Its here, but I bet you miss it and of course CNN doesn't make mention of it.
It’s important to note that no one, including AAA, recommends not getting these features because of repair costs. Systems like automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, and rear cross-traffic alerts can reduce your chances of getting in a crash in the first place. That’s one reason automatic emergency braking is now nearly universal on new cars and, in a few years, will be required in the United States.
Besides avoiding the need for repairs by reducing crashes, they also help prevent injury to vehicle occupants and pedestrians which is, after all, far more important than a dented fender.
Some of these systems can cut crash rates in half, said Greg Brannon, director of automotive engineering at AAA.
That last line is obviously a lie.
Were it not a lie then collision insurance, which pays when you are in a wreck to fix your car, would be going down in price, specifically for those vehicles with such features since it would reduce the crash rate "by half."
Instead the price of car insurance is skyrocketing.
These "features" are in fact worthless.
But the facts of insurance are simple. Insurance companies are state-regulated and can only make a 10% profit. If they make more the state will force them to reduce premiums. Therefore there are only two ways for an insurance company to grow its profit in dollar terms across a given customer base: Either have more claims or more expensive claims.
Its not rocket science folks. Tarted up vehicles full of these sensors, never mind $2,000 headlight assemblies instead of $200 ones that takes ordinary bulbs wildly increase collision repair costs. If they actually reduced claims by the claimed dramatic amount then the total cost would go down to the insurance company and your premiums would go down too because state law forces that to happen when claim costs decrease.
These people are lying and of course CNN laps it up and feeds you to it on a spoon.
Oh, and incidentally, the same thing applies to health "insurance" as well. Health insurance companies, for example, have been caught issuing bribes to pediatricians for children that are "vaccinated according to schedule", for example, and this extended to the Covid shots as well during the pandemic. That is, rather than offer professional advice based upon what a physician believes is best for a given person instead they're bribed to do what an insurance company wants and, I remind you, the only way for an insurance company to make more money IS TO HAVE EITHER MORE CLAIMS OR MORE EXPENSIVE CLAIMS so spare me any LIES about how this scheme was "best for the person"; it must-certainly WAS AND IS NOT.
Insurance is a necessary evil but it is a felonious business as soon as the "insurance" firm is allowed, in any way, to influence the underlying thing being insured whatever it may be because such a firm always has as the only way to grow its business to either increase the number of claims or the cost of claims.
Always.
Seriously, read this and it ought to pop in and make sense.
"A number of things," she said. "We started to see patients who were experiencing very significant medical harms being rushed to the emergency room with lacerations requiring stitches. We had patients contact us who were begging to have body parts put back on within months of having surgeries."
She went on to claim, "The thing that kept happening is every time I would raise concerns and ask about the protocols and ask about the guidelines - this is just how the industry works, if a child says they're trans there's no questioning it. We just say, ‘Yep, you're trans, what would you like?’"
Why?
Simple, and for the same reason doctors and medical centers kept using Remdesivir even after the WHO ran a huge multi-national study that found it was worthless: They got paid for it; the government paid for the drug and the hospital got to bill for it being administered, which is not cheap as it is an IV medication and they also got paid more the worse you got with no incentive to quickly and effectively treat you.
In the case of "transitioning" once you start you are a forced customer for life at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That's all they care about.
It is simply and only about the money.
You are just a mule that causes the money to flow.
Think not?
Its been known that statins cause Type II diabetes for a couple of decades. Yet they're handed out like candy, despite the fact that diabetes kills a huge number of people but more important for the medical system it gains them hundreds of thousands of dollars first, so anything that they can find some reason to get you to do that will some time down the road lead you to that financial ruin, especially if you don't connect the two, they're all-in on because once again it is just about the money.
How about covid shots? We knew pretty-quickly they didn't stop transmission nor did they last long in interdicting the disease either which was just perfect from the medical system's point of view in that you'd have to come back and get another one. That it turned out to be even worse (and in a large percentage of people produces long-term and permanent -- even lethal -- damage) is icing on the cake but whether they knew that or not up front didn't matter -- all that mattered was that two would never be enough and every three or six months you'd have to come back for more.
Our system of laws is supposed to prohibit this because all such exploitation is in fact fraud.
Telling someone "you're protected" when you have every reason to believe that protection is fleeting at best and in fact doesn't help anyone else (because it doesn't interrupt transmission) is active fraud. Every single person who did that should be rotting in prison right now but nobody is.
Likewise, everyone prescribed a statin without being told that the drugs inevitably damage insulin response and in some cases cause diabetes directly, and thus their efficacy over a long period of time is dubious at best has comitted fraud and should be rotting in prison but nobody is.
And anyone telling someone they can "transition" without fully disclosing that at best you can cosmetically look like the other sex but that it is scientifically impossible to become the other sex or gain the sexual and physical functions of the other sex is committing fraud and every one of those people should be in prison but once again -- nobody is.
Until this stops you will bother be screwed financially and in many cases shoved in the hole.
Since government has refused to jail anyone for any of those over the last 30+ years despite the black letter law being clear..... what does that leave us with for options?
Well then I'm a racist and I wear the badge with pride:
A Boston, Massachusetts, hospital announced Tuesday that after finding Black mothers were more likely to be reported for child abuse and neglect if a toxicology report came back positive, it would be taking steps to reevaluate the process in order to avoid perpetuating "structural racism."
"Black pregnant people are more likely to be drug tested and to be reported to child welfare systems than white pregnant people," said Mass General Brigham, a nonprofit health care system.
Pregnant people eh? Can you describe who might be pregnant accurately to begin with? For instance there has never been a pregnant man nor will there ever be, so the correct description is pregnant women, not people.
Oh, and then it gets really rich:
"Substance use disorder (SUD) is a condition with significant racial and ethnic inequities, especially in the context of pregnancy, when more punitive approaches to substance use disproportionately affect Black individuals," the announcement said.
You mean because it is more-likely that black people might be using drugs?
The drugs are either there or they are not. If they are there then they are, and the skin color of the woman (and/or child) is irrelevant.
The hospital said its new policy is in line with medical recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which opposes drug testing of individuals or infants without consent and discourages "the separation of parents from their children solely based on substance use disorder, either suspected or confirmed."
Oh really?
So a woman who deliberately exposes her pre-born infant to harmful and addictive drugs should be considered "fit" and "responsible" to be a parent with custody of said kid? You're serious about this?
I do understand and support that a woman who is pregnant and is using prescription treatment for her addiction, but is not violating that treatment protocol, inevitably will expose the infant to the treatment drug. Provided that she does not also consume the drug(s) in question for which she sought treatment I can support leaving her and the child alone because she's recognized the problem, affirmatively taken steps to address it and the exposure in that case is inevitable and, as near as we can tell, it is not particularly dangerous.
But none of that is true if the actual drug is found in the infant or, for that matter, in the mother during the pregnancy or at the time of birth. In that case she has willingly and intentionally exposed her child to narcotics on a direct basis and is per-se unfit to have custody of that kid.
For a hospital system to declare otherwise is the very definition of malpractice, fraud, and in addition it violates mandatory reporting statutes which should expose said hospital personnel personally to felony criminal child endangerment charges and, if said kid is seriously harmed or dies every single one of them should be indicted and tried as accessories before the fact to murder and executed for said crime.
I've long held the position that if you are female, of child-bearing age and caught with narcotics in your system your options should be (1) prison or (2) permanent sterilization. Why? Because while you have the right to abuse your body that does not extend to others who cannot give consent, and a girl is born with every egg she will ever have, so once those eggs are "polluted" there's nothing you can do about it.
ENOUGH of this woke bullshit.
If someone who works at such a place is run over by someone's SUV -- twice just to make sure they didn't miss -- I will cheer and laugh at their family members when the funeral is held. I've had it with so-called "medical professionals" suborning intentional harm such as occurred with Remdesivir and now they want to do it to infants who have no capacity to consent whatsoever.
FUCK YOU Mass General and every single rat bastard who is employed there along with their entire genetic line.
.... isn't that cancer rates are rising in young people. That's expected given what else we know is going on.
Accelerated aging — when someone’s biological age is greater than their chronological age — could increase the risk of cancer tumors.
That’s according to new research presented this week at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting in San Diego, California.
"Historically, both cancer and aging have been viewed primarily as concerns for older populations," Ruiyi Tian, MPH, a graduate student at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and one of the study researchers, told Fox News Digital.
No, what is infuriating is that nobody has done a damn thing about the obvious correlating factors that have been known for the last two decades and yet both are continually not only dismissed but in many cases "celebrated."
I am speaking particularly of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes and the combination of seed oils and fast carbohydrates, the latter two of which are known to promote both obesity and systemic inflammation.
The hope is that these findings will lead to interventions to slow biological aging as a "new avenue for cancer prevention," the researchers noted, combined with screening efforts tailored to younger individuals.
Interventions is a fancy word for "more drugs" and "more affirmations" rather than what is actually needed, which is subtraction.
Specifically, subtracting out the bullshit that one is "healthy at any size" (you are not -- you are disgustingly fat and quite likely to become seriously diseased if you keep it up), that fast carbs and seed oils are "ok" to eat in any quantity and in fact can be peddled almost-universally anywhere you eat away from home, that so-called "heart healthy" and other "health" foods can be sold with one or both of these things in them (go pick up a box of granola bars and you will find seed oils in them) and more.
Diabetes Mellitus is otherwise known as the mother of all diseases -- and it is. Insulin resistance is detectable for a long time before your glucose or A1c goes out of range yet fasting insulin is never tested for on a routine basis. Cholesterol is a necessary thing and part of the body's repair mechanism -- it is not the cause of disease it is the result of systemic inflammation which frequently traces to insulin resistance and it is made in the liver by the body. And what's worse is that statins, which are often given to reduce cholesterol levels, has as a documented "side effect" causing Type II diabetes -- that is, extreme insulin resistance that manifests as actual, current and mortally-dangerous disease.
Of course nobody will go to prison for poisoning millions of Americans -- say much less anywhere else in the world -- all because its ten cents cheaper to use a seed oil than something else in your product and it is also ten cents cheaper in the restaurant yet none of those places even disclose said content in their food nor will one single medical group or physician be thrown in prison for causing -- literally -- "the mother of all diseases" in millions of Americans.
Think not? How about a bagel? Yeah, I know, it has gluten in it, but many people have no problem with that. Everyone, however, has a problem with this:
There it is: Soy oil. Why is it used? Its a bit cheaper but the safe amount of it to consume is in fact zero.
Ok, so bagels aren't good for you (that's got 45g of carbs in one, by the way, so there's your entire 50g low-carb daily budget blown with one bagel!) so we'll reach for the granola bars instead:
Oh, that's just lovely. "Just" 30g of carbs and that's better than 45, but note the Canola and Sunflower oil so we're back to that problem. Oh, and "contains soy" it says, despite not being listed in the ingredients so is the oil declared actually the oil present or did they stick a "surprise" in there for you -- or is it simply the Soy Lecithin? Finally, note the bottom: Contains Bioengineered food ingredients -- what's that? Good question but do note that these are claimed to be a "health food" and "good for you" unlike the bagels.
Leave the carb debate out of it: The seed oil garbage and their derivatives are highly inflammatory and IMHO should not be consumed at all, but essentially every package product food maker uses it because the FDA "blessed" it by considering it "generally recognized as safe" (that's a lie), its cheaper and products made with them are shelf-stable -- that is they can be boxed without refrigeration -- and this is far more important than whether it kills you over the course of 30 or so years since nobody is ever held accountable for all the disease, disorder and death that comes from it nor do they have to truthfully label said packages that they are all extremely inflammatory and systemic inflammation is directly harmful to your health.
Another example you're going to run into in virtually any restaurant, with no disclosure? Right here -- note the claims:
Whirl is 65% lower in saturates than butter. It also contains 5 times more polyunsaturated fat and 2 times the amount of monounsaturated fat than butter which equates to being a lot better for you. Not only is it better for your health, it is also much easier to handle and cook with. It does not spit or scorch and is easily stored, as it doesn’t need to be refrigerated.
Oh really? What's in it?
Soybean oil, Hydrogenated soybean oil. Contains 2% or less of Salt, Sunflower lecithin, Artificial butter flavor, Beta carotene (color), Yeast extract.
That's a trans-fat and the safe amount of consumption of trans-fats is zero. Vegetable oils are hydrogenated to prevent them from spoiling -- which also inhibits digestion and causes both inflammation and other maladies. They're a literal heart attack in a bottle and ought to be banned -- but if you did that half the "foods" in the center aisles of your grocery store would become illegal. Saturated fat, by the way, is not the cause of heart disease, is not inflammatory and also greatly contributes to satiation -- that is, not being hungry. We can't have that, can we, or you won't come back for lunch!
Never mind the same sort of burying the evidence in the pharma business, which I've got an article coming out on soon with regard to one specific example which I warned against some two years ago.
And yes, I do believe, based on the data, that the so-called "magic jabs" are responsible for part of this increase as well. But not all of it for the simple reason that while cancer rates in older people had been declining for a couple of decades but have now reversed and are trending higher, and that inflection occurred starting in 2021 which happens to be exactly when the magic jabs rolled out the rate increase in younger people pre-dates that -- and no matter what sort of magical thinking you may be infested with something can't cause an outcome when the something hasn't happened yet.
Not "might be", ARE PERMANENT.
Remarkably, 100 % of GD patients were under PB treatment including 9 patients (56 %) at the time of FP surgery, highlighting the widespread nature of PB intervention in this demographic (Table 1). Although sperm collection was suggested, all GD patients opted for FP surgery due to reluctance or inability to ejaculate. Two out of 9 PB-treated patients exhibited abnormalities: one had bilateral abnormal testicles with a lack of complete tunica albuginea, while another had a right testis that was not easily palpable. The remaining patients displayed scrotum symmetry with bilaterally palpable testes.
They could not provide a sample the old-fashioned "squirt it" way and two out of the nine had abnormal testicles on simple manual examination, not requiring any sort of investigation.
For the sex gland study, we digitally scanned 400+ Hematoxylin & Eosin-stained donor testicular biopsy sections available in Mayo Clinic tissue registry. We analyzed testicular specimen with and without PB exposure. The histology results showed abnormal testicular development in PB treated compared to non-treated patients (Figure 2A-B).
The evidence is that these puberty blocks result in abnormal testicular development -- in other words they screw you to some degree on a permanent basis in terms of what would otherwise take place.
For example, sex glands of a 12-year- old patient treated with leuprolide and estradiol (E2) for a period of 14 months had 59 % of sex glands fully atrophied with appearance of microlithiasis (Figure 2C-D).
Fully atrophied: Non-functional, presumably permanently.
Meiotogenesis is generally assumed to be absent in normal pre-pubertal children due to lack of sperm development. Remarkably, we observed spermatid-like cells across all juvenile stages, including newborns. The proportions of pre-meiotic (SPG 1/2/3, L/Z-SPC) versus post-meiotic (P/D/M-SPC, Spermatid 1/2/3) spermatogenic epithelial lineage reached up to 12 % of the total spermatogenic epithelium in prepubertal stages. In fact, PB-treated juvenile patient exhibited 7 % spermatids within spermatogenic epithelial lineage (Figure 3C; Figure 4A and Supplementary Figure S3).
We revealed a striking molecular clustering of pre-pubertal spermatid-like cells, challenging conventional assumptions about their developmental trajectory post-pubertal onset (Figure 3C). Furthermore, our analysis of significantly differentially expressed genes in pre-pubertal spermatid 2 and 3 compared to their adult counterparts suggests a potentially novel induction pathway independent of puberty (Supplementary Table S1 and Supplementary Table S2). This pathway leads to likely incomplete differentiation, resulting in the development of spermatid-like cells without subsequent sperm maturation and warrants investigation.
The presumption has been that prior to puberty there is no development of said sperm-generating cells in the testes. This apparently has never been actually studied, as these researchers found that in fact these cells are found in normal pre-pubertal boys which of course means that the entire premise -- that you can't damage what isn't there -- is now known false AND WAS ORIGINALLY PUT FORWARD WITHOUT STUDY AND THUS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Note that this study has not yet been peer-reviewed but it points out what I have maintained since all this started: We do not understand on any sort of comprehensive basis the natural progression and interplay of all the elements in puberty nor do we have sufficient knowledge to know what happens if you tamper with it, even temporarily.
This study shows that said tampering is very likely to lead to permanent dysfunction if it occurs at the time when normal puberty would otherwise take place. The promotion of these drugs as "safe" based on their use in precocial puberty was maliciously false in that it was promoted without a single shred of scientific evidence and now, based on actual study, we know it was false and the boys given these drugs were maimed.
I will point out that we know even less about the impact on girls given drugs for similar purpose because obtaining scientific evidence from samples is ridiculously more-complex and dangerous than it is in boys, since to do so requires significant surgery and attendant risks of permanent infertility or worse. As a result it would be virtually impossible to obtain review clearance for such a study, particularly on the control side, except perhaps from those young girls unfortunate enough to die of non-disease related causes (such as a car accident.) Again, there is no evidence that giving drugs to a pre-pubescent girl is benign in this regard nor is there any evidence that doing so does not carry a high risk or even certainty of permanent reproductive impairment.
This very closely mirrors my argument and, as time has gone on, facts have proved me right in multiple other areas of alleged "medical science." But in this case we are talking about children who simply cannot give informed consent and thus a lack of certainty is simply not acceptable when the condition in question has no physiologic basis nor can the alleged "remedy" be successful as it is not possible for a boy to ever be a functional adult female in a sexual (say much less reproductive) context, and vice-versa.
What these kids are seeking, whether they legitimately feel this way on their own or have it stuffed in their head by their caregivers and peer pressure -- to be the other sex, to experience it, to feel it -- is physically impossible. Telling them that it can be done is a deliberate and malicious maiming of said child's normal sexual life which they would otherwise experience when they reach puberty and adulthood. This is as clear an example of fraud as one can find as that deception in fact creates a lifetime dependence on and flow of payments into the medical system.
This practice must be immediately halted and everyone involved in or advocating for it must go to prison for said permanent maiming and what is clearly sexual abuse of children for profit as the acts in question are aimed at diddling the genitals with no possible medical outcome that matches what is being either offered to or expected by the recipient.