misconceptions about attractions toward minors.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is Allyn Walker <a href="https://t.co/o59Mm2xGuy">pic.twitter.com/o59Mm2xGuy</a>
&mdash; CarlyYouga (@Kali__Yuga__) <a href="https://twitter.com/Kali__Yuga__/status/1524961447092322304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Days later, Walker, 34, released a <a href="https://www.odu.edu/news/2021/11/old_dominion_univers#.Yn-c_y-B23V">statement</a> through Old Dominion insisting the effort to remove the stigma from adults who want to have sex with children was not a defense of child sex abuse.
&#8220;I want to be clear: child sexual abuse is morally wrong and inexcusable crime,&#8221; Walker said in the statement. &#8220;As an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice, the goal of my research is to prevent crime. My work is informed by my past experience and advocacy as a social worker counseling victims. I embarked on this research in hopes of gaining understanding of a group that, previously, has not been studied in order to identify ways to protect children.&#8221;
But the comments, book, and interview sparked outrage online and on campus, eventually resulting in ODU releasing a statement condemning Walker’s comments and research. Students were sickened by Walker&#8217;s position and the school put Walker on leave in mid-November.
“I want to state in the strongest terms possible that child sexual abuse is morally wrong and has no place in our society,” ODU President Brian Hemphill said in a statement.
Walker resigned shortly afterward.
Johns Hopkins has been historically intertwined with the <a href="https://nursing.jhu.edu/faculty_research/research/opportunities/fuld/documents/cohort-10/JungAmaral_FuldPosterFinal.pdf">transgenderism movement</a> as well as controversial treatment of pedophiles. In the 1960s, the school employed Dr. John Money, a pioneer in sex change research who coined the phrase &#8220;gender identity.&#8221; The school <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-07-03-1992185041-story.html">hosted a clinic</a> run by a Money protégée, Dr. Fred Berlin, that purported to treat child molesters until it was shuttered in 1992 amid criticism over Berlin&#8217;s insistence that therapists should not be compelled to report child molesters to the police.

Allyn Walker

Virginia Trans Prof Accused Of Defending Adult-Child Sex Hired By Johns Hopkins

pedophila

Correction: A previous version of this article referred to the meta-analysis as both a study and a working paper. It is a working paper. Furthermore, the paper was not endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. Pushback against the paper has also been added. 
A new <a href="https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf">working paper</a> from a professor at Johns Hopkins University claims that COVID-19 lockdowns imposed by a variety of governments worldwide had &#8220;little to no effect&#8221; on COVID-19 mortality. The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, was released by the professor who leads the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise and conducted by two other professors from around the world. It also found lockdowns &#8220;imposed enormous economic and social costs&#8221; and are &#8220;ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.&#8221;
According to the working paper released this week, lockdowns were defined &#8220;as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.&#8221;
The paper then narrowed down 18,590 studies to 34 &#8220;&#8216;qualified&#8217; studies after three levels of review.&#8221; From those potential studies, &#8220;24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis,&#8221; used to make their conclusion:
<blockquote>They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. 
More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. 
SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. 
While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded. </blockquote>
The working paper elaborated further, stating that the overall conclusion was &#8220;that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.&#8221;
As the working paper noted, &#8220;a major purpose of lockdowns is to save lives.&#8221;
So did they? The working paper claimed to have answered that question with a resounding &#8220;no&#8221;:
<blockquote>Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?” 
We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none. 
The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. 
However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. 
They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. 
These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.</blockquote>
The working paper was conducted by three professors from Denmark, Sweden, and the United States:
<blockquote>Jonas Herby (herby@cepos.dk) is special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark. His research focuses on law and economics. He holds a master’s degree in economics from University of Copenhagen. 
Lars Jonung (lars.jonung@nek.lu.se) is professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden. He served as chairperson of the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council 2012-13, as research advisor at the European Commission 2000-2010, and as chief economic adviser to Prime Minister Carl Bildt in 1992-94. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles. 
Steve H. Hanke is a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder &amp; Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise. He is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute, a contributor at National Review, a well-known currency reformer, and a currency and commodity trader. Prof. Hanke served on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, has been an adviser to five foreign heads of state and five foreign cabinet ministers, and held a cabinet-level rank in both Lithuania and Montenegro&#8230;</blockquote>
On February 14, <a href="https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claims-johns-hopkins-study-showed-lockdowns-ineffective-reducing-covid-19-mortality-based-working-paper-questionable-methods-fox-news-daily-mail/?fbclid=IwAR0L0Jww5iuWAR4K6xWoksC_LOBWY8iZWlX0cZ62ackbx1-XhOMkWIiAY_0">Science Feedback</a> pushed back on the working paper, saying that experts have pushed back on its methodology. Read the full Science Feedback report <a href="https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claims-johns-hopkins-study-showed-lockdowns-ineffective-reducing-covid-19-mortality-based-working-paper-questionable-methods-fox-news-daily-mail/?fbclid=IwAR0L0Jww5iuWAR4K6xWoksC_LOBWY8iZWlX0cZ62ackbx1-XhOMkWIiAY_0">here</a>. Read the full working paper <a href="https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf">here</a>.
A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to the publisher as Johns Hopkins University’s “Studies in Applied Economics” Institute. It is the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

