A new study from a Los Angeles hospital pushes for injecting men with the female sex hormone progesterone to treat COVID-19.
The trial, carried out by pulmonologist Sara Ghandehari of the Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles, recruited 40 male patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“As an ICU doctor, I was struck by the gender disparity among COVID-19 patients who were very sick, remained in the hospital, and needed ventilators,” she emphasized.
“One group acted as a control sample, for comparison, and received only the standard medical care given at that time for the disease. The experimental group, meanwhile, also received 100-milligram injections of progesterone twice daily for five days during the time they were hospitalized. All the patients were assessed by the team daily for either 15 days or until they were discharged from hospital,” a summary notes.
“While our findings are encouraging for the potential of using progesterone to treat men with COVID-19, our study had significant limitations,” noted Dr. Ghandehari.
She explained how the sample size was relatively small and composed primarily of “White, Hispanic and obese individuals with a moderate burden of other conditions, which serve to increase the risk of worse outcomes.”
“Furthermore, while the trial was randomized and featured a control group, it was also unblinded — meaning that the research team, physicians, and patients all knew who had received the experimental treatment,” The Daily Mail added.
Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, recorded a temperature as low as -18 degrees Celsius (nearly zero degrees Fahrenheit) in the early morning. A two-day high-level talk between the United States and China has just ended in this frigid place. The high pitch of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “wolf warriors” howl and the weak U.S. response, in contrast, are really worrying.
In short, the U.S. side fell into four traps set ingeniously by the CCP during the talks.
First, the holding of high-level talks between the United States and China is itself a CCP trap.
After Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, Anthony Blinken, the U.S. secretary of state spoke with Yang Jiechi, member of the CCP’s Politburo, and President Joe Biden spoke with CCP leader Xi Jinping. Judging from their public statements, each side took a different tone. In fact, as far as the current state of U.S.-China relations is concerned, it is the CCP that has begged the United States to stop the decoupling and sanction. Without substantial proposals (or concessions) from the communist regime, there would be no need for the United States to hold the meeting at all. Before the U.S. administration had any clear policy toward the CCP, it actually “invited” the CCP to come to the talks, falling into the “dialogue trap” set up by the CCP.
In a press conference afterwards, senior Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi said the China-U.S. talks were candid, constructive, and beneficial. “But, of course, there are still differences between the two sides,” he said.
“We came to the meeting with the hope that the two sides could enhance communication and dialogue on different fronts. The two sides should follow the policy of ‘no conflict’ to guide our path toward a healthy and stable trajectory moving forward,” he said.
Secondly, Yang Jiechi broke diplomatic protocol by speaking for 16 minutes, which was eight times longer than usual, and his speech was obviously scripted. In particular, Yang said in his speech, “I don’t think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognize the universal values advocated by the United States or that the viewpoint of the United States could represent international public opinion.” This is a clear indication that in the future the CCP will no longer abide by the rules set by the United States.
This is a very serious provocation. U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn told The Epoch Times in an email: “Just as the Chinese delegation refused to comply with the agreed-upon rules of the meeting, Beijing refuses to comply with the rules-based international order.”
The U.S. side, however, sat there obediently and listened to the end. American conservative commentator Jack Posobiec tweeted: “The obvious move would be for Blinken and Sullivan to stand up for the U.S. and kick out the CCP delegation after being disrespected. But they aren’t. They’re going back tomorrow to lose even more face. Hard to say how they could be any worse at this.”
Thirdly, Yang Jiechi drew a “red line” for the U.S. side, not the other way around.
According to a report from Nikkei Asia, Yang said, first of all, that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.”
Yang added that the CCP’s “leadership and China’s political system are supported wholeheartedly by the Chinese people, and any attempt to change China’s social system will be futile,” according to a March 19 press release on the website of the CCP’s embassy in the United States.
Another point Yang made in his long speech was a series of security and human rights issues the U.S. had raised with the Chinese side, including the CCP’s persecution of Uyghurs, its crackdown on Hong Kong, its economic coercion of allies, its cyberattacks on the United States, and its acts of aggression against Taiwan. Yang declared these are all China’s internal affairs and that the communist regime “firmly opposes U.S. interference.” According to Yang, “What the United States should do is to … mind its own business … rather than making irresponsible remarks about China’s human rights and democracy.”
To sum up Yang Jiechi’s meaning in a sentence, it is what he said in his opening remarks that “there is no way to strangle China.” This implies that the CCP is not afraid to confront the United States and uses the confrontation as a means to deter the U.S. side from retreating without a fight.
The fourth trap lies in the U.S. side’s intention to seek cooperation with the CCP, even when facing such fierce confrontation. After the talks, Blinken spoke at a press conference about very specific areas where the United States and China could cooperate.
“But we were also able to have a very candid conversation over these many hours on an expansive agenda. On Iran, on North Korea, on Afghanistan, on climate, our interests intersect,” he said.
This is due to the fact that many on the left believe white supremacy to be a powerful, influential force in the American society of today.
These leftists don’t require, or even look for, proof to support this theory, however. Instead, they often immediately cry “racism” whenever a tragedy occurs, often before all of the facts are out.
This most recent case is a perfect example of this, especially considering recent reports indicate the shooter wasn’t even motivated by race.
While authorities have asserted they cannot yet make an official determination of motive, the suspect — Robert Aaron Long, 21 — who confessed to the shooting, cited his sex addiction as his motivation.
Jordan Peterson occupies a unique place in the cultural sphere. Grounded in the small Alberta town of his upbringing, the University of Toronto professor of clinical psychology has been elevated to the status of Canada’s foremost public intellectual.
An almost mythic figure to some, Peterson is a pariah to others. For those who worship at the altar of woke ideology, he represents an existential threat. In one example, after Random House announced it would publish Peterson’s latest book “Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life,” it had to contend with the outrage of multiple staff members.
This is nothing new to Peterson. Since he arrived on the scene through a series of YouTube videos exposing the problems with Bill C-16, the Liberal government’s gender identity rights legislation, he has been a lightning rod for criticism.
But Peterson has proven himself a force to be reckoned with, selling out lecture halls across the world and calmly dismantling the arguments of conceited journalists along the way. He has engaged in robust debate with the likes of American liberal podcast host Sam Harris and Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, while sounding the alarm about the influence of Marxist thought on campuses and in corporations.
Last year, his meteoric rise was derailed by a devastating descent into prescription drug addiction, illness, and depression. Just as quickly as he rose to prominence he disappeared from the public eye, leaving a noticeable void in the conservative sphere. And now he is back, or at least on the upswing, having published his new book this month and once again engaging publicly through interviews and podcasts.
Philosophy of Action
Peterson’s ideas are at once straightforward and complex. Underscoring deep philosophical and psychological thoughts are practical, actionable ideas like his exhortation to “clean up your room,” a saying that earned him meme status. It’s a simple proposal that is hard to actualize, as anyone who has seriously attempted to set their lives in order can attest. Peterson prescribes nobility and humility in this elementary endeavour, contrasting it with those who agitate to change the fundamental institutions of Western society while unable to sort out their own lives.
“Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life” contains chapters of similar practical wisdom, with titles such as “Imagine who you could be and then aim single-mindedly at that,” “Notice that opportunity lurks where responsibility has been abdicated,” and “Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible.”
Far from being trite, these principles require a high degree of self-awareness. They take grit, persistence, and sacrifice scarcely exercised in our modern age of creature comfort. But adopting them out of choice and not necessity can set one apart from those looking to shirk personal and social responsibility.
Instead of promoting unconditional optimism, Peterson recommends embracing the full brunt of reality, even as it swings toward your head. In typical self-help books, one would be hard-pressed to find a similar suggestion to this one from his 2018 book “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos”:
“It is necessary to be strong in the face of death, because death is intrinsic to life. It is for this reason that I tell my students: aim to be the person at your father’s funeral that everyone, in their grief and misery, can rely on. There’s a worthy and noble ambition: strength in the face of adversity.”
Implied in that ambition is the prerequisite that you must have your life sufficiently together to be a pillar of strength to buttress the hardships that will inevitably come along.
Affirming Masculinity
Peterson’s audience is largely male, judging by attendance at his lectures and the demographic of his YouTube audience. This has been a point of criticism for some, who equate it as evidence that he is somehow fortifying patriarchy. But this is the wrong lens in which to view the Peterson phenomenon.
Anyone who has taken the time to actually read his work or listen to his lectures would have difficulty finding anything explicitly misogynistic.
The crux of his message could be summed up in the sentiment that meaning is more fulfilling and less fleeting than happiness, and adopting maximum responsibility is the greatest means to actualizing one’s spiritual and psychological potential.
The reason this seemingly obvious message has resonated so profoundly is because it is sorely needed in the modern age, but rarely articulated. It flies in the face of our current obsession with identity politics and moral relativism, which are at odds with the virtues of self-reliance and moral responsibility.
The current value-neutral and “follow your bliss” approach to life is not leading to fulfillment for young men who have been educated to believe their essential masculine traits are inherently toxic. By promoting masculinity as a virtue instead of a vice, Peterson has found an audience hungry for encouragement and reassurance so that they can ennoble themselves through refining those same characteristics into a force for good in the world.
On matters of foreign policy, Joe Biden has a clear history of ineptitude. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it, Joe Biden has been wrong about “nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
What makes matters worse is the apparent growing problem of Biden’s mental and physical decline, fueled by the overt weakness of his style of leadership — whether it be avoiding the questions of journalists or simply struggling to form basic sentences.
Combined with the celebrated return of the Obama-era globalist diplomacy of feckless apologies and denial, the United States is, once again, viewed as weak by our enemies.
And the vultures are beginning to circle.
During the first high-level talks between the United States and China under the Biden administration, former Obama foreign policy disaster, Antony Blinken, was seemingly bulled over by the Chinese delegation. Accepting no culpability for the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese officials deflected all criticism and redirected it at the Western world, alongside veiled and open threats of consequential action.
One day after the EMA left the door open to the possibility that the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID jab might have harmful side effects for a small subset of patients, researchers in Germany are claiming to have determined the link between the vaccine and the rare blood clots that have resulted in a handful of deaths.
German public broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk reported that researchers at the Greifswald teaching hospital in northern Germany claimed on Friday to have discovered the cause of the rare blood clotting found in some recipients of the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, most notably a trio of Norwegian health care workers, one of whom died due to complications arising from the condition.
Hours before the EMA released its final safety assessment on Thursday, a top Norwegian government doctor claimed to have found a potential link between the vaccine and the rare reaction.
But some cases also involved a rare thrombosis (ie clots) in the brain. For these cases, the German researchers claimed common medicine could be used to treat the condition when and if it arises.
Germany, along with several other EU member states, suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine on Monday following reports of unusual blood clots, though a dozen states have already re-started vaccinations.
On Friday, the WHO largely confirmed the EMA’s findings. And in the US, officials moved ahead with a program to donate some of the American stock to Canada and Mexico as the FDA looks set to approve the AstraZeneca jab in the near future. The agency added the jab has “tremendous potential” since the jab accounts for 90% of the vaccines distributed through COVAX, the WHO-Gates Foundation scheme to vaccinate the entire world by providing vaccines to poorer countries for free.
By Thursday, Germany had administered over 10MM doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including the AstraZeneca vaccine. While Europe continues to lag the US and Europe in terms of the percentage of its population who have received the vaccine, the total number of doses distributed in the West now exceeds the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases several times over.
As for how to identify any potential risk factors, the team said patients exhibiting certain symptoms, like dizziness, for more than three days, should receive another check-up by a doctor. This might further strain health-care systems, but it could help save lives in the rare cases where a reaction may occur.
While a dozen EU countries, including Italy, France and Germany, re-started use of the shot on Friday, Finland was a notable holdout. After halting vaccinations last week, the country pledged to carry out an independent review of two possible cases of blood clots.
President Biden has explicitly vowed that Democrats will increase taxes on the wealthy, adding fuel to congressional Democrats’ plan to ram through higher taxes on party-line votes.
“Anybody making more than $400,000 will see a small to a significant tax increase,” Mr. Biden said in an interview that aired Wednesday on ABC. “If you make less than $400,000, you won’t see one single penny in additional federal tax.”
He doesn’t necessarily expect to win Republican support.
“I’ll get the Democratic votes for a tax increase,” the president said.
“He’s being blunt. He wants the money to spend,” said Grover Norquist, president of the low-tax, small-government activist group Americans for Tax Reform.
Democrats are rolling out a slew of tax plans now that they control the White House and both chambers of Congress. Whatever measures get pushed to Mr. Biden’s desk are expected to be the biggest tax increases since 1993.
Among other changes to the tax code, Mr. Biden wants to increase the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, lift the top individual tax rate from 37% to 39.6% and increase capital gains taxes on people with more than $1 million in annual income.
“Yet they’re complaining because I’m providing a tax credit for child care? For the poor? For the middle class?” Mr. Biden said.
One problem with Mr. Biden’s tax pledge is that the corporate tax rate increasingly hits the middle class indirectly through consumer prices, 401(k) retirement accounts and other ways, Mr. Norquist said.
“This is not going to be a fun thing to do. This is how he loses the suburbs,” he said. “You go and mess with everyone’s 401(k) and orange man isn’t on the ballot. How do you carry the suburbs with a declaration of war against everybody with a 401(k) as class enemies?”
Senate Republicans want no part in rolling back parts of the 2017 tax law, one of President Trump’s signature legislative achievements. Senate Democrats would have to use a fast-track budget tool to muscle their tax and spending plans through the 50-50 split Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, warned that the Democrats’ infrastructure package would serve as a “Trojan horse” for tax increases.
“That’s exactly what I think they have in mind, is to call it an infrastructure bill,” he said on Fox News. “But, in fact, in it, they will have a massive tax increase to, in effect, reverse the tax reform that we enacted in 2017 when we had an entirely Republican government.”
Mr. Norquist led a group of dozens of conservative leaders who sent a letter to Congress voicing opposition to a carbon tax, which some lawmakers have floated as a way to pay for Mr. Biden’s multitrillion-dollar proposals on infrastructure and climate change.
A carbon tax imposed on the burning of coal, oil and gas would increase the costs of goods, lower take-home pay and increase “the power, cost and intrusiveness of the government in our lives,” the letter said.
Some congressional Republicans have supported a carbon tax in recent years as part of efforts to combat climate change, though the letter signers note that carbon taxes have fallen short in the revenue department and hit poorer people harder.
“Every place it’s been tried, it hasn’t worked. It doesn’t raise the money that they expect,” said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, who also signed the letter. “Any tax or policy that raises the cost of energy has a disproportionate impact on low-income families.”
Even apart from its regressive nature, some liberal Democrats have been critical of carbon taxes. They say the taxes are insufficient for what they see as an existential fight against climate change.
Lawmakers have talked about a “miles driven” tax or fee as another way to offset some of the costs of a far-reaching infrastructure and climate change proposal.
Congressional Democrats signaled that they are on board with Mr. Biden’s proposals and want to take them further.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders of Vermont rolled out legislation to tax CEOs if the ratio between their pay and the median employee pay at their company is too high.
“At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are demanding that large, profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes and treat their employees with the dignity and respect they deserve,” said Mr. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has pushed her own “wealth tax” proposal, which would levy a 2% tax on net worth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on net worth above $1 billion.
The White House didn’t dismiss Ms. Warren’s proposal out of hand, though press secretary Jen Psaki pointed out that Mr. Biden introduced his own tax proposals on the 2020 campaign trail.
Liberal economists say the Democrats’ upcoming “green infrastructure plan” that could cost up to $4 trillion shouldn’t necessarily be funded anyway.
“If a sizable portion of this plan is deficit-financed, as I believe current macroeconomic conditions warrant, then the green infrastructure plan could also ensure the economy is brought to true full employment,” said Mark Paul, assistant professor of economics at New College of Florida and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.
Update (3-19-2021) Representing GraceLife Church‘s Pastor James Coates, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) released a statement on Wednesday March 17, 2021 that said they expected the release of Pastor Coates this week. This news came after the JCCF said they had reached an agreement with the Crown to withdraw one of the charges for violating COVID-19 restriction orders that the pastor faces.
The hopes of GraceLife Church’s pastor being back in the pulpit this Sunday were crushed on Thursday after the court said, “Contrary to reports that have been circulated by parties involved in the case, there will be no court proceedings involving James Coates on March 19, 2021.”
The court said Pastor Coates’ case is planned to be heard on Monday, which will hopefully lead to his release until the May 3, 2021 trial date but will keep in jail for at least another weekend.
Update (3-11-2021)The Edmonton Journal reported yesterday that GraceLife Church has been charged for continuing to ignore government mandated health orders relating to the COVID-19 virus.
In a news release, Police revealed GraceLife Church’s legal counsel had been served on March 4, 2021 with a summons to appear in Stony Plain Provincial Court on May 5, 2021.
GraceLife Church has been charged because they did not adhere to the 15% maximum allowed capacity for indoor gatherings. The charges were specifically for worship gatherings they help on February 21, 2021 and February 28, 2021. Two worship services that took place without their Pastor James Coates, who remains in jail for disobeying government mandated COVID-19 orders.
The charges do not include GraceLife Church’s gathering they held this past Sunday March 7, 2021.
When Fauci agreed to an interview with Eugenio Derbez, he may have assumed the Mexican actor, director and producer would treat him with kid gloves. That didn’t happen.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is no stranger to media interviews. Since the pandemic made him a household name, he’s even been called a media darling.
So when Fauci agreed to an interview with Eugenio Derbez, he may have assumed the famed Mexican actor, director and producer would treat him the way the U.S. mainstream media usually does — with kid gloves.
That didn’t happen. Instead, Derbez lobbed one pointed question after another — and didn’t settle for non-answers.
A full year western Media has had the chance to make the right questions. It took a Mexican comedian to do it. And not just any comedian: hats off to the great Eugenio Derbez! Is there a chance that Bill Gates gives him an interview? 🤨 4/4 pic.twitter.com/JFKhPv0slt
The privilege of living in the US affords poor people more material resources than the averages for most of the world’s richest nations.
A groundbreaking study by Just Facts has discovered that after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps, the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the US “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest.
Notably, this study was reviewed by Dr. Henrique Schneider, professor of economics at Nordakademie University in Germany and the chief economist of the Swiss Federation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. After examining the source data and Just Facts’ methodology, he concluded: “This study is sound and conforms with academic standards. I personally think it provides valuable insight into poverty measures and adds considerably to this field of research.”
The “Poorest” Rich Nation?
In a July 1 New York Timesvideo op-ed that decries “fake news” and calls for “a more truthful approach” to “the myth of America as the greatest nation on earth,” Times producers Taige Jensen and Nayeema Raza claim the US has “fallen well behind Europe” in many respects and has “more in common with ‘developing countries’ than we’d like to admit.”
“One good test” of this, they say, is how the US ranks in the OECD, a group of “36 countries, predominantly wealthy, Western, and Democratic.” While examining these rankings, they corrupt the truth in ways that violate the Times’op-ed standards, which declare that “you can have any opinion you would like,” but “the facts in a piece must be supported and validated,” and “you can’t say that a certain battle began on a certain day if it did not.”
The Times is not merely wrong about this issue but is also reporting the polar opposite of reality.
A prime example is their claim that “America is the richest country” in the OECD, “but we’re also the poorest, with a whopping 18% poverty rate—closer to Mexico than Western Europe.” That assertion prompted Just Facts to conduct a rigorous, original study of this issue with data from the OECD, the World Bank, and the US government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. It found that the Times is not merely wrong about this issue but is also reporting the polar opposite of reality.
Poor Compared to Whom?
The most glaring evidence against the Times’ rhetoric is a note located just above the OECD’s data for poverty rates. It explains that these rates measure relative poverty within nations, not between nations. As the note states, the figures represent portions of people with less than “half the median household income” in their own nations and thus “two countries with the same poverty rates may differ in terms of the relative income-level of the poor.”
The OECD’s poverty rates say nothing about which nation is “the poorest.” Nonetheless, this is exactly how the Times misrepresented them.
The upshot is laid bare by the fact that this OECD measure assigns a higher poverty rate to the US (17.8 percent) than to Mexico (16.6 percent). Yet World Bank data show that 35 percent of Mexico’s population lives on less than $5.50 per day, compared to only 2 percent of people in the United States.
Hence, the OECD’s poverty rates say nothing about which nation is “the poorest.” Nonetheless, this is exactly how the Times misrepresented them.
The same point applies to broader discussions about poverty, which can be measured in two very different ways: (1) relative poverty or (2) absolute poverty. Relative measures of poverty, like the one cited by the Times, can be misleading if the presenter does not answer the question: Poor compared to who? Absolute measures, like the number of people with income below a certain level, are more straightforward and enlightening.
