I have been writing about this for months.
In one article I published in this series, I laid out the neuroscience of why modern dating is failing women — the hypergamy trap, the Dark Tetrad men who dominate hookup culture, the dopamine and oxytocin chemistry that gets hijacked by short-term mating environments, the slowly closing biological window that nobody warns young women about. In another, I made the case for courtship — not as a moral lecture, but as a biological intelligence strategy for selecting the right partner before your neurochemistry makes that irreversible decision for you without your informed consent.
I called it “WHY MODERN DATING IS FAILING WOMEN… And Biology Saw It Coming.”
I should have been more direct.
The biology did not just see it coming. The biology is now measuring it in cancer rates. In serial murder statistics. In the wreckage of a generation of women handed a pill and told it was freedom. The numbers are devastating. Every single one of them.
— THE STUDY NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT —
A peer-reviewed study published in Cancer Research Communications in April 2026 by researchers at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami is the largest, most comprehensive population-based analysis of marriage and cancer incidence ever conducted in the United States. Over 4.24 million cancer cases. Twelve states. Eight years of federal SEER surveillance data. Over 500 million person-years of risk exposure analyzed.
Pinheiro PS et al., Cancer Research Communications, Vol. 6(4), April 2026. DOI: 10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-25-0814. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
Here is what they found.
Never-married men develop cancer at a rate sixty-eight percent higher than ever-married men. Across nearly every cancer category. Every racial group. Every age range.
Never-married women? Eighty-five percent higher.
Stop. Read that again.
Women who have never been married develop cancer at a rate EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT higher than women who have been married. Not a modest association. Not a footnote. Eighty-five percent — statistically robust, replicated across demographic groups, consistent across nearly every cancer site studied. The researchers found that women actually REVERSED the old assumption that men benefit more from marriage than women. In this data, women benefited MORE. Significantly more. And women who miss that protection pay for it at a rate that should be headline news on every network in America.
It is not. Because the data is inconvenient.
For specific cancers, the numbers are staggering. Never-married women develop cervical cancer at nearly three times the rate of ever-married women. Ovarian and uterine cancer at roughly two and a half times the rate. Lung cancer more than doubles. Esophageal cancer more than doubles. Among never-married men, the rate of anal cancer is five times that of ever-married men. The association gets STRONGER with age. Among adults fifty-five and older, the cancer incidence gap nearly doubles again. The protection of marriage builds over a lifetime. The cost of never having it accumulates the same way.
The culture told a generation of women that marriage was optional. The oncology data is telling them something different. It is telling them the truth.
— THE GROWING CRISIS NOBODY WILL NAME —
Let me give you a number that should alarm every parent, every pastor, every physician, and every politician in America.
Approximately one in five American adults over age thirty has never been married. Twenty percent of the adult population in the highest cancer risk category identified by this study. But that headline number understates the trajectory.
Jordan Peterson, drawing on family formation research, has noted that half of all thirty-year-old women in the West are currently without children — and that half of those will never have a child. His conclusion: approximately one in five women will be involuntarily childless, spending sixty years from age thirty onward alone. Ninety percent of them will regret it.
These are not fringe statistics. These are the structural consequences of a half-century of anti-marriage cultural messaging playing out in the population in real time. Marriage rates in the United States have dropped every single decade since the 1960s. The median age at first marriage for women has risen from twenty in 1960 to twenty-eight today. The percentage of adults who have never married has more than doubled. We are not in a temporary dip. We are in a structural collapse of the institution that the cancer data now tells us is also a structural collapse in women’s long-term health outcomes.
Twenty percent of adult women in the highest-risk cancer category. And the number is climbing.
This is not a lifestyle choice with no consequences. This is a public health emergency that the public health establishment refuses to name because naming it requires admitting that fifty years of cultural messaging were catastrophically wrong.
— THE DARK TETRAD — WHO IS WINNING IN YOUR DATING MARKET —
I want to spend some time here on the personality science because the culture has done an extraordinary job of hiding it from women who desperately need to understand it.
The Dark Tetrad is a clinical personality construct comprising four traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. These traits cluster together in the same individuals. They are significantly more pronounced in men than women. And the personality research has been consistent for decades: these traits are disproportionately associated with short-term mating strategies.
Dr. Sarah Hill, an evolutionary psychologist whose book This Is Your Brain on Birth Control is one of the most important scientific texts of the last twenty years, described it plainly: men who adopt a short-term mating strategy — who love them and leave them, who feel no postcoital guilt or shame, who treat sexual encounters as transactions with no relational obligation — score dramatically higher on Dark Tetrad measures than men pursuing long-term committed partnerships. Jordan Peterson has made the same observation across multiple interviews: the personality predictors of short-term mating success are, in his words, not that positive.
Now here is what the modern dating market does with that information. It REWARDS it.
An app-based dating market optimized for first impressions, curated photographs, and brief interaction windows is precisely the environment where Dark Tetrad traits perform best. Confidence without substance. Charm without character. The performance of dominance and status compressed into a profile and a smooth opening line. The man with no conscience and a high sex drive is very good at that game. The man with genuine character, long-term reliability, and the kind of steady commitment that builds real oxytocin over years is comparatively invisible in it.
Women’s hypergamous instinct — the evolved preference for high-status, masculine, competent men — was designed for an environment where those traits were actually correlated with survival value. In a modern app environment, that preference gets systematically exploited by men who can mimic the surface signals while possessing none of the underlying substance. The personality research calls this predatory mating strategy. The culture calls it dating.
The men the culture trained women to find irresistible are statistically the men most likely to harm them. And every historical case study I am about to present will prove that in a way that cannot be argued away.
— RODNEY ALCALA — THE DATING GAME KILLER —
I want to introduce you to someone. His name was Rodney James Alcala. Born 1943. Tall, dark-haired, conventionally handsome with sharp features and a confident, easy smile. A professional photographer. A skydiver. A motorcyclist. Articulate, witty, educated — he attended the University of California and the New York School of Visual Arts. By every metric the modern dating market uses to evaluate a man, Rodney Alcala was in the top ten percent.
In 1978, right in the middle of his confirmed killing spree — he had already murdered at least four women by that point — Rodney Alcala appeared as Bachelor Number One on the nationally televised game show The Dating Game. Host Jim Lange introduced him to millions of American viewers as a successful photographer who enjoyed skydiving and motorcycles. Alcala answered questions with wit, charm, and just enough edge to be interesting. Bachelorette Cheryl Bradshaw chose him over the other two contestants.
She refused the date after meeting him backstage. Said he was creepy. Said something was off. Her instincts were correct. But millions of American women watching at home saw only the handsome photographer with the winning smile.
That is the point.
Alcala’s method was textbook Dark Tetrad exploitation. He posed as a professional photographer offering aspiring models free portfolio photoshoots. He approached young women in parks, on beaches, in bars, in public spaces — everywhere the post-sexual-revolution culture had trained women it was safe to trust a charming stranger. He used his camera as a key. Once isolated, his victims were brutally assaulted, strangled, and in several cases photographed post-mortem. He was convicted of five murders in California. Investigators believe the actual number exceeds one hundred. A storage locker he maintained contained hundreds of photographs of women — many still unidentified — who investigators believe were potential or confirmed victims.
At one of his trials, Rodney Alcala represented himself. He cross-examined the mother of twelve-year-old Robin Samsoe, one of his confirmed victims, while playing both the role of defendant and attorney. Prosecutor Matt Murphy described him as among the most dangerous predators he had encountered in his career. The same charm, the same confident affect, the same performance of social competence that had made him appear to be Bachelor Number One on national television — deployed in a courtroom to retraumatize a grieving mother. He died in prison in 2021 at age seventy-seven.
Rodney Alcala was not an outlier. He was a demonstration. He showed a generation of women exactly what the top ten percent of male attractiveness could hide. And the culture had just handed every predator like him an entirely new hunting ground.
— THEY WERE NOT ALONE — AND NOTICE SOMETHING ABOUT WHEN THEY APPEARED —
Alcala is the most dramatic case because of the television appearance. But he was not unique. Not even close. In the same era, a remarkable number of men fitting identical profiles — top-ten-percent conventional attractiveness, practiced charisma, professional pretexts, Dark Tetrad personality structures underneath — were operating in different cities, different states, different countries. And when you line up their active periods, you notice something that nobody in the mainstream media will say out loud.
Every single one of them operated AFTER 1960. After the FDA approved the birth control pill. After the sexual revolution began dismantling the social architecture that had protected women from exactly these kinds of predators.
TED BUNDY. Active 1974 to 1978. Thirty confirmed murders, likely more than one hundred. Theodore Robert Bundy was classically handsome by every account — symmetrical features, dark hair, piercing eyes, the polished affect of a law student. He used his looks in the most deliberate way imaginable: a fake arm cast or sling, approaching women on college campuses and in parking lots, politely asking for help carrying books to his Volkswagen Beetle. The moment they were close enough, the affect dropped. He escaped police custody twice — once by jumping from a courthouse window, once from jail. He represented aspects of his own defense at trial. Women sent him love letters during the proceedings. He was executed in Florida’s electric chair in January 1989.
CHRISTOPHER WILDER. Active 1984, a six-week cross-country spree. Eight confirmed murders. Wilder was an Australian-American race car driver and successful Florida businessman — blonde, blue-eyed, athletic build, an accent women found exotic, the confident manner of a man with money and polish. His method was nearly identical to Alcala’s: professional fashion photographer or modeling scout, approaching attractive young women and aspiring models at shopping malls, beauty pageants, and modeling events with promises of photoshoots and portfolio work. He targeted beauty queens specifically. The modeling pitch was his weapon. He was on the FBI Ten Most Wanted list when he died in a shootout with police in New Hampshire in April 1984.
PAUL JOHN KNOWLES. Active 1974, a multi-state killing spree across several months. Eighteen confirmed murders, he claimed thirty-five. Knowles was described by everyone who encountered him — investigators, journalists, survivors — as strikingly handsome, frequently compared to Robert Redford and Ryan O’Neal. Magnetic smile. Broad-shouldered. Easy, disarming conversational charm. He earned the nickname the Casanova Killer as a description of his method: he seduced women in bars, hotels, and on the road, using his physical appearance and easy confidence to gain trust rapidly, then turned violent. British journalist Sandy Fawkes met him in an Atlanta hotel bar, had a brief affair, and later wrote a book describing him as having gaunt good looks and a dreamboat quality despite a persistent intensity she could not explain. She did not know she had been sleeping with a man who had already murdered multiple people that summer. He was killed by an FBI agent in Georgia during a December 1974 escape attempt.
CHARLES SOBHRAJ. Active primarily in the 1970s across Southeast Asia. Twelve to twenty confirmed murders of Western backpackers. Sobhraj was French-Vietnamese, described as mesmerizing — handsome, sophisticated, a French accent that made him seem worldly and trustworthy, the easy manner of a successful international gem dealer and traveler. His victims were young Western women on the Hippie Trail through Thailand, India, and Nepal. He befriended them in hotels and bars over shared meals, offering travel companionship and the reassurance of a charming, worldly man in an unfamiliar country. Then he drugged them. Journalists who later interviewed him described an almost physical quality to his charm — that he seemed to emanate power in a room.
Four men. Different countries. Different methods. Different hunting grounds. Same clinical profile: top-ten-percent conventional attractiveness, practiced social charm, professional pretexts that produced access to trusting women, and underneath the surface — the full Dark Tetrad. Narcissism. Machiavellianism. Psychopathy. Sadism.
Now look at the timeline again.
The pill was FDA-approved in 1960. The sexual revolution it enabled dismantled, over the following decade, virtually every social protocol that had previously governed how women interacted with unknown men. Chaperoned social environments gone. Courting protocols requiring sustained observation before trust was extended — gone. Cultural norms making it genuinely unusual for a woman to be alone with an unknown man in a private setting — gone. The movement replaced all of that with a cultural message that trusting a charming stranger was liberation, not risk. That the photographer offering a photoshoot was an opportunity. That the friendly guy at the bar was just a friendly guy at the bar.
Alcala began his confirmed killing spree in the mid-1960s. Bundy in 1974. Knowles in 1974. Sobhraj in the 1970s. Wilder in 1984. The golden age of the charming, attractive, Dark Tetrad serial killer corresponds almost perfectly with the post-pill dismantling of the social architecture that had previously made his hunting conditions impossible.
Dr. Sarah Hill stated in her research that women are susceptible to very devious manipulation on the part of Machiavellian and psychopathic men. Their brains are wired to detect those threats — but only when the cultural and social architecture is not actively working to override that detection system. The sexual revolution was, functionally, a sustained multi-decade effort to override that detection system. And the predators who were already disordered walked right through the opening it created.
