Mick Hartley

A new peer-reviewed article examining the criticisms of the Cass Review, just published. The authors found that the primary source of the criticism, a non-peer-reviewed paper published on the Yale Law School website, contains numerous inaccurate and misleading claims.
Link👇/1 pic.twitter.com/rRU3ZfQiIu

— SEGM (@segm_ebm) February 4, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The paper is here. The abstract:

The Cass Review’s final report, published in April 2024, made recommendations to the UK’s National Health Service regarding structuring of services for minors with gender-related distress. It recommended cautious use of hormonal interventions in this population and use of research protocols. Some clinician-researchers disagree with the Cass Review’s recommendations and have written critiques. A critique of the Cass Review posted on Yale Law School’s website in July 2024 has received extensive media coverage. Its references identified three other critiques. In these papers, there were multiple claims that were incorrect or that lacked essential clarification/contextualization. These claims involved (1) the Cass Review’s contents and processes; (2) the pediatric transgender healthcare evidence base; (3) existing clinical practice guidelines, including claims that there is international medical consensus; (4) evidence-based medical practice and guideline development; and (5) conclusions regarding the validity of the Cass Review’s findings. The Cass Review’s careful, balanced investigations and judgments were a comprehensive, evidence-based response to the controversies in this pediatric clinical arena. Recently-published critiques of the Review have contained incorrect or inadequately contextualized claims. Because accurate information about medical interventions is essential to informed consent, it is important to correct errors in potentially influential publications.

Winners from the Royal Entomological Society Photography Competition 2024:

1st Place – Detailed Gnat Ogre. Photo (c) Benjamin Salb (USA)

The Botyodes Moth.Photo (c) Raghuram Annadana

Lesser banded hornet. Photo (c) Raghuram Annadana

Electric Blue Longhorn. Photo (c) Douglas Barber

Acorn Weevil. Photo (c) Matthew Thomas

Smiling Damselfly. Photo (c) Benjamin Salb

Jagged Ambush Bug. Photo (c) Alexis Tinker-Tsavalas, age 17

Another snapshot into life in North Korea from the Daily NK:

North Korean authorities are stopping pedestrians in border areas and forcing many to work on greenhouse construction projects. These daytime roundups are occurring in North Pyongan province, a region that suffered heavy flooding last year.

According to a source in North Pyongan province recently, agents from Unified Command 82, which oversees the suppression of anti-socialist behavior, have been questioning pedestrians in broad daylight on the streets of Sinuiju. Those unable to prove their workplace affiliation or show evidence of official business are being sent to greenhouse construction sites.

The agents are also using accusations of “non-socialist behavior” – such as improper dress or street vending – as justification for conscripting people into forced labor. Those sent to the construction sites typically end up digging holes or sorting rocks.

These roundups appear linked to Kim Jong Un’s recently announced plan for extensive greenhouse construction. The initiative was originally presented as a way to improve living conditions in flood-damaged areas, but has now become a pretext for forced labor.

It's the old story of grand projects being promised from on high, followed by the realisation that there are no means of delivering said projects. So…forced labour. Drag people off the streets and into chain gangs.

The sweeps are affecting people across different areas and social groups. “A moonshine trafficker in Kaechon was detained by Unified Command 82 on Jan. 15 and forced to clear ground at a construction site for three days. Housewives are also frequently being conscripted,” the source added.

Sinuiju residents have grown increasingly resentful of the large-scale construction project. “People here don’t want these greenhouses or other facilities. They’re worried about being drafted for state construction projects nationwide and being forced to pay for building materials again this year,” the source said.

In a few years time, if this follows the usual trajectory, it will turn out that this large-scale construction project, like all the other large-scale construction projects, was shoddily built, using cheap defective material, and is now falling apart.

Depressing but predictable. From the Telegraph:

Angela Rayner is planning to create a council on Islamophobia and is lining up a former Tory minister to lead it, The Telegraph can reveal.

The 16-strong council will help advise on drawing up an official government definition for anti-Muslim discrimination and will provide advice to ministers on tackling Islamophobia, according to sources.

Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general and a prominent Remainer, has been “recommended” to chair the council within Ms Rayner’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) as a politician who has been actively involved in tackling Islamophobia.

He chaired the Citizens’ UK Commission on Islam, which aimed to promote dialogue between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, and wrote a foreword to a controversial all-party parliamentary group’s report in 2018 that set out a definition of Islamophobia, which the Labour Party adopted.

The definition has been criticised for being so widely drawn that it curbs free speech, amounts to a de facto blasphemy law and stifles legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion….

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: “The Government should drop its plans for such a deeply flawed definition of Islamophobia. Of course we should tackle anti-Muslim hate wherever it occurs, but this definition is a Trojan horse for a blasphemy law protecting Islam.

“Why do Labour MPs think it is acceptable to mock Christianity but not Islam? Time and again this Labour Government displays an Orwellian disregard for freedom of speech.”….

