Month: June 2024

Authored by Kalev Leetaru via RealClearPolitics,

AI-powered image generators were back in the news earlier this year, this time for their propensity to create historically inaccurate and ethically questionable imagery. These recent missteps reinforced that, far from being the independent thinking machines of science fiction, AI models merely mimic what they’ve seen on the web, and the heavy hand of their creators artificially steers them toward certain kinds of representations. What can we learn from how OpenAI’s image generator created a series of images about Democratic and Republican causes and voters last December?

OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4 service, with its built-in image generator DALL-E, was asked to create an image representative of the Democratic Party (shown below). Asked to explain the image and its underlying details, ChatGPT explained that the scene is set in a “bustling urban environment [that] symbolizes progress and innovation . . . cities are often seen as hubs of cultural diversity and technological advancement, aligning with the Democratic Party’s focus on forward-thinking policies and modernization.” The image, ChatGPT continued, “features a diverse group of individuals of various ages, ethnicities, and genders. This diversity represents inclusivity and unity, key values of the Democratic Party,” along with the themes of “social justice, civil rights, and addressing climate change.”

In contrast, the image below shows the Republican Party, with ChatGPT explaining that “the serene rural setting represents traditional values and a connection to the land . . . associated with the Republican Party’s emphasis on rural communities and agricultural interests, highlighting a respect for tradition and simplicity,” and notes the “stereotype that the party only represents a specific segment of the population” and that the “core principles of the Republican Party, focu[s] on conservative fiscal policies, a robust approach to national security, and the protection of personal liberties.”

Asked to create an image of “liberal and progressive values,” ChatGPT explains that they include a “vibrant urban environment,” “the inclusivity and openness of liberal ideology,” “equitable social policies, environmental care, and the advancement of civil rights . . . environmental stewardship and technological progress . . . hope, diversity, and the pursuit of a more equitable and sustainable future.”

Asked to represent “conservative and traditional values,” ChatGPT summarizes its image as capturing “heritage and simpler times . . . conservative values emphasiz[e] a return to traditional lifestyles and a slower, more grounded way of life . . . farming, community gatherings, and family events . . . maintaining established social norms and cultural heritage . . . reverence for history and the foundations of society . . . stability and order . . . importance of upholding long-established societal norms . . . [and] resisting rapid change.”

What does a Democratic voter look like? According to ChatGPT, the “key values” of Democratic voters are “diversity, education, technology, inclusivity, and a focus on environmental and social issues,” with the image centering on “a young African American woman in professional attire and a Hispanic man in casual attire. The woman’s professional attire and the book and digital tablet she holds symbolize the Democratic values of progressive ideals, education, and technological advancement. The man’s casual attire represents inclusivity and grassroots activism.”

A Republican voter emphasizes “patriotism, family values, and a focus on local and national issues,” with the image centering on a “middle-aged Caucasian man in a business suit and a Caucasian woman in a smart casual dress. The man’s business suit symbolizes professionalism and traditional values, while the woman’s attire embodies family values and community involvement.” The setting “focus[es] on suburban voters and highlights the importance of housing and local issues in the Republican platform,” with the flag representing “patriotism, a core value often associated with the Republican party.”

ChatGPT appeared incapable of creating imagery critical of electric vehicles, with the following image showing its representation of a “voter campaign criticizing clean energy due to the lack of energy storage technology, the limited range of electric vehicles, the expensiveness of it.”

Its image for a campaign to “promote continued fossil fuel use” similarly appears to be an ad for precisely the opposite.

Told explicitly to “criticize clean energy due to the challenges and complexities,” ChatGPT produces an image that does precisely the opposite, featuring a cluster of windmills bursting through thick pollution to lead the way to a brighter future.

ChatGPT encounters no such problems promoting clean energy, even going so far as to emphasize that the image features a “diverse group of people” that shows “clean energy is accessible and beneficial for all segments of society.”

Similarly, asked to promote careers that don’t require higher education, such as the trades, ChatGPT steadfastly features an image of a graduate at its center.

Its image for a campaign to “promote gun ownership” yields a dystopian view of a fenced-in classroom, militarized guards, and unsafe gun handling, complete with the instructor’s finger on the trigger.

At the same time, the future of image generators as campaign-ideation tools is clear. For topics that Silicon Valley views as less politically sensitive, the full potential of the models is clear. For example, an image for a campaign to promote fast affordable fashion looks like this:

And a campaign criticizing it:

Here’s a campaign poster promoting an incumbent and his policies as a tremendous success:

And here’s one condemning him as an abject failure whose policies are ruining the nation:

In the end, AI image generators remind us of the enormous potential of AI for political campaigning, both in ideation and in rapid mass production of highly customized (and potentially individually tailored) imagery. At the same time, the current models’ refusal to produce imagery on certain topics, and the stereotypical (and partisan) representations of Democrats and Republicans that they have internalized in their code reminds us of Silicon Valley’s enduring biases.

In April, the FBI released its annual Internet Crime Report, evaluating all complaints logged via its Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). According to the Bureau’s analysis, losses connected to cybercrime complaints were $12.5 billion in 2023, up $2 billion year-over-year and more than triple the amount recorded in 2019 despite the number of complaints less than doubling compared to four years prior.

As Statista’s Florian Zandt shows in the chart below, based on data provided in the report shows, reported cybercrime losses increased significantly from 2021 onwards.

You will find more infographics at Statista

While 2021 only saw a year-over-year increase of roughly $700 million lost even though complaints shot up, the jump in losses from 2021 to 2022 was decidedly more pronounced. This suggests criminals were able to illegally extract larger sums of money per breach.

Most funds were lost due to investment fraud and hacked business email addresses. These two attack vectors were connected to around 60 percent of all money reported stolen. Although these figures are already substantial, the actual numbers may be much higher due to the FBI only being able to analyze cases reported via its own platform.

The data also shows a clear bias in geographical distribution: 521,652 complaints were filed from the United States and 288,355 from the United Kingdom. Zooming in on U.S. cases, most complaints originated in California, Texas and Florida. The former also ranked first in terms of money lost with $2.1 billion or 17 percent of the reported worldwide total. Apart from the U.S. and the UK, the nations with the highest complaint prevalences were Canada (6,601), India (3,405) and Nigeria (1,779).

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross Domestic Income (GDI) are two measures of the same thing. But the difference is now over two percentage points, the third largest in history.

GDP and GDI data from BEA, calculation and chart by Mish

Discrepancy Notes

• When GDP is greater than GDI the numbers are positive. When GDI is greater than GDP the numbers are negative.

• Last quarter the discrepancy was 2.3 percentage points and this quarter 2.2 percentage points. Only twice in history has the discrepancy been higher.

• The average discrepancy is +0.5. This suggests a tendency to overstate GDP relative to GDI.

• There is no discernable pattern other than a tendency to revert to the mean, eventually, with long trends in one direction or the other.

Real GDP and GDI in Billions of Dollars

Chart Notes

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross Domestic Income (GDI) are two measures of the same thing. Product produced should match sales and income. They do over time, but this is a large ongoing discrepancy.
• Real Final Sales is the bottom line estimate of GDP. The difference between GDP and Real Final Sales is inventory adjustment which nets to zero over time.
• Real means Inflation adjusted using the GDP deflator as calculated by the BEA as the adjustment.

In dollar terms, the discrepancy is the largest ever. However, percentage comparisons are a better measure which is why I created a new chart today to show the percentage point differences.

Reversion to the Mean

There is a strong tendency to revery to the mean. However, reversion to the mean does not imply GDP will fall. GDI could overshoot to catch up.

However, based on where the economy is right now, I would expect GDI to drop with GDP dropping more on a relative basis.

More Soft Economic Data, Q1 GDP Revised Lower, Q4 GDI Significantly Lower

Earlier today, I reported More Soft Economic Data, Q1 GDP Revised Lower, Q4 GDI Significantly Lower

Significant Negative Revisions

• 2024 Q1 GDP went from 1.6 percent to 1.3 percent.

• Based on updated data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program, Wages and salaries are now estimated to have increased $58.5 billion in the fourth quarter, a downward revision of $73.0 billion.

• Real gross domestic income is now estimated to have increased 3.6 percent in the fourth quarter, a downward revision of 1.2 percentage points from the previously published estimate of 4.8 percent.

Regarding the first bullet point, I calculated revised GDP at 1.2509 percent which the BEA rounded to 1.3.

Is GDP or GDI a Better Measure?

The Philadelphia Fed prefers GDI over GDP but it prefers a blend (not an average) which it calls GDPplus even more. Note that GDPE = GDP and GDPI = GDI in the discussion below.

The GDPplus Working Paper is mostly geekish math, but there are some readable snips.

Aggregate real output is surely the most fundamental and important concept in macroeconomic theory. Surprisingly, however, significant uncertainty still surrounds its measurement. In the U.S., in particular, two often-divergent GDP estimates exist, a widely-used
expenditure-side version, GDPE [GDP], and a much less widely-used income-side version, GDPI [GDI].

Nalewaik (2010) and Fixler and Nalewaik (2009) make clear that, at the very least, GDPI deserves serious attention and may even have properties in certain respects superior to those of GDPE. That is, if forced to choose between GDPE and GDPI , a surprisingly strong case exists for GDPI . But of course one is not forced to choose between GDPE and GDPI , and a GDP estimate based on both GDPE and GDPI may be superior to either one alone. In this paper we propose and implement a framework for obtaining such a blended estimate.

 

Russia has reportedly discovered colossal oil reserves in the British territory of Antarctica. According to documents presented to the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee in early May, the discovery was made by Russian research vessels in the Weddell Sea, part of the Antarctic territory claimed by the UK. The reserves discovered are estimated to contain some 511 billion barrels of oil, around 10 times the production of the North Sea over the last 50 years.

However, as Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, the exploitation of hydrocarbons in Antarctica is strictly prohibited. Since the signing of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 (which came into force in 1961), the continent has been reserved for peaceful activities only, and may become “neither the scene nor the object of international disputes”. Antarctica is therefore mainly used for scientific purposes, in particular for research into climate change.

The Russian discovery has raised concerns in the scientific community. Klaus Dodds, an Antarctic expert and professor at London’s Royal Holloway College, reportedly told British MPs that Russian research could be “a conscious decision to weaken the standards of seismic research in Antarctica, and ultimately a first step towards future exploitation operations”.

As this infographic, based on the most recent annual report of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), shows, the size of the oil reserves discovered in Antarctica is significant.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Estimated at 511 billion barrels, the area would rank as the second largest crude oil reserve by region in the world, behind only that of the Middle East, whose proven reserves stood at over 871 billion barrels in 2022. This also represents almost double the known reserves of Saudi Arabia, the country with the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world (behind Venezuela, whose reserves are dense and more difficult to process, and therefore less profitable).

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via AntiWar.com,

On Friday, the Israeli military said it had expanded its operations to the central area of Rafah. Before the assault on the city, Rafah served as a refuge for over one million displaced Palestinians.

The Associated Press reports that the Israeli military confirmed its forces were now fighting throughout most of Rafah. President Joe Biden claimed that if Israel attacked the population centers in the city without a plan for the civilians living there, it would cross his “red line.”

However, as Israeli troops continue to push into the city, killing hundreds in the process and forcing over one million to flee, Biden administration officials have asserted that Tel Aviv has not crossed the red line.  After Israel used a US bomb to kill 45 people living in a tent camp in Rafah, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said, “As a result of this strike on Sunday, I have no policy changes to speak to.”

The assault on Rafah has pushed the overall death toll to over 36,000, including according to Gaza’s health ministry tens of thousands of women and children. The IDF has also sustained losses in Rafah, increasing the number of soldiers killed to 289 since October 7.

As Israeli forces are pushing deeper into Rafah, the IDF announced the end of weeks of operations in the Jabalia refugee camp, located in northern Gaza. Tel Aviv initially devastated the city in the early months of the war on Gaza, but its forces returned in May. During the operations, the IDF dropped over 200 bombs.

The attacks on Jabalia and Rafah have caused aid deliveries into Gaza to plummet. Trucks crossing into the Strip in May decreased by two-thirds. This week, two Biden administration officials resigned in part because of the Israeli imposed restrictions on aid deliveries into Gaza and the lack of a response from the White House.

A letter signed by 19 aid agencies released on Tuesday warned that the lack of aid was increasing the risk of death due to starvation and disease.

As Israeli attacks intensify on Rafah, the unpredictable trickle of aid into Gaza has created a mirage of improved access while the humanitarian response is in reality on the verge of collapse, it says. “Aid agencies now fear an acceleration in deaths from starvation, disease and denied medical assistance.”

Meanwhile an Al Jazeera investigation says that 32% of the Gaza Strip has been made uninhabitable:

Israel has taken over 32% of Gaza’s area by “systematically demolishing neighbourhoods” to create a buffer zone and a central axis dividing it, according to Al Jazeera’s Sanad Verification Agency https://t.co/bigyjBsO1f pic.twitter.com/otCCakt6y3

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) May 31, 2024

While many are on the brink of death, Tel Aviv says it will not sign on to an agreement that would bring the war to a close and Israeli hostages freed. On Thursday, Hamas officials said the group was willing to come to a “complete agreement” that ends the conflict and frees the hostages. On Friday, the Israeli government told the families of the hostages that Tel Aviv was unwilling to end the conflict in exchange for the release of their relatives.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Russian-US relations deteriorated further than ever in late May as a result of three developments.

First, the US set the ball rolling by more openly allowing Ukraine to use its arms to strike targets inside of Russia, then Poland said that the US will hit all of Russia’s forces in the special operation zone if Moscow uses nukes, and finally, President Putin signaled that he expects NATO to majorly escalate the conflict by sometime this summer. All of this is bad enough, but it’s made even worse by what Ukraine just did.

Russia confirmed that Ukraine hit at least one of its early nuclear warning systems, while Kiev claims to have targeted a second one deeper inside its opponent’s hinterland that hasn’t (yet?) been confirmed. These structures detect incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles of the sort that could be launched by the US in the scenario of a first strike, thus enabling Russia to prepare for an inevitable second strike. They have nothing to do with the Ukrainian Conflict and everything to do with strategic stability.

Both reportedly remain operable, but this nevertheless represents an unprecedented development since never before has any country ever targeted another’s such systems, which could partially blind them to a first strike in the worst-case scenario and thus give the attacking party a huge edge in that event. The further deterioration of Russian-US relations that occurred independently of this development raised tensions to their highest level since the Cuban Missile Crisis so this couldn’t have come at a worse time.

The most important question in the world right now is whether Ukraine is going rogue, perhaps to provoke a crisis like the aforesaid one in the expectation that it could force Russia to withdraw from at least some of the territory that Kiev claims as its own, or if this was done with American approval. The Washington Post’s report about how US officials are concerned about what Ukraine just did lends credence to the first view, but that might just be disinformation for plausible deniability purposes.

At the same time, however, it’s worth remembering how Ukraine defied the US’ public demands not to target Russian oil refineries. The Biden Administration doesn’t want that commodity’s price to spike ahead of the November elections, yet Zelensky still ordered his forces to hit refineries anyhow. That also came amidst the Congressional deadlock over more Ukraine aid that was resolved shortly after those strikes became problematic. It therefore wouldn’t be unprecedented for Ukraine to go rogue yet again.

On top of that, the Financial Times reported that “some Ukrainian officials say (ties with the US) have hit their lowest ebb” due to the abovementioned restrictions on targeting Russian oil refineries and Zelensky’s “paranoia” (as one of their alleged Ukrainian insiders described it) of the US’ intentions. He’s also offended that Biden won’t participate in the upcoming Swiss “peace talks” after snubbing them for a fundraiser, which reportedly prompted him to send a memo ordering officials to criticize the US leader.

Nevertheless, the best approach would arguably be for Russia to assume that America at the very least tacitly approved Ukraine’s strikes on its early warning system(s) since this train of thought aligns with the escalatory trend of the past week. After all, if NATO as a whole or at least a “coalition of the willing” from that bloc commence a conventional intervention in Ukraine, then it could prompt Russia to use tactical nukes in self-defense to stop this invasion force if it crosses the Dnieper and threatens its new regions.

In that event, the US might either conventionally strike all of Russia’s forces in the special operation zone like Poland claimed that it would do, or just cut to the chase by launching a first nuclear strike that could be facilitated by its Ukrainian proxy carrying out more attacks against its early warning systems. There’s also the chance that more such attacks could simply precede a first nuclear strike by the US before any conventional NATO intervention if decisionmakers conclude that an exchange would then be inevitable.

It therefore can’t be ruled out that Ukraine was probing the security of Russia’s early warning systems at the behest of its American patron in preparation of that worst-case scenario, hence the wisdom of Dmitry Suslov’s advice for his country to carry out a “demonstrative” nuclear test. This influential expert from the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy had his policy proposal translated and republished at RT here, which brought it to global attention with the intent of signaling to the US.

Readers might also remember that RT published the proposal by Suslov’s colleague Sergey Karaganov last June where he explained why Russia should nuke Europe in order to deter the US in Ukraine. This latest proposal is much more practical and carries with it no risk of sparking World War III, plus it could represent a fitting finale to Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons exercises that were just carried out. Those were ordered to deter the US, but given its continued escalations, a stronger signal might be needed.

Russia’s answer to the question of whether Ukraine went rogue when attacking its early warning system(s) or if this was done at America’s behest will determine its response to any conventional NATO intervention in Ukraine. The first could see Russia wait until a large-scale force crosses the Dnieper to use tactical nukes, while the second might push it to launch a nuclear first strike against the US before that intervention begins so as to preempt the nuclear first strike that Russia might believe the US is planning.  

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Childhood attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is becoming increasingly common, with a new study revealing that one in nine American kids have been diagnosed with the condition—equating to 7.1 million children.

Many more children in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD recently. In 2022, there were 1 million more cases compared to 2016, potentially fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on children’s mental health and virtual schooling putting symptoms on display.

Pandemic Stressors May Have Fueled Rise in ADHD

The research article, published in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, provided insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic potentially influenced ADHD diagnoses. The higher prevalence could reflect “a generally increasing awareness of and pursuit of care for ADHD and/or a reflection of poor mental health among children during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

Previous studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on the mental and social well-being of young people, who experienced stressors such as illness and death in the family and community, changes in parents’ work habits, disruptions in school life, decreased social interaction, and increased fear and uncertainty. A 2022 study found that these pandemic-related stressors “can increase symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity.”

The COVID-19 pandemic likely helped encourage an increase in diagnoses, as previously unobserved ADHD symptoms were front and center in households when children attended school virtually, according to the new study.

Conversely, during the pandemic, schools faced greater challenges in providing support for those students, “may have led more parents to seek diagnoses to ensure access to support for their child,” the research team wrote.

What It Takes for a Child to Be Diagnosed

ADHD is one of the most common developmental conditions affecting children in the U.S. In the three-year span before the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly one in 10 children had received a diagnosis. To be diagnosed with the condition, a child must exhibit at least six symptoms of either inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity for at least six months.

The symptoms must be severe enough to be “maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level” or negatively impact social, academic, and occupational activities, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Common symptoms of inattention include difficulty maintaining attention during tasks or play, not following instructions, often losing items required for an activity or task (like a pencil for homework), or being forgetful in daily activities.

Examples of hyperactivity include fidgeting with hands or feet, leaving one’s seat in the classroom or situations where they’re expected to remain seated, or having difficulty playing quietly. Examples of impulsivity include difficulty waiting for their turn or often interrupting others.

ADHD Gender Gap Narrows

In the U.S., more boys than girls have typically been diagnosed with ADHD, but new data shows that the gap between the two sexes is narrowing. Before 2022, the boy-to-girl diagnosis ratio was 2:1, while in 2022, it dropped slightly to 1.8:1, according to the study.

Among children aged 3 to 17 with ADHD, 41.9 percent had mild cases, 45.3 percent moderate, and 12.8 percent severe. Certain factors were linked to more severe ADHD: being aged 6-11 (vs. adolescents), living in households with lower education or income levels, and having a co-occurring mental/behavioral/developmental disorder.

More white American children are diagnosed with ADHD than minority children, though the research team noted that “with increased awareness, such gaps in diagnoses have been narrowing or closing.”

Children with public health insurance had the highest prevalence levels, as did children whose caregivers’ highest level of education was high school.

ADHD in children was most common in the Northeast, Midwest, and South, compared to children living in the West.

The report notes that the prevalence of ADHD in children is higher in the United States than in other countries. The reason “may be the result of variation in availability of clinicians trained to diagnose and manage ADHD, state and local policies, and regional differences in demographic characteristics,” the research team wrote. Future research could determine the differences between clinical guidelines and practices across countries.

Despite being considered the biggest military force in the world, the United States doesn’t have the largest army in terms of personnel.

This graphic below, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, shows the top 10 countries by military personnel as of May 2024, including active and reserve personnel, as well as paramilitary forces. It is based on estimates from GlobalFirepower.com.

Vietnam, India, and South Korea Have the Biggest Armies

China has the largest standing army, with over 2 million active personnel. With increasing defense spending over the last decades, the country also ranks third in the number of tanks and second in the number of aircraft carriers in service.

When reserve personnel are included, however, the Chinese military falls behind those of Vietnam, India, South Korea, and Russia.

Vietnam’s forces include 600,000 active personnel and over 5 million in reserve. This is because Vietnam, along with countries like South Korea and Israel, has a standing policy of conscription for young adults.

Interestingly, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted in a massive increase in Ukrainian personnel numbers. Active personnel rose from around 170,000 in 2016 to over 900,000.

Despite not having the largest army, the U.S. accounts for almost 40% of global military expenditures, with its 2022 spending totaling $877 billion.

China ranked second in absolute terms, accounting for another 13% of world military expenditure at $292 billion.

Authored by Chris Jahn via RealClear Wire,

If our nation suffers another terrorist attack, it will be hard to argue that the signs weren’t there for us to see. The federal government has expressed growing concern that AI will empower attacks on our water, transportation, and financial systems. The Department of Homeland Security has warned that bad actors are using the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction. We know foreign nationals are illegally crossing our southern border in droves. And the death of Iran’s president could foment international conflict that deepens concerns about attacks in the U.S.

Congress should be taking every measure to secure our nation’s critical infrastructure. Yet when it comes to chemical production facilities, they have left the door wide open.

Last summer, legislators allowed a federal security program protecting chemical plants to expire. I hope it doesn’t take an attack on these facilities to show the vital role they play in producing our energy, food, drinking water, computer chips, medicines, cars—you name it. That’s what makes them such an attractive target for terrorists—and that’s why we should do everything in our power to protect them.

After the September 11th attacks, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to create the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program (CFATS) to address potential terrorist threats to chemical facilities. This helped DHS identify facilities that might be at risk of a potential attack and set national standards for addressing physical and cyber threats. CFATS also provided companies with access to valuable expertise from DHS and important tools to help prevent bad actors from gaining access. It successfully flagged at least 10 individuals with potential ties to terrorism.

But last July, the Senate blocked the program, allowing it to lapse for the first time in 15 years. More than 80,000 individuals in the chemical industry have not been vetted against the FBI’s terrorist screening database.

Losing CFATS is like the Transportation Security Administration losing its ability to secure air travel. To be sure, airports and airlines do their own screening. But a federal agency cross-referencing passengers with central databases makes it much more likely that a terrorist trying to evade detection will be stopped before boarding a plane.

The chemical industry hasn’t been shy about opposing excessive federal regulations, but this is one program that has proven effective. In fact, a recent survey of American Chemistry Council members found that 96 percent support restoring the program, and 85 percent are concerned that failure to do so will compromise security. And this strong support for the program extends beyond industry. Law enforcement organizations, emergency responders, and labor unions have also called on Congress to restore CFATS.

Our member companies are fully committed to securing their facilities, but the chemical industry should not have to go it alone. Weakening our chemical sector’s security only helps our adversaries. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation last year to keep CFATS active and keep our chemical facilities safe. The Senate must act before it’s too late.

Chris Jahn is President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Children who received the AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines faced an elevated risk of epilepsy and appendicitis, according to a new study.

Pfizer recipients were also more likely to suffer from demyelinating disease or heart inflammation, researchers found.

Dr. Julia Hippisley-Cox, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, and colleagues obtained data from a national database on COVID-19 vaccination, mortality, hospital admissions, and COVID-19 infections. They wanted to look at the link between COVID-19 vaccines from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna with 12 outcomes, including the heart inflammation condition called myocarditis.

The population of nearly 5.2 million included 1.8 million children aged 5 to 11 and 3.3 million children aged 12 to 17.

The data examined were through Aug. 7, 2022.

In the primary analysis, researchers found 12- to 17-year-olds who received Pfizer’s vaccine were at increased risk of myocarditis, with an additional three cases per million versus the expected rate after a first dose, and an additional five cases per million after a second dose, and hospitalization with epilepsy, with an additional 12 cases per million after a second dose. Females in the age group also faced an increased risk of demyelinating disease after receiving a second dose of the vaccine.

Researchers also identified a “substantially increased risk of hospitalization with epilepsy” among females after receipt of a first dose of AstraZeneca’s shot, with 813 more hospitalizations with epilepsy than expected per million doses, and an elevated risk of appendicitis after a second dose of the vaccine, with 512 excess events per million doses.

While no excess events were found among Moderna recipients, the study lacked the power to detect statistically significant issues, due to few children in the UK receiving Moderna’s vaccine. Further, no elevated risks of the 12 issues were found among 5- to 11-year-olds.

A secondary analysis, involving matching some of the vaccine recipients to unvaccinated children, confirmed an increased risk among 12- to 17-year-olds of hospitalization with epilepsy following Pfizer vaccination, and elevated risks of severe allergic shock and appendicitis in the age group following Pfizer vaccination. No increased risks of any outcome were identified among minor Moderna or AstraZeneca recipients. But among a group of 18- to 24-year-olds studied, elevated risks of a number of conditions were found, including myocarditis, immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenia, epilepsy, and acute pancreatitis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research. Multiple authors declared conflicts of interest, including funding from Moderna and AstraZeneca. Limitations included reliance on hospital admission codes and death certificates.

Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca did not respond to requests for comment.

The paper was published by Nature Communications.

The authors said that their findings “support a favorable safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination using mRNA vaccines in children and young people aged 5-17 years.” The Pfizer and Moderna shots utilize messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology.

Dr. Hippisley-Cox, the study’s corresponding author, did not return a request for comment seeking data on the position. The authors cited in part how they found unvaccinated children faced increased risks of some of the outcomes, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Udi Qimron, a professor at Tel Aviv University’s Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, said that the authors wrongly downplayed the risks associated with the vaccines.

“It’s not surprising to learn that some of the study’s authors have financial ties to Moderna and AstraZeneca and/or have served on various UK and Scottish Government COVID-19 advisory groups. One author was even a member of AstraZeneca’s Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The conflict of interest in this case is significant,” Mr. Qimrom, who was not involved in the paper, told The Epoch Times via email.

“It is concerning that respected scientific platforms are being used to cover up mistakes and wrongdoing, particularly the coercion and immense societal pressure to vaccinate young children. This should never have been done,” he added. “It is disheartening to see scientific journals collaborating with such practices, which undermines public trust in scientific research, especially when it involves the health and safety of children.”