If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The US Supreme Court has ruled in the hotly-awaited decision for the Murthy v. Missouri case, reinforcing the government’s ability to engage with social media companies concerning the removal of speech about COVID-19 and more. This decision, affirming that these actions do not infringe upon First Amendment rights, delineates the limits of free speech on the internet, dealing a massive blow to freedom of expression online and the interpretation that the First Amendment prevents the government from pressuring platforms to remove legal speech. The verdict, decided by a 6-3 vote, found that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue the Biden administration. The dissenting opinions came from conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here. John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, responded to the ruling, telling Reclaim The Net, “The majority of the Supreme Court has declared open season on Americans’ free speech rights on the internet,” referring to the decision as an “ukase” that permits the federal government to influence third-party platforms to silence dissenting voices. Vecchione accused the Court of ignoring evidence and abdicating its responsibility to hold the government accountable for its actions that crush free speech. “The Government can press third parties to silence you, but the Supreme Court will not find you have standing to complain about it absent them referring to you by name apparently. This is a bad day for the First Amendment,” he added. Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, echoed Vecchione’s sentiments, labeling the decision a “travesty for the First Amendment” and a setback for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. “The Court has green-lighted the government’s unprecedented censorship regime,” Younes commented, reflecting concerns that the ruling might stifle expert voices on crucial public health and policy issues. Further expressing the gravity of the situation, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a client of NCLA and a professor at Stanford University, criticized the Biden Administration’s regulatory actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya argued that these actions led to “irrational policies” and noted, “Free speech is essential to science, to public health, and to good health.” He called for congressional action and a public movement to restore and protect free speech rights in America. This ruling comes as a setback to efforts supported by many who argue that the administration, together with federal agencies, is pushing social media platforms to suppress voices by labeling their content as misinformation. Previously, a judge in Louisiana had criticized the federal agencies for acting like an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” However, during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, it was argued by the government that their requests for social media platforms to address “misinformation” more rigorously did not constitute threats or imply any legal repercussions – despite the looming threat of antitrust action against Big Tech. Here are the key points and specific quotes from the decision: Lack of Article III Standing: The Supreme Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established the necessary standing to seek an injunction against government defendants. The decision emphasizes the fundamental requirement of a “case or controversy” under Article III, which necessitates that plaintiffs demonstrate an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling” (Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409). Inadequate Traceability and Future Harm: The plaintiffs failed to convincingly link past social media restrictions and government communications with the platforms. The decision critiques the Fifth Circuit’s approach, noting that the evidence did not conclusively show that government actions directly caused the platforms’ moderation decisions. The Court pointed out: “Because standing is not dispensed in gross, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief they seek” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431).The complexity arises because the platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.” Absence of Direct Causation: The Court noted that the platforms began suppressing COVID-19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications began, indicating a lack of direct government coercion: “Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.” Redressability and Ongoing Harm: The plaintiffs argued they suffered from ongoing censorship, but the Court found this unpersuasive. The platforms continued their moderation practices even as government communication subsided, suggesting that future government actions were unlikely to alter these practices: “Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion.” “Right to Listen” Theory Rejected: The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ “right to listen” argument, stating that the First Amendment interest in receiving information does not automatically confer standing to challenge someone else’s censorship: “While the Court has recognized a ‘First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,’ the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker.” Justice Alito’s dissent argues that the First Amendment was violated by the actions of federal officials. He contends that these officials coerced social media platforms, like Facebook, to suppress certain viewpoints about COVID-19, which constituted unconstitutional censorship. Alito emphasizes that the government cannot use coercion to suppress speech and points out that this violates the core principles of the First Amendment, which is meant to protect free speech, especially speech that is essential to democratic self-government and public discourse on significant issues like public health. Here are the key points of Justice Alito’s stance: Extensive Government Coercion: Alito describes a “far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign” by high-ranking officials, which he sees as a serious threat to free speech, asserting that these actions went beyond mere suggestion or influence into the realm of coercion. He states, “This is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” Impact on Plaintiffs: The dissent underscores that this government coercion affected various plaintiffs, including public health officials from states, medical professors, and others who wished to share views divergent from mainstream COVID-19 narratives. Alito notes, “Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower courts brought this action to ensure that the Government did not continue to coerce social media platforms to suppress speech.” Legal Analysis: Alito criticizes the majority’s dismissal based on standing, arguing that the plaintiffs demonstrated both past and ongoing injuries caused by the government’s actions, which were likely to continue without court intervention. He argues, “These past and threatened future injuries were caused by and traceable to censorship that the officials coerced.” Evidence of Coercion: The dissent points out specific instances where government officials pressured Facebook, suggesting significant consequences if the platform failed to comply with their demands to control misinformation. This included threats related to antitrust actions and other regulatory measures. Alito highlights, “Not surprisingly, these efforts bore fruit. Facebook adopted new rules that better conformed to the officials’ wishes.” Potential for Future Abuse: Alito warns of the dangerous precedent set by the Court’s refusal to address these issues, suggesting that it could empower future government officials to manipulate public discourse covertly. He cautions, “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.” Importance of Free Speech: He emphasizes the critical role of free speech in a democratic society, particularly for speech about public health and safety during the pandemic, and criticizes the government’s efforts to suppress such speech through third parties like social media platforms. Alito asserts, “Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government.” The case revolved around allegations that the federal government, led by figures such as Dr. Vivek Murthy, the US Surgeon General, (though also lots more Biden administration officials) colluded with major technology companies to suppress speech on social media platforms. The plaintiffs argue that this collaboration targeted content labeled as “misinformation,” particularly concerning COVID-19 and political matters, effectively silencing dissenting voices. The plaintiffs claim that this coordination represents a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. They argue that while private companies can set their own content policies, government pressure that leads to the suppression of lawful speech constitutes unconstitutional censorship by proxy. The government’s campaign against what it called “misinformation,” particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic – regardless of whether online statements turned out to be true or not – has been extensive. However, Murthy v. Missouri exposed a darker side to these initiatives—where government officials allegedly overstepped their bounds by coercing tech companies to silence specific narratives. Communications presented in court, including emails and meeting records, suggest a troubling pattern: government officials not only requested but demanded that tech companies remove or restrict certain content. The tone and content of these communications often implied serious consequences for non-compliance, raising questions about the extent to which these actions were voluntary versus compelled. Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have become the de facto public squares of the modern era, wielding immense power over what information is accessible to the public. Their content moderation policies, while designed to combat harmful content, have also been criticized for their lack of transparency and potential biases. In this case, plaintiffs argued that these companies, under significant government pressure, went beyond their standard moderation practices. They allegedly engaged in the removal, suppression, and demotion of content that, although controversial, was not illegal. This raises a critical issue: the thin line between moderation and censorship, especially when influenced by government directives. The Supreme Court ruling holds significant implications for the relationship between government actions and private social media platforms, as well as for the legal frameworks that govern free speech and content moderation. Here are some of the broader impacts this ruling may have: Clarification on Government Influence and Private Action: This decision clearly delineates the limits of government involvement in the content moderation practices of private social media platforms. It underscores that mere governmental encouragement or indirect pressure does not transform private content moderation into state action. This ruling could make it more challenging for future plaintiffs to claim that content moderation decisions, influenced indirectly by government suggestions or pressures, are tantamount to governmental censorship. Stricter Standards for Proving Standing: The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the necessity of concrete and particularized injuries directly traceable to the challenged government action sets a high bar for future litigants. Plaintiffs must now provide clear evidence that directly links government actions to the moderation practices that allegedly infringe on their speech rights. This could lead to fewer successful challenges against perceived government-induced censorship on digital platforms. Impact on Content Moderation Policies: Social media platforms may feel more secure in enforcing their content moderation policies without fear of being seen as conduits for state action, as long as their decisions can be justified as independent from direct government coercion. This could lead to more assertive actions by platforms in moderating content deemed harmful or misleading, especially in critical areas like public health and election integrity. Influence on Public Discourse: By affirming the autonomy of social media platforms in content moderation, the ruling potentially influences the nature of public discourse on these platforms. While platforms may continue to engage with government entities on issues like misinformation, they might do so with greater caution and transparency to avoid allegations of government coercion. Future Legal Challenges and Policy Discussions: The ruling could prompt legislative responses, as policymakers may seek to address perceived gaps between government interests in combating misinformation and the protection of free speech on digital platforms. This may lead to new laws or regulations that more explicitly define the boundaries of acceptable government interaction with private companies in managing online content. Broader Implications for Digital Rights and Privacy: The decision might also influence how digital rights and privacy are perceived and protected, particularly regarding how data from social media platforms is used or shared with government entities. This could lead to heightened scrutiny and potentially stricter guidelines to protect user data from being used in ways that could impinge on personal freedoms. Overall, the Murthy v. Missouri ruling will likely serve as a critical reference point in ongoing debates about the government’s ability to influence and shut down speech. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Supreme Court Sides With Biden Administration Over Accusations of Social Media Censorship Pressure appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

