Conservative activists have been calling for the House GOP to hold congressional hearings regarding the threat of Google Gemini, Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) program, and its left-wing biases ahead of the 2024 election.
As reported by Just The News, a letter signed by multiple conservative groups was sent to Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, this week demanding that Congress take action to investigate possible collusion between Big Tech platforms such as Google and the Biden White House.
“With President Trump the decisive favorite to win in November, it’s clear that Big Tech giants will try to pull the same tricks as last time to throw the election to the Democrats,” the letter reads in part.
“Unfortunately, as tech giants ramp up their crusade against Trump ahead of the 2024 election, 15 new technologies like generative AI will give them even more powerful tools to boost Democrats’ electoral prospects than four years prior,” the letter continues.
“[I]t’s more important than ever for Republicans in Congress to scrutinize Google’s monopolistic AI efforts, particularly given the threat it could pose to election integrity in 2024 and beyond.”
The letter was signed by the leaders of six conservative groups: The New York Young Republican Club, the Bull Moose Project, the American Principles Project, Citizens for Renewing America, American Accountability Foundation Action, and the National Constitutional Law Union.
Jordan has previously ordered Big Tech companies to hand over documents regarding their communication with the Biden Administration, as well as any influence the White House may have had over Google’s development of Gemini.
In addition, the Biden Administration has been hit with multiple lawsuits over its efforts to coerce social media companies into censoring conservative viewpoints, particularly regarding the Chinese Coronavirus and widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
How best to grab power when there's no convenient emergency to use as excuse? Invent one!
That's right: if you had 'climate emergency' on your 'list of disasters to prompt mail-in balloting' bingo card, you may soon be able to cross that square off. That's because the Biden administration is reportedly renewing discussions "about potentially declaring a national climate emergency," according to Bloomberg.
Such an "unprecedented" declaration could "unlock federal powers to stifle oil development", among other things, the report says.
Bloomberg reports, according to sources who requested anonymity as a final decision has not been reached, top advisers to President Joe Biden are reconsidering the possibility of declaring the emergency.
This action could lead to restrictions on crude exports, a suspension of offshore drilling, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, sources say.
Within the White House, opinions are split on this issue. Some advisers believe that declaring a climate emergency wouldn't grant Biden sufficient new powers to enact significant changes. Others, however, contend that it could energize voters who prioritize climate issues.
“President Biden has treated the climate crisis as an emergency since day one and will continue to build a clean energy future that lowers utility bills, creates good-paying union jobs, makes our economy the envy of the world and prioritizes communities that for too long have been left behind,” said White House spokesperson Angelo Fernandez Hernandez.
Historically, U.S. presidents, including former President Donald Trump, have declared national emergencies for various reasons. A climate emergency declaration would be unprecedented and likely face legal challenges.
The Biden administration considered this in 2022 amidst a deadlock on clean-energy legislation, but shelved the idea after the Inflation Reduction Act passed. Last year, President Biden said he had effectively used his authority for climate action by imposing conservation and clean-energy measures, and this year he halted new natural gas export licenses.
Environmental groups, however, are pushing for more aggressive actions. Emergency declarations could allow the president to halt crude exports, suspend offshore drilling, and restrict oil and gas transportation.
Youth environmental organizations like the Sunrise Movement, Fridays For Future USA, and the Campus Climate Network are planning Earth Day protests to demand that Biden declare a national climate emergency.
Aru Shiney-Ajay, the Sunrise Movement’s executive director, said Biden must "use every tool at his disposal to tackle the climate crisis and prepare our communities to weather the storm" of "another summer of floods, fires, hurricanes and extreme heat".
Metabolic health (normal blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels, among other factors) influences the effectiveness of influenza vaccinations. Vaccination is known to be less effective in people with obesity compared to those with a healthier body mass index (BMI), but St. Jude Children's Research Hospital scientists have found it is not obesity itself, but instead metabolic dysfunction, which makes the difference.
In a study published today in Nature Microbiology, the researchers found switching obese mice to a healthy diet before flu vaccination, but not after, completely protected the models from a lethal dose of flu, despite BMI.
"We found that the vaccines worked effectively if at the time of vaccination an animal is metabolically healthy," said corresponding author Stacey Schultz-Cherry, Ph.D., St. Jude Department of Host-Microbe Interactions and Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Response co-director. "And the opposite was also true: Regardless of what the mice looked like on the outside, if they had metabolic dysfunction, the vaccines did not work as well."
Prior research has shown that when exposed to influenza virus, even after vaccination, 100% of obese mice succumbed to disease. Contrary to the scientists' original expectations, when mice who were vaccinated while obese returned to a healthy weight, outcomes did not improve. These now outwardly healthy mice still all succumbed to disease when exposed to the real virus. Only switching to a healthy diet four weeks before vaccination improved survival, with drastic effect, despite high BMI.
"We were excited to see this effect because mice with obesity are so susceptible to severe disease and succumbing to the infection," Schultz-Cherry said. "Getting 100% survival with the vaccine where we had only seen 0% survival was impressive." The improved survival suggests the researchers have discovered a greater underlying principle determining influenza vaccine efficacy.
Metabolic dysfunction hinders the immune system
While studying how metabolic function influences influenza vaccine responses, the scientists found that poor metabolic health causes immune system dysfunction. T cells, the primary immune cells involved in anti-viral responses, failed to act in animals that had been in an unhealthy metabolic state at the time of vaccination, even during later viral exposure. Even when the animals ate a healthy diet after vaccination and maintained a normal BMI, the anti-flu T cells were "frozen" in that dysfunctional state.
However, a healthy diet before vaccination improved T-cell function, which resulted in a robust anti-flu response during later exposure.
"The T cells were better able to do their job in the metabolically healthy mice at the time of vaccination," Schultz-Cherry said. "It wasn't a matter of the numbers of them or the types of them. It was their functional activity. There were plenty of them in the lungs, not working. The healthy diet switched them from not working to functioning properly, but only if the switch occurred before vaccination."
The earlier healthy diet also improved inflammation. Pro-inflammatory cytokines are upregulated in obese animals. Schultz-Cherry's team found that models also returned to a lower basal cytokine level when switched to a healthy diet before vaccination.
"A healthy diet lowered some of the systemic meta-inflammation in these animals, and they regained some of the epithelial innate immune responses," said Schultz-Cherry. "We started seeing better signaling of things like interferons, which we know is problematic in obesity and in general saw the immune system starting to function the way that it should."
Improving metabolic health may improve influenza vaccine effectiveness
"What we found and are emphasizing is that it's not the phenotype of obesity that matters; it's really about metabolic health," Schultz-Cherry said. "It's metabolic health at that moment of vaccination that really makes a difference."
The study was restricted to mice, but it does open research opportunities to improve influenza vaccine efficacy in humans. The findings suggest methods of improving metabolic health may also improve subsequent influenza vaccinations. Given the recent introduction of metabolic improvement drugs, especially glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, there may be potential for a cooperative effect.
"We don't know for sure, but if the outcome of using GLP-1 drugs is weight loss and improved metabolic health, we would hypothesize that it will help," Schultz-Cherry said. "But we do know that we can do better protecting our vulnerable populations, and this study is a start for understanding how."
More information: Rebekah Honce et al, Diet switch pre-vaccination improves immune response and metabolic status in formerly obese mice, Nature Microbiology (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41564-024-01677-y
The Florida Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling on April 1, upholding a 15-week abortion ban that was signed into law in 2022. The ruling paved the way for a six-week abortion ban to take effect on May 1.
A second ruling on the same day allowed an initiative to amend the state constitution to guarantee abortion access to be placed before voters. An abortion advocacy group had already secured the required signatures, so a constitutional question on abortion will be on the Florida ballot in November.
Barely a week later, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 1864 law banning nearly all abortions in the state. Three days later, the Biden campaign initiated a seven-figure ad buy in the Grand Canyon State, including a billboard that reads, “Abortion is banned in Arizona thanks to Donald Trump. He won’t stop until it’s banned nationwide. #TrumpsAbortionBan.”
Democrats are leveraging abortion as a central issue in the 2024 election, and they are waging that campaign through ballot initiatives in key battleground states.
The theory is simple, according to political analyst Keith Nahigian. “Ballot questions help to get more independent expenditures for ‘get out the vote’ campaigns,” he told The Epoch Times.
In Arizona, a campaign is underway for a ballot measure amending the state constitution to provide the “fundamental right” to abortion up to the point a baby could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks. It also would allow later abortions to save the mother’s life or to protect her physical or mental health.
In Nevada, a petition drive is in the works to include an amendment on abortion access. In Colorado and Maryland, voters will decide on abortion-related amendments in November.
“The Democrats’ strategy heading into this election cycle was to put these measures on the ballot in every big swing state,” Phoenix-based Republican strategist Marcus Dell'Artino told The Epoch Times.
Republicans are using the same tactic with election integrity—placing related measures on the ballot in nine states, including in Arizona, Florida, and Wisconsin.
Both sides appear to believe their efforts will aid them in the fall and ballot measures themselves are a successful way to further a cause.
In the 2022 election, voters in 38 states decided on 140 statewide ballot measures, according to Ballotpedia. Voters approved 69 percent of the measures and rejected 31 percent.
The movement to amend state constitutions to guarantee abortion access is a calculated strategy by the Democratic Party to rally voters to the November election.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee laid out the strategy in an April 5 memo.
The committee attributed a ballot measure to add abortion to the state constitution in Ohio for the “historic” turnout during an off-year election in November 2023. Voters in the state passed the measure 57 percent to 43 percent—a margin of 14 percent. President Trump won Ohio by 8 percentage points in both 2016 and 2020.
(L–R) Arizona Supreme Court Justices William G. Montgomery, John R. Lopez IV, Ann A. Scott Timmer, Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel, Clint Bolick, and James Beene listen to oral arguments in Phoenix on April 20, 2021. (Matt York/AP Photo, File)
“When abortion is on the ballot, voters turn out to defend their rights,” the memo states. “Seven battleground states are on track to have abortion measures on the ballot in 2024 … this further guarantees that reproductive freedom will remain a driving issue for voters this November.”
Capitalizing on Momentum
Momentum around the issue of access to abortion has been building since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, the seminal decision that, for decades, limited restrictions states can impose on the procedure.
Within 18 months of the Dobbs decision, seven states put abortion-related ballot questions before the public. In red and blue states alike, voters came down on the side of access to abortion.
Voters in Kansas voted to stick with the status quo, which provides the right to abortion in the state constitution, while Kentucky voted to reject an amendment that said there was no constitutional right to an abortion.
Montana voters rejected a measure that would have declared a child born alive at any stage of pregnancy to be a legal person and required medical care for that child. The measure also included criminal penalties for health care providers who violated the “born alive” portion of the law, by establishing a maximum of a $50,000 fine and/or 20 years in prison.
Meanwhile, voters in California, Michigan, Vermont, and Ohio amended their state constitutions to include a right to “reproductive freedom,” defined to include abortion and contraception.
Democrats have hammered the issue for over two years while Republicans have been slow to admit that many of their own voters don’t favor a near-complete abortion ban.
In Virginia, Democrats took advantage of Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s interest in a 15-week abortion ban to campaign on abortion access in 2023. They retook control of the state’s General Assembly, prompting prominent Democrats to make abortion a centerpiece of the 2024 campaign.
“The prospect of a national abortion ban is real,” Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in December 2023.
Ms. Whitmer launched the Fight Like Hell PAC in June 2023 to raise campaign funds for Democratic candidates who are “unapologetic in their fight for working people and their basic freedoms.”
The Biden campaign released an emotionally charged ad on April 8 featuring a Texas woman who was denied an abortion after being told her baby would not survive birth. Over the woman’s tearful sobs, text appears on the screen:“Donald Trump did this.”
A sensitive perception of the environment is crucial for guiding our behavior. However, an overly sensitive response of the brain's neural circuits to stimuli can lead to neurodevelopmental disorders such as epilepsy. University of Basel researchersreportin the journalNaturehow neuronal networks in the mouse brain are fine-tuned.
We are constantly exposed to a wide range of sensory stimuli, from loud noises to whispers. In order to efficiently process these diverse stimulus intensities, the brain needs to strike a balance in its responsiveness. An excessive sensitivity triggers an over-activation of nerve cells in response to a stimulus, leading toepileptic seizures. Conversely, insufficient sensitivity results in a reduced ability to perceive and discriminate stimuli.
But how does the brain manage to be highly sensitive without becoming over-activated? "The key lies in maintaining a balance between neural excitation and inhibition," explains Professor Peter Scheiffele from the Biozentrum, University of Basel.
"In mouse models, we have now discovered how this balance is maintained to ensure stable brain function." The study particularly focused on the neocortex, a brain area responsible for perception and a range of complex functions such learning.
Our brain consists of billions of interconnected nerve cells that interact through so-called synapses and process sensory stimuli such as sounds, touch, and sights. While excitatory neurons pass on the input signal, inhibitory neurons control the timing and intensity of the information flow. This internal control system ensures that the nervous system responds appropriately to stimuli.
Neurons are able to detect an elevated neuronal network activity and subsequently reduce the system's sensitivity to stimuli. But how the cells are instructed at the molecular level was poorly understood.
"We have now revealed that highly activated excitatory neurons release a protein called BMP2," says lead author Dr. Zeynep Okur. "BMP2 signals to the inhibitory neurons, initiating a genetic program that leads to the formation of new synapses." These additional synapses increase the impact of inhibitory neurons and dampen network activity.
This feedback mechanism is critical for tuning the sensitivity of neuronal networks, preventing over-activation and thus excessive responses to stimuli. "Switching-off the BMP2-induced genetic program in inhibitory neurons triggers epileptic seizures in mice, but only when they are older," explains Okur. Thus, this process is involved in long-term adaptations of cortical networks.
The BMP2 signaling pathway has been known for its role in early brain developmental, particularly in nerve cell differentiation. "We have been able to show that this pathway is re-purposed to stabilize neuronal circuits in the adult brain," emphasizes Scheiffele. This plays an important role for brain plasticity in adulthood—the basis for learning and memory.
"We now understand at the molecular level how neural networks balance excitation and inhibition," says Scheiffele. "With our work, we are expanding the repertoire of options to treat epilepsy and other neurodevelopmental disorders." Targeted interventions in the BMP2 signaling pathway could help to fine-tune and re-adjust brain sensitivity.
More information: Zeynep Okur et al, Control of neuronal excitation–inhibition balance by BMP–SMAD1 signalling, Nature (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07317-z
The secretary of the Army on Jan. 6, 2021, lied about multiple details regarding what unfolded as the U.S. Capitol was breached, National Guard whistleblowers said during a congressional hearing on April 17.
Then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy made multiple false claims, including that he spoke to the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard on two separate occasions after officials requested that the Guard be deployed to the Capitol, the whistleblowers said.
After Maj. Gen. William Walker conveyed a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for Guard personnel, Mr. McCarthy called Maj. Gen. Walker at 2:14 p.m. and instructed the Guard to stand by, according to a Guard timeline of Jan. 6, 2021. But that call and others that Mr. McCarthy or one of his top advisers were said to have made later authorizing the Guard for mobilization and deployment did not happen, according to the Guard officials.
“At no time did Gen. Walker take any calls, nor did we ever hear from the secretary on any of the ongoing conference calls or the secure video teleconferencing throughout the day,” Capt. Timothy Nick, who served as Maj. Gen. Walker’s personal assistant on Jan. 6, 2021, said during the hearing. “This I know because I was with the command general the entire time recording the events.”
Capt. Nick has not previously discussed publicly what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021, and neither has Brig. Gen. Aaron Dean, who was the National Guard’s adjutant general on the day that the Capitol was breached.
The Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general report on Jan. 6, 2021, which relied heavily on Mr. McCarthy and other military officials, was rife with “inaccuracies,” Brig. Gen. Dean said. “I believe it is my duty and moral obligation to stand before you today and illuminate the truth,” he told the hearing, which was held by the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.
Despite Mr. Walker conveying the request for assistance at about 1:50 p.m., the Guard was not deployed to the Capitol until about 5:10 p.m.
“This was a dereliction of duty by the secretary of the Army,” Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), one of the members of the committee, said.
Mr. McCarthy refused to appear before the panel, Dr. Murphy said.
Christopher Miller, the acting secretary of defense at the time, authorized Guard deployment at 3:11 p.m., but Mr. McCarthy took the order and decided to draw up a plan before ordering the deployment, according to military timelines and testimony from Mr. McCarthy and others.
“You never would employ our personnel, whether it’s on an American street or a foreign street, without putting together a [plan],” Mr. McCarthy told the now-disbanded House Jan. 6 committee.
Mr. McCarthy could not be reached for comment. The Army declined to comment.
“We stand by our January 6th Report and have no further comment at this time,” a DOD inspector general spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.
From left to right, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Brooks, Col. Earl Matthews, Brig. Gen. Aaron Dean, and Capt. Timothy Nick, all of the District of Columbia National Guard, are sworn in during a hearing in Washington on April 17, 2024. (House Administration Committee via The Epoch Times)
Other Leaders
The whistleblowers also testified that Army officials Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Gen. Charles Flynn, during a 2:30 p.m. conference call on Jan. 6, 2021, expressed concern about the optics of having the Guard at the Capitol.
“I did hear the word optics. And they did use it. Specifically, Gen. Piatt said ‘optics.’ And his concern was that he did not want soldiers or airmen on Capitol grounds, with the Capitol in the background,” Brig. Gen. Dean said. “They were giving every other reason why we should be around the Capitol, away from the Capitol, and not responding to the Capitol.”
The officials lacked familiarity with the Guard and the Guard’s capabilities, Brig. Gen. Dean said.
Lt. Gen. Piatt has been quoted by Maj. Gen. Walker and others as saying during the call: “I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing a line with the Capitol in the background. I would much rather relieve USCP [U.S. Capitol Police] officers from other posts so they can handle the protestors.”
Lt. Gen. Piatt has told lawmakers that he did not recall using the words optics, visuals, or image during the call or in any other conversations on Jan. 6, 2021. But he later said, “I may have said that,” citing people who took notes during the call.
Gen. Flynn told the House Oversight Committee in 2021 that he “never expressed a concern about the visuals, image, or public perception of sending the D.C. National Guard to the U.S. Capitol.”
Col. Earl Matthews, a lawyer who was with Maj. Gen. Walker on Jan. 6, 2021, and who has challenged the Pentagon Jan. 6 narrative, and District of Columbia National Guard Command Sgt. Michael Brooks, a senior officer with the Guard until he retired in 2022, also testified during the hearing in Washington.
None of the Guard officials who testified were formally interviewed by the House Jan. 6 committee, which was primarily run by Democrats and disbanded at the end of the previous Congress.
The officials said the Guard was ready to act and could have made a difference if not for the delay.
“I know if we were able to deploy immediately when Gen. Walker made the request, the National Guard could have helped end civil disturbance and restore order quickly,” Capt. Nick said.
Researchers at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center have developed a new urine-based test that addresses a major problem in prostate cancer: how to separate the slow-growing form of the disease unlikely to cause harm from more aggressive cancer that needs immediate treatment.
The test, called MyProstateScore2.0, or MPS2, looks at 18 different genes linked to high-gradeprostate cancer. In multiple tests using urine andtissue samplesfrom men with prostate cancer, it successfully identified cancers classified as Gleason 3+4=7 or Grade Group 2 (GG2), or higher.
These cancers are more likely to grow and spread compared to Gleason 6 or Grade Group 1 prostate cancers, which are unlikely to spread or cause other impact. More than one-third of prostate cancer diagnoses are this low-grade form. Gleason and Grade Group are both used to classify how aggressive prostate cancer is.
Results are published in JAMA Oncology.
"Our standard test is lacking in terms of its ability to clearly pick out those who have significant cancer. Twenty years ago, we were looking for any kind of cancer. Now we realize that slow-growing cancer doesn't need to be treated. All of a sudden, the game changed. We went from having to find any cancer to finding only significant cancer," said co-senior study author John T. Wei, M.D., David A. Bloom Professor of Urology at Michigan Medicine.
Prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, remains the linchpin of prostate cancer detection. MPS2 improves upon a urine-based test developed by the same U-M team nearly a decade ago, following a landmark discovery of two genes that fuse to cause prostate cancer. The original MPS test, which is used today, looked at PSA, the gene fusion TMPRSS2::ERG, and another marker called PCA3.
"There was still an unmet need with the MyProstateScore test and other commercial tests currently available. They were detecting prostate cancer, but in general, they were not doing as good a job in detecting high-grade or clinically significant prostate cancer. The impetus for this new test is to address this unmet need," said co-senior author Arul M. Chinnaiyan, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology. Chinnaiyan's lab discovered the T2::ERG gene fusion and developed the initial MPS test.
To make MyProstateScore even stronger at identifying high-grade cancers, researchers used RNA sequencing of more than 58,000 genes and narrowed it to 54 candidates uniquely overexpressed specifically in higher-grade cancers. They tested the biomarkers against urine samples collected and stored at U-M through another major study, the National Cancer Institute's Early Detection Research Network. This included about 700 patients from 2008–2020 who came for a prostate biopsy due to an elevated PSA level.
This first step narrowed the field to 18 markers that consistently correlated with higher grade disease. The test still includes the original MPS markers, plus 16 additional biomarkers to complement them.
From there, the team reached out to the larger Early Detection Research Network (EDRN), a consortium of more than 30 labs across the country that are similarly collecting samples. This ensured a diverse, national sampling. Knowing no specific details about the samples, the U-M team performed MPS2 testing on more than 800 urine samples and sent results back to collaborators at the NCI-EDRN. The NCI-EDRN team assessed MPS2 results against the patient records.
MPS2 was shown to be better at identifying GG2 or higher cancers. More importantly, it was nearly 100% correct at ruling out GG1 cancer.
"If you're negative on this test, it's almost certain that you don't have aggressive prostate cancer," said Chinnaiyan, S. P. Hicks Endowed Professor of Pathology and professor of urology at Michigan Medicine.
Moreover, MPS2 was more effective at helping patients avoid unnecessary biopsies. While 11% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided with PSA testing alone, MPS2 testing would avoid up to 41% of unnecessary biopsies.
"Four of 10 men who would have a negative biopsy will have a low risk MPS2 result and can confidently skip a biopsy. If a man has had a biopsy before, the test works even better," Wei explained.
For example, a patient may get a prostate biopsy due to an elevated PSA, but no cancer is detected. The patient is followed over time and if his PSA inches up, he would typically need another biopsy.
"In those men who have had a biopsy before and are being considered for another biopsy, MPS2 will identify half of those whose repeat biopsy would be negative. Those are practical applications for patients out there. Nobody wants to say sign me up for another biopsy. We are always looking for alternatives and this is it," Wei said.
More information: Development and Validation of an 18-Gene Urine Test for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer, JAMA Oncology (2024). DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0455
