Over 60 years have passed since the thalidomide disaster, when around 10,000 babies were born deformed due to a drug their mothers had taken during pregnancy. Thalidomide was <a href="https://usthalidomide.org/german-family-behind-thalidomide-apologises-to-victims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">promoted </a>as being “as harmless as a sugar cookie,” but almost half of all children exposed to the drug in the womb <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/thalidomide-babies-birth-defects-caused-by-a-harmless-pill-60-years-ago/a-59952155" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">died </a>shortly after birth. To this day, the majority of healthcare providers are still extremely cautious when it comes to pronouncing any drug safe for pregnant women. Quietly, however, researchers and others are working to change this, and while they claim to have the welfare of pregnant women in mind, their plans indicate that other interests are also at play.&nbsp;<ul style="list-style-type:disc;"><li>An article in a prestigious medical journal points the way toward research on pregnant and lactating women</li><li>Main obstacle: fear of legal liability</li><li>Pregnant women no longer considered “vulnerable” in official guidelines; including them in research to become the default position</li><li>Permitted level of risk raised above “minimal” and to be determined by “stakeholders" (which include Pharma)</li><li>Focus on providing researchers and Pharma with protection from liability in case of injury</li><li>Doctors &amp; other healthcare workers (broadly defined to includes doulas and others) to be barred from warning pregnant women against use of medications</li><li>Doctors to be co-opted to recruit patients as trial participants, using both inducements and implied threats</li><li>Large-scale "public awareness” campaign with the aim of creating a “cultural shift”</li></ul>&nbsp;Breaking tabooA recent article in <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817621?guestAccessKey=8b28a9e3-629c-4219-b51d-a2548613cb26&amp;utm_source=silverchair&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&amp;utm_content=olf&amp;utm_term=041024&amp;adv=" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JAMA </a>(the Journal of the American Medical Association), written by Margaret Foster Riley JD, is titled “Including Pregnant and Lactating Women in Clinical Research; Moving Beyond Legal Liability,” and the clue is in the title. In this article, Prof. Riley notes that research into use of drugs by pregnant and lactating women is being held back by fears of legal action if anything goes wrong, but that such fears are unfounded.<blockquote>... until now, there has never been a systematic examination of legal liability in the US for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research and whether this fear of liability is supported by evidence. A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine asserts that while fear of legal liability is pervasive, actual legal liability is not, and is often conflated with other concerns, such as reputational risk, increased costs, and trial complexity.</blockquote>Riley also expresses concern that the lack of research means that women many cease taking necessary drugs while pregnant or nursing, with adverse results; or that they take drugs regardless, without having safety data to inform them. While her concerns may be well-founded, it is noteworthy that she does not mention even in passing the risk that research itself would pose to women in vulnerable states.<blockquote>By excluding pregnant and lactating women from clinical studies due to perceived liability risks, these populations, as well as their fetuses and breastfeeding children, are harmed. In an ideal world, pregnant and lactating women would have the ability to make informed decisions that optimize their perinatal and postpartum health and the health of their children…</blockquote>Riley has been involved in crafting recommendations for Congress, which, several years ago, tasked the <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/27595/chapter/2#3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">National Academies</a> of Science, Engineering, and Medicine with examining the issue of research and associated liability. Their 83-page <a href="https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/PRGLAC_Implement_Plan_083120.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">report</a> contains a wealth of information from which one may derive the direction in which research is going, not only in the United States, but also in Europe and beyond.Following is an assessment of the report with selected quotations.&nbsp;Fetuses and neonates no longer considered “vulnerable”Pregnant women have historically been considered “vulnerable” when it comes to research (due to concern for the fetus), as have other populations such as prisoners, who are vulnerable to being coerced into participation, and also children, who are unable to give informed consent. <a href="https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/PRGLAC_Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">No longer</a>. The report's recommendation that pregnant women no longer be classified as vulnerable has already been implemented, with the report’s authors claiming that:<blockquote>Not surprisingly, a consensus has arisen in recent years that the more ethical and responsible course would be to include pregnant and lactating women in clinical research.