Do children raised by same-sex couples have higher rates of depression?

I do not know.  This post is two-fold.  One is to raise awareness to a potential issue that is an uncomfortable topic that nowadays people find it easier to ignore altogether rather than ask honest questions and have an open dialogue.  The other is to point out that many people will look at this as attacking same-sex couples rather than investigating potential harm to the children themselves.  Here in upside-down world many will immediately take the side of the “minority group” rather than the actual potential victims.  Again, this is not an attack at all on same-sex couples.  What two consenting adults do is none of my business.  But we need to be able to ask difficult questions.  We can still do that in our society, right?  Right…?

This article was published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016.  Knowing the reproducibility crisis in science there absolutely needs to be more research into this and independent studies to verify the results.  It is interesting, though not necessarily surprising, that previous research that contradicts this study has poor statistical analysis and very small sample sizes which lead to hazy conclusions at best.  I could not find follow-up studies to confirm or deny these findings but if anyone has please post in the comment section.  I will add an update if they are confirmed or denied.  A snippet from the article:

Abstract

The relationship of elevated depression risk recently discovered among adult persons raised by same-sex parents with possible precipitating conditions in childhood has not previously been acknowledged. This study tests whether such inattention is supportable. Logistic regression based risk ratios were estimated from longitudinal measures of mental health outcomes observed in three waves (at ages 15, 22, and 28) of the US National Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health (n = 15,701). At age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression (CES-D: risk ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.4–4.6) as persons raised by man-woman parents. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Elevated risk was associated with imbalanced parental closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, suicidality, and anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity. More research and policy attention to potentially problematic conditions for children with same-sex parents appears warranted.

1. Background

In research and policy settings, children in unique distress with same-sex parents are not supposed to exist. Most studies have reported “no differences” in well-being, most often using psychometric measures of depression or anxiety, supporting a lapse in policy attention to the potential needs of such children. Uniformly benign findings for this population have recently been challenged, however, by several original research efforts [], the rediscovery of older studies [], and the reanalysis of studies long thought to support “no differences” [].

The sparse and gendered nature of the same-sex parent population largely restricts research in this area to the examination of small samples of lesbian parents. Unfortunately, this difficulty has prompted an almost universal dependence on convenience samples [] recruited, with knowledge of study goals, from internet surveys, “LGBT events, bookstore and newspaper advertisements, word of mouth, networking, and youth groups” []. Reanalyses have confirmed, not surprisingly, the presence in such samples of strong ascertainment bias, social desirability bias, and/or positive reporting bias []. In most studies, lack of statistical significance using simple bivariate tests in such samples is then erroneously interpreted as strong evidence of “no differences” in the population, even when difference in estimates or effect sizes are substantively large and even though the sample is not representative [].

In fact, only four of the several dozen studies alleging “no differences” have examined a representative sample. The largest and most recent of these, Rosenfeld’s analysis of 3,174 same-sex parented children on the US Census, is discussed in Section 5. The other three are related studies based on a single sample, a group of 44 adolescents with lesbian parents captured on over 20,000 population-representative cases of the initial wave of the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”) []. Sullins, however, recently found that most (27 of the 44) adolescents in this sample allegedly with same-sex parents were actually living with opposite-sex parents including, for most of them, their biological father as well as their mother. After removing the mixed cases, the remaining sample members fared significantly worse on psychometric measures of anxiety and autonomy than did their adolescent counterparts with opposite-sex parents, albeit comprising only 17 cases []. Other studies employing large representative samples have also found higher depressive symptoms, indicated by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D []), among younger same-sex parented children [] and adults who report having had a same-sex-related parent at some point during childhood []. The design and methodology of Regnerus’ study were the subject of a brief but vigorous debate [], which turned largely on definitional issues [].

No study has yet explored the connection, if any, between late onset distress and precipitating conditions in children in this population, and no research reporting “no differences” has yet investigated parental child abuse or adult onset difficulties []. The present study aims to amend these gaps in the research. It improves on the sample limitations of prior studies by employing data that are both representative and longitudinal, following the corrected Add Health sample of adolescents with lesbian parents, the most well-regarded small sample used in this field to date, through Wave IV, thirteen years after the initial interview at age 15 (on average). It improves on prior methods by the use of standard psychometric scales, to the extent possible, and the estimation of relative risk by logistic regression models with appropriate survey weighting. As the first study to examine children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood, this exploratory study aims to contribute new information for understanding of the effects of same-sex parenting through the life-course transition into early adulthood.

The analysis followed a grounded theory approach, first identifying the presence or absence of pertinent differences by family type and then developing and testing grounded hypotheses, drawing both from the observed bivariate characteristics of the data and prior research where applicable. For clarity the research presentation will also follow this order, with the formulation of hypotheses presented following initial bivariate results.

This is how toxic subjects like this are.  The same thing played out when The Bell Curve came out.  Though the evidence was rock solid, the attacks were relentless because nobody wants to address the difficult questions and implications surrounding IQ.  The publisher was quick to put out this “Expression of concern” over the article.  Damage control, as it were.

On behalf of Hindawi Limited, the publisher of Depression Research and Treatment, we would like to express our concern with the article titled “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents” published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016 [].

The article has been cited to support arguments about same-sex marriage that Hindawi believes to be hateful and wrong. These arguments do not represent the views of Hindawi, our staff, or the editorial board of Depression Research and Treatment. We strongly condemn any attempt to justify hate speech or bigotry through reference to the scholarly record.

In June 2016, several readers raised concerns about this article. At that time, we evaluated the article’s peer review process and brought several concerns to the handling editor’s attention. These included: the study’s small sample of same-sex parents, the lack of discussion of other influences such as family breakup on the wellbeing of the children included in the study, the implied causation in the title “Invisible Victims,” and the potential conflict of interest implied by the author’s position as a Catholic priest.

The handling editor believed the article’s reviewers addressed these concerns, and the author made sufficient revisions to the article to address these flaws. In the editor’s opinion, the limitations of the study did not warrant further correction or retraction. As publisher, Hindawi does not overrule the editorial decisions of our academic editors in such cases.

Nevertheless, Hindawi felt it was important for the criticisms of this study to become part of the scientific record. We invited Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a critic of the article and director of the “What We Know” project (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/) at Columbia Law School, to publish a letter to the editor in Depression Research and Treatment making these concerns visible to the journal’s readers []. That letter is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3185067. We also published a subsequent response from Dr. Sullins [].

Whether the long-term outcomes are proven true or false, I have to applaud Dr Sullins for being brave enough to even ask the question.  Again, that is the main thrust of this post.  Yes, it’s a sensitive topic.  Yes, it will ruffle a lot of feathers in the current climate.  But the pursuit of the truth is important.  And if children truly are worse off in same-sex households isn’t it worth investigating that if there is seemingly credible evidence?  I completely agree that additional studies need to be done.  The initial study was funded by a Catholic group.  Which doesn’t necessarily mean it is biased but it opens the door.  It would be great if non-partisan groups did their own studies.  That is how science is supposed to work.  Dr Sullins issued a response to the publisher’s expression of concern which a few snippets are worth posting.  The entire response can be found here.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Frank’s letter [] about my article [] and applaud Hindawi fostering a free and open exchange. Frank’s complaint that I “fudged” the sample to bias the results in ways that are “damning” to gay and lesbian parents is emphatically false. Frank’s claims are based on multiple confusions and errors, mischaracterize the state of knowledge, and use special pleading. To the extent some of his points have merit they tend to undermine not my study but rather others showing benign findings for children with same-sex parents and suggest I have if anything understated the level of harm for such children.

No Harm Studies: 74, or Fewer than 10? Frank characterizes my findings as an “outlier” from 74 studies collected on his website showing no disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. But there are many other studies he did not select, which report difficulties in same-sex partnerships similar to my study. I cited three such studies concerning health difficulties and intimate partner violence (IPV). Messinger’s conclusion, for example, is very similar to mine: “concerns over ‘airing the dirty laundry’ of an already stigmatized community alongside researcher prejudice or indifference cannot justify treating GLB [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual] IPV victims as invisible, leaving them without support in a painful and potentially dangerous environment.” [] My study is not an outlier but is in line with the concerns and approach of these other studies.

Frank also does not mention that his website also includes four studies that do show disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. Three of these studies employ three separate large population samples, finding similar levels of disadvantage []. By contrast, the 74 studies include only two or three which use population samples. The remainder are small convenience samples, typically recruited from sympathetic groups and settings, that are (in my view and that of detailed reviews) [] worthless for the question of child outcomes. These studies do not meet minimal scientific standards and are biased toward benign findings []. Asking patrons of a local LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] bookstore or gay friends network about child outcomes is like surveying a Bible study about religiosity: the rosy picture is misleading about the larger population. Excluding such nonrandom or biased samples, fewer than 10 of the 74 studies remain.

One last snippet:

I think I have addressed enough errors in Frank’s critique to establish that his criticisms of my study are unfounded and that my findings are well justified. However, I doubt this will be convincing to him or those sharing his perspective, because what appears to disturb them is not the study methods but the findings. I suspect no evidence will convince Frank that children with same-sex parents may face unique and heightened struggles and difficulties. It is right to be appalled at that thought, but the most useful response is to try to understand the problem better, so as to address the conditions or provide support necessary to ameliorate the problem, not deny the evidence.

And sadly, I think Dr Sullins is right.  Even if this was perfectly executed from a procedural standpoint, it will never be enough, because they don’t like the OUTCOME.  Which is the truly sad part, because in the end if that is the case then it’s the children who are the ones who suffer because of a political agenda.  We may not always like the truth.  It may hurt.  But one should ALWAYS take the truth rather than lie about it.  The more one lies to one’s self, the easier it becomes to justify worse and worse behavior.  Letting the evil one rule over yourself will always lead down a dark path.

If genetics don’t matter…

Then why is it whites systematically beat out hispanics and blacks across the board in this particular arena?

U.S. racial and ethnic groups vary significantly in their knowledge of science-related issues, according to a new Pew Research Center surveythat quizzed Americans about subjects ranging from life and physical sciences to numeracy and chart reading.

About half of whites (48%) got at least nine of 11 questions correct. In comparison, much smaller shares of Hispanics (23%) and blacks (9%) correctly answered at least nine of the questions.

On average, whites got 7.6 questions correct while Hispanics got 5.1 and blacks 3.7. English-speaking Asians got an average of 7.0 correct answers, but it’s important to note the survey was only conducted in English and Spanish. (Asians are less likely than whites and blacks, but not Hispanics, to be proficient in English.)

The poll is careful to point out that whites and blacks only include non-Hispanic.  Given the attacks on the educational system over the years this cannot be simply attributed to which school one or the other went to; most don’t really  have a choice anymore.

FT_19.03.28_ScienceKnowledgeRace_Whitesmorelikely.png

And it can’t really be a fluke if whites perform the best across the board.

People ask why this matters?  “Doesn’t this only fan the flames of hatred and racism?”  No, not at all.  We already know science is dealing with a reproducibility crisis of massive proportions, partially attributed to the fact that scientists are often times not honest at all about the research they are performing.  And rather than face the questions head on and honestly, to garner honest results and potentially enact real, positive, changes to the system, we cover our eyes, block our ears, and pretend that that there’s nothing there.  People are perfectly willing to accept that some races are taller than others and some are faster than others, but the minute you suggest maybe there’s a difference in intelligence as well, everyone freaks out.

Facing the matter head on could yield better ways of educating our children and putting them in environments for them to excel and reach a higher potential of their overall ability.  Treating everyone as if everyone has the exact same capacity and skills is not only ineffective, it is cruel.  And artificially inflating scores or grading on a curve to control how many of which race gets into a particular school is particularly racist.  The actual African-American who is genuinely gifted intellectually is forever questioned whether s/he got in on his/her own merit or if s/he was given a boost.  Completely unfair to those individuals.

People need to learn that there is a difference between the macro and the micro.  It is a fact that on average, east-Asians have a higher IQ than whites.  That is the macro.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t whites who are smarter than some east-Asians; of course there are.  That is also why you should treat people on a per-individual basis.  But to pretend that on the whole we can’t reliably measure and predict on the macro is not only patently absurd, it prevents from ever enacting beneficial change for fear of hurting feelings or some other nonsense.  Then again, in a multicultural society where every group will raise hell anytime anything comes out about them they do not like, what can you really expect?

Child Abuse

From an article recently posted on the Christian Post:

Eight year-old Jack Wilson was on a weekend visit to his grandparents’ house in mid-December 2016 when he informed his grandmother that his name was really Jacquelyn.

“Grammy, my name is Jacquelyn,” he complained as he walked into the room and sat down at the kitchen table for lunch. He had just received Christmas presents from friends of his grandmother addressed to “Jack” and was visibly upset.

“Why is that your name?” Amanda Wilson, his grandmother, asked in response as she set a plate of chicken and rice in front of him.

He replied: “Because I’m a girl now.”

“What makes you think you’re a girl?” she inquired.

“It’s my gender,” he said.

She pressed him: “Well, what’s a gender?”

He stared back at her, puzzled, and said: “I don’t know.”

Amanda Wilson hasn’t seen her grandson in two years and each day she longs to hold him in her arms and hug him but can’t. Her daughter, Marissa, and her spouse began believing that little Jack was really a girl around three years ago and because Wilson doesn’t agree they’ve cut off all contact with her, no longer speak, and don’t allow her and her husband to see him.

Shortly after Jack turned 7, Marissa and her spouse excitedly announced on social media that Jack was a girl and they couldn’t wait to start him on puberty blockers in two years when he turned 9. They posted a picture of Marissa’s spouse and Jack outside a children’s hospital that is home to one of the 55 transgender clinics now operating in the United States.

The social media account Wilson’s daughter had was deactivated and Wilson no longer has the exact words of her daughter’s happiness about starting Jack on puberty blockers but she still has the picture.

At Wilson’s request, The Christian Post is using pseudonyms in this report and has changed or removed identifying details in order to maintain her anonymity. Although she was baptized as a Methodist, Wilson is not a subscriber to any particular religious faith but chose to speak with CP because she felt it was important that the voice of a grandmother is heard as more parents speak out about their heartache of losing their children to what many are calling a transgender “social contagion.” She has reached out to many secular journalists to no avail.

In 2008, Marissa, who lives just outside of Portland, Maine, was in a relationship with a man, became pregnant and gave birth to Jack in 2009. That relationship ended soon after Jack was born and just a few years later, when Marissa was 26, she came out as a lesbian and started dating a woman. Approximately 16 months later, they married in June 2013. Seven months into that marriage her spouse came out as transgender and changed her name to a male name and started taking hormones. The couple separated last year and now share custody of Jack.

What do you call this if not child abuse?

As mentioned in a post last week, as Christianity has been systematically removed from western civilization so has any moral imperative to be honest.  We have seen this most notably in politics and science, to name just two examples.  Without any higher moral impetus to tell the truth, money and ego have pervaded the science community and resulted in a reproducibility crisis, amongst other things.  Another area that has been hit hard, because the science community is unwilling to tell the truth about many things, is more extensive research on “uncomfortable” topics.

There are many verboten topics in science including IQ with respect to race, sexuality, and honest climate science.  Within the past few years there has been a concerted effort to pervert sexuality.  They tell us it is on a spectrum, that there are more than 2 genders, and that homosexuality is inherently natural.  Before I go further I should say I do not have a dog in this fight, other than wanting the best for our society.  I am on a journey to seek the truth, and not turn away from it regardless if it makes me uncomfortable or reveals hard truths that are painful to swallow.

I don’t know if homosexuality is natural.  Clearly it cannot be the norm, or else we would not survive as a species.  My guidance on the matter comes from the Bible.  But we need to do far more research into the topic.  While many people are convinced that it is entirely genetic that is highly questionable.  There are some studies, though hard to confirm in this day and age, that have studied identical twins.  One of them is straight and the other is not.  If this is true, then it clearly cannot be entirely genetic.

What’s the point of all this?  The point is we need better studies on sexuality in general.  We need to understand how one becomes homosexual.  We need to better understand the underpinnings of what makes one think they are transsexual.  And we need to be honest and truthful about the results that we find.  Going further, if what we do find suggests it is something mental or points to mentally unstable people, perhaps we need to reconsider who should be allowed to be able to adopt and raise children.

Again, this is an uncomfortable topic and I am merely searching for the truth.  If we can’t even talk about the subject we have a major problem as a society.  I don’t want to have to say that we shouldn’t allow some people to be able to adopt children and others not.  But if there is consistent evidence that points to negative outcomes for the children being adopted, the entirely innocent party in this, the topic needs to be revisited.  This to me is a clear cut case of child abuse.  At least one, if not both, of the parents have serious issues, and they are foisting these issues onto an innocent child.  There is no way in hell this kid thinks they are a girl on their own.  It is being placed in their heads by the parents.  And no.  It is not brave.  It is not admirable.  It is disgusting.  They are poisoning this child’s brain with this vile garbage.  Socially (and soon unnaturally) engineering him into being what THEY want to see him become, not with the best interest of him in mind.  Can we please use some common sense and call this what it is, rather than kowtow to the sick fantasies of the parents?

Speaking the truth

Matthew 5:37 New King James Version (NKJV)

37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

If you aren’t already following Vox Day’s blog I highly suggest that you do.  This is a passage he often brings up.

There are signs all around us that western civilization is crumbling.  Much of it has to do with the removal of Christianity from the equation, one of the three main pillars of western civilization.  I could be wrong, but in no other major religion is it explicitly stated to always tell the truth.  This is a distinctly Christian value.  There are exceptions where one can lie in Judaism, and lying is explicitly allowed in Islam as well.  Contrary to what many may think, telling the truth is not a self-evident virtue.  Nor is it part of Judeo-Christian morality, as this is a made up term and does not exist.

There may be no more telling evidence of how important Christianity is to western civilization than this.  We see it every day, notably in politics and science.  And the more people accept and rationalize that it is okay to lie, and the more that it is done and allowed to be done without any repercussions, the worse it will continue to get.

Take politics.  There are very few people left in politics that one can say are truly Christian.  Combine this with a population that is becoming less Christian and you have a recipe for disaster.  Lying becomes normalized.  It becomes accepted.  Tolerated.  To the point where it becomes more surprising when someone is actually punished for lying than the other way around.  How many people have lied under oath and had no repercussions?  Who knows how many times Hillary Clinton has lied under oath.  The Benghazi fiasco is just one of probably many.  Swamp creature James Brennan lied under oath about the NSA spying on Americans.  The depths of lying under oath for the Hillary Clinton email scandal and Russia scandal witch hunt, with any luck, will all come out some day.  Lying has become normalized and expected.  And there are very few, if any, Christians left in Congress to stand up for the truth and enact punishments for these people who have committed perjury and often times treason.  No good Christian would lie under oath.  And anything goes for all of these non-Christians who are under oath and are lying outright.  Why not, if you think you can get away with it and see no other higher reason to tell the truth?

You see the same in the science community as well.  Scientific study was funded by churches early on, and many scientists were Christian.  Somehow throughout the years Christianity has been stigmatized in the science world, and Christians have been ridiculed and driven out in many disciplines.  Is it any surprise that science has a reproducibility crisis?  Even in the hard sciences!  When there is no greater purpose to tell the truth, to let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything can be rationalized.  When you tell yourself everything is subjective, that there is no objective truth, anything can be allowed.  “Oh, I need to fudge these numbers, or omit this piece of data that would refute my work, or I wouldn’t get the funding I need.”  Or lying to protect one’s life’s work, even if it is demonstrably false.

These are just two of many examples.  Humans are not inherently wired to tell the truth regardless of the situation.  It would do western civilization a world of good, and its very survival depends upon, restoring the pillar of Christianity to it.  To bring back Christian morals.  To let your yes be yes and your no be no, as Jesus Christ taught.

Can we pump the brakes on 5G?

I came across this video on my feed today and it is a topic I have wanted to write about for a while.  It seems like the push for 5G everywhere has become ramped up in the past year.  Whatever one’s position is on 5G, I think most people can agree that it warrants a far more in-depth investigation into its potential health effects on a population, especially when the towers that need to be installed are no longer 1000s of feet or several miles away but rather only a couple hundred feet and far more numerous throughout neighborhoods and right next to homes.

Sites like infowars.com present far more concerns about privacy instead of just the health risks.  And sure, you can laugh at infowars, but they seem to be a far more reliable news source these days than a lot of others out there.

Take a look at the video if you are interested.  A few interesting takeaways I didn’t realize:

  • The weaker your cell signal, the more radiation your phone puts out to make the connection with the cell tower
  • There are studies out there that link exposure to brain cancers like glioblastomas (GBM)
  • The acceptable levels of RF exposure via each country’s guidelines show that we allow waaaaaay more here in the USA than most other countries, including China by orders of magnitude.
  • It is usually telling when a country like Israel bans Wi-Fi in schools for worries of exposure.

Judge for yourself.  It would always seem prudent to err on the side of caution before rolling out massive technologies too quickly without knowing the consequences.  It seems like the potential risks outweigh the benefits by a large margin at this point.  Are people really that unsatisfied with the current speeds we download at?  Enough to warrant this potential risk?

Lowest

Apple.JPG

TENS is falling apart

It should never be this way, but there are a few areas of science that are untouchable for one reason or another.  Questioning climate change will get you ridiculed and potentially risk your career.  Other topics, like the investigation of IQ and differences across races, is subverted to the point that it is hardly studied at all anymore, and like climate change is career suicide.  The theory of evolution by natural selection is another sacred cow that is all too often accepted as scientific fact.  But the theory is falling apart, and more than 1,000 brave scientists are risking their careers to sign a dissent statement about it.

Earlier this month, a long kept list of Ph.D. scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” reached a milestone — it crossed the threshold of 1,000 signers.

“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.

“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.

Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute.

The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”

The theory of evolution by natural selection, much like climate change, is one of those topics every lay person takes for granted assuming it is true because lots of scientists say that it is.  And like climate change, you are roundly laughed at or worse if you even remotely question its validity.

If you are willing to keep an open mind, consider watching the three videos below.  One is a debate between Vox Day and biologist Jean-Francois Gariépy.  It is Vox Day essentially positing his theory to JF about why he doesn’t think TENS is a realistic possibility.  What is interesting about it is he is coming at it from an economist point of view, as that is his background.  In short, the math doesn’t add up.

The debate goes a little bit off the rails so I’m also including a follow up video by Vox Day here where he goes into more detail and breaks down his line of thinking a bit more for those who did not understand the debate.  It is also clear that JF is dodging the question, but decide for yourselves.  And lastly, another video by VD…the nail in the coffin of human evolution.

The truth and free speech censorship

We discuss the importance of free speech a lot here.  There is a reason it was the first amendment ratified.  There has been a renewed effort to police, patrol, and prohibit free speech on the internet especially within the past few years.  It is something most people take for granted, as if there was no possible way that it could be taken away.

It should give one pause when specific topics or people are verboten to public discourse.  It is often said that “hate speech”, or the speech one disagrees with the most, needs to be vigorously protected the most in these battles.  And that is largely true.  Everyone should be open to the idea of seeing alternative viewpoints and hearing arguments s/he may have never considered before.  Those that think they are doing some greater good (or those using these idealistic people as puppets to further their nefarious agendas) by censoring speech cannot possibly know what is “good” for someone or what should or should not be read.  One’s opinions and ideas should speak for themselves and be subject to scrutiny.  If the idea is founded on truth it should stand up to the weight of critique.

There can be a variety of reasons why one may want to censor particular topics or speech outright.  The type of free speech censorship I want to talk about does not include obvious restrictions that should be put on children.  There are many topics that children should only learn about once they are of appropriate age.

Your “spidey-sense” should go off when certain topics are restricted or punishable by law if they are discussed.  It should raise one’s eyebrows when certain individuals or news outlets are banned or deplatformed en masse by the powers that be.

Ask yourself this: why would a specific topic or event be against the law if spoken out against?  The most obvious example of this is Holocaust denial, which is against the law in 17 countries.  You can literally go to jail if you deny the Holocaust.  Why?  The truth never needs to be covered up.  It can speak for itself.  YouTube has been particularly stringent on banning videos that question the exact details of the Holocaust as of late.  The Greatest Story Never Told used to be available on YouTube in its full form as well as partitioned out.  This is a movie about the life of Adolf Hitler and questions some of the events and the subsequent narrative of World War II and the Holocaust.  Nearly all of those videos have been removed.  Why?  Again, whether you agree or disagree with any of these topics we should all realize they should still be allowed to be shared and viewed.  Stupid ideas, ideas that are patently false, should be available for scrutiny.  They will make themselves look like jackasses if what they are saying is patently false.  That movie in particular does raise some very interesting questions and presents some compelling evidence that the official narrative may not be as true as we’re told (if at all).  It is not the responsibility of YouTube or the government to decide what is and is not the truth or what is best for us.  This level of censorship is on par with totalitarian regimes.  Do we really want to go down this road?

I did a cursory search this past week of many conspiracy theories that one hears about.  You used to be able to find countless videos on all of these topics.  Videos about Holocaust denial, Sandy Hook, Vegas, and the Parkland shooting conspiracy theories are nearly impossible to find now on YouTube.  Videos questioning the age of the pyramids and chem trails have been greatly reduced as well.  Many of these theories are patently ridiculous (looking at you, flat-earthers).  But you know what?  They should still be put up.  I’d be interested to hear their point of view and consider what they’re putting out there.  If it’s absurd they subject themselves to ridicule.  But maybe they’ll present different viewpoints or evidence not considered before.  And again, it’s not YouTube’s place to decide what is and is not acceptable for our viewing consumption.  The videos that were left on those topics were from YouTube approved sources like mainstream news outlets; hardly the institutions that will ever truly question the narrative.  Somewhat surprisingly, you can still find a decent amount of moon landing hoax conspiracy theory videos on YouTube…for now.  Not surprisingly, users exposing the pedophelia epidemic in DC and Hollywood like David Seaman and Jamie Dlux are banned outright or given strikes (and likely soon to be banned).

It gets worse.  This isn’t restricted just to historical or current events.  Questioning the validity of some scientific claims is now punishable too.  In Australia, you can now be thrown in jail for up to 10 years for speaking about the dangers of vaccines.  Why?  Isn’t that mildly suspicious?  If vaccines are so safe for us why should it be against the law to question their validity?  Especially in light of the fact that more than 50% of scientific studies cannot be reproduced by their peers.  We should be questioning scientific data and results more than ever now.  How long will it be before it’s against the law to question our contribution to climate change?

Whatever dark forces are conspiring to keep these topics off limits are doing themselves a disservice in that they are showing their hand and creating smoke in areas they wanted to be ignored altogether.  I, like most people, never really questioned the details of the Holocaust too much before hearing about those laws.  Similarly, in my recent posts about vaccine skepticism it was more of a curiosity for me.  Laws like this only make me more skeptical.

The truth does not need laws to protect it.  It can speak for itself.  Let people question the Holocaust or vaccines all they want.  If the evidence is ironclad that the events went down as said, or that a particular vaccine is safe for public consumption, then they do not need laws to prohibit speaking against them.  Prohibition only raises more questions.

Do not be afraid to pursue the truth.  It will never lead you astray.  Do not be afraid of what you will find.  Often times it is very ugly or depressing.  Often times the coverup is worse than the truth itself.  It is when we willingly turn away or hide it completely that we end up lying to ourselves, and when you can lie to yourself you open the door to darker evils.

More SJW nonsense in the realm of science

A couple hundred academics are decrying the appointment of Dr Noah Carl at the University of Cambridge because he expresses views that hurt their feelings.

Full open letter: ‘No place for racist pseudoscience at Cambridge’

We write to express our dismay at the appointment of Noah Carl to the Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellowship at St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge. A careful consideration of Carl’s published work and public stance on various issues, particularly on the claimed relationship between ‘race’, ‘criminality’ and ‘genetic intelligence’, leads us to conclude that his work is ethically suspect and methodologically flawed.

These publications, drawing on the discredited ‘race sciences’, seem nothing more than an expression of opinion on various social matters. As members of the academic community committed to defending the highest standards of ethical and methodological integrity in research and teaching, we are shocked that a body of work that includes vital errors in data analysis and interpretation appears to have been taken seriously for appointment to such a competitive research fellowship.

We are deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge. This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented. Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. In a context where the far-right is on the rise across the world, this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.

We are also concerned that the appointment process for this fellowship was not carried out with the degree of academic rigour, diligence and respect for principles of equality and diversity that we would expect from a constituent college of the University of Cambridge.

We call on St Edmund’s College, the University of Cambridge, and the Newton Trust to issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other.

We also call on the University of Cambridge to immediately conduct an investigation into the appointment process that led to the award of this fellowship. Such an investigation, which should be independent of St Edmund’s college, must involve recognised experts across relevant disciplines, and include a thorough review of the appointee’s body of academic work.

The letter doesn’t make any mention of specific references to specifically discredit his work, just vague accusations of “racist pseudoscience”.  Ironic given that science is the exact place where ideas should be presented and rigorously attacked to see if they stand up to the scrutiny or not.  Instead, as always, they’d rather just mute people and speech they do not agree with.

Study into race and IQ is always going to be a touchy subject.  It also happens to be one of the most important areas of scientific research we could possibly be looking into right now.  Rather than vilify it, we should look honestly at the data, even if it’s not what we want to see.  It could dramatically improve everything from the way we approach the educational system to coming up with better ways to place those of lower cognitive ability into roles and jobs that maximize their potential and allow them to still have self-worth and feel they are contributing members to society.  It certainly bodes better than the current alternative we have of people on welfare spinning their wheels not getting anywhere.

This is the danger of SJWs infesting all institutions in our society.  Getting to some deeper truth is never at the forefront for them.  They’d rather can the whole topic altogether rather than potentially hurt someone’s feelings discussing uncomfortable topics.

About that whole “peak oil” thing…

The idea that one day we would hit peak oil, that point in time where the maximum extraction rate of petroleum is reached and henceforth decline from there on, like many other theories foisted upon us, seems too to be greatly exaggerated.  ScienceDaily recently put out a piece that the US Geological Survey has discovered the largest ever continuous oil and gas reservoir ever found in the Texas and New Mexico Delaware Basin.

Today, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the Wolfcamp Shale and overlying Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of Texas and New Mexico’s Permian Basin province contain an estimated mean of 46.3 billion barrels of oil, 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, according to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.

“Christmas came a few weeks early this year,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy. Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation.”

“In the 1980’s, during my time in the petroleum industry, the Permian and similar mature basins were not considered viable for producing large new recoverable resources. Today, thanks to advances in technology, the Permian Basin continues to impress in terms of resource potential. The results of this most recent assessment and that of the Wolfcamp Formation in the Midland Basin in 2016 are our largest continuous oil and gas assessments ever released,” said Dr. Jim Reilly, USGS Director. “Knowing where these resources are located and how much exists is crucial to ensuring both our energy independence and energy dominance.”

Although the USGS has previously assessed conventional oil and gas resources in the Permian Basin province, this is the first assessment of continuous resources in the Wolfcamp shale and Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of the Permian. Oil and gas companies are currently producing oil here using both traditional vertical well technology and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

The notion that we are going to run out of oil and gas anytime soon is yet another fear mongering tactic used to drum up hysteria that a situation is much worse than it actually is.  Like global warming climate change, it was theorized that we would hit peak oil in the 1970s.  Clearly this has not been the case.  In fact, there are many who think that we’re not running out at all and that Earth is replenishing its reserves.

“Thanks to investment into supercomputers, robotics and the use of chemicals to extract the maximum from available reservoirs, the accessible oil and gas reserves will almost double by 2050,” Engineering and Technology said.

 

A BP official told the magazine that “energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared.”

 

Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says “with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand.” That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.

 

This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.

 

In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the “data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically” from carbon found in Earth’s mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an “unexpected bounty ” of “natural gas and the building blocks of oil products.”

It really wouldn’t shock me at this point if this were the case and we had just been misled by those claiming to be environmentalists.

The science community is very heavily SJW infested

Social justice warriors have infiltrated nearly every institution.  I’ve recommended both books before but cannot recommend them enough: Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double Down are required reading for anyone working in the corporate environment these days.  More often than not they will infiltrate the HR department and work their corrosive ideology from there into everything.  We know they have ravished college campuses.  Sadly, they’ve made quite the mark in the sciences as well.  I stumbled across this tweet from @nature, the official twitter of the well-known journal:

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.10.25 PM

Nature, supposedly one of the most respected science journals out there, says that calling someone a male or a female depending on if they have a penis or vagina is not rooted in science.  Sigh.

This is one of the many strategies the globalists employ to bend us to their will.  These proud atheists who smugly cross their arms and pretend to know everything will constantly claim to use science as their end all/be all argument.  Unfortunately for them, the science often does not match up with their beliefs.  In these cases, why not just change the science or publish BS?  Once it’s in a scientific journal they view it as irrefutable, set in stone, almost…like a religious dogma?  Spare them the argument that science has a replication problem, meaning many of these studies cannot actually be reproduced and independently verified by another group.  Whether it’s social sciences or climate science they will try and use these as iron-clad proof of their positions, ready to cry “SCIENCE DENIER!” at any sign of one questioning them.

Of course, we are not science deniers.  And as one should do with science, we question the results.  As we should, frequently.  The scientific method is the framework to rigorously test hypotheses and correct where needed.  This new fad of pretending that gender is a social construct has gone too far.  And now that they’ve drummed up a study here and there, once it is published they will use it as irrefutable fact to further their agenda.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.36.19 PM.png

There’s no question diversity is a strength, I read it in a science journal!

The reality is that it’s shockingly easy to get a social science paper published.  Check out this video below, two guys who got several papers published and roundly critically acclaimed…stuff they totally made up to sound as ridiculous as possible and still got them in.

Once the SJWs get their hooks in deep enough, that’s when they’ll reveal their true colors.  When it gets to the point that you cannot question what they are doing lest you want to lose your job for being a Nazi-racist-literally Hitler-such and such it is all over.  And yes, it does get that bad.  Didn’t you always want your science journals to be politically motivated, foisting their personal opinions and beliefs on you?

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.35.45 PM

%d bloggers like this: