▲ 170 ▼ US judge ruled AI-generated child sexual abuse material is protected by First Amendment. (reason.com) submitted 2 months ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 73 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1368970/judge-ruled-ai-generated-child-sex-abuse-material-is-protected-by-first-amendment
[–] Jesusaurus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (18 children) So you can generate it but not be in possession of it? permalink fedilink source hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago I think it depends how rich you are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 8 points 2 months ago The ruling was on possession permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 12 points 2 months ago (5 children) Apparently you can make it and own it if it's all fake images. Something to do with the legal questions involved, if they illegalized this, then other non perverse things could be illegalized under that precedent. Unless congress steps up, (ha ha,) the judge might actually be in the right here I hate to say it. Child abuse is always the trojan horse to take away freedoms it seems in the west. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] deathbird@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago What were the 4 horsmen of suppression of online speach? Child Safety, Trrsm, Hate, and Porn? These are the pretexts for everything else. Maybe copyright is supposed to be in there too. Five horsemen then. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) I think a law saying no AI generated CSAM, whether or not the child depicted is real, isn't an overreach into our fucking freedoms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) The same reasoning under our current criminal codes would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. Same reason they overturned community moral standard laws a few decades back. Used against the worst cases they could find, but broad enough for them to target everything, like regular pornography. (30 year felony in the precedent setting case, shitholy state GA or something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. No it wouldn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it's not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Airfried@piefed.social 4 points 2 months ago (9 children) You can't have training data for it I guess? But then the model maker would have to break the law to even make it of course so you can't even use that model without some laws being broken down the line. Then again virtually all models should be illegal because of that. I feel like there is a lot of legislation to be done here because the whole industry is rotten to the core. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io -3 points 2 months ago (7 children) The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. An AI doesn't need to have actual images of nude children to generate CSAM; it knows what humans look like naked, and it knows what children look like - it fills in the gaps from there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (4 children) There was an article the other day saying that Grok used CSAM as training data. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/elon-musks-xai-used-child-porn-to-train-grok-models-lawsuit-says/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The TL;DR is that there is a voluntary system that tracks court cases and will alert CSAM victims when it suspects images of them (either known images, or new ones) are the topic of criminal investigations. A Jane Doe was repeatedly raped in the early 2000’s to produce copious amounts of CSAM, which was broadly shared among pedophile groups. Her images were apparently very popular and prolific. Doe was alerted that Grok was producing new explicit images of her as a child. The images in question are novel (generated by AI, and not matching any known existing images) but are undoubtedly of Doe as a child. Meaning it was using Doe’s images as part of the training data for the images it generates. Essentially, if Grok was trained on CSAM, Doe’s popular images were almost certainly included. And now Grok is producing new images of her. It would be like asking Grok to make an image of a popular egirl, and getting an image of what is undoubtedly Belle Delphine. And then X goes “no no no, we didn’t use any images of Belle Delphine in our training data. We promise!” permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child) It's important to note that to produce an AI-generated image of somebody, they do not need to exist in the training data beforehand. You can use an image as a prompt, and an AI can create new works based on that prompt, without ever referencing the person from training materials. Most of these CSAM files are not readily available on the clearnet, and I don't think even Elon is stupid enough to let an AI scraper run free on Tor. One would have to go significantly out of their way to locate clearnet sources of CSAM to include into the training data. Some would say it's a distinction without difference, but I think it's important to understand how these AI images are actually created, if you want to adequately legislate them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Like that article, the actual complaint noticeably leaves some key questions open, while inviting certain conclusions. That these conclusions are not clearly stated as fact makes me fear that the intent is to mislead without lying. As far as I can tell, the basis for the allegation is that a) CSAM was uploaded to X/Grok and b) the TOS state that uploaded files may be used for training. permalink fedilink source parent [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Looks like it's seriously reaching. I hope that poor women isn't being used by some unscrupulous ideologues. She is heading for trying times regardless. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago Bullshit. They fed all that shit through in east african countries and the devil knows where else. Paying workers shit to id picture of csam and other abusive shit all day. You do not know what you are talking about, at best. permalink fedilink source parent [–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. that is so wrong, don't spread that bullshit they find it in models all the time! permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca -1 points 2 months ago If by a whole lot of legislation that needs done you mean a whole lot of undiagnosed cases of lead deficiency that need urgent treatment, I would tend to agree with you. Just in general, everywhere. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago I think it depends how rich you are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 8 points 2 months ago The ruling was on possession permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 12 points 2 months ago (5 children) Apparently you can make it and own it if it's all fake images. Something to do with the legal questions involved, if they illegalized this, then other non perverse things could be illegalized under that precedent. Unless congress steps up, (ha ha,) the judge might actually be in the right here I hate to say it. Child abuse is always the trojan horse to take away freedoms it seems in the west. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] deathbird@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago What were the 4 horsmen of suppression of online speach? Child Safety, Trrsm, Hate, and Porn? These are the pretexts for everything else. Maybe copyright is supposed to be in there too. Five horsemen then. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) I think a law saying no AI generated CSAM, whether or not the child depicted is real, isn't an overreach into our fucking freedoms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) The same reasoning under our current criminal codes would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. Same reason they overturned community moral standard laws a few decades back. Used against the worst cases they could find, but broad enough for them to target everything, like regular pornography. (30 year felony in the precedent setting case, shitholy state GA or something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. No it wouldn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it's not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago What were the 4 horsmen of suppression of online speach? Child Safety, Trrsm, Hate, and Porn? These are the pretexts for everything else. Maybe copyright is supposed to be in there too. Five horsemen then. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) I think a law saying no AI generated CSAM, whether or not the child depicted is real, isn't an overreach into our fucking freedoms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) The same reasoning under our current criminal codes would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. Same reason they overturned community moral standard laws a few decades back. Used against the worst cases they could find, but broad enough for them to target everything, like regular pornography. (30 year felony in the precedent setting case, shitholy state GA or something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. No it wouldn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it's not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) The same reasoning under our current criminal codes would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. Same reason they overturned community moral standard laws a few decades back. Used against the worst cases they could find, but broad enough for them to target everything, like regular pornography. (30 year felony in the precedent setting case, shitholy state GA or something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. No it wouldn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it's not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden. No it wouldn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it's not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it's not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Airfried@piefed.social 4 points 2 months ago (9 children) You can't have training data for it I guess? But then the model maker would have to break the law to even make it of course so you can't even use that model without some laws being broken down the line. Then again virtually all models should be illegal because of that. I feel like there is a lot of legislation to be done here because the whole industry is rotten to the core. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io -3 points 2 months ago (7 children) The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. An AI doesn't need to have actual images of nude children to generate CSAM; it knows what humans look like naked, and it knows what children look like - it fills in the gaps from there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (4 children) There was an article the other day saying that Grok used CSAM as training data. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/elon-musks-xai-used-child-porn-to-train-grok-models-lawsuit-says/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The TL;DR is that there is a voluntary system that tracks court cases and will alert CSAM victims when it suspects images of them (either known images, or new ones) are the topic of criminal investigations. A Jane Doe was repeatedly raped in the early 2000’s to produce copious amounts of CSAM, which was broadly shared among pedophile groups. Her images were apparently very popular and prolific. Doe was alerted that Grok was producing new explicit images of her as a child. The images in question are novel (generated by AI, and not matching any known existing images) but are undoubtedly of Doe as a child. Meaning it was using Doe’s images as part of the training data for the images it generates. Essentially, if Grok was trained on CSAM, Doe’s popular images were almost certainly included. And now Grok is producing new images of her. It would be like asking Grok to make an image of a popular egirl, and getting an image of what is undoubtedly Belle Delphine. And then X goes “no no no, we didn’t use any images of Belle Delphine in our training data. We