Paul Stott, co-author of a Policy Exchange report last week on extremism, said: “The Government is giving off worrying vibes – that it is potentially amenable to restrictions on ‘blasphemy’ and that its mind is made up in favour of a definition of Islamophobia. If so, that is terrible news for freedom of speech.”

Well, we were warned…

The rats are deserting the sinking Stonewall – even, as Julie Bindel reports, the Greens. Yes, it's that bad. So why, asks William Yarwood, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, is the British taxpayer keeping them afloat?

Research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance reveals that Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ charity, managed to increase its funding from government sources last year by nearly £50,000 – up to £618,000, from £572,000, in 2023. This will go some way to make up for the now dwindling income it receives from Diversity Champions, its controversial ‘LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion’ scheme that has netted it millions from employers over the years.

The extent of Stonewall’s public funding is particularly shocking in light of its recent history. It has been among the fiercest advocates of gender self-identification and the use of puberty blockers for ‘trans’ children. It has mutated from a charity advocating for gay rights to a radical trans-activist group, pressuring institutions into adopting extreme positions on gender ideology. As a result of its controversial campaigning, it’s unsurprising perhaps that the BBC, the Department of Health, Ofsted and Ofcom, just to name a few, have now broken ties with the charity.

It’s a good thing government bodies are shaking off Stonewall, but we should never forget the damage it has inflicted on public policy in the UK and the influence it has wielded at the highest levels. The now-discredited Tavistock clinic pushed puberty blockers on to children based on guidelines that had Stonewall’s fingerprints all over them. In 2018, intense lobbying from Stonewall led Theresa May’s Tory administration to flirt with the idea of introducing gender self-identification. In fact, such was its influence on the government that Stonewall was able to use its Orwellian ‘Workplace Equality Index’ to ‘mark down’ government departments that failed to toe the line on some of its extreme positions. Infamously, using the word ‘mother’ instead of ‘parent who has given birth’ was enough to attract Stonewall’s ire.

It’s easy to look at the recent shifts in the corporate world, especially in the US, and think that the fight to get woke out of our institutions is over. But this would be a mistake. Stonewall has proved adept at maintaining government support despite the negative headlines, and despite the broader turn against DEI. Given Stonewall’s struggling finances (its deficit is more than £800,000), it’s pretty clear that taxpayers’ cash is just about the only thing keeping it afloat.

With Stonewall’s campaigning increasingly at odds with public opinion, now is the time to stop its public funding. Businesses have woken up, and it’s high time the UK’s public sector followed suit. It’s time to defund Stonewall once and for all.

The government hand-outs would suggest that Stonewall still have government support. That would be a gross misreading of the public mood.

Columbia Professor Avi Friedman's letter of resignation:

January 29, 2025

Dr. Katrina Armstrong, President, Columbia University

I am writing to submit my resignation from Columbia University. While this decision was made months ago, it ultimately became unavoidable.

Teaching at the business school has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my career. The Value Investing program attracts extraordinary students, and I take pride in shaping these future investors into well-rounded professionals.

The events of October 7, 2023, and the university’s subsequent response have made it impossible for my conscience to justify remaining at Columbia. Initially, I found myself making excuses: that these were misguided students, that they were merely exercising free speech, that the university was caught unprepared, and that the protesters were primarily outsiders. But these rationalizations can no longer mask what has become inexcusable and systemic.

The university’s decision to appoint Joseph Massad to teach a class on Zionism represents a complete abandonment of academic integrity and unbiased scholarship. This appointment was no oversight – it means a deliberate choice that aligns with the university’s ideology. While freedom of speech is fundamental, it must be accompanied by accountability, particularly when professors openly celebrate violence.

Your statement regarding Massad’s conduct was both inadequate and disingenuous. His comments were not mere slip-ups that, as you said, “created pain for many in our community and contributed to the deep controversy on our campus.” Rather, they represent his consistent worldview, one he continues to promote through interviews, podcasts, and articles. He stands as a celebrated figure in the intifada movement – a status that Columbia now continues to endorse.

I previously believed that maintaining a Zionist voice within the faculty was crucial. However, the university has made its position clear by platforming and empowering a known radical antisemite to indoctrinate impressionable minds. Columbia has revealed itself to be complicit in this ideological agenda. I have also come to understand that Columbia’s role as an epicenter of the intifada movement in the United States is no accident but rather the result of years of institutional cultivation from within the university and external actors. To be clear, my disappointment is with Columbia University, not the business school.

I have diligently completed Columbia’s mandatory anti-harassment training several times, and I am confident that Massad’s statements about Israel, Jews, and Zionism violate these very policies. Had I created such “pain for many and contributed to deep controversy," my dismissal would have been swift and justified. 

My post on Massad's appointment here:

Columbia University will offer a course on “Zionism” in spring 2025 taught by a professor who described terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israel as “awesome.”

Titled Palestinian-Israeli POLIT/SOC, the course covers “The History of the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskala) in 19th century Europe and the development of Zionism through the current peace process between the state of Israel and the Arab states and the Palestinian national movement.” It is intended to provide an overview of the “Zionist-Palestinian” conflict, according to the course description.

The professor assigned to teach the course is Joseph Massad, who also instructs Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia. Massad is known for writing an article for The Electronic Intifada the day after the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel, in which he described the event as “astounding,” “incredible,” and a “stunning victory.”

From the Daily NK:

A professor at Hamhung University of Pharmacology was arrested in December for manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine, with investigators discovering he had used students to sell the drugs, Daily NK has learned.

“The community is shocked that a Hamhung University professor was making meth and involving students in its distribution,” a source in South Hamgyong province told Daily NK recently. “While people condemn the professor’s actions, they’re also criticizing the system that led to this situation.”

The professor, a man in his 50s identified only by the surname Kim, was arrested on campus by city police inspectors in mid-December and is currently under interrogation. His involvement came to light during an investigation into a drug ring that was broken up in Wonsan in November.

As authorities suspect this case extends beyond one professor’s corruption to involve multiple faculty members and students, the Supreme Procurator’s Office has launched a university-wide inspection. Their involvement stems from Hamhung University’s status as a “central university” despite its provincial location.

It's kind of appropriate that the professor is called Kim. We've been hearing for years now, not just about the widespread use of methamphetamine in North Korea, but also its manufacture for export, to boost the coffers of the regime. The Kim Jong-un crystal meth empire is, in a way, this story writ large. It starts at the top.

“I was hounded, day in, day out. Bullied, hounded, with protection from nobody.”

These are the words of Alice Nderitu, the UN’s former Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. In a shocking article, she details the appalling treatment she endured at the hands of the United… pic.twitter.com/g2rNv0o40g

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) February 2, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Full text:

“I was hounded, day in, day out. Bullied, hounded, with protection from nobody.”

These are the words of Alice Nderitu, the UN’s former Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. In a shocking article, she details the appalling treatment she endured at the hands of the United Nations—months of relentless pressure to label Israel’s actions against Hamas as “genocide.”

She even received death threats for refusing to comply: “They started sending me threats on my phone. And then they even started threatening me on the U.N. e-mail.”

One such e-mail read: “Filthy Zionist rat, you will burn in hell forever for supporting the rape and torture and murder of little kids by your bestial masters.”

Nderitu exposes the UN’s blatant bias against Israel: “It’s instructive that this never happened for any other war. Not for Ukraine, not for Sudan, not for D.R.C., not for Myanmar. The focus was always Israel.”

Her testimony, combined with the UN’s statements and actions since October 7, makes one thing clear: the United Nations is not a neutral body. It has abandoned its mandate of impartiality, taking a dangerous one-sided stance against Israel.

As Nderitu warns: “By taking one side, condemning it every day, you completely lose the essence of what the U.N. was created for.”

Because she refused to bow to pressure and intimidation, Alice Nderitu’s contract was not renewed.

Alice Nderitu was fired for telling the truth—a truth the UN simply does not want to hear.

A link to the article.

There was a Times article on Nderitu back in November:

An expert on genocide has left the United Nations amid claims that her contract was not renewed because she refused to apply the term to Israel’s war against Hamas.

Alice Wairimu Nderitu served a four-year term as a special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the prevention of genocide. Her departure on Tuesday was highlighted by the Wall Street Journal, which suggested that her contract was not being renewed because she had stood firm against pressure within the organisation to class Israel’s war against Hamas as a potential genocide.

Whenever it seems that the tide is finally turning on the whole gender nonsense, along comes a story like this:

A film showing the use of cross-sex hormones and chest binders among teenagers is to be made available in state schools across the country as part of LGBTQ+ History month.

1 Year is a short documentary about Ben Hodge, a transgender teenager from Merseyside, as he transitions from female to male during his final year of school. use of cross-sex hormones and chest binders among teenagers is to be made available in state schools across the country as part of LGBTQ+ History month.

As she transitions. She. 

After detailing the bullying he was subjected to in his early teens, the film describes how at sixth-form ­college Hodge changed his name and began wearing chest binders before starting a course of cross-sex hormones following a referral to a gender identity clinic. 

And no doubt she lived happily ever after pretending to be a man, despite all the medical trauma, and the infertility, and the lifetime requirement for medical care.

This is just what impressionable kids shouldn't be exposed to. On social media is one thing, but this official endorsement takes the trans propaganda to another level.

A document for teachers says 1 Year is suitable for children aged 11 and over and suggests discussion points once they have watched it. But Lucy Marsh, of the Family Education Trust, said that showing the film, first released in 2020, to children as young as 11 represented a “huge ­safeguarding failure”. She said: “There is no ­mention of the serious, ­irreversible side-effects of taking testosterone or that its long-term use risks infertility. The film also encourages breast binding without explaining the serious potential health risks, which can include permanent nerve damage and rib fractures.

“We know from the Cass review that social contagion is a factor in the huge rise of children believing they are transgender and that there is no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of gender-affirming medical treatments.”

Dropping the "gender-affirming" label would be a good start.

How are things going at the DNC?

They are now stopping their elections because there hasn’t been a “non-binary” person elected.

So yeah. pic.twitter.com/LdWts5ofAy

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 2, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js