#Medical sciences Scientific Journals

[clad992]

I think more people deserves to know this

Scientific papers are really expensive. No student can afford to have access to them. If you want to do a proper research, it is impossible to pay all the access to all the publishers that are out there. Because for one topic of your interest there are a lot of different publishers to talk about that.

Scihub is a site where you can find everything for free. It is basically piracy.

And oh i love pirates.

Scientific research should be accessible for everyone, for every type of research and for every level of education. It is not a race "i progress more than you", but should be a "we progress a humanity". Also it should be "we found this thing A is like this", "We also found A is like that and we also found B" and everyone can add a little to the research. If we don't have accesso to what other study units of other countries do, how we do progress?

It is true we need a lot of the same design of study to be certain of something, but sometimes there are too many identical studies, just because you don't know it was already there or you didn't know the same topic was being sudied by another country in the same period.

So yes Scihub is a pirate, but in this world, in this scientific world, it is the only one doing things right.

I will always use it and support it's ideal

[physicaorg]

HEY SCIENCE TUMBLR!!!

hello! we are a little science community that has been in existence for around a year but is now planning to fully bloom into something big! and we are currently looking for members!

PHYSICA is a sci-comm volunteer youth-led org that will focus on advertising the importance of scientific literacy, along with providing skills within science communication to its members - we are talking about improving our abilities to read and talk about current research, and improving access to science communication to vulnerable populations.

apart from that, we will host regular webinars with current scientific communicators - engineers, scientists, researchers, teachers, artists, bloggers, and anyone who has ever made science more understandable and accessible for the community they are in. as a member, you will not only be participating in those webinars, you will be giving active feedback as to who we invite next!

things we plan to come out with :

1. an opportunity for artists who talk, paint and write about things related to science/the environment/the universe to submit their work to be regularly featured across our social media and website

2. our very own digital magazine in which writers, artists and designers will be able to collaborate in discussing today's research that makes us believe in tomorrow 

3. building a community of people that care and believe in science 

you want to write an article about the construction of the james webb space telescope or about the new batch of dino bones that someone just found? wonderful! write with us!

you like to draw trees, fishes, birds and forests? great! we will have an article on environmental science for you to illustrate!

we need web developers (hi wix people), editors, graphic designers, social media managers and more! 

want to make a difference in the way science is learned, taught, and talked about? fill out one of the forms on this link! would you potentially be interested in helping host a webinar about effective, equitable and accessible science communication? are you a data scientist, an artist or someone who interacts with science? message us to collaborate!

sciblr, please boost this!!

[biomedres]

Mechanism of the Developed Sensorimotor Therapy Device: Synchronous Inputs of Visual Stimuli and Vibration to Improve Recovery of Distal Radius Fractures

Mechanism of the Developed Sensorimotor Therapy Device: Synchronous Inputs of Visual Stimuli and Vibration to Improve Recovery of Distal Radius Fractures in Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research

Each fracture requires immobilization following surgery. However, this immobilization impairs tactile perception and causes diminishing of cortical somatosensory maps [1]. This adverse event occurs not only among patients with undergoing immobilization for fracture, but also among their healthy counterparts [1,2]. Decreased limb use can lead to changes in the cortical representation of involved muscles [3]. These changes represent a disuse-dependent type of plasticity [4]. Because of the adverse effect arising from immobilization, we observed that some patients with distal radius fractures (DRFs) complained that prior sensation was not restored in the affected limb or that they forgot how to move the affected limb following immobilization phase, postoperatively. These patients are encouraged to further engage these limbs in active motion. Figure 1 illustrates the disuse-dependent plasticity from wrist fixation in the acute phase of patients with DRF. The process on the left illustrates insufficient coding. When joint movement of an upper limb is restricted for a certain period of time, brain activity is correspondingly reduced. As the illustration on the right shows, reduced brain activity precipitates a disuse-dependent type of plasticity that causes encoding failure, resulting in failed cerebral activation of pathways involved in the target movement or delayed recall of such movement pathways. To minimize such negative consequences of disuse-dependent plasticity during the immobilization phase, and to maintain tactile perception and somatosensory cortical maps, we developed a prototype device (development code: Ghost, Patent No. 6425355) that may be applicable to patients with DRF in the postoperative period.

For more articles in Journals on Biomedical Sciences click here bjstr

Follow on Twitter : https://twitter.com/Biomedres01 Follow on Blogger : https://biomedres01.blogspot.com/ Like Our Pins On : https://www.pinterest.com/biomedres/

[probablyasocialecologist]

The study itself is titled, “Long-Term Regret and Satisfaction With Decision Following Gender-Affirming Mastectomy,” and sought to study the rate of regret and satisfaction after 2 years or more following gender affirming top surgery. The study’s results were stunning - in 139 surgery patients, the median regret score was 0/100 and the median satisfaction score was 5/5 with similar means as well. In other words… regret was virtually nonexistent in the study among post-op transgender people. In fact, the regret was so low that many statistical techniques would not even work due to the uniformity of the numbers: In this cross-sectional survey study of participants who underwent gender-affirming mastectomy 2.0 to 23.6 years ago, respondents had a high level of satisfaction with their decision and low rates of decisional regret. The median Satisfaction With Decision score was 5 on a 5-point scale, and the median decisional regret score was 0 on a 100-point scale. This extremely low level of regret and dissatisfaction and lack of variance in scores impeded the ability to determine meaningful associations among these results, clinical outcomes, and demographic information. The numbers are in line with many other studies on satisfaction among transgender people. Detransition rates, for instance, have been pegged at somewhere between 1-3%, with transgender youth seeing very low detransition rates. Surgery regret is in line with at least 27 other studies that show a pooled regret rate of around 1% - compare this to regret rates from things like knee surgery, which can be as high as 30%. Gender affirming care appears to be extremely well tolerated with very low instances of regret when compared to other medically necessary care.

[...]

The intense conservative backlash, to the point of disputing reputable scientific journals, likely stems from the fact that reduced regret rates weaken a central narrative these figures have championed in legal and legislative spaces. Over the past three years, anti-trans entities have showcased political detransitioners, reminiscent of the ex-gay campaigns from the 1990s and 2000s, to argue that regrets over gender transition and detransition are widespread. Some have even asserted detransition rates of up to 80%, a claim that has been broadly debunked. Yet, research consistently struggles to find substantial evidence supporting this narrative. The rarity of detransition and regret is underscored by Florida's inability to enlist a single resident to bear witness against a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on gender-affirming care.

[ms-demeanor]

Hi, I share your strong pro-medicine, pro-vaccines, anti-woo beliefs. I also have chronic digestive issues and insurance that won’t cover the useful specialists. The gastroenterologists I’ve encountered are helpful for making sure my insides look okay but they don’t seem to have much training around nutrition and food science. Nutritionists are unlicensed and I find them about as trustworthy as chiropractors, and I can’t get insurance to cover a registered dietician. The internet is saturated with pseudoscience junk and “miracle cures”, and in moments of desperation I’ve fallen for some of them. Luckily I haven’t been harmed by anything so far, but I don’t think they helped much either.

I was wondering if you or your followers have any resources on IBS and/or GERD that are scientifically sound and written for a general audience? Or advice for identifying when pop-sci-style “food science” articles are a scam?

I deeply regret to inform you that I was so annoyed by this exact problem that I literally went back to school to start working on getting a degree in nutrition and got two and a half years into a second bachelor's degree before realizing I wouldn't be able to get into any programs in my area that I could afford because the local state schools aren't accepting second bachelor's applicants. (Cal State Chico, I love you and you are too far away, it's not meant to be)

Nutrition information online is completely infested with woo and I am hesitant to point people toward one of the good resources I used to reference because it is politically batshit.

If you are looking at a food science article on the internet and are trying to figure out if it's a scam the big red flags to look out for are:

anything claiming to be a silver bullet; there are no silver bullets, no magical treatments, no one weird food that will fix the problem or one weird supplement that will make everything better.

Over-emphasis on a specific type of diet (diet as in "all the food that a person consumes" not as in "weight loss tool") for a general population. It's irresponsible to recommend a rigorous, restricted diet to a wide variety of people because people are so different that one diet that works for one person (say a vegan diet) might be unhealthy or difficult to manage for another person who would thrive on a different diet (low fat, low carb).

Anyone who tells you to cut out an entire food group or macronutrient is a liar who is trying to get your money. Unless it is your personal medical doctor who is saying "you need to stop eating grains" you do not need to stop eating grains and should not stop eating grains. You also do not need to stop eating fat, or eat only protein, or cut all fruit out of your diet. (caveat: there are some conditions that require a very low fiber diet, but even on that diet there are some fruits you can eat)

Beyond that, what you can do to make sure you're getting the best information possible is:

look up the author of any article you're looking at and see what else they've written; check what their qualifications are. See the people they interact with or have collaborated with. If they work heavily with people who are, say, antivax or proponents of raw milk, you should not trust their work.

If you see something that claims to treat your condition or help with nutrition, search "[subject] research study" or "[subject] scholarly research" and see what comes up. Read at least a few papers on the subject and see if there's a consensus or if there are broad disagreements. Get into the habit of looking up the impact scores of journals and researching the history of the journals.

Learn to recognize the woo keywords with your particular illness. For celiac that's "leaky gut," and any article I come across that discusses "leaky gut" gets extra scrutiny because sometimes there are legitimate reasons to describe a "leaky gut" but more often there are woo nonsense reasons. One really good way to figure out what the woo keywords for your illness are is to search "[your illness] + [woo huckster]", so "celiac + joseph mercola" or "celiac + the food babe." (those are good starting places to see what woo is popular around anything nutrition based, really; nothing those two say is trustworthy) you can also try "[your condition] + [specific type of medical woo]" with, like, "chiropractic" and "homeopathic" and "holistic" in the second box.

