Child Abuse Education Reprints from others.

At least 135 teachers, aides charged with child sex crimes this year alone.

Views: 22

The whole article is at local station KTVU.

At least 135 teachers and teachers’ aides have been arrested so far this year on child sex-related crimes in the U.S., ranging from child pornography to raping students.

An analysis conducted by Fox News Digital looked at local news stories week by week featuring arrests of teachers and teachers’ aides on child sex-related crimes in school districts across the country. Arrests that weren’t publicized were not counted in the analysis, meaning the true number may well be higher.

The analysis found that at least 135 teachers and teachers’ aides have been arrested in 41 states between January 1 and May 13, which works out to about an arrest a day on average. The vast majority of the arrested educators were men.



Of the 135 arrests, at least 102, or 76%, involved alleged crimes against students.


The 135 educators included 117 teachers, 11 teachers’ aides and seven substitute teachers.


On April 11, police in California charged Anthony James Phillips, a 61-year-old former teacher at Cupertino Middle School in Sunnyvale, with aggravated sexual assault of a child, forcible penetration with a foreign object, and forcible penetration with a foreign object upon a child.

Phillips is accused of raping a student in 2009 when he was still a teacher at Cupertino.

Anessa Paige Gower, a 35-year-old former biology teacher at Making Waves Academy in Richmond, California, was charged with 29 counts of child molestation on April 8.

Gower is accused of sexually abusing seven students between 2021-2022 when she was a teacher at Making Waves, with allegations including forcible sodomy of minors and sharing sexually graphic photos over online platforms. She is due back in court on June 2.



Child Abuse

The Woman Who Killed Roe

Views: 27

This article comes from New York Magazine.

When Marjorie Dannenfelser first came to Capitol Hill, before she became the most politically relevant voice of the anti-abortion lobby, before she extracted from the host of The Apprentice a promise to appoint anti-abortion judges, and before those judges tilted the Court decisively against a constitutionally protected right to an abortion, she was a young assistant to West Virginia Democrat Alan Mollohan. While out for a sandwich, Alan Mollohan had once been handed a flyer depicting an aborted fetus, a moment he recalled as having pressed upon him a certain undeniable horror. In 1989, he was head of the pro-life caucus in the House. “He was good to me,” Dannenfelser told me, “like a father. He cared about me.” He let her ignore her boring responsibilities to focus on the issue about which she had become passionate.

It was from Mollohan that Dannenfelser learned what she considers “one of the most important lessons” in politics: There can be no hesitation in the exercise of political power. “If you shoot a bear,” he told her, “you have to kill it.” Two decades later, in 2010, Dannenfelser was the head of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that works exclusively to elect anti-abortion legislators. That was the year Mollohan, now a 14-term congressman with impeccable anti-abortion credentials, voted in a way that she considered objectionable. He believed Obamacare effectively excluded federally funded abortions; she did not feel Obama’s executive order to this effect was reliable. After he voted for the bill, she directed her PAC to spend $78,000 against Mollohan, running radio ads that said, “Alan Mollohan betrayed us and voted to spend our federal dollars … on abortions,” though this was at best unclear. The congressman lost his 14th bid for reelection. If you shoot a bear, you have to kill it.

This is a story Dannenfelser does not hesitate to tell. She also enjoys being called the “velvet hammer.” Her 2020 book is called Life Is Winning, but it is less about the winningness of life than about the losingness of various people who failed to align themselves with her mission. The list of those alive and dead with whom Dannenfelser is utterly exasperated includes John McCain, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. All of them, she says, “had been given on a national stage many opportunities to authentically witness to the depravity and extremism of abortion” and had failed to do so. Bob Dole neglected to get sufficiently excited about banning an abortion procedure called intact dilation and extraction; what a shame it was that “after leaving one of his most potent issues on the sidelines,” he “lost in a landslide.” There is the “muddled thinking and incomprehensible musing” of Justice Anthony Kennedy; the failure of Newt Gingrich to even name-check abortion in his Contract for America; and Sarah Palin, “who arrived with great hope but left with great disappointment” after failing to show up for a conference call Dannenfelser had organized. Dannenfelser is disappointed in Senator Ted Cruz, former governor John Kasich, former governor Scott Walker, and former congressman Bart Stupak, to whom she promised an anti-abortion award and then dramatically rescinded the offer. There is the grief she professes to feel at having to campaign against more than a dozen stalwart anti-abortion legislators who voted for the Affordable Care Act, including one who sued her for lying about him in his district. There is the supremely exasperating Mitt Romney, who had a “natural aversion to the abortion issue” but appeared to have captured the heart of conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, whose “overwrought defenses of Romney” resembled those of a “lovesick schoolgirl.” Dannenfelser has pretty much had it with Renee Ellmers, to whom SBA List gave $17,000 but who subsequently “threw tantrums” over a bill requiring victims of rape to report that rape to authorities to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks.

This is the exasperation of a practiced biter of bullets, a woman focused on the mission at the cost of possibly everything else, one conscious of trade-offs, which she calls a “hierarchy of goods and evils,” and uncommonly direct about political transaction. There’s a cleanliness to her thinking, a rare resistance to derailment. Donald Trump gave her movement three Supreme Court justices; when asked whether his attitude toward abortion politics was purely transactional, she once replied, “If it were only that, that would be fine.” One senses, under this capable woman’s litany of small disappointments, a history of condescension in the halls of Congress, where the “consultant class” advised Republicans against addressing abortion at all — “partly,” she told me, “because of their own temperament but also because of the apparatus connected to consultants, fed cash to give the same stupid advice over and over again.” Dannenfelser and her allies, she says, were treated “as if we were a remote and mysterious species to be bought off with … shiny beads and baubles.” But now it is 2022, six triumphant years after her supporters lifted up the most anti-abortion president in history. Roe is all but dead, and the power of a certain dark rhetoric increasingly evident on all sides. She is no longer remote.

Dannenfelser’s office is on the top floor of a glass-rimmed ovoid high-rise in Arlington, Virginia, beside a highway and overlooking the silos, barrels, and steel of a working concrete plant. One day in March, Dannenfelser wore pearls and green satin and on her couch we talked about all the people she had punished for failing to live up to her ideals. At the very end, I mentioned that I live in Los Angeles. The last time she had been to Los Angeles, she said, she went to see a small exhibit at the California Science Center called “Life! Beginnings.” A mom and her young son were there, inside a kind of skeletal wooden tube, looking at preserved human embryos and fetuses in chronological succession. There was a video, an authoritative woman’s voice narrating.

“That’s what you looked like,” the mother said to the little boy as a bulbous pink mass barreled across the screen.

“The first few weeks are a vulnerable time for the embryo, and some do not survive,” said the narrator.

“Why don’t they make it?” the boy asked his mother.

“Some just … aren’t healthy,” she said.

The interview was over. Marjorie was sitting on the couch in her office, remembering the guileless little boy struggling to grasp the idea of the embryos that hadn’t made it through. Her eyes were wet with tears.

When you imagine a fetus, it is possible you see the 1965 cover of Life magazine on which appeared Lennart Nilsson’s photograph of one — ethereal, clean, floating in space like a sleek, hairless little cosmonaut. Nilsson’s photos of fetuses at various stages were collected in the massively best-selling A Child Is Born, where they were taken for scientific artifacts and placed in a narrative sequence framed as a miracle. These images and others like them came to be known in feminist literature as “the public fetus,” a singular locus of public concern, sentimentality, and rage.

If we are by now accustomed to discussing ulterior motives and the well-documented history of legislators using abortion rhetoric to consolidate the right, we speak less of how the rhetoric works: by triggering in its subjects a stomach-churning horror. Millions of Americans believe that their fellow citizens tolerate and participate in the ongoing mass extermination of human children. They go to sleep — as I did as a child — assuming that the next day will involve thousands of babies murdered in a medical setting, whereupon cynical adults will call these murders “choices.” It is a horror not only in its violence but in the way it frames social reality; a world of self-justificatory liars slaughtering the innocent, architects of a darkness on par with the Holocaust or slavery. The family given to this worldview is focused on the grisly death of a child against the harrowing idea of “a woman’s right,” the repetition of which becomes itself part of the nightmare. Every other call to humanity then becomes a kind of hypocrisy: How can you claim to care about some narrow issue of social justice when you condone this unspeakable violence? It is a darkness the democratic process is not particularly equipped to handle, in that it breaks the terms of negotiation. If you come to believe you live in a state that sanctions the routine murder of children, nearly anything can be justified in their defense. “Abortion is murder,” reads the old tagline for the radical activist group Operation Rescue. “Act like it.”

This directive is illuminating in that, for a long time, even anti-abortion groups did not act like it. They hadn’t yet captured a party. Right up until Dannenfelser’s early adulthood, reproductive rights lacked obvious partisan valence. A Nixon appointee wrote the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade; two other Nixon appointees voted for it. The top two Republican candidates in 1964 supported liberalizing abortion laws. Three years later, a Republican governor in Colorado signed the first state law liberalizing abortion, and two years after that, a national poll showed Republicans were more likely to support first-term abortions than were Democrats. Dannenfelser’s parents are pro-choice Republicans; in this, they are typical of their time.

This era, prior to one party’s intense interest in the preservation of what it would insist on calling “life,” was also the last before the introduction of fetal ultrasound. Confirmation of pregnancy still relied heavily on a woman’s report of her sensory experience: menstruation, quickening, shifts in being that lack precise description but not hard reality. By the mid-’70s, write Malcolm Nicolson and John E. E. Fleming, two historians of ultrasound, “the pregnant woman was no longer the chief arbiter of the condition of her fetus, at any stage in pregnancy. Her testimony regarding her menstrual dates was no longer crucial in estimating fetal age, her experience of quickening no longer the significant marker of fetal life.” The uterus had become a space more easily measured and monitored, less a personal mystery than a space other people felt they knew well.

What we see remains complicated. “How did the unborn turn into a billboard image,” asks historian Barbara Duden in her tract on the public fetus, “and how did that isolated goblin get into the limelight?” Take that cover of Life, Nilsson’s tethered cosmonaut. An 18-week-old fetus does not, in any conceivable circumstance, appear outside its mother clean and pink and ethereally backlit. Nowhere in A Child Is Born, still a text used in universities as well as a staple of anti-abortion literature, is it revealed that Nilsson’s photos were of aborted fetuses, dead or dying, gray and blood-specked, arranged, then lit and colored the ruddy hues of a human baby. Another way to describe this picture: a person in her 18th week of pregnancy, absent almost all of her body. A living fetus is constitutive of a system — tucked inside a ligament-suspended uterus, nestled behind apronlike folds of viscera themselves thick with nerves and vessels and nodes, itself draped behind muscle — a single moving object among the shifting array of blood-filled organs that will slide to make room as the body changes. This is not the discontinuous succession of the “Life!” exhibit but a unity in flux. Almost all social movements work to erase context contrary to the cause. In this case, the context is a woman.

Dannenfelser with Trump in the Oval Office in 2017. Photo: Martin Schoeller/The White House

It is a Friday morning at the University of Florida; discarded Solo cups line the damp alley alongside Fat Daddy’s, and tree-strung Spanish moss swings in a warm breeze at the center of campus. Here, among chirping cardinals and squawking blue jays, high-school students spill out of two buses and begin setting up standing placards.

Their leader, Mark, refers to the photos as AVP, “abortion victim photography.” “You don’t want to see these pictures?” Mark says. “Stop abortion. You don’t want kids to see ’em? Stop abortions.” The students, ages 15 to 23, have chosen to spend their spring break this way, on what they call a “Justice Ride” after the Freedom Rides of the 1960s, confronting students at the University of Central Florida and the University of South Florida and now the University of Florida, the idea being that Florida has both a high rate of abortion and good weather in March. Each midwestern student takes up a post by a placard and employs a conversation starter such as “Is infanticide okay?” Or “Do you think it’s okay to kill a baby?” College kids with backpacks walk by, make eye contact with one another, and laugh.

“Fuck you,” a college student says. “You’re disgusting.”

The high-schoolers shift on the ground. They take tiny sips from water bottles. They bite their lips and look far away and sway a little in the sun. They’ve been sleeping at campgrounds and churches, waking up each day to more of this.

At the center of the plaza, the organizers set up a table, and on it they place a small plastic model of a fetus severed from any memory of a mother. He’s nestled up against a copy of A Child Is Born.

A boy named Stephen, 15 but dressed like an old man in a panama hat and wire-rimmed glasses, stands next to a giant image of a disembodied arm in a gloved hand.

“People say, ‘I love abortion,’ and it makes me feel really sad,” Stephen tells me.

“No uterus,” says a college student, “no opinion.”

“Boys get aborted too,” says Stephen.

College students engaged in conversation walk by the photos as if there’s nothing there at all.

“I’m not used to people being this rude to me,” Stephen says.

Juliana, age 15, a very quiet, self-possessed girl in jeans embroidered with flowers, has spent much of the morning being cornered by a college student who appears to have taken his first course in philosophy. (“If God said to save this grandma you had to walk 1,000 miles constantly, up a mountain …”) Later, Juliana will tell me she thought it was a good talk. She tries not to internalize the negativity, she says. She doesn’t know what these students are going through. It’s her spring break, but she isn’t jealous of friends on more traditional trips. “I don’t have many friends,” she says.

There is Raquel, 17 and tired, maybe a bit angry, but also skeptical and suspicious in a way that makes me wonder how long the nightmare can hold her. She does a thing no one else will do in my reporting of this story, which is to look me in the eye and say, “So are you pro-life?” After that, she won’t make eye contact anymore. The group had been to an abortion clinic, where it was terrible to stand around “wondering if someone who walked out had just killed a baby.” They had been to the National Memorial for the Unborn, a wall of nameplates representing various people who never came to be above a pile of stuffed animals left in remembrance. Raquel says the hardest thing is “that people don’t care.”

“What do you think about abortion?” an 18-year-old named Hannah asks flatly, over and over. Her thumbs are in the pockets of her hoodie, her head cocked, hair in a messy bun. “What do you think about abortion?”

“Staying silent just means you agree with it,” Hannah tells me. “Some people say, ‘F-U-C-K you.’ They say, ‘Get a hysterectomy.’ But I try to think, You know what? I try to take the perspective, There’s only a few people that say that.

College students have begun to gather under the moss, eating lunch in packs, casually scattered amid giant photos of dismembered parts. “You cannot kill thousands and millions of people without leaving residual pain in society,” a team leader named Seth tells me. “You kind of start coping,” he says, “and not seeing the humans anymore. That speaks to how I have to work hard to make sure I am not dehumanizing them by looking at them as merely corpses but as people whose lives are stolen. That’s hard.”

I ask Joe, 23, whether there may be something else he wants to do with his life. “That’s a very good question indeed!” he says. Actually, he wants to be a firefighter. “We all have ambitions and desires,” he adds. “But when there is such a high calling, there’s these people, 200, 300 times a day, being killed, how can you step away from it? That is such a turmoil for me.”

A man walks through the gauntlet of photos and begins to yell. “You’re disgusting!” he shouts. “You shouldn’t be here! You shame women. You don’t get polite!” Cheers erupt from the college students gathered on the grass, claps and whoops of approval.

The students around me find something to do with their hands. They sway and look away.

Two college students, both women, don’t walk by; they want to know who’s in charge. “I’m just concerned,” one tells me. “These are children. They shouldn’t be out here. How old is that one?” she says, looking at Stephen.

“A lot of people are forced to share custody with their own rapist,” the college student tells Raquel.

“I’m not a lawyer,” says Raquel, “I — hopefully that wouldn’t happen.”

“There’s a one-in-four chance of a woman getting raped.”

“That’s a really big chance,” says Raquel. “Where are you getting that information?”

“Look it up,” the college student tells her friend. “Chance of woman getting raped.”

“In America,” Raquel says.

“That was implied,” says the college student.

The friend looks it up on her phone.

“Actually,” she says, “it’s one in three.”

According to the CDC, the percentage of American women subject to an attempted or completed rape is estimated to be 21.3, but the center of campus on that Friday in March was not a safe space for statistical precision. That no one today will think to ask the obvious question, which is why the students or their caretakers believe any woman would endure months of nausea and fatigue and the myriad discomforts of a transforming body only to casually seek a late-stage abortion, suggests that almost no one in the day’s exchanges is familiar with or even particularly curious about the physical experience of pregnancy. The purpose of AVP is to forge an emotional connection between a passing student and a part of a woman’s body. That’s what you used to look like. And it is true that you used to look like a six-week-old embryo, which is to say an embryo at eight weeks of pregnancy, when two-thirds of abortions in this country take place. Embryos at this stage are considerably less than an inch in size, smoothly folded and alien in appearance, less favored by practitioners of AVP. Abortion providers report that when forced by anti-abortion laws to show women images of their early fetuses prior to the procedure, some women are relieved. They “say things like, ‘Oh, it’s — it doesn’t look like I thought it would look like,’ ” one clinic manager told researchers. “They feel a little more reassured and confident.”

One could say the figures in Nilsson’s photos, the disembodied fetuses on the table, are useful aids to empathy, allowing us to envision the latent humanity of a deeply enveloped microscopic being. One may also see them as fictional characters in the horror-filled inner lives of regular people, children, churchgoers, homeschooled teens worrying alone at night. Recently, it has been fashionable to blame the ills of the world on a “lack of empathy,” a diagnosis that fails to contend with our capacity to see ourselves in almost anything at all. I am not pro-life, I told Raquel, but I could easily imagine being so. It would be like switching on a different set of lights.

The Susan B. Anthony list was launched in 1992 by a feminist Quaker vegan named Rachel McNair to support female candidates who were against abortion. It was a direct response to EMILY’s List (an acronym for Early Money Is Like Yeast), and in its first election cycle, SBA supported 15 anti-abortion women, eight of whom won. But for SBA, early money was not like yeast; it was hard to fund-raise for these women, there were not many of them, and this was not the most efficient means of stopping the murders Dannenfelser believed were happening. Is SBA List a pro-life organization or a women’s group? she asked herself. Unable to make payroll, she called a close friend who wondered how much of her money she could give without angering her husband. SBA List began supporting pro-life men. Soon, the group was actively campaigning against women who were running against men. Soon after that, they were running against an anti-abortion women who was running against an anti-abortion man more trusted by SBA List. The Quaker vegan wanted nothing to do with it; she had fled long ago. “No other issue,” Dannenfelser writes, “however worthy, carries a moral weight equal to that of the unborn child in the womb.”

For a long time, I struggled to understand Dannenfelser’s conversion story, the one she provides in her book and to the Washington Post and to anyone who wants to know how the decidedly pro-choice leader of the Duke College Republicans came to be single-mindedly focused on ending abortion in America. It was not, as so many of these stories are, about the power of a single image. It was not about abortion in any obvious way. Dannenfelser describes her parents as argumentative, intellectual pro-choice conservatives with a commitment to civil rights, and it had been her own position that her body was not a site rightly subject to state management and control. She was extroverted, energetic, up for a party, already building the deep network on which she would one day rely. While interning at the Heritage Institute as a rising senior, she lived in a D.C. group home with eight or ten others, mostly men. There were libertarians, and there were social conservatives, and they endeavored to live together in what they called the “Right House,” engaging in debates that seemed urgent to the 20-year-olds involved.

One day, one of the social conservatives, Dean Clancy, found in the VHS player a tape that Dannenfelser calls “arguably pornographic” and that another member of the household told me was “definitely just porn.” The men had evidently been watching porn in the living room of a shared house. Clancy’s response was to pull the tape from the plastic shell, destroying it. The owner of the cassette, a libertarian, wanted to be paid for his destroyed property. (“Back then,” the house manager points out, “to replace a VHS tape you rented cost like $70. That’s a lot of money for a college student.”) Clancy refused to replace it. It was decided, according to Dannenfelser, that those who sided with Clancy had to find another place to live. “As I listened to the debate,” she writes, “something stirred within me, and I knew what was at stake was more fundamental than where I would sleep for the next several weeks.”

The right not to pay someone for a VHS tape that you destroyed in a public display of self-righteousness may be a curious moral foundation on which to build a life’s work, but this is the reason Dannenfelser gives for turning away from the practicality of her parents and definitively toward social conservatism. She soon converted to Catholicism and came to believe that full human rights are conferred upon a zygote at the moment of fertilization, rendering even a rape exception “abominable.” She tried to convince her parents of this and failed, repeatedly. “They really taught me to relentlessly pursue the truth,” she told me, “which is why it was so frustrating.” Her conversion from Episcopalianism provoked a new intensity; she began dating other serious Catholics, one of whom became a priest and one of whom, Marty Dannenfelser, became her husband. At the time, Marty was the top aide to the Republican chair of the pro-life caucus.

Dannenfelser left Mollohan’s office to be head of the SBA List in 1993 and operated the organization out of her home. To the Capitol Hill launch, she brought an infant daughter and a son in utero. “We had a lot of children very fast,” she says. She would eventually have five, one of whom is cognitively disabled and whose continued care structures Dannenfelser’s life. In 1997, she was, in her words, “drowning” and stepped back from her leadership role as president to be chairman of the SBA List board; she would return as president a decade later. She began her day with prayer and filled it with meetings with donors and politicians. These meetings, a colleague told me, were “often tearful.” Dannenfelser’s job was not to hold a bloody poster, yet it was bloody-poster adjacent in a way that seemed to her powerfully motivating. The posters, too, had their place. “I think, for instance,” she tells me, “of Alan Mollohan. This woman just walked up to him and handed him a picture of a dismembered unborn child, and he looked at that and was never the same. Now that’s a grown man who is in a position to be able to do something about it and should see the horror. I see it as like the stripes from whips on the back. I see it as the hosing down of Blacks in Alabama.”

There had been among moderate Republicans a kind of tiptoeing, what Mitch Daniels called a truce on social issues and what Dannenfelser calls “an insidious, demoralizing call for unilateral surrender by pro-lifers.” When she asked Scott Walker to support an abortion ban at five months, he said, “People back home aren’t talking about this,” an answer she clearly finds pathetic. If people are out and about murdering children, as Walker professes to believe, maybe bring it up yourself. The men near her talked around death, not into it, and here she saw both cowardice and a lost electoral opportunity.

SBA List’s 2005–6 budget cycle called for $5 million, the 2021–22 budget cycle for $78 million. Dannenfelser discovered she could generate headlines by campaigning against vulnerable anti-abortion candidates she found wanting. In 2010, earnest pro-life Democrats such as Bart Stupak worked to exclude health plans with abortion funding from the Affordable Care Act; when their efforts failed, they agreed to vote for the legislation as long as Obama would give an executive order to the same effect. Dannenfelser held that this was not the same thing. For the difficult work of being an anti-abortion Democrat, SBA List had planned to give Stupak an award. For the decision to vote for the ACA after his amendment failed, SBA List un-gave it to him. “Stupak stripped of ‘Defender of Life’ Award,” read a headline in The Hill, though in conversation, Stupak, who says he doesn’t know Dannenfelser or anything about this award, sagely points out that you cannot be stripped of an award you never received. Dannenfelser launched campaigns against Mollohan and Stupak and more than a dozen other anti-abortion Democrats, running misleading radio ads and billboards that read, for example, DRIEHAUS VOTED FOR TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION. Steve Driehaus, who says this was awkward for him at church, filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission. The SBA List then sued for the right to make inaccurate ads about Driehaus and won. Now, it wasn’t just anti-abortion conservatives donating to SBA List; free-speech conservatives were also onboard. And yet, through the 2012 election, Dannenfelser writes, “pro-lifers were on the outside looking in.” NARAL got to speak in prime time at the Democratic National Convention; no one was giving anti-abortion speeches at the Republican one. Naturally, Dannenfelser would attribute Romney’s loss to his lack of enthusiasm for the cause.

The ideal SBA list candidate would be a woman. This candidate would oppose abortion in every case, but her rhetoric would veer unfailingly toward the rarest, latest instances; she would frame the status quo as radically permissive and place the United States among a handful of countries that allow abortions after 20 weeks, preferably with China and North Korea. She would understand the movement’s lexicon (partial-birth and abortifacient and pain-capable); she would know the electorate absolutely did not want to punish women who have had abortions or put them in prison; she would have lived a clean and purposeful life of faith and family, rendering the anti-choice position safe for the moderate suburban woman, someone who just wants a reasonable compromise.

In 2016, the presidential candidate who seemed capable of this, to Dannenfelser, was Carly Fiorina, who was unusually willing to claim, unprompted, that Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue for profit. Fiorina’s complete failure to gain traction as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination could perhaps be attributed to sexism (“Look at that face!” Donald Trump had said. “Would anyone vote for that?”), but there was not time, in the fight to save millions of unborn souls, to reflect on the plight of women in American statecraft. It was important to find the next-best candidate, whom Dannenfelser supposed would be Ted Cruz. It was clear who the last choice on the right would be. “I would look at the good aspects of Planned Parenthood,” Trump told a reporter in 2015. “And I would also look because I’m sure they do some things properly and that are good for women … We have to take care of women.”

In response, the SBA List immediately issued a statement denouncing all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, on the not unreasonable assumption that money is fungible and any money given to other services could be shifted to abortion. In 2016, Dannenfelser signed on to a statement addressed to “Iowans” that read, “As pro-life women leaders from Iowa and across the nation, we urge Republican caucusgoers and voters to support anyone but Donald Trump.” The letter spoke of his statements in support of potential pro-abortion judges and vice-presidents, strip clubs at his casinos, and his publicly expressed thoughts about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle.

Trump, who self-identified as “very pro-choice” in 1999, had by this time begun to awaken to the grassroots power of anti-abortion voters. He was trying. He was talking about “Two Corinthians” and going to events where both Dannenfelser and Jerry Falwell Jr. were present. He did not yet know the script.

“Should the woman be punished for having an abortion?” Chris Matthews asked Trump before an audience of voters.

“Look,” Trump replied. “I would say that it’s a very serious problem, and it’s a problem we have to decide on.”

“But you’re for banning it … How do you ban abortion?”

“You go back to a position like they had, where people will perhaps go to illegal places,” Trump said, setting the script fully on fire. “But,” he shrugged, “you have to ban it.”

“Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no?”

“The answer is,” Trump began. He looked away, as if deciding, and chopped the air with his right hand as he came to it. “There has to be some sort of punishment.”

“For the woman?” asked Matthews.


Rest of article is here.


Child Abuse COVID How sick is this? Reprints from others. Science

Did Pfizer Know that Paxlovid will NOT Work in the Vaccinated?

Views: 27

Original Here:

To start:

  • Pfizer likely knew that Paxlovid did not work in the vaccinated, and removed them from the EPIC-SR trial
  • Paxlovid was not AT ALL tested on children in both trials, but the FDA approved it for children anyway.


You can skip this introduction and head straight into the next section if you are familiar with the Paxlovid story. Briefly, I wrote the following article on April 13, pointing out that the Internet is full of stories of Paxlovid-treated patients relapsing and having Covid re-emerge on Day 10 of their illness.

Igor’s Newsletter
Paxlovid, “Snake Oil” of the 21st Century?
Paxlovid is a combination of a protease inhibitor Nirmatrelvir and a HIV medication Ritonavir. At $895, it is definitely going to be a moneymaker for Pfizer. But how well does it work for the patients? This is what we all heard: The first study, that lasted for four weeks only, reported amazing success and “89% prevention of severe symptoms”. That first s…

Read more

Much has happened since then (not all related to my post, of course). So much noise was made that the US government got interested!

Brian Mowrey wrote five excellent articles looking at the biomolecular mechanisms of why Paxlovid would not work and some aspects of the trial. Jessica Rose also wrote a Paxlovid article, looking at Paxlovid and bringing her highly relevant experience as a former HIV researcher. Peter Nayland Kust brought up the above story Federal Government is forced to urgently look into Paxlovid not working. Darby Shaw straight out asked, correctly, whether Paxlovid is a danger to the vaccinated. Much noise was also made on Twitter, including by yours truly, before Twitter suspended me.

Hundreds of stories are all over Twitter and Reddit. This one from yesterday 4/30/22:

Pfizer Purposely Excluded Vaccinated People from Trials. It had a Reason!

Two Pfizer trials for Paxlovid (High Risk and Standard Risk) had long lists of patients to exclude. Some, like HIV patients with complicated problems, are understandably excluded.

But why did Pfizer decide to exclude vaccinated people from the trials? That decision seems crazy since Pfizer intended to ”vaccinate the world” and have everyone vaccinated. So, considering that Pfizer knew about “breakthrough infections,” why did it decide to ban vaccinated people from both trials if it expected that most people would be vaccinated? Seems strange to exclude most people from being potential customers, no?

Well, it looks like Pfizer knew more than it disclosed. (hat tip, Dr. Buzz)

Actually, Pfizer did NOT want to exclude the vaccinated from at least one trial, EPIC-SR, from the start. In the beginning, EPIC-SR allowed vaccinated people with comorbidities. Original Epic-SR exclusion read:

Has received or is expected to receive any COVID-19 vaccine, except for participants with an underlying medical condition associated with an increased risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19. Participants with these conditions who are fully vaccinated are considered to be at lower risk of developing severe disease and are therefore considered eligible.

So, according to the above, vaccinated patients with comorbidities were considered “standard risk” and were in the trial.

However, between March 9 and April 5 of 2022, Pfizer decided to change the criteria and excluded ALL vaccinated people:

What made Pfizer change this criterion? My speculative answer is that Pfizer knew that Paxlovid did not work in the vaccinated. Having failed to hit the target when it came to vaccinated people, Pfizer decided to remove them from the trial and “move the target,” so to speak. This way, the EPIC-SR study would end up being a “success,” technically.

They removed their main target market — the vaccinated — from the trial, to make sure that the trial looks good. Then Pfizer turned around and asked the FDA to sell the drug to the very people whom they consciously excluded from the trial.

Despite intentionally removing and ignoring vaccinated people in both trials, Pfizer asked for and received FDA approval for all patients, vaccinated or not. So now, Pfizer gets $895 per treatment course and makes a lot of money. Does this treatment benefit vaccinated patients? You decide.

Paxlovid was not tested in Children; FDA Approved Paxlovid for Kids Anyway

It gets worse. Both EPIC-HR and EPIC-SR excluded children under 18.

Despite not having tested Paxlovid for kids at all in these clinical trials, FDA authorized Paxlovid for children:


I am slightly puzzled by this. I mean, surely the FDA cares for our children, right? So wouldn’t it want to ask Pfizer to at least test Paxlovid for children? Of course, it is just a few million dollars for Pfizer. Not a big deal. But testing on children was not done at all, and the FDA recommended Paxlovid for children anyway.

Mind you, Paxlovid is not a little harmless vitamin pill. It is a repackaged HIV/AIDS medication blocking certain liver functions, combined with a radically novel protease inhibitor affecting intricate intracellular processes. Who knows how Paxlovid affects growing kids going through puberty? I surely do not know, but does anyone else?


Corruption Child Abuse How sick is this?

Biden Has Been ‘Struck’ by Trump’s ‘Hold’ on Republican Party: Psaki

Views: 17

MAY 04: White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki speaks during a White House daily press briefing at the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on May 04, 2022 in Washington, DC. Psaki held a daily press briefing to answer questions from members of the press. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images).

By Frank Fang for Epoch Times  May 5, 2022

President Joe Biden has been “struck” by the influence former President Donald Trump has over the Republican Party, according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

“He’s been struck by the hold his predecessor seems to have on far too many members—not all, but far too many members of the party.”

Her comment comes a day after two candidates endorsed by Trump, J.D. Vance and Max Miler, won in Republican primaries.

J.D. Vance secured a victory in the Ohio Republican Senate primary on May 3. The race was the first sign of Trump’s influence in the midterm elections in November.

“They wanted to write a story that this campaign would be the death of Donald Trump’s America First agenda,” Vance said at a victory party in Cincinnati on Tuesday. “Ladies and gentlemen, it ain’t the death of the America First agenda.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) took to Twitter to call Vance’s victory “a big moment for the Republican Party.”

“JD represents the future of the conservative movement, as a coalition of working people, families, and people of faith, welcoming every American who believes in this nation. On to victory in Nov!,” Hawley wrote.

Currently, the Senate is split 50–50 between Republicans and Democrats. In November, Ohio voters will choose one new member to the Senate, a seat to be vacated by retiring Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio).

Max Miller, a former aide to Trump, won the Ohio Republican House primary on Tuesday, becoming the Republican nominee for Ohio’s 7th congressional district in the midterm elections. The district is reliably Republican.

Aside from Vance and Miller, pro-Trump candidates Jennifer-Ruth Green and Erin Houchin won the Republican primaries in Indiana’s 1st and 9th Congressional Districts, respectively, on May 3.

Earlier on May 4, Biden harshly criticized MAGA supporters, characterizing the “MAGA crowd” as the “the most extreme political organization that’s existed “ in recent American history. The president made the remark during a speech on the U.S. economy.

Biden also criticized what he called “MAGA” Republicans, whom he charged for wanting to raise taxes on millions of working-class Americans while protecting billionaires and big corporations.

After his speech, Biden was asked about the leaked draft opinion penned by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, which indicates that the nation’s top court has decided to undo the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. If undone, it would return the power to decide abortion policy to state governments.

“This is about a lot more than abortion,” Biden said, before reflecting on the Supreme Court’s confirmation process for Robert Bork in 1987, who was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan to be an associate justice at the U.S. top court. At that time, Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“This reminds me of the debate with Robert Bork. Bork believed the only reason you had any inherent rights was because the government gave them to you,” Biden said. “When I was questioning him as the chairman, I said, ‘I believe I have the rights that I have not just because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I’m just a child of God; I exist.’”

The issue of abortion also came up during Psaki’s daily briefing on May 4.

When asked if Biden believed the states should have the right to determine the issue of abortion, Psaki said, “ The president believes that it should continue to be federal law, that women have the right to make choices with their doctors, as it has been for 50 years.”


Child Abuse Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Majority Support Anti-Groomer Laws Like Florida’s.

Views: 41

The whole original article can be found here.

Most likely voters support anti-groomer laws such as Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, a survey from The Federalist/Susquehanna released this week revealed. 

The survey, taken April 19-27, 2022, among 800 likely voters, presented respondents with the following: “Florida recently passed a law prohibiting public school teachers from introducing sexual topics to elementary school children without parental consent. Do you support or oppose proposals that protect young children from being exposed to sexual topics by school employees without parental consent or knowledge?”

The vast majority, 70 percent, said they support such laws designed to protect children, and of those 61 percent “strongly” support it. 

Less than a quarter, 23 percent, said they oppose such measures, and of those, 11 percent “strongly” oppose. The survey has a +/- 3.46 margin of error and comes one month after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed the parental rights law, which prohibits classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity for children in kindergarten through third grade.



Biden Pandemic Child Abuse Drugs Science

TAKE THAT, KARENS! Heart Inflammation More Prevalent Among Vaccinated Than Unvaccinated: Study

Views: 16

via AP
By Zachary Stieber for EPOCH TIMES April 22, 2022

Heart inflammation requiring hospital care was more common among people who received COVID-19 vaccines than those who did not, according to a new study of tens of millions of Europeans.

Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis, two types of heart inflammation, are above the levels in an unvaccinated cohort, pegged at 38 per 100,000 after receipt of a second dose of a vaccine built on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in males aged 16 to 24—the group studies have shown are most at risk of the post-vaccination condition—researchers with health agencies in Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway found.

“These extra cases among men aged 16–24 correspond to a 5 times increased risk after Comirnaty and 15 times increased risk after Spikevax compared to unvaccinated,” Dr. Rickard Ljung, a professor and physician at the Swedish Medical Products Agency and one of the principal investigators of the study, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Comirnaty is the brand name for Pfizer’s vaccine while Spikevax is the brand name for Moderna’s jab.

Rates were also higher among the age group for those who received any dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, both of which utilize mRNA technology. And rates were elevated among vaccinated males of all ages after the first or second dose, except for the first dose of Moderna’s shot for those 40 or older, and females 12- to 15-years-old.

Researchers pulled data from national health registers, analyzing 23.1 million people aged 12 or older. The analysis was of data from Dec. 27, 2020, to incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis, or the end of the study time period, which was Oct. 5, 2021.

“The risks of myocarditis and pericarditis were highest within the first 7 days of being vaccinated, were increased for all combinations of mRNA vaccines, and were more pronounced after the second dose,” researchers wrote in the study, which was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association following peer review.

Moderna and Pfizer did not respond to requests for comment.

Some previous studies have indicated that the risk of heart inflammation is higher from the companies’ vaccines, or certain doses of the vaccines, than from COVID-19 itself.

Others have concluded the opposite, including a recent non-peer-reviewed study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though that is one of the papers that has estimated a higher rate of post-vaccination heart inflammation.

Authorities in the United States and many European countries continue recommending vaccination for virtually every eligible person, regardless of age, health condition, or prior infection.

The Nordic countries, however, halted use of Moderna’s vaccine in 2021 for youth and young adults due to concerns over post-vaccination heart inflammation.

Ljung said he could not answer whether the results mean some people should consider only a single dose, or no doses, of a COVID-19 vaccine because the Swedish Medical Products Agency doesn’t give those types of recommendations.

In a press release promoting the study, researchers said that occurrence of the heart inflammation is “very rare” and claimed that “the benefits of these vaccines to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 and death outweigh the risks of side effects.”

Dr. Peter McCullough, the chief medical adviser for the Truth for Health Foundation and a cardiologist who is seeing patients with post-vaccination heart inflammation, disagreed.

The benefits of the vaccines in no way outweigh the risks.

“In cardiology we spend our entire career trying to save every bit of heart muscle. We put in stents, we do heart catheterization, we do stress tests, we do CT angiograms. The whole game of cardiology is to pervert preserve heart muscle,” McCullough told The Epoch Times. “Under no circumstances would we accept a vaccine that causes even one person to stay sustain heart damage. Not one. And this idea that ‘oh, we’re going to ask a large number of people to sustain heart damage for some other theoretical benefit for a viral infection,’ which for most is less than a common cold, is untenable. The benefits of the vaccines in no way outweigh the risks.”


Child Abuse Corruption Drugs Human Traficking Politics

26 Governors Create Border Strike Force ‘In the Absence of Federal Leadership’

Views: 13

Charlotte Cuthbertson for EPOCH TIMES April 20, 2022
Twenty-six governors, all Republican, announced the creation of a Border Strike Force to “disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations” on April 19.

The group of governors signed a memorandum of understanding, pledging to work together to “serve as a force multiplier to target cartels and criminal networks financially and operationally.”

“Together, governors will improve public safety, protect victims from horrific crimes, reduce the amount of drugs in our communities, and alleviate the humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border,” the agreement states.

The group includes two border states—Arizona and Texas—as well as 24 others: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

“In the absence of federal leadership, states are partnering together to create the American Governors’ Border Strike Force to disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations by increasing collaboration, improving intelligence, investing in analysis, combating human smuggling, and stopping drug flow in our states,” the agreement states.

Epoch Times Photo
A group of illegal aliens is apprehended by law enforcement on a ranch in Kinney County, Texas, on Jan. 15, 2022. (Courtesy of Kinney County Sheriff’s Office)

The governors will coordinate to share intelligence, disrupt smuggling corridors, and assist border states. They plan to focus efforts on targeting cartel finances and border-related crime.

The participating states also plan to review state laws regarding human trafficking, drug trafficking, and transnational criminal organizations “to ensure that such crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

For example, Arizona doesn’t currently have a state law against human smuggling, while Texas just strengthened its anti-smuggling laws last September.

Epoch Times Photo
A Border Patrol agent walks from the wreckage of Wanda Sitowski’s car after a 16-year-old smuggler ran a red light at 105 miles per hour and caused a fatal crash in Cochise County, Ariz., on Oct. 30, 2021. (Zach Bennett/Sierra Vista News Network)

States can request help from other participating states and state-specific certifications and licenses will be honored among the states. Each state is responsible for its own costs.

The Border Strike Force was announced days after Customs and Border Protection released its March statistics, which show the highest number of Border Patrol apprehensions—209,906—along the southern border since early 2000.

Epoch Times Photo
Border Patrol agents apprehend a group of Cubans who just crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico into Eagle Pass, Texas, on April 19, 2022. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves wrote on Twitter that “we’re all border states now & we’re going to protect ourselves.”

“Despite what the Biden Admin would have you believe, criminals, drugs & human trafficking don’t just stay on the border. They make their way to every state,” Reeves wrote on April 19.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little accused President Joe Biden of refusing to address the border crisis.

“America’s governors are stepping up. Our multi-state partnership is designed to disrupt and dismantle the transnational criminal organizations taking advantage of the open border with Mexico,” Little wrote on Twitter on April 19.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey said his state has had a similar state-level in operation since 2015.

“What we’re doing in Arizona works,” Ducey said in an April 19 statement. “If our entire southern border isn’t secure, our nation isn’t secure.”


COVID Child Abuse Drugs Science

Protect your kids: Persistent Cardiac MRI Findings in a Cohort of Adolescents with post COVID-19 mRNA vaccine myopericarditis —Actual science

Views: 27

By:Jenna Schauer, MD  Sujatha Buddhe, MD, MS  Avanti Gulhane, MD, DNB, FSCMR Sathish Mallenahalli Chikkabyrappa, MD Yuk Law, MD Michael A. Portman, MD et al for The Journal of Pediatrics

Published:March 25, 2022 DOI:

Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), Left ventricle (LV), Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS)

Myopericarditis, , has emerged as an important adverse event following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, particularly in adolescents

Patients typically exhibit chest pain and an elevated serum troponin level in the days following the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. They usually are hemodynamically stable, and symptoms and cardiac biomarkers normalize within a few days cardiac magnetic resonance studies, when performed early, frequently demonstrate abnormalities such as edema and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), meeting Lake Louise Criteria for diagnosing myocarditis noninvasively ,

In classical myocarditis LGE can be predictive of a poor outcome

Little is known about the prognostic value or expected evolution of these CMR abnormalities associated with post-COVID-19 mRNA vaccine myopericarditis. In this case series we report the evolution of CMR imaging compared with initial, acute phase, CMR in our cohort of patients with myopericarditis post COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.


This case review includes patients younger than 18 years of age presenting to Seattle Children’s Hospital with chest pain and elevated serum troponin level from April 1, 2021 to January 7, 2022 within one week of receiving the second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. All patients were evaluated by a pediatric cardiologist, underwent ECG and echocardiogram, and were admitted for observation with telemetry, serial troponin measurements, and repeat cardiac testing as needed. All patients underwent CMR within 1 week of initial presentation and had repeat CMR imaging at 3-8 months follow up. CMR was performed on a 1.5 T Siemens scanner. CMR analysis was performed using CVI42 (version 5.11.4, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Alberta Canada). Patients were excluded if they did not undergo CMR or did not have a follow up CMR. Initial and follow up CMR data for each patient were reviewed and compared using paired Student t-test. Statistical significance was defined as a p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).


A total of 35 patients with the diagnosis of myopericarditis associated with Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine are followed at our institution. Twelve patients were excluded as they never had CMR due to delayed presentation after initial symptoms resolved or admission to other centers. Six patients were excluded as they did not have a follow up CMR, either because they followed up out of state or a study is still pending. One patient was excluded as initial CMR was performed 3 weeks after presentation. Sixteen patients who had both acute phase and follow-up CMR available for review comprised the final cohort. This group had a median age of 15 years (range, 12-17), were mostly male (n=15, 94%), white and non-Hispanic (n= 14, 88%). One patient was Asian and one patient was American Indian. Median time to presentation from the second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was 3 days (range 2-4 days). All patients had chest pain. The most common other presenting symptoms were fever (n=6, 37.5%) and shortness of breath (n=6, 37.5%). All patients had elevated serum troponin levels (median 9.15 ng/mL, range 0.65-18.5, normal < 0.05 ng/mL). Twelve patients had c- reactive protein (CRP) measured with median value 3.45 mg/dL, range 0-6.5 mg/dL, normal < 0.08 mg/dL.
Ten (62.5%) patients had an abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG), with the most common finding being diffuse ST segment elevation. All patients had an echocardiogram on admission; 14/16 patients had normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function; two patients demonstrated mildly reduced LV systolic function with no dilation. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for these two patients was 45% and 53% (normal > 55%). Median left LVEF was 59% (range 45-69%). No patients had pericardial effusion.

The initial CMRs were performed within 1 week of presentation (median 2, range 0-7 days). All were abnormal; all showed evidence of edema by T2 imaging and 15/16 had LGE in a patchy subepicardial to transmural pattern with predilection for the inferior LV free wall. Distribution of LGE can be seen in Figure 1. LV regional wall motion abnormalities were noted in 2 patients. CMR median LVEF% was 54%, range 46-63%. CMR LVEF was mildly decreased in 7 patients. CMR global longitudinal strain (GLS%) measurements were abnormal in 12 patients (median -16.1%, range -13.2% to -18.1%, normal <-18%).

Figure thumbnail gr1

Figure 1Distribution of Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) in American Heart Association Myocardial Segments Figure shows segment with number of patients and percent of cohort.

All patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): 75% (n=12) received scheduled dosing (mostly, 10 mg/kg ibuprofen every 8 hours) with the remaining 4 receiving NSAIDs as needed for pain. The median time from vaccination to NSAID initiation was 2.5 days (range 0-4 days) and from symptom onset to NSAID initiation was 1 day (range 0-4 days). The two patients who presented with echocardiographic LV dysfunction were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus a corticosteroid per our institutional pathway for treatment of myocarditis

One additional patient received IVIG without corticosteroids. Median hospital length of stay was 2 days (range 1-4 days) with no ICU admission and no significant morbidity or mortality. All patients had resolution of chest pain and down-trending serum troponin level prior to discharge.

All patients underwent follow up CMR at 3-8 months after their initial study (median 3.7 months, range 2.8-8.1 months). The results are compared in Table I. Follow up CMR LVEF (57.7 ±2.8%) was significantly improved from initial (54.5 ± 5.5%, p < 0.05), and none of the patients had regional wall motion abnormalities. LVEF by echocardiogram was normal for all patients at the time of follow up. Eleven patients (68.8%) had persistent LGE, although there was a significant decrease in the quantifiable LGE% (8.16± 5.74%) from the initial study (13.77± 8.53%, p <0.05). Cardiac edema resolved in all but one patient. GLS% remained abnormal in most patients (75%, mean -16.4 ± 2.1%) at follow up without significant change from the initial study (-16.0 ± 1.7, p = 0.6). Examples of initial and follow up CMR images are shown in Figure 2. The patient who received IVIG alone and one patient who received IVIG plus corticosteroid had resolution of LGE, and the other had persistence of LGE.

Table 1Covid Vaccine-Associated Myopericarditis Findings in 16 patients
Initial (Mean±SD)Follow up (Mean±SD)P value
Echocardiographic LVEF %59.4±6.062.6±2.8<0.05



10 (62.5%)

6 (37.5%)

Peak Serum Troponin (ng/mL)9.0± 5.2
CMR LVEF %54.5 ± 5.557.7 ±2.7<0.05
CMR LGE % (n=15*)13.5± 8.37.7 ± 5.7<0.001
CMR global longitudinal strain % (n=15*)-16.0 ± 1.7-16.4 ± 2.10.5
*Initial source images were not available for reanalysis for one patient.
LVEF% = LV ejection fraction
LGE %= percentage of late gadolinium enhancem
CMR = Cardiac MRI
Figure thumbnail gr2
Figure 2CMR images from 3 days after admission of a 16-year-old male who presented to emergency room with chest pain and elevated troponin 3 days after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Initial CMR. 1a and 1b. subepicardial to midmyocardial LGE in inferior and inferolateral LV wall from base to apex (arrows). 1c shows T2 hyper-intensity in similar segments, consistent with edema. 1d, 1e and 1f. Follow up CMR 4.4 months later. LGE still persistent but decreased from 26% to 19.84% (arrows), LVEF remained stable at 58%. There is improved T2 hyperintensity.
Eight patients (5 of whom had persistent LGE) underwent 24-hour cardiac rhythm monitoring, all of which studies were normal. Six patients, all with persistent LGE, underwent exercise tests, all of which were normal. Four patients complained of intermittent chest pain at follow up with no identifiable abnormality on evaluation; no therapy or intervention was required. No patient received heart failure medication.


We previously reported 15 patients with clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine induced myopericarditis. All patients had an abnormal CMR, with edema and or LGE in addition to clinical symptoms and troponin elevation, and some had abnormal ECG or echocardiogram

We have since established a clinical protocol for serial CMR performance in these patients consistent with the 2021 American Heart Association (AHA) statement that stressed the risk of sudden cardiac death, particularly with exercise, while active inflammation is present.

our patients were restricted from exercise on discharge. Repeat CMR was performed within 3-6 months to guide next clinical decision-making steps; timing was modified in some individuals based on scanner accessibility and safety precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although symptoms were transient and most patients appeared to respond to treatment (soley with NSAIDS), we demonstrated persistence of abnormal findings on CMR at follow up in most patients, albeit with improvement in extent of LGE.
CMR has increasingly been identified as an important diagnostic tool for myocarditis given its ability to identify subclinical injury and fibrosis by markers of LGE and edema. CMR also has been utilized in longitudinal follow up of patients with myocarditis to help therapeutic management, although exact screening protocols remain controversial
The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis. In a meta-analysis including 8 studies, Yang et al found that presence of LGE is a predictor of all cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support]Similarly, Georgiopoulos et al found presence and extent of LGE to be a significant predictor of adverse cardiac outcomes in an 11 study meta-analysis
The persistence of LGE over time and its prognostic value is less well established. Malek et al found that in a cohort of 18 patients with myocarditis, nearly 70% had persistent CMR changes at a median follow-up time of 7 months Dubey et al found similar findings in their cohort of 12 pediatric patients, with persistence of LGE in all patients despite resolution of edema.
Prognostic meaning of LGE in vaccine associated myopericarditis requires further study.
Strain analysis by CMR also has been shown to have prognostic utility in myocarditis even in the setting of normal LV functionStrain testing can be performed without use of contrast material and can be particularly useful in situations where contrast administration is challenging or contraindicated. Notably, in our cohort, though there was significant reduction in LGE at follow up, abnormal strain persisted for the majority of patients at follow up.
This study has certain limitations. Patients who did not seek medical attention during acute illness or did not present with significant symptoms and require hospitalization were not captured, and their disease course may be different. Incomplete CMR data on other patients precludes extrapolation of our CMR findings to all who experienced mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis. In addition, follow-up CMR timeframes varied from patient to patient making it difficult to predict the timing of CMR changes over time. the total number of patients reported is small, limiting ability to draw conclusions about the effect of treatment modalities or to generalize regarding outcomes of vaccine-associated myopericarditis.
In a cohort of adolescents with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis, a large portion have persistent LGE abnormalities, raising concerns for potential longer-term effects. Despite these persistent abnormalities, all patients had rapid clinical improvement and normalization of echocardiographic measures of systolic function. For patients with short acute illness, no dysfunction demonstrated by echocardiogram at presentation and resolution of symptoms at follow up, return to sports was guided by normalization of CMR alone. In patients with persistent CMR abnormalities we performed exercise stress testing prior to sports clearance per myocarditis recommendations We plan to repeat CMR at 1 year post-vaccine for our cohort to assess for resolution or continued CMR changes.
The CDC notes that even though the absolute risk for myopericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is small, the relative risk is higher for particular groups, including males 12-39 years of age.

Some studies have suggested that increasing the interval between the first and second dose may reduce the incidence of myopericarditis in this population

These data led to an extension in CDC recommended dosing interval between dose 1 and dose 2 to 8 weeks. Further follow up assessment and larger multicenter studies are needed to determine the ultimate clinical significance of persistent CMR abnormalities in patients with post COVID-19 vaccine myopericarditis

Uncited reference


  1. Gargano JW, Wallace M, Hadler SC, Langley G, Su JR, Oster ME, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Myocarditis Among Vaccine Recipients: Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-United States, June 2021 2021;70.
  2. mRNA Coronavirus-19 Vaccine–Associated Myopericarditis in Adolescents: A Survey Study.

    The Journal of Pediatrics. 2021;

  3. Clinically Suspected Myocarditis Temporally Related to COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents and Young Adults.

    Circulation. 2021;

  4. Myopericarditis After the Pfizer Messenger Ribonucleic Acid Coronavirus Disease Vaccine in Adolescents.

    Journal of Pediatrics. 2021; 238: 317-320

  5. The prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement in myocarditis and clinically suspected myocarditis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

    European Radiology. 2020; 30: 2616-2626

  6. Diagnosis and Management of Myocarditis in Children: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association.

    Circulation. 2021; (E123–35)

  7. Prognostic Impact of Late Gadolinium Enhancement by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Myocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

    Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2021; : 55-65

  8. Children With Acute Myocarditis Often Have Persistent Subclinical Changes as Revealed by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance.

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2020; 52: 488-496

  9. Persistence of Late Gadolinium Enhancement on Follow-Up CMR Imaging in Children with Acute Myocarditis.

    Pediatric Cardiology. 2020; 41: 1777-1782

  10. Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Strain in Suspected Myocarditis With Preserved LV-EF: A Comparison Between Patients With Negative and Positive Late Gadolinium Enhancement Findings.

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2021;

  11. Moulia D. Myocarditis and COVID-19 vaccine intervals: international data and policies. n.d.
  12. Standardized Myocardial Segmentation and Nomenclature for Tomographic Imaging of the Heart.

    Circulation. 2002; 105: 539-542


No funding was received for this research

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


We describe the evolution of Cardiac MRI (CMR) findings in 16 patients, 12-17 years of age, with myopericarditis after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Although all patients showed rapid clinical improvement, many had persistent CMR findings at 3-8 month follow up.


  • Figure thumbnail gr1
    Figure 1Distribution of Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) in American Heart Association Myocardial Segments

    . Figure shows segment with number of patients and percent of cohort.

          • Figure thumbnail gr2
            Figure 2CMR images from 3 days after admission


Uncategorized Child Abuse Opinion Science Sexual Abuse

If you have to be an adult for voting, drinking, and tobacco, why not a sex change?

Views: 29

So think about it. We have laws that stop people from doing things before adulthood. Drinking, Smoking, Voting, serving in the Military, etc. Why not make it illegal for a child to have a sex change operation till they reach adulthood? 18-21. Even then they’re still very immature.

You have Progressives who have no problem with teaching 5-8 year olds about transgender and being gay. I just wonder if their parents taught them about that. Odds are no, So why force something like this on children?

Also is it something the government should pay for? Is this something that schools should be teaching? I can see it now.  Class instead of learning how to read and write, we will discuss why you should or should not have a penis or vagina.



The Courts Child Abuse Corruption Human Traficking

Federal Judge Orders Joe Biden to Stop Mass Release of Illegal Migrant Children at Border

Views: 32

by Jordan Dixon-Hamilton For Breitbart  

A Texas federal judge on Friday ordered President Joe Biden to stop the mass release of illegal migrant children crossing the southern border into the country.

Judge Mark Pittman’s order prevents Biden from exempting minor migrants from Title 42. Title 42 is an immigration policy implemented by former President Donald Trump that allows U.S. immigration officials to expel immediately migrants who come to the southern border. Title 42 was implemented in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

Since the policy’s start in March 2020, the federal government has expelled more than 1.6 million migrants.

Biden previously declined to expel unaccompanied minor children under Title 42. Instead, he allowed the young migrants to enter the country, where they would be placed under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ supervision. From there, they would be placed with sponsors in the United States, who are typically family members.

Pittman wrote:

Here, the President has (arbitrarily) excepted COVID-19 positive unaccompanied alien children from Title 42 procedures—which were purposed with preventing the spread of COVID-19. As a result, border states such as Texas now uniquely bear the brunt of the ramifications. Yet, while policy decisions are beyond judicial review, those agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law” will be set aside.

Pittman explained that the “ramifications” Texas deals with include strains on the state’s public school system and medical resources, and increased incarceration.

record number of more than 122,000 unaccompanied minors arrived at the southern border during the fiscal year 2021.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the decision is a “win for Texas & children—loss for Biden & cartels!”


America First Legal, led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, served as outside counsel for Texas as part of the lawsuit. Miller called the decision “a truly historic victory.”

In a statement, Miller said:

We are honored beyond words to have partnered with Attorney General Ken Paxton and the State of Texas in our landmark lawsuit against the Biden Administration’s egregious decision to except ALL illegal alien minors traveling without adults (UAC) from Title 42—and to have just obtained a preliminary injunction. Biden’s decision to except UAC from Title 42, and instead mass resettle them in the United States, has led to the largest wave of criminal child smuggling in human history–and the flood of illegal alien teens and minors has drained the resources of our schools, hospitals, and communities while creating a new unimpeded recruiting pipeline for MS-13. This preliminary injunction orders the Biden Administration to halt their order categorically excepting unaccompanied alien minors from Title 42 repatriation. This is a truly historic victory, but we have a long, long, long way to go to end the Administration’s crusade to eradicate our sovereignty.

Friday’s decision is Texas’s latest successful effort to prevent Biden from implementing his radical immigration agenda. Texas previously stopped a 100-day deportation moratorium from being enforced last February. Additionally, the state got a federal judge to order Biden to continue Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, where asylum seekers are returned to Mexico to wait for their hearings.

The case is Texas v. Biden, No. 4:21-cv-0579-P in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.



Verified by MonsterInsights