The point they seem to be making was that they should not have the right to say it’
Massachusetts Institute of Technology students behind flyers and chalkings recently found at the school that included slurs against LGBTQ people were protesting the university’s emerging policies in support of free speech.
The incident came in the wake of a two-month-old MIT faculty resolution that defends freedom of speech and expression — even speech some find “offensive or injurious.”
A Feb. 23 memo from MIT administrators stated flyers posted across campus and some chalking outside a school entrance “contained slurs directly targeting the LBGTQ+ community.”
MIT’s bias response team investigated, the memo added, and determined “the messages were put up by students choosing to use extreme speech to call attention to and protest what they see as the implications of” several new pro-free speech policies and efforts at the school.
BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink has raised the spectre of a “slow rolling crisis” in the US financial system following the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, “with more seizures and shutdowns coming”. In his closely watched letter to investors and chief executives, the founder of the $8.6tn money manager said SVB’s collapse was an example of the “price we’re paying for decades of easy money”. Rapidly rising interest rates were “the first domino to drop” while SVB was an instance of the second, Fink wrote as he warned that other regional banks and investors who rely on leverage could also follow suit. Fink said that swift regulatory action had helped stabilise markets after the biggest bank failure since 2008. But he nonetheless compared recent events to the 1980s savings and loan crisis, when more than 1,000 lenders collapsed.
“We don’t know yet whether the consequences of easy money and regulatory changes will cascade throughout the US regional banking sector (akin to the S&L Crisis) with more seizures and shutdowns coming,” he wrote.
The puberty blockers are ‘not as reversible as we always thought, and they have longer term effects on kids’ growth and development, including making them sterile and quite a number of things affecting their bone growth.’
Dr. Susan BradleyDr. Debra Soh / YouTube
A gender clinic founder and former professor at the University of Toronto recently said that she regrets helping kids “transition,” and acknowledges that most gender-confused kids will grow out of their dysphoria by adulthood.
Dr. Susan Bradley “came out against the popular model of affirming children’s transgender identities and putting them on puberty blockers,” according to an interview published by the Daily Caller. She is the latest medical professional to confirm that transgender drugs and surgeries are dangerous, although she maintains the false idea that someone can switch genders.
She created the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic and led the University of Toronto’s Division of Child Psychiatry.
“Bradley, who is now in her early eighties, expressed regret that the clinic had participated in the administration of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, which she now believes can cement a child’s sense of confusion out of which they would likely otherwise grow,” the Daily Caller reported. “She also expressed concern about the drugs’ side effects.”
“We were wrong,” Bradley said. The puberty blockers are “not as reversible as we always thought, and they have longer term effects on kids’ growth and development, including making them sterile and quite a number of things affecting their bone growth.”
“We thought that it was relatively safe, and endocrinologists said they’re reversible, and that we didn’t have to worry about it,” she further told the Daily Caller “I had this skepticism in the back of my mind all the time that maybe we were actually colluding and not helping them. And I think that’s proven correct in that, once these kids get started at any age on puberty blockers, nearly all of them continue to want to go to cross sex hormones.”
Bradley also “chaired the Subcommittee on Gender Dysphoria for the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official manual of the American Psychiatric Association” and “produced research, along with other clinic doctors, showing that 87.8% of boys referred to their clinic for gender identity issues eventually ‘desisted,’ meaning they stopped believing they were actually girls and came to terms with their sex,” according to the Daily Caller.
This comports with an analysis by endocrinologist Dr. Michael Laidlaw that found puberty blockers generally lead people to more hormones and surgeries, even though “[a majority of] children who experience gender dysphoria but are allowed to go through puberty normally,…do not persist in identifying with the opposite sex.”
She also, based on her research, came to the understanding that most gender-confused patients are actually on the autism spectrum, a position that is backed by evidence.
“These kids are not faring well with the current affirmative approach,” she also said. “I don’t know that any kids actually could, given the capacity of a 10 or 12, or even 14 or 15 year old to understand the complexity of the decision that they’re making on their long term sexual and life function. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Bradley is not the only former insider to testify to the dangers of injecting kids with hormones or severing their reproductive ability.
Recently, a case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital blew the whistle on what she saw as unethical behavior by her former co-workers.
“By the time I departed, I was certain that the way the American medical system is treating these patients is the opposite of the promise we make to ‘do no harm,’” Jamie Reed said. “Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care.” She called the situation she witnessed “morally and medically appalling.”
Bradley’s statements add to body of evidence critical of drugs and surgeries
While establishment medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association push transgender drugs and surgeries, Bradley’s testimony, based on her long academic and medical career, add to the growing body of evidence that disproves the safety and benefits of injecting kids with puberty blockers and removing healthy organs. It is not possible for someone to change his or her gender, but regardless, the evidence continues to show that the drugs and surgeries meant to affirm someone’s gender delusions are not safe and are not beneficial.
For example, two medical boards in Florida recently affirmed that children should not be receiving transgender drugs and surgeries, in line with a meta-analysis conducted by the state’s health department and Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo that questioned the data behind the push to chemically and surgically mutilate kids.
The Florida Department of Health (DOH) Guidance stated:
Based on the currently available evidence, ‘encouraging mastectomy, ovariectomy, uterine extirpation, penile disablement, tracheal shave, the prescription of hormones which are out of line with the genetic make-up of the child, or puberty blockers, are all clinical practices which run an unacceptably high risk of doing harm.