Be wary of positive assertions without evidence. If someone is making an affirmative statement and they aren't providing a citation, be suspicious.

Anyway. Good luck. It sucks out there.

[melcowpland]

Surgery "Saving Trans Lives!" - Is it true?

Everytime you hear a trans person talk in any public forum, they use hyperbolic language about how we have to stop trans kids/teens from dying, or saving trans kids/teens lives. You would think from the language that there were trans people on the street gasping their last breath; if only they could receive a hormone intervention to save them! Of course they want to overwhelm people with this…

[opencommunion]

Understanding the theory’s ascent from fringe forums to scientific journals to the halls of Congress helps clarify some of the moral panic and pernicious logic employed to restrict the autonomy and rights of trans people today. It also serves as a vivid example of how questionable science can be weaponized to achieve political goals.

A number of studies on trans youth have taken on “misinformational afterlives,” says TJ Billard, an assistant professor of communications at Northwestern University and executive director of the Center for Applied Transgender Studies. Among them are four papers published between 2008 and 2013 that have together been used to claim that most children “grow out” of gender dysphoria and opt not to transition. All have been shown to have numerous shortcomings. In some, nearly 40% of young people surveyed did not meet the criteria for the official gender dysphoria diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders edition used at the time. In two, researchers classified some subjects as having detransitioned—or reversed their transition—purely on the basis of whether a parent or third party said it happened. A 2018 study found that three of the papers labeled those who had stopped responding to researchers as detransitioners; and in one, a subject who identified as nonbinary was classified as detransitioning.

“There’s a wealth of bad science that is out there, and this science doesn’t stay in journals,” Billard says. Parents unfamiliar with trans issues, who don’t understand gender-affirming health care and don’t have the expertise to read the studies themselves, often fall under its sway.

... When Littman took up the question, she decided to survey parents, who she felt would be easier to reach than trans youths themselves. In her Methods section, she writes that “to maximize the chances of finding cases meeting eligibility criteria”—meaning youths who suddenly became gender dysphoric, according to their parents—she turned to three websites: 4thwavenow.com, a “community of people who question the medicalization of gender-­atypical youth”; transgendertrend.com, which says it’s concerned about “the unprecedented number of teenage girls suddenly self-identifying as ‘trans’”; and youthtranscriticalprofessionals.org, a now-private website that was “concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender.”

The results were in line with what one might expect given those sources: 76.5% of parents surveyed “believed their child was incorrect in their belief of being transgender.” More than 85% said their child had increased their internet use and/or had trans friends before identifying as trans. The youths themselves had no say in the study, and there’s no telling if they had simply kept their parents in the dark for months or years before coming out. (Littman acknowledges that “parent-child conflict may also explain some of the findings.”) 

Arjee Restar, now an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, didn’t mince words in her 2020 methodological critique of the paper. Restar noted that Littman chose to describe the “social and peer contagion” hypothesis in the consent document she shared with parents, opening the door for biases in who chose to respond to the survey and how they did so. She also highlighted that Littman asked parents to offer “diagnoses” of their child’s gender dysphoria, which they were unqualified to do without professional training.  It’s even possible that Littman’s data could contain multiple responses from the same parent .... But politics is blind to nuances in methodology. And the paper was quickly seized by those who were already pushing back against increasing acceptance of trans people. ... Many people who are citing Littman’s work probably haven’t even read the study or seen the correction, Billard says: “People are citing a Reddit post in which somebody invoked the idea of Littman and her research.” Littman agrees with this characterization. “It boggles my mind how people are comfortable holding forth on topics that they haven’t actually read papers [about],” she says. 

... Lawmakers in more than 25 states have introduced anti-trans bills during 2022 legislative sessions. Politicians writing such legislation have plenty of questionable studies, partisan doctors, and associations that lobby against transgender rights to draw on. Littman’s ROGD study is often a go-to. The Coalition for the Advancement & Application of Psychological Science wrote in 2021 that many of the “over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents” are “predicated on the unsupported claims advanced by ROGD.”

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

A very long but worthwhile read chronicling the liberal descent into antimask/vax madness and the doctors who led the charge.

The full article includes a wealth of helpful links I can't reasonably transfer. Follow the link to find them! I'll try to transfer as many images and videos as I can.

Emily Oster, Leana Wen, Ashish Jha, and Zeynep Tufekci Betray America

Public Health in America is having its Budd Dwyer moment.

We were told time and time again how crucial it was that Kamala Harris defeated Donald Trump this past November. Well, it was recently revealed that Harris' internal polling never showed her defeating Trump. Instead of retooling her campaign and doing what's necessary to defeat Donald Trump, even if it meant giving Wall Street the middle finger, Harris and the Democrat Party burned over a billion and a half dollars praising Dick Cheney and putting Donald Trump back in the White House - as well as leaving 65% of races uncontested nationwide, simply handed to the Republicans on a silver platter. Giving Oprah a million dollars, spending six figures to re-create a podcast set that resembled a dentist's waiting room, and countless other thoughtless grifts, made it clear that Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party were never serious about defeating Trump - a blatant insult to every liberal and Democrat voter that put their faith in the opposition party which insisted "democracy was on the ballot" as their Vice Presidential nominee livestreamed Sega Dreamcast games.

Now we all get to live with the consequences of such a horrific act of political irresponsibility and cowardice. David Gorski of Science Based Medicine, Walker Bragman of Important Context, and the Death Panel podcast have all done extensive breakdowns of how Trump's handpicked crusaders against vaccines and public health have a long history of getting countless children sick, hospitalized, disabled, and dead. This isn't an article about retreading the same territory as the above-mentioned outlets, which have covered these nominees and their long history of failures and moral depravity in excruciating detail.

What's most important about these appointees is what they all share - a dangerous combination of two traits: utterly incompetent and arrogantly dishonest. We are talking about scientifically illiterate narcissists who, when soundly rejected by the overwhelming consensus of their colleagues in medicine and science, as well as...reality, instead embraced sadistic billionaires such as Peter Thiel and the Koch oil dynasty, taking to social media to spread their message amongst right-wing cranks and contrarian media in the hopes of fooling Americans into embracing their unethical delusions. The fantasy of these inept contrarians being brave medical geniuses, censored by The Man, became a popular fiction amongst conservatives and conspiracy theorists across social media; adolescent fantasies of the brave Rebel Anti-Vax Alliance hero Luke Skywalker brandishing his fully erect lightsaber against the evil giga-vaxxed Lord Vader of the Galactic Public Health Empire.

Sadly, we are now watching liberals in journalism and academia begin to embrace and even endorse this depraved crankery in a total betrayal of the public that puts their trust in them, legitimizing the same old tired anti-vaccine crankery that has haunted us for centuries - at one point, smallpox was even advertised as harmless and beneficial. We are witnessing the beginning of a total rewriting of the history of the past five years, even when the facts are readily available, in order to push false equivalences or outright lies to grant legitimacy to the utterly illegitimate, just weeks before a second Trump Administration is set to be sworn into office. There is no excuse for such a gross violation of every professional and ethical standard in the world of medicine, science, and public health - yet liberals in academia and journalism are happy to openly engage in such obscene banjaxing.

Lobbyist Leana Wen and Economist Emily Oster Endorse RFK Jr. on Raw Milk, Fluoride, and Vaccine “Choice”

Take it from a cattle farmer with over a decade of hands-on experience shoveling manure: Unpasteurized or “raw” milk can make you very sick and possibly even kill you. (FDA) This is a well-documented, basic scientific fact that has been well-established for a very long time. (Wikipedia) Pasteurization is, essentially, the process of boiling milk in order to kill bacteria and other threats to human health, because humans are not cows - or bats. There are no meaningful health benefits to drinking "raw" milk, a frankly bullshit term that is an insult to any serious farmer. We are also now at a point where H5N1 is being detected in "raw" milk products, risking the start of another pandemic within our own borders. Dr. Noha Aboelata of Roots Community Health breaks this down in detail in a 30-minute briefing:

Potential head of the HHS under Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - who has already gotten countless children killed from his anti-vaccine advocacy (Mother Jones) - pushes the imaginary health benefits of this garbage to his easily deluded audience. Unsurprisingly, liberal pundits like Leana Wen and Emily Oster are rushing to defend these sorts of "choices" using fraudulent data, just as much as they worked overtime to confuse parents about COVID-19, which has already killed and disabled many children; a fact that both paid opinion havers are still in serious denial of.

We previously profiled Leana Wen in January 2023, a Brookings Institute lobbyist and M.D. who has experienced the COVID-19 pandemic from the safety of her couch. We've also talked extensively about Emily Oster over the past two years: an economist with zero medical or scientific credentials and a long history of morally depraved garbage to her name - from claiming “it isn’t economical” to give Africa drugs to treat AIDS, (Forbes, Archived) to declaring that the right of pregnant women to drink alcohol (Twitter) is a feminist issue, to taking money from bloodsucking fascist Peter Thiel (Twitter) to publish fraudulent data in order to get countless children killed and disabled by COVID-19. These are not legitimate medical or scientific experts.

Both Emily Oster and Leana Wen took out opinion editorials (Oster in the New York Times, Wen in the Washington Post) recently citing the same JAMA Pediatrics study claiming that fluoride in drinking water is potentially a biohazard - using the racist, long-debunked concept of "Intelligence Quotient points," in order to legitimize Robert F. Kennedy's depraved conspiracy theories and baselessly attack one of the most effective public health initiatives in our lifetime. If you actually read this study for yourself, you will find the results to be…utterly inconclusive. Epidemiologist Abby Cartus breaks this down in extensive detail on her newsletter Closed Form. Wen and Oster think you are too inept to read for yourself and form your own conclusion from the reality that this single study is... worthless!

Why any self-respecting woman would carry water for a depraved, exploitative wretch who drove his wife to suicide by keeping a black book of all his affairs, rating each woman he had sex with based on how extreme a sex act he was able to perform with them, is utterly beyond belief - achieving absolutely nothing but completely destroying their own professional reputations in the process. If you truly hate yourself on this level, you're supposed to either seek professional help or drown out your sorrows with a bottle of whiskey in the privacy of your own home, instead of publicly humiliating yourself in service of an abusive, misogynistic creep that considers you subhuman for the unforgivable atrocity of having a uterus.

Unsurprisingly, Biden's final COVID-19 Czar Ashish Jha went to bat to endorse his fellow Brown University laptop class academic Emily Oster, writing on Twitter that this was merely a crisis of "public health messaging:"

"Great [Emily Oster] piece about how to do public health messaging better. Some public health experts believe the public can't handle nuance. That's nonsense. Talking to folks about the complexity of the evidence, tradeoffs, and strength of recommendations is good. Want to rebuild trust in public health? Treat the public as adults."

There is no "nuanced" argument legitimizing the selling of "raw milk" and other scam health products with serious public health risks, especially with a potential H5N1 pandemic on the horizon. It’s not “complex” to state that children should be vaccinated against COVID-19, and the overwhelming majority of pediatric COVID-19 deaths are in unvaccinated children. There are no meaningful “tradeoffs” for putting safe amounts of fluoride in water fountains. These are all basic scientific facts, and a large part of maturing into an adult is having to accept the reality of being told "no," and realizing when you're simply dead wrong. As Final COVID Czar under Joe Biden, Ashish Jha's primary goal was not to "treat the public as adults," but as bleeding piggy banks to be exploited for profit from unmitigated COVID-19 infections.

As a handpicked crusader for "privatizing the pandemic response," Ashish Jha oversaw millions of Americans winding up disabled by COVID-19, often losing their careers in the process - falling into poverty, homelessness, and deaths of despair. Women are disproportionately affected by Long COVID disability, and the messaging of the failed Harris campaign was that these women were to be abandoned (Twitter) and brutalized by the same police that the Biden-Harris administration diverted pandemic relief into buying more weapons and military toys for.

Ashish Jha smugly shrugged his shoulders and took out an opinion editorial telling everyone to "ignore COVID" whilst accepting prestigious awards. If we lived in a just society, he would be living out of a cardboard box under a freeway overpass, begging for pocket change. Unfortunately, we live in the world where the Brown University Dean of Public Health is comfortable making public endorsements of sadistic anti-vax cranks, such as Marty Makary and Jay Bhattacharya, to senior government positions.

Biden's COVID Czar Ashish Jha Endorses Mehmet Oz, Jay Bhattacharya & Marty Makary for CMS, NIH & FDA Directors You've likely heard a version of the phrase "if one Nazi is sitting at a table of a dozen people, you have a table of a dozen Nazis." The same is true of anti-vaxxers and their depraved ideals, which are often rooted in a naked embrace of fascist eugenics. You simply cannot find a "reasonable middle ground" or stake out some sort of enlightened "centrist" view that legitimizes the opinions of the arrogantly incompetent & dishonest, who champion pestilence whilst fearmongering about safe & effective vaccines for their own personal gain. By lending credence to these frauds, you establish your priorities: saving lives is less important than not hurting the feelings of sadistic cranks, or one's own personal comfort.

With a second Trump administration about to be sworn in, Democrats should be in open revolt that the Biden Administration left the COVID response in charge of anti-vax cheerleader Ashish Jha, who in a November 24th, 2024 post on Twitter wrote:

"I think [Marty Makary] at FDA, [Mehmet Oz] at CMS, and [Jay Bhattacharya] at NIH are all pretty reasonable...They are smart and experienced."

This is, undeniably and objectively, an absolute lie from the former Biden Administration official, similar to how Biden parroted the lies that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. It shouldn't be surprising that rewarding failure only breeds more failures, even when a nation is gripped by a once-in-a-century pandemic disaster.

For starters, Mehmet Oz is a morally depraved quack celebrity doctor who once boldly proclaimed that the public has "no right to health," and has frequently abused his daytime television platform to peddle quack cures to exploit his elderly audience. If put in charge of the CMS, Oz's priority is privatizing Medicare and Medicaid so that he may profit from companies that he is personally invested in, leaving the elderly and disabled with substandard, privatized "Advantage" plans that do not cover essential medical needs - driving more American families to medical bankruptcy and begging strangers on GoFundMe to survive, or more likely: homelessness & deaths of despair.

This is what the Brown University Dean of Public Health, Ashish Jha, considers "pretty reasonable."

Marty Makary's claim to fame was as a cheerleader for nakedly embracing COVID-19, falsely proclaiming the end of the pandemic via "herd immunity" multiple times, starting in early 2021. In September 2021, he claimed that getting COVID-19 protects you from COVID-19 - try telling that to the countless American children who have had it half a dozen times already, and are losing their health, dreams, and futures as a consequence. When it became clear that this approach of nakedly embracing COVID-19 had obviously failed, disabling millions of Americans in the process, Makary took out an opinion editorial in the Wall Street Journal in December 2022, attacking Long COVID - claiming it was "long anxiety" on Fox News. The evidence is overwhelming at this point, and it all says that this supposed practitioner of "evidence-based medicine" was dead wrong and is too craven and pathetic to admit that he was dead wrong about the disease he simped for to millions of FOX News views.

Makary would also fearmonger about the COVID-19 vaccine, claiming that the disease - which has killed tens of millions worldwide, according to the Economist - is essentially harmless, while the vaccine is supposedly causing massive epidemics of myocarditis. Marty would falsely label COVID-19 as "omi-cold" and "nature's vaccine," both objectively false lies that got countless thousands of Americans killed and disabled in the winter of 2021-22. Makary openly celebrated parents not vaccinating their children against COVID-19; of the thousands of pediatric COVID-19 deaths in America, they were overwhelmingly unvaccinated. Their parents would likely prefer a child with a sore arm instead of a child who is now six feet under, in a coffin. Marty has never apologized to these parents or lifted a finger to help pay for the funerals of these children who have been forever silenced.

This is who Biden's COVID Czar, Ashish Jha, considers "smart."

Last but not least, we have Jha's endorsement of Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford "health economist" who made bold proclamations about the alleged harmlessness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from the comfort of his couch, taking money from the Koch oil dynasty - which has already funded an incredible amount of unscientific climate collapse denial propaganda as well as the "Tea Party" which would evolve into Trump's "MAGA" hordes - to champion a mass infection strategy for COVID-19 as it was overwhelming hospitals, driving some doctors and nurses to suicide. Bhattacharya was happy to openly demand millions of American teachers risk death and disability from COVID-19 in early 2020, long before a vaccine was available, in order to preserve “normalcy.” It’s worth noting that teaching is a predominantly female-dominated profession.

These sorts of Little Eichmanns (Wikipedia) have always existed in society in one form or another; morally depraved sadists desperate to play God with the lives of their supposed inferiors. They must always be condemned, combatted, and outright rejected by polite society. Instead, liberals like Ashish Jha are openly lying in public displays of support for these lecherous, vapid narcissists who can only derive self-worth via forcing suffering upon others.

Much like how the Third Reich was helmed by incompetent scam artists cooked to the gills with methamphetamines, Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya looked at the COVID-19 pandemic and his inability to do anything to treat COVID-19 patients & save lives - as he never bothered to put in the work to attain a medical license - and decided to make the largest mass death event in the history of the United States all about how he could promote the most important "health economist" in America: himself. Starting off 2020 by conducting a fraudulent seroprevalence study (Twitter) and publishing false conclusions, Smilin' Jay never bothered to stay grounded in reality whilst his fellow Americans were dying and being disabled by COVID-19. Jay's priorities were rooted in growing the public profile of Jay Bhattacharya, no matter how wrong he was or how many Americans he would get killed in his sycophancy for a deadly and disabling virus he refused to learn a single thing about.

Employed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, Jay Bhattacharya would get countless Floridians killed in 2021 by failing to vaccinate the population before the Delta variant struck, after boldly proclaiming that he "protected the vulnerable." Smilin' Jay never apologized for this failure, or his many others - and why would he? He's been generously rewarded for his loyalty to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with liberals like Ashish Jha cheering him on. As part of his narcissistic fetish for spouting unscientific nonsense in front of any camera he could find, Jay Bhattacharya would also fearmonger about the COVID-19 vaccine, fearmongered about PPE, falsely portrayed himself as a victim of "censorship," falsely proclaimed getting COVID-19 protects you from COVID-19, openly embraced anti-vax conspiracy theorists, and even endorsed Canadian white nationalists whilst tweeting "Honk Honk" - a dogwhistle for Heil Hitler.

This is what Ashish Jha considers "experienced." This is who Biden and the Democrats put in charge of the final months of the COVID-19 response: a vocal supporter of abusive, scientifically illiterate anti-vax cranks that nakedly endorsed conspiracy theories whilst advertising pediatric illness as beneficial for your child’s health. If you voted for Biden in 2020 in the hopes that he would treat the very real domestic threat of COVID-19 more seriously than the blatantly false threat of a "smoking gun" from Saddam Hussein, you should be outraged: you have been made a fool of, and the anti-vaccine movement is now primed to unleash a torrent of pestilence upon you and your children via the federal government.

Liberal pundits, such as sociologist Zeynep Tufekci of the New York Times, are now working overtime to try and rewrite history - even if it means legitimizing anti-vax cranks like Jay Bhattacharya in a craven attempt to save face.

Desperate to establish herself as some sort of Enlightened COVID Centrist in "the paper of record," Zeynep was a vocal loyalist to the Biden Administration's vaccine-only strategy of mass infection from 2021 onwards. As the consequences of such a failed strategy came to light, such as COVID-19's negative impacts on the immune system - a well documented fact now in 2024 (PAI) - Zeynep would frequently cherry pick experts that validated her pro-viral opinions, and abuse her own platform to attack developing science in a failed crusade to falsely equate COVID-19 reinfections as "mild," on par with the common cold and influenza. This required endorsing obscene, unscientific views like "immunity debt," (PAI) a myth easily debunked by opening any Immunology 101 textbook.

The Pandemic Accountability Index will provide a full profile of the years of disinformation that Zeynep Tufekci peddled to the public in due time, but for now, it's worth noting that on November 27th, 2024, Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci would write an opinion editorial in the New York Times titled "Trump's Pick to Lead the N.I.H. Gets Some Things Right." Zeynep would open this drivel by making an objectively false statement that disqualifies anything which might come after:

"It's a welcome sign that, unlike many of Donald Trump's picks to lead parts of the nation's health system, his pick for director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, is actually qualified."

Fact Check! There is zero tradition of the National Institute of Health employing "health economists" such as Jay Bhattacharya, especially in a leadership position, and especially when they have a morally depraved history of making obscene claims like "health insurance encourages obesity." Jay is, by any serious definition of the term "qualified," utterly unqualified for the responsibilities of heading the NIH. We know this, because thanks to his previous experience under Ron DeSantis, he got countless Americans killed by COVID-19.

To pretend otherwise, one has to completely erase the history of Jay Bhattacharya's activities over the past five years. Zeynep Tufekci of the New York Times is either too dangerously incompetent to handle the responsibilities of medical journalism, or so utterly dishonest that one has to wonder if she's been contracted by the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself to function as a Public Relations spokesperson. This sure as hell has nothing to do with sociology, but this hasn't stopped Zeynep from asserting her supposed expertise on topics she clearly knows very little about.

Zeynep would also claim on Twitter that Bhattacharya "has made valid points about the pandemic;" mainly her insistence that SARS-CoV-2 must have come out of a laboratory, and that repeated COVID-19 infections are protective against... COVID-19. Zeynep is too scientifically illiterate and devoid of ethics to answer the very serious question raised by such "valid points:" if you seriously believed SARS-CoV-2 was designed in a lab, why would you take money from the Koch oil dynasty to argue that we should rapidly infect hundreds of millions of unvaccinated Americans, including children, with said lab-designed virus less than a year after it touched our shores, well before we had any comprehensive understanding of the harms it posed to the human body? Are working Americans and their children little more than lab rats?

Tufekci would also make more absurd, blatantly false claims in defense of Jay Bhattacharya via Twitter:

"[Jay's] dismissal as 'fringe' by public health authorities, and even censorship on social media, was unjustified and wrong. Not every point was completely wrong, and besides, they deserved addressing, not silencing. The public has a stake in such major decisions."

In reality, Jay Bhattacharya and his deranged ideals of letting COVID-19 ravage hundreds of millions of Americans well before a vaccine was widely available *was* addressed by an overwhelming consensus of scientists, doctors, and public health experts...in the fall of 2020. David Gorski for Science Based Medicine, Epidemiologists Abby Cartus & Justin Feldman with the Death Panel podcast, and countless other voices from experts around the world, including the Royal Bank of Canada Global Asset Management, published extensive rebuttals about such a horrific idea from the same mind that brought you "the thin are subsidizing the gluttony of the obese via health insurance premiums." Liberal pundit Zeynep Tufekci is outright lying and rewriting history, silencing critical voices in order to construct a false legitimacy to anti-vax social media grifter Jay Bhattacharya’s appointment to lead the NIH.

To claim that Jay Bhattacharya is an "unjustified" victim of "censorship" is a morally depraved and outright fictional statement. A laptop-class loudmouth being told "you're dead wrong" by doctors and scientists with real-world responsibilities isn't censorship. Privately owned social media networks, such as Twitter and YouTube, are entitled to moderate their platforms as they see fit and does not qualify as "censorship." Jay Bhattacharya isn't some oppressed dissident voice that the public needs to hear; to embrace his sage wisdom about how COVID-19 infections protect against COVID - Jay is backed by wealthy billionaires that have, for decades now, peddled the same unscientific propaganda that alleged liberal journalists like Zeynep Tufekci are supposed to vigilantly oppose - not launder - in the newspaper.

Every single "point" that Jay Bhattacharya has spouted about COVID-19 has been completely wrong, time and time again. This is a well-documented phenomenon, all across the Internet, because Smilin' Jay simply cannot shut his own goddamn mouth for five minutes. Yet again, Zeynep Tufekci of the New York Times thinks the general public is too incompetent to verify her outlandish claims in defense of a cruel, manipulative fraud that has incited violence against doctors and scientists that are tasked with actually saving lives.

In Closing People are rightfully afraid to fear of what might come to pass if America's federal public health apparatus is put in the hands of a gaggle of unscientific anti-vax cranks who already have the blood of countless Americans on their hands. It will be crucial for real experts to raise hell and get their teeth bloody in angrily rejecting whatever bullshit comes out of the mouths of these frauds - and guerilla, grassroots public health, in whatever form that may take, will become crucial to safeguarding the health and wellbeing of Americans over the next four years - especially that of our children. What we simply cannot do is embrace outright fiction in order to legitimize and empower bad actors that have long proven themselves utterly incapable of handling the real-world responsibilities of managing public health in America.

Every single liberal academic & pundit you see going to bat to endorse Trump's hand-picked social media sycophants - bloodthirsty zealots waging a crusade against public health and regulatory authority on behalf of their billionaire backers - is committing a grave act of treason against their fellow American, on behalf of a nefarious villain that dates back to the origins of human civilization. Countless thousands of years ago, ancient mythology was a tool to pass down essential knowledge from one generation to the next via oral tradition, and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were no different. These are forces that have shattered human societies throughout our long and bloody history - War, Death, Famine, and yes, Pestilence - infectious diseases. This war that medicine has waged against disease has a long tradition; you can read up on the mother of modern medicine, Florence Nightengale, (PBS) on the importance of clean air in preventing the spread of disease, or Death in Hamburg (Internet Archive) on the class politics of pandemics - or read up on saboteurs in 1830 claiming that smallpox is a "New Year's Gift to the world." (Twitter)

As long as we have civilized society, we will always have this fight against infectious diseases, and those who insist we nakedly embrace them will never have your best interests in mind. This is a basic fact that any credentialed sociologist getting paid to write about public health should know quite well by now.

There is no good reason for any liberal to waste a drop of ink legitimizing these grandstanding carny hacks. Going forward, one has to wonder how liberal journalists & academics will help forward Trump’s crusade against public health.

We have a long four years ahead of us, and mainstream institutions like the New York Times will try again and again to rewrite history. The Pandemic Accountability Index refuses to let this pass, and only with your support is our archival work and reporting possible. If you haven’t already, please consider taking out a paid subscription or making a one-time donation.

[fatehbaz]

imperialism and science reading list

edited: by popular demand, now with much longer list of books

Of course Katherine McKittrick and Kathryn Yusoff.

People like Achille Mbembe, Pratik Chakrabarti, Rohan Deb Roy, Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert, and Elizabeth Povinelli have written some “classics” and they track the history/historiography of US/European scientific institutions and their origins in extraction, plantations, race/slavery, etc.

Two articles I’d recommend as a summary/primer:

Zaheer Baber. “The Plants of Empire: Botanic Gardens, Colonial Power and Botanical Knowledge.” Journal of Contemporary Asia. May 2016.

Kathryn Yusoff. “The Inhumanities.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 2020.

Then probably:

Irene Peano, Marta Macedo, and Colette Le Petitcorps. “Introduction: Viewing Plantations at the Intersection of Political Ecologies and Multiple Space-Times.” Global Plantations in the Modern World: Sovereignties, Ecologies, Afterlives. 2023.

Sharae Deckard. “Paradise Discourse, Imperialism, and Globalization: Exploiting Eden.” 2010. (Chornological overview of development of knowledge/institutions in relationship with race, slavery, profit as European empires encountered new lands and peoples.)

Gregg Mitman. “Forgotten Paths of Empire: Ecology, Disease, and Commerce in the Making of Liberia’s Plantation Economy.” Environmental History. 2017, (Interesting case study. US corporations were building fruit plantations in Latin America and rubber plantations in West Africa during the 1920s. Medical doctors, researchers, and academics made a strong alliance these corporations to advance their careers and solidify their institutions. By 1914, the director of Harvard’s Department of Tropical Medicine was also simultaneously the director of the Laboratories of the Hospitals of the United Fruit Company, which infamously and brutally occupied Central America. This same Harvard doctor was also a shareholder in rubber plantations, and had a close personal relationship with the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, which occupied West Africa.)

Elizabeth DeLoughrey. “Globalizing the Routes of Breadfruit and Other Bounties.”  2008. (Case study of how British wealth and industrial development built on botany. Examines Joseph Banks; Kew Gardens; breadfruit; British fear of labor revolts; and the simultaneous colonizing of the Caribbean and the South Pacific.)

Elizabeth DeLoughrey. “Satellite Planetarity and the Ends of the Earth.” 2014. (Indigenous knowledge systems; “nuclear colonialism”; US empire in the Pacific; space/satellites; the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.)

Fahim Amir. “Cloudy Swords.” e-flux Journal #115, February 2021. (”Pest control”; termites; mosquitoes; fear of malaria and other diseases during German colonization of Africa and US occupations of Panama and the wider Caribbean; origins of some US institutions and the evolution of these institutions into colonial, nationalist, and then NGO forms over twentieth century.)

Some of the earlier generalist classic books that explicitly looked at science as a weapon of empires:

Schiebinger’s Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World; Delbourgo’s and Dew’s Science and Empire in the Atlantic World; the anthology Colonial Botany: Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World; Canzares-Esquerra’s Nature, Empire, and Nation: Explorations of the History of Science in the Iberian World.

One of the quintessential case studies of science in the service of empire is the British pursuit of quinine and the inoculation of their soldiers and colonial administrators to safeguard against malaria in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia at the height of their power. But there are so many other exemplary cases: Britain trying to domesticate and transplant breadfruit from the South Pacific to the Caribbean to feed laborers to prevent slave uprisings during the age of the Haitian Revolution. British colonial administrators smuggling knowledge of tea cultivation out of China in order to set up tea plantations in Assam. Eugenics, race science, biological essentialism, etc. in the early twentieth century. With my interests, my little corner of exposure/experience has to do mostly with conceptions of space/place; interspecies/multispecies relationships; borderlands and frontiers; Caribbean; Latin America; islands. So, a lot of these recs are focused there. But someone else would have better recs, especially depending on your interests. For example, Chakrabarti writes about history of medicine/healthcare. Paravisini-Gebert about extinction and Caribbean relationship to animals/landscape. Deb Roy focuses on insects and colonial administration in South Asia. Some scholars focus on the historiography and chronological trajectory of “modernity” or “botany” or “universities/academia,”, while some focus on Early Modern Spain or Victorian Britain or twentieth-century United States by region. With so much to cover, that’s why I’d recommend the articles above, since they’re kinda like overviews.Generally I read more from articles, essays, and anthologies, rather than full-length books.

Some other nice articles:

(On my blog, I’ve got excerpts from all of these articles/essays, if you want to search for or read them.)

Katherine McKittrick. “Dear April: The Aesthetics of Black Miscellanea.” Antipode. First published September 2021.

Katherine McKittrick. “Plantation Futures.” Small Axe. 2013.

Antonio Lafuente and Nuria Valverde. “Linnaean Botany and Spanish Imperial Biopolitics.” A chapter in: Colonial Botany: Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World. 2004.

Kathleen Susan Murphy. “A Slaving Surgeon’s Collection: The Pursuit of Natural History through the British Slave Trade to Spanish America.” 2019. And also: “The Slave Trade and Natural Science.” In: Oxford Bibliographies in Atlantic History. 2016.

Timothy J. Yamamura. “Fictions of Science, American Orientalism, and the Alien/Asian of Percival Lowell.” 2017.

Elizabeth Bentley. “Between Extinction and Dispossession: A Rhetorical Historiography of the Last Palestinian Crocodile (1870-1935).” 2021.

Pratik Chakrabarti. “Gondwana and the Politics of Deep Past.” Past & Present 242:1. 2019.

Jonathan Saha. “Colonizing elephants: animal agency, undead capital and imperial science in British Burma.” BJHS Themes. British Society for the History of Science. 2017.

Zoe Chadwick. “Perilous plants, botanical monsters, and (reverse) imperialism in fin-de-siecle literature.” The Victorianist: BAVS Postgraduates. 2017.

Dante Furioso: “Sanitary Imperialism.” Jeremy Lee Wolin: “The Finest Immigration Station in the World.” Serubiri Moses. “A Useful Landscape.” Andrew Herscher and Ana Maria Leon. “At the Border of Decolonization.” All from e-flux.

William Voinot-Baron. “Inescapable Temporalities: Chinook Salmon and the Non-Sovereignty of Co-Management in Southwest Alaska.” 2019.

Rohan Deb Roy. “White ants, empire, and entomo-politics in South Asia.” The Historical Journal. 2 October 2019.  

Rohan Deb Roy. “Introduction: Nonhuman Empires.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 35 (1). May 2015.

Lawrence H. Kessler. “Entomology and Empire: Settler Colonial Science  and the Campaign for Hawaiian Annexation.” Arcadia (Spring 2017).

Sasha Litvintseva and Beny Wagner. “Monster as Medium: Experiments in Perception in Early Modern Science and Film.” e-flux. March 2021.

Lesley Green. “The Changing of the Gods of Reason: Cecil John Rhodes, Karoo Fracking, and the Decolonizing of the Anthropocene.” e-flux Journal Issue #65. May 2015.

Martin Mahony. “The Enemy is Nature: Military Machines and Technological Bricolage in Britain’s ‘Great Agricultural Experiment.’“ Environment and Society Portal, Arcadia. Spring 2021. 

Anna Boswell. “Anamorphic Ecology, or the Return of the Possum.” 2018. And; “Climates of Change: A Tuatara’s-Eye View.”2020. And: “Settler Sanctuaries and the Stoat-Free State." 2017.

Katherine Arnold. “Hydnora Africana: The ‘Hieroglyphic Key’ to Plant Parasitism.” Journal of the History of Ideas - JHI Blog - Dispatches from the Archives. 21 July 2021.

Helen F. Wilson. “Contact zones: Multispecies scholarship through Imperial Eyes.” Environment and Planning. July 2019.

Tom Brooking and Eric Pawson. “Silences of Grass: Retrieving the Role of Pasture Plants in the Development of New Zealand and the British Empire.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. August 2007.

Kirsten Greer. “Zoogeography and imperial defence: Tracing the contours of the Neactic region in  the temperate North Atlantic, 1838-1880s.” Geoforum Volume 65. October 2015. And: “Geopolitics and the Avian Imperial Archive: The Zoogeography of Region-Making in the Nineteenth-Century British Mediterranean.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 2013,

Marco Chivalan Carrillo and Silvia Posocco. “Against Extraction in Guatemala: Multispecies Strategies in Vampiric Times.” International Journal of Postcolonial Studies. April 2020.

Laura Rademaker. “60,000 years is not forever: ‘time revolutions’ and Indigenous pasts.” Postcolonial Studies. September 2021.

Paulo Tavares. “The Geological Imperative: On the Political Ecology of the Amazon’s Deep History.” Architecture in the Anthropocene. Edited by Etienne Turpin. 2013.

Kathryn Yusoff. “Geologic Realism: On the Beach of Geologic Time.” Social Text. 2019. And: “The Anthropocene and Geographies of Geopower.” Handbook on the Geographies of Power. 2018. And: “Climates of sight: Mistaken visbilities, mirages and ‘seeing beyond’ in Antarctica.” In: High Places: Cultural Geographies of Mountains, Ice and Science. 2008. And:“Geosocial Formations and the Anthropocene.” 2017. And: “An Interview with Elizabeth Grosz: Geopower, Inhumanism and the Biopolitical.” 2017.

Mara Dicenta. “The Beavercene: Eradication and Settler-Colonialism in Tierra del Fuego.” Arcadia. Spring 2020.

And then here are some books:

Frontiers of Science: Imperialism and Natural Knowledge in the Gulf South Borderlands, 1500-1850 (Cameron B. Strang); Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World (Londa Schiebinger, 2004);

Africa as a Living Laboratory: Empire, Development, and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge, 1870-1950 (Helen Tilley, 2011); Colonizing Animals: Interspecies Empire in Myanmar (Jonathan Saha); Fluid Geographies: Water, Science and Settler Colonialism in New Mexico (K. Maria D. Lane, 2024);  Geopolitics, Culture, and the Scientific Imaginary in Latin America (Edited by del Pilar Blanco and Page, 2020)

Red Coats and Wild Birds: How Military Ornithologists and Migrant Birds Shaped Empire (Kirsten A. Greer); The Black Geographic: Praxis, Resistance, Futurity (Hawthorne and Lewis, 2022); Fugitive Science: Empiricism and Freedom in Early African American Culture (Britt Rusert, 2017)

The Empirical Empire: Spanish Colonial Rule and the Politics of Knowledge (Arndt Brendecke, 2016); In the Museum of Man: Race, Anthropology, and Empire in France, 1850-1960 (Alice Conklin, 2013); Unfreezing the Arctic: Science, Colonialism, and the Transformation of Inuit Lands (Andrew Stuhl)

Anglo-European Science and the Rhetoric of Empire: Malaria, Opium, and British Rule in India, 1756-1895 (Paul Winther); Peoples on Parade: Exhibitions, Empire, and Anthropology in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Sadiah Qureshi, 2011); Practical Matter: Newton’s Science in the Service of Industry and Empire, 1687-1851 (Margaret Jacob and Larry Stewart)

Pasteur’s Empire: Bacteriology and Politics in France, Its Colonies, and the World (Aro Velmet, 2022); Medicine and Empire, 1600-1960 (Pratik Chakrabarti, 2014); Colonial Geography: Race and Space in German East Africa, 1884-1905 (Matthew Unangst, 2022);

The Nature of German Imperialism: Conservation and the Politics of Wildlife in Colonial East Africa (Bernhard Gissibl, 2019); Curious Encounters: Voyaging, Collecting, and Making Knowledge in the Long Eighteenth Century (Edited by Adriana Craciun and Mary Terrall, 2019)

The Ends of Paradise: Race, Extraction, and the Struggle for Black Life in Honduras (Chirstopher A. Loperena, 2022); Mining Language: Racial Thinking, Indigenous Knowledge, and Colonial Metallurgy in the Early Modern Iberian World (Allison Bigelow, 2020); The Herds Shot Round the World: Native Breeds and the British Empire, 1800-1900 (Rebecca J.H. Woods); American Tropics: The Caribbean Roots of Biodiversity Science (Megan Raby, 2017); Producing Mayaland: Colonial Legacies, Urbanization, and the Unfolding of Global Capitalism (Claudia Fonseca Alfaro, 2023); Unnsettling Utopia: The Making and Unmaking of French India (Jessica Namakkal, 2021)

Domingos Alvares, African Healing, and the Intellectual History of the Atlantic World (James Sweet, 2011); A Temperate Empire: Making Climate Change in Early America (Anya Zilberstein, 2016); Educating the Empire: American Teachers and Contested Colonization in the Philippines (Sarah Steinbock-Pratt, 2019); Soundings and Crossings: Doing Science at Sea, 1800-1970 (Edited by Anderson, Rozwadowski, et al, 2016)

Possessing Polynesians: The Science of Settler Colonial Whiteness in Hawai’i and Oceania (Maile Arvin); Overcoming Niagara: Canals, Commerce, and Tourism in the Niagara-Great Lakes Borderland Region, 1792-1837 (Janet Dorothy Larkin, 2018); A Great and Rising Nation: Naval Exploration and Global Empire in the Early US Republic (Michael A. Verney, 2022)

Visible Empire: Botanical Expeditions and Visual Culture in the Hispanic Enlightenment (Daniela Cleichmar, 2012); Tea Environments and Plantation Culture: Imperial Disarray in Eastern India (Arnab Dey, 2022); Drugs on the Page: Pharmacopoeias and Healing Knowledge in the Early Modern Atlantic World (Edited by Crawford and Gabriel, 2019)

Cooling the Tropics: Ice, Indigeneity, and Hawaiian Refreshment (Hi’ilei Kawehipuaakahaopulani Hobart, 2022); In Asian Waters: Oceanic Worlds from Yemen to Yokkohama (Eric Tagliacozzo); Yellow Fever, Race, and Ecology in Nineteenth-Century New Orleans (Urmi Engineer Willoughby, 2017); Turning Land into Capital: Development and Dispossession in the Mekong Region (Edited by Hirsch, et al, 2022); Mining the Borderlands: Industry, Capital, and the Emergence of Engineers in the Southwest Territories, 1855-1910 (Sarah E.M. Grossman, 2018)

Knowing Manchuria: Environments, the Senses, and Natural Knowledge on an Asian Borderland (Ruth Rogaski); Colonial Fantasies, Imperial Realities: Race Science and the Making of Polishness on the Fringes of the German Empire, 1840-1920 (Lenny A. Urena Valerio); Against the Map: The Politics of Geography in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Adam Sills, 2021)

Under Osman’s Tree: The Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and Environmental History (Alan Mikhail, 2017); Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science (Jim Endersby); Proving Grounds: Militarized Landscapes, Weapons Testing, and the Environmental Impact of U.S. Bases (Edited by Edwin Martini, 2015)

Colonial Botany: Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World (Multiple authors, 2007); Space in the Tropics: From Convicts to Rockets in French Guiana (Peter Redfield); Seeds of Empire: Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas Borderlands, 1800-1850 (Andrew Togert, 2015); Dust Bowls of Empire: Imperialism, Environmental Politics, and the Injustice of ‘Green’ Capitalism (Hannah Holleman, 2016); Postnormal Conservation: Botanic Gardens and the Reordering of Biodiversity Governance (Katja Grotzner Neves, 2019)

Botanical Entanglements: Women, Natural Science, and the Arts in Eighteenth-Century England (Anna K. Sagal, 2022); The Platypus and the Mermaid and Other Figments of the Classifying Imagination (Harriet Ritvo); Rubber and the Making of Vietnam: An Ecological History, 1897-1975 (Michitake Aso); A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None (Kathryn Yusoff, 2018); Staple Security: Bread and Wheat in Egypt (Jessica Barnes, 2023); No Wood, No Kingdom: Political Ecology in the English Atlantic (Keith Pluymers); Planting Empire, Cultivating Subjects: British Malaya, 1768-1941 (Lynn Hollen Lees, 2017); Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia (Douglas C. Harris, 2001); Everywhen: Australia and the Language of Deep Time (Edited by Ann McGrath, Laura Rademaker, and Jakelin Troy)

Subject Matter: Technology, the Body, and Science on the Anglo-American Frontier, 1500-1676 (Joyce Chaplin, 2001); Mapping the Amazon: The Making and Unmaking of French India (Jessica Namakkal, 2021)

American Lucifers: The Dark History of Artificial Light, 1750-1865 (Jeremy Zallen); Ruling Minds: Psychology in the British Empire (Erik Linstrum, 2016); Lakes and Empires in Macedonian History: Contesting the Water (James Pettifer and Mirancda Vickers, 2021); Inscriptions of Nature: Geology and the Naturalization of Antiquity (Pratik Chakrabarti); Seeds of Control: Japan’s Empire of Forestry in Colonial Korea (David Fedman)

Do Glaciers Listen?: Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination (Julie Cruikshank); The Fishmeal Revolution: The Industrialization of the Humboldt Current Ecosystem (Kristin A. Wintersteen, 2021); The Earth on Show: Fossils and the Poetics of Popular Science, 1802-1856 (Ralph O’Connor); An Imperial Disaster: The Bengal Cyclone of 1876 (Benjamin Kingsbury, 2018); Geographies of City Science: Urban Life and Origin Debates in Late Victorian Dublin (Tanya O’Sullivan, 2019)

American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe (John Krige, 2006); Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule (Ann Laura Stoler, 2002); Rivers of the Sultan: The Tigris and Euphrates in the Ottoman Empire (Faisal H. Husain, 2021)

The Sanitation of Brazil: Nation, State, and Public Health, 1889-1930 (Gilberto Hochman, 2016); The Imperial Security State: British Colonial Knowledge and Empire-Building in Asia (James Hevia); Japan’s Empire of Birds: Aristocrats, Anglo-Americans, and Transwar Ornithology (Annika A. Culver, 2022)

Moral Ecology of a Forest: The Nature Industry and Maya Post-Conservation (Jose E. Martinez, 2021); Sound Relations: Native Ways of Doing Music History in Alaska (Jessica Bissette Perea, 2021); Citizens and Rulers of the World: The American Child and the Cartographic Pedagogies of Empire (Mashid Mayar); Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany (Andrew Zimmerman, 2001)

The Botany of Empire in the Long Eighteenth Century (Multiple authors, 2016); The Nature of Slavery: Environment and Plantation Labor in the Anglo-Atlantic World (Katherine Johnston, 2022); Seeking the American Tropics: South Florida’s Early Naturalists (James A. Kushlan, 2020)

The Colonial Life of Pharmaceuticals: Medicines and Modernity in Vietnam (Laurence Monnais); Quinoa: Food Politics and Agrarian Life in the Andean Highlands (Linda J. Seligmann, 2023) ; Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, intersections and hierarchies in a multispecies world (Edited by Kathryn Gillespie and Rosemary-Claire Collard, 2017); Spawning Modern Fish: Transnational Comparison in the Making of Japanese Salmon (Heather Ann Swanson, 2022); Imperial Visions: Nationalist Imagination and Geographical Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840-1865 (Mark Bassin, 2000); The Usufructuary Ethos: Power, Politics, and Environment in the Long Eighteenth Century (Erin Drew, 2022)

Intimate Eating: Racialized Spaces and Radical Futures (Anita Mannur, 2022); On the Frontiers of the Indian Ocean World: A History of Lake Tanganyika, 1830-1890 (Philip Gooding, 2022); All Things Harmless, Useful, and Ornamental: Environmental Transformation Through Species Acclimitization, from Colonial Australia to the World (Pete Minard, 2019)

Visions of Nature: How Landscape Photography Shaped Setller Colonialism (Jarrod Hore, 2022); Timber and Forestry in Qing China: Sustaining the Market (Meng Zhang, 2021); The World and All the Things upon It: Native Hawaiian Geographies of Exploration (David A. Chang);

Deep Cut: Science, Power, and the Unbuilt Interoceanic Canal (Christine Keiner); Writing the New World: The Politics of Natural History in the Early Spanish Empire (Mauro Jose Caraccioli); Two Years below the Horn: Operation Tabarin, Field Science, and Antarctic Sovereignty, 1944-1946 (Andrew Taylor, 2017); Mapping Water in Dominica: Enslavement and Environment under Colonialism (Mark W. Hauser, 2021)

To Master the Boundless Sea: The US Navy, the Marine Environment, and the Cartography of Empire (Jason Smith, 2018); Fir and Empire: The Transformation of Forests in Early Modern China (Ian Matthew Miller, 2020); Breeds of Empire: The ‘Invention’ of the Horse in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa 1500-1950 (Sandra Swart and Greg Bankoff, 2007)

Science on the Roof of the World: Empire and the Remaking of the Himalaya (Lachlan Fleetwood, 2022); Cattle Colonialism: An Environmental History of the Conquest of California and Hawai’i (John Ryan Fisher, 2017); Imperial Creatures: Humans and Other Animals in Colonial Singapore, 1819-1942 (Timothy P. Barnard, 2019)

An Ecology of Knowledges: Fear, Love, and Technoscience in Guatemalan Forest Conservation (Micha Rahder, 2020); Empire and Ecology in the Bengal Delta: The Making of Calcutta (Debjani Bhattacharyya, 2018);  Imperial Bodies in London: Empire, Mobility, and the Making of British Medicine, 1880-1914 (Kristen Hussey, 2021)

Biotic Borders: Transpacific Plant and Insect Migration and the Rise of Anti-Asian Racism in America, 1890-1950 (Jeannie N. Shinozuka); Coral Empire: Underwater Oceans, Colonial Tropics, Visual Modernity (Ann Elias, 2019); Hunting Africa: British Sport, African Knowledge and the Nature of Empire (Angela Thompsell, 2015)

[australianwomensnews]

Medical research has a major problem: an alarmingly high number of trials are based on fake, fraudulent or misinterpreted data.

Research misconduct sleuths call them “zombie” studies. They look like real research papers but they’re rotten to the core. And when these studies go on to influence clinical guidelines, that is, how patients are treated in hospitals and doctors’ rooms, they can be dangerous.

Professor Ben Mol, head of the Evidence-based Women’s Health Care Research Group at Monash University, is a professional zombie hunter. For years, he has warned that between 20 and 30 per cent of medical trials that inform clinical guidelines aren’t trustworthy.

“I’m surprised by the limited response from people in my field on this issue,” he says. “It’s a topic people don’t want to talk about.”

The peer review process is designed to ensure the validity and quality of findings, but it’s built on the assumption that data is legitimate.

Science relies on an honour system whereby researchers trust that colleagues have actually carried out the trials they describe in papers, and that the resulting data was collected with rigorous attention to detail.

But too often, once findings are queried, researchers can’t defend their conclusions. Figures such as former BMJ editor Richard Smith and Anaesthesia editor John Carlise argue it’s time to assume all papers are flawed or fraudulent until proven otherwise. The trust has run out.

“I think we have been naive for many years on this,” Mol says. “We are the Olympic Games without any doping checks.”

How bad science gets into the clinic

Untrustworthy papers may be the result of scientists misinterpreting their data or deliberately faking or plagiarising their numbers. Many of these “zombie” papers emerge from Egypt, Iran, India and China and usually crop up in lower-quality journals.

The problem gets bad when these poor-quality papers are laundered by systematic reviews or meta-analyses in prestigious journals. These studies aggregate hundreds of papers to produce gold-standard scientific evidence for whether a particular treatment works.

Often papers with dodgy data are excluded from systematic reviews. But many slip through and go on to inform clinical guidelines.

My colleague Liam Mannix has written about an example of this with the hormone progesterone. Official guidelines held that the hormone could reduce the risk of pre-term birth in women with a shortened cervix.

But those guidelines were based on a meta-analysis largely informed by a paper from Egypt that was eventually retracted due to concerns about the underlying data. When this paper was struck from the meta-analysis, the results reversed to suggest progesterone had no preventative effect.

There’s a litany of other examples where discounting dodgy data can fundamentally alter the evidence that shapes clinical guidelines. That’s why, in The Lancet’s clinical journal eClinical Medicine, Mol and his colleagues have reported a new way to weed out bad science before it makes it to the clinic.

Holding back the horde

The new tool is called the Research Integrity in Guidelines and evIDence synthesis (RIGID) framework. It mightn’t sound sexy, but it’s like a barbed-wire fence that can hold back the zombie horde.

The world-first framework lays out a series of steps researchers can take when conducting a meta analysis or writing medical guidelines to exclude dodgy data and untrustworthy findings. It involves two researchers screening articles for red flags.

“You can look at biologically implausible findings like very high success rates of treatments, very big differences between treatments, unfeasible birth weights. You can look at statistical errors,” says Mol.

“You can look at strange features in the data, only using rounded numbers, only using even numbers. There are studies where out of dozens of pairs of numbers, everything is even. That doesn’t happen by chance.”

A panel decides if a paper has a medium to high risk of being untrustworthy. If that’s the case, the RIGID reviewers put their concerns to the paper’s authors. They’re often met with stony silence. If authors cannot address the concerns or provide their raw data, the paper is scrapped from informing guidelines.

The RIGID framework has already been put to use, and the results are shocking.

In 2023, researchers applied RIGID to the International Evidence-based Guidelines for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), a long misunderstood and misdiagnosed syndrome that affects more than 1 in 10 women. As a much maligned condition, it was critical the guidelines were based on the best possible evidence.

In that case, RIGID discounted 45 per cent of papers used to inform the health guidelines.

That’s a shockingly high number. Those potentially untrustworthy papers might have completely skewed the guidelines.

Imagine, Mol says, if it emerged that almost half of the maintenance reports of a major airline were faked? No one would be sitting around waiting for a plane to crash. There would be swift action and the leadership of the airline sacked.

[froggibus]

Hi there! If requests are still open, would it be alright if I requested HC’s for D.Va, Mei, Sombra, and Mercy with an S/O who’s a writer?

Thank you!! You rock! Keep up the amazing work!

Writer S/O Headcanons - D.Va, Mercy, Mei & Sombra

Genre: fluff!

Pairing: D.Va x gn! reader, Mercy x gn! reader, Mei x gn! reader, Sombra x gn! reader

CW: mostly fluff, some canon/implied canon things (we love our doctor/science women), i'm horrible at writing sombra (sorry)

been a while since i did an OW request, haven't touched the game since the beginning of Dec since i don't play for a team rn & hate the direction the game is going :( but i love the characters so its a dilemma lol anyway enjoy!!!

(also!!! i am once again bothering you guys to vote in this poll if you haven't already. your input matters to me vv much & would love to hear about what you want for our valentines event this year!)

D.Va:

literally your biggest fan

she always supports your writing no matter what & definitely shares it on her stream

will probably just game while you’re writing 

she gets loud sometimes but she tries her best to stay quiet so you can focus

does her best to read your writing but she has such a short attention span she just can’t sometimes

will write little hearts and stars on her favorite passages in your writing 

brings you lots of snacks and drinks!! makes sure you’re always hydrated and that you don’t work too long

honestly probably gets really distracting sometimes

like reading your writing over your shoulder or tapping her nails on the desk really loudly

“Hana…”

“sorry,” she’ll say sheepishly. “you just have me on the edge of my seat.”

Mercy:

your proofreader/beta reader

she LOVES to read so you know she’ll pick up anything you write and devour it

will lay on the couch with you after work while you write and listen to the taps of your laptop 

“hey, Ang, do you know the word? like the one—the word for—ugh”

“luminescent.”

you’re not sure how she does it but she always manages to read your mind & know exactly what word you’re looking for

also super helpful when you have random medical questions

she’ll break down exactly how you treat a stab wound in a dingy motel for you without batting an eyelash

queen of overworking so she won’t judge you too harshly if you work all night 

but will definitely be there to chastise you with a glass of water in one hand and some plain toast in the other 

Mei:

literally the sweetest ever

always tells you how amazing your work is & recommends it to all her friends

working in the science field she’s always reading scientific journals so your work is a breath of fresh air 

she’ll have a glass of rosé and settle down with your book after a long day

NEVER critiques your work because she thinks you’re the best ever 

probably annotates it with her thoughts while reading it and voices her excitement about it 

asks you a million questions about your work and nods along while you give long winded explanations 

cooks you yummy food & brings you 5 spice hot chocolate to keep your energy up 

snuggled up to you on the couch and listens to you think outloud 

Sombra:

absolute best research buddy

you open your mouth to ask her a writing question and she already has it pulled up in four different browsers 

thoroughly explains everything to you too

through her work she knows a lot about violence and other things

so she’s always willing to answer questions—especially spy + stealth related things 

if anyone ever tries to criticize your work online she’ll literally doxx them

probably hasn’t read much of your work but she makes it up for it in undying support 

you could be writing about murdering a public official and she’d support it 

lets you sit at her desk with her while she works and hums soft songs to you

(if you enjoy content like this, interactions go a long way! comments, likes & rbs are always greatly appreciated ^-^ !!)

masterlist | overwatch masterlist

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

By Joanne Silberner

April 8, 2024

A hug, a handshake, a therapeutic massage. A newborn lying on a mother’s bare chest.

Physical touch can buoy well-being and lessen pain, depression and anxiety, according to a large new analysis of published research released on Monday in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

Researchers from Germany and the Netherlands systematically reviewed years of research on touch, strokes, hugs and rubs. They also combined data from 137 studies, which included nearly 13,000 adults, children and infants. Each study compared individuals who had been physically touched in some way over the course of an experiment — or had touched an object like a fuzzy stuffed toy — to similar individuals who had not.

For example, one study showed that daily 20-minute gentle massages for six weeks in older people with dementia decreased aggressiveness and reduced the levels of a stress marker in the blood. Another found that massages boosted the mood of breast cancer patients. One study even showed that healthy young adults who caressed a robotic baby seal were happier, and felt less pain from a mild heat stimulus, than those who read an article about an astronomer.

Positive effects were particularly noticeable in premature babies, who “massively improve” with skin-to-skin contact, said Frédéric Michon, a researcher at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience and one of the study’s authors.

“There have been a lot of claims that touch is good, touch is healthy, touch is something that we all need,” said Rebecca Boehme, a neuroscientist at Linkoping University in Sweden, who reviewed the study for the journal. “But actually, nobody had looked at it from this broad, bird’s eye perspective.”

The analysis revealed some interesting and sometimes mysterious patterns. Among adults, sick people showed greater mental health benefits from touch than healthy people did. Who was doing the touching — a familiar person or a health care worker — didn’t matter. But the source of the touch did matter to newborns.

“One very intriguing finding that needs further support is that newborn babies benefit more from their parents’ touch than from a stranger’s touch,” said Ville Harjunen, a researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland, who also reviewed the study for the journal. Babies’ preference for their parents could be related to smell, he speculated, or to the differences in the way parents hold them.

Women seem to benefit more from touch than men, which may be a cultural effect, Dr. Michon said. The frequency of the touch also mattered: A massage once every two years isn’t going to do much.

Several studies included in the review looked at what happened during the height of the Covid pandemic, when people were isolated and had less physical contact with others. “They found correlations during Covid times between touch deprivation and health aspects like depression and anxiety,” Dr. Michon said.

Touching the head appears to have more of a beneficial effect than touching the torso, some studies found. Dr. Michon couldn’t explain that finding, but thought it could have to do with the greater number of nerve endings on the face and scalp.

Another mystery: Studies of people in South America tended to show stronger health benefits of touch than did those studies that looked at people in North America or Europe. Dr. Michon said that culture may somehow play a role. But Dr. Boehme said the studies showing the differences between countries were too small to be definitive. “I think the mechanism behind this is biological,” she said. “I think that’s hard-wired and will be the same for all of us.”

In 2023, Jeeva Sankar, a pediatrics researcher at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a colleague published a rigorous review of skin-to-skin care for newborns. The analysis concluded that touch therapy for preterm or low-birth-weight infants should start as soon as possible and last eight hours or more, a recommendation that the World Health Organization adopted. Dr. Sankar said the new review was important because touch is often neglected in modern medical care, but it was too broad. He would have liked it to focus more on how various forms of touch could be integrated in medical care.

Dr. Michon stressed that the types of touch considered in these studies were positive experiences to which the volunteers agreed. “If someone doesn’t feel a touch as being pleasant, it’s likely going to stress them out,” he said.

A version of this article appears in print on April 9, 2024, Section A, Page 4 of the New York edition with the headline: Reviewing Studies, Scientists Find Hugs Are Good for You. 

[darkmaga-returns]

Arch-Technocrat Bill Gates has made several investments over the years to fund research to develop insect vectors for vaccine delivery. Everybody says it won’t fly because informed consent is impossible, and yet the research continues unabated. These scientists have a death wish for humanity. ⁃ Patrick Wood, Editor.

Researchers at the Bill Gates Foundation-backed Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands have joined an international effort to transform mosquitoes into flying syringes. According to a study published late last month in the New England Journal of Medicine, they apparently now have an effective way of using mosquitoes to deliver some protection against malaria in unsuspecting humans — and possibly other payloads in the future as well.

Scientists have long toyed with the idea of transforming mosquitoes into “flying vaccinator[s].”

Shigeto Yoshida, the lead researcher on a 2010 study that modified mosquitoes’ saliva such that they would deliver leishmania vaccines to mice when sucking their blood, noted that vaccination by insect was “just like a conventional vaccination but with no pain and no cost.”

“What’s more, continuous exposure to bites will maintain high levels of protective immunity, through natural boosting, for a lifetime. So the insect shifts from being a pest to being beneficial,” added Yoshida.

Despite the Japanese geneticist’s optimism, his study acknowledged that “medical safety issues and concerns about informed consent mitigate the use of the ‘flying vaccinator’ as a method to deliver vaccines.”

Robert Sinden, professor emeritus of parasite cell biology at Imperial College London, told Science at the time that in addition to vaccinating people without their informed consent, no regulatory agency would sign off on the initiative.

The issue of informed consent, apparently an ongoing issue for elements of the scientific community, was evidently not enough to hinder the continued development of flying vaccinators. Hiroyuki Matsuoka of Jichi Medical University in Japan, for instance, announced that with the help of a 2008 Gates Foundation grant, he was preparing work on an engineered mosquito that could produce and secrete a malaria vaccine protein into a host’s skin.

In 2022, Sean Murphy and his team at the University of Washington demonstrated the workability of that idea, testing mosquito-borne malaria vaccines on humans, establishing what they called a “proof of concept” for the technology.

Concerned about the short-lived and marginally effective nature of the malaria vaccines currently approved by the World Health Organization, Dutch researchers at the LUMC similarly turned to genetically modified parasites and mosquito carriers as a potential alternative.

In an earlier trial, the researchers tested the effectiveness of GA1, a malaria parasite genetically modified to stop developing after roughly 24 hours of infection in humans, but found that it only provided low protective efficacy against malaria. Hoping for a better outcome, the researchers crafted another parasite, GA2, to stop developing around six days following invasion in preclinical humanized mouse models.

The Bill Gates-backed Gavi, also known as the Vaccine Alliance, noted that “because the parasite dies before it infects the blood cells and evolves into its deadly phase, it instead acts as a way of priming the immune system, as a vaccination usually would.”

[allthecanadianpolitics]

An Alberta government report that influenced safe drug consumption policy is so badly flawed it's harming people and should be withdrawn, says a new study in a prominent medical journal. The paper, published Monday in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, calls the government's 2019 report into seven supervised consumption sites "pseudo-science." It says the United Conservative-commissioned study is flawed by bias against safe consumption sites, in which drug users can use illegal substances in a safe and supervised environment. "It is critical that the report be retracted by the Alberta government and that any of its scientifically trained authors distance themselves immediately from its contents," the new study says. "It is fundamentally methodologically flawed, with a high risk of biases that critically undermine its authors' assessment of the scientific evidence." A spokesperson for Alberta Health downplayed the report's influence on policy, saying funding was pulled from a Lethbridge site over financial irregularities. Hunter Baril said the government remains willing to fund safe consumption sites. However, Ginatta Salvalaggio, professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta, said after the report was released in 2020, all plans for new sites in the province were cancelled. "There's decisions being made on the basis of the data that they present that aren't put up to sufficient scrutiny," she said.

Continue Reading.

Tagging @politicsofcanada

[realjaysumlin]

There Is No Such Thing as Race at the Genetic Level | by Kristen Hovet | The Startup | Medium

I hate it when people who are in the medical and scientific fields still use the race narrative when we know there's no such thing as biological races.

This article began with what we all know and within this same article claims Black Indigenous People being a minority, if there's no such thing as biological races why would you even use minority in your journal?

This is indoctrination to say the very least because minority or majority don't apply to humans within this construct. This is why people who have a stupid narrative of eurocentrism and not modern science.

I see the human race as science sees us and this is based on our one and only species sharing an African lineage and nothing more. We as humans need to stop this rubbish right now.

If you don't like being Black or African that sounds like a personal problem but when you use it as a weapon to dehumanize someone then it becomes a global problem that needs confrontation.

[tomorrowusa]

The latest far right fad is raw milk. Perhaps they regard Louis Pasteur as a woke socialist. Seriously, government health advisories about raw milk only make it more attractive to the conspiracy theory fringe.

Commentators on sites like Infowars, Gab and Rumble have grown increasingly vocal about raw milk in recent weeks. They see the government’s heightened concerns about the dangers as overreach. “They say: ‘Bird flu in milk! Bird flu in milk! Oh, it’s the scariest thing!’” Owen Shroyer said on the April 29 episode of his “War Room” podcast from Infowars. He added: “They’ll just make raw milk illegal. That’s what this is all about.” Public health officials have long warned Americans of the severe health risks that can come with drinking raw milk instead of pasteurized milk, which is heated to kill bacteria, viruses and other germs. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 200 disease outbreaks linked to unpasteurized milk from 1998 to 2018, leading to 2,645 illnesses, 228 hospitalizations and three deaths.

The far right, including anti-vaxxers, seems to have an affinity for pathogens. Either that or they feel that pathogens don't really exist and perhaps were made up by Hillary Clinton and George Soros. Whatever they think, don't expect them to make sense.

Contrary to claims, there’s little or no evidence that drinking raw milk provides health benefits, including protection from certain infectious diseases, said Dr. Megin Nichols, the deputy director of the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases at the C.D.C. The Food and Drug Administration says pasteurizing milk kills the virus. The F.D.A. said in a statement that there are no scientifically proven benefits to drinking raw milk and that “the health risks are clear.”

Epidemics get rightwingers agitated. The latest bird flu outbreak has them acting like mad cows.

Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters, a left-leaning watchdog that looked at the trend this month, said raw milk promotion had been intensifying on the right since the start of the bird flu outbreak. “What you have is a bunch of right-wing influencers who know that they can build substantial audiences and retain their audiences and excite their audiences by telling them that what medical authorities are saying about raw milk, about bird flu, is not credible,” Mr. Gertz said.

Basically the wingnuts are telling people: Don't trust science, trust Infowars instead! Paranoia is good for clicks.

As for bird flu, there is clear evidence of it being easily transmissible between mammals.

After mice drink raw H5N1 milk, bird flu virus riddles their organs

Despite the delusions of the raw milk crowd, drinking unpasteurized milk brimming with infectious avian H5N1 influenza virus is a very bad idea, according to freshly squeezed data published Friday in the New England Journal of Medicine. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison squirted raw H5N1-containing milk from infected cows into the throats of anesthetized laboratory mice, finding that the virus caused systemic infections after the mice were observed swallowing the dose. The illnesses began quickly, with symptoms of lethargy and ruffled fur starting on day 1. [ ... ] Before the mouse data, numerous reports have noted carnivores falling ill with H5N1 after eating infected wild birds. And a study from March in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases reported that over half of the 24 or so cats on an H5N1-infected dairy farm in Texas died after drinking raw milk from the sick cows. Before their deaths, the cats displayed distressing neurological symptoms, and studies found the virus had invaded their lungs, brains, hearts, and eyes.

So we have bovines, rodents, and felines all being infected by H5N1. Several primates (i.e. humans) have also been infected. But generally, humans whose health practices are influenced by the germ theory of infection stand a darn good chance of avoiding it.

Fortunately, for the bulk of Americans who heed germ theory, pasteurization appears completely effective at deactivating the virus in milk, according to thorough testing by the FDA. Pasteurized milk is considered safe during the outbreak.

As with 17th century patriarchy and religious practices, the fringe right seems eager to return to the medical dark ages before germ theory and vaccination. In the century between 1870 and 1970 life expectancy almost doubled because of related discoveries. The far right seems to have some sort of death wish.

Vote for pro-science candidates. Support groups like 314 Action which are dedicated to electing candidates with a science background.

About Us - 3.14 Action