Emergency operators have been warned to ask callers how they want to be referred to rather than ‘misgendering’ them based on their voices. The Mail has more.
NHS 999 operators have been told to ask callers their preferred pronouns to avoid misgendering them based on the sound of their voices.
Call-centre staff should also not use ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’, with one ambulance trust stating preferred pronouns should be sought even in emergencies so the experience is less stressful for trans patients.
Others say birth sex is often irrelevant to care, so operators can use patients’ self-identified gender.
The policies can be revealed today in the second part of an investigation into the spread of contested gender ideology in the NHS.
As the Daily Mail reported last week, hospital trusts are letting patients who only occasionally identify as women into female-only wards. Maternity staff also refer to ‘birthing people’ rather than women and mothers.
Lottie Moore, from the Policy Exchange think-tank, said: “To expect anyone to be thinking of preferred pronouns in a 999 health emergency is ludicrous.”
The MoS asked England’s nine NHS ambulance trusts if they had specific guidelines for handling calls from transgender people.
North East Ambulance Service provided a staff document on ‘How to best support our gender-diverse patients’. It advises a patient’s sex “has no bearing on someone who has toothache, for example” so the gender they identify as can be used.
It adds: “It’s not our place to ask questions about gender identity at birth unless it is appropriate to the clinical assessment.”
Staff are told to pass the call to a clinician if “gender will complicate the triage”. But it goes on: “No-one can reliably diagnose gender from the tone or pitch of a voice or from a name. Therefore, take a gender-neutral stance at the beginning of a call.
“Dropping gendered terms such as ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’… avoids the accidental misgendering. Asking someone’s pronouns is a… non-intrusive way to determine gender.”
South East Coast Ambulance Service says asking for pronouns can make life-or-death calls more effective. Its guidance states: “Inappropriate pronouns do cause stress and may make an already difficult situation worse.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“We also need to think hard about what kind of research should be allowed and what should be banned.”
Big pharma, “public health”, governments, medicine/vaccine “regulators”, the entire medical establishment globally with few exceptions, those working in academia in related fields, have colluded and doubled down in the most damaging and costly “public health” action in global history, by some margin. They are a menace and cannot be trusted. It’s hard to imagine that anything other than banishing the lot of them and starting again is going to fix that. Deeply corrupt and dishonest.
GOF research needs to be banned yesterday, worldwide, NO exceptions! It is all risk and no benefit. No real cures or safe vaccines have ever resulted from it, only dangerous viruses, which can leak out at any time.
Is it all incidental ? and even true – could it still be a smokescreen ?
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/why-all-the-breathless-finger-wagging?
Is Pfizer the fall guy for the oligarchs, in other words?
Some may think it a backward step for humanity if all biomed/genetic/viral research/defence, lol,/ labs were fire bombed to a crisp, with, unfortunately all those responsible involved inside. Oh, as an aside, all bigpharma conglomerates as well.
Others may think that would be doing a service to humanity.
If that were to happen, do you think humanity would be better off?
Apointless question because it is not going to happen.
This did make me chuckle though. Good on them. Wonder how long it was parked there for. It seems totally fitting that this bloke goes viral…
https://rumble.com/v27wiby-project-veritas-rented-an-led-truck-and-parked-it-outside-of-pfizer-world-h.html
Brilliant
We could perhaps ban GOP (“gain of Pfizer”) research, to prevent the creation of more medical products which end up being a gain for Pfizer and a loss for everyone else.
That scientists were trying to ‘mutate viruses’ emerged in December 2011, when Ron Fouchier announced at the European Scientific Working group on Influenza (ESWI) meeting that his team had “mutated the hell out of H5N1”.
This was very alarming…research that was first called ‘dual use’, and them became known as ‘gain of function’.
At the time, I questioned if this research, which was funded by Fauci’s NIH, was in breach of the Biological Weapons Convention, see:
An open letter to the NSABB re the political and ethical implications of lethal virus development, 31 January 2012.
A submission to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) re Opposition to Lab-engineering of Potentially Lethal Pathogens,17 December 2012.
But here’s something interesting to think about re Fouchier and co ‘mutating the hell out of H5N1’…
As I note in my letter to the CDC and HHS in December 2012, linked to in my previous comment:
So it wasn’t deadly after all… All that beat up for what exactly?
Just like Covid, which also isn’t so deadly after all… But Covid was a manufactured crisis that created the highly lucrative Covid industry, which was also used as the excuse to implement controls over the population.
Speaking of gain of function, consider an interview re controversial influenza H7N9 gain of function experiments, broadcast on Dispatch Radio in August 2013, in which Vincent Racaniello, Higgins Professor of Microbiology & Immunology, Columbia University, stated:
Vincent Racaniello says “we do gain of function studies all the time. We don’t make a big deal of it, we don’t write letters telling the world that we’re going to do them because that’s not the way science works. Science works by just doing your experiments.” Vincent Racaniello seems to infer that it is acceptable for scientists to manipulate viruses, e.g. make a “virus drug resistant…to see if a drug resistant mutant would have any properties that would make it scarier in people” without telling “the world about it”. (I challenged Vincent Racaniello about his comments on his Virology blog post “Virologists plan influenza H7N9 gain of function experiments” in August 2013, but he did not respond.)
I suggest Vincent Racaniello’s attitude is arrogant and irresponsible.
How many other scientists are undertaking this type of research “without telling the world about it”, and with scant regard for potentially disastrous consequences? For example, are scientists manipulating the ebola virus to “make it scarier in people”?
See more on my webpage: Arrogant scientists and dangerous ‘gain-of-function’ experiments – a letter to the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB)
Science works by observing nature in order to derive theories about its working which are then to be tested with repeatable experiments. Making perfectly random changes to nucleotide acids in order to see what happens is not science.
The one argument agains the Sars-CoV2 lab leak theory is It worked.
The discussion on gain of function research has been going on for decades.
I personally am on the side of thinking it is a bad idea. Any possible upside of this kind of research does not weigh up against the potential danger of tinkering with nature. And there have been multiple lab leaks over the years…
Until we have a complete understanding of the chemical processes which occur in complex organisms, any tinkering with them at the molecular level is – at best – hapless fumbling of children who have no idea what they’re actually doing. There’s no point in even discussing this seriously.
In tens of thousands of years time, an inter-stellar craft will land on an Earth with no homo-sapiens. The travellers will perform their tests and determine that the planet was previously populated with a highly intelligent life-form. Not sufficiently so however to prevent it wiping itself out. The Captain of the visiting craft will quip, “Serves ’em right.”
Dr John Campbell’s podcast about the Pfizer sting is hilarious. Do watch to the end when he quotes Shakespeare.
https://rumble.com/v27jm5o-prizer-allergations.html
Wow, they are more diabolical than I thought!
If Gain of Function testing isn’t happening then why is there a name for it? Here is a Wiipedia extract:
“Gain-of-function research (GoF research or GoFR) is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products. This may include an altered pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range, i.e., the types of hosts that a microorganism can infect. This research is intended to reveal targets to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics. For example, influenza B can infect only humans and harbor seals.[1] Introducing a mutation that would allow influenza B to infect rabbits in a controlled laboratory situation would be considered a gain-of-function experiment, as the virus did not previously have that function.[2][3] That type of experiment could then help reveal which parts of the virus’s genome correspond to the species that it can infect, enabling the creation of antiviral medicines which block this function…”
And here is a Nature.com extract:
“In Greek mythology, the Chimaera was a fire-breathing monster, a horrifying mishmash of lion, goat and snake that laid waste to the countryside. In 2015, virologists led by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill reported the creation of their own chimaera. They took a version of the coronavirus responsible for the deadly outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in the early 2000s — now known as SARS-CoV — and adorned it with surface proteins from a different coronavirus taken from Chinese horseshoe bats. In the laboratory, this particular mash-up was able to break into human cells and also make mice ill1. This chimaera came with a message: other coronaviruses have the potential to spark a human pandemic. In just a few years’ time, that warning would prove prescient, as a distant cousin of SARS-CoV has now killed more than 4.9 million people worldwide…”