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Pregnant women to be included in trials absent “strong” evidence of riskThe report also recommends a paradigm shift in the attitude toward including pregnant and/or lactating women in clinical trials, making inclusion the default position:<blockquote>Instead of justifying inclusion of pregnant women or lactating women in clinical research, investigational new drug applications (INDs) for new drugs or biological products (including a proposed study for a new indication to an already approved drug or licensed biological product) should now include justification for excluding these groups…</blockquote>Pharmaceutical companies will only be granted a waiver from including these populations if:<blockquote>… available evidence strongly suggests that the drug or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in pregnant women and/or lactating women…</blockquote>&nbsp;Permitted level of risk raised above “minimal”The official code of ethics governing the protection of those who participate in domestic research is called the <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/about-research-participation/protecting-research-volunteers/principal-regulations/index.html#:~:text=The%20Common%20Rule%20generally%20requires,in%20language%20they%20would%20understand." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Common Rule</a>. Clause 46:204 governing “Research involving pregnant women or fetuses” <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">includes</a> as one of the necessary conditions permitting this research:<blockquote>(d) If the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the pregnant woman, the prospect of a direct benefit both to the pregnant woman and the fetus, or no prospect of benefit for the woman nor the fetus when risk to the fetus is not greater than minimal&nbsp;and the purpose of the research is the development of important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained by any other means... [emphasis added]</blockquote>One of the report’s recommendations is to raise the permitted level of risk entailed in research, permitting not only research “of minimal risk” but also research that involves a “minor increase over minimal risk” (as is currently the rule for research on children).&nbsp;‘Stakeholders’ to decide what constitutes acceptable riskWho will define what constitutes a “minor increase” in risk? The report states:<blockquote>… experts and stakeholders should be convened to reach consensus on the definition of what constitutes a minor increase over minimal risk for both the pregnant woman and the fetus…</blockquote>Elsewhere, it defines stakeholders as “government, industry [i.e., Pharma], clinicians, and women":<blockquote>... stakeholders, including industry, could work on topics of mutual interest to further research on therapeutics used by pregnant women and lactating women. Examples include agreeing on the parameters of reproductive/toxicity studies, such as the weight of evidence for reproductive or teratogenic risk required, data standards, and developing a business case around the risk of studying drugs earlier in pregnant women…</blockquote>The report is light on what can be practically done to ensure that research itself does not pose dangers to women, fetuses, and neonates, merely mentioning the need for more funding to develop more preclinical models and methods, given that, “Current preclinical (animal) models have limitations for extrapolating the findings to humans.”<blockquote>Appropriate preclinical studies, such as reproductive toxicology studies using animal models, should be conducted for therapeutics still in development with the potential to be used by pregnant women and/or lactating women. Based on data from preclinical studies, decisions about whether to include pregnant women or lactating women in phase III clinical trials should be refocused; the assumption should be inclusion, with a decision on exclusion only if clearly justified by the preclinical data.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Protection for researchers — but what about mothers?It is illegal to bribe citizens to participate in medical research which involves a risk (as much, if not all, medical research does). Providing a substantial safety net for those inadvertently injured due to participation in a clinical trial is not considered an improper inducement. The report, however, does not mention providing enhanced compensation to reassure women that if anything goes wrong, they’re covered. Rather, it focuses on “providing researchers with protection against liability."<blockquote>Convene a panel ... to make recommendations for conducting research that substantially mitigates or avoids incurring liability (absent negligence or malfeasance). These recommendations may include ways to maximize the use of informed consent procedures ... without waiving research participants’ legal rights, while still providing researchers with protection against liability.&nbsp;</blockquote>The report also suggests using the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as a model for regulating compensation for mothers injured due to their involvement in a clinical study.&nbsp;Doctors who don’t play along may lose their licensesNext, the report turns its attention to the practicalities of recruiting women to clinical trials, and notes that doctors are in a unique position to influence their patients, since,<blockquote>… studies repeatedly show that healthcare providers remain a trusted source of information about health…</blockquote>Furthermore, “any hesitation on the part of the trusted healthcare provider about participation diminishes the chance” that women will join a trial, so various measures are proposed to ensure that healthcare providers actively promote participation in research:<blockquote>… continuing medical education (CME) modules that would be linked to maintenance of board certification or licensure. In addition to content about current knowledge of the therapeutics used by pregnant women and lactating women, these modules should explain how to access and how to communicate this information to a diverse group of potential participants, including information about balancing the risk of taking a medication with that of not treating an underlying condition... [emphasis added]</blockquote>&nbsp;Warning against drug use during pregnancy or lactation to be outlawedFor those doctors who succeed in recruiting patients to clinical trials, the report suggests a program of rewards:<blockquote>Explore incentives for healthcare providers to discuss clinical trials with their patients … Behavioral incentives, such as formal feedback that gives credit to healthcare providers for getting their patients involved in trials, or grading metrics from payers, should also be included in this discussion.</blockquote>However, not only doctors are to be included in the new drive to recruit pregnant and lactating women. The report mentions many other groups who are to be co-opted:<blockquote>… healthcare providers (including but not limited to clinicians, pharmacists, lactation consultants, dietitians, nursing and allied health professionals, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners); academic and industry researchers; medical, health, and pharmacy associations; teratology information specialists and genetic counselors; and pregnant women and lactating women and family members ... organizations representing women’s and family health interests, such as doula and social work organizations...</blockquote>If the report’s recommendations are adopted, all the above-mentioned groups will be barred from warning their patients or clients against using any medication during pregnancy or lactation unless there is clear evidence of risk:<blockquote>For example ... until more studies on medications used by lactating women are completed, the interim messaging to women and their healthcare providers may only reflect that data are lacking, and that they must balance risks and benefits&nbsp;of medication use with continuation of breastfeeding [emphasis added].</blockquote>How healthcare providers can calculate the risk-benefit ratio in the absence of data is not explained. Furthermore, the report stresses that data that becomes available in the future due to new research is to be shared with doctors, who will be responsible for presenting it in the form of “handouts written for a lay audience.” That is to say, the raw data will not be made available to the public.&nbsp;Aim: To create a ‘cultural shift’Parallel to its strategy vis-à-vis the healthcare profession, the report recommends a public awareness campaign to encourage pregnant and lactating women to participate in scientific research:<blockquote>Rec[ommendation]. 5: Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and healthcare providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women. For any cultural shift to occur, the associated behavioral change requires a targeted communications strategy. When communicating information relevant to treating pregnant women and lactating women, messages must be concise, consistent, tailored, and actionable for women and their healthcare providers … Highlight the importance of research on therapeutic products in pregnant women and lactating women, including the impact of not taking the medication during pregnancy and lactation…</blockquote>To provide maximal impact for public messaging, the report suggests that anecdotal evidence be used, even though in general, the scientific community dismisses this kind of evidence as either inferior or misleading and irrelevant:<blockquote>To assist in illustrating these issues, educational efforts need to include real-life stories about pregnant or lactating women’s experiences to illustrate absolute risk, relative risk, and the trade-off of risks and benefits. These stories may include the consequences of stopping treatment for ongoing conditions, failure to treat emerging conditions, and unintended incorrect dosing due to the physiological changes during pregnancy. Once developed, these messages should be pilot tested to ensure comprehension and acceptability prior to being rolled out to a wider audience.</blockquote>&nbsp;Tax breaks for Pharma companies that include pregnant and/or lactating women in clinical studiesWhile behavioral incentives are proposed to encourage doctors to recruit clinical trial participants, for another group of stakeholders, the pharmaceutical companies, the report suggests financial inducements, as JAMA’s article describes:<blockquote>... the report’s recommendations include a call for Congress to develop incentives, such as extended market exclusivity or tax breaks, to encourage the conduct of clinical studies with pregnant and lactating women…</blockquote>In fact, the government-appointed task force on research in this area is already collaborating with European Union partnerships between industrial and philanthropic interests, such as the ConcePTION initiative,<blockquote>… a public-private partnership between the European Union and the European pharmaceutical industry to develop the next generation of vaccines and medications for pregnant women and lactating women...</blockquote>The report also notes that,<blockquote>The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding MHRA in the UK to create repository of information for assessing drug exposure in pregnancy…</blockquote>&nbsp;Abortion laws and experimenting on pregnant womenProf. Riley notes that the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion “could further discourage the conduct of clinical research with pregnant women.” Her concern may be well-founded, but the parallel between laws governing clinical trials and those governing abortion is an intriguing one.It is claimed, although reliable data are hard to come by, that most pregnant women (perhaps as many as 70 percent) and the majority of lactating women (over 50 percent) use medications during these periods. Riley’s main justification for broadening the permissibility of research rests on the assumption that “drug use is happening anyway, so we should at least find out if it’s safe (even if we risk a few women and babies along the way).” A similar argument is used by those in favor of “safe, legal, and rare” abortions.&nbsp;However, just because people are doing something “anyway” does not mean it should be condoned or encouraged by the government. Furthermore, doing so may have deleterious effects that legislators often fail to anticipate.&nbsp;Large, uncontrolled experiments?Riley also notes that:<blockquote>The absence of a sufficient evidence base means that almost all pregnant and lactating women with a condition for which a medical product might be appropriate are, in effect, participants in large, uncontrolled experiments that typically will not produce useful data.</blockquote>Unwitting and often unwilling participants in another “large, uncontrolled experiment” may have something to say on the topic…

preg woman.jpg

Medical

US News

Healthcare providers to be co-opted in recruiting trial participants; Pharma to be granted tax breaks

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

Raisman.jpg

More than 100 claims that DOJ grossly mishandled allegations of sexual assault but aggressively prosecuted J6 trespassers

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

By Alex NewmanFlush with taxpayer cash from the federal government, state and local officials are rapidly transforming public schools into “full-service community schools” that will address far more than just “education.”&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><div style="position:relative;width:100%;height:0;padding-top:56.25%;"><iframe src="https://subsplash.com/+78fw/embed/mi/+5j2py6v?audio&amp;video&amp;shareable&amp;embeddable" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreenallowfullscreen="" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></div></div>In fact, under the guise of caring for the “whole child,” these “community schools” are increasingly taking over the few remaining duties left over to parents — mental health, dental health, vision, nutrition, healthcare, social and emotional wellbeing, and more.&nbsp;The plan is to get children into government hands earlier and earlier, too. The U.S. Department of Education boasted last year in a&nbsp;<a href="https://blog.ed.gov/2023/06/community-schools-fostering-innovation-and-transformation/">blog post</a>&nbsp;that community schools will “support” students “from cradle to career,” something long considered the exclusive domain of parents.&nbsp; &nbsp;The Biden administration, led by a man who notoriously sniffs and touches children while claiming they “are all our children,” has been showering federal funds on the scheme since taking office, as The Newman Report&nbsp;<a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2022/08/02/newman-report-42/">documented</a>&nbsp;in 2022. Congress has been fully complicit, even under&nbsp;<a href="https://thenewamerican.com/us/education/obama-and-gop-unleash-community-schools-to-replace-parents/">GOP control</a>. &nbsp;Just last year, the Biden Department of Education&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-74-million-expand-full-service-community-schools">announced</a>&nbsp;yet another $150 million in additional “community school” grants to 30 education agencies — many of them in conservative states where lawmakers would be unlikely to participate if not for the federal tax money. Responding to the federal funding, states have already spent billions on the scheme. &nbsp;Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who famously denied that parents were the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education, could barely contain his glee as he announced the new funds.“We know that comprehensive, wrap-around approaches—including nutrition assistance; mental health services; early childhood education; and access to high-quality afterschool summer learning, and enrichment programs—all are crucial for accelerating our students’ academic success and their recovery from the pandemic by helping them thrive both inside and outside of school,” said Cardona.&nbsp;“I am proud that the Biden-Harris Administration is expanding the number of community schools across the country as an evidence-based strategy to Raise the Bar in education and to deliver on our commitment to support students, families, and whole communities,” added the education boss, calling the latest round of taxpayer funding “vital” for supporting the “holistic needs” of children.&nbsp;Already, an estimated 10,000 “community schools” exist across the United States thanks to such grants, launched in the waning months of the Obama administration with&nbsp;<a href="https://thenewamerican.com/us/education/obama-and-gop-unleash-community-schools-to-replace-parents/">RINO support in Congress</a>. And with the federal government funding them and the teachers’ unions pushing them hard, that number is expected to keep ballooning quickly. &nbsp;The far-left National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest union with more than 3 million members, touts “community schools” all over its website as essential for all children.&nbsp;It describes them as institutions offering “services and supports like free healthy meals, health care, and tutoring, or systemic changes like shifts in school culture, policies, and approaches to teaching and learning.”&nbsp;On its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/ts-communityschools.asp">website</a>, the California Department of Education, which is working hard to get community schools all across the state, highlights some of the differences between them and traditional government schools.“A community school is a public school … has community partnerships that support improved academic outcomes, whole-child engagement, and family development,” the radical leftwing agency declares, listing “integrated supports services” and “extended learning time” as key features.“Community schools support the needs of the whole child,” it continues, with “approaches that sustain mental and behavioral health through healing-centered practices, social–emotional learning, and restorative justice.”The California Department of Education also boasts that the new model increases access to social workers and counselors. These tax-funded experts in the schools can help children transition to new made-up genders, access abortion, and get dangerous psychotropic drugs to enrich Big Pharma.&nbsp;In addition to sidelining parents, community schools also seek to marginalize and ultimately replace institutions such as churches that for centuries have served as “community hubs.”&nbsp; &nbsp;Illinois is one of many states that, using federal funding, have unleashed the “community school” model on the population. Despite junk taxpayer-funded “studies” claiming the model “helps” children, the results suggest just the opposite is true.&nbsp;The prominent “sustainable community school” known as Richards Academy in Chicago, for instance, graduated about two thirds of its victims in four years — yet it did not have one single student proficient in either reading or math on standardized tests, Illinois State Board of Education data show. Almost 80 percent of student are chronically absent. And the school costs taxpayers some $4,000 more per victim.&nbsp;Unsurprisingly, though, the Chicago Teachers Union wants to replicate that “success” across the district.&nbsp;“We have committed as an entire union to using our contract to create more sustainable community schools like Richards Academy,” said CTU boss Stacy Davis Gates at a press conference, calling it the “type of school community that is necessary to nurture, to educate, to reimagine, to ameliorate injustice and disparity.”Using the notorious “Delphi” tactics for manipulating a group of people into a particular outcome while making them think they came up with the ideas, governments across the country are&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wkdzradio.com/2024/03/25/first-of-3-meetings-about-community-schools-grant/news-edge/">holding meetings</a>&nbsp;with taxpayers and parents on the issue. They all end up at the same: Government schools must tax more, spend more, and usurp more control over the lives of children.&nbsp;Ultimately, the goal of these government-controlled community schools is total government. They seek to become the center of the community and life — a replacement for family, church, and genuine community. Universal mental-health screening and government intervention in everything are already being deployed as part of the process.&nbsp;<img class="image_resized" style="width:374px;" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.freedomproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/3364780_1225x377_2500.jpg?resize=696%2C214&amp;ssl=1" alt="">Rather than fight back against the latest outrage from government schools and the Biden administration, parents should do something far more effective: opt out altogether. Parents, children, families, and communities would all be better off leaving the whole system.Families, voluntary associations, and churches — not “community schools” — should be placed back in their central role in the lives of children. Government must be stopped from encroaching any further. Civilization and liberty depend on it.<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/">Alex Newman</a>&nbsp;Alex Newman is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.Originally published at <a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2024/04/24/tnr20240424/">FreedomProject Media</a>.

school bus.jpg

Education

Public schools transforming into 'full-service community schools' that address far more than 'education'

White House funding 'community schools' that aim to replace parents 

<h2>Technology harms children's development</h2><h3>Technology not a substitute for in-person teachers&nbsp;</h3>Anna Brambila, a therapist and parent, recently expressed concern that the use of Chromebooks by children during COVID-19 school closures has led to their developing ADHD and autism-like symptoms. She had hoped that when they went back to school the use of Chromebooks would be discontinued. &nbsp;She soon found, however, that they were here to stay.&nbsp;Brambila made the below TikTok clip to explain the tremendous disservice this is to children who, from elementary through middle school, as research has shown, do not learn nearly as well through a screen as they do from an in-person teacher. Children who are using screens too much, she said, &nbsp;develop ADHD and autism-like symptoms:<blockquote>&nbsp;. . . so much research . . &nbsp;shows that kids, so like elementary schoolup through about half of middle school just do not learn through a screen anywhere close to the same way that they do with an in person teacher. . . .There's so much research that shows that kids who spend more time in front of portable devices with things like ipads and Chromebooks, there are impacts to the way that their brains are developing. So things like ADHD and autism and symptoms that look like ADHD and autism, those things can be incredibly exacerbated with too much screen time. &nbsp;. .&nbsp;</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@brambila_bits/video/7342227288425106734" data-video-id="7342227288425106734" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@brambila_bits" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@brambila_bits?refer=embed">@brambila_bits</a> Anyone else finding themselves tempted to start using the school issued portable devices as frisbees? Just me? <a title="motherhood" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/motherhood?refer=embed">#motherhood</a> <a title="momlife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/momlife?refer=embed">#momlife</a> <a title="millenialmom" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/millenialmom?refer=embed">#millenialmom</a> <a title="technology" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/technology?refer=embed">#technology</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Andrea Brambila" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7342227437553552170?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Andrea Brambila</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div><h3>“Impoverished stimulation of the developing brain”</h3>Before COVID-19 hit, research was already being compiled about the effects of technology use on children.&nbsp;“Screen time and the brain,” a June 2019 article by Harvard Medical School researcher Debra Bradley Ruder, <a href="https://hms.harvard.edu/news/screen-time-brain" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">quotes</a> Pediatrician Dr. Michael Rich who is concerned with the negative effect of technology on the developing brain referring to the stimulation provided on the screen as “impoverished.”&nbsp;<blockquote>The growing human brain is constantly building neural connections while pruning away less-used ones, and digital media use plays an active role in that process, according to Rich. Much of what happens on screen provides “impoverished” stimulation of the developing brain compared to reality, he says. Children need a diverse menu of online and offline experiences, including the chance to let their minds wander.“Boredom is the space in which creativity and imagination happen,” he says.&nbsp;</blockquote><h3>Cleveland Clinic — too much screen time elicits ADHD-like behaviors</h3>The Cleveland Clinic <a href="https://health.clevelandclinic.org/screen-time-and-adhd" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">raised</a> similar concerns about ADHD-like symptoms as Brambila did. In an article entitled: “Does Heightened Screen Time Cause Attention-Deficit Disorder (ADHD) In Children?” the Clinic referred to a 2018 study of 2,587 high school children who had not been diagnosed with ADHD and found that those who had more screen time exhibited behaviors similar to ADHD:<blockquote><ul><li>Inattention, such as difficulty organizing and completing tasks.</li><li>Hyperactivity-impulsivity, such as having trouble sitting still.</li></ul>. . . “Does this mean that too much time gaming or commenting on Facebook can give kids ADHD? Absolutely not. But these activities may cause symptoms that are similar to ADHD, even though they can’t cause ADHD itself,” [pediatric behavioral health specialist Michael Manos, PhD] says.</blockquote>Attention span and development were affected as well:&nbsp;<blockquote>So, while social media and device use may not directly cause ADHD, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect on your child’s attention span and overall development. And, as Dr. Manos points out, our attention span is greatly tied to how we relate and socialize with others.</blockquote>The technology was also found to inhibit the development of social skills:<blockquote>“As children increasingly relate to each other through digital media, including social media and video games, it calls into question how we communicate on a human level,” he adds.He also notes that while things like video games do help with team building and problem-solving, they shouldn’t be the only kind of interaction kids are having. Too much time on devices means less time having real face-to-face communication, where facial expression, voice and body language all come into play.“These are the nuances of understanding relationships,” Dr. Manos says.</blockquote><figure class="image image_resized" style="width:75%;"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714059797/three_teenagers_on_smarthphones_d657f7996a.jpg"></figure>&nbsp;<h3>“Students need explicit instruction on how to interact with others in person”</h3>A June 2020 EdWeek article <a href="https://www.edweek.org/technology/why-principals-worry-about-how-mobile-devices-affect-students-social-skills-attention-spans/2020/06" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reviewed</a> the results of the EdWeek Research Center's February 2020 survey of principals regarding students and technology. They found that students had a hard time interacting personally with others - they did not know how:<blockquote>Prior to the pandemic, in February, the EdWeek Research Center surveyed 965 principals and teachers on a host of questions related to the use of digital devices by K-12 students in, and outside of, school. The nationally representative survey shows, for instance, that more than half of educators said their students are less skilled at in-person interactions than they and their peers were at the same age, because they are so accustomed to interacting via devices. And about 40 percent said students need explicit instruction on how to interact with others in person because so much of their experience with human interaction comes from devices.