News
Paul Alexander, a polio Survivor who lived inside an Iron Lung for 72 Years, has Died
(CTN News) – Paul Alexander was paralysed by polio at the age of six and spent much of his life confined to a yellow iron lung to keep him alive. He was not expected to live following that diagnosis, and even when he did, his life was mostly limited by a machine in which he could not move.
Despite the toll of living in an iron lung with polio, Mr. Alexander attended college, earned a law degree, and practiced law for over 30 years. As a youngster, he trained himself to breathe for minutes, then hours, but he had to use the equipment every day of his life.
His brother, Philip Alexander, posted a statement on social media announcing his death on Monday at the age of 78.
He was one of the last people in the United States to live inside an iron lung, which operates by adjusting the air pressure in the chamber to drive air into and out of the lungs. And in the closing weeks of his life, he gained a following on TikTok by revealing what it was like to live so long with the assistance of an obsolete machine.
Legacy and Remembrance: Honoring Paul Alexander
No official cause of death was provided. Paul Alexander was briefly hospitalized with Covid-19 in February, according to his TikTok account. Mr. Alexander struggled to eat and stay hydrated after returning home from the infection, which assaults the lungs and can be especially deadly for the elderly and those with breathing problems.
Mr. Alexander developed polio in 1952, according to his book “Three Minutes for a Dog: My Life in an Iron Lung.” He was rapidly paralysed, and physicians at Parkland Hospital in Dallas placed him in an iron lung so he could breathe.
“One day I opened my eyes from a deep sleep and looked around for something, anything, familiar,” Mr. Alexander wrote in his book, which he penned while holding a pen or pencil in his mouth. “Everywhere I glanced seemed odd. Little did I know that with each new day, my life was inexorably placed on a road that would become increasingly weird and difficult.”
In 2018, The Dallas Morning News profiled Mr. Alexander, who was unable to use portable ventilators due to damage to his chest muscles.
When he was within the machine, Mr. Alexander required assistance from others for basic functions such as eating and drinking. Mr. Alexander claimed in his autobiography that his career, Kathy Gaines, provided him with assistance for the majority of his life.
In January, Mr. Alexander started a TikTok account and shared videos about his life with others. Some touched on bigger aspects of his life, such as how he practiced law from the iron lung.
In other videos, he answered questions from his 330,000+ followers on ordinary but exciting elements of his daily existence, such as how he relieves himself. (A career had to release the iron lung and use a urinal or bed pan.)
In one film, Mr. Alexander discussed the emotional and mental problems of living within an iron lung.
“It’s lonely,” he said, with the machine buzzing in the background. “Sometimes it’s desperate because I can’t touch someone, my hands don’t move, and no one touches me except in rare occasions, which I cherish.”
Mr. Alexander stated in the video that he has received emails and letters from people suffering from anxiety and depression throughout the years and has offered guidance.
“Life is such an extraordinary thing,” he stated. “Please hold on. “It will get better.”
Gus Nicholas Alexander and Doris Marie Emmett gave birth to Paul Richard Alexander on January 30, 1946, in Dallas. After playing outside on a July day in 1952, he returned home with a 102-degree fever, headache, and stiff neck, according to his mother in the foreword to his book.
“I had every reason to be terror-stricken, and I was,” she wrote in the letter. “Polio, the dreaded sickness of every parent, was creeping across our city like a large black monster, paralyzing and killing wherever he went. Here was Paul, exhibiting every symptom.
Paul Alexander spent several months in the hospital, coming close to death on multiple occasions.
“Finally, one day the doctor called us in and told us Paul could not live much longer and if we wanted him at home with us when he died, we could take him,” his mother said in a letter.
His voyage home with the iron lung made hospital workers “tense,” and it included a truck with a generator in the bed to keep the contraption running, his mother wrote.
Mr. Alexander told The Dallas Morning News that when he was eight years old, he learned to breathe on his own for up to three minutes by gulping air “like a fish” and ingesting it into his lungs.
Mr. Alexander told the newspaper that he was inspired to learn to breathe after a carer offered him a puppy if he tried to learn to breathe on his own. He got a puppy, which eventually inspired the title of his book, “Three Minutes for a Dog.”
Mr. Alexander was one of the first Dallas Independent School District students to be home-schooled, and he graduated second in his class from W.W. Samuell High in 1967, according to The Dallas Morning News.
“The only reason I didn’t get first,” he told the newspaper, “is because I couldn’t do the biology lab.”
Mr. Alexander attended Southern Methodist University in Dallas before transferring to the University of Texas at Austin to study economics and finance, as reported by the “Alcalde,” the university’s alumni magazine.
Mr. Alexander was permitted to leave the iron lung for hours at a time after learning to breathe on his own, and students from his dorm would transport him to class in a wheelchair, according to the Alcalde. He later attended law school at the University of Texas, where he graduated in 1984.
Mr. Alexander is survived by his brother, nephew Benjamin Alexander, niece Jennifer Dodson, and sister-in-law Rafaela Alexander, according to Dignity Memorial. His funeral is scheduled for March 20 at Grove Hill Funeral Home & Memorial Park in Dallas.
In a TikTok video posted on Jan. 31, Mr. Alexander expressed surprise and emotion over the reception to his films before his death.
“It makes me feel like there’s somebody that really cares about me,” he told me. “I wish I could hug every one of you.”
News
Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
News
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
News
The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Health2 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years ago
Virtual Numbers: What Are They For?