Blog

Bizarre academic paper about releasing ticks resurfaces amid surging bites

An estimated 31 million people living in the U.S. are bitten by ticks annually, but this year, the number may hit a record. If a pair of radical professors had their way, then the surging bites would go unchecked, leaving multitudes of Americans sick — and unable to eat meat.

Citing its Tick Bite Tracker dashboard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced late last month that visits to emergency rooms for tick bites were higher than normal in many parts of the country and that in all but the South Central U.S., “weekly rates of ER visits for tick bites are the highest for this time of year since 2017.” The Midwest is the most affected region.

This is especially concerning because tick bites can lead to various serious and potentially debilitating diseases including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and every carnivore’s nightmare: alpha-gal syndrome.

Amid this surge in tick bites and hospitalizations, a July 2025 academic paper defending the intentional spread of AGS via genetically modified ticks is once again in the spotlight.

AGS is a serious, potentially deadly allergy to alpha-gal, a molecule found in most mammals including cows and pigs. According to the CDC, the body of an afflicted individual registers alpha-gal in red meat and other mammal products as a threat and triggers an allergic reaction. This allergy can develop after a bite from a tick, most commonly the lone star tick.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are believed to presently be affected by AGS.

A pair of professors at Western Michigan University School of Medicine said in an article titled “Beneficial Bloodsucking,” which was published in the journal Bioethics, that tick-borne AGS should be regarded as a “moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat.”

Keep reading

TOTAL PSYCHOS: Credentialed Female ‘Journalists’ Show Up to Fangirl Alleged Murderer Luigi Mangione at Hearing 

A group of credentialed female journalists showed up at hearing in New York City today for alleged killer Luigi Mangione and made it quite clear that they are fans of the young alleged assassin.

One of the more sickening developments of the last two years has been watching the left turn Mangione into some sort of folk hero.

Watching these female journalists talk is like going back in history to the days of the Manson Girls, who showed up at the trials of Charles Manson to show their support for him.

The New York Post reports:

Bloodthirsty Luigi Mangione fangirls unapologetically celebrate CEO’s assassination: ‘F—k Brian Thompson,’ ‘His children are better off without him’

A trio of bloodthirsty fans of accused assassin Luigi Mangione — who were granted press passes by City Hall — spouted vile hate and unapologetic calls for political violence from a Manhattan courthouse steps Monday.

Self-proclaimed “Mangionistas” Abril Rios, Ashley Rojas and Lena Weissbrot proudly showed off the passes they received from Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration, apparently for their online content documenting Mangione’s upcoming trial for the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

But the credentialed “reporters” chillingly made no bones about supporting Mangione’s alleged vendetta to strike fear into the hearts of healthcare executives such as Thompson.

Weissbrot, clad in a garish neon green, pink and purple striped ensemble, chimed in with an even more reprehensible response.

“His children are better off without him,” she said about the victim. “They need to learn to not be like their dad. And enjoy the blood money, kids.

“He’s responsible for more deaths than Osama bin Laden, and I remember Americans celebrating when Osama bin Laden was killed. It’s not like we don’t understand heroic violence, or, like, when violence is good.”

Keep reading

Jury Sides Against Musk in OpenAI Lawsuit

A federal jury in Oakland, California, went against Elon Musk Monday in a case he brought against OpenAI, alleging the company’s leadership “stole a charity” when they converted it into a for-profit entity.

Through his lawsuit, Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015, sought the removal of Sam Altman as CEO and company president Greg Brockman from their leadership roles, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Musk also wanted an “unwinding of the company’s recent conversion to a more traditional governance structure and damages worth more than $180 billion to be paid into an OpenAI foundation,” the news outlet added.

The jury found all of Musk’s claims fell outside the statute of limitations.

Fox Business reported that Musk left OpenAI in 2018 when he was unable to persuade the company’s leadership to merge with Tesla. OpenAI is the company behind ChatGPT.

“In his lawsuit, Musk accused OpenAI of violating its founding mission as a nonprofit to develop AI for the benefit of humanity when the startup created a for-profit entity in 2019,” Fox Business said.

Keep reading

OPCW Inadvertently Admitted Burying Critical Evidence on Syria Chemical Weapons Investigation

For the first time in a prolonged cover-up scandal, the world’s top chemical watchdog has acknowledged censoring a finding that undermined allegations of a toxic gas attack by the former Syrian government.

According to previously leaked documents, expert German military toxicologists consulted by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ruled out chlorine gas as the cause of death of dozens of victims in an alleged chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma in April 2018.

The experts even raised the possibility that the incident was a false flag. The OPCW suppressed this finding and released a final report asserting that chlorine gas was likely used. The OPCW’s conclusion aligned with the claims of the U.S., U.K. and France, which bombed Syria in April 2018 over what they alleged was a Syrian government chemical attack in Douma.

After years of stonewalling, the OPCW has admitted that the Germans’ input, along with the fact that they were even consulted, was concealed.

The concession came during a legal battle with Dr. Brendan Whelan, a veteran OPCW inspector and senior member of the team that deployed to Syria for the Douma mission. Whelan and another Douma team member, Ian Henderson, raised concerns about the manipulation of the investigation’s findings.

After their complaints became public, the OPCW leadership publicly disparaged the two dissenting inspectors and penalized them for alleged breaches of confidentiality.

Whelan successfully challenged his censure before the Geneva-based Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILOAT), which recently awarded him damages and instructed the OPCW to withdraw its impugned decision.

One of the allegations against Whelan was that he improperly sent two letters in March and April 2019 to Fernando Arias, the OPCW director-general, raising concerns about unethical conduct in the Douma investigation.

In trying to make its case against Whelan, the OPCW inadvertently admitted to the censorship that he had challenged.

In his letters to Arias, the OPCW complained, Whelan included

“specific and detailed information gathered by FFM [Fact-Finding Mission] investigators from toxicology experts. This information, classified as OPCW Highly Protected, was not included in the Final Report which was publicly released.”

The OPCW’s confirmation that it excluded the toxicologists’ “Highly Protected” information from the publicly released Final Report confirms one of Whelan’s key grievances.

“Critical information, like the expert opinions of the toxicologists… has, shockingly, been omitted,” Whelan wrote in his April 2019 letter.

“There is even no record in the report of those consultations… To say that this selective use of expert opinions and facts is disturbing is an understatement.”

Keep reading

HYPOCRISY ON STEROIDS: Disgraced Russia Collusion Hoax Architect Andrew Weissmann Now Demands to CRIMINALIZE LYING — After Peddling the Biggest Lie in American History

Disgraced former Mueller hitman Andrew Weissmann, the very architect of the debunked Russia collusion hoax that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and smeared a duly elected president, is now out there wanting to criminalize your speech while promoting a terrifying new book against Trump.

In a chilling new podcast appearance with fellow leftist operative Joyce Vance, Weissmann laid out his terrifying new vision for America: criminalizing what the government deems to be “political lies.”

And guess whose “lies” he’s laser-focused on? President Donald Trump’s claims about the rigged 2020 election, of course.

Because for Weissman, questioning election integrity is the real crime, not the weaponized witch hunts, the two-tiered “justice” system, or the endless hoaxes used to try to destroy a political opponent.

During the segment, Weissmann whines about “rampant political lying,” citing The Washington Post’s infamous (and wildly inflated) tally of 30,000 “lies” during Trump’s first term.

He even chuckled when Sarah Longwell said it seemed “a little low.” But notice what he conveniently forgets: the real big lie was the Russia collusion hoax itself, a fabricated scandal cooked up by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, peddled by the FBI, and weaponized by Weissmann and his cronies in the Mueller team to delegitimize Trump’s 2016 victory.

Andrew Weissmann: “What I’ve started thinking about… is why is it that there are lies in so many ways in this country that we either criminalize or subject to civil penalties, but we don’t do that for politicians who lie or candidates who lie?… The big lie in my book that I use as the example is the 2020 election was stolen… There’s no proof of that.”

Keep reading

New Jersey Dem Hamawy Denounced By World Trade Center Bombing Survivors for Friendship With ‘Blind Sheikh’: ‘Some Things Are Just Not Forgivable’

The New Jersey plastic surgeon leading the Democratic primary for New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District, Adam Hamawy, is facing intense criticism from victims and survivors of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing over his years-long friendship with the “Blind Sheikh” terrorist mastermind who inspired the attack, the Free Beacon’s Jon Levine reports. The victims are shocked and horrified that a close associate of the Muslim cleric—Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the bombing—could soon be a member of Congress.

“I would never vote for Hamawy because of this and again, saying that as a lifelong Democrat and someone who really wants to keep New Jersey blue, I would find another Democrat to vote for even if it meant writing in someone,” said Michael Macko, whose father worked at the World Trade Center as an assistant chief mechanical supervisor and was killed by the blast while on his lunch break. “I could not with a clear conscience ever vote for this man. Nor would I encourage anybody else to. Some things are just not forgivable.”

James Outerbridge, who survived both the 1993 bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Hamawy “doesn’t deserve to run for political office in our country,” adding, “There’s no place for people like this.” Another survivor, Charles Maikish, the director of the Port Authority World Trade Department at the time of the bombing, said of Hamawy’s relationship with Rahman: “Personally, it disgusts me. For somebody that has befriended that group, or the head of that sect that perpetrated such a heinous crime, to me, is just totally against what would be a free, open, democratic society.”

“The scandal has been slowly percolating in New Jersey since the Free Beacon first flagged a 1995 New York Times article labeling Hamawy a ‘supporter’ of the radical cleric,” Levine writes. “Hamawy was a defense witness in [Rahman’s] spectacular trial and described the terrorist as a ‘leader of the community’ on the campaign trail just last week. … Hamawy has never denied his relationship to the sheikh—who died in prison in 2017—but has attempted to distance himself from the issue by blasting the story as ‘right-wing, MAGA smears.’”

Keep reading

Cory Booker Almost CRIES as Supreme Court Deals Blow to Democrats’ Race-Based Redistricting Scheme

Sen. Cory Booker appeared on MSNOW Sunday and delivered exactly the kind of dramatic, race-obsessed rhetoric that now defines the modern Democrat Party’s response to redistricting.

Booker was reacting to recent Supreme Court redistricting rulings, including the Court’s May 11 decision allowing Alabama to use a congressional map previously blocked by a lower court. 

The decision overturned a judicial order requiring Alabama to use a court-imposed map with two largely Black districts.

Instead of treating the ruling as a constitutional debate over race-based districting, Booker framed the entire issue as a return to one of the darkest chapters in American history.

During the interview, Booker said his “soul and heart ache” over the Court’s decision and claimed America is facing a moment similar to the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s.

Booker spoke about Alabama as “sacred soil,” referencing Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Shuttlesworth, John Lewis, Freedom Riders, the Edmund Pettus Bridge, police dogs, fire hoses, and the long struggle against Jim Crow.

The problem is obvious: no one is stopping Black Americans from voting.

Black voters have the same legal right to cast ballots as white voters, Hispanic voters, Asian voters, Jewish voters, Christian voters, young voters, old voters, and every other American citizen. The issue at the center of this fight is not whether people can vote, but rather whether the government should draw congressional districts based on race.

Booker and the Democrat Party do not want Americans to see the issue that way because their political strategy depends on making every election fight a moral emergency. 

Keep reading

Democrat NY Congressional Candidate Backed by Radical Mamdani Pushing “Trans Bill of Rights”- Wants Taxpayers to Foot the Bill for Surgeries, Housing and More

Radical New York State Assemblymember Claire Valdez, a longtime leader in NYC-DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) and backed by Marxist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani,  is running in the Democratic primary for New York’s 7th congressional district.

Valdez is making sure that ‘trans rights’ are front and center in her campaign.

In an interview released on Friday, Valdez told podcast host Mike from PA, “When we talk about trans rights and bodily autonomy and we talk about universal programs like social housing, like Medicare for all, like all of these programs, you know, we know that trans people, and trans youth especially, are often the highest at risk for homelessness, retaliation at their jobs.”

“So we have to be focused, really enshrining their rights within universal programs and making sure that Medicare for All includes gender-affirming care and health care for trans folks.”

“We need to make sure that we’re enshrining their rights in a Trans Bill of Rights and in workplaces.”

“And making sure that there’s real housing that is available, you know, for everyone, but especially trans people who are most at risk of being homeless or kicked out of their homes.”

Keep reading

Dem Infighting Worsens as Fingers Start Pointing in Heated California Governor’s Race

The warm California summers have nothing on the flaring tempers within the state’s crowded gubernatorial race.

And most of that bickering is coming from just one side of the political aisle.

As Democrats vie to get past the state’s unique primary system — wherein neither major political party is guaranteed to have a candidate in the final two — tensions are rising significantly between them.

As the New York Post pointed out, one of the contenders, California Rep. Katie Porter, is now trying to reframe one of her biggest campaign blunders as an indictment against a fellow Democrat.

Porter told CNN that she was “confident” that the unflattering videos that began circulating in October 2025 of her screaming at various aides and acting in other uncouth manners were ultimately leaked by billionaire gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer.

“I am confident that is the case,” she said.

Steyer’s campaign has denied this allegation.

Keep reading

Blue Cities Like Portland Prioritize the Antisocial Over the Law-Abiding

Like many of America’s once-great metropolises, Portland, Oregon, has seen better days. Drug-addled homeless continue to ravage the streets, and businesses have begun packing their bags for greener pastures, following the thousands of city residents who have had enough.

The reason Portland has become such a disaster is simple: It prioritizes the needs of its most destructive residents over those who follow the law. A story from last week exemplifies this perfectly.

Portland resident Chris Bolton tried to get the city to deal with a festering homeless camp outside his home. After spending months begging the city to come sweep the camp, Bolton was stunned to receive a visit from the Portland Bureau of Transportation, claiming he was the problem due to an overgrown hedge that would block a proposed stop sign.

The city then threatened Bolton with fines and liens if he didn’t deal with the hedge, all while drug paraphernalia, deserted vehicles, and biowaste accumulated nearby. Bolton and some neighbors trimmed the hedge and even cleaned up some of the homeless’ trash. The city then tried to punish Bolton for doing what the city failed to do.

Bolton’s experience reveals the logic increasingly common in progressive governance: The law-abiding are regulated aggressively, while chronic disorder is accommodated indefinitely. In Portland, those who follow the law are targets, not just of the lawless, but of the city itself.

By contrast, the lawless are free to do as they like—someone else will deal with the mess later. The vagrants outside of Bolton’s house left mountains of trash that he was eventually forced to clean up. No consequences for them, just for Bolton.

And when the natural consequences of the government’s failure to act in the interest of its citizenry come home to roost, that same government seeks to punish the law-abiding even more.

It’s no surprise, then, that Portland’s downtown is hollowing out in the wake of lax enforcement and a hostile political climate. The city’s office vacancy rate sits at a record high of almost 30%, one of the highest rates of any city in the country.

Why would any business choose to invest in Portland? The city has proven that it refuses to deal with the myriad problems preventing businesses from thriving. Fentanyl zombies prowl unabated, causing anemic foot traffic. Unrestricted shoplifting ensures that retail consistently operates at a loss. All that paired with a tax rate rivaled only by New York City, and investing in Portland looks like a losing proposition.

Rather than enforce the law, city leaders respond by seeking to punish the few remaining businesses. Portland authorities are considering a vacancy fee that would punish business owners whose properties remain empty for too long.

That same punitive philosophy shapes Portland’s drug policy.

Keep reading