</blockquote>Interviews with several principals further revealed that children were no longer conversing and can't deal with emotions:<blockquote>[The principal of Riley Elementary School in Gold Beach, Ore.,Tom] Denning recalled when he used to have to tell students to stop talking so loud on the bus ride to a field trip. Now the ride is quiet: All the students have their earbuds in or are on their cellphones.“They’ll send a text and not deal with anything face to face,” Denning said. “There’s a concern that they are not learning how to deal with people. They don’t know how to deal with emotions, and it’s not a good situation.”</blockquote><h2>Don't raise “iPad kids”</h2>The situation with Gen-Alpha kids, born from 2010 to date, is so bad, that even Gen-Z'ers, those born between 1997 and 2012, are complaining about Gen-Alpha's inability to read and bad behavior. Today author Rosie Colosi <a href="https://www.today.com/parents/family/ipad-kids-rcna142059" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">shared</a> Gen-Z's frustration, linking to the TikTok video below, in which 20-year-old Gen-Z'er Gabe Escobar exhorts his fellow Gen-Z'ers not to raise “iPad kids.” &nbsp;<blockquote>As a result of staring at screens, Gen Alpha's "iPad kids" have developed unwanted, unhealthy and downright strange behavior, say Gen Z critics (born between the late 1990s and 2010), who have been posting their thoughts about the younger generation on TikTok.Gabe Escobar (<a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco/video/7298870719755111722?q=gabe%20escobar%20ipad%20&amp;t=1710179207478">@gabesco</a>) shared a rant about "iPad kids" in November 2023. The video has 23 million views to date. He said, "I need everyone else in my generation to promise that we are not going to raise 'iPad children.' ... You've been shoving media and screens in these kids' faces since birth."Escobar said that these kids likely "can't read" and "have no imagination." Horrified by seeing kids using screens in restaurants, he asked parents, “Can you not make your child behave for more than five seconds?”</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco/video/7298870719755111722" data-video-id="7298870719755111722" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@gabesco" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco?refer=embed">@gabesco</a> seriously pls we cant let it happen <a title="genz" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genz?refer=embed">#genz</a> <a title="genalpha" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genalpha?refer=embed">#genalpha</a> <a title="ipadkid" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ipadkid?refer=embed">#ipadkid</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Gabe Escobar" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7298870761563917098?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Gabe Escobar</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div>Colosi also linked to TikTok'er Andra's video (below), in which she agreed with Escobar and included her own observations of Gen-Alpha kids as a nanny of eight years. Andra found that the kids who were easiest to handle were those whose parents limited screen time.<blockquote>A Gen Z creator named Andra (@hopeyoufindyourdad), who worked as a nanny for eight years, commented on Escobar's video saying that "the families that were the easiest to manage were the families that extremely controlled screen time for their kids."She added that in her experience, "if you try to take an iPad out of an iPad kid's hand, not only will they throw a tantrum so large, but they will start physically hitting you."</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@hopeyoufindyourdad/video/7299966592438488366" data-video-id="7299966592438488366" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@hopeyoufindyourdad" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@hopeyoufindyourdad?refer=embed">@hopeyoufindyourdad</a> @gabesco I am fully on board with what this creator is saying although kids having ipads is a bit inevitable at this point the real issue is regulation and parenting styles <a title="genz" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genz?refer=embed">#genz</a> <a title="genalpha" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genalpha?refer=embed">#genalpha</a> <a title="millennial" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/millennial?refer=embed">#millennial</a> <a title="parenting" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/parenting?refer=embed">#parenting</a> <a title="ipadkid" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ipadkid?refer=embed">#ipadkid</a> <a title="greenscreenvideo" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/greenscreenvideo?refer=embed">#greenscreenvideo</a> <a title="greenscreen" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/greenscreen?refer=embed">#greenscreen</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Andra" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7299966669533891374?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Andra</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div>As Frontline News <a href="https://frontline.news/post/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>, the effects of excessive screen time on the social and emotional development of Gen-Z'ers are profoundly negative:&nbsp;<blockquote>It's well known that Gen Z adults have much higher rates of mental illness than other generations, and [NYU social psychologist Jonathan] Haidt pointed to data showing they are also more shy and risk-averse, more socially isolated, especially with respect to dating, less confident, less successful — the list goes on and on.&nbsp;</blockquote><h2 style="margin-left:0px;">What does the future hold?</h2>Gen-Z'ers were born before iPads were developed. The effect of technology on Gen-Alpha, who have grown up with iPads, may already be profoundly worse than the effect technology has had on Gen-Z. How will society continue to function if its children, soon-to-be adults, can't?&nbsp;Related articles:&nbsp;<ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mental illness and suicide in children and adolescents linked to smartphones</a></li></ul>

children learning via technology.jpg

Technology

'There’s a concern that they are not learning how to deal with people; they don’t know how to deal with emotions'

IPads and Chromebooks linked to ADHD and Autism-like symptoms in children

The Supreme Court has requested a response from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to a petition from a peaceful J6 protestor who is appealing his conviction for disorderly conduct.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>99% rejected</h3>The High Court only agrees to grant certiorari, i.e., review a request for appeal, in about <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/11/24/how-the-supreme-court-decides-which-cases-to-hear" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">eighty out of seven to eight thousand </a>petitions for “a writ of certiorari” each year. Normally, the justices do not give an indication of whether they are inclined to include a particular case in the one percent that get to the next stage, which includes additional briefs and oral arguments, until after receiving a response to the petition and the petitioner's reply to the response.&nbsp;<h3>Confident feds</h3>In the case of J6 protestor Russell Alford, however, the justices may have already signaled that they are inclined to grant certiorari, a decision which would require the agreement of four of the nine justices. Alford filed his petition to cancel his conviction with SCOTUS in early April and the government had 30 days to respond. Instead of responding, however, the DOJ penned a single <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-7158/307520/20240412164019362_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2023-7158.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">sentence</a> to the High Court:<blockquote>The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.</blockquote>The justices then announced that they do indeed <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-7158.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">want the DOJ to respond</a>, giving it a May 23, 2024 deadline, indicating their interest in the matter.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">As Josh Gerstein just reported at Politico, SCOTUS requested a response from DOJ in petition for writ of cert filed by Russell Alford, convicted by a DC jury of 4 misdemeanors for J6. This doesn't mean SCOTUS will take up the case but it does mean they want some answers. The… <a href="https://t.co/esI7QgEbam">pic.twitter.com/esI7QgEbam</a>— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) <a href="https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782798939562905608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div><h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>1 act, 13 minutes, 4 convictions</h2>Most J6 defendants, facing multiple charges for the one act of trespassing, waived their right to argue that their entrance into the Capital was an unknowing trespass, <a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-pressure-jan-6-defendants-to-falsely-confess-to-knowingly-trespassing" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fearing the potential for multiple prison sentences</a>. Alford, like America's Frontline Doctors' (AFLDS) Creative Director <a href="https://frontline.news/post/bureau-of-prisons-overrides-own-scoring-system-to-incarcerate-j6-defendants-in-more-dangerous-locations" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">John Strand</a>, was one of the few J6 defendants to refuse a plea deal.Alford's trespass was <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/23-3023/23-3023-2024-01-05.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">described</a> by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.<blockquote>Alford remained inside the Capitol for approximately thirteen minutes…&nbsp;While inside, he mostly stood to the side and observed. He filmed protestors chanting “stop the steal” and pounding on a door that led to the floor of the House, behind which sheltered dozens of Congress members. [Emphasis added.]</blockquote>The court added that Alford left within three minutes of police telling the crowd to leave:<blockquote>Police arrived within about ten minutes of Alford’s entry and began physically and verbally directing the crowd back out through the Upper House Door. Alford initially moved further down the hallway before turning and making for the exit … He left once someone managed to open the second double door.&nbsp;</blockquote>For this, the trial court convicted Alford on four separate counts, all stemming from that 13-minute walk during which he did <a href="https://www.conservativenewszone.com/articles/big-supreme-court-signals-it-may-throw-out-1000-january-6-convictions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">not so much as yell</a>. He was given the maximum sentence for each charge, to be served concurrently, resulting in a 12-month sentence for:<ol style="list-style-type:decimal;"><li>Remaining in a restricted building</li><li>Disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building</li><li>Disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Capitol Building and parading</li><li>Demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol Building [Emphasis added.]</li></ol><h3>&nbsp;</h3><h3>Overcharging banned; not banned</h3>The DOJ is actually <a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-coerce-jan-6-defendants-to-waive-right-to-appeal-jail-time" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">prohibited</a> from engaging in so-called overcharging, particularly in the the District of Columbia Circuit, in which Alford's trial court sits, where the circuit's appellate court has, for more than 50 years,&nbsp;explicitly <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4792425287924462607&amp;q=Scott+v+United+States,+135+US+App+DC+377&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2003">banned the practice of overcharging defendants</a> where the intent is to coerce a guilty plea on a lesser charge:<blockquote>. . . the prosecutor&nbsp;clearly cannot have carte blanche to apply whatever&nbsp;tactics he wishes&nbsp;to induce a guilty plea.&nbsp;A policy of&nbsp;deliberately&nbsp;overcharging defendants with no intention of prosecuting on all counts simply in order to have chips at the bargaining table would, for example,&nbsp;constitute&nbsp;improper harassment&nbsp;of the defendant. [Emphasis added.]&nbsp;</blockquote>Nonetheless, J6 protestors have been uniformly subjected to multiple charges in the absence of separate actions. Technically, though, Alford's case does not fit this classic definition of overcharging, since the DOJ, perhaps sensing a jury pool antagonistic to J6 protestors, did in fact prosecute Alford on multiple charges. But it is not, in any case, overcharging that is at issue in the petition to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;<h3>Not disorderly; disorderly</h3>Alford appealed his convictions on the two charges requiring the government to prove “disorderly or disruptive conduct.” The trial court refused Alford's motion to acquit on those charges, despite the lack of any evidence of such conduct, arguing that he should be held guilty on account of the actions of (a small minority) the other protestors:<blockquote>Mr. Alford’s mere presence inside the Capitol disturbed the public peace or undermined public safety” and that “his presence was an aspect of the disorder and disruption of the Capitol.” [Emphasis added].</blockquote><h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>“Even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly”</h2>The appellate court <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/federal-court-rules-even-passive-jan-6-protestors-who-were-inside-capitol-can-be-convicted/ar-AA1my8bN" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">agreed</a> with prosecutors and the lower court:<blockquote>The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that trespassers in the Capitol during the riot did not need to be acting "disorderly" or "disruptive" to be found guilty of disorderly conduct, because such definitions “are nebulous but time has given them concrete contours in two ways important here.”"First, it is well-established that whether conduct qualifies as disorderly depends on the surrounding circumstances," the court wrote …"Second, it is equally clear from caselaw that even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly," the ruling continued. [Emphases added].</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">JUST IN: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> signals it may undermine more common <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Jan6?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Jan6</a> charges as justices ask DOJ to respond to petition challenging 'disorderly or disruptive' charges v. Russell Alford. DC Cir ruled charges valid even for nonviolent protesters. Earlier: <a href="https://t.co/QMDbF9UM7z">https://t.co/QMDbF9UM7z</a>— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1782793703788077417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div>It is this ruling, that "passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly,” that is at issue in Alford's appeal to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h4>High Court may help … others</h4>Should the nation's highest court rule that such peaceful behavior as Alford's cannot be the basis for a disorderly conduct conviction, it may not actually benefit Alford, as his two convictions for “remaining” and “demonstrating” in the Capital would still stand and for each he was sentenced to the maximum prison time, as mentioned above, to run concurrently.&nbsp;Since the maximum sentence for the charge of merely remaining in a restricted building is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">one year</a>, even vacating the two disorderly charges would still leave Alford facing a year in prison, though he could argue that, without the disorderly charges, one year is excessive for trespassing.Alford is far from the only peaceful J6 protestor to be charged with disorderly conduct, however. <a href="https://www.conservativenewszone.com/articles/big-supreme-court-signals-it-may-throw-out-1000-january-6-convictions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According</a> to Conservative Zone, 1,156 of those protestors were charged with disorderly conduct despite their peaceful conduct.<blockquote>1,156 peaceful January 6 protesters have been charged with engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct. 1,021 have been charged with disorderly or disruptive conduct in a Capitol building. About 1,000 of them have been hit with both misdemeanor charges. These are the most common charges that the 1,300+ total January 6 peaceful protesters have been hit with.None of the people facing these charges did anything violent or caused any property damage. They were welcomed into the building by police officers who were high-fiving them and holding doors open for them, they wandered around for a while, and they peacefully left when asked to do so.</blockquote>&nbsp;<h4>See our other coverage of Jan 6 defendants:</h4><ol><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/mr-biden-wheres-dr-golds-pardon-for-peaceful-capitol-speech">Mr Biden - Where is Dr Gold's pardon for peaceful medical speech at Capitol?</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-coerce-jan-6-defendants-to-waive-right-to-appeal-jail-time">Feds coerce Jan 6 defendants into waiving right to appeal jail time</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-pressure-jan-6-defendants-to-falsely-confess-to-knowingly-trespassing">Feds pressure Jan 6 defendants to falsely confess to ‘knowingly’ trespassing</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/judge-in-dr-gold-case-applauded-anti-free-speech-socialists-disrupting-scotus">Judge in Dr Gold case applauded anti-free speech socialists disrupting SCOTUS</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/fbidojcourt-jail-dr-simone-gold-for-trespass-politicizing-medicine">Politicizing medicine: FBI/DOJ/Court jail Dr Simone Gold for trespass</a></li><li><a href="http://frontline.news/post/fbi-no-time-to-interview-rape-victims-plenty-for-jan-6-trespass">FBI - No time to interview rape victims; plenty for Jan 6 trespass</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/aflds-founder-waives-selective-prosecution-defense-accepts-misdemeanor-plea-deal-for-delivering-medical-talk-on-govt-property">AFLDS founder waives ‘selective prosecution’ defense; accepts misdemeanor plea deal for delivering medical talk on gov’t property</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/congressman-introduces-j6-bill-to-counter-political-prosecutions">Congressman introduces ‘J6 Bill to Counter Political Prosecutions’</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/judge-allows-doj-to-hide-exculpatory-evidence-from-january-6-defendants">Judge allows DOJ to withhold exculpatory evidence from J6 defendants</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/j-6-prisoner-of-conscience-punished-with-isolation-after-jailhouse-interview-analysis">J6 prisoner of conscience punished with isolation after jailhouse interview - analysis</a></li></ol>

SCOTUS.jpg

High Court could vacate more than one thousand sentences 

SCOTUS asks DOJ to defend disorderly conduct convictions of J6 protestors who were not disorderly

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

Healthcare providers to be co-opted in recruiting trial participants; Pharma to be granted tax breaks

Related Articles

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

Most teens outgrow 'trans' feelings - new study

Big Pharma guiding doctors on how to discuss side effects

Medical school? Only if you're willing to 'disrupt power imbalances' suffered by 'racialized people'

Latest Articles

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

White House funding 'community schools' that aim to replace parents

IPads and Chromebooks linked to ADHD and Autism-like symptoms in children

SCOTUS asks DOJ to defend disorderly conduct convictions of J6 protestors who were not disorderly