Doctor Has Been Sitting on Puberty Blockers Study Because Results Undermine Her Position

It's enough to meet the projected 2030 world demand for lithium in car batteries nine times over.

On why the Earth is a puzzle, and other existential-crisis-inducing ideas.

"It is difficult, but it's a labor of love."

It is the 52nd Mersenne prime to be found since they were first studied over 350 years ago.

The cities provide a rare insight into life at high altitudes during the medieval era, and show surprising size.

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post Mysterious Skyquakes: What Are the Thunderous Sounds Heard Worldwide? appeared first on Anomalien.com.

The New York Times was so triggered by former President Donald Trump’s recent trolling of Vice President Kamala Harris’ employment record that it committed a major logical fallacy when attempting to fact-check him. Trump made a high-profile appearance at a McDonald’s in Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania to work the fryers, on Oct. 20 and The Times couldn’t handle it. The newspaper fired off a bevy of whiny news items complaining about Trump casting doubt on Harris’ claim that she formerly worked for fast-food giant. “Kamala Harris and McDonald’s: A College Job, and a Trump Attack” and “Trump, Slinging Fries and Smearing Harris, Takes Turn Behind a McDonald’s Counter,” were just two of the headlines that led the propaganda-laced stories. Both stories tried to idiotically put the burden of proof on Trump, suggesting he must prove that Harris never worked at McDonald’s instead of expecting Harris to prove her own claims that she did. The Times apparently suffered from an extreme lack of self-awareness when drafting their stories. The authors railed against Trump’s alleged “pattern of accusing Vice President Kamala Harris without evidence of lying about a summer job working at McDonald’s.”  But what evidence did The Times utilize to retort Trump? None.  The Times’ supposed fact-checks boiled down to this: The Harris campaign and a friend of hers says she did work at Mcdonald's, so Trump is wrong. This is what is called a “Burden of Proof Fallacy” and as LogicalFallacies.org notes, such a nutty line of argument is typically used “in an attempt to avoid having to provide evidence for their own position.” The Times’s antics are even more humorous in light of the authors involved: Times San Francisco Bureau Chief Heather Knight and Times political correspondents Nicholas Nehamas and Michael Gold.  Knight, who co-authored one of the anti-Trump stories with Nehamas, pontificates in her bio that she believes “strongly in the old journalism adage of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.” In this case Harris would appear to be the “afflicted” she’s determined to comfort.  Nehamas touts his record as an “investigative reporter” in his bio, but apparently couldn’t be bothered to investigate and provide any evidence of whether Harris actually worked at McDonald’s before claiming Trump’s skepticism was false.  Gold also engages in self-aggrandizement by boasting how he works to “fairly and accurately represent the issues and people I cover,” which is undercut by the clear fallacy he was willing to commit just to get a dig in at Trump.  Even leftist outlets like Snopes asserted that Harris’ claim of working at the fast food giant was “unproven,” and Newsweek admitted that the “Harris camp has not provided any evidence that the ice president did in fact work at the Golden Arches.” But somehow, in Knight and Nehamas’s view, it is Trump’s responsibility to prove a negative for Harris’s own unproven claim. “Mr. Trump’s latest allegation also appears to be false,” cried the authors.  Knight and Nehamas even went so  far  as to editorialize about Trump’s skepticism, calling it  “insidious.” which takes the article far outside news territory and straight into op-ed-style bellyaching: Whether a presidential candidate actually flipped burgers as a college student is a far less serious allegation, of course. But Mr. Trump’s seeding of doubts about Ms. Harris’s story, while insidious and outside the lines of traditional fair play in politics, advances his goal of portraying Ms. Harris as a fraud.  In the other story, Gold sang a similar, sour-noted tune: “Mr. Trump, known for wildly speculating about the backgrounds of his political opponents without proof, repeated the claim as he addressed reporters from a drive-through window in Feasterville-Trevose, Pa.” Riddle me this: How can Trump be blamed for speculating about a claim the Harris campaign has provided no evidence to date to corroborate?  But when viewed in light of The Times’s recent, objectivity-wrecking endorsement of Harris as “the only patriotic choice for president,” it makes sense why it would do everything in its power to not properly investigate her and shield her from having to actually defend her record.  “All the news that’s fit to print?” Don’t make us laugh. Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 1 (800) 698-4637 and hold it accountable for acting as a mouthpiece for the Harris campaign.  

Former President Donald Trump rebuked Google for promoting negative stories about him two weeks before the 2024 election. Trump sat down for a live Oct. 15 interview with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait at an event hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago, where the pair discussed the recent federal cases brought against Google. The Department of Justice specifically accused Google of using monopolistic practices to secure its position as America's top search engine.  “Google’s got a lot of power. They’re very bad to me, very very bad to me, I can speak from that standpoint,” Trump said in response to Micklethwait’s question about the ongoing lawsuit. Trump seemingly referred to an MRC study (published Oct. 15) that exposed Google’s bias when users searched for the Trump campaign. He added, “If I have 20 good stories and 20 bad stories—and everyone’s entitled to that—you’ll only see the 20 bad stories.”  This was not the first time Trump has come out against Google's election interference during the election season—and not the first time MRC exposed Google’s bias. “It has been determined that Google has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J. Trump, some made up for this purpose while, at the same time, only revealing good stories about Comrade Kamala Harris.” Trump shared on Truth on Sept. 27. Two days earlier, MRC released a study that showed the tech giant pushing widely biased news above Trump’s campaign website. Following his ingestion of the recent research to come out exposing the bias at Google, Trump shared his recent actions in an attempt to amend the situation.  “I called the head of Google the other day and I said, ‘I'm getting a lot of good stories lately but you don’t find them in Google, it’s a whole rigged deal,” Trump shared with Micklethwait who consequently asked, “You’d break them up, in other words?”  Trump responded frankly, “I’d do something” leaving it open to interpretation. For some, this is reminiscent of Trump’s recent comments against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who admitted to being coerced into censoring COVID-19-related information in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee.  In his Save America book, Trump said Zuckerberg would “spend the rest of his life in prison” if he interfered in the 2024 election the same way he did in 2020.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representative and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of the Atlantic, is sticking to his latest story in which he claims former President Donald Trump rudely refused to pay for the funeral of Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen after initially offering to cover the expenses. Multiple people affiliated with the story went on the record to deny the allegations against Trump.Guillen was killed in 2020 by a soldier she worked with. Guillen's death became a nationwide story after her family members jumped into action when a military investigation into her initial disappearance was severely mishandled. Goldberg alleges that Trump became enraged when he found out the cost of the funeral in December 2020:'It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f***ing Mexican!' He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: 'Don’t pay it!' Later that day, he was still agitated. 'Can you believe it?' he said, according to a witness. 'F***ing people, trying to rip me off.'Goldberg's story was met with a flurry of denials, most importantly from Meadows. Guillen's family and attorney also said the story does not match their experience with Trump. 'Treat this dishonest piece accordingly.' — (@) In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Goldberg was asked what he thought about the denials."I don‘t make much of them at all. The sister wasn‘t in the meeting. The lawyer for the family wasn‘t in the meeting. Mark Meadows was in the meeting. Kash Patel was in the meeting. A whole bunch of other senior officials were in the meeting. I have sources who are sitting in that meeting. I have contemporaneous notes taken by participants in that meeting that describe exactly what I described in the story," said Goldberg.Goldberg pointed to his poorly sourced "suckers and losers" story from 2020 as an example of why he has creditability this time around."So it‘s not surprising that Mark Meadows is going to deny it, but the denial doesn‘t hold weight. I have contemporaneous sources, contemporaneous notes from that meeting. [Trump] said it. It also tracks with everything that we know about the way he speaks," he insisted. Patel likewise denied the allegations about Trump.Ben Williamson, a spokesman for Meadows, showed how the Atlantic twisted the denial to make it seem less credible."I sent ... a comment saying President Trump 'absolutely did not say that,' referring to the alleged comments about Ms. Guillen they printed. ... Atlantic translated that comment to 'didn’t hear Trump say it.' Treat this dishonest piece accordingly," he said, showing a screenshot of the statement he sent.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!