COVID

Yesterday was “Stand Up for Science 2025” day, which featured rallies around the country to “defend science as a public good and pillar of social, political, and economic progress.” But that isn’t what it was really all about. From the “Stand Up for Science” website’s listed policy goals: 1. End Censorship and Political Interference in Science Science thrives on open inquiry and evidence-based decision-making. We demand: An end to government censorship: Prohibit all forms of political censorship in scientific research, including restrictions on the topics of scientific research that are eligible for federal funding… A commitment to freedom of scientific expression: Protect scientists’ rights to communicate their findings freely, without fear of retaliation or suppression. Well, that’s ironically rich. Former NIH head Francis Collins spoke (and sang) at Read More ›

The push to impose rule by “scientific consensus” continues apace — even as the American people clearly rejected that view in the last election (thanks in no small part to how the public health consensus blew the Covid response). But the science powers that be refuse to learn. In fact, they appear to be doubling down. Now, Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist and award-winning science writer, advocates for criminally and civilly punishing violators of the “scientific consensus.”

First, Siegel defines what he means by “scientific consensus.” From, “4 Key Steps to Transform the USA Back into a Scientific Nation:”

Only in the presence of decisive evidence can consensus be achieved. Consensus is not “the end goal” of science, but rather a starting point for future advances: the foundation of what is not just known, but is widely accepted for good reason, at present. Consensus is, to be blunt, what the overwhelming majority of professionals have concluded is already strongly established by the existing evidence so far.

But conformity of belief does not make it right. The supposed scientific consensus can be more ideology than science. Take eugenics. For decades in the early 20th century, the scientific consensus supported dividing human beings into the “fit” and “unfit.” That consensus became so motivating that many states passed laws requiring involuntary sterilizations, a pernicious policy supported by an 8-1 decision in the Supreme Court, with Buck v Bell (1927) becoming one of history’s great injustices.

President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) because of its Covid failings, allegations of being soft on China, and the disproportionate share of funding borne by the United States. There is even more wrong in how WHO leaders have wielded their influence. In recent years, the organization has not just been about promoting public-health internationally, but also in using its clout to impose woke cultural agendas on the world — including areas that have traditional moral values — and in seeking to construct an international technocracy. Item: WHO sought to force a radical abortion regime on the world by allowing abortion through the ninth month and curtailing the right of conscience by doctors to Read More ›

The public health sector has been roiled by controversy and political turmoil in the last few years, what with the COVID pandemic, the fight over vaccine mandates, and questions about politicization of the sector. Beyond that, viruses make the news like never before. So, Wesley turned to an expert in both fields to learn more about virology, the government’s response Read More ›

The science establishment continues to politicize “science” — and that ain’t good for science.

In July, Nature — supposedly the most respected science journal in the world — endorsed Kamala Harris. Now, following the ideological leader, so has Scientific American.

And what a sad joke the endorsement is. For example, the editorial repeats the lie that Trump told people to inject bleach to fight Covid. From the editorial:

Trump touted his pandemic efforts during his first debate with Harris, but in 2020 he encouraged resistance to basic public health measures, spread misinformation about treatments and suggested injections of bleach could cure the disease.

No. He. Did. Not.

How can an editorial in a supposedly factually based scientific publication be trusted as dispositive when it pushes a lie that has repeatedly been debunked — even by Snopes? This alone should discredit SA as a reliable guide to voting.