SCOTUS Puntalooza: Court Rejects Challenge to Government-Directed Censorship

Stop Pretending Trump Could Lose Florida

Low-cost miniature greenhouses could save one of Australia’s most beloved frogs from extinction, and the technique may prove applicable to many of the hundreds of other species under threat from an introduced fungus.Of all the major classes of the tree of life, amphibians may be the most threatened, with many species already gone and thousands more teetering on the brink. In addition to threats like climate change and habitat destruction that endanger many organisms, frogs are being devastated by the spread of a chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Of unknown origins, the fungus has invaded most continents and is wiping out animals that lack resistance. In Australia alone, six species are known to be lost forever as a result, and hundreds of others are threatened to various degrees.Techniques have been developed to treat infected individuals, and these even seem to provide protection on release back into the wild. However, when your strategy relies on capturing thousands of individuals and applying weeks of loving care before re-release, you’re going to struggle to save more than a handful of species. Dr Anthony Waddle of Macquarie University has shown a much cheaper option works for green and golden bell frogs (Litoria aurea).The fungus is known to have one weakness: heat. “In a petri dish it dies above 28°C (82°F)," Waddle told IFLScience, “with the frog’s immune system that falls to about 26°C (79°F).” Many frogs like temperatures warmer than that, and can evade the fungus through summer. However, they become vulnerable when winter comes. Captive programs to treat infected frogs often find heat a simpler solution than antifungal chemicals.Waddle and co-authors decided to take the warmth to the frogs. They built mini-saunas using PVC greenhouses, bricks with holes in them, terracotta pots, gravel, and artificial plants and placed them in the wild. As a test, half the greenhouses were shaded, while half were exposed to sunlight.For some frogs, their new accomodation really hits the jackpot, with access to water as well as protection from the elements.Image Courtesy of Anthony WaddleThe bell frogs are known to find the holes in bricks attractive homes, and took to both shaded and unshaded greenhouses with enthusiasm. Temperatures in the unshaded greenhouses were 4.5°C (8.1°F) warmer than their counterparts. When Waddle and co-authors recaptured the frogs afterward they found those living in the unshaded locations were chytrid-free, despite having been exposed before release.“The whole thing is like a mini med spa for frogs,” Waddle said in a statement. Better yet, the frog survivors had developed an immunity that makes them likely to be able to avoid future infections. You could call the project a frog vaccine, but anti-vaxxers would probably start destroying the greenhouses if they heard.Other frog species might use them, and maybe also lizards.Dr Anthony WaddleThe frogs that took residence in shaded greenhouses were much more likely to die, although the team think even they may have benefited modestly compared to those without such protection at all.Waddle told IFLScience he was assembling the refuges for $60-$70 Australian dollars (US $40-$45); “without a discount at the hardware store.” Better yet, many frogs can share one greenhouse, and Waddle said the bell frogs seem happy to do so. “Other frog species might use them, and maybe also lizards,” he said. Frogs have been the fungus’s primary victims but many other amphibians are affected as well.Other species may like their personal space more, but green and gold bell frogs are happy to share a greenhouse, and even a brick.Image Courtesy of Anthony WaddleBefore chytrid, green and gold bell frogs were common in suburban backyards in Sydney and the Central Coast, and Waddle hopes many residents will install a greenhouse in a sunny spot in their backyard. A guide is available for those interested in helping out.As summer comes, the frogs abandon their saunas and Waddle suggested homeowners could grow vegetables in them before the frogs have need again.When the frogs are this attractive, who wouldn't want to help?Image Courtesy of Anthony WaddleThe bell frog’s habitat close to population centers and love of warmth made it an ideal candidate for this research, and its popularity may inspire support. Other species may require putting greenhouses in less accessible locations, sometimes finding rare sunny spots in forests. Nevertheless, if only a few frog species can be saved this way it would be the biggest advance against chytrid since the threat was identified. “Chytrid isn’t going away, but our behavioral ecology intervention can help endangered amphibians co-exist with chytridiomycosis in their ecosystems,” said senior author Professor Rick Shine.Waddle acknowledged that if the greenhouses become too heavily used, they could attract predators, but said this is all the more reason to spread them around.Sometimes all you need to be saved is a helping hand. To test the saunas' effectiveness the frogs had first to be exposed to the fungus by swabbing.Image Courtesy of Yorick LambreaghtsSadly, not every endangered amphibian can be saved this way. The authors note Panamanian golden frogs prefer cooler temperatures, and a few extra degrees take them to temperatures where chytrid is even more lethal.Shine, a legend in Australian Zoology, has led programs that have enabled species threatened by cane toads, one of Australia’s most invasive species, to adapt. He’s also found options for cane toad control where nothing else has worked. If the mini-saunas prove suitable for many species, this work could prove even more significant.The study is published in Nature. 

There may come a point (perhaps for humans, perhaps not) where a civilization may wish to terraform a planet in their Solar System or beyond. Perhaps an environmental disaster was looming on their planet, or they spotted a nearby neighbor planet that looked like – with a few finishing touches – it could make a nice new home.A new study has looked at what options such a civilization wishing to warm a planet would use, and determined that these methods would likely be detectable from Earth. The hunt for alien life, at the moment, is fairly elegant in its simplicity. As well as looking out for potential signals deliberately or unintentionally sent out into space by alien civilizations, we scan the stars for tiny dips in light that suggest an exoplanet has blocked our view of its light. Once we have located an exoplanet, we can look at factors such as where the planet is in its solar system to figure out if it is in a habitable zone. Gases in planets' atmospheres block specific wavelengths of light, meaning that if we measure the spectra, we can get an idea of the chemical composition of the planet. As we've only ever found evidence of life on one planet (you're currently sitting on it) it makes sense to look for planets with a chemical makeup amenable to life on our own planet. But we also look for signs of technological civilizations, including hypothetical megastructures that should emit hefty amounts of infrared radiation.      In the new paper, a team from the University Of California, Riverside suggests another sign we could look for is chemical signatures that suggest a civilization is attempting to warm their planet. Greenhouse gases on Earth are a fairly big problem. "For us, these gases are bad because we don't want to increase warming," UCR astrobiologist and lead study author Edward Schwieterman said in a statement. "But they'd be good for a civilization that perhaps wanted to forestall an impending ice age or terraform an otherwise-uninhabitable planet in their system, as humans have proposed for Mars."Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been suggested as a way a civilization could do this. However, they are not great for any civilization that enjoys the protection of ozone, nor are they very detectable."If another civilization had an oxygen-rich atmosphere, they'd also have an ozone layer they'd want to protect," Schwieterman added. "CFCs would be broken apart in the ozone layer even as they catalyzed its destruction."Instead, the team suggests, they may wish to use fluorinated versions of methane, ethane, and propane."These fluorine-bearing gases were chosen in part because of their nontoxic nature and their relative inertness compared to chlorine- or bromine-containing greenhouse gases that catalytically destroy ozone," the team explains in their paper. "On a per-molecule basis, each of these species is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 or H2O due to strong and broad absorption features that overlap with the mid-infrared (MIR) window of a habitable exoplanet."  These gases are much longer-lived than CFCs, and could remain in an Earth-like atmosphere for tens of thousands of years, meaning that you would not have to keep replenishing the supply to keep the climate how you want it. As alien civilizations are subject to the same physics we are, it's possible they would notice the potential of these gases, which gives us something to look for. According to the team, using telescopes like the JWST and future telescopes, we should be able to detect the signatures these chemicals give off."Specifically, we have shown that CF4, C2F6, C3F8, SF6, and NF3, alone and in combination, can produce MIR (5–12 μm) transit signatures comparable to or greater than the 9.65 μm O3 band at concentrations 1 ppm," the team wrote in the study. "We calculated the number of transits required to detect C2F6, C3F8, SF6, NF3, and equal combinations of the first three gases at 1, 10, and 100 ppm on TRAPPIST-1 f with MIRI LRS and found surprisingly few transits are required, as few as five for a 5σ detection for a combination of each gas at 100 ppm, and 10 transits for the same at 10 ppm."This could get muddied if such civilizations use a combination of greenhouse gases, to keep costs low. For the "first pass" at finding such planets, they suggest that astronomers should look for anomalously low infrared radiation, which could then be looked at more closely to attempt to analyze their chemical signatures.The paper is published in the Astrophysical Journal

While casually reading news about a slate tablet unearthed in Spain, a sharp-eyed researcher noticed the archaeologists had missed a huge discovery: not only did it feature the engravings of battling warriors, but also the mysterious alphabet of an ancient language.The 20-centimeter (7.8-inch) tablet was recently unearthed during an archaeological dig near the Spanish town of Guareña. Known as Casas del Turuñuelo, the site belongs to the late Tartessian civilization that developed in the southwestern Iberian Peninsula around 2,500 years ago. When the Spanish National Research Council revealed the discovery on June 6, they simply explained that it depicted battling individuals who were identified as warriors. The news caught the attention of Joan Ferrer i Jané, a computer scientist and expert in Paleohispanic languages at the University of Barcelona, who quickly realized the artifact was even more significant than the initial reports had suggested.“Beyond the figures, when I looked at the plaque I saw that on one of the sides, there seemed to be a Paleo-Hispanic sign; a sign that cannot be confused with any other,” he said in a statement.Along with the alphabet, the tablet has the faint outline of warriors.Image credit: E. Rodríguez/M. Luque/CSICHe contacted the Institute of Archeology of Mérida for better images of the slab to discover it contained a beautiful (and very rare) example of southern Paleohispanic writing.“After studying the images, everything indicates that it is a southern script alphabet with the initial sequence ABeKaTuIKeLBaNS?TaUE, which is almost the same as documented in the Spanish alphabet, except for the 11th sign, which has a special shape," explained Ferrer.Paleohispanic scripts – the writing systems used in the Iberian Peninsula before the Latin alphabet arrived – are divided into at least two families: the northeastern family and the southern family. It is believed all of these scripts stem from the Phoenician writing system, developed by the Phoenicia civilization that thrived around 3,000 years ago along the coast of the eastern Mediterranean in modern-day Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.The new discovery is particularly remarkable as there are only two other pieces of evidence that show alphabets of southern Paleohispanic writings. As such, we know very little about this writing system.There may even be letters or symbols that are yet to be discovered; the bottom part of the tablet is broken off, but Ferrer said that the slate might have once depicted as many as 32 symbols.“This alphabet has 27 signs and is the only complete one we know to date. Another was found in the excavation of Villasviejas del Tamuja (Cáceres), but it is very fragmented. It only has some central signs. Therefore, [the new alphabet] would be the third example and provides a lot of information,” explained Ferrer.

Over the past several decades, scientists have developed optical and acoustic tweezers. Using light or sound waves, they can lift and control the motion of a small object, like a tiny tractor beam. These are exciting developments, but have very stringent requirements to work. Researchers have now developed a new way to move and manipulate objects at a distance, still using sound, that allows them to move on complex paths.The method is called wave momentum shaping, and it is indifferent to the physical properties of the object and the environment. The team demonstrated it by moving a floating ping pong ball around a series of obstacles.  “Optical tweezers work by creating a light ‘hotspot’ to trap particles, like a ball falling into a hole. But if there are other objects in the vicinity, this hole is difficult to create and move around,” senior author Romain Fleury, from Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne, said in a statement. “In our experiments, instead of trapping objects, we gently pushed them around, as you might guide a puck with a hockey stick.”The design of the system is ingenious. Speakers and microphones were placed around the water tank, and the speakers produced audible soundwaves that would push the ping-pong ball around. The mics registered the feedback from the waves hitting the ball. This is known as the scattering matrix.They added a camera to the mix that could see the motion of the ping pong ball, and they were able to calculate the optimal momentum to deliver to the ball to make it move around the obstacles successfully.        “The method is rooted in momentum conservation, which makes it extremely simple and general, and that’s why it’s so promising,” Fleury added.The team played around with fixed and moving obstacles. The goal is to simulate environments that can change without warning. The team hopes that this method might be used in biomedical applications, so the successes that this approach has achieved are exciting.“Some drug delivery methods already use soundwaves to release encapsulated drugs, so this technique is especially attractive for pushing a drug directly toward tumor cells, for example,” Fleury continued.It might also help to manipulate cells or biological tissue outside of a body, since you wouldn’t use instruments that might damage or contaminate the object of study. It might also have an application in 3D printing, and it might be possible to use light as well as sound. But the team's first step is going from the macro to the micro and see how it would work there.A paper describing the results is published in the journal Nature Physics.

If you heard that someone was receiving a kidney transplant, you might naturally assume they’d have to spend at least a few days in hospital afterward. You might also assume that they would be put to sleep for the procedure. A 28-year-old man from Chicago just managed to buck both of those trends by receiving a kidney transplant while awake and being discharged from hospital the very next day. The case, a first for Northwestern Medicine, is certainly unusual. Kidney transplants under local anesthesia have been performed elsewhere before, but it’s still very much the norm that the procedure is carried out under a general anesthetic. While you might not fancy the idea of being aware of what’s going on while surgeons are putting a new kidney inside you, it actually has a lot of potential benefits.“Doing anesthesia for the awake kidney transplant was easier than many C-sections,” commented anesthesiologist Vicente Garcia Tomas, MD, in a statement. “Our hope is that awake kidney transplantation can decrease some of the risks of general anesthesia while also shortening a patient’s hospital stay. Inside the operating room, it was an incredible experience being able to show a patient what their new kidney looked like before placing it inside the body,” added transplant surgeon Satish Nadig, MD, PhD. The patient in question was John Nicholas, who first developed kidney issues at the age of 16, following an earlier diagnosis of Crohn’s disease. The root cause of the inflammation in his kidneys was never identified, but over time, and despite medication, it became clear that he would need a transplant.Finding a donor was another hurdle, but luckily his childhood best friend Pat Wise was eager to step up to the plate.“I was in my kitchen cooking dinner and John sent a message that read, ‘my doctor says it’s time for me to start looking for kidney donors.’ I stared at my phone and without hesitating, filled out the form that night,” Wise recalled. “John is a good friend. He needed a kidney, and I had an extra one. I had to at least explore the potential of being his donor.”After Wise was declared a match, the surgery went ahead on May 24, 2024. “For John’s case, we placed a spinal anesthesia shot in the operating room with a little bit of sedation for comfort,” Garcia Tomas explained. “It was incredibly simple and uneventful, but allowed John to be awake for the procedure, improving the patient experience. Not only can awake kidney transplantation help patients who have risks or phobias to general anesthesia, but it can help shorten their hospital stay so they can recover more comfortably at home.”For his part, Nicholas gave the procedure a glowing review. “It was a pretty cool experience to know what was happening in real time and be aware of the magnitude of what they were doing,” he said, recounting how the local anesthetic made the procedure completely painless although he was aware of what the surgeons were doing. The very next day, Nicholas walked out of hospital. A typical kidney transplant patient at the same hospital would require an inpatient stay of 2-3 days. The success of the procedure raises the possibility of using this method in more complex cases, such as those in which the patient is unable to undergo general anesthesia for other medical reasons. “It really opens up a whole new door and is another tool in our toolbelt for the field of transplantation,” said Nadig. Since the operation, Nicholas has been recovering well, and expressed his gratitude to Wise for being able to step in when his mother, originally intending to be his donor, was unable to help due to her own cancer diagnosis. Nicholas (right) and Wise at their high school graduation.Image credit: Northwestern Medicine“I have been blessed with a friend group that has stayed together from such a young age. We always called ourselves ‘ride or die’ friends, and this example shows that we have each other’s backs. It meant the world to me. It’s truly been life-changing.”

Painted lady butterflies (Vanessa cardui) aren’t exactly strangers to long journeys across land, but for the first time ever, scientists have shown they’re also capable of making non-stop flights across oceans, having mapped the insects migrating a whopping 4,200 kilometers (2,610 miles) across the Atlantic.The first indication of these transatlantic flights came back in October 2013, when researcher Gerard Talavera spotted several painted lady butterflies on a beach in French Guiana. Those that were found alive were visibly resting and all had damage to their wings, but that wasn’t what was unusual – these butterflies aren’t normally found in South America.Given their reputation as long-distance migrators and their tattered wings, the colorful insects had likely been on quite the journey. Was it one that took them across the ocean? Talavera and an international research team set to answer this question using a whole host of techniques; you can’t put a tracker on a butterfly like you would a bird, so they had to get creative.DNA testing first showed the specimens on the beach were related to populations in Europe and Africa, ruling out the team’s initial theory that the butterflies had come from North America, the nearest place they are typically found.They also DNA tested grains of pollen found on the butterflies, which turned out to be from plants that are only found in the Sahel region of Africa, suggesting they had indeed flown across the Atlantic Ocean – but using a novel technique called isotope-based geolocation, the team discovered the insects’ journey may not have begun there."The painted lady butterflies reached South America from West Africa, flying at least 4,200 km over the Atlantic,” explained study co-author Clément Bataille in a statement. “But their journey could have been even longer, starting in Europe and passing through three continents, implying a migration of 7,000 km [4,350 miles] or more. This is an extraordinary feat for such a small insect.”But as the person in charge of paying for an airline’s fuel would tell you, flying non-stop across the Atlantic is energy-expensive, so how did an insect with a wingspan little bigger than a matchstick manage to do it?It turns out that in the time preceding the discovery of the butterflies in French Guiana, there had been sustained, favorable wind currents from Africa across the Atlantic. This meant that the butterflies would’ve been able to make a non-stop journey over the ocean in around five to eight days; without the winds, they’d only have lasted around 780 kilometers (485 miles)."The butterflies could only have completed this flight using a strategy alternating between minimal effort to avoid falling into the sea, facilitated by ascending winds, and active flight, which requires more energy consumption,” said study author Eric Toro-Delgado.Even taking that into account, it’s still quite the achievement for these small insects. "We tend to see butterflies as a symbol of the fragility of beauty, but science shows us that they can perform incredible feats,” concluded study co-author Roger Vila.The study is published in Nature Communications.

