#Consensus Development Conferences

[simonh]

Infectious Disease Testing for Blood Transfusions by National Library of Medicine Via Flickr: Alternate Title(s): Transfusions Contributor(s): National Institutes of Health ,(U.S.). Medical Arts and Photography Branch. Publication: [Bethesda, Md. : Medical Arts and Photography Branch, National Institutes of Health], 1995 Language(s): English Format: Still image Subject(s): Disease Transmission, Infectious -- prevention & control Blood Transfusion -- adverse effects, Consensus Development, Conferences, NIH as Topic Genre(s): Posters Abstract: Black poster with an aerial view of numerous rows of the top portions of test tubes in holders. Most of the rows are only sketches of test tubes, but there is a section marked off which is a photographic representation. The word "transfusion" is in large uppercase letters, "trans" in red print and "fusion" in white. The date (Jan. 9-11, 1995) and the location of the lectures is given along with a phone number for further information. Extent: 1 photomechanical print (poster) : 76 x 46 cm. Technique: color NLM Unique ID: 101454415 NLM Image ID: C01039 Permanent Link: resource.nlm.nih.gov/101454415

[probablyasocialecologist]

Capitalism won’t deliver the energy transition fast enough . . .  There’s too much to do, and given the urgency and the need to get the solution right, this isn’t a task for your favourite ESG-focused portfolio manager or the tech bros. The sheer scale of the physical infrastructure that must be revamped, demolished or replaced is almost beyond comprehension. Governments, not BlackRock, will have to lead this new Marshall Plan. And keep doing it. The western nations that did so much of the damage will have to finance the transition in the developing world — it is astonishing that this idea is still debated. Massive deficit spending will be necessary, not a new ETF. For all the cleantech advances and renewable deployment in recent decades, fossil fuels’ share of total global energy use was 86 per cent in 2000 and 82 per cent last year.

[...]

Either we ignore the consensus of the world’s best scientists and accept an ever-deteriorating climate, or we upend a multitrillion-dollar fossil fuel-based energy system created over decades. For obvious reasons it would be better to decarbonise and clean the energy system, avoiding the trauma of a ever-heating world, while trying to manage the political fallout. But powerful petrostates such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE — in charge of this year’s COP climate conference — won’t go quietly. The transition could put weak petrostates like Iraq in peril. Big Oil lobbyists will fight tooth and nail to stop change and influence elections. Saying the geopolitics of the energy transition will be volatile seems like an understatement.

[communist-ojou-sama]

The two sides, represented by Iwaya and Wang Yi, China’s top diplomat and a former ambassador to Japan, reached a 10-point consensus at the 2nd meeting of High-Level Consultation Mechanism on People-to-People and Cultural Exchanges between China and Japan, the first such meeting in five years, according to the Chinese foreign ministry.

1. vigorously promote youth exchange visits and encourage and support studies and tours between the two countries. 2. deepen cooperation in the field of education, strengthen the mutual exchange of students, and support the establishment of sister school relationships between primary and secondary schools, as well as inter-institutional cooperation between higher education institutions of both countries. 3. support cooperation in the tourism industry and introduce more facilitation measures to promote mutual visits between tourists from both countries. 4. build more bridges for exchange between friendly cities, and actively utilize mechanisms and platforms such as the China-Japan Governors Forum, China-Japan-Korea Cultural Exchange Year, and East Asian City of Culture to expand friendly exchanges between local and civil society in both countries. 5. strengthen sports exchange and cooperation, and mutually support the successful hosting of important sporting events such as the 2025 Harbin Asian Winter Games and the 2026 Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games. 6. support continued cooperation in entertainment industries including film and television, music, publishing, animation, and gaming. Facilitate mutual visits of high-level artistic groups and support the translation and publication of classic works from both countries. 7. enhance exchange and cooperation between media outlets and think tanks, playing a positive role in bilateral relations, and focus on improving public opinion and the media environment. Support both sides in developing exchange and cooperation in new media circles, and encourage positive content creators from both countries to interact with each other. 8. conduct exchanges between women's organizations to share experiences on promoting gender equality and common development. The Chinese side invites the Japanese side to participate in the Global Women's Summit commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Beijing World Conference on Women. 9. leverage the 2025 Osaka-Kansai World Expo into a platform for exchange and friendship between the peoples of both countries. The Chinese side supports Japan in hosting the event, while the Japanese side welcomes China's participation and will provide assistance for the construction and operation of the China Pavilion. 10. hold the 3rd meeting of the High-Level Consultation Mechanism on People-to-People and Cultural Exchanges between China and Japan.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

CALI, Colombia (AP) — After two weeks of negotiations, delegates on Saturday agreed at the United Nations conference on biodiversity to establish a subsidiary body that will include Indigenous peoples in future decisions on nature conservation, an important development that builds on a growing movement to recognize the role of Indigenous peoples in protecting land and helping combat climate change.

The delegates also agreed to oblige major corporations to share the financial benefits of research when using natural genetic resources.

Indigenous delegations erupted into cheers and tears after the historic decision to create the subsidiary body was announced. It recognizes and protects the traditional knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples and local communities for the benefit of global and national biodiversity management, said Sushil Raj, Executive Director of the Rights and Communities Global Program at the Wildlife Conservation Society.

“It strengthens representation, coordination, inclusive decision making, and creates a space for dialogue with parties to the COP,” Raj told The Associated Press, referring to the formal name of the gathering, Conference of Parties.

Negotiators had struggled to find common ground on some key issues in the final week but came to a consensus after talks went late into Friday.

The COP16 summit, hosted in Cali, Colombia, was a follow-up to the historic 2022 accord in Montreal, which included 23 measures to save Earth’s plant and animal life, including putting 30 percent of the planet and 30 percent of degraded ecosystems under protection by 2030.

A measure to recognize the importance of the role of people of African descent in the protection of nature was also adopted in Cali.

The Indigenous body will be formed by two co-chairs elected by COP: one nominated by U.N. parties of the regional group, and the other nominated by representatives of Indigenous peoples and local communities, the AP saw in the final document.

At least one of the co-chairs will be selected from a developing country, taking into account gender balance, the document said.

“With this decision, the value of the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants and local communities is recognized, and a 26-year-old historical debt in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is settled,” Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister and COP16 president, posted on social media platform X shortly after the announcement.

[kerryweaverlesbian]

Let me tell you about my special interest and favourite radio show BBC Radio 4's The Archers!!!! Please imbue the below with a tone of extreme glee:

BBC Radio 4's The Archers is a radio soap opera set in the fictional farming village of Ambridge. It was created in 1951 as an effort to get more farming listeners and to get more general audiences interested in farming due to the shortage of skilled farmers after ww2. The BBC tested out a variety of more dry farming programmes that failed to gain listenership, so they went to a farming conference and asked "hey what do you guys actually want from a radio show?"

And the consensus was that they wanted "a farming Dick Barton". Dick Barton was a spy drama which was half thriller and half domestic drama¹. While a farming spy thriller sounds very funny, they opted to instead make The Archers half domestic drama, half facts/debates about farming. Also they pilfered most of the writing team from Dick Barton lol.

The Archers initially had a very strong focus on the Archer family, and its cast broadened over time to now be a very wide ensemble. It is released in 15 minute segments per day, and as an omnibus² on Sundays. It is set in "the present", and always has been, so developments are happening in, kind of, real time. This means that there's a (now elderly) character who was in The Archers as a young woman is still present and the UK public has heard every part of her life, and her family's lives. There is a crazy web of dramas that is carefully recorded at the BBC and referenced as life events. For example, Nickie³ is a young mother who died of sepsis (rip) and recorded a message for her 3 year old child to listen to when he's 21. This message was then given to him literally 18 years later. Of real time. Listeners are very frequently life-long Archer fans, so there are people who heard both instances of this 18 years apart⁴. Isn't that cool!! They're keeping track of all the minutiae of a small village life from birthdays to anniversaries to that memorable stupid night out they had in their teens that their friends and family still reference to tease them. All for the sake of realism. And it works!

When The Archers was first airing, for quite a few years the cast and bbc offices frequently got post offering direct advice to the characters from members of the public who believed they were real people (or, were having fun doing some fiction writing). One very concerned letter writer offered one of the Archers come and stay at their house during a contentious unplanned pregnancy. For some of that time the cast were asked/encouraged to write back in character, but (thankfully) that practice has now stopped. Parasocial relationships have always been a thing lol.

The Archers has never been afraid to tackle big social issues. It was the first UK soap opera to have a gay wedding (with a civil partnership between Adam⁵ and Ian - contentious both due to gayness⁶ AND the class divide between them). It had a very well known and (unintentionally) well timed story about coercive control in abusive relationships with Helen Archer and her HORRIBLE ex (and now deceased haha fuck you) husband Rob which came to a head at the time the laws around coersive control were changing, so it became a central figure in explaining what this kind of abuse looks like, what it means, and how it affects people⁷. It had another big storyline about modern slavery in the UK, one about workplace bullying (very well done bc it was inflicted on Tracey whom everyone adores. And by everyone I mean. Me. I adores her. Let's go Horrobin-nation.), one really very affecting one at the moment about reconnecting with biological family very late in life, and the feelings that can bring up, and the fostering system of the 60s/70s. There was a really masterful and fairly subtle scene, after some of the Grundy family going "why in the world has our beloved George started going down the alt right misogyny pipeline when he's so surrounded by strong women??" and then it cut between the three Grundy households and in every single one of them the men waited around for the woman of the house to start making dinner and complained about it⁸.

All this might make The Archers sound like a long slew of trauma each week, but! There are always multiple ongoing storylines and SO MANY of them are comedy plots. You only get maybe 2-4 minutes of tragic stuff and then you cut away to such antics as "Linda Snell MBE is trying to put on a pantomime to her very very high artistic standards in one week while being actively sabotaged by a guy who hates pantomimes", "we were going to just have a small christmas as young flatmates but our parents all guilted us into an invite. And also the old woman who lives across the street.", "Hilda is a devil cat from Hell but someone from the family HAS to take her bc the elderly matriarch is going into an assisted living facility", "Stick in the mud, upper class The Prof. has a lodger of the rowdy laddish scottsman who wants to let his pet tarantula out to play" (the prof and jazza's relationship becomes one of the most touching and profound ones on the whole show btw). Every year there is a timetable of big village events (because, again, it's in real time!) that the audience gets to look forward to along with the characters because there's ALWAYS drama. Last year the village fête had a hostile takeover because Ed Grundy wanted to use it as aggressive marketing for his ferret business. Last year's Flower and Produce Show had an upset because a series of farcical events led to a table of pies getting destroyed, with only one remaining as the defacto victor¹⁰. And that's just from last year. Competition runs deep in this village.

As with any media I love, The Archers has its problems. It very much told from a white British normie perspective. It is set in a small rural village, so, statistically it is accurate to have it be 99% white, but it comes off as deeply self-conscious when there are non-white characters because (as an audio medium) it feels it has to clunkily find a way to say or remind the audience THIS CHARACTER IS BLACK or THIS CHARACTER IS ASIAN. I feel this doesn't efficiently utilise the strengths of an audio medium to be diverse - I had fully been picturing Welsh Natasha as south-asian bc she reminded me of a friend of mine until they introduced Ardil Shah and suddenly people were saying to him on first meeting "ah the vicar's wife is muslim..." and (really bad) "when I was a teenager I did a hate crime against an indian guy and I feel really bad about it" (??? is it Ahdil's job to absolve you???? Why put him in this position - and not interrogate in the show why it is weird to put him in this positon). Maybe they're concerned about the general public not clueing in to the fact that they're not all white if it's not spelled out very loudly in their first appearance, and they do then subsequently get storylines that aren't about race. It is true for small English villages that people will be Noticed for their ethnicity.

But Ambridge isn't a real village, it is an idealised one. If someone is really struggling to find housing, eventually the Ambridge Fairy (not a real character, just a fan term) will come along and oh look, conveniently an affordable living situation has opened up¹¹. Chelsea¹² gets an abortion and this is outed to the whole village, and there's only one or two people judging her harshly for it who eventually come around and apologise. Everyone rallies around making the Big Event go off despite the hitches! And I think more of that Ambridge acceptance and normalisation that it employs with those storylines should be extended to characters of colour. The general acceptance of south asian people in the UK increased from seeing - someone. I don't know her name I'm not a bake off head - just be happy and baking and a normal person. They could do this with the Archers, as they have already done with gay characters. Although, credit where it's due, I do believe they are doing just that with the rest of the Shah family and with Gay Paul's family.

Anyway. A big thing I love about The Archers is the intergenerational aspect of listening. Most people are introduced to it via family members (because the relationships and history are fairly complicated, it's hard to just dive in on an episode, and there's not really an obvious "start here, new listeners" place bc it's year-round, there aren't new serieses. Also as a new listener it can be hard to discern whose voice is whose and who is related to whom so sometimes you're going "are they flirting or are they cousins...? Who are they talking about...?" lmao). If you are talking to pretty much any old person in the UK, there's maybe a 70% chance they listen to or used to listen to The Archers, and can give exciting (to me) facts about characters previous storlines that I had no idea about bc to me they are "The Grandma" but to them they are "one third of a heated love triangle between two sisters and a guy, and a battle for parental approval that the other one definitively WON by dying young in a barn fire, and that pattern of child favoritism carried on through to her parenting". I am always discussing what's going on in the Archers with my parents (who also listen) and my book club (who don't).

If you want to learn more about The Archers. Listen to it if you can (it's on BBC Sounds, and on Itunes, idk how accessible it is outside the UK...). I know I said it's hard to get into but give it like 4 omnibus episodes and you'll have heard at least one complete short storyline and 4 in-episode short ones and you'll have gotten to know whoever is in those episodes. The history of their characters is an added bonus, not a requirement, and if it's important to the episode someone will say the relevant details to someone else bc they're all incurable gossips ❤️. And! You can read Flapjacks and Feudalism: Social Mobilty and Class in The Archers ed.s Cara Courage and Nicola Headlam (a book of essays on sociology through the lens of the archers. and the others in the essay book series, Flapjacks is just my favourite.) I also recommend Life on Air: A History of BBC Radio 4 by David Hendy, which only briefly and occasionally discusses The Archers but it always excites me when it does. Apparently someone was so pissed that The Archers timeslot was moved and nailed a dead fish and threatening letter to the comptroller's office door (relatable). There's also an Archers reaction podcast, TumTeeTum (named after singing along to the instrumental theme tune, although I personally go Bah bah duh bah duh bah dahhhh), a poisonous facebook group where people post the worst takes known to man and a new accompanying podcast where they interview the actors. I can't speak to the general quality of those 3 because I don't participate in them at all. My knowledge of the facebook group is from perusing it for research purposes and my general knowledge of facebook open communities. And! you can also type bbc radio 4's the archers into a search engine of your choice!!

¹when Dick Barton was being recast as Dick Barton the first actor was retiring, they did an open call for audition tapes and got one from an 8 year old who stated his qualification for the role as "I can shout really loudly". He did not get the part.

²all the segments collected together into one episode. This is how I listen.

³I actually might spell some names wrong bc. It's a radio show. Lol.

⁴not me, I only started properly listening about 6 years ago

⁵the guy who plays Adam is also voice actor for Raphael Balder's Gate 3. Reportedly also a pretty gay role lol.

⁶the current main cast Queer Ambridge Contingent are: Adam and Ian (long term married, have a little baby Xander through surrogacy, had a memorable small argument recently about how Ian is still kind of afraid to hold Adam's hand or kiss him in public even though it's Okay To Be Gay); Stella (CLOCKED her when she named her whippet "Weaver" after the woman in Alien. LESBIAN.) and her girlfriend Pip Archer (unlabelledly queer, has a little daughter Rosey who is Obsessed with Stella lmao); Rúairi (bisexual, was in a problematic sugar baby relationship with a much older woman LOL); Gay Paul the vet nurse (I am the one calling him Gay Paul no one in the show is. I call him Gay Paul because he has Gay Kevin from Riverdale energy (positive). He immediately befriended absolute Ambridge LEGEND Linda Snell MBE and had a rocky relationship with a guy who tried to strongarm him into an open relationship which Gay Paul did not want.); And I have my suspicions about newcomer Zainab. What with her not noticing/caring if teenage boys are interested in her but being deeply upset when her and Chelsea had a falling out on valentines day. I'm on the lookout. Honorable mention, Lilly's made up study-buddy Millicent who her mum became certain she was secretly dating because she'd use "studying with Millicent" as an excuse to be away from home to in fact date her SIXTH FORM ENGLISH PROFESSOR (WE HATE RUSS IN THIS HOUSE!!!!!!).

⁷I will say, I personally really did not like how they brought Rob back into her life for a while as he was terminally ill. The Archers falls back on "outsider arch villain" a little too often, and I think showing an abuse survivor happy and settled and firmly moved on without her abuser being a major player in her life was a more responsible path than He Will Always Get Some Power Over You Until He Literally Dies. But I'm not an abuse survivor, maybe some people felt seen and understood by this. It was also just geberally unpleasant to listen to lol.

⁸also he was ??? Rewarded ??? For calling his mum a stupid slut to her face by being given a new bedroom. Which he only asked for to get revenge on his female superior at work (who was renting the place his dad owned) for doing her job and telling him how to look after the pigs safely.

⁹shoes horses and suchlike

¹⁰ there is a recipie for the winning pie somewhere on the Internet, which my parents' friend who is MORE into the archers than me has reportedly made at least twice

¹¹ something interesting in how the archers is written is that there are class based catagories that are necessarily perpetuated for archetypal storytelling. The Aldridges are moneyed, upper class snobs. The Archers are middle class (they do frequently worry about losing x thing with an especially bad year, but they're land and business owners and run artisanal cheese courses). The Grundys are working class. They work at the tea rooms and pubs and farms that the Archers and Aldridges (and others) own. These strata include other families and intermingle - Jennifer Archer became Jenny Aldridge, for example. But the dynamic of upper middle working class has been preserved through every generation of The Archers (initially VERY insulting towards the bowing and scraping working class labourers, now the Grundys, Carters and Horrobins are arguably more the main characters than The Archers. But as the financial divide irl gets steeper between a Grundy and an Aldridge, it gets less and less easy to dismiss this Ambridge Fairy "it will be okay just keep working". The characters themselves have spoken about this to each other - Clarrie despaired that she and Eddie have been working multiple jobs their entire adult lives to make ends meet and might have to work until the grave. Every windfall they get to shore them up is eventually taken away from them or used up by the needs of living. But The Archers NEEDS to have good old salt of the earth types who aren't too depressed to move to be able to continue the age old comedy of stuffy stiff upper lip rich folk vs cheerful and honest poor folk that it's always engaged in. All this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is interesting.

¹² we LOVE chelsea in this house!!!!

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

My name is Dr Jill Simons. I'm a board-certified pediatrician and the executive director for the American College of Pediatricians. Today I'm here alongside my colleagues representing the Coalition of co-signers of the Doctors Protecting Children Declaration. Our coalition consists of physicians together with nurses, behavioral health clinicians, other health professionals, scientists, researchers and public health and policy professionals. And we have serious concerns about the physical and mental health effects of the current protocols promoted for the care of children and adolescents in the United States who express discomfort with their biological sex.

This declaration was authored by the American College of Pediatricians, but really it was developed from the expertise of hundreds of doctors researchers and other healthcare workers and leaders wh, for years have been sounding the alarm on the harmful protocols that continue to be promoted by the medical organizations in the United States. Despite recent revelations from the leaked WPATH Files and the recent release of the final report from the Cass Review, these medical organizations have not changed course.

So, we are calling on these medical organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex.

In our declaration, we affirm that sex is a dimorphic, innate trait defined in relation to an organism's biological role in reproduction: male and female this genetic signature is present in every nucleated somatic cell in the body and is not altered by drugs or surgical interventions. Consideration of these innate differences is critical to the practice of good medicine and to the development of sound policy for children and adults alike. Medical decision-making should be based upon an individual's biological sex. It should respect biological reality and the dignity of the person by compassionately addressing the whole person.

We are here defying the claims made by these medical organizations in the US that those of us who are concerned are a minority and that their protocols are consensus. They are not consensus, and we are speaking in a loud unified voice: enough.

[ Full press conference: https://youtu.be/C2tU90XPFlg ]

--

Doctors Protecting Children Declaration

As physicians, together with nurses, psychotherapists and behavioral health clinicians, other health professionals, scientists, researchers, and public health and policy professionals, we have serious concerns about the physical and mental health effects of the current protocols promoted for the care of children and adolescents in the United States who express discomfort with their biological sex.

We affirm:

1. Sex is a dimorphic, innate trait defined in relation to an organism’s biological role in reproduction. In humans, primary sex determination occurs at fertilization and is directed by a complement of sex determining genes on the X and Y chromosomes.  This genetic signature is present in every nucleated somatic cell in the body and is not altered by drugs or surgical interventions

2. Consideration of these innate differences is critical to the practice of good medicine and to the development of sound public policy for children and adults alike.

3. Gender ideology, the view that sex (male and female) is inadequate and that humans need to be further categorized based on an individual’s thoughts and feelings described as “gender identity” or “gender expression”, does not accommodate the reality of these innate sex differences. This leads to the inaccurate view that children can be born in the wrong body. Gender ideology seeks to affirm thoughts, feelings and beliefs, with puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries that harm healthy bodies, rather than affirm biological reality.

4. Medical decision making should not be based upon an individual’s thoughts and feelings, as in “gender identity” or “gender expression”, but rather should be based upon an individual’s biological sex. Medical decision making should respect biological reality and the dignity of the person by compassionately addressing the whole person.

We recognize:

1. Most children and adolescents whose thoughts and feelings do not align with their biological sex will resolve those mental incongruencies after experiencing the normal developmental process of puberty.

Desistance is the norm without affirmation as documented by Zucker in his article “The Myth of Peristence”. (1) Zucker, KJ. The myth of persistence: Response to “A critical commentary on follow-up studies and ‘desistance’ theories about transgender and gender nonconforming children” by Temple Newhook et al. International Journal of Transgenderism. 2018: 19(2), 231–245. Published online May 29, 2018.http://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1468293 [1]

In the “largest sample to date of boys clinic-referred for gender dysphoria,” there was a desistance rate of 87.8%. (2) Singh D, Bradley SJ and Zucker KJ. A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:632784. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784

The pro-affirmation Endocrine Society Guidelines (2017) admit: “…the GD/gender incongruence of a minority of prepubertal children appears to persist in adolescence.” (3) Hembree, W., Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 102:1–35.

A longitudinal study from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands followed 2772 adolescents (recruited from a psychiatric clinic) from age 11 years through 22 – 26 years. “In early adolescence 11% of participants reported gender non- contentedness. The prevalence decreased with age and was 4% at the last follow-up (around age 26).” Even in this psychiatric patient study group for which interventions were not addressed, but “gender affirmation” is most likely, gender non-contentedness (essentially gender noncongruence) decreased substantially from early adolescence to young adulthood.(4) Rawee P, Rosmalen JGM, Kalverdiijk L and Burke SM. Development of gender non-contentedness during adolescence and early adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2024; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02817-5

2. Responsible informed consent is not possible in light of extremely limited long-term follow-up studies of interventions, and the immature, often impulsive, nature of the adolescent brain. The adolescent brain’s prefrontal cortex is immature and is limited in its ability to strategize, problem solve and make emotionally laden decisions that have life-long consequences.[2]

3. Sex-trait modification or “Gender affirming” clinics in the United States base their treatments upon the “Standards of Care” developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). However, the foundation of WPATH guidelines is demonstrably flawed and pediatric patients can be harmed when subjected to those protocols.

The two Dutch studies that form the foundation for treatment guidelines as documented in the WPATH “Standards of Care” guidelines version 7 (SOC 7) had serious flaws.[3]

These studies did show that the appearance of secondary sex characteristics in adolescents and young adults could be changed by hormonal and surgical interventions, but they failed to demonstrate meaningful long-term improvement in psychological well-being.

Scientific concerns with these studies also include a lack of a control group, small sample sizes, significant numbers of patients lost to follow up, and the elimination of patients who experienced significant mental illness from entering the studies.

It is concerning that the Dutch studies did not address complications and adverse outcome in the adolescent cohort that underwent transition. These complications included new onset diabetes, obesity and one death.[4]

4. There is now sufficient research to further demonstrate the failure of the WPATH, American Academy of Pediatrics and Endocrine Society protocols.

The Cass Review was released on April 10, 2024, as an “independent review of gender identity services for children and young people”. The following points are from Cass’s final report:[5]

Commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) England, and chaired by Dr. Hilary Cass, the 388-page report utilized systematic reviews, qualitative and quantitative research, as well as focus groups, roundtables and interviews with international clinicians and policy makers.

As part of the evaluation, they reviewed the research on social transition, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones.

Social transition

“The systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence.

However, those who had socially transitioned at an earlier age and/or prior to being seen in clinic were more likely to proceed to a medical pathway.”

Puberty blockers

“The systematic review undertaken by the University of York found multiple studies demonstrating that puberty blockers exert their intended effect in suppressing puberty, and also that bone density is compromised during puberty suppression. However, no changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction were demonstrated [emphasis added].”

“There was insufficient/inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk or fertility.”

“Moreover, given that the vast majority of young people started on puberty blockers proceed from puberty blockers to masculinizing/ feminizing hormones, there is no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, and some concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development.”

Cross-sex hormones

“The University of York carried out a systematic review of outcomes of masculinising/feminising hormones.” They concluded, “There is a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria/incongruence, and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn about the effect on gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial health, cognitive development, or fertility.”

“Uncertainty remains about the outcomes for height/growth, cardio-metabolic and bone health.”

The Cass Review further stated, “Assessing whether a hormone pathway is indicated is challenging. A formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria is frequently cited as a prerequisite for accessing hormone treatment. However, it is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.”

A 2024 German systematic review on the evidence for use of puberty blockers (PB) and cross-sex hormones (CSH) in minors with gender dysphoria (GD) also found “The available evidence on the use of PB and CSH in minors with GD is very limited and based on only a few studies with small numbers, and these studies have problematic methodology and quality. There also is a lack of adequate and meaningful long-term studies. Current evidence doesn’t suggest that GD symptoms and mental health significantly improve when PB or CSH are used in minors with GD.”[6]  

5. There are serious long-term risks associated with the use of social transition, puberty blockers, masculinizing or feminizing hormones, and surgeries, not the least of which is potential sterility.

Youth who are socially affirmed are more likely to progress to using puberty blockers and cross-sex (masculinizing or feminizing) hormones.

“Social transition is associated with the persistence of gender dysphoria as a child progresses into adolescence.”[7]

“Gender social transition of prepubertal children will increase dramatically the rate of gender dysphoria persistence when compared to follow-up studies of children with gender dysphoria who did not receive this type of psychosocial intervention and, oddly enough, might be characterized as iatrogenic.”[8]

Puberty blockers permanently disrupt physical, cognitive, emotional and social development.

Side effects listed in the Lupron package insert include emotional lability, worsening psychological illness, low bone density, impaired memory, and the rare side-effect of pseudotumor cerebri (brain swelling).[9]

A coalition of physicians and medical organizations from around the world submitted a petition to the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requesting urgent action be taken to eliminate the off-label use of GnRH (growth hormone) agonists in children.[10]

Testosterone use in females and estrogen use in males are associated with dangerous health risks across the lifespan including, but not limited to, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart attacks, blood clots, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.[xi],[12]

Genital surgeries affect future fertility and reproduction.

6. A report from Environmental Progress released on March 4, 2024, entitled “The WPATH Files” revealed “widespread medical malpractice on children and vulnerable adults at global transgender healthcare authority.”[13]

“The WPATH Files reveal that the organization does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along.”

“Members are fully aware that children and adolescents cannot comprehend the lifelong consequences of ‘gender-affirming care’ and, in some cases due to poor health literacy, neither can their parents.”

In addition, developmentally challenged and mentally ill individuals were being encouraged to “transition”, and treatments were often improvised.

7. Evidence-based medical research now demonstrates there is little to no benefit from any or all suggested “gender affirming” interventions for adolescents experiencing Gender Dysphoria. Social “affirmation”, puberty blockers, masculinizing or feminizing hormones, and surgeries, individually or in combination, do not appear to improve long-term mental health of the adolescents, including suicide risk.[14]

8. Psychotherapy for underlying mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and autism, as well as prior emotional trauma or abuse should be the first line of treatment for these vulnerable children experiencing discomfort with their biological sex.

9. England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland have all recognized the scientific research demonstrating that the social, hormonal and surgical interventions are not only unhelpful but are harmful. So, these European countries have paused protocols and are instead focusing on evaluating and treating the underlying and preceding mental health concerns.

10. Other medical organizations are adhering to the evidence-based medicine documented in the Cass Review Final Report.

The constitution of the National Health Service in England will be updated to state, “We are defining sex as biological sex.”[15]

The European Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry issued a document titled “ESCAP statement on the care for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: an urgent need for safeguarding clinical, scientific, and ethical standards.”

In this paper, they stated, “The standards of evidence-based medicine must ensure the best and safest possible care for each individual in this highly vulnerable group of children and adolescents. As such, ESCAP calls for healthcare providers not to promote experimental and unnecessarily invasive treatments with unproven psycho-social effects and, therefore, to adhere to the “primum-nil-nocere” (first, do no harm) principle”.[16]

11. Health care professionals around the world are also acknowledging the urgent need to protect children from harmful “gender-affirming” interventions.

In a letter to the British newspaper, The Guardian, sixteen psychologists, some of whom worked at the Tavistock Center for Gender Identity Development Service, acknowledged the role clinical psychologists played in placing children on an “irreversible medical pathway that in most cases was inappropriate.”[17]

In the United States, a group of psychiatrists, physicians and other health care workers wrote an open Letter to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), calling on the APA to explain why it glaringly ignored many scientific developments in gender-related care and to consider its responsibility to promote and protect patients’ safety, mental and physical health.[18]

12. Despite all the above evidence that gender affirming treatments are not only unhelpful, but are harmful, and despite the knowledge that the adolescent brain is immature, professional medical organizations in the United States continue to promote these interventions. Further, they state that legislation to protect children from harmful interventions is dangerous since it interferes with necessary medical care for children and adolescents.

The American Psychological Association states it is the largest association of psychologists worldwide. The organization released a policy statement in February 2024 stating, “The APA opposes state bans on gender-affirming care, which are contrary to the principles of evidence-based healthcare, human rights, and social justice.”[19]

The Endocrine Society responded to the Cass Review by reaffirming their stance. “We stand firm in our support of gender-affirming care…. NHS England’s recent report, the Cass Review, does not contain any new research that would contradict the recommendations made in our Clinical Practice Guideline on gender-affirming care.”[20]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board of Directors in August 2023, voted to reaffirm their 2018 policy statement on gender-affirming care. They did decide to authorize a systematic review but only because they were concerned “about restrictions to access to health care with bans on gender-affirming care in more than 20 states.”[21]

Of note, Dr. Hilary Cass called out the AAP for “holding on to a position that is now demonstrated to be out of date by multiple systematic reviews.”[22]

In Conclusion

Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the  Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex.  Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil helps approve treaty on indigenous rights in patent systems

At a conference chaired by Brazil, the 193 member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), part of the United Nations system, approved on May 24, by consensus, its Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge.

Once it enters into force with 15 contracting parties, the new regulation will require patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge used in their inventions — medicines, cosmetics, and seeds, for example — to combat biopiracy.

This is the first WIPO treaty to include specific provisions about indigenous peoples and local communities. For decades, they have claimed participation in the profits of large companies that develop products based on local knowledge and customs.

Although genetic resources in their natural state, such as medicinal plants or animal breeds, cannot be directly protected as intellectual property, inventions developed using these resources meet the requirements for obtaining protection, generally through patents.

Continue reading.

[beardedmrbean]

Consumer optimism got a much-needed boost in May on hopes for trade peace between the U.S. and China, according to a survey Tuesday.

The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index leaped to 98.0, a 12.3-point increase from April and much better than the Dow Jones consensus estimate for 86.0.

Much of the positive sentiment, according to board officials, came from developments in the U.S.-China trade impasse, most notably President Donald Trump’s halting of the most severe tariffs on May 12.

“The rebound was already visible before the May 12 US-China trade deal but gained momentum afterwards,” said Stephanie Guichard, the Conference Board’s senior economist for global indicators.

May’s rebound followed five straight months of declines. Consumers and investors had grown sour on economic prospects amid the intensifying trade war that Trump has launched against U.S. global trading partners, with China a particular target.

However, the two sides reached a truce in early May, marking the second major walk-back of Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs since he levied them in his April 2 “liberation day” announcement.

Other board sentiment indicators also increased.

The present situation index increased to 135.9, up 4.8 points, and the expectations index posted a major surge to 72.8, a 17.4-point gain. Investors also showed more optimism, with 44% now expecting stocks to be higher over the next 12 months, up 6.4 percentage points from April.

Views on the labor market also improved, with 19.2% of respondents expecting more jobs to be available in the next six months, compared with 13.9% in April. At the same time, 26.6% expect fewer jobs, down from 32.4%. However, the level of respondents saying jobs were “plentiful” edged higher to just 31.8%, while those saying employment was “hard to get” increased to 18.6%, up 1.1 percentage points.

Survey officials said sentiment improved across age, income and political affiliation, though noting that the “strongest improvements” came from Republicans.

[mariacallous]

The government of Singapore released a blueprint today for global collaboration on artificial intelligence safety following a meeting of AI researchers from the US, China, and Europe. The document lays out a shared vision for working on AI safety through international cooperation rather than competition.

“Singapore is one of the few countries on the planet that gets along well with both East and West,” says Max Tegmark, a scientist at MIT who helped convene the meeting of AI luminaries last month. “They know that they're not going to build [artificial general intelligence] themselves—they will have it done to them—so it is very much in their interests to have the countries that are going to build it talk to each other."

The countries thought most likely to build AGI are, of course, the US and China—and yet those nations seem more intent on outmaneuvering each other than working together. In January, after Chinese startup DeepSeek released a cutting-edge model, President Trump called it “a wakeup call for our industries” and said the US needed to be “laser-focused on competing to win.”

The Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities calls for researchers to collaborate in three key areas: studying the risks posed by frontier AI models, exploring safer ways to build those models, and developing methods for controlling the behavior of the most advanced AI systems.

The consensus was developed at a meeting held on April 26 alongside the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), a premier AI event held in Singapore this year.

Researchers from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, xAI, and Meta all attended the AI safety event, as did academics from institutions including MIT, Stanford, Tsinghua, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Experts from AI safety institutes in the US, UK, France, Canada, China, Japan and Korea also participated.

"In an era of geopolitical fragmentation, this comprehensive synthesis of cutting-edge research on AI safety is a promising sign that the global community is coming together with a shared commitment to shaping a safer AI future," Xue Lan, dean of Tsinghua University, said in a statement.

The development of increasingly capable AI models, some of which have surprising abilities, has caused researchers to worry about a range of risks. While some focus on near-term harms including problems caused by biased AI systems or the potential for criminals to harness the technology, a significant number believe that AI may pose an existential threat to humanity as it begins to outsmart humans across more domains. These researchers, sometimes referred to as “AI doomers,” worry that models may deceive and manipulate humans in order to pursue their own goals.

The potential of AI has also stoked talk of an arms race between the US, China, and other powerful nations. The technology is viewed in policy circles as critical to economic prosperity and military dominance, and many governments have sought to stake out their own visions and regulations governing how it should be developed.

DeepSeek’s debut in January compounded fears that China may be catching up or even surpassing the US, despite efforts to curb China’s access to AI hardware with export controls. Now, the Trump administration is mulling additional measures aimed at restricting China’s ability to build cutting-edge AI.

The Trump administration has also sought to downplay AI risks in favor of a more aggressive approach to building the technology in the US. At a major AI meeting in Paris in 2025, Vice President JD Vance said that the US government wanted fewer restrictions around the development and deployment of AI, and described the previous approach as “too risk-averse.”

Tegmark, the MIT scientist, says some AI researchers are keen to “turn the tide a bit after Paris” by refocusing attention back on the potential risks posed by increasingly powerful AI.

At the meeting in Singapore, Tegmark presented a technical paper that challenged some assumptions about how AI can be built safely. Some researchers had previously suggested that it may be possible to control powerful AI models using weaker ones. Tegmark’s paper shows that this dynamic does not work in some simple scenarios, meaning it may well fail to prevent AI models from going awry.

“We tried our best to put numbers to this, and technically it doesn't work at the level you'd like,” Tegmark says. “And, you know, the stakes are quite high.”

[simonh]

CT Scan by National Library of Medicine Via Flickr: Contributor(s): National Institutes of Health, (U.S.). Medical Arts and Photography Branch. Publication: [Bethesda, Md. : Medical Arts and Photography Branch, National Institutes of Health], 1981 Language(s): English Format: Still image Subject(s): Brain Diseases -- diagnosis, Tomography Scanners, X-Ray Computed, Brain Injuries -- diagnosis, Consensus Development, Conferences, NIH as Topic Genre(s): Posters Abstract: Black poster with a black and silver image of the brain. The title is in large orange letters at the bottom of the poster. Extent: 1 photomechanical print (poster) : 87 x 64 cm. Technique: color NLM Unique ID: 101454390 NLM Image ID: C01014 Permanent Link: resource.nlm.nih.gov/101454390

[darkmaga-returns]

Adopted in 1992 at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21 is a global sustainable development plan aimed at combating environmental degradation. Critics, including Rosa Koire, argue it threatens individual freedoms and reshapes societies through collective control.

Koire highlights in her book Agenda 21's focus on Communitarianism, which prioritizes community rights over individual rights. She warns this philosophy, with its fluid definitions, can erode personal freedoms, particularly property rights, under the guise of the greater good.

Agenda 21 is implemented locally through organizations like the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Policies such as "Smart Growth" promote high-density urban living, which Koire argues restricts personal freedom and concentrates populations for easier control.

Koire critiques Agenda 21's use of tactics like the Delphi Technique to manipulate public opinion and create false consensus, enabling the stealthy adoption of its policies without widespread awareness or consent.

Koire advocates for education, community organizing and vigilance in public discourse to counter Agenda 21. She emphasizes the importance of recognizing manipulative language, forming resistance groups, and speaking out to reclaim individual freedoms.

[sokowachi]

STON.fi Steps Into the Spotlight at Consensus 2024

The blockchain industry is moving fast, and only the most innovative projects are keeping up. STON.fi is not just keeping up—we’re taking center stage.

At Consensus 2024 in Hong Kong, the world’s biggest names in crypto and Web3 have gathered to discuss the future of decentralized finance, and STON.fi is making waves. This isn’t just another event for us—it’s a milestone.

A Defining Moment for STON.fi

At one of the most anticipated sessions of the event, Ethan, our Head of Developer Relations, took the floor. With a packed audience of developers, investors, and Web3 pioneers, he unveiled key updates and shared insights into what’s coming next for STON.fi.

Key Announcements from the Stage

🔹 New Grant Program: STON.fi is now funding innovative projects that contribute to the ecosystem. This initiative is set to drive growth, support developers, and expand the reach of decentralized trading.

🔹 OmniSTON Protocol: A next-generation interoperability solution that enhances cross-chain transactions. This protocol is designed to eliminate barriers, making decentralized trading more seamless and efficient.

🔹 Future Roadmap: Ethan provided a glimpse into upcoming developments that will strengthen STON.fi’s role in DeFi, from technical advancements to strategic partnerships.

Each announcement signals one thing—STON.fi is not just participating in the industry’s evolution; we’re helping to lead it.

What Makes Consensus 2024 So Important

For those unfamiliar with Consensus, it’s been the go-to event for blockchain, crypto, and Web3 since 2015. The conference is a meeting ground for industry leaders, developers, investors, and entrepreneurs.

🛠 Technology and innovation take center stage.

🌍 Projects gain global exposure.

💡 New partnerships and collaborations are forged.

Being present at Consensus is more than just an opportunity—it’s a statement. It’s about proving that a project is built to last, designed to scale, and ready to shape the future. STON.fi’s presence here is another step toward solidifying its position as a major force in the DeFi space.

Why This Moment Matters

STON.fi has come a long way, but this is only the beginning. Speaking at one of the most influential blockchain events in the world marks a shift—it shows that STON.fi is no longer just a rising project. It’s a name that matters in the industry.

The conversations happening here will shape the next era of decentralized finance. Being part of those discussions means having a seat at the table where real change happens.

For those following STON.fi’s journey, this is a moment of validation. A moment that proves that decentralized trading is moving in the right direction, and that the work being done here is making an impact.

Stay Connected with STON.fi

The event runs until February 20 at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. If you’re attending, connect with us in person and get insights straight from the STON.fi team.

For those who couldn’t make it, Ethan’s speech and other key highlights will be shared soon. Stay tuned for updates, and keep an eye on what’s next for STON.fi.

Because this isn’t just about an event—it’s about building the future of decentralized finance. And we’re just getting started.

[lboogie1906]

Leonard Kevin Bias (November 18, 1963 – June 19, 1986) was a college basketball player for the Maryland Terrapins. During his four years playing for Maryland, he was named a consensus first-team All-American. Two days after being selected by the Boston Celtics with the second overall pick in the 1986 NBA draft, he died from cardiac arrhythmia induced by a cocaine overdose. In 2021, he was inducted into the College Basketball Hall of Fame.

He was born and raised in the Prince George’s County area in Maryland. He was one of four children born to James Bias Jr and Dr. Lonise Bias. He had a sister and two brothers.

From Landover, Maryland, he graduated from Northwestern High School in Hyattsville, Maryland.

He attended the University of Maryland. He developed into an All-American player. He led the Atlantic Coast Conference in scoring in his junior year and was named the ACC Player of the Year. His senior season was highlighted by his performance in an overtime victory against top-ranked North Carolina, in which he scored 35 points, including seven in the last three minutes of regulation and four in overtime. He collected his second ACC Player of the Year award at the end of the year and was named to two All-America teams.

By his senior year, scouts from various NBA teams viewed him as the most complete forward in the class of 1986.

On June 17, 1986, he was selected by the Boston Celtics as the second overall pick in the 1986 NBA draft. On June 18, he and his father flew to Boston for an NBA club draft acceptance and product endorsement signing ceremony with the Celtics’ coaches and management. He had discussions with Reebok’s sports marketing division regarding a five-year endorsement package worth $1.6 million.

On June 30, 1986, the Celtics honored him with their memorial service, giving his never-used #30 Celtics jersey to his mother, Lonise. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[herobrinezombiealso]

The Final Answer

As with many things, the beginning closely follows something else's end. Even the ever so important big one. Many eons ago, our world was birthed and hid the truth as to why from everyone who looked. However that didn't stop our ancestors from coming up their own theories of course, no one stops us from posing questions. From a single god to thousands, from cosmic fluke to undeniable certainty, ask a hundred people you would receive a hundred and one different answers.

As time continued its yieldless march, we slowly began to unravel the mysteries that were strewn across our universe. Found ourselves some distant friends with the same drive across it too. We branched out among the stars, our horizon always expanding outward, unveiling new questions and solutions to old ones. The big question though, we never found out there. Eventually we reached the limits of our expansion, nowhere left to grow into.

When faced with this constraint, despair we did not. Inward our scopes pointed. Down into the foundations of the world we loved. Past the atom, past the protons & neutrons, past the very quarks they where built on. Again, we found more, more questions and more answers. Downward peered our lenses, until once more we found that tantalizing limit we could not cross.

Both walls of the cage found, we took it upon ourselves to find every inconsequential detail held within it's bars. And as it turned out, some of those details weren't as inconsequential as first thought. Finally cracked was near every question humanity and company had ever pondered. Everything from the orbit of an electron swinging around the nucleus to the galaxies dancing among the void was down to a science. The masters we had become over the world, nothing we could dream was out of reach, except for two simple answers.

Finally having arrived at the end of discovery, a mere two questions laid unanswered. The first, the one that drove us from the caves to masters of stars , the original "Why?" The question of why are we here, why is there something instead of nothing? And the second, the one we found along the journey, the youngest "Could?" The question of could we do it, could we create this ourselves? As we approached that final semester of study, it become clear we would have to decide which question we would decide to answer.

Debated we did, conferences that lasted years, asking not the universe for answers, but ourselves instead. The collective lens of humanity turned not outward nor inward, but for once, we looked for the answers at home. Octillions of individuals sat down for untold time, maintaining themselves through the technology we'd developed, just to ponder the question of "Which?"

Eventually it was decided. With all of history, with every event, every person, every thought that graced a mind taken into consideration. One truth rose above the other, we lived for the ride. We lived for the pursuit of goal, but in reality we did not care for that final destination. We would only remember what it took to get there. We did not rise out of the caves because we knew the stars were our future. We did it because it was a challenge. We rose to masters of the stars because it was a challenge. We asked the question "Why?" not because we wanted the answer, but finding it was a challenge.

Having reached unanimous consensus for the first time in all time, humanity decided to let another ask the big question for themselves. Condensing everything down, the planets, the stars, the galaxies, the very walls of the universe, down to a single point. Gathered together for one final act, humanity prepared to finally get off the ride of creation and let someone else on.

And just as the countdown hit zero, in the single fragment of time between the beginning and end of a universe they both shared, maybe one, just one, person watching finally realized that fabled answer to the original question.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

Last year’s United Nations climate conference in the United Arab Emirates ended on a surprising high note as the world’s countries endorsed a landmark agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. After weeks of tense negotiation, the conference produced a slew of unprecedented commitments to ramp up the deployment of renewables, adapt to climate disasters, and move away from the use of coal, oil, and gas.

The question at this year’s COP29 conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, is just how much that massive effort will cost. After years of global debate over the scale of funding that developed countries owe less fortunate nations for decarbonization and disaster aid, negotiators have until the end of the conference in December to agree on a hard-fought financial target for climate assistance over the next few decades. This new target, referred to as the New Collective Quantified Goal by climate negotiators, is critical to upholding the 2015 Paris Agreement and addressing the harm of fossil fuel emissions from industrialized countries like the United States. Without funding, some of the poorest nations in Asia and Africa, which have contributed negligibly to the climate crisis, stand little chance of transitioning their economies away from fossil fuels and adapting to a warmer world. 

The last time the world set such a goal, it didn’t work out well. Back in 2009, wealthy countries agreed to send poorer countries $100 billion in climate finance every year by 2020. Though the figure was less than half of the annual global need, according to World Bank estimates, rich countries didn’t even come close to meeting their target until last year. Even then, some aid organizations like Oxfam contend that these countries have overstated or double-counted their aid by tens of billions of dollars. In the meantime, international estimates of total aid needs have ballooned into the trillions. As a result, the talks around climate finance are still marked by frustration and mistrust, and diplomats debating the goal over the past two years have made little progress toward consensus.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Albanese government abandons controversial misinformation bill amid widespread opposition

By: Oscar Godsell and Andrew Clennell

Published: Nov 24, 2024

Sky News has revealed the Albanese government will dump its misinformation and disinformation bill in response to overwhelming opposition in the Senate.

Political Editor Andrew Clennell broke the news on Sunday Agenda after it had become clear the Coalition, Greens and crossbench all opposed the legislation.

The proposed laws, which threatened online platforms with fines of up to 5 per cent of their annual revenue for failing to curb misinformation, had sparked fierce opposition.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland confirmed on Sunday there was “no pathway” to legislate the proposal.

“The Government will not proceed with the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024,” she said. 

Following the bill’s failure, the government has signalled its intention to pursue alternative proposals for regulating online content.

These include strengthening laws against non-consensual deep and sexually explicit fakes and introducing laws to enforce truth in political advertising.

The failed misinformation bill was a centrepiece of Labor’s policy agenda, with more than a year of development and consultations led by Ms Rowland. 

Trade Minister Don Farrell confirmed Labor had abandoned the legislation in an interview on Sunday Agenda. 

“The opposition in a former iteration said that they wanted that legislation. The Greens said that they wanted to support that legislation. They've joined forces now to stop the legislation,” he said.

“Unfortunately, that's the end of it. There will be no legislation, the misinformation and disinformation (bill), there will be no legislation.”

The bill passed through the House of Representatives in November, but opposition grew louder as the Coalition, Greens and crossbench in the upper house turned against it.

The bill failed to garner support from any Senator outside of the Labor Party.

It was labelled “anti-free speech”, “extreme” and “state-sanctioned censorship” by its opponents.

Under the proposed laws, social media companies would have been required to identify content that was “reasonably verifiable as false” and remove or penalise it accordingly.

The bill also allowed for penalties to be imposed for content deemed to cause “serious harm” through misinformation or disinformation.

The legislation was criticised for its vague definitions and potential to stifle free speech.

Shadow communications minister David Coleman said the legislation was “wide open to abuse” and did not respect free speech.

“The provisions of the bill are extremely broad and would capture many things said by Australians every day,” Mr Coleman had said of the bill.

Independent Senator David Pocock labelled the bill as the “totally the wrong approach” and warned it threatened freedom of expression.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said her party would reject the bill due to concerns it would not “deal with the real issues” driving misinformation. 

During public hearings in the Senate, almost every consulting representative expressed dissent to the proposed legislation.

Professor Anne Twomey, the Catholic Archbishops Conference, Australian Christian Lobby and the Human Rights Commission all expressed concerns about the bill.

Journalist and author Michael Shellenberger told Sky News on Wednesday the bill was one of the “most extreme” pieces of legislation he had seen.

He warned it would give Prime Minister Anthony Albanese “extraordinary powers” to criminalise any content deemed misleading.

Media lawyer Justin Quill told Sky News the “extraordinary” bill was an attempt by the government to “control the narrative” of public discourse.

“It’s extraordinary that it was even contemplated, even more extraordinary that it was being put forward seriously,” Mr Quill said.

==

This would have effectively designated the government itself as an Orwell-style "Ministry of Truth." Australia dodged one bullet, but authoritarians don't give up that easily. They didn't say that they were tearing it up, just that it wasn't proceeding... yet. There will be more attempts.

Australia's tyrannical and corrupt "eSafety Commissioner" is already harassing and censoring citizens for their views. Or even for simply posting factual information online.

https://endesafety.au/celine

What happened?

In early June, the eSafety Commissioner had one of Celine's tweets geoblocked in Australia. The tweet was about the existence of a “queer club” in a primary school: Celine was questioning the appropriateness of such a club for Primary School aged children. The tweet was very mild and not the sort of thing you would normally expect to be censored.

Celine contacted FSU Australia and we filed an appeal against eSafety's notice to take down the tweet. eSafety claim they only issued an “informal notice” to take down the tweet, and that such notices can't be legally challenged. This is a tactic they have been using in 99% of their cases to try and avoid accountability for their censorious behaviour.

If it's an "informal notice," and "can't be legally challenged," then it can also be entirely ignored. They want to have it both ways. This is the tactic of authoritarians.