According to a new scientific paper, the Obama administration made a mistake that deepened the opioid crisis and triggered the skyrocketing of deadly hepatitis C infections.

As the authors of the paper “A Transitioning Epidemic: How The Opioid Crisis Is Driving The Rise In Hepatitis C” suggest, Hepatitis C kills more Americans every year than any other infectious disease. The Washington Free Beacon adds, “Once infected, the virus can take ten to forty years to fully induce its effects; the results, however, are eventually deadly unless treated.”

Although the number of acute cases of Hepatitis C declined in the years before 2003, when the number of cases stabilized, the number started rising in 2010, apparently after the Obama administration’s FDA permitted Purdue Pharma, the producers of Oxycontin, to reformulate the drug, which users had typically crushed in order to get the oxy needed for a more protracted high. The new version of the drug was offered in a version that left it useless after being crushed, which was thought an effective technique for reducing the deaths among people using it.

Instead, as the paper surmises, many of the former users of Oxyxcontin turned to injecting themselves with heroin, leaving them vulnerable to getting Hepatitis C from unsanitized needles.

The paper notes, “States with above-median OxyContin misuse before the reformulation experienced a 222 percent increase in hepatitis C infection rates in the post-reformulation period, while states with below-median misuse experienced only a 75 percent increase. These results suggest that interventions to deter opioid misuse can have unintended long-term public health consequences.”

The Beacon notes that the new paper “is a spiritual successor to a 2018 paper by economists William Evans, Ethan Lieber, and Patrick Power. ‘How the Reformulation of OxyContin Ignited the Heroin Epidemic,’ which stated, ‘The reformulation did not generate a reduction in combined heroin and opioid mortality. Each prevented opioid death was replaced with a heroin death.’”

NovusDetox explained why Oxycontin users moved to heroin, as it explained the difference in cost for users:

A hit of heroin is a fraction of the cost of the same high from OxyContin (or oxycodone). Prescription narcotics generally sell on the illicit street market at around $1 per milligram. A one-time high from an 80 milligram oxycodone pill for an experienced user would run roughly $80. Heroin, on the other hand, sells in many areas for around $100 a gram. Depending on a user’s tolerance level (long-time users need more per dose) a gram can deliver up to 20 doses, or highs. In other words, it’s vastly less expensive to get and stay stoned on heroin than OxyContin.

The Beacon concludes, “In other words, the new study further confirms that the prescription drug crackdown cannot really abate the opioid crisis. Recent research in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that controlling prescription opioids would only reduce drug deaths by 3 to 6 percent by 2025. Even if all prescription drug abuse stopped in 2016, the paper argued, almost 580,000 people would still die from opioid overdose over the subsequent nine years.”

If ever there’s a study that shows even a slight difference between the treatment of boys and girls, or men and women, the media will run with it while crying sexism has been proven.

The most recent example comes from a study on participants’ reactions to seeing a child cry while getting their blood drawn. Participants were then told either the child was named “Samantha” or “Samuel” and asked to rate his or her pain based on what they saw in the video. The results showed, overall, that “Samantha’s” pain was rated at 45.9 on a 100-point scale and “Samuel’s” pain was rated at 50.4 on the same scale.

Cue the dramatic outrage.

“Why Are We Still Dismissing Girls’ Pain,” wrote Laurie Edwards, a “science writer” at the New York Times.

“A new study finds Americans take the pain of girls less seriously than that of boys,” was the headline from CNN.

“Study shows gender bias starts early with girls’ pain taken less seriously,” wrote USA Today.

“Parents Take Young Boys’ Pain More Seriously Than Young Girls’ Pain,” said the headline from Fatherly.

“Hmm, Apparently People Don’t Care As Much When Girls Cry As When Boys Do,” wrote Cosmopolitan, naturally.

And on it goes.

Brian D. Earp, one of the researchers for the paper, took to Twitter to point out how the media got his study so wrong.

“From gender bias to media bias? A thread on how our study looking at adult perceptions of children’s pain got misconstrued. A reminder of the importance of taking media coverage with a grain of salt, reading original studies when possible, and guarding against confirmation bias,” Earp wrote.

He then provided screenshots of the headlines listed above and explained how the media completely invented the notion that the results showed “parents” or “Americans” didn’t care about the pain of young girls.

“First, the effect in our study was observed *only* in female participants–not ‘Americans’ or ‘parents’ or ‘people’ in general. In fact, male participants rated girl pain *higher* than boy pain (albeit not to a statistically significant degree),” Earp tweeted.

Also, according to Earp, the study “did not measure ‘sexism’ or ‘credibility’ or the extent to which adult raters “cared” about the pain of boys vs. girls–or even whether they took the pain of boys ‘more seriously’ than that of girls” and it didn’t “show that pain is ‘often missed’ in girls.”

Further, while the overall difference in participants’ rating of the child’s pain was “statistically significant,” the researchers don’t know what the practical or clinical significance is yet and does not speculate as to that effect. But here’s the real kicker, from Earp:

“But even more importantly, we go on to note that the difference was driven entirely by female participants: when you look at men only, there is NO statistical difference in ratings; when you look at women, it’s 45.7 for Samantha vs. 53.1 for Samuel (effect size d = .34).”

This means that it is women who judge boys’ pain as more significant than girls’ pain, which completely blows the sexism argument out of the water. Earp, says he and the other researchers “did not predict this” and “are not sure how to explain the observed female-only bias in ratings of child pain based on perceived gender.”

He did offer one possible explanation: That the idea that “boys don’t cry” affected the participants’ views toward “Samuel’s” pain level.

“The inference might go something like this: ‘Boys in our culture are taught to act tough & strong when they are in pain & not to cry out, so if a boy DOES cry out… & express he is in pain, then perhaps he is experiencing quite a lot of pain–enough to behave in a way that boys are stereotypically taught not to behave,’” Earp tweeted. “If that is the right explanation, it would say nothing about not taking girls’ pain (as) seriously, dismissing their pain, caring less about their pain, etc.”

Earp eventually concluded that this was a “complex” issue that needs further study, but his Twitter thread is an important read on how the media is awful at factually reporting the findings of various studies. Most reporters almost never read the full study and only look at the executive summary. I’ve documented several instances of this before, and they almost always come from studies where reporters can get a “sexism” headline from the results.

British government security orders that can be placed on known extremists are so expensive to enforce they are hardly ever used, leaving the majority of returning jihadists to “roam free”.

The arrangements made for Islamist extremists living in the United Kingdom has come under intense scrutiny in the wake of the rediscovery of a former London schoolgirl who defected to the Islamic State in 2015, who now wants to come to Britain to raise an ISIS fighter’s son.

‘Sisterhood in Jihad’: UK’s First All-Female Islamic State Cell Accused of London Plot https://t.co/2X88QqnVP3

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) May 12, 2018

While the British government has stripped 19-year-old Shamima Begum of her citizenship in a bid to prevent her from returning to the United Kingdom, Breitbart London has previously reported how a large number of extremists have already arrived — and continue to arrive — from foreign warzones.

Despite assurances from the police that those returning will be subjected to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), a report by British newspaper The Times reports that only a small minority are actually monitored in this way.

Nikita Malik of the Henry Jackson Society told the paper that, due at least in part to the great expense of putting TPIMs in place, only a small number have actually been activated, speaking of only a “handful” of the estimated 400 returned fighters and extremists being subjected to them.

“The rest have been put under surveillance. TPIMs are for the highest level because they are so costly,” Malik explained.

Dozens of ISIS Jihad Brides Returning to Britain ‘Imminently’ https://t.co/KmbitCKlii

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) October 29, 2018

The report revealed Home Office figures showing nearly £5 million had been spent controlling just 23 individuals, with legal bills of £1 million a year and accommodation costs of £70,000 a year per individual. Other costs, including tagging suspects, travel costs, and policing to enforce restrictions, are counted separately, piling up on top of the Home Office figures.

The government disputes the claims of the Henry Jackson Society, and insists the use of TPIMs is not considered on cost grounds.

These figures come just weeks after separate revelations reported by Breitbart London on the monitoring of terror returnees uncovered by Labour MP John Woodcock. Speaking in Parliament, Mr Woodcock said: “Are more than 400 of those returning individuals in jail or going through the court system? We simply do not know, because the Government will not release the figures, despite repeated requests.

“There is strong demand from the public to know how many who travelled to fight foreign jihad are currently free in British communities. Those men and women are escaping justice, despite having been prepared to fight British troops in the name of a sickeningly evil cause.

“If they are not locked up or deradicalised, they are potentially able to import back to British streets brutal killing techniques learned on the battlefield.”

Israeli Counter-terror Vet: Manchester Attack a Result of ‘Failed Immigration Policy’ https://t.co/ObmeGParPa

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) January 3, 2019

Responding to his questions, a Government spokesman said of the more than 850 UK-linked individuals who are known to have travelled to Syria, “over 15 percent” are presumed dead, and “just under half” are now in Britain.

Most shockingly, despite their association with extremist militant groups and activity in an active warzone, the Government admitted: “A significant proportion of those individuals who have already returned are assessed as no longer being of national security concern” — meaning that far from being prosecuted, they may not even be under active surveillance.

Six of the Jihadis Involved in Paris Attacks Entered Europe as ‘Refugees’ https://t.co/nFB9TlzRxJ pic.twitter.com/xk75UpzVIQ

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 11, 2016

Returning fighters and extremists are not just creating problems for the United Kingdom, but for nations across Europe where unchecked mass migration is a feature of national life. The European Union is to crack down on sales of chemicals in response to this free movement of terrorists, with a European Commission document noting the “vast majority of terrorist attacks in the EU” were commi9tted by terrorists using home-made explosives.

Counter Extremism Project senior director, Hans-Jakob Schindler said of the move: “The guys coming from Syria and Iraq very likely have built hundreds of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in their time there, because that was one of the preferred methods used as an equalizer against the much-better-equipped Iraqi army.”

Former Security Chief: Security Services Have Lost Track Of Terrorists In Europe http://t.co/Q3FXDqFoKs pic.twitter.com/RGC75yZ9dr

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 24, 2015

Oliver JJ Lane is the editor of Breitbart London — Follow him on Twitter and Facebook

The labor market has now joined the housing market and the stock market in snapping back into shape after briefly wavering.

The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell by 23,0000 to a seasonally adjusted 216,000 for the week ended February 15, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Economists had expected a decline to just 225,000. The President’s Day Holiday, which affected reporting in several states, may have exagerated the drop in claims.

Jobless claims hit multi-decade lows in the second half of 2018 but climbed back up during the government shutdown in January.

The four-week moving average of initial claims rose 4,000 to 235,7000. Although this is typically considered a better measure of labor market trends as it smoothes out week-to-week volatility, this now may be reflecting the misleading jump from the shutdown.

Jobless claims are a proxy for layoffs. They have been closely watched for signs that the trade disputes are weighing on the labor market. So far, they have defied predictions that tariffs would led to job losses.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker thought then-candidate Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for her use of a private email server but was talked out of it “pretty late in the process.”

The news comes out just now as Baker’s testimony to House investigators in 2018 was provided to award winning investigative journalist John Solomon, who is also an executive vice president at the Hill. Solomon was given a preview of Baker’s testimony, which has yet to be publicly released. For years, Solomon wrote, the FBI claimed the Bureau was in agreement that Clinton shouldn’t face charges, but Baker’s testimony shows that wasn’t the case – at least not until just before ex-FBI Director James Comey made his July 5, 2016 announcement not to charge Clinton on the basis that she didn’t intend to violate the law (even though intention was not part of the law).

Solomon wrote that Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) asked Baker about his initial belief that Clinton should be charged.

“I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?” Ratcliffe asked.

Baker responded, “yes.”

Later in his testimony, according to Solomon, Baker explained how he ended up coming to agree that Clinton should not face charges.

“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” Baker said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

Baker responded to a question about when during the process he changed his mind by saying, “Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.”

Baker went on in his testimony to explain that he thought Clinton was wrong for using an unsecured, private email server.

“My original belief after — well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials — I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged,” Baker said, according to Solomon.

It still seems incredible that setting up a private email server in the basement bathroom of her Chappaqua, NY residence to use instead of a “state.gov” email account wasn’t proof enough of intent to violate the law – a law that didn’t require intent as part of the equation. Solomon concludes by saying Baker’s testimony shows “we still don’t know the full story on how the Clinton email investigation ended and if anyone else disagreed with the outcome — even after congressional hearings and an inspector general’s review.” He suggests incoming Attorney General William Barr or Sen. Lindsey Gram (R-SC) of the Senate Judiciary Committee may have “the stomach to resolve the lingering questions.”