After weeks of totally NOT reporting on the floating disaster known colloquially as Port Biden, the U.S. military-built temporary pier intended to assist humanitarian relief deliveries into Gaza, the network evening newscasts have each filed reports from the beleaguered pier. Reasonable individuals may question the timing of such reports, 48 hours from the upcoming presidential debate. It looks like a news dump, walks like a news dump, and quacks like a news dump. The most serious of these reports comes via the NBC Nightly News (click “expand’ to view transcript): NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 6/25/24 6:39 PM LESTER HOLT: Now to the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The U.S. built a $220 million pier to get aid flowing into the war-torn enclave, but in the 40 days since deliveries began, it's been hit by several setbacks. Courtney Kube now with a rare, up-close look. COURTNEY KUBE: You can see the beach from this American pier off Gaza. Tonight, our first look at the structure which has allowed the U.S. military to deliver much-needed aid by sea.  It took about an hour to get from the Israeli port of Ashdod to here. This is JLOTS (Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore capability). It’s a temporary U.S. military pier system meant to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. But even after about six weeks of operating, the U.S. military has seen it has some limitations. Including weather. High seas and winds damaged the embattled pier last month, forcing the U.S. to drag it back to Israel for repairs. The weather here today is calm, so aid is moving. But once these waves get to about four feet high, the pier has to be taken apart and moved, or it risks being damaged. President Biden unveiled the pier with great fanfare during his "State of the union." JOE BIDEN: A temporary pier will enable a massive increase in the amount of humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza every day. KUBE: It cost American taxpayers over $220 million but has only delivered aid on 17 of the last 40 days. It's been on line 17 days of the last six weeks, mainly for weather. So when you look at that, is -- do you still feel that this mission is -- has been a success? SERVICE MEMBER: Yeah. Absolutely. And let me point out why. One, as a commander. Personal. My soldiers and sailors have stepped up. We know the weather got us. And when it did, they stepped up. KUBE: The day's deliveries were made. The U.S. military brought nearly 14 million pounds of aid- often the main contributor to Gaza on any given day. The beach area takes indirect fire nearly every day, according to defense officials. The pier has not been targeted. But aid agencies suspended distribution and haven't delivered that aid since June 9th. Now about 11.5 million pounds of aid are sitting in scorching heat in the sun where it can't help the Asilah family. "We live in a tent and eat canned food, and our children stand in line to get water. The aid is not always available”, she says. The American military mission and the pier are expected to leave in the next six weeks.  Several things distinguish NBC from the rest of their Regime Media peers: first, the direct tie of President Joe Biden to the failed pier. CBS’s report, for example, only mentions Biden in passing. Specifically, Imtiaz Tyab grumbling that Biden should’ve pressured Israel into opening all their Gaza checkpoints- par the course for Tyab’s consistently Hamas-friendly coverage. Over on ABC, Biden draws as many mentions as you’d expect on the most aggressively Biden-servile evening network newscast: that is, none at all.  Also, NBC mentions the fact that the United States is “often” the main distributor of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, a fact not presented on ABC or CBS. But what goes largely unmentioned here is the reason why there is such difficulty for aid to flow into Gaza. CBS’s Imtiaz Tyab mentions it in passing: IMTIAZ TYAB: Before the October 7th attacks, over 500 truckloads of aid would enter Gaza in a single day. That part of the equation misses throughout these reports, likewise the part where the aid doesn’t make it to Gazans because Hamas loots it and shoots Gazans trying to get food for themselves. On the one hand, it is nice to finally see everyone reporting on the failure of Port Biden. On the other hand, this is clearly an info dump that’ll vanish from memory ahead of the presidential debate and the remaining Supreme Court docket. Click “expand” to view the transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective network newscasts on Tuesday, June 25th, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT 6/24/24 6:41 PM DAVID MUIR:Tonight, to Gaza, where, for the first time, Martha Raddatz on the $230 million U.S.-built pier off Gaza that was built to deliver humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians, caught in the middle of this war. Tonight, Martha from the pier on the security concerns and the challenges keeping this up and running. MARTHA RADDATZ: It is a pounding, scorching hot ride aboard a U.S. Navy vessel. One hour in the Mediterranean Sea along Israel's shore to reach Gaza, and get our first look at the $230 million U.S.-built pier in an active war zone.  As we pull up to the floating pier, just off of Gaza, we changed into body armor, from our life preservers. SERVICE MEMBER: Make your way over here, please. RADDATZ: Soldiers with automatic weapons standing guard. SERVICE MEMBER: If it goes off and we say incoming, that means we have a rocket, artillery or mortar coming in here. RADDATZ: Just off that pier, the devastation is breathtaking. Miles of bombed-out, flattened neighborhoods as far as the eye can see. Smoke billowing out even as we watch. Seeing the destruction of Gaza behind me makes you realize how important humanitarian missions are to get food into Gaza, but it is also obvious how difficult it is on this floating pier. You feel it go up and down, and you can hear the clanging, as well. Truckloads of aid rolling off that boat, carefully driven down that pier, into Gaza. While there are no boots on the ground on this mission, on the shores of Gaza, they do get within 50 feet. But this massive undertaking with up to 1,000 U.S. service members involved in building, protecting, and manning the pier, has suffered multiple setbacks. Only delivering aid 17 out of the 39 days it became operational. You know that your critics when they read how many times this has broken down or you had to stop, say, this is really not doing that much good, it's just cover? JOEL STEWART: There's that. I understand there are critics of that. But the sea is a violent mistress. She is demanding. And each time that we have taken damage, we've come back stronger. RADDATZ: The pier is authorized for use through the end of July, but that may be extended because even though Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled that the most intense period of the war may be winding down, that does not mean Palestinians won't need massive amounts of aid for a very long time. David? MUIR: Well, Martha Raddatz, that was extraordinary access off Gaza tonight. We thank you and the team. Martha back in Tel Aviv now. Thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS CBS EVENING NEWS  6/24/24 6:36 PM NORAH O’DONNELL: Well, senior U.N. officials have told Israel they'll suspend aid operations across Gaza unless urgent steps are taken to better protect humanitarian workers. That's according to the Associated Press. CBS's Imtiaz Tyab tonight reports about that floating pier built by the U.S. military to help get much-needed aid into Gaza. Well, it has been more time being fixed than delivering food. IMTIAZ TYAB: We traveled across the eastern Mediterranean with U.S. forces, to Gaza's devastated central coast, among the first journalists to visit the $230 million humanitarian platform, where we saw trucks carrying pallets of food aid into the besieged Palestinian territory. Since this pier became operational two months ago, only around 400 aid trucks like this have come off it. The need in Gaza, just over there, is desperate. Before the October 7th attacks, over 500 truckloads of aid would enter Gaza in a single day. SERVICE MEMBER: All I know is my objective is to get as many supplies as I can into Gaza for the people of Gaza. TYAB: The pier has been plagued by problems and has only been fully operational for a total of 16 days. But when Israeli forces rescued four hostages in Gaza earlier this month, in an operation that killed over 270 Palestinians, an Israeli military helicopter was seen taking off from the beach in front of the pier, prompting the World Food Programme to suspend operations there over concerns it had been compromised. SERVICE MEMBER: This is a humanitarian pier. It was not part of any operation. It's focused on humanitarian assistance, and that's my mission. TYAB: And critics of the pier say President Biden should have instead focused on pressuring Israel to reopen all land crossings for aid trucks into Gaza, but administration officials seem determined to make it work, saying the pier will likely remain operational even longer than originally planned. Norah. O’DONNELL: Imtiaz Tyab, thank you very much.