Science! Doctors Induced Lactation in Man Who Wanted to Breast Feed Partner’s Child

Scientists claim to be working for the common good but who gets to define what that is?

The bizarre fetish people have for the pseudo-science of gender fluidity is making ever more disturbing strides to satisfy the desires of people who are unable to accept their biological nature. Now doctors have managed to make a man lactate because he wanted to breast feed his significant other’s baby. The New York Times refers to the man as a “transgender woman” and use the politically but not grammatically or scientifically correct feminine pronouns to refer to him.

When a transgender woman told doctors at a hospital in New York that she wanted to breast-feed her pregnant partner’s baby, they put her on a regimen of drugs that included an anti-nausea medication licensed in Britain and Canada but banned in the United States.

The illegal drug being used in this case is called Domperidone. The FDA has banned it specifically for risks involved with using it to promote lactation.

Domperidone is not currently a legally marketed human drug and it is not approved for sale in the U.S. On June 7, 2004, FDA issued a public warning that distributing any domperidone-containing products is illegal. FDA also issued an Import Alert instructing FDA field personnel to detain shipments of finished drug products and bulk ingredients containing domperidone, and refuse admission into the US. FDA took this action because of the concern about the potential serious health risks associated with the use of domperidone by lactating women to enhance breast milk production. (emphasis added)

The serious risks associated with domperidone include cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and sudden death. These risks are related to the blood level of domperidone, and higher levels in the blood are associated with higher risks of these events. Concurrent use of certain commonly used drugs, such as erythromycin, could raise blood levels of domperidone and further increase the risk of serious adverse cardiac outcomes.

Domperidone may be useful for treating severe gastrointestinal problems and it appears that the FDA makes allowances for its use in these cases.

Within a month, according to the journal Transgender Health, the woman, 30, who was born male, was producing droplets of milk. Within three months — two weeks before the baby’s due date — she had increased her production to eight ounces of milk a day.

In the end, the study showed, “she was able to achieve sufficient breast milk volume to be the sole source of nourishment for her child for six weeks,” according to the journal.

I refuse to sacrifice science to feelings and join in this confusion. The reason this person could not naturally produce milk is that this person is a man. He had the disordered desire to breast feed a child and doctors, rather than treating his mental illness, bombarded his system with drugs and hormones in order to chemically force his breast tissue to produce milk.

The case report describes the man’s “History of Present Illness.” Apparently men being unable to breastfeed now qualifies as an “illness.”

A 30-year-old transgender woman presented to clinic seeking help to achieve her goal of breastfeeding. She explained that her partner was pregnant but not interested in breastfeeding, and that she hoped to take on the role of being the primary food source for her infant.

The patient’s medical history was significant for gender incongruence for which she initiated a feminizing hormone regimen in 2011. At the time of our first visit, she was taking spironolactone 50 mg po bid, estradiol 2 mg po bid, and micronized progesterone 100 mg po bid. Her medical history was also significant for panic disorder, for which she was taking occasional clonazepam, and insomnia, for which she was taking occasional zolpidem. She was otherwise known to be in good general health and reported no complaints.

It’s unsurprising that the man’s medical history includes mental health issues.

Dr. Tamar Reisman and Zil Goldstein, a nurse practitioner, of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York, say the case illustrates that, in some circumstances, modest but functional lactation can be induced in transgender women who did not give birth or undergo surgery.

The scientists involved justify this using the normal upsides to normal breastfeeding such as immunological benefits, mother child bonding, and even economic benefits derived from not having to purchase baby formula. There is no data supporting that the sort of artificial lactation acheived through drugs has any immunological benefits. In this case the person breastfeeding the child is not even the child’s mother (and is probably not even a biological parent). On the economic front one has to assume that the cost of this “treatment” outweighs any savings on formula.

Let’s just call this what it is: vanity. A child is being used as a prop to satisfy a deluded person’s need to affirm their delusion. Was any thought given to the effects on the child in this case? Consuming milk from a man whose system is pumped full of artificial hormones and drugs can’t be healthier than using baby formula.

We now live in a culture that is suspicious of genetically modified food sources and the levels of hormones present in dairy products, but will look at this Frankensteinesque bastardization of human biology as a great acheivement for science and social justice.

 

The post Science! Doctors Induced Lactation in Man Who Wanted to Breast Feed Partner’s Child appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Antifa Attempts to Shut Down Another Conservative Speaker in Colorado, Violence Ensues

The fascist group that claims to be against fascism has once again provoked a violent confrontation because of someone expressing a point of view they disagree with. And to make matters worse, some white nationalist clowns showed up to help.

According to reports, protests outside the venue where Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk was speaking were largely peaceful. However, near the end of the event, socialists and self-described anti-fascists clashed with a third group on the campus plaza.

The members of Antifa have a disability when it comes to detecting irony. They remind me of that one Imam who said, during the protests over cartoon depictions of Muhammad, “Stop calling Muslims violent, or we’ll kill you.”

If someone is fascistly anti-fascist does that make them pro-fascism or just neutral? Obviously these idiots aren’t neutral, they’re just projecting their own fascist tendencies onto others. The far left is very good at attacking the right for doing things of which the left is guilty. But you already knew that. It’s already a cliche.

The target of their rage was Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA who has the extremist idea that conservative points of view and free market ideas should be allowed to exist on college campuses without a bunch of stinky, balaclava-wearing idiots attempting to intimidate people into accepting their totalitarian world view. (Or without knuckle-dragging neo-nazis showing up to definitely not help the situation.)

Fascists apparently attract nazis.

The Coloradoan reported people armed with bats, riot shields, gas masks, and large flashlights stormed the area chanting Nazi slogans as a counter-protest to anti-fascist protesters.

No tiki-torches? I guess they’re not a big thing in Colorado.

Nazis and fascists together attract campus police

CSU police Chief Scott Harris issued a dispersal order after the speech due to “a risk of an imminent threat of potential violence” following the speech.

Emeshe Amade, a CSU student who was on the scene, told the Coloradoan that she believes members of the Traditionalist Worker Party, who were tied to anti-immigration fliers that stirred controversy on campus earlier in the week, were present in the violent clash.

The same student also said she witnessed members of the anti-fascists get violently assaulted

These groups will all usually say they were assaulted whether they actually were. When you’re a fascist against fascism or a nazi for the American way, you don’t really have a good handle on the truth. In this case it sounds like things got defused before they got too violent.

The post Antifa Attempts to Shut Down Another Conservative Speaker in Colorado, Violence Ensues appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


New Trump Campaign Ad Attacks Dems as ‘Complicit’ in Murder—Is He Playing with Fire?

It is fairly commonplace today to see political partisans extrapolating policy positions in order to accuse adversaries of abetting all sorts of heinous crimes. Instances of the tactic seem to vary from the exagerrated but plausible to the blatantly absurd. To me it seems like a dishonest if not dangerous practice.

Here’s the latest Trump campaign ad calling Democrats “complicit” in every murder committed by any illegal alien. The message is sure to resonate with the Sheriff Joe Arpaio and MAGA wings of the Republican Party. It is also sure to generate loads of real and simulated outrage from the left.

The ad touts Trump’s pledge to build a border wall and to strengthen border security.

“Democrats who stand in our way will be complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants,” the ad said.

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders called the spot “really unbelievable and so sad for our country,” in an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Republicans – and even a White House official – tried to distance themselves from the spot.

“It’s done from a political organization,” White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told NBC’s Meet the Press. “It’s not done from people working inside the White House.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan told CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that “I don’t know if that’s necessarily productive.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was grilled on the ad yesterday and she defended its primary claim while dodging the issue of whether President Trump had any input or involvement with making the ad. (It does end with the requisite “I’m Donald Trump and I approved this message,” for whatever that’s worth.)

The reasons I see this sort of hyperbolic rhetoric as playing with fire are twofold.

First, it makes a direct connection between policy positions and consequences that are entirely out of people’s hands. Yes, I agree that enforcing border security is a good idea for many reasons of which curbing violent crime is one, but painting legislators as directly responsible for the actions of others is hypocritical. It is not much different than when the left calls the NRA is complicit in mass shootings or when they say fighting terrorists leads to more terrorism. It is intentionally emotional rhetoric designed to make people feel fear instead of thinking rationally. It’s wrong no matter which side does it but it is hypocritical for people on the right who claim to be the logical ones, the adults in the room.

Second, President Trump and others on the right are playing with fire, to some extent. Currently that’s something fairly easy to get away with because the media is largely polarized into two camps, neither of which cares too much about applying the same standards to every politician. For anyone who cares about consistency and that pesky thing known as truth though, how can you reconcile claims that Democrats are in effect guilty of murder for being wrong on illegal immigration and something like the story this week about the nut who wanted to go on a shooting spree at “Fake News” CNN? Had he been successful would the constant and virulent anti-media sentiments from Trump and his followers made them complicit in the crime?

I’m still someone who thinks criminals are responsible for their own decisions and actions, but hyperbolic accusations by prominent voices certainly provide material with which their defective brains can work. Whether it’s a someone attempting to murder employees at the Family Research Council because someone made wild claims about them being an anti-homosexual hate group, or someone attempting to murder reporters at CNN because the current administration and its allies have called them an enemy of the American people, the rhetoric does help the crazies justify their actions to themselves.

People say a lot of reprehensible things but I’m not prepared to equate that with being complicit in murder, at least not when those making the accusation aren’t guilty of similar behavior themselves.

The post New Trump Campaign Ad Attacks Dems as ‘Complicit’ in Murder—Is He Playing with Fire? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Why is Trump’s Pick to Head NASA Kissing Bill Nye’s Butt?

Earlier I wrote about the ridiculous spectacle that the State of the Union address has become. This is the red carpet event of the year in DC. Sleazy Beltway operators will be crawling over each other to use the event (and each other) for their personal advantage.

Case in point. Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma) is bringing Bill Nye the climate change fanaticism guy as his date to nerd homecoming.

Why would a Republican invite one of the most unjustifiably condescending, anti-GOP nitwits to the big dance? Because Bridenstine is President Trump’s nominee to head NASA and Bill Nye is now the figurehead of The Planetary Society, a non-profit that promotes space exploration and science. The Planetary Society was founded by actual scientists and space exploration specialists Carl Sagan, Louis Friedman, and Bruce Murray. Today it seems that the Society sees greater fundraising potential having a glorified birthday party clown as its public face.

Some journalists are still laboring under the false assumption that Bill Nye has scientific credentials.

The invitation seems designed to bolster Bridenstine’s scientific credentials as he struggles to get the Senate votes necessary for confirmation. Opponents have charged that the former military pilot lacks sufficient background for the NASA job and criticized his positions on climate science.

Sadly, Nye’s position as CEO of The Planetary Society—and probably more importantly—his celebrity and outspoken leftist orthodoxy means he has some influence over Senators who will be voting on whether to confirm Bridenstine as NASA Administrator. Bridenstine seems to have no particularly convincing credentials to be space boss and he’s courting a guy with no particularly convincing credentials to be a thought leader to help make his case. It is Washington reality-show phoniness at it’s finest.

Also, being a Republican, Bridenstine is naturally a bigot and homophobe, whereas Nye has embraced the pseudoscience of gender fluidity. Nye is receiving some blowback for palling around with Bridenstine from climate nuts and social justice warriors.

The MoveOn petition to get Nye to back out of attending the State of the Union will undoubtedly be as successful as any online petition in acheiving its goal, which is to harvest dumb people’s email addresses for fundraising purposes.

Bridenstine’s bromance with Nye will probably be successful as well and earn him a few confirmation votes from fence sitters. Plus Bill Nye gets to look and feel like he’s important. Everybody wins.

The post Why is Trump’s Pick to Head NASA Kissing Bill Nye’s Butt? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Who Ordered Sebastian Gorka to Cooperate with Michael Wolff for Fire and Fury?

Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka claims that he was told to speak with Michael Wolff for his controversial book Fire and Fury. He hasn’t said who told him to speak to Wolff, but their brief meeting occurred in the office of then Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka says that he was instructed to cooperate with author Michael Wolff for the book “Fire and Fury” while he was working at the White House last year.

Writing in an op-ed for The Hill on Monday, Gorka said that he was at one point instructed to play ball with Wolff but that he declined because he thought the author was primed to damage the president.

“So, when I met Michael Wolff in [former chief of staff] Reince Priebus’ office, where he was waiting to talk [former chief strategist] Steve Bannonand after I had been told to also speak to him for his book, my attitude was polite but firm: ‘Thanks but no thanks’,” Gorka writes. “Our brief encounter reinforced my gut feeling that this oleaginous scribe had no interest in being fair and unbiased.”

In a text to The Hill, Gorka did not say who had asked him to speak with Wolff but that it was not Trump or Bannon.

President Trump claims he authorized no access for Wolff, but obviously someone did.

Some on the left has siezed upon Gorka’s statements as proof that Trump authorized access for Wolff to research his book.

What that means is anyone’s guess. Who besides someone in the White House would tell a White House adviser to meet with an author in the White House Chief of Staff’s office? In any event, Gorka claims that refused to work with Wolff.

The absolute worse part of politics is knowing that virtually everything you’re being told from Washington is a lie of some sort. It may be a factually untrue statement or it may be a carefully selected set of true statements that only tell a different story when taken in isolation from their brethren. Filter the politicians’ lies through the media’s agenda and the average voter doesn’t really know anything about what’s really going on. It’s never been more evident than it is today.

The post Who Ordered Sebastian Gorka to Cooperate with Michael Wolff for Fire and Fury? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


President Trump Pledges Loyalty to Establishment Incumbents in 2018

After the GOP confab at Camp David over the weekend, the President reportedly vowed not to support primary challengers against GOP incumbents. Early in his administration Trump’s Twitter feed often included threats to back primary opponents against those in Congress who didn’t do what he wanted them to,

Mr. Trump discussed with Republican lawmakers their strategy for the midterm elections, with the president saying he won’t campaign for any insurgent Republicans who are challenging GOP incumbents in primaries.

“I don’t see that happening,” Mr. Trump said.

This should have the pro-Trump 12-D chess experts coming up with lots of theories about why the anti-establishment outsider would promise not to back insurgents against what his followers often treat as the enemy within. It’s considered by many to be the height of disloyalty to criticize Trump, while attacking the McConnells and Ryans in the GOP is necessary and laudable.

Trump may be reacting to the embarrassment of backing Roy Moore in the Alabama special U.S. Senate election.

He pointed to the lesson of last month’s special Senate election in Alabama, where Republican Roy Moore lost to Democrat Doug Jones. Mr. Trump endorsed Mr. Moore, who was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, at the behest of estranged former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

The “chief strategeist whom Trump said “was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue” somehow steered the President into endorsing a loser. That sounds like a classic “those responsible have been sacked” line of bull, primarily because it is.

“You had somebody that lost us the state of Alabama,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “That should never have been lost. We have the right policy, we have the right everything. You still need a good candidate. You don’t have a good candidate, you’re just not going to win.”

Um…

Never mind.

Ultimately, the promise not to support insurgent candidates is worth about as much as any Trump promise. There is always a lot of fine print and escape clauses available.

The post President Trump Pledges Loyalty to Establishment Incumbents in 2018 appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Limbaugh’s Reason for Trump’s Turbulent White House is Pure Fantasy

The embarrassing  slap fight with Steve Bannon this week is just the latest episode in the White House reality show and there have been a lot of theories about why President Trump’s first year in office was beset with so much internal drama. The theory put forward by the increasingly out of touch Rush Limbaugh is not one likely to stand up to scrutiny. Rush thinks Trump tried too hard to be “respectful” and to be a “loyal party guy.”

 

Listen to the clip of Rush.


 

As you would expect, Rush’s analysis is based primarily on himself. He’s comparing his brief foray into the unfamiliar territory of television back in the nineties with Trump’s entry into the political world. The point he’s making in general is probably good advice, but applying it to Trump seems completely whacko to me.

Don’t rely on anybody else to know more than you know. When you are an expert at what you do. Do not assume tha somebody always knows…do not assume that somebody is smarter than you are.

And I think…and I’m wild guessing here…but I think one of the things that happened to Trump is that he deferred to what he thought were professional political people who knew how to get things done in Washington, something he didn’t know how to do. He did know how to do it in his world.

And this…what we’re seeing here is the result. Rather than people trying to help him he ended up hiring a bunch of people who wanted to undermine him. He hired a bunch of people…essentially he brought the wolves into the henhouse.

Well intentioned, trying to be respectful, trying to be a good, loyal party guy.

Who the heck is Rush even talking about? Certainly not Steve Bannon.

Bannon upended Andrew Breitbart’s groundbreaking news operation and turned it into a unabashed Trump campaign site. Bannon had already sought to use the site to bring down so called establishment Republicans. It is difficult to see how Bannon could bee seen as undermining Trump or as representing party loyalty.

Reince Priebus or Sean Spicer seem like the only people that might fit the demographic suspect pool but I think it’s a stretch to say they were undermining Trump. General Flynn? Paul Manafort?

The notion of Trump trying to be respectful and show party loyalty is laughable to begine with though. His early attempts at shepherding legislation were puncuated with threats to support primary candidates against Republicans who didn’t do as they were told. “Respectful” is not a word anyone would use to describe Trump. His biggest toadies might say that from the Brady Bunch boxes on Fox News but rest assured they’ll also cite Trump’s bad insult comic act as one of the reasons they love him.

I think Rush’s analysis is well intentioned and he’s trying to be respectful, but I think he’s so wrapped up in his own experiences that he just isn’t seeing what’s really going on.

The post Limbaugh’s Reason for Trump’s Turbulent White House is Pure Fantasy appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Unemployment Numbers: Remember When Republicans Thought the Labor Participation Rate Was Important?

The news about black unemployment reaching an all time low has Republicans crowing, but judging from social media, they seem to have forgotten all about that labor participation rate that was supremely important while Barack Obama was in the White House.

Don’t get me wrong, A low unemployment rate is better than a high unemployment rate. President Trump is entitled to take credit for it as any President takes credit for good economic news. None of that is the issue here.

What bugs me is that only a short while ago, Republican cheerleaders didn’t think a reduction in unemployment was all that. Look at some of the tweets prompted by Barack Obama’s last state of the union speech. A declining unemployment rate wasn’t enough to show economic progress.

The labor participation rate has barely budged in the year since Trump was inaugurated, but you won’t hear anyone on the right pointing it out even though everyone

Politics has almost nothing to do with real ideas or facts, at leas not on a consistent basis. Every claim of accomplishment from the blue team must be countered by a contradictory claim from the red team. It’s understandable when it comes from politicians and their staffs but when it comes from commentators and observers in the general public, it’s disheartening.

Every time you repeat a talking point out of blind partisanship you make it harder to hold leaders accountable. I think holding leaders accountable isn’t really the goal of most political junkies these days though. It’s all about the tribe.

 

The post Unemployment Numbers: Remember When Republicans Thought the Labor Participation Rate Was Important? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Fauxcahontas Campaign Raises Heap Big Wampum, What does it Mean for 2020?

Senator Elizabeth Warren has become one of the primary Democrat attack dogs against President Trump and if her campaign coffers are any indication, donors on the left are encouraged by it.

The senator, who is widely considered a potential 2020 Democratic candidate, reportedly has $12.8 million in campaign cash, beating out other incumbent senators at this time in the election cycle, according to the report.

The report comes as Warren prepares to run for a second term in the Senate, however speculation has swirled that the vocal Trump critic will mount a 2020 presidential bid.

Her warchest is almost certainly being filled with the help of rich Hollywood elites and others who probably only set foot in the state of Massachusetts to occasionally summer on Martha’s Vineyard. The country’s far left probably would have preferred her to both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in 2016.

With the party corruptocrats having conspired against the interloper Sanders in favor of the Clinton machine, Warren seems like the obvious choice for those pretending to want real change in the Democratic Party. Warren is every bit the extreme leftist that Bernie Sanders is with the added benefit of having the same genitalia as Hillary Clinton. In this era of Trump Dereangement Syndrome among the #Resist lunatics as well as the avalanche of sexual harassment and abuse revelations, a female lefty could do well in 2020.

I’m not into making predictions. It has become too hard to mine reliable information from the dueling cheerleading squads we call “the media” these days. That said, if Trump’s support remains limited to only his base, Warren could potentially mount a serious challenge.

Unless real economic results from Trump’s policies can surpass the margin of spin, he’ll be vulnerable in 2020. Trump and the GOP will obviously exagerrate the benefits of any signed legislation while Democrats will blame it for every ill. If the effects are not felt first hand by enough voters, the election will just be a battle of competing marketing campaigns. Cheap shots about her fabricated heritage (like those in my headline) more than likely won’t be enough to beat her.

For now, Warren is focused on regaining her Senate seat in 2018.

In doing so, she’s still taking aim at Donald Trump though.

The post Fauxcahontas Campaign Raises Heap Big Wampum, What does it Mean for 2020? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Someone Gave Donald Jr. an Obama Cookie as a Gag Gift and the Media is Offended

Even as someone who thinks Trump Jr. is a doofus, I think the media response to a silly Instagram post is way overblown as are most things Trump. Of course, this tomfoolery involves part of their pantheon of liberal deities so some outlets really got offended.

The Independent was blowing lots of dog whistles.

Donald Trump Jr has mocked Barack Obama by posting a photo of him and Ted Cruz posing with a gigantic cookie featuring a distorted image of the former US president.

Oh no. Not “mocked.” How dare he do anything but kneel before an image of the Lightbringer? It’s not really a distorted image either, it’s actually a pretty good rendition of the left wing religious icon created by Shepard Fairey, considering someone drew it with icing on a giant cookie.

President Donald Trump’s eldest son said the massive brown coloured biscuit was an early birthday present and his special day would be incomplete without such a baked good.

“Brown colored.” Someone specifically ordered a brown colored cookie from the diverse spectrum of available colors for chocolate chip cookies. Because racism, obviously.

The younger Trump, who is an executive of the Trump administration, referred to the former president in the caption of the post, including Obama as one of the hashtags. The image shows Trump Jr pulling a funny face and doing a fake smile for the camera and Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz looking rather unimpressed and almost grimacing.

The funny thing is that the article seems to imply that the cookie was created as intentional mockery when you can be pretty sure that it is stock design honoring the former president. Time Magazine’s headline also said Trump Jr. “mocked” Obama with a giant cookie, as did Newsweek’s and multiple other blogs.

Lighten up, people. Someone erected a giant inflatable chicken with Trump hair right next to the White House a while back. I didn’t see anyone in the media clutching their pearls over that.

Making fun of Obama apparently remains the unforgivable sin in left-wing circles.

 

The post Someone Gave Donald Jr. an Obama Cookie as a Gag Gift and the Media is Offended appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State