I read a lot for my fiat jobs. Sometimes pretty interesting things come across my desk—today, maybe even relevant for SN eyes.
Stackers tend to be healthy, contrarian, obsessed with authorities overreaching.
So here we are:
Here from Jesse Singal, via Reason: (How Scientific American's Departing Editor Helped Degrade Science)
"But increasingly, during Helmuth's tenure, SciAm seemed a bit more like a marketing firm dedicated to churning out borderline-unreadable press releases for the day's social justice cause du jour. In the process, SciAm played a small but important role in the self-immolation of scientific authority—a terrible event whose fallout we'll be living with for a long time."
"Self-immolation of scientific authority" will henceforth be in my daily vocab use.
"Going forward, Scientific American can right the ship by simply hiring an editor who cares more about science than progressive political goals. [...] It simply means that Scientific American needs to get back to its roots—explaining the universe's wonders to its readers, not lecturing them about how society should be ordered or distorting politically inconvenient findings."
NEXT:
Vinay Prasad for The Free Press discuss RFK Jr.'s promises to Make America Healthy Again.
Writes Oliver Wiseman in the TFP daily rundown:
"on all kinds of measures, America isn’t as healthy as it used to be—or should be, given how much we spend on our health. So it’s not hard to see why so many people think something, somewhere has gone horribly wrong. Nor is it hard to see the appeal of Trump and RFK’s promise to Make America Healthy Again."
A wonderful graph, too:
"RFK Jr. has shown an ability to talk with empathy and insight about the chronic health problems ailing Americans. And he deserves credit for pushing these issues closer to the top of the political agenda. But he also holds some views that appear to have no basis in science." https://www.thefp.com/p/can-rfk-jr-make-america-healthy-again?
Prasad:
"After looking at the whole range of RFK Jr.’s positions, I’ve come to the view that while some are extreme, others are genuinely worthy of debate—and still others are correct. And there is a way to sift the good from the bad and the debatable."
"RFK Jr. also said Covid was a great opportunity for corporations like Pfizer and Moderna to make hundreds of billions selling vaccines to people who didn’t need them. I think the vaccines did save lives—especially when given to the elderly or the immunocompromised when they were first made widely available in early 2021—but here too,** I also think he is mostly correct. **The companies pushed vaccinations and repeated boosters on kids to make more money without proof this was ever necessary."
"It is true that the benefits of fluoride have eroded over the years, especially since most toothpastes contain fluoride. Harvard researchers state that there have been reductions in cavities even in countries without routine fluoridation of water. Finally, some economic literature has sought to connect fluoride in the water to lowered cognitive performance, but in my opinion, these papers remain weak and uncertain. Having said this, I think this is a topic that warrants further discussion and cannot be summarily dismissed."
And the greatest of all gems:
"doctors who say “all vaccines are safe and effective” are usually idiots. They haven’t studied the topic or thought about it for one second. Some vaccines are vital. Some are debatable, and some can be harmful (mRNA for young men during Covid, for instance, too often led to myocarditis). Vaccines are like drugs. We need better evidence."