Tag Archives: criticizes

Federal Report Criticizes Adolescent Gender Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday, federal health authorities released a report stating there is no scientific basis for administering hormones or surgical interventions to young individuals experiencing gender dysphoria. This marks a significant shift from prior agency guidelines and the recommendations made by various US health organizations, highlighting concerns surrounding potential long-term harm.

The report emphasizes the importance of psychotherapy, which has sparked considerable debate, as some proponents equate it with conversion therapy aimed at altering gender identity.

Certain sections of the review appeared to challenge the very notion of a gender identity that diverges from one’s sex assigned at birth.

In January, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Amputations,” directing the Department of Health and Human Services to compile a report within 90 days on optimal treatment approaches for youth indicating a disconnect between their gender identity and their birth sex.

The executive order suggested that the administration had already drawn its conclusions about gender transition treatments for minors, denouncing the “blatant harm done to children” as a “stain on our country’s history.”

The report, spanning 400 pages, adopted a calmer tone yet arrived at a similar verdict. Notably, the report’s author remains unidentified as the post-publication review process is set to commence in “the coming days.”

Officials at HHS declined to comment on the review process, noting contributors included a diverse group of physicians, medical ethicists, and methodologists selected for their commitment to scientific integrity.

Importantly, the report clarified that it is not designed to establish standards for healthcare or formulate policy recommendations.

The findings were primarily based on analyses of scientific studies regarding adolescent blockers, hormone treatments, and surgical interventions conducted over the past few decades as these therapies became accessible to adolescents.

The assessment concluded that while the advantages of medical interventions remain unclear, potential harms, including erosion of birth rates, are deemed less substantial.

“Clinical practice in this area is exceptional and concerning,” the report asserts, pointing to American medical groups that advocate for an intolerant atmosphere where clinicians may feel compelled to self-censor.

The appropriateness of treatments such as adolescent blockers, hormone therapy, or surgery for young individuals remains a subject of vigorous debate.

Recently, several European nations have imposed restrictions on such treatments, with scientific reviews and discussions highlighting the insufficient quality of supporting evidence and uncertainties about long-term risks.

In the United States, 24 states have enacted legislation preventing doctors from offering such treatments to adolescents.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is conducting its own evidence review. The Academy and most significant medical organizations in the US continue to support these treatments as effective in relieving the psychological distress many transgender youth experience.

“This report misrepresents the prevailing healthcare consensus and fails to represent the realities of pediatric care,” stated Dr. Susan Cresley, chair of the Academy. “This document favors opinions over a rational examination of evidence.”

Advocates for transgender rights criticized the report for presenting ideological views disguised as scientific.

During Trump’s initial 100 days in office, his administration aimed to downplay transgender identities in public forums. The measures included cutting funding for hospitals that provide gender transition treatments to individuals under 19 and contemplating barring transgender individuals from military service.

The administration facilitated the transfer of transgender men and women from federal prisons to their homes and ceased recognizing the gender of transgender individuals on their passports.

“Is the administration’s animosity towards this healthcare grounded in genuine scientific insights or ideologically motivated by its disapproval of transgender individuals believing that transgender identity is fabricated?” questioned Shannon Minter, director of legal affairs at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The Center represents transgender plaintiffs in multiple lawsuits contesting the administration’s policies’ constitutionality.

“This is an ideological declaration, not a medical one,” stated Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project, an organization focused on suicide prevention among LGBTQ youth.

This report signifies a triumph for individuals who categorize this medical field within a broader agenda to deny the reality of biological gender.

Roger Severino, vice president of domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, commended the HHS report while condemning “profit-driven physicians and ideological groups” for convincing families that “children’s sex aligns with everything they profess.”

According to government statistics, around 3% of high school students identify as transgender, a significant surge over the last decade. However, a much smaller percentage of these adolescents seek medical interventions.

Despite this, the topic of medical transition for minors has turned into a political battleground, with Trump making it a focal point of his campaign while some Democrats believe this strategy may aid his electoral prospects.

The new HHS report extends beyond similar assessments in Europe, which have initiated new limitations on gender-related treatments for adolescents.

