Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 23, 2023

We're All Suspects In A DNA Lineup, Waiting To Be Matched With A Crime

 by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Make no mistake about it…your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason… I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

- Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting in Maryland v. King

Be warned: the DNA detectives are on the prowl.

Whatever skeletons may be lurking on your family tree or in your closet, whatever crimes you may have committed, whatever associations you may have with those on the government’s most wanted lists: the police state is determined to ferret them out.

In an age of overcriminalization, round-the-clock surveillance, and a police state eager to flex its muscles in a show of power, we are all guilty of some transgression or other.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup waiting to be matched up with a crime.

Suspect State, meet the Genetic Panopticon.

DNA technology in the hands of government officials will complete our transition to a Surveillance State in which prison walls are disguised within the seemingly benevolent trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and the need to guard against terrorists, pandemics, civil unrest, etc.

By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

It’s getting harder to hide, even if you think you’ve got nothing to hide.

Armed with unprecedented access to DNA databases amassed by the FBI and ancestry website, as well as hospital newborn screening programs, police are using forensic genealogy, which allows police to match up an unknown suspect’s crime scene DNA with that of any family members in a genealogy database, to solve cold cases that have remained unsolved for decades.

As reported by The Interceptforensic genetic genealogists are “combing through the genetic information of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in search of a perpetrator.”

By submitting your DNA to a genealogical database such as Ancestry and 23andMe, you’re giving the police access to the genetic makeup, relationships and health profiles of every relative—past, present and future—in your family, whether or not you or they ever agreed to be part of such a database.

Indeed, relying on a loophole in a commercial database called GEDmatch, genetic genealogists are able to sidestep privacy rules that allow people to opt out of sharing their genetic information with police. The end result? Police are now able to identify and target those very individuals who explicitly asked to keep their DNA results private.

In this way, merely choosing to exercise your right to privacy makes you a suspect and puts you in the police state’s crosshairs.

It no longer even matters if you’re among the tens of millions of people who have added their DNA to ancestry databases. As Brian Resnick reports, public DNA databases have grown so massive that they can be used to find you even if you’ve never shared your own DNA.

That simple transaction—a spit sample or a cheek swab in exchange for getting to learn everything about one’s ancestral makeup, where one came from, and who is part of one’s extended family—is the price of entry into the Suspect State for all of us.

After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects.

It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.”

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving, especially when it helps them crack cold cases of serial murders and rapists.

After all, who wouldn’t want to get psychopaths and serial rapists off the streets and safely behind bars, right?

At least, that’s the argument being used by law enforcement to support their unrestricted access to these genealogy databases, and they’ve got the success stories to prove it.

For instance, a 68-year-old Pennsylvania man was arrested and charged with the brutal rape and murder of a young woman almost 50 years earlier. Relying on genealogical research suggesting that the killer had ancestors who hailed from a small town in Italy, investigators narrowed their findings down to one man whose DNA, obtained from a discarded coffee cup, matched the killer’s.

In another cold case investigation, a 76-year-old man was arrested for two decades-old murders after his DNA was collected from a breathalyzer during an unrelated traffic stop.

Yet it’s not just psychopaths and serial rapists who are getting caught up in the investigative dragnet. In the police state’s pursuit of criminals, anyone who comes up as a possible DNA match—including distant family members—suddenly becomes part of a circle of suspects that must be tracked, investigated and ruled out.

In this way, “guilt by association” has taken on new connotations in a technological age in which one is just a DNA sample away from being considered a person of interest in a police investigation. As Jessica Cussins warns in Psychology Today, “The fundamental fight—that data from potentially innocent people should not be used to connect them to unrelated crimes—has been lost.”

Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That was turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings that heralded the loss of privacy on a cellular level.

For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King that taking DNA samples from a suspect doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court’s subsequent decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA, made Americans even more vulnerable to the government accessing, analyzing and storing their DNA without their knowledge or permission.

It’s all been downhill since then.

Indeed, the government has been relentless in its efforts to get hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with genealogical services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

Get ready, folks, because the government has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

This has been helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget).

For example, Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA government databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS, the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. In many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely. There’s already a move underway to carry out whole genome sequencing on newborns, ostensibly to help diagnose rare diseases earlier and improve health later in life, which constitutes an ethical minefield all by itself.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.

For example, police in New Jersey accessed the DNA from a nine-year-old blood sample of a newborn baby in order to identify the child’s father as a suspect in a decades-old sexual assault.

The ramifications of this kind of DNA profiling are far-reaching.

At a minimum, these DNA databases do away with any semblance of privacy or anonymity.

These genetic databases and genomic technology also make us that much more vulnerable to creeps and cyberstalkersgenetic profiling, and those who would weaponize the technology against us.

Unfortunately, the debate over genetic privacy—and when one’s DNA becomes a public commodity outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures—continues to lag far behind the government and Corporate America’s encroachments on our rights.

Moreover, while much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

As scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go… In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases… shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name.

As the dissenting opinion to the Maryland Court of Appeals’ shed DNA ruling in Raynor rightly warned, “A person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver's license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”

It’s just a matter of time before government agents will know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place by following our shed DNA. After all, scientists can already track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers using DNA.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

Of course, none of these technologies are infallible.

DNA evidence can be wrong, either through human error, tampering, or even outright fabrication, and it happens more often than we are told.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals from the past expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/were-all-suspects-dna-lineup-waiting-be-matched-crime

MINK Therapeutics Q2 update

 Randomized Phase 2 Trial in 2L Metastatic Gastric Cancer Planned to Launch at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

-  iNKT (agenT-797) Data Presented at AACR, ASGCT, and ATS Showed Benefit in Solid Tumor Cancers and in Respiratory Distress

-  MiNK-215, a Novel FAP-CAR-iNKT Cell Therapy, Eliminated Tumors in NSCLC Models

MiNK Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: INKT), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company pioneering the discovery, development, and commercialization of allogeneic, off-the-shelf, invariant natural killer T (iNKT) cell therapies to treat cancer and other immune-mediated diseases, today provided a corporate update and reported financial results for the second quarter 2023.

“We made significant clinical progress with our lead compound, agenT-797, an allogeneic iNKT therapy, showing persistence and clinical benefit in patients with solid tumor cancers,” said Chief Executive Officer and President at MiNK, Jennifer Buell, Ph.D. “We will expand on this progress with the launch of our externally funded randomized phase 2 trial in 2L gastric cancer and plan to provide meaningful updates across our clinical programs, manufacturing, and business later this year.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mink-therapeutics-reports-second-quarter-113000948.html

Novo hires Thermo Fisher as second manufacturer for Wegovy

 Novo Nordisk has hired Thermo Fisher as its second contract manufacturer for its hugely popular weight-loss drug Wegovy, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Thermo is doing the filling of the Wegovy injection pens at its factory in Greenville, North Carolina, the source said, declining to be named because the information is confidential.

Thermo shares were up 1.7% in premarket trading after Reuters reported the news.

Novo Chief Financial Officer Karsten Munk Knudsen told Reuters in May the company had signed up a second contract manufacturer in the United States, but the identity of the company has not previously been reported.

A Novo spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

The Danish drugmaker is scrambling to boost output of the drug to meet soaring demand in the United States and after production problems at the factory in Brussels, Belgium, operated by its first contract manufacturer, Catalent.

Wegovy launched in the United States in June 2021, the first-to-market in a new class of highly effective weight-loss drugs. It leads to an average weight loss of around 15%, alongside changes to diet and exercise.

In May, Knudsen said a third plant would start producing later this year and he hoped to add more sites. He did not identify the third partner.

Catalent's factory in Brussels that fills Wegovy pens has repeatedly breached U.S. sterile-safety rules in recent years and staff have failed to perform required quality checks, Reuters reported last month.

It is not clear how much the factories are producing.

https://news.yahoo.com/novo-hires-thermo-fisher-2nd-111300588.html

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

Most common form of arthritis, osteoarthritis, affects 15% of global population over age 30

 A new study projects nearly 1 billion people will be living with osteoarthritis, the most common form of arthritis, by 2050. Currently, 15% of individuals aged 30 and older experience osteoarthritis. The research, published today in The Lancet Rheumatology.

, analyzes 30 years of osteoarthritis data (1990-2020) covering more than 200 countries and was led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) as part of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.

The study found that cases increased rapidly over the past three decades because of three main factors: aging, population growth, and obesity. In 1990, 256 million people had osteoarthritis. By 2020, this number rose to 595 million people, which was a 132% increase from 1990. By 2050, this number is projected to approach the 1 billion mark.

"With the key drivers of people living longer and a growing world population, we need to anticipate stress on health systems in most countries," explains Dr. Jaimie Steinmetz, the paper's corresponding author and lead research scientist at IHME. "There is no effective cure for osteoarthritis right now, so it's critical that we focus on strategies of prevention, early intervention, and making expensive, effective treatments like joint replacements more affordable in low- and middle-income countries."

2050 projections of joint pain

The most common areas for osteoarthritis are knees and hips. By 2050, osteoarthritis is projected to increase by the following percentages based on problem areas of the human body.

  • Knee +74.9%
  • Hand +48.6%
  • Hip +78.6%
  • Other (e.g., elbow, shoulder) +95.1%

More women than men are expected to continue grappling with this condition. In 2020, 61% of osteoarthritis cases were in women versus 39% in men. There is a combination of possible reasons behind this gender difference.

"The reasons for gender differences in osteoarthritis prevalence are being investigated, but researchers believe that genetics, hormonal factors, and anatomical differences play a role," explains Dr. Jacek Kopek, senior author and professor in the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia.

Obesity

This study shows that obesity or high body mass index (BMI) is an important risk factor for osteoarthritis. If obesity can effectively be addressed in the global population, the osteoarthritis burden would decrease by an estimated 20%. The research also shows that obesity has played a greater role over time as rates of obesity have increased.

In the first year of the study in 1990, obesity was responsible for 16% of the disability due to osteoarthritis, which rose to 20% in the year 2020.

"Health care systems and governments have an opportunity to engage and participate in identifying vulnerable populations, addressing drivers of obesity, and developing management strategies to prevent or slow down the progression of osteoarthritis," says Dr. Liane Ong, lead research scientist at IHME, who supervised and co-authored the study. "The role that physical inactivity plays in obesity and pain associated with osteoarthritis can have opposite and unintended negative cycles. For example, being physically active can prevent injuries earlier in life and can even be beneficial for someone with joint pain. It's counterintuitive, but having joint pain doesn't mean we should remain sedentary."

Journal Reference:

  1. Jaimie D Steinmetz, et al.. Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990–2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021The Lancet Rheumatology, 2023; 5 (9): e508 DOI: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00163-7

CDC works to overhaul lab operations after COVID test flop

 In early February 2020, Kirsten St. George and her team at New York state’s public health lab received a test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to diagnose people infected with the new, rapidly spreading coronavirus.

But, like many labs around the country, it quickly found the test gave inaccurate results. So test samples had to be sent back to the CDC for processing, wasting time and leaving state officials “sort of blind to what the situation was with the disease,” said St. George, chief of the laboratory of viral diseases at the Wadsworth Center, one of the nation’s largest state public health labs.

“It was extremely unfortunate that it happened at such a critical time, in the early days of this emerging pandemic,” she said.

An independent panel of laboratory researchers, public health and policy experts, and doctors say the CDC’s flawed diagnostic test was one of the “most consequential” of the agency’s pandemic missteps because it stymied national efforts to contain COVID-19 as the disease spread.

They blame the test’s shortcomings on a series of problems rooted in how the CDC operated its laboratories: a lack of unified leadership for the labs developing the test; insufficient planning and quality control systems for producing tests for novel pathogens; and ineffective governance that sometimes placed clinical laboratory decisions in the hands of “non-laboratory experts” without diagnostic testing expertise.

The CDC says it’s working to address its liabilities, using the findings of that advisory committee (PDF) as a guide. It’s a big job—one further complicated by new leadership at the agency, constrained resources, and continued antagonism and threatened budget cuts from members of Congress.

Failure to make sweeping changes could add to a growing lack of trust in the agency post-pandemic and threaten the nation’s preparedness for the next public health threat.

“If the CDC can’t change, their importance in health in the nation will decline,” said Jill Taylor, a senior adviser for the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “The coordination of public health emergency responses in the nation will be worse off.”

The CDC’s original COVID test had two key problems, according to an internal analysis in 2021 by a group of agency staff. A design flaw and contamination during production at the CDC led the tests to give false positive results.

The work group that later performed an independent post-mortem on the development of the test, using information provided by the CDC, came to the same conclusions.

“It was all surprising to me,” said Joshua Sharfstein, M.D., a vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who co-chaired the panel.

The panel concluded that these failures, fueled by problems within the agency, had human consequences.

“Lacking awareness of how rapidly and widely the virus was spreading, public health agencies were slow to recommend behavior changes or implement protective measures,” its February report said (PDF).

A few short weeks after the flawed tests were released, life across the U.S. would grind to a halt, with officials resorting to mass lockdowns to slow the spread of the virus that has killed more than 1.1 million Americans.

The advisory group made 10 recommendations for how the CDC could prevent future failures when developing diagnostic tests such as consolidating all lab operations into a new center with its own leadership; separating research labs from those that develop clinical tests; and having independent, outside experts review tests made for pathogens with pandemic potential.

The agency began acting on some of those suggestions under the leadership of Rochelle Walensky, M.D., before she left her post as director in June, as part of the larger effort to overhaul the CDC. It instituted new agencywide lab quality standards, started working to improve coordination with state labs and established an internal review board to approve tests shared outside the CDC.

In July, Mandy Cohen, M.D., took over as Walensky’s successor. Cohen held top leadership positions at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Obama administration but not within the CDC. Already, she has run into headwinds from Republican members of Congress, who influence the agency’s budget. Still, an agency spokesperson said these won’t be major challenges.

“Improvements to further strengthen CDC’s labs are well underway,” said CDC spokesperson Kevin Griffis. “Reforms will continue to move ahead at full speed.”

Other leaders within the agency said funding could prove a critical obstacle to instituting the recommended changes.

The agency is staring down a cut to one-time funding of more than $1 billion (PDF) in the wake of this summer’s debt ceiling deal—more than one-tenth of its enacted core operating budget (PDF) in fiscal year 2023. Republicans in the House are mulling legislation that would cut an additional $1.6 billion (PDF) in the upcoming fiscal year.

Recommendations for the agency to physically separate its clinical labs from its research labs or to train researchers to uphold new quality standards will be heavy lifts because they require continuous funding, said Jim Pirkle, M.D., associate director for laboratory science and safety at the CDC.

“You can’t get one bolus of money, and then say, ‘OK, now that solves it till the end of time,’” he said. “The things that we’re talking about are things that we have to sustain.”

And money is only one piece of the puzzle, said the Association of Public Health Laboratories’ Taylor, who also co-chaired the advisory group.

A culture change will also be required, she said, in which scientists inside the CDC see themselves as part of the larger U.S. laboratory community, subject to the same quality standards.

The advisory group looking at the covid test development found clinical lab decisions were made “by experts in basic science research rather than by certified clinical laboratory professionals.”

In addition, research and clinical work would happen in the same lab space, which made it hard to ensure quality standards for test development and “very easy to cut corners,” Taylor said.

“CDC has considered itself a bit special and not necessarily needing to follow the rules like everyone else does, and that’s a shame,” Taylor said.

Taylor said failure to implement the work group’s recommendations could force the CDC to cede ground to commercial lab companies in developing diagnostic tests for new disease threats.

While commercial labs can operate at larger scales than public health labs can, they are for-profit entities and motivated by the market.

In a recent article, leaders of the American Clinical Laboratory Association, an industry trade group, wrote that some lab companies delayed creating a covid test until “clear signals that a testing market would materialize.”

The CDC does that work without worrying about making money, said Anne Schuchat, former principal deputy director of the agency. In other words, they develop a test “because there’s a new pathogen, and we need to know what’s going on,” she said.

As the covid pandemic has shown, threats that might start small can quickly spread, take millions of lives, and cause years of global disruption.

Schuchat said the ability of the CDC to have the capacity to develop an accurate test to pinpoint novel pathogens and how they’re spreading is critical.

“Our protection depends on it,” she said.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/cdc-works-overhaul-lab-operations-after-covid-test-flop

Pfizer cuts enrollment for Lyme disease trial after CRO debacle

 After complications with the CRO behind Pfizer's Lyme disease shot, vaccine R&D chief Annaliesa Anderson, Ph.D., says that much fewer than the planned 18,000 participants will be recruited. 

“By moving just to the high endemic areas and taking out sites where we didn't think that people would really be at risk of getting Lyme disease, it meant that we could actually considerably reduce the number of participants that we enroll,” Anderson said in an interview with Fierce Biotech.

The new enrollment expectations for the phase 3 VLA15 program follow a dramatic back-and-forth between Pfizer and a contract research organization, Care Access—owned by Reify Health. Pfizer alleged in February that due to breaches of Good Clinical Practice half of the enrolled patients to-date would be removed. Care Access CEO Ahmad Namvargolian said in a LinkedIn post that his company disagreed with the decision. Endpoints News subsequently reported that Pfizer had ended work with Care Access. 

The trial originally got underway in August 2022 with an overall enrollment goal of 18,000 healthy people who live in areas with endemic Lyme disease and lead lifestyles that put them at increased risk of being bitten by ticks. An initial 6,000 people were supposed to be enrolled to ensure a read out by the second quarter of this year. 

Anderson noted that recruitment got moving again a couple of months ago. While she could not pin down exactly what the new expected enrollment figure is, the number will be “much less than 18,000.” The expected enrollment was revised down to 6,400 in the middle of July, according to the study’s ClinicalTrials.gov page, before returning to 18,000 at the end of the month. 

Follow-up disclosures by Pfizer and partner Valneva suggest that the snag has delayed the trial by at least a year. The two companies originally expected to submit an approval application for VLA15 to regulators in 2025 but have pushed the timeline back to 2026. The study is expected to conclude at the end of 2025, according to the clinical trial record. 

Pfizer picked up the vaccine from Valneva for $130 million upfront in 2020 as it progressed through a couple midstage trials. A separate phase 3 trial that got underway late last year is testing the safety of the shot in children 5 to 17 years old, with an expected enrollment of roughly 3,500 kids. In July, the trial record updated to suggest that recruitment had concluded. 

The setback in Lyme disease has been an aberration in Pfizer's larger vaccine portfolio, which just today saw the approval of the RSV vaccine Abrysvo in pregnant people. The FDA nod follows an earlier approval for older adults. 

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/pfizers-ongoing-lyme-disease-trial-expected-recruit-much-less-18000-patients

Middle-Age Crisis: 35-50 Year-Olds Turn To Booze, Bud, And 'Shrooms'

 In the land of the 'free' and the home of the distraught: New research reveals an alarming number of middle-aged Americans are drowning their troubles away in binge drinking and getting higher than a kite to pass the time. 

The University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future (MTF) found binge drinking, marijuana use, and hallucinogen consumption among middle-aged adults 35 to 50 (prime-age workers) hit record highs in 2022. 

"While binge drinking has generally declined for the past ten years among younger adults, adults aged 35 to 50 in 2022 reported the highest prevalence of binge drinking ever recorded for this age group, which also represents a significant past-year, five-year and 10-year increase," MTF wrote in the report. 

"The value of surveys such as MTF is to show us how drug use trends evolve over decades and across development, from adolescence through adulthood," said Megan Patrick, research professor and principal investigator of the MTF panel study. 

Adults aged 35 to 50 aren't turning to sports cars and wild adventures in what might be a midlife crisis. Instead, a staggering 28% have resorted to marijuana in the past year, while 4% have used hallucinogens. 

Patrick said, "Behaviors and public perception of drug use can shift rapidly, based on drug availability and other factors. It's important to track this so that public health professionals and communities can be prepared to respond."

Major findings of MTF's report: 

  • A whopping 44% of young adults smoked marijuana this past year, a drastic climb from the 28% a decade prior.

  • Daily cannabis use? Skyrocketing. Over 1 in 10 young adults smoke marijuana on a daily basis, nearly double from a decade ago. 

  • Middle-aged (35-50) aren't far behind; their pot smoking has more than doubled in 10 years, with 28% now getting high.

  • Trippy times: Both young and middle-aged adults are experimenting with hallucinogens like LSD and shrooms at higher rates. Specifically, 8% of those 19-30 and 4% of the 35-50 brackets. 

  • The e-cigarette craze is alive and well; young adults vaping nicotine surged from 14% in 2017 to 24% in 2022.

  • Binge drinking: Nearly 30% of middle-aged folks are on a binge-drinking spree, reaching all-time highs in 2022. That's up from 25% in 2017 and 23% in 2012. 

The findings aren't surprising. We reported earlier this year that a 'shroom boom' was blasting off as middle-class soccer moms and average working-class folks were increasing their consumption of psilocybin, the main active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms. Even Janet Yellen joined in on the craze while in China... 

Numerous studies have shown those who used psilocybin were able to curb drinking and other drug addictions easier. These studies add to increasing research showing that psychedelics paired with therapy could treat mental health issues.  

MTF's latest report shows Americans are binging on whatever they can get their hands on, indicating a looming mental health crisis. But, of course, the corporate media are blind to this crisis. They would rather focus on 'climate change' using fuzzy math

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/middle-age-crisis-35-50-year-olds-turn-booze-bud-and-shrooms