Tennessee General Assembly Passes Landmark Bill Against De-Banking

 The Tennesse General Assembly passed a bill prohibiting banks from de-banking and closing consumer accounts based on “social credit score” systems.

SB 2148 “prohibits financial institutions and insurers from denying or canceling services to a person, or otherwise discriminating against a person, based upon the use of a social credit score or other factors,” according to the bill’s summary.

The bill’s companion in the Tennessee House also passed.

The Senate bill was overwhelmingly supported by Tennessee’s Senate Republicans, who all voted in favor of it. The lone “no” vote was from the state’s only Democrat senator.

In past years, several right-wing figures have seen their bank accounts mysteriously closed without explanation from high-profile institutions like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and PayPal.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which helped Tennessee legislators draft the bill awaiting the signature of Gov. Bill Lee (R), provided a list of such cases.

Those cases include Moms for Liberty’s ban from PayPal, BREXIT leader Nigel Farage’s ban from Coutts, a British ban, and the bank account of Timothy Two Project International, a Christian ministry that Bank of America banned because the organization was “operating a business type we have chosen not to service.”

“The bill prohibits the country’s largest banks from engaging in politicized de-banking—denying financial services based on a customer’s religious or political views. The issue is on the rise at America’s largest financial institutions and threatens Americans’ freedom of speech and religion,” the ADF said in a release.

The ADF has been involved in a legal case over Bank of America’s de-banking of Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Christian nonprofit that serves children in Africa.

“No one should be denied access to basic financial services because of their political or religious beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Matt Sharp, director of the ADF Center for Public Policy. “Banks that are too big to fail are too big for bias. It’s the government’s duty to protect the fundamental freedoms of its citizens. That’s why Tennessee is doing the right thing here and charting the course for other states to follow.”

Sharp thanked members of the General Assembly and activist groups who worked to get the legislation to Lee’s desk.

“ADF is thankful to the Pro-Family Legislative Network, Foundation for Government Accountability, and the Tennessee Faith and Freedom Coalition for their invaluable expertise and support on this legislation,” he said. “Additionally, we want to commend Sen. Majority Leader Jack Johnson and Rep. Jason Zachary for their leadership in passing this important bill.”

https://tennesseestar.com/policy/tennessee-general-assembly-passes-landmark-bill-against-de-banking/pdabrosca/2024/03/29/

Are Illegal Immigrants Really Keeping The U.S. Economy Afloat?

The left, the Biden administration, the Fed, major investment banks and the mainstream media are crowing about the positive impact that illegal immigration is supposedly having on the U.S. economy. The truth is, the unchecked flow of people across our borders is not a boon, but an economic disaster in the making.

Let’s just begin by saying Issues & Insights does not oppose immigration. Legal immigration. We are, however, strongly opposed to illegal immigration, which undermines the rule of law, creates social chaos and crime, and has surged under President Joe Biden.

Now comes remarks by Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Jerome Powell that the stream of people crossing our national border is an economic bonanza.

“Our economy has been short labor, and probably still is … and we do talk to a lot of business people, (and) it is still difficult to hire for many, many companies. So we’ve needed more people,” Powell said recently in remarks made at Stanford University.

His source for the idea that “we’ve needed more people”? The Congressional Budget Office, which estimated recently that an unexpected wave of illegal immigration will boost the economy by $7 trillion over the next decade, while adding $1 trillion to federal revenues, easing the burden on American taxpayers.

Wall Street investment houses such as Goldman Sachs and HSBC, likewise, see the economy growing from the influx. A recent Bloomberg headline puts it this way: “Immigration Is Fueling US Economic Growth While Politicians Rage.”

Is all that true? Is illegal immigration a massive win-win for the economy? Are all immigrants exactly alike?

No. And, while we’re at it, it isn’t only “politicians” who rage. Average Americans are also angry about the Biden administration’s refusal to stanch the illegal immigrant flow. Our own I&I/TIPP Poll found Americans overwhelmingly favor (59%) building a wall on our southern border, while a March Wall Street Journal survey noted that illegal immigration is now voters’ No. 1 issue.

No doubt, those here illegally are elbowing their way into the workforce. As we reported on April 9,  “In fact, over the past 12 months, native-born Americans lost 651,000 jobs, while foreign-born gained 1.3 million.”

Looks a bit like the displacement of domestic workers by foreign workers. So are we really better off with this flood than without it?

First, lets assume what is no doubt true: Those coming across the border are less-skilled, less-educated and more likely to use welfare and other public services than are those born here. These are all established facts.

The amount of “output” per person will thus be far less than the average output of native-born Americans. So we are in fact importing people who will reduce our per capita GDP, and possibly quite sharply.

So while the nation’s economy may well be bigger as a result of the 3.7 million people (and rising) that Biden has allowed in, we will in fact be less well off on a per-person basis. In short, we are importing poverty.

We’re also importing some other unsavory things, including possible terrorists, deadly diseases and even-deadlier fentanyl, and perhaps worst of all, criminals and cartel members. Does the CBO add these factors into its GDP calculations? How about the Fed?

None of those are taken into account when calculating GDP’s possible growth. Nor does the math take into account having millions of people coming from countries where there are few if any individual rights, no rule of law, and where corruption is an indelible part of governance. How many of them, having arrived illegally, will find a way to vote illegally, too?

GDP is an accounting convenience, not reality. And CBO projections have in the past been notoriously off the mark. Looking at the other side of the ledger shows exploding costs resulting from the illegal immigration surge, costs that aren’t accounted for directly in GDP.

The House Committee on Border Security, for instance, issued a report late last year estimating the total cost of illegal immigration at $451 billion a year in health care, law enforcement, education, housing, welfare and other expenses. And that’s just for the last two years of what is now, essentially, an open border.

Do the math. At this rate, that’s $4.5 trillion over the next decade, assuming no further illegal immigration. But, of course, there will be more illegal immigration, a lot more.

Data from the Federation for American Immigration Reform and from a Yale University-MIT study show an estimated 17 million to 29 million illegals now residing in the U.S. (The Center for Immigration Studies estimates 3.7 million migrants have entered the U.S. illegally just since Biden took office.)

But, in fact, no one knows for sure the exact number. The government’s own figure of 11 million here in total is plainly far below reality. And the rising costs of this will be born for years to come, as “sanctuary cities” such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Denver and San Francisco are now finding out the hard way.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear a public official spouting off about the economic boom from illegal immigration. It’s a one-sided picture that doesn’t take into account the enormous costs the torrent of illegals is now imposing on U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who played by the rules.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/04/11/are-illegal-immigrants-really-keeping-the-u-s-economy-afloat/

Puberty blockers' long-term fertility and health issues for boys 'may be permanent': Mayo

Puberty blockers have been shown to cause long-term fertility problems in boys, according to a preprint study from Mayo Clinic.

The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, analyzed more than 130,000 sperm cells from male children with gender dysphoria. 

All participants were 17 or younger.

The researchers analyzed the testicular cells of boys who had been taking puberty blockers for anywhere from three months to 52 months, and compared them to cells of a control group who had not been on the blockers.

Among those on puberty blockers, the researchers identified mild to severe "sex gland atrophy," determining that the medications accelerated the aging and function of testicular cells.

The findings suggest that puberty blockers’ impacts may be permanent — disputing claims that such effects can be reversed.

The researchers also detected cases of microlithiasis, which is marked by the presence of small clusters of calcium in the testicles.

Additional research from Mayo Clinic has linked testicular microlithiasis to an increased risk of testicular cancer. 

"We provide unprecedented histological evidence revealing detrimental pediatric testicular sex gland responses to [puberty blockers]," the authors wrote in the study findings.

Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor, was not involved in the Mayo Clinic research but commented on the use of puberty blockers.

"Thousands of U.S. children — more than ever before — are experiencing gender dysphoria and many go on to identify as transgender," Siegel told Fox News Digital. 

"They certainly still face a stigma for this, which needs to be addressed — but at the same time, the growing rush to gender-affirming treatment is disturbing, particularly without parental approval."

In 2021, approximately 42,167 children received gender dysphoria diagnoses, almost triple the 15,172 reported in 2017, according to Reuters.

"Much of this is politically driven, and may lead to premature treatments that are not offered in the U.K., Finland, Sweden or many other countries," Siegel said.

Among the puberty-blocking drugs is lupron (leuprolide), which is a type of hormone therapy used for advanced prostate cancer. 

It is also used to stop early puberty in children, according to WebMD.

"It helps to delay sexual development (such as growth of the breasts/testicles) and the start of menstrual periods," WebMD reported. 

"It also helps slow down early bone growth to increase the likelihood of reaching normal adult height."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported 10,000 adverse effects in children in 2017 — including mood swings, cognitive problems, suicidal thoughts, longer-term fertility problems, seizures, migraines, brittle bones, brain swelling and vision loss, according to Siegel.

Experts also warn of the potential mental impacts of these drugs.

"Transgender individuals are three times more likely than the general population to suffer from anxiety, depression and neurodevelopmental issues," Siegel warned. 

Although some studies have shown that interventions such as puberty blockers may decrease anxiety in the short term, Siegel pointed out that "there are no longer-term head-to-head trials versus extensive therapy and watchful waiting." 

Puberty blockers typically lead children down a path to long-term use of transgender-affirming hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, he noted.

"These hormones carry their own risks — for example, estrogen may increase the incidence of breast cancer," Siegel said.

"Bottom line, I don't believe puberty blockers should be given routinely to children and teens for gender dysphoria," Siegel said. "There are too many long-term risks, including the idea that the children or teens may change their minds."

In the majority of cases, Siegel recommends that any hormonal interventions or gender reassignment surgeries be delayed until an older age.

He added, "Intensive supportive and cognitive therapy makes sense as an initial approach."

Dr. Brett Osborn, a Florida neurologist and longevity expert who was also not involved in the new research, noted that previous studies have shown that puberty-blocking drugs can alter the normal progression of testicular cells, potentially leading to atrophy or abnormal development.

"Specifically, the drugs impact the normal function of ‘spermatogonial’ stem cells (SSCs), which are crucial for sperm production and overall reproductive health," he told Fox News Digital.

"Disruption in their development could result in reduced fertility or other reproductive issues later in life," he continued. "Based on the researchers’ histologic findings, the changes induced by these medications may be permanent, contrary to popular opinion among transgender activists."

Added Osborn, "These medications are not as benign as billed."

The risks go beyond infertility, the doctor warned.

"There are also downrange effects of altered hormone levels on brain development, let alone other organ systems," he said. 

Hormones such as testosterone, progesterone and estrogen are critical for brain development, memory and cognition, Osborn pointed out. 

The doctor called for "safer and more effective" treatments for those with gender dysphoria.

"Gaining insight into the full impact of these medications — the usage of which has become more prevalent — is crucial for future generations."

https://www.foxnews.com/health/puberty-blockers-could-cause-long-term-fertility-health-boys-study-may-be-permanent

B cells: Building better antibodies and curbing autoimmune diseases

 Four new studies led by Harvard Medical School researchers at Boston Children's Hospital reveal details about how B cells in the immune system churn out antibodies that become increasingly potent and specific after we're vaccinated or exposed to an infection.

Two of the studies show how to enhance this process—known as affinity maturation—to lay a foundation for developing more broadly protective vaccines and antibody-based biologic treatments.

The other two studies uncover ways in which affinity maturation sometimes goes awry, creating antibodies that attack the body's own cells. The findings suggest new strategies for treating autoimmune diseases.

Honing antibodies for vaccines and biologics

Previous lab-based approaches to creating more potent antibodies have fallen short, leading to disruption of B-cell function or the creation of antibodies that are inefficient and unstable.

Researchers led by Yiming Yin, HMS research fellow in pediatrics in the lab of Michael Farzan, HMS professor of pediatrics at Boston Children's, set out to capture the natural power of affinity maturation.

As described in Nature Biomedical Engineering in March, they performed CRISPR gene editing on B cells in mice, replacing genes for antibody light and heavy chains with their human counterparts at appropriate locations along chromosomes.

"Our goal is to harness the underlying wisdom of our own immune system," Farzan said. "Humans have very specific immune features that animal models don't mimic."

The animals' B cells then underwent affinity maturation, producing potent human antibodies in a short amount of time.

As a proof of concept, Farzan, Yin, and colleagues introduced the genomes for HIV antibodies into mouse B cells. They then exposed the cells to a test HIV vaccine and allowed affinity maturation to happen.

This generated new and better antibodies against HIV—something they hope to try next in non-human primates.

In another test, they got mouse B cells to shift from making antibodies against early strains of SARS-CoV-2 to making antibodies able to neutralize omicron variants.

An adjuvant to charge up flu vaccines?

In separate work, Pankaj Sharma, HMS research fellow in pediatrics, and colleagues in the lab of Florian Winau, HMS associate professor of pediatrics in the Boston Children's Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, focused on germinal centers, the structures in our lymph nodes and spleen that facilitate B cell maturation.

They found that a lipid called Gb3 is needed for B cells to mature in the germinal center and make high-affinity antibodies.

Gb3 also increases the diversity of B cell responses, leading to the generation of broadly neutralizing antibodies, Winau said.

When the researchers added Gb3 to a flu vaccine, the vaccine protected against diverse strains of influenza, a virus that tends to mutate and elude vaccines. They propose that Gb3 be used as an adjuvant for vaccination, potentially for a variety of viral infections. They are also now testing Gb3 as an adjuvant for anti-cancer vaccines.

Findings were published in Science in February.

New insights on autoimmunity: How B cells go rogue

Two more studies explored how B cells sometimes go overboard, producing antibodies that attack a person's own tissues.

The first—led by Elliot Hideki Akama-Garren, an HMS MD student and Harvard Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Ph.D. student in the Program in Immunology studying in the PCMM lab of Michael Carroll, HMS professor of pediatrics (pathology)—focused on follicular T cells, which provide signals to help B cells with affinity maturation.

The team found that a specific set of follicular T cells can go rogue, leading to the formation of B cells that lose their tolerance to the body's tissues and produce autoreactive (self-attacking) antibodies.

The findings may have treatment implications for autoimmune conditions such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis as well as the development of autoreactive antibodies in people with Epstein-Barr virus or COVID-19.

Findings were published in February in Science Immunology.

Making B cells autoreactive

A companion study from the Carroll lab—led by former postdoctoral fellow Theo van den Broek and Kristine Oleinika, HMS research fellow in pediatrics—further investigated how autoimmune disease is initiated.

The study began with the knowledge that B cells that have lost tolerance to the body's own tissues can take hold in areas of the body called germinal centers, where B cells get activated and tuned to specific targets.

In people with early or low-level autoimmune disease, naive B cells—those not yet exposed to a vaccine or pathogen—enter these germinal centers and then go rogue as well, producing a wide range of autoreactive antibodies.

Carroll and colleagues wanted to understand what allows this to happen.

By joining the blood circulations of wild-type mice and mice with lupus, they could observe the development of autoimmunity in real time. They identified several ingredients that enable healthy B cells to invade autoreactive germinal centers: Toll-like receptor 7, B cell receptor specificity, antigen presentation, and type 1 interferon signaling.

While more work is needed, Carroll believes the insights from these two studies could lead to new targets for treating autoimmunity.

"These latest observations will allow us to break down the kinetics of how new clones of autoreactive B cells become activated and how disease 'spreads' to new tissue targets, which is a major problem in diseases such as lupus," he said.

Findings were published in March in Science Immunology.

More information: Yiming Yin et al, In vivo affinity maturation of mouse B cells reprogrammed to express human antibodies, Nature Biomedical Engineering (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41551-024-01179-6

Pankaj Sharma et al, The lipid globotriaosylceramide promotes germinal center B cell responses and antiviral immunity, Science (2024). DOI: 10.1126/science.adg0564

Elliot H. Akama-Garren et al, T cell help shapes B cell tolerance, Science Immunology (2024). DOI: 10.1126/sciimmunol.adj7029

Theo van den Broek et al, Invasion of spontaneous germinal centers by naive B cells is rapid and persistent, Science Immunology (2024). DOI: 10.1126/sciimmunol.adi8150

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-04-insights-cells-explore-antibodies-curbing.html

Mayorkas assures Congress that replacement theory is 'preposterous'

 Mr. Credibility is back again.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Senate the idea that the illegal migrants he's mass-releasing into the U.S. might just have something to do with replacing the voters with newly minted Democrats was "preposterous."

In fact, it was an "insult," based on all the 'work' he said he was doing to create legal pathways to mass migration.

He never answered the question that was put in front of him, but made an umbrageous denial of sorts in a testy exchange with Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana:

It's quite a denial, because it's pretty obvious that's what's going on as thousands of migrants flood the cities, and more to the point, it's what the public believes is going on.

In fact, coming from Mayorkas, it's more likely to mean it's completely true. This is the same guy who assured the public that 'the border is secure' until he was forced by the reality shown from the television cameras and the city streets to admit it wasn't. He's lied repeatedly about numbers of illegals released into the country, about detention beds filled up that weren't, and every possible matter this side of COVID that it's possible to lie about.

Mayorkas was slippery as always in his denial, refusing to answer Kennedy's question about congressional representation at all, yet seemed to admit that he was mass releasing all comers into the country under the rubric that it was now legal and he was making it 'legal' with legal 'pathways.'

Congress, of course, is responsible for setting immigration numbers, so his release of illegals, along with his de facto declaration that he has made them 'legal' was pretty much a confirmation that Biden's open borders are all about replacement theory.

My transcript:

KENNEDY: ...Again, it gives me no joy to say this, I think well more than a majority of the American people think that as a result of your behavior, and President Biden's behavior, our Southern border is an open, bleeding wound. I think they believe that our Southern border is chaotic. I think a vast majority of the American people believe that a lot of it is political. I think a vast majority of the American people believe that it is chaotic by design. And that all of this is intentional. And I think a vast majoirty of the American people, who don't trust you, believe in legal immigration, they don't believe in illegal immigration. And they think you do. And they think President Biden does. And they think that's why the border is open, and they think that your attitude, and President Biden's attitude, is that while they may be poorer under President Biden, that they're stupid enough to believe you and the president when you say that's not your problem. I think that needed to be said.

Isn't it a fact that the number of illegal immigrants that you and the president allow into our country counts for congressional district reapportionment?

MAYORKAS: Senator, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can surely share with you that I disagree with its phrasing.

KENNEDY: Isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and President Biden have allowed into our country counts for allocating electoral votes?

MAYORKAS: Same answer.

KENNEDY: You don't know?

MAYORKAS: I don't understand your question.

KENNEDY: Never crossed your mind?

MAYORKAS: The notion, Senator, that we intend to allow illegal immigration is nothing short of preposterous.

KENNEDY: So you do understand my question.

MAYORKAS: If I may, it is disrespectful to the extraordinarily hard work that we perform, and far more importantly, that the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and across this administration perform, to stem illegal immigration and built lawful, safe, and orderly pathways, and invest in a working system. We only wish that that bipartisan legislation about which I have not heard a critical term ...

KENNEDY: Mr. Secretary, you're using up my time. You do this every single time. You do this every single time. And it's a fact, and you know it, and I know it: That the more people you allow into our country illegally, the more people are counted for reapportionment. And the more people that you allow into our country illegally, the more people are counted for allocating electoral votes. Now maybe that's a coincidence, but that's a fact. And you know that. And you have done nothing. Zero. Zilch. And in fact, the only people I know in this country who are better off today than they were four years ago are illegal immigrants! And that's as a result of your policy. I don't hate you for it, I don't hate anyone. But that's why you've been impeached.

Kennedy was fierce and direct, ratting out Mayorkas' deceptions and evasions. At least he got out of him the Mayorkas talking points about how he's working so "hard" to create legal pathways that he has no authority to create, and which aren't even legal given that U.S. law requires illegal border crossers to be detained, with "parole" allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Of course this is about replacement theory. With voters fleeing blue states, Democrats are looking for ways to replace those lost congressional seats and need warm bodies to preserve their failing flight-driven districts. Anything but change policies to bring these voters back.

He should be commended for exposing yet another bed of lies coming out of the most dishonest and unpopular member of the Biden administration, based on the fact that he's done the most damage to our rule of law and the fabric of our country itself.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/mayorkas_assures_congress_that_replacement_theory_is_preposterous.html 

Denver to cut police and firefighters to pay for illegals. What could go wrong?

 By Monica Showalter

Migrant-magnet Denver has announced a plan to pay for all its new arrivals -- by cutting police, firefighting, sheriff, 911, transport, infrastructure and other services otherwise meant for its citizens. Their quality of life is about to go down.

According to the Daily Caller:

The Democratic-run city of Denver, Colorado, plans to defund its police department to pay for illegal immigrants.

Denver, which is commonly referred to as a “sanctuary city,” announced on Wednesday that it will spend $89.9 million on services for incoming illegal migrants, pulling some of the funding from roughly $45 million in public programs and services. Denver’s police department will be hit with an $8.4 million reduction — about 1.9% of its total operating budget, the city confirmed to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

According to Denver's mayor, Mike Johnston, it's about "shared sacrifice."

Breitbart reported:

“We think it’s a balance. We want to be a welcoming city where you don’t have a woman with a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old sleeping outside in a tent in ten-degree weather in a snowstorm. That’s one of our values. And we also want to be able to provide high-quality public services to all the taxpayers. That’s also one of our values. And in this context, without any federal support, to do both of those things requires shared sacrifice, it requires compromise. So, we are both making cuts to city budgets to meet this financial need, and we are making cuts to the amount of services we can provide to the migrants that arrive and to the number of folks that we can serve.”

His migrant plan is a doozy, too. A full free ride for the first 1,000 migrants and everyone else gets virtually nothing, except maybe a bus ticket to somebody else's city.

But the Denver Post ran an editorial praising it as "creative and ambitious":

Johnston’s plan will provide more services to fewer refugees, allowing the city to reduce costs and avoid public-facing budget cuts.

The Asylum Seeker Program will give the roughly 800 refugees and migrants currently in Denver hotel shelters and 200 other individuals intensive legal assistance for up to six months. That legal assistance could help people proactively apply for asylum and receive temporary work permits while their cases are adjudicated in the backlogged immigration court system. During that time, the city will house and feed the immigrants.

It also painted a curiously realistic picture of how there wasn't enough 'economy' in Denver to house or employ all comers, including not even enough 'underground' economy.

Moving away from the city’s current policy of offering two week stays (42 days for families) in hotels is necessary because the newest arrivals have the hardest path to employment and self-sufficiency. Our market for jobs that pay cash outside federal employment laws is saturated. Those arriving today also don’t qualify for Temporary Protected Status and are unable to book appointments through Customs and Border Protection’s mobile application to claim asylum.

Which is exactly the problem with unchecked, unvetted illegal immigration into the U.S. through Joe Biden's open borders policies.

For Denver, that leaves 39,000 other so-called asylum seekers with nothing as that lucky 1,000 win the big prize package. They can sit in the snow with the two-year-old in the tent, as the mayor piously intoned about, because there are only slots for 1,000 illegals.

Seriously, what are they going to do with them?

How do they pick the lucky 1,000 for the full-fare free ride, which not only includes free housing and free food at taxpayer expense for half a year but also extensive legal services, and free job training? Will there be nice payoffs to Denver officials for one of those 1,000 slots? It's going to be competitive.

As for the remaining 39,000, Johnston said the city planned to fob them off onto other cities, playing "pass the migrant" with them. The plan, of course, is to disincentivize illegal migration to the city.

According to ABC7 Denver:

For new immigrants who miss out on a spot or choose not to participate, short-term congregate shelters will be available.

The stay will be shorter at these overnight congregate shelters than they have been in the past few months — reducing availability from 14-42 days to approximately 24-72 hours. Denver will also continue to help new immigrants who want to travel to a different city.

That's a lot of migrants -- and a lot of two-year-olds in the snow. It raises questions as to why there are such generous welfare packages for these foreign indigents at all. Why do some get the whole hogshead of benefits and others get nothing now? And why are city services being cut for legitimate citizens for this welfare bonanza instead of demanding that migrants come to Denver legally so they have no problems getting work and can actually contribute to Denver's economy?

Maybe there shouldn't be any benefits at all actually for people who come to this country without money or skills or language or anything else it takes to demonstrate some kind of commitment to life in the U.S.

Johnston claims the cuts won't hurt, but cuts are cuts. The city will get that run-down third-world look as landscaping goes to pot and gardeners are laid off. 911 operators supposedly will have their pay 'restructured,' which is to say, cut. New cops won't be hired and hiring freezes will be used to attempt to get cops out of the workforce by attrition. Rec center upgrades, road upgrades, all of that will get that run-down look from lack of upgrades and maintenance. Seems it's just the little guy, not the imperial bureaucrat, who is going to get affected by the cuts, based on these media reports, and Johnston insists the pain will be minimal.

We'll see about that, and whether opting to serve just 1,000 migrants actually persuades the other 39,000 to go back to their home countries. Migrants need to pay for their own services or return home. Now there's just enough of a carrot dangled to bring them in, but not enough of a stick to persuade them not to try their luck in the first place. Good luck if you need a cop in Denver.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/denver_to_cut_police_and_firefighters_to_pay_for_illegals_what_could_go_wrong.html 

Oncologists Voice Ethical Concerns Over AI in Cancer Care

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration has approved hundreds of AI tools for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents' answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist's regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI's regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist's regimen (5%) or the AI's regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

"Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise," the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/oncologists-voice-ethical-concerns-over-ai-cancer-care-2024a100071i