They did not cause the sexual revolution. They exploited it. There is a meaningful difference. But only one of those facts protects the women who trusted the charming photographer.
— HOW BIRTH CONTROL DESTROYED FEMINISM AND CALLED IT LIBERATION —
I need to be precise here. This section is going to make some people uncomfortable. Good. Uncomfortable is where honesty lives.
Jordan Peterson has argued, and I believe he is correct, that the birth control pill was perhaps the most biologically revolutionary event in human history — exceeding the hydrogen bomb in its downstream consequences for civilization. A woman who has voluntary control over her reproductive function is not the same creature as a woman who does not. Not even a little bit. Dr. Sarah Hill, whose book This Is Your Brain on Birth Control is one of the most important scientific texts of the last twenty years, reached essentially the same conclusion from the data: the pill did not just change what women could do. It changed who women were, at the neurochemical level, without their knowledge or consent.
The pill gives women reproductive control. That is real. I am not pretending otherwise. But the law of unintended consequences does not care about your intentions.
Here is what the pill actually did to women. Not according to the feminist narrative. According to the biology.
The pill works by mimicking the second half of the menstrual cycle — the post-ovulation progesterone-dominant phase — continuously. A naturally cycling woman oscillates between two hormonal states. During the estrogen-dominant pre-ovulation phase, she is biologically primed to prefer masculine, high-testosterone men. Jaw width studies, voice pitch research, behavioral preference data — all of it shows the same thing: at peak fertility, women prefer men with higher testosterone markers, wider jaws, more dominant behavioral cues. When that estrogen phase is chemically eliminated by the pill, that preference changes. Women on the pill consistently show reduced preference for masculine male faces and voices. They shift toward nurturing, less dominant, less masculine partners.
Peterson named this finding as terrifying: we have no idea what these radical biological hormonal transformations have done to the relationship between men and women. Dr. Hill explained the mechanism: the progestins in hormonal birth control are synthesized primarily from testosterone, not progesterone, and they bind non-specifically to multiple receptor types — including glucocorticoid receptors, which regulate the cortisol stress response. The result? Women on hormonal birth control do not have a normal cortisol response to stress.
This is the same neurological pattern observed in patients with severe trauma and PTSD. Blunted cortisol response. Impaired emotional encoding. Reduced ability to update in response to threatening information. Dr. Hill noted that practicing therapists have reported women on the pill respond significantly less well to PTSD treatment — because exposure therapy is a form of learning, and blunted cortisol response impairs learning from threatening experiences.
Think about what that means in the context of the Dark Tetrad predators I just described. The woman whose stress response system has been chemically suppressed is precisely the woman least equipped to detect the subtle warning signals that would have otherwise triggered her evolved threat-detection system. The woman on the pill, selecting partners during the progestin-dominant non-fertile hormonal state, is selecting for safety and nurturance cues rather than masculine competence cues — and may not recognize the manipulation of a skilled Machiavellian operator the way her naturally cycling counterpart would. Cheryl Bradshaw — who refused the date with Alcala because something felt wrong — was relying on an intact biological threat-detection system. The pill does not leave that system intact.
The pill did not just change who women were attracted to. It changed who women could protect themselves from.
And then there are the direct health consequences the culture still will not discuss honestly. Hormonal birth control is associated with a twenty to thirty percent elevated risk of depression in adult women, and substantially higher risk in adolescents — particularly in the first three months of use when glucocorticoid receptors are being flooded with synthetic progestins that mimic chronic stress signals. The risk of major depressive disorder over a lifetime is elevated even after discontinuation. Anxiety rates are elevated. Studies link hormonal birth control to inflammatory markers consistent with autoimmune disease pathways. There is a documented small but consistent elevation in both breast cancer and cervical cancer risk with prolonged use. Cardiovascular risk increases. Blood clot risk increases two to four times over baseline for combined hormonal methods.
And then there is the partner selection catastrophe that nobody in the feminist movement will touch.
If a woman selects a partner while on hormonal birth control and then discontinues use, the blinders come off. If she selected well — if the partner was genuinely competent and masculine and she simply was not prioritizing those cues during the progestin-dominant hormonal state — her attraction increases after stopping. If she selected poorly — if she chose comfort and nurturance and safety over genuine desire, exactly as the suppressed hormonal state predisposes — her attraction decreases. Often dramatically. One analysis found that women who had used hormonal birth control had divorce rates fifty-four percent above average. The researchers who have studied this describe it plainly: coming off the pill is like the blinders coming off. And if you chose the wrong person with the blinders on, there is nothing comfortable waiting for you on the other side.
Now here is where this becomes the most damning indictment of the feminist movement specifically.
The feminist movement told women that the pill was liberation. What it actually was, biologically, was the chemical suppression of femininity in favor of a hormonal profile more consistent with male-pattern baseline. Peterson identified this contradiction directly: the feminists insisted that women should have careers, should subordinate themselves to corporate schedules and labor market demands, should suppress their cyclicity and their hormonal rhythms — essentially subordinating the biological manifestations of femininity in favor of a Persona optimized for the corporate patriarchy they claimed to oppose. You cannot demand that women be integrated into the workforce as themselves while simultaneously handing them a drug that biochemically transforms them into a different version of themselves and calling that liberation.
The feminists demanded that women be like men. The pill made women more biochemically like men. And then they called it empowerment.
What it actually produced, measured in data: women in their thirties with blunted stress responses, suppressed attraction chemistry, partners selected in a pharmaceutically altered hormonal state, elevated rates of depression and anxiety, elevated cancer risk, and the slowly dawning realization that the biological clock the culture told them was a patriarchal myth was absolutely real. One in five women will be involuntarily childless. Ninety percent of them will regret it. No one warned them. The feminist movement, which claimed to center women’s interests above all else, was so committed to the ideological project of making women functionally like men that it buried every cost.
The pill did not liberate women. It liberated men from the social obligation to commit, chemically altered women’s ability to select partners accurately, suppressed women’s biological threat-detection systems, elevated their cancer risk, depressed their cortisol response, and then handed the resulting wreckage to women to navigate alone. And called it progress.
Quinn’s Law Number One operates with perfect precision here. The movement designed to benefit women produced the measurable biological, psychological, relational, and oncological destruction of women. At scale. Over sixty-five years. In peer-reviewed data across multiple disciplines.
— YOUR BODY KNOWS WHAT YOUR CULTURE DENIES —
Let me be the anatomy teacher for a moment, because the HOW matters as much as the WHAT.
A committed long-term marriage — an equally yoked partnership where both people are pulling in the same direction with everything they have — produces specific biological outcomes that the alternative does not. Oxytocin, the bonding hormone released through sustained physical and emotional intimacy, suppresses cortisol, supports immune function, and creates the neurological foundation for the stress resilience that protects against the chronic inflammation underlying so many cancers. This is not metaphor. This is the mechanism. And it builds over YEARS of sustained partnership. Not weeks of early chemistry. Not the dopamine fog of a new relationship. Years.
The cancer study confirms the behavioral pathways too. Married individuals smoke at lower rates. Drink at lower rates. Engage in preventive cancer screening at higher rates. Over thirty years of life, those differences compound into dramatically different cancer risk profiles.
The casual sex environment produces the exact opposite of all of that. Multiple partners means multiple HPV exposure events — which is why cervical cancer in never-married women is nearly triple the rate of ever-married women. That is not a coincidence. That is a biological receipt. Higher alcohol and tobacco use among the never-married — documented in the research literature — is why lung and esophageal cancers show more than double the incidence in that population. The repeated spike-and-withdrawal of short-term relationship dopamine cycles does not build the sustained oxytocin that regulates cortisol and supports immune function. It depletes it.
The culture sold women a story about freedom. The cells are keeping a different ledger.
— EQUALLY YOKED IS NOT A CLICHE. IT IS BIOLOGY. —
This is not an argument for ANY marriage. This is not an argument for staying in a bad one. The researchers themselves noted that a strained or abusive marriage may not provide the same protective effects as a genuinely supportive partnership. Marrying wrong is one of the worst decisions a human being can make.
That is PRECISELY the argument for courtship.
If you have not read “THE CASE FOR COURTSHIP” in this series, go read it. The whole argument is this: the neurochemistry of early physical attraction — the dopamine hit, the oxytocin flood from early skin-on-skin contact, the sensation that this person is irreplaceable before your prefrontal cortex has had nearly enough unscripted time to make any accurate judgment — actively interferes with your ability to evaluate whether the person in front of you is actually capable of being the equally yoked partner the science is now showing you need.