Independent Clinical Services Reviews for UK youth reached a comparable conclusion, led by Dr. Hillary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Pediatrics. It noted the insufficient quality of evidence supporting the use of adolescent blockers and hormone treatments for minors, with surgery being unavailable to minors in the UK.

However, this review, conducted over four years, painted a broader picture of the medical landscape by consulting young patients, transgender adults, parents, and clinicians.

Dr. Kass concluded that evidence regarding the benefits and risks associated with treatment is “significantly weak,” but acknowledged that some young individuals are very likely to benefit from early interventions.

“Certain young people will undoubtedly reap the benefits of the medical pathway. As research evolves, we need to ensure that those individuals can access care under research protocols, but we mustn’t assume this is the right path for everyone,” Dr. Cass expressed in an interview last year.

This review concluded that the use of blockers in England should be restricted and that clinicians are encouraged to prescribe hormones to teenagers only with “extreme caution.”

Other clinicians who have expressed concern about the field of adolescent gender medicine are unclear about how the new report will be applied.

“We are pleased that in recent years US authorities are finally considering what is happening in Europe,” remarked Erica Anderson, a child psychologist and former president of the American Transgender Health Association.

She is outspoken about her concerns that adolescent gender clinics are shifting away from thorough mental health evaluations in light of the growing number of children seeking gender treatment.

However, Dr. Anderson supports the need for early intervention for certain young people, despite the inflammatory presidential order leading to the report.

“It’s akin to calling someone out on their rank and then expecting to engage in a meaningful conversation,” she stated. “This approach doesn’t work well with real individuals, who possess emotions and histories.”

Minter from the National Center for Lesbian Rights argued that by emphasizing psychotherapy over medical interventions, the HHS report effectively endorses conversion therapy aimed at altering minors’ gender identity or sexual orientation.

Various medical associations support prohibiting the practice, citing evidence that it leads to depression, anxiety, and feelings of self-loathing.

However, the Supreme Court has agreed to review a First Amendment challenge concerning Colorado’s conversion therapy regulations, initiated by a licensed professional counselor who contends that “individuals prosper when they align with God’s design, including their biological sex.”

Other therapists, including Dr. Anderson, advocate for what they term “exploratory therapy” which assists supportive clinicians in addressing mental health challenges related to adolescents’ gender identity.

Kellan Baker, a researcher focusing on transgender health policies at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit health center, remarked that the report signifies a divergence from customary health policy development in the US.

“It’s crucial that healthcare is administered by individuals with specialized knowledge, not dictated by the federal government, but by skilled clinicians operating according to the standards set by their respective healthcare fields,” Dr. Baker stated.

He voiced concerns that the report could be utilized by the government as a pretext for denying medical coverage for transgender youth.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of HHS, issued a letter last month directing Medicaid agencies to refrain from using funds for gender transition care for minors.

Attorney General Pam Bondy instructed the Department of Justice to investigate doctors who provide such care, stating, “This document does not represent standard care and will likely be cited by the government as grounds for denying medical care coverage for transgender youth.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

RFK Jr. criticizes FDA for banning alternative remedies and condemns drug industry’s influence

Posted on by
Reply

In a speech aired on the Food and Drug Administration’s Maryland campus Friday morning, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. introduced himself as the country’s health secretary in a mean speech that touched on everything from the raptors of Lake Erie to the CIA.

Kennedy told agency staff in an effort to boldly avoid the impulse to protect the companies they regulate amid the pain of losing 20% ​​of the workforce under an overhaul of the health and human services sector.

Layoffs, voluntary departures and cuts in funding have already stopped the sectors controlling tobacco surveillance, drug approval processes, testing bird milk and bird flu cheeses, and food safety, which monitors and protects consumers from foodborne diseases.

In his remarks Friday, Kennedy suggested that the agency did not approve “alternative drugs” because of its subordination to wealthy businesses. Agent veterans argue that alternative products often fail to pass safety and efficacy standards.

He previously accused the FDA of suppressing raw milk, ivermectin and stem cell therapy.

