Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

Nota Bene: Chinese consumers prefer the taste of Florida's Key West lobsters over the New England variety. This report didn't specify the type of crustaceans that were boosted.

The lobsters, which were not alive, were on their way to Costco stores in Illinois and Minnesota, said the owner of the supply chain company that was victimized.

"This theft wasn't random. It followed a pattern we're seeing more and more, where criminals impersonate legitimate carriers using spoofed emails and burner phones to hijack high-value freight while it's in transit."

"For a mid-sized brokerage like ours, a $400,000 loss is significant," he added. "It forces tough decisions and ultimately drives up costs across the supply chain, costs consumers ultimately end up paying."

"Brokers are on the front lines of this problem, but we need federal agencies to have modern enforcement tools to keep pace with organized criminal networks," he said. "Until that happens, these thefts will continue to disrupt businesses and impact everyday prices."


This is just another example of the further "enshittification" of America under Dummkopf Trumpf where food is being hijacked like in a Third World country. Food prices and costs are sky-rocketing thanks to Trumpf's idiotic trade and tax policies that benefit the oligarchs, so organized crime gangs are supplying desperate restaurant owners with luxury swag at low prices.

This trend of hijacking food and other merchandise, high end or run-of-the-mill items, will continue as the US economy continues to plummet and people become more and more desperate. Expect an increase in small time "porch piracy" of Amazon products or other unsecured packages as well.

For Jeff. An automated look into male to female surgery youtu.be I expect RCADE to delete it soon so watch it asap.

slate.com

The lowest estimate I've seen for regret after gender-related care is based primarily on people who have had gender-affirming surgery. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis"a type of study where the authors aggregate lots of papers into one big estimate"that combined such studies found an overall rate of 1 percent for regret after surgery for both transmasculine and transfeminine surgeries. This echoes other large cohorts which have found that only a tiny proportion of the people who have these surgeries eventually report regretting the procedure.

That is such a terrible argument. What is .3% of 340 million people? Oh, so it's "statistically" low, medically damaging but because it's statistically low, SCREW the victims.
Unless the left is able to scrub this history will view this horribly.
#62 | Posted by BellRinger

I didn't make an argument. I asked a question about a statistic. Here's another stat: studies indicate that up to 1.7% of U.S. children are born with intersex traits. This includes individuals whose chromosomal sex does not match their phenotypic sex, as well as those with other conditions affecting primary or secondary sexual characteristics. These conditions can result in atypical genital appearance, disorders of sexual development, hormonal irregularities, breast development in males, excess facial or body hair in females, and similar variations.

So here's another question about a statistic: what percentage of that 0.3% is included within that 1.7%?

Now here's an argument for you. The data DHS is relying on to justify the proposed treatment bans does not attempt to answer that question. In fact, DHS does not even collect the patient-level data that would make answering it possible. As written, the regulations would either outright ban or severely restrict access to treatments for people with the conditions described above. While there is some wiggle room in regulations but their broad language is likely to lead providers to refuse care altogether. The risk of losing federal funding will outweigh the incentive to act in the best interest of the patient. Insurers will welcome new rules they can use to justify denial of coverage for the rare and often expensive treatments that may be needed by such patients.

We have already seen, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, how treatment bans have lead to sharp increases in infant and maternal deaths along with avoidable infertility. The politicians who enacted those bans insist that these outcomes were not their intent, but they were entirely foreseeable. The same dynamic will play out here. Lawmakers will claim they never intended to block teenage boys from receiving hormones or surgery to treat gynecomastia, or to prevent girls with Turner syndrome from accessing treatments that protect sexual function, or any of the dozens of other similar foreseeable scenarios I can think of. Their intent doesn't change the reality that such bans will result in patient harm.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy