Texas doctor responds after controversial post about flood victims
Propst's (pictured) post went viral last weekend after a screenshot of it was shared across multiple social media platforms, resulting in calls for her termination and to have her medical license revoked. The Houston-based doctor has now issued a public apology - but still had the nerve to temper it and play the victim. She now claims she didn't realize at the time how many had died and that her post was 'being shared with the false impression that I made it after the devastating loss of life was known'.
'I speak to you as a mother, a neighbor, a pediatrician, and a human being who is deeply sorry,' Propst wrote Wednesday in a statement published by KPRC . 'I understand my comment caused immense pain to those suffering indescribable grief and for that I am truly sorry.' She said she wanted to 'apologize to each and every individual suffering through terrible loss in this difficult time'. The catastrophic flash floods have killed at least 120 people, with over 170 who are still missing also presumed dead.
Propst also urged the community not to direct 'responsibility or harassment' towards her former employer Blue Fish Pediatrics. 'They are kind, hard-working, dedicated pediatricians who had no role in this whatsoever,' she said of her ex-colleagues. 'Perhaps my biggest regret is that my words are now serving as a distraction from our shared responsibility to heal the pain and suffering of those whose lives have been forever changed by unspeakable loss, and to take every step to ensure such a disaster never occurs again.'
Blue Fish Pediatrics distanced itself from Propst in a statement Saturday night in which the practice disavowed her comments. 'We are aware that a personal social media comment by one of our physicians has caused significant hurt and outrage,' the statement read. 'The content and timing of that post do not reflect the values, standards, or mission of Blue Fish Pediatrics.
'We want to be clear: we do not support or condone any statement that politicizes tragedy, diminishes human dignity, or fails to clearly uphold compassion for every child and family, regardless of background or beliefs. 'Our practice exists for one purpose only - to provide excellent, loving, and respectful care to all children and their families.
'Our patients come from every walk of life, every political belief, and every background, and we are honored to serve each of them with empathy and integrity. 'In moments of crisis, we believe in unity over division, healing over judgment, and humility over rhetoric. We are taking this matter seriously, reviewing it internally, and have placed the physician on administrative leave.' The practice later added that 'the individual is no longer employed.'
The head of the Texas Medical Board Dr. Sherif Zaafran also shared Blue Fish's message and added: 'There is no place for politicization. The entire focus needs to be on looking for survivors. Any complaints we may receive will be thoroughly investigated.' Propst's profile has been removed from both the Blue Fish Pediatrics and Children's Memorial Hermann hospital websites.
Friday's flash flooding that has left more than 120 people dead, including dozens of children, across the Texas Hill Country region. The confirmed death toll is expected to rise as the urgent search for more than 170 people still missing entered a seventh day. Hundreds of workers in Kerr County and other central Texas communities continue to comb through piles of muddy debris, but there have been no live rescues reported this week.
President Donald Trump is preparing to visit the disaster zone Friday with First Lady Melania Trump. The floods are now one of the deadliest natural disasters in Texas history. It is also the deadliest from inland flooding in the US since 1976, when Colorado's Big Thompson Canyon flooded, killing 144 people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump fossil-fuel push setting back green progress decades, critics warn
Ever since Donald Trump began his second presidency, he has used an 'invented' national energy emergency to help justify expanding oil, gas and coal while slashing green energy – despite years of scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels has contributed significantly to climate change, say scholars and watchdogs. It's an agenda that in only its first six months, has put back environmental progress by decades, they say. Trump's skewed and unscientific energy priorities have come even as climate-change related weather disasters from huge floods in Texas to giant California fires have increased, and as Trump regulators are clamping down on spending for alternative fuels and weather research. As the death toll from the Texas floods rose to over 100 on 7 July, Trump signed an executive order that added new treasury department restrictions on tax subsidies for wind and solar projects. That order came days after Trump signed his One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included provisions to gut big tax credits for green energy contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act legislation Congress passed during Joe Biden's presidency In another oddly timed move, underscoring the administration's war on science, its proposed budget for the coming fiscal year would shutter 10 labs that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration runs – specifically ones that conduct key research on ways weather changes are affected by a warming earth. Trump also signed four executive orders in April to help revive the beleaguered and polluting coal industry, which he and key cabinet members touted more at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh as they promoted plans by private companies to spend $92bn on AI projects and expand coal and natural gas in Pennsylvania. The blinkered focus that Trump and his key regulators place on their energy policies reflect the administration's denigration of science, while posing dangers to public health and scientific progress. And, critics say, this is all happening as university research and government labs face big cutbacks in funding and staff. Trump has pushed for more fossil-fuel production, rhapsodized about 'beautiful coal', dubbed climate change a 'hoax' and invoked his 'drill, baby, drill' mantra to promote more oil and gas projects after receiving $75m in campaign donations in 2024 from fossil-fuel interests. Scholars have hit out at the administration for firing hundreds of scientists and experts working on a major federal report detailing how climate change is impacting the country. The administration has also systematically deleted mentions of climate change from federal websites while cutting back funds for global warming research. 'Trump's actions are a patent attempt to roll back decades of environmental progress, not because it makes any sense, economically, but because it does two things that Trump wants,' Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard historian of science, told the Guardian 'First, it helps his cronies in the oil, gas and coal industries, who we know he met with a Mar-a-Lago before the election, and who gave substantial sums to his election campaign.' Oreskes said it's also 'part of a larger attempt to deny the credibility of environmental protection, tout court'. 'Look at Trump trying to force uneconomic coal fired power plants to stay open,' she continued. 'That makes no economic sense, and defies the principles of free market economics that Republicans claim to support. But like the guys who jack up their trucks to make more pollution, Trump is trying to deny the necessity and credibility of environmental concerns.' Oreskes stressed that much of the science Trump 'is in the process of destroying forms the basis for environmental and public health protection in this country: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Geological Survey and the EPA, plus all the federally funded science at universities across the country, including my home institution, Harvard. None of this makes economic sense.' Many scientists echo Oreskes's concerns as do Democratic attorneys general, who filed a lawsuit in May challenging the legality of the Trump administration's declaration of a national 'energy emergency' to justify its radical policies. Meanwhile, regulatory and spending shifts at the Environmental Protection Agency, including staff and research cuts, have revealed the administration's disregard for scientific evidence – particularly about climate change and its adverse economic effects. In response to the cuts and policy shifts, a total of 278 EPA employees signed a letter in July denouncing the agency's politicization and decrying policies that 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment'. The EPA then put 144 of the employees who signed their names to the letter on leave for two weeks while an 'administrative investigation' was conducted. 'This isn't quite at the level of the 17th-century church's persecution of Galileo for saying the Earth goes around the Sun, but it's in a similar spirit of ideology trying to squelch science,' Michael Gerrard, who heads the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told the Guardian. 'Trump's use of an invented 'energy emergency' to justify more fossil-fuel production defies not only physics but arithmetic. The numbers show that the US is producing more oil and gas than any other country, and that Trump's actions in knifing the wind and solar industries will raise the energy prices paid by US consumers.' Gerrard stressed too that, on the Texas flooding, 'the lack of sufficient warnings highlight how short-sighted are Trump's drastic cuts to the National Weather Service and other federal scientific work'. He added it was 'especially so since climate change is intensifying extreme weather events, and Trump's attacks on green energy and support of fossil fuels will make those worse'. Such criticism has not seemed to faze Trump or top agency appointees like EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. Last month, 1,500 staffers who work in EPA's office of research and development (ORD) were told in a staff meeting that they would have to apply for about 400 new posts in other EPA offices. What will happen to employees who don't land new positions is unclear. 'Gutting the … [ORD] is a loss for health,' warned Laura Kate Bender, assistant vice-president of nationwide healthy air at the American Lung Association. Further experts and watchdogs have stressed that the health of millions of Americans was threatened by Zeldin's May announcement of plans to cut its budget by $300m in fiscal year 2026 – a move that's part of a makeover to reduce spending levels to those of the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. In response to the cuts and policy shifts, 278 EPA employees signed a letter in July denouncing the agency's politicization and decrying policies that 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment'. The EPA then put 144 of the employees who signed their names to the letter on leave for two weeks while an 'administrative investigation' was conducted. On Friday, the EPA doubled down on the cuts and say it would be reducing its entire workforce by at least 23% through voluntary retirements and layoffs. Gerrard noted that the administration's misguided energy moves and rejection of science are having enormous societal costs: 'Laboratories are being shut down around the country, experiments that might be on the cusp of great discoveries are being halted, and young aspiring scientists are rethinking their career paths. Other countries are recruiting US scientists and offering them friendlier environments.' Looking ahead, Oreskes, too, warns that the Trump administration's denigration of science will do long term damage to public health, the environment and scientific progress 'The scientific agencies that Trump is destroying, such as the National Weather Service, save the American people and American business billions of dollars in avoided property damage and health costs,' she said. 'But if you want to deny the true costs of climate change, then you may be motivated to destroy the agency that documents these costs [Noaa]. And if you want to deny the need for environmental and public health protection, then an effective way to do that is to destroy the scientific agencies and academic research that for decades have proven that need.'
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
A MAGA bot network on X is divided over the Trump-Epstein backlash
A previously unreported network of hundreds of accounts on X is using artificial intelligence to automatically reply to conservatives with positive messages about people in the Trump administration, researchers say. But with the MAGA movement split over the administration's handling of files involving deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the accounts' messaging has broken, offering contradictory statements on the issue and revealing the LLM-fueled nature of the accounts. The network, tracked for NBC News by both the social media analytics company Alethea and researchers at Clemson University, consists of more than 400 identified bot accounts, though the number could be far larger, the researchers say. Its accounts offer consistent praise for key Trump figures, particularly support for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. As often is the case with bot accounts, those viewed by NBC News tended to have only a few dozen followers, and their posts rarely get many views. But a large audience does not appear to be the point. Their effectiveness, if they have any, is in the hope that they contribute to a partisan echo chamber, and that en masse they can 'massage perceptions,' said Darren Linvill, the director of Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub, which studies online disinformation campaigns. 'They're not really there to get engagement. They're there to just be occasionally seen in those replies,' Linvill told NBC News. The researchers declined to share specifics on how they identified the accounts, but noted they shared a number of distinct trends. All were created, seemingly in batches, around three specific days last year. They frequently punctuate their posts with hashtags, often ones that are irrelevant to the conversation. They post almost exclusively by replying to other users, often to people who pay X for verification and by repeating similarly worded sentiments over and over in short succession. At times, they will respond to someone's post by repeating it back to them verbatim. It's unclear who is behind the network, or which of the multiple AI chatbots that are widely accessible to the public was used to power it. The bots have posted support for conservative figures since 2024, including supporting Trump and other Republicans on the ballot in the lead-up to the election, and then afterward posting that they were excited for Trump to take office. Though they would occasionally mix their messages — some have professed affection for MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance — their messaging was consistently in favor of MAGA figures until the recent Epstein files controversy. A core constituency of Trump supporters voted for him on the belief that Trump, a former friend of Epstein's, would expose a list of supposed rich and powerful clients and bring justice to Epstein's victims. It's only since earlier this month, when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced she would not release additional Epstein files, that the accounts' messaging has become so split, with some accounts telling different users opposite opinions almost concurrently. During the same minute last Saturday morning, for example, one account in the network both cautioned a MAGA supporter from judging Bondi too harshly and told another that Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino should resign over the scandal.
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
"Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request," the president wrote. "It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!" More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. "Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval," Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is "working." "But we want all the files," Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. "What about videos, photographs and other recordings?" Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. "What about FBI... (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?" Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.