Lockdown Protest. Netherlands

Working Paper: Lockdowns Had ‘Little To No Effect On COVID-19 Mortality’ But Had ‘Devastating’ Effects On Society

COVID

Lockdowns

Students at Johns Hopkins University are looking at some of the country’s most stringent COVID-19 masking policies when they return for the spring semester on January 24.
Students will be required to wear two masks or one N95 or KN95 mask and participate in mandatory twice-weekly COVID-19 testing. All this despite the fact that the school has a “near universal” vaccination rate, Townhall <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2022/01/19/a-university-will-require-double-masking-despite-near-universal-vaccination-rat-n2602049">reported</a>.
“We will require the use of N95s, KN95s, or a combination of a cloth mask with a surgical mask. A cloth mask alone or a surgical mask alone will no longer meet the university’s mask requirement,” the university wrote in a January 14 <a href="https://covidinfo.jhu.edu/messages-and-announcements/preparing-for-a-covid-safe-spring/">press release</a>. “We will distribute a variety of mask types at numerous locations around the university, on all campuses, beginning next week. Whatever kind of university-approved mask you use, the most important thing is to wear it consistently and properly—with a tight fit and covering both the mouth and the nose.”
The school made this announcement even though it admitted there is a “near universal rate of vaccination within our community” and acknowledged that “the data suggest that omicron is more easily transmissible than other variants of the COVID virus and that it progresses more quickly but typically results in less severe illness and fewer hospitalizations—particularly among those who have been fully vaccinated, including booster doses.”
The school also reminded students about its booster mandate deadline of February 1. After getting a booster shot, students are required to register that they have done so.
Even after getting vaccinated and double masking, students will be tested twice a week whether symptomatic or not to see if they have the coronavirus, the virus that can cause COVID-19.
“In order to catch COVID cases more quickly and reduce the likelihood of outbreaks on campus, we have increased to twice a week our current mandatory testing requirements for undergraduate and graduate students who will be on campus, and we encourage faculty and staff to take advantage of our on-demand asymptomatic testing, which is available at a wide variety of locations across our campuses,” the school said.
Undergraduates who live on campus will also have to take a COVID-19 test upon returning to the school “and to quarantine in their rooms until they receive a negative result.”
The school said it will offer accommodations for those forced to isolate or quarantine and try to maintain in-person instruction as much as possible. The school also said it has “substantially increased our inventory of isolation housing compared to last semester, and we have adjusted our protocols to ensure we are prioritizing its use to house those undergraduates whose living situations put them at most risk of spreading the virus to others.”
The school will continue contact tracing to inform students who may have come in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. In addition, dining facilities will operate as a “grab-and-go service” and “special permission will be required for all nonacademic indoor events of 50 people or more through Feb. 6.” Grab-and-go service will not be offered at events.
The school further noted that fully vaccinated students who are boosted will not be required to quarantine but those who have vaccine exceptions or are not yet boosted will still have to quarantine if told.
.

US-HEALTH-VIRUS

Johns Hopkins To Require Double Masking Even With ‘Near Universal’ Vaccination Rate

Vaccine Mandate

Menu