Mike Adams

Klinefelter Syndrome Is Treated, Not Normalized | Gender Binary

Published by Papa Giorgio

I have recently come across a list of “sexes” pictured to the right. The person posting this noted:

  • Saw this and wanted to copy it and share it. We love our black-and-white dichotomy because it’s so easy to then label and categorize folks. But it is a LOT more complex than that. Not asking ANYONE to change their conclusions. Just become more aware of the complexities so that you don’t look so ignorant when you post simplistic memes and such…..

A few years back I looked into an example from this list, which I will excerpt how rare these are:

  • The term Klinefelter syndrome (KS) describes a group of chromosomal disorder in which there is at least one extra X chromosome to a normal male karyotype, 46,XY. XXY aneuploidy is the most common disorder of sex chromosomes in humans, with prevalence of one in 500 males. Other sex chromosomal aneuploidies have also been described, although they are much less frequent, with 48,XXYY and 48,XXXY being present in 1 per 17,000 to 1 per 50,000 male births. The incidence of 49,XXXXY is 1 per 85,000 to 100,000 male births. In addition, 46,XX males also exist and it is caused by translocation of Y material including sex determining region (SRY) to the X chromosome during paternal meiosis.

A great – short – video regarding the most common occurrence from above is this:

HEALTHY MALE recommends this treatment of this most expressive DISORDER:

Infants and children with Klinefelter syndrome should be examined by their doctor at least every two years to monitor their physical development.

They may need support from specialists to manage any problems with speech, learning, behaviour or psychiatric issues.

Testosterone treatment might be prescribed for boys with Klinefelter syndrome who have a very small penis.

Monitoring the growth and hormone function of boys with Klinefelter syndrome in the lead-up to puberty helps guide decisions about testosterone treatment, which may become necessary.

Testosterone treatment is recommended to many adults with Klinefelter syndrome.

If you have Klinefelter syndrome and are not receiving testosterone treatment, your hormonal function should be checked every 12 months.

I emphasized “disorder” because I have been wanting to connect a thought by C.S. Lewis discussing morality. But as you read the below, a substitution of this debate regarding “the binary” view can be inserted.

[T]his Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature). . . .

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

And an older quote that makes the above point, sorta, for law is this:

…Proponents of gay marriage fail utterly to comprehend the idea that laws are made with society, not the individual, in mind. That is why they also fail to grasp the idea that law is predicated upon averages, not outliers. Interestingly, both libertarians and progressives suffer from this lack of under­standing.

[….]

But more often they try to undermine the link between marriage and childrearing by pointing to outliers—marriages in which couples choose not to have children or cannot have them because at least one partner happens to be infertile. But this argument only reveals the weakness of the progressive understanding of the law. Put simply, rules that are justified by the average case cannot be undermined by the exceptional case, otherwise known as the outlier. Thus the old maxim, “Hard cases make bad law.”…

Mike S. Adams, Letters To A Young Progressive (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 81, 82.

Adam and Eve would have been made fully, male and female. Many years later the curse brought mutations into the mix. We do not “add” to god’s ideal, we keep it all the while showing love and respect for the Imago Dei to all without changing societal norms, sports, culture to fit or adapt to outliers… genetic mutations. We treat these disorders.

Treat them.

This is key.

You do not treat the normal, but abnormal.

An article notes that for the first time in the U.K., a major London hospital has launched Europe’s first multidisciplinary clinic for children with the rare genetic condition Klinefelter syndrome.

The centre at the Evelina Children’s Hospital will aim to improve diagnosis of children with the condition, which can cause serious problems including infertility and cardiovascular disease.

Around one in 660 men are affected by the condition.

Males with the condition are born with an extra X chromosome. Typically, a male baby has one X and one Y chromosome and a female baby has two X chromosomes.

Klinefelter syndrome can also cause problems with learning, attention, energy levels and socialising.

[….]

Infertility or relative lack of testosterone can be treated with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone or testosterone replacement therapy, but patients need access to a range of medical specialties including geneticists, endocrinologists, neurodevelopmental and psychological support.

The clinic will bring all these specialties together under one roof.

A Christian Abortionist Argues Against Himself (Mike Adams)

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “He kills people for a living… by his own standard.” — Dr. Mike Adams 

(Via the DAILY WIRE) On Thursday, February 21, the University of North Carolina-Wilmington hosted a debate on abortion, which was organized by the College Democrats and College Republicans, among others:

The DAILY WIRE article notes the reason they posted the above debate:

  • The hour and a half-long debate also featured a Q&A in which the two professionals took questions from the crowd. At the 1:19:42 mark, a man asks Adams about the commonly discussed “rape exception” as it pertains to abortion.

Yep, good stuff.

This debate “TRIGGERED” ? (joking) in my memory a short conversation between Dr. Mike Adams and myself and a good book by him, “Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don’t Understand.” I complained about a lack of (none in fact) footnotes to reference his quotes and some of his positions in it. (The part I wish to note is at the 11:50 to 12:10 mark above.) This is not a “take-down” of professor Adams at all. We probably agree 99% on the varied topics of politics and faith. It is however, a call to better scolorshipo of anyone writing a book, even if they intend it to be a quick read.

Just some feedback on your most recent book. Obviously it is geared for a “postmodern” audience. I had to put it down due to the lack of footnotes/references.I put down all books without them. I love your work, but the work reminded of Sean Hannity’s non-referenced screeds. Sorry to be so harsh… but no footnotes? Do your students get it that easy?

At any rate, I did reference it in response to a local “columnist”

Dr. Adams makes a point about the direction of his book, linked above:

The footnotes were removed to make it resemble an email conversation. Emails don’t have footnotes. Come on.

To which I simply respond,

My emails do. At any rate, maybe the softcover will include them? I will then buy it and read it. Much thought your way. By-the-by, you up at Summit right now? If they ever talk about getting a speaker who combines choices and worldviews, keep me in mind. I am a “retired” ex-con.

The response by Dr. Adams was a funny quip that I laughed at then over Facebook and would laugh at if we were sharing some beers and time together as brothers in Christ. Here was his last point (where I chose to leave it):

Oh, yes, Sean. Will have the editor put them back in just so you’ll read it.

I merely responded: “Hahaha, yes.” My most recent note to Professor Adams was this (remember, I am picking up a conversation from May, 2013):

I just watched your wonderful take down of illogical positions by Dr. Parker. But I wish to note your point about “footnotes” in Parker’s book, and our discussion from 2013 — archived above.

Here is the convo from today, Dr. Adams:

That is why I did not use my book to establish when life begins. Your “point” is thus irrelevant.

My last response is,

All I am saying is that (as an example), is, on pages 31-33* (and others) when you separate out quotes [or] definitions, that the poli-sci person or someone grabbing the book from the sociology section of the book store could further their understanding FROM your book. Obviously this is a dead horse, but I encourage you in future endeavors to at least add some for context and reference for the bibliophile, thus encouraging even the millennial reader to further their reading scope. Blessings to you and yours Dr. Adams, from, “Still a Huge Fan and Supporter of all You Write and Do.”

Dr. Adams may be emotional that some yahoo he doesn’t know is telling him how to write a book. But I would encourage all who write books should include some power to their own references, thus separating out opinion versus factual claims.

  • * Pages 31-33

Even in theology if a person quotes Scripture, they don’t merely say “Matthew,” or, “Deuteronomy,” — they note chapter and verse.

Mike Adams Vindicated-Free Speech Wins Out

Published by Papa Giorgio

Mike Adams can now write on this win in his counter liberal articles:

Attorneys for a Christian professor in North Carolina are celebrating a decision handed down by an appellate court, calling it a victory for academic freedom.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys argued that criminology professor Mike Adams was unconstitutionally denied a promotion at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington because school officials were hostile to the political views he delivered in his columns and speeches.

A lower court had ruled against Dr. Adams, saying his comments on matters of public concern constituted “official” speech as part of his job duties as a criminology professor at UNC-Wilmington — and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment. But now the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that Adams’ writings and speeches are protected by the First Amendment, and that if Adams winds up winning his case against the university, school officials could be held personally liable for damages.

“No individual loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment,” wrote the court. “Adams’ columns addressed topics such as academic freedom, civil rights, campus culture, sex, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, religion, and morality. Such topics plainly touched on issues of public, rather than private, concern.”

ADF senior counsel David French argued before the court on Adams’ behalf. “Christian professors should not be discriminated against because of their beliefs,” French states, “and this decision thoroughly upholds that principle.”

French calls the circuit court’s decision “a ringing vindication” of the academic freedom of public university professors.  “Disagreeing with an accomplished professor’s religious and political views is no grounds for refusing him promotion,” he adds.

“It vindicates academic freedom not only for Dr. Adams but for all professors — and re-establishes the principle that the university is a marketplace of ideas. It’s a tremendous outcome, but it’s just one additional step in a long road towards justice for Dr. Adams.” The case now goes back to district court.

…(read more)…

N.O.W. supports men who call women whores

Published by Papa Giorgio

Carol Platt Liebau points out the obvious hypocrisy in the modern – progressive – feminist movement.

The day after he (or a member of his staff) is caught on tape calling Meg Whitman a whore, Jerry Brown has announced the endorsement of the National Organization of Women (NOW).

You know, it’s fashionable in feminist circles tosit around  bemoaning the fact that few young women want to identify themselves as feminists.

Wanna know why?  This kind of hypocrisy is the reason why.  It’s OK with NOW, supposedly an organization devoted to the equal and respectful treatment of women for Jerry  Brown to call his opponent — an accomplished woman, and more importantly, any woman — a “whore.”  It’s OK with NOW for Bill Clinton to engage in sexual harassment of an intern in The White House, and possibly worse in his pre-presidential days.  It’s OK with NOW to allow Sarah Palin to be denigrated in the cheapest, lowest and most sexist ways.

NOW has nothing to do with women’s rights, or the proper treatment of women.  They are simply shills for abortion and big government.  They ought to admit it and take the word “Women” out of their name, because they no more stand for “women” in general than President Obama stands for small government and low taxes.

Women — and men — are on to NOW’s racket.  That’s why their endorsement means nothing.  They’re just political hacks.  What young woman in her right mind would want to be associated with such cheap political opportunism?