Equally yoked means both people pulling as hard as they can, in the same direction, in the same harness. Not perfect symmetry every day — some days one person carries everything — but both committed to giving everything they have, neither putting the load down and walking away. That is the partnership the biology is built for. That is the partnership the cancer data is measuring the protective effects of. And you cannot evaluate it in a test drive. You cannot build it on six weeks of dopamine chemistry before the prefrontal cortex has had time to observe who someone actually is under pressure, fatigue, failure, and the boring ordinary Tuesday when there is nothing exciting happening and character is all that is left.
And if you are a woman who has been on hormonal birth control — if your partner preference system has been operating in a pharmaceutically altered state — the case for slow, deliberate, eyes-open courtship is even stronger. You need more unmedicated time with a candidate. You need to observe the person your altered hormonal state may have been underweighting. The research is clear: the blinders come off eventually. Courtship gives you the chance to make that evaluation while the decision is still reversible.
Courtship is not old-fashioned. It is medically intelligent. And for the first generation of women who grew up on hormonal birth control from adolescence, it may be the most important act of self-protection available to them.
— ONE NUMBER I CANNOT STOP THINKING ABOUT —
The study found something remarkable about Black men specifically. Never-married Black men had the highest cancer rates of any group — 1,600 cases per 100,000. But married Black men had LOWER cancer rates than married White men. Lower. Measurably lower across multiple cancer sites.
The same population that faces the highest cancer risk when they never marry has LOWER cancer risk than White men when they do marry. That is not genetic. That is the protective effect of a committed, stable, equally yoked marriage operating at full biological power in a population that faces structural barriers to accessing it. The anti-marriage cultural message has not hit all populations equally. The data is showing us which communities are paying the highest price for it. And it is not a small price.
— GO READ THE PREVIOUS ARTICLES —
This piece is part of a series. The articles that preceded it laid the neurological and evolutionary groundwork for understanding WHY this was always going to happen. “WHY MODERN DATING IS FAILING WOMEN… And Biology Saw It Coming” covers the hypergamy trap, the Dark Tetrad, the oxytocin chemistry that bonds women to the wrong partners before the brain’s accurate evaluation systems have time to function. “THE CASE FOR COURTSHIP” covers the biological argument for why the sequence of emotional intimacy before physical intimacy is not morality — it is neuroscience. “THE SCIENCE OF MARRIAGE” covers the oxytocin and immune function mechanisms in detail.
This article adds the outcome data, the predator case studies, the birth control science, and the feminist indictment.
The previous articles described the mechanism. This one shows you the result. Over four million cancer cases. A generation of women selected as prey by Dark Tetrad predators whose hunting conditions were created by the sexual revolution. A pharmaceutical intervention that chemically altered women’s partner selection systems and then was marketed to them as freedom. Eight years of SEER surveillance data. The largest study of its kind in American history.
The women the culture convinced to prioritize independence over commitment, to test-drive rather than commit, to delay marriage until the biological window was closing or never marry at all — they are in this data. Their cancer rates are in this data. And the gap between their outcomes and the outcomes of the women who found an equally yoked partner and built something real over decades is not small.
Eighty-five percent is not small.
I do like to look forward and see what we can do. So, for those who were seduced by the neo-feminism movement of the 60s and 70s. Here is what you need to do. You need to share your story, you need to be louder than the movement that caused the issue. We need to take our human nature back, let our brains work the way they should, without the extra hormones, without the new “social norm”, without pseudo-woman’s empowerment. As with most problems I see, we need to educate to overpower these negative trends.
But what do I know — I am only a science teacher, Army combat medic, and published anatomy textbook author who has been telling you for months that the biology was going to confirm this, and has now watched it confirmed in the largest cancer study of its kind in American history.
Read the other articles. Share this one. The data deserves an audience.
Mike Borowski is a medically retired Army combat medic with 23 years of service, including a combat deployment to Iraq, and a high school Anatomy and Physics teacher at a high-need Career Technical district in Northeast Ohio — where he also wrote and published the textbooks for both courses. He runs “Bski’s Classroom,” a platform dedicated to cutting through political noise with data, history, and the kind of blunt honesty that comes from someone who has seen both war and the American classroom up close.
—
X (Twitter): x.com/BskiMike22802
Substack: substack.com/@bskimike22802
YouTube: www.youtube.com/@BskiMike22802
AFNN: https://afnn.us/author/mikeborowski/
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA