The Era of Corporate Media Dominance Is Over

Trump cannot be prosecuted. The "lawfare" must end. From John Nolte at Breitbart:

The Road to the White House no longer goes through 60 Minutes, CNN, Fox News, Meet the Press, the New York Times editorial board, or the cover of Time Magazine. That road now runs through the Joe Rogan Experience, Breitbart News, New Media, podcasts, talk radio, and social media.

In other words, the Road to the White House now goes through We the People.

Like Hamas, the wicked corporate media launched a terrorist war against a political leader and his civilian followers, which has led to the media’s humiliating and irreversible defeat. The media launched this war on June 15, 2015, the day former President and now President-elect Donald Trump announced his first run for the Oval Office.

On that day, the media wasted no time mocking and slandering Trump. He was immediately written off as a reality show buffoon, a racist who hated Arabs and Mexicans, an Orange Ego with zero chance. As soon as he’d concluded that announcement, the media smugs were already writing the first draft of history…How riding the Trump Tower escalator down defined Trump’s short-lived political career. (Read more.)

 

In New York, no more vouchers for illegal aliens. From The Daily Wire:

New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced on Thursday that the city is ending its controversial program that gave illegal aliens hundreds of dollars of taxpayer money every week for food.

Adams’ office said in a statement, “As we move towards more competitive contracting for asylum seeker programs, we have chosen not to renew the emergency contract for this pilot program once the one-year term concludes.”

The move comes after President-Elect Donald Trump promised mass deportations once he takes office in January.

The program gave debit cards to illegal aliens who were living in taxpayer-funded hotels, allowing them to buy whatever kind of food they wanted.

The city gave millions of dollars to thousands of illegal aliens through the program. (Read more.)

 

And the tide has turned for "gender-affirming care" for minors. From City Journal:

The main justification for “gender-affirming care” for minors in the United States has been that “all major U.S. medical associations” support it. Critics of this supposed consensus have argued that it is not grounded in high-quality research or decades of honest and robust deliberation among clinicians with different viewpoints and experiences. Instead, it is the result of a small number of ideologically driven doctor-association members in LGBT-focused committees, who exploit their colleagues' trust. Physicians presenting different viewpoints are silenced or kept away from decision-making circles, ensuring the appearance of unanimity.

As the U.K.’s Cass Review pointed out, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the U.S. Endocrine Society were especially important in forging this consensus, and they did so by citing each other’s statements, rather than conducting a scientific appraisal of the evidence. The “circularity” of this approach, says Cass in her report to England’s National Health Service, “may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.”

Perhaps because it has never really depended on evidence, this doctor-group consensus has shown remarkable resilience in the face of major system shocks, including several whistleblowers, revelations from court documents that WPATH manipulated scientific evidence reviews, the Cass Review, a bipartisan commitment in the U.K. to roll back pediatric medical transition, and a growing international call for a developmentally informed approach that prioritizes psychotherapy over hormones and surgeries.

But the U.S. consensus now appears to have its first big fracture. In July, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, a major medical association representing 11,000 members and over 90 percent of the field in the U.S. and Canada, told me that it “has not endorsed any organization’s practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria.” ASPS acknowledged that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”  

Calling the evidence for youth gender transition “low quality” is not, as some gender clinicians say, a “scary buzzword” intended to “confus[e] non-experts.” In evidence-based medicine, “low quality” evidence means something very specific: that the true effect of an intervention is likely to be markedly different from the results reported in studies. As one expert in evidence-based medicine put it, low quality “doesn’t just mean something esoteric about study design, it means there’s uncertainty about whether the long-term benefits outweigh the harms.” As evidence for those harms—which include infertility, sexual dysfunction, and the agony of regret—continues to mount and ethical concerns get harder to ignore, European countries are increasingly prioritizing psychotherapy and reclassifying endocrine and surgical approaches as experimental.

Aware that WPATH suppressed systematic reviews of evidence while developing its latest “standards of care,” ASPS says that it “is reviewing and prioritizing several initiatives that best support evidence-based gender surgical care to provide guidance to plastic surgeons.” I also asked ASPS whether plastic surgeons share responsibility for determining the medical necessity of gender surgeries for minors. ASPS responded that surgeons are “members of the multidisciplinary care team” and as such “have a responsibility to provide comprehensive patient education and maintain a robust and evidence-based informed consent process, so patients and their families can set realistic expectations in the shared decision-making process.” (Read more.)