He urged staff to resist the temptation to serve small groups of wealthy businesses at the expense of public health.

“We want to break away from it so that we can make our children healthy,” he said, according to a transcript of the speech shared with the New York Times. At another point, he said, “The deep nation is the real thing.” This is a light-journal reference to the vast federal bureaucracy that President Trump accused of as an obstacle to achieving his goals in his first term.

Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Kennedy’s remarks.

Kennedy also calls the FDA “sock dolls.” He used it in the past. Dynamics rewards “a very powerful incumbent in the industry,” he said at another time.

Drugmakers have benefited from a series of efforts by the FDA to speed up specific drug approvals and encourage businesses to develop drugs for serious illnesses that lack treatment. An FDA official said the program is intended to help patients.

The FDA has faced criticism over the past few years for several well-known drug approvals. For example, when granting approval for Alzheimer’s and Duchenne muscular dystrophy products, the top officials rejected the agency’s scientist or advisor.

Kennedy urged FDA employees to speak up if their boss greenlights products with insufficient evidence. “If your boss is making a mistake, if they approve something that shouldn’t be approved, we want to hear,” he said.

New FDA committee member Dr. Marty McCurry introduced Kennedy at a meeting Friday, supporting the goal of shaping healthier food supplies. He admitted that for some staff, cutting at the agency is “struggling with the ground.” He said the change was “to be integrated, more efficient and create more teamwork.”

Kennedy and Dr. McCurry were broadcast on video that aired on the agency White Oak campus outside Maryland.

Kennedy visited her father, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, at Washington’s Department of Justice, and recalls her child watching the Peregrine Falcons nest in the cupola of an old post office building. He also discussed his experiences at the Special Olympics, where he played the role of “Hugger” and coaching, playing the battles he played as an environmental lawyer.

Kennedy also complained about the rules governing the agency’s food department, which allow businesses to recognize that they can generally be recognized as being safe. This scale initially covered ingredients such as salt and vinegar to be acceptable in food without review. However, since then, thousands of ingredients have been added to the food supply without notice or testing by agents.

Food companies must provide a review of the materials to the FDA inspector on the premises, but such inspections can be performed once every five years. Kennedy is calling for an end to allow food companies to self-certify that the ingredients are safe.

“We literally don’t test chemicals before they’re added to food,” he said, according to the transcript. “Everything is engraved by the industry, as is generally perceived as safe.”

He went on to attribute the country’s diabetes rate to a loophole, adding that sugar also plays a role.

The speech was reminiscent of a social media message Kennedy posted in October, accusing the FDA of “a war with public health.” He said he is engaged in a “active suppression” of a series of unproven or unsafe products, including raw milk, chelate compounds, ivermectin, and “others that advance human health and cannot be patented by pharma.”

Here’s the post: “If you’re working for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, you have two messages.

The agency is still shaking from thousands of job openings and voluntary deviations in the weeks since Kennedy was appointed health secretary. FDA employees who left in recent weeks include staff looking for drugs for byproducts that could cause cancer, and others working with international food safety staff to stop contaminated products from entering the United States.

The cuts in some regions are so deep that former FDA officials have suggested that the pharmaceutical industry could endanger billions of dollars to pay agents to ensure that the drug approval process is properly staffed.

Drugmakers are worried about what Kennedy’s leadership means for their benefit. They are worried that agency cuts will slow down drug reviews, including starting clinical trials, and will add a delay to final approval.

Public letter Dozens of biotech investors and executives have signed the signing, and industry leaders say they are “deeply concerned about the current state of the agency and its future.”

“Some of us have already encountered regulatory challenges that the FDA considers to be the result of the loss of experienced staff,” the letter states.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump criticizes Biden for strengthening US cyber defenses against Russian and Chinese threats

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration is taking final steps to strengthen U.S. cyber defenses against increasing threats from China and Russia. They will address vulnerabilities across various sectors, including space and consumer electronics, just days before the administration changes hands. An extensive cybersecurity executive order has been issued as part of this effort.

This directive is expected to be the administration’s last major policy initiative before President Donald Trump takes over. The order aims to combat cyberattacks that have cost the country billions of dollars and caused significant damage to government offices.

A senior administration official stated, “The objective is to make hacking by China, Russia, Iran, and ransomware criminals more challenging and costly, demonstrating that the United States is committed to safeguarding our companies and citizens.” The order follows recent China-linked cyberattacks, including a breach of the U.S. Treasury and communication systems.

Key provisions of the order include the implementation of end-to-end encryption for email and video communications, as well as new requirements for AI-powered cyber defense systems and quantum computing safeguards. It also expands the authority of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to detect threats across federal networks.

The order mandates that by 2027, federal agencies must only purchase internet-connected devices carrying the “Cybertrust Mark,” encouraging manufacturers to enhance security standards for products like baby monitors and home security systems. Additionally, stronger cybersecurity measures for space systems are called for in response to Russia’s targeting of Ukrainian satellite communications.

Amid uncertainties about the order’s longevity, Vice National Security Adviser Ann Neuberger, who led the initiative, plans to resign on January 17th, with the incoming Trump administration’s cyber team yet to be named. The order sets 53 deadlines for government agencies, ranging from 30 days to three years.

Despite the transition, administration officials remain hopeful about the order’s impact, describing it as an urgent response to a growing threat. The official stated, “Enhancing the defensibility of our national infrastructure and strengthening our ability to counter cyber attackers are bipartisan goals.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Labor MP criticizes Westminster’s dependence on Elon Musk’s X as ‘wholly incorrect’

Posted on by
Reply

A close friend of Keir Starmer suggests that Westminster needs to distance itself from X, alleging that Elon Musk is purposely manipulating algorithms to further his own political and personal agenda. He implied that this might be the case.

Josh Symonds, Member of Parliament for Makerfield and former director of the pro-Starmerite think tank Labor Together, argues that Britain’s political elite is dangerously reliant on the platform formerly known as Twitter. He expressed his belief in it. Symonds maintains an active X profile but is cautious not to “overuse” it.

His remarks mirror the growing unease among Labour MPs regarding the impact of X following the summer riots, during which misinformation rapidly circulated on the platform. This situation also risks escalating tensions between the government and the company, with Musk persistently criticizing Starmer for his handling of the violence.


Congressman Josh Simmons Photo: Roger Harris/British Parliament

Simons, a tech expert who authored a book on artificial intelligence, conveyed in an interview with The Guardian: That’s all. Particularly because I hardly ever endorse anything he says and I really don’t want to see it, even though I encounter him frequently.

“I even mentioned, ‘Don’t show me any more,’ yet he’s constantly present. And that certainty – despite the disapproval from the company’s founders and owners. You’ll notice additional individuals in the algorithm – [of] Something happening.”

He added, “The notion that individuals in the Westminster bubble are acquainted through a ranking system devised by someone who has dedicated his life to supporting Donald Trump is entirely, unequivocally wrong and detrimental to British democracy. I believe it’s harmful,” he continued. “I think it’s short-sighted for us all.”

X did not respond to requests for comments

The relationship between the government and social media platforms has been strained since the summer riots, with experts contending that online misinformation about the perpetrator who killed three children in Southport incited the disturbances.

As the violence intensified, Musk repeatedly posted about the unrest, sharing a video of the riots in Liverpool with the caption: “Civil war is inevitable.” Downing Street publicly rebuked these comments, labeling them as “unjustified,” to which Musk retaliated with a flurry of enraged posts.

X’s owners recently revived their criticism of the Labour government after being excluded from an international investment summit on Monday. “I don’t reckon anyone should visit the UK when they release a convicted pedophile. [sic] For imprisoning individuals based on their social media postings,” he posted, apparently alluding to the government’s early release initiative.

Numerous Labour MPs have opted out of X and instead established profiles on competing platforms such as Bluesky.

Simons, formerly involved in Meta’s AI program and presently campaigning for a seat on the Commons Technology Select Committee, opines that the new cohort of MPs are more skeptical of platforms than their predecessors, he asserts.

“The landscape is evolving quite fundamentally,” the 31-year-old remarked. “In reality, I believe there’s a generation that doesn’t necessarily imply they won’t utilize it at all, particularly since it offers us another avenue to attract attention.”

He also contends that the discourse surrounding AI has been predominantly shaped by older politicians who did not grow up in a tech-immersed environment like his generation did. He suggests that such individuals are frequently overly optimistic or pessimistic about how technology will revolutionize government operations.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and ex-Conservative Party leader William Hague are among the most vocal proponents of broad AI integration in the public sector. Former Chancellor Rishi Sunak also conveyed optimism about the potential but cautioned about the “existential risks” to humanity.

“There’s a generation,” Simons remarked, “[that] didn’t grow up alongside data and technology, and they harbor simplistic, reductionist, and often utopian or apocalyptic notions about how technology will impact the nation’s future, public services, and economy.”

“AI frequently hinders delving deeper into the technology to better comprehend its policy and political implications.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

NASA Inspector General Criticizes Boeing’s Quality Control With Scathing Review

Posted on by
Reply

Many of the deficiencies identified in the report were not addressed.

Boeing’s response processes for past defects have been ineffective, and the company has not been responsive in taking corrective action for recurring quality control issues,” the company stated.

When asked for comment, a Boeing representative directed NBC News to NASA.

In a written response included in the report, Katherine Corner, deputy administrator for NASA Headquarters’ Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, emphasized NASA’s commitment to the highest technical and programmatic standards.

NASA is dedicated to ensuring that its personnel and contractors are qualified, well-trained, and prioritize mission safety,” Corner expressed.

The report suggested various recommendations, such as imposing financial penalties on Boeing for not meeting quality control standards. However, NASA opted not to levy any financial penalties.

The Space Launch System, standing at 322 feet tall, along with the Orion spacecraft, aims to launch astronauts to the moon to establish a base on its surface.

NASA successfully conducted an uncrewed test flight of the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft in 2022 (Artemis I mission). The following year, four astronauts are scheduled for a crewed flight around the moon (Artemis II mission).

Aside from the first-generation SLS rocket, NASA is also working on a more powerful model capable of carrying more cargo to the moon, led by Boeing as the prime contractor for the enhanced upper stage, known as the Space Launch System Block 1B, with work commencing in 2014.

Originally, an improved rocket system was planned to transport Artemis 2 astronauts into lunar orbit, but this timeline adjustment delayed development and raised costs, as stated by the inspector general.

According to a new report, the Block 1B version of the SLS could potentially cost up to $5.7 billion per launch.

This assessment marks a setback for NASA’s lunar return program, plagued by delays and budget overruns. Over the span of more than a decade, the agency has invested over $42 billion in the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft.

Last year, NASA’s inspector general estimated each Artemis launch to cost $4.2 billion.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Elon Musk criticizes OpenAI for prioritizing profit over humanity

Posted on by
Reply

Elon Musk is suing OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman for prioritizing profit over humanity’s interests, contrary to its core mission.

As the wealthiest individual globally and a founding director of the AI company behind ChatGPT, Musk alleges that Altman violated OpenAI’s founding covenant by striking an investment deal with Microsoft.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, accuses OpenAI of prioritizing profit over human well-being by shifting its focus to developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) for commercial gain rather than humanitarian purposes.

Musk claims that OpenAI has essentially become a subsidiary of Microsoft, the world’s largest tech company, under new leadership, diverting from its original principles outlined in the founding agreement.

The lawsuit raises concerns about AGI posing a significant threat to humanity, particularly if it falls into profit-driven companies’ hands, like Google.

Originally founded to be a nonprofit, open-source organization working for the greater good, OpenAI’s alleged transition to a profit-centric entity under Microsoft’s influence has prompted Musk to take legal action.

The lawsuit contends that the development of OpenAI’s GPT-4 model, shrouded in secrecy, deviates from their initial mission and breaches contractual obligations.

Musk, who played a significant role in establishing OpenAI but exited in 2018, claims that the company’s recent actions concerning AGI technology are in direct conflict with its intended purpose.

The lawsuit aims to compel OpenAI to adhere to its original mission of developing AGI for humanity’s benefit, not for personal gain or for tech giants like Microsoft.

The deal between OpenAI and Microsoft is now facing scrutiny from competition authorities in various regions, including the US, EU, and UK.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Epic Games CEO Criticizes Google’s $700 Million Settlement with US States as Unjust to Android Users

Posted on by
Reply

Google agreed to pay $700 million and allow more competition within the Android app store as part of a settlement with all 50 states and millions of U.S. consumers, but Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney denounced the deal as “unfair to all Android users and developers.” ”

The exact terms of the settlement, first reached in September, were announced just days after Google was handed a major legal defeat in a related lawsuit with Epic Games, best known as the maker of Fortnite.

As part of the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge James Donato is expected to order sweeping changes that could upend Google’s lucrative app store.

In its settlement with states, Google targeted consumers who may have overpaid for apps as a result of Google’s practices, according to terms detailed in documents filed Monday in San Francisco federal court. It plans to contribute $630 million to the settlement fund.

This equates to just $6 per person when divided evenly among 102 eligible U.S. consumers.

All eligible consumers will receive a minimum of $2. The state said at least 70% of consumers should automatically receive their share of the settlement.

The remaining $70 million will be earmarked for the state to use to cover various fines and legal costs.

Google will pay $700 million as part of the settlement. SOPA Image/LightRocket (via Getty Images)

Google also agreed to a series of time-bound changes to its app store practices.

This includes allowing developers to use other in-app purchase systems for the next five years, dialing back the use of so-called “horror screens” when Android users try to use competing app stores (but This includes making it easier for users to use it. Download apps directly from developers.

A coalition of state attorneys general says Google’s dominance in the Android software market – taking up to 30% fees from big developers in the Play Store – has resulted in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers. He claimed to be inviting.

Epic used the same argument in its successful battle with the company.

In a series of scathing tweets, Sweeney criticized the states that accepted the deal.

“The settlement with the state attorney general is unfair to all Android users and developers,” he wrote, adding that the settlement was “intentionally designed by Google to disadvantage competing stores and direct downloads.” It supports a misleading, anti-competitive and scary screen.”

“Previous U.S. lawsuits have made a strong case for $10.5 billion in damages, as well as a 30% fee that Google wrongly collected,” Sweeney added. “I think they would have been satisfied if they had continued to fight for a few more weeks until they won a resounding victory in court. It was a disappointing outcome.”

Pictured is Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney. Getty Images

The terms of the settlement could not be disclosed until the end of the separate Google v. Epic case. Epic was particularly opposed to the settlement when it was first announced in September.

The settlement still needs formal approval from Donato, who presided over each state’s case, before it becomes effective.

During the trial, Donato accused Google of “disturbing” efforts to delete employee chat logs it was ordered to keep.

Luther Rowe, an antitrust watchdog and longtime Google adversary, said: described the settlement as a “scandal” That could derail another major antitrust battle, the Justice Department’s landmark case targeting Google’s online search business.

“Not only was the fine an order of magnitude larger than it should have been, but[RI AG]won a $250 million settlement in 2012 with Company G, which didn’t even split with anyone for not blinking. (remember), the fine was lowered in mid-2012. The US v. G case was designed to make it seem as though it was unreasonable for the Department of Justice and the state in the case to bring it to the finish line. It seems as if the

Elsewhere, Wilson White, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, said he was “pleased” to resolve the dispute with the state and that efforts to challenge the Epic lawsuit verdict were still “not over.” ‘ he claimed.

Google suffered a huge loss in its recent battle with Epic Games. AP

“We are pleased to be able to reach an agreement on that basis and to advance Android and Google Play for the benefit of millions of developers and billions of people around the world. We look forward to making these improvements that will help.” White said in a blog post..

Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb was among those touting the settlement as a victory for consumers.

“For too long, Google’s anticompetitive practices in app distribution have deprived Android users of choice and forced them to pay artificially high prices,” Schwalb said in a statement.

with post wire

Source: nypost.com