The guidance document pointed to a “a lack of conclusive evidence” for “gender transitioning” and “the potential for long-term, irreversible effects,” and noted that analysis of the benefits of hormonal interventions “show a trend of low-quality evidence, small sample sizes, and medium to high risk of bias.”
The conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) also recently released a set of statements warning against the chemical and surgical mutilation of kids, sometimes called “gender-affirming care.”
The medical professionals said transgender drugs and surgeries are “medically and ethically contraindicated because of a lack of informed consent” and warned of “inherently unknown and unknowable long-term risks, and the consequences of removing normal, healthy organs are irreversible.”
No one can say that Seymour Hersh hasn’t earned his spurs as a reporter of U.S. government and military skulduggery. In 1970 he won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. In 2003 he accurately disputed the Bush Administration falsehoods about its grounds for invading Iraq. In April of 2004 he reported how U.S. military units in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison were torturing and abusing prisoners. Now, at age 85, “Sy” shows no sign of slowing down.
Nevertheless, the Biden Administration vehemently denied Mr. Hersh’s report. Last week, in response to these denials, Mr. Hersh gave a long interview in which he reaffirmed his claim that the Biden Administration is responsible for destroying Russia’s gas pipeline, which supplied Germany with a vast source of affordable, clean-burning energy.
Shortly after the sabotage, former CIA Director John Brennan told CNN that Russia was “the most likely suspect” for sabotaging the pipeline—as though destroying its immensely valuable, strategic asset somehow yielded a greater advantage to Russia than simply shutting it down.
IF Hersh is correct and his protected source is telling the truth, it must surely be one of the whackiest things a U.S. President has ever done. Like Cortez burning his ships when he landed in Mexico in 1519 in order to impress upon his men that there was no turning back from their adventure to conquer the country—Biden (or whoever is pulling his marionette strings) ordered the sabotage in order to reinforce Germany’s commitment to the U.S. proxy war against Russia.
How do the German people feel about an American presidential administration wrecking their industry, high standard of living, and consigning them to paying 400% more to heat their homes?
As Hersh describes it, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is indistinguishable from Biden’s “lapdog.” Why? What has the U.S. done for Germany since reunification in 1990 that has instilled such a feeling of slavish docility in a German chancellor today?
As recently as 2015, America’s blundering wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria caused a major refugee crisis in Europe, and it was Germany that bore most of the cost and responsibility. One wonders why the Germans don’t tell the U.S. government to retreat to Washington to deal with its own, innumerable domestic problems of its own making.
(Natural News) As a crisis of confidence from customers and investors heats up, First Republic bank is getting a lifeline from its rivals.
Some of the biggest banks in the nation have joined forces to help the struggling lender with billions of dollars to boost confidence in the bank and help it meet customer withdrawals.
Some of the big banks that helped put together the lifeline include Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Truist and PNC Financial Services. The lifeline will equal around $30 billion, and the deposits are required to stay at First Republic for a minimum of 120 days.
The banks that are offering the deposits said in a statement: “This action by America’s largest banks reflects their confidence in First Republic and in banks of all sizes, and it demonstrates their overall commitment to helping banks serve their customers and communities.”
“Regional, midsize and small banks are critical to the health and functioning of our financial system,” they added.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg praised the banks’ action, saying in a joint statement that it illustrates the resilience of the nation’s banking system.
Shares of the San Francisco-based bank were halted multiple times for volatility today. After falling more than 30 percent earlier in the day, shares went up 22 percent by the afternoon.
The problems the bank is facing are part of ongoing worries about the future of the banking system following the collapse of Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank in the last few days. Silicon Valley Bank, which was the country’s 16th biggest bank, failed on Friday in the biggest American bank failure since the financial crisis of 2008. Yesterday, S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings downgraded their credit rating for First Republic bank in the wake of concerns that depositors may pull their money from the bank.
First Republic has a large share of uninsured deposits
First Republic is one of several regional banks that has a large amount of uninsured deposits; the FDIC only insures deposits up to $250,000. Part of the reason that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank was so monumental was the fact that 94 percent of its deposits were uninsured. Although First Republic’s percentage of uninsured deposits is not quite as high, it is still a cause for concern at 68 percent.
Worries about a repeat of what happened to Silicon Valley Bank prompted many First Republic customers to pull their money and move it to bigger banks, which meant the bank needed to sell assets or borrow money in order to give customers their cash deposits. This happened despite the lender reassuring customers it had arranged $70 billion in new financing from J.P. Morgan Chase and the Federal Reserve. It also announced it was eligible to receive further funding from the Fed should it experience a sharp demand for withdrawals, in addition to noting that its balance sheet was solid and depositors were safe. However, none of this was enough to calm jittery investors.
Banks normally use part of their customers’ deposits for providing loans to other customers. However, S&P Global reports that First Republic has an exceptionally high liability-to-deposit ratio of 111 percent. This indicates that the bank has loaned out significantly more money than it holds in deposits from its customers.
First Republic bank generally caters to higher-end clients and businesses, and it offers residential real estate loans and wealth management. At the end of December, it reported assets exceeding more than $212 billion.