promise!” permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child) It's important to note that to produce an AI-generated image of somebody, they do not need to exist in the training data beforehand. You can use an image as a prompt, and an AI can create new works based on that prompt, without ever referencing the person from training materials. Most of these CSAM files are not readily available on the clearnet, and I don't think even Elon is stupid enough to let an AI scraper run free on Tor. One would have to go significantly out of their way to locate clearnet sources of CSAM to include into the training data. Some would say it's a distinction without difference, but I think it's important to understand how these AI images are actually created, if you want to adequately legislate them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Like that article, the actual complaint noticeably leaves some key questions open, while inviting certain conclusions. That these conclusions are not clearly stated as fact makes me fear that the intent is to mislead without lying. As far as I can tell, the basis for the allegation is that a) CSAM was uploaded to X/Grok and b) the TOS state that uploaded files may be used for training. permalink fedilink source parent [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Looks like it's seriously reaching. I hope that poor women isn't being used by some unscrupulous ideologues. She is heading for trying times regardless. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago Bullshit. They fed all that shit through in east african countries and the devil knows where else. Paying workers shit to id picture of csam and other abusive shit all day. You do not know what you are talking about, at best. permalink fedilink source parent [–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. that is so wrong, don't spread that bullshit they find it in models all the time! permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca -1 points 2 months ago If by a whole lot of legislation that needs done you mean a whole lot of undiagnosed cases of lead deficiency that need urgent treatment, I would tend to agree with you. Just in general, everywhere. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chozo@fedia.io -3 points 2 months ago (7 children) The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. An AI doesn't need to have actual images of nude children to generate CSAM; it knows what humans look like naked, and it knows what children look like - it fills in the gaps from there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (4 children) There was an article the other day saying that Grok used CSAM as training data. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/elon-musks-xai-used-child-porn-to-train-grok-models-lawsuit-says/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The TL;DR is that there is a voluntary system that tracks court cases and will alert CSAM victims when it suspects images of them (either known images, or new ones) are the topic of criminal investigations. A Jane Doe was repeatedly raped in the early 2000’s to produce copious amounts of CSAM, which was broadly shared among pedophile groups. Her images were apparently very popular and prolific. Doe was alerted that Grok was producing new explicit images of her as a child. The images in question are novel (generated by AI, and not matching any known existing images) but are undoubtedly of Doe as a child. Meaning it was using Doe’s images as part of the training data for the images it generates. Essentially, if Grok was trained on CSAM, Doe’s popular images were almost certainly included. And now Grok is producing new images of her. It would be like asking Grok to make an image of a popular egirl, and getting an image of what is undoubtedly Belle Delphine. And then X goes “no no no, we didn’t use any images of Belle Delphine in our training data. We promise!” permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child) It's important to note that to produce an AI-generated image of somebody, they do not need to exist in the training data beforehand. You can use an image as a prompt, and an AI can create new works based on that prompt, without ever referencing the person from training materials. Most of these CSAM files are not readily available on the clearnet, and I don't think even Elon is stupid enough to let an AI scraper run free on Tor. One would have to go significantly out of their way to locate clearnet sources of CSAM to include into the training data. Some would say it's a distinction without difference, but I think it's important to understand how these AI images are actually created, if you want to adequately legislate them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Like that article, the actual complaint noticeably leaves some key questions open, while inviting certain conclusions. That these conclusions are not clearly stated as fact makes me fear that the intent is to mislead without lying. As far as I can tell, the basis for the allegation is that a) CSAM was uploaded to X/Grok and b) the TOS state that uploaded files may be used for training. permalink fedilink source parent [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Looks like it's seriously reaching. I hope that poor women isn't being used by some unscrupulous ideologues. She is heading for trying times regardless. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago Bullshit. They fed all that shit through in east african countries and the devil knows where else. Paying workers shit to id picture of csam and other abusive shit all day. You do not know what you are talking about, at best. permalink fedilink source parent [–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. that is so wrong, don't spread that bullshit they find it in models all the time! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (4 children) There was an article the other day saying that Grok used CSAM as training data. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/elon-musks-xai-used-child-porn-to-train-grok-models-lawsuit-says/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The TL;DR is that there is a voluntary system that tracks court cases and will alert CSAM victims when it suspects images of them (either known images, or new ones) are the topic of criminal investigations. A Jane Doe was repeatedly raped in the early 2000’s to produce copious amounts of CSAM, which was broadly shared among pedophile groups. Her images were apparently very popular and prolific. Doe was alerted that Grok was producing new explicit images of her as a child. The images in question are novel (generated by AI, and not matching any known existing images) but are undoubtedly of Doe as a child. Meaning it was using Doe’s images as part of the training data for the images it generates. Essentially, if Grok was trained on CSAM, Doe’s popular images were almost certainly included. And now Grok is producing new images of her. It would be like asking Grok to make an image of a popular egirl, and getting an image of what is undoubtedly Belle Delphine. And then X goes “no no no, we didn’t use any images of Belle Delphine in our training data. We promise!” permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child) It's important to note that to produce an AI-generated image of somebody, they do not need to exist in the training data beforehand. You can use an image as a prompt, and an AI can create new works based on that prompt, without ever referencing the person from training materials. Most of these CSAM files are not readily available on the clearnet, and I don't think even Elon is stupid enough to let an AI scraper run free on Tor. One would have to go significantly out of their way to locate clearnet sources of CSAM to include into the training data. Some would say it's a distinction without difference, but I think it's important to understand how these AI images are actually created, if you want to adequately legislate them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Like that article, the actual complaint noticeably leaves some key questions open, while inviting certain conclusions. That these conclusions are not clearly stated as fact makes me fear that the intent is to mislead without lying. As far as I can tell, the basis for the allegation is that a) CSAM was uploaded to X/Grok and b) the TOS state that uploaded files may be used for training. permalink fedilink source parent [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Looks like it's seriously reaching. I hope that poor women isn't being used by some unscrupulous ideologues. She is heading for trying times regardless. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The TL;DR is that there is a voluntary system that tracks court cases and will alert CSAM victims when it suspects images of them (either known images, or new ones) are the topic of criminal investigations. A Jane Doe was repeatedly raped in the early 2000’s to produce copious amounts of CSAM, which was broadly shared among pedophile groups. Her images were apparently very popular and prolific. Doe was alerted that Grok was producing new explicit images of her as a child. The images in question are novel (generated by AI, and not matching any known existing images) but are undoubtedly of Doe as a child. Meaning it was using Doe’s images as part of the training data for the images it generates. Essentially, if Grok was trained on CSAM, Doe’s popular images were almost certainly included. And now Grok is producing new images of her. It would be like asking Grok to make an image of a popular egirl, and getting an image of what is undoubtedly Belle Delphine. And then X goes “no no no, we didn’t use any images of Belle Delphine in our training data. We promise!” permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child) It's important to note that to produce an AI-generated image of somebody, they do not need to exist in the training data beforehand. You can use an image as a prompt, and an AI can create new works based on that prompt, without ever referencing the person from training materials. Most of these CSAM files are not readily available on the clearnet, and I don't think even Elon is stupid enough to let an AI scraper run free on Tor. One would have to go significantly out of their way to locate clearnet sources of CSAM to include into the training data. Some would say it's a distinction without difference, but I think it's important to understand how these AI images are actually created, if you want to adequately legislate them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Like that article, the actual complaint noticeably leaves some key questions open, while inviting certain conclusions. That these conclusions are not clearly stated as fact makes me fear that the intent is to mislead without lying. As far as I can tell, the basis for the allegation is that a) CSAM was uploaded to X/Grok and b) the TOS state that uploaded files may be used for training. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Like that article, the actual complaint noticeably leaves some key questions open, while inviting certain conclusions. That these conclusions are not clearly stated as fact makes me fear that the intent is to mislead without lying. As far as I can tell, the basis for the allegation is that a) CSAM was uploaded to X/Grok and b) the TOS state that uploaded files may be used for training. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Looks like it's seriously reaching. I hope that poor women isn't being used by some unscrupulous ideologues. She is heading for trying times regardless. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago Bullshit. They fed all that shit through in east african countries and the devil knows where else. Paying workers shit to id picture of csam and other abusive shit all day. You do not know what you are talking about, at best. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. that is so wrong, don't spread that bullshit they find it in models all the time! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca -1 points 2 months ago If by a whole lot of legislation that needs done you mean a whole lot of undiagnosed cases of lead deficiency that need urgent treatment, I would tend to agree with you. Just in general, everywhere. permalink fedilink source parent