#most public school systems regardless of country are deeply flawed

[honouredsnakeprincess]

I think it's really dumb when (almost always american) youtubers criticize fundamentalist homeschooling or tradwives or the like, but then also scramble to defend "benign" instances of these things?

actually, i think homeschooling in general is pretty shit, and at best represents a fundamental failing of the public school system to meet the needs of disabled students (in that that is the most "benign" reason for homeschooling i have seen)! i think that even if you voluntarily choose to play the role patriarchy has assigned you, as a mother, you are still playing the role patriarchy has assigned you, and that is not a neutral act!

[theoreticalli]

hm. I've been rolling the Atlantic article that I'm guessing this is referring to (based on the Percy Jackson reference) over in my head for a few days as I do with every Atlantic article that I find to be mostly ridiculous but a bit insightful and I... would like to add some further thoughts about this (under a cut because it's gonna get long)

I'm going to step back from using stupidity as the framework at all because I think the primary flaw with the article was that it was only just beginning to be able to imagine stepping away from seeing the issue of literacy as individual failings of entire groups of students, rather than what such an apparently wide-reaching phenomenon would have to be, which is systemic. it simply does not make sense to believe that all or even most American children would have become "lazier", more incurious, or worse behaved within the past few generations as a result of broad "culture" or "parenting" shifts that just are not all that consistent across the country, and I am deeply critical of any commentary on education that entertains that idea.

the article also had the fatal Atlantic contributor flaw of dropping in a "phones are ruining our attention spans 😱😱😱" scare right at the top of its explanation and then... not going into nearly as much depth on that as it should have. and I think in an era where the prevailing trend on YouTube is 5+ hour video essays and weekly or daily hour-long podcast episodes, Instagram and tiktok have had to repeatedly extend their video and post lengths to accommodate the forms creators want to use, and I am reading a goddamn Atlantic article on my phone... it gets kinda hard to say without elaboration that "the internet" is a leading cause of poor literacy and short attention spans when that damn iCarly essay has like 11 million views and the hbomb plagiarism one has like 8 mil (regardless of how well people are understanding either or the nuances of the points they're trying to make, they are engaging with a long-form piece of analysis and taking it out into the broader culture).

and on the topic of Percy Jackson... I find it deeply goofy that someone who has been teaching literature for 25 years would not consider that 25 years ago, The Lightning Thief hadn't been fucking published yet. the YA renaissance had barely started. teens were only just starting to have books that were targeted to them, and many of the earlier books that take teen life seriously are actually taught in middle and high school English classes, ie Catcher in the Rye or The Outsiders. the author at least brings up the classical context of Percy Jackson, which I appreciate. reading the series early in life set me up for a lifelong fascination with mythology that DID lead me to read a lot of Greek tragedies, if not the full Iliad and Odyssey, as the professors in the article would hope. the books were written by an English teacher as an introduction for his dyslexic, ADHD child to Greek myth, after all. other YA series like the Hunger Games are excellent modern options for English classes too, offering possible connections to other texts on war that may be more difficult for high school students to get through at first but that could later be easier with that touchstone.

which brings us, generally, to the topic of public school curriculum. No Child Left Behind, Common Core, standardized testing, and their focus on excerpts and informational texts are eventually identified as likely the primary culprit of students being unprepared to suddenly be expected to read full books in unfamiliarly older language. frankly, it is wild to bury the lede at all on this point, because mentioning tiktok before the sweeping federal education reform that affected the specific generation being discussed does a disservice to these students and their educators. if students aren't being asked to read Wuthering Heights for school (I never was), it's extremely unlikely that they're going to show up to their first day of English Lit 101 calling it their favorite.

speaking of English Lit 101, if your aim is deep reading, asking students to read 14 books in a semester feels... directly counterproductive to that goal. in a full course load of elite college classes, it's just not humanly possible that the average 18 year old in ANY time period was fully reading and digesting The Iliad in a two week period. granted, that's what the course is for! you do a baseline reading, come into class, and work together to achieve a deeper understanding. but I have a hard time seeing a reduction in material to allow time to dive further into each text as a loss? isn't that the point, to increase attention span, spend longer with the text? you want your students to spend 9 hours per each class on reading and other work, plus potentially work a part or full time job if they don't happen to be privileged enough not to have to, plus have a social life because these are TEENAGERS, and you're shocked they're overwhelmed and would rather doomscroll tiktok lol

the article also partially blames having to integrate newer authors or just. authors outside of the Western Canon™ which. oh god forbid I not have to read Siddhartha. I truly think this is just reason for even intro/summary classes to be built around a coherent thesis of how you're linking the texts you've chosen, not just arguing that we're reading Great Expectations because everyone has to read Great Expectations if they want to be a real Harvard student. there are so many published texts that can be used in a literature course to illustrate all kinds of points, and if you aren't teaching a seminar with a specific focus on a specific author, movement, country, or era, there's just... no reason to bemoan the loss of Crime and Punishment if it's been replaced with, God Forbid, Native Son or another novel that touches on similar themes but won't be daunting for the sheer sake of it (no shade to the complicated Russian novel genre. but if you thought every one of your gen ed students were reading all of a Dostoevsky in their first semester of college in 2004, they were just better at fooling you <3)

okay. all that bullshit from the article aside. the "isn't that problematic?" puriteen critical of my interests crowd is big enough that it, too, cannot just be a function of individual character flaws! if this many people are engaging with thematic complications in text only on the level of "does this contain words that are on the unallowed list" then surely there is, again, a cause beyond "you're fundamentally unserious, incurious, and stupid."

as noted in the Atlantic article, there will always be students that, by virtue of familial circumstances, natural aptitude, extracurricular support, or other factors, will "read insightfully and easily and write beautifully." I was one of these students, and I do not say this to set myself apart or celebrate myself - I say it because, as I developed analytical skills at a relatively linear pace through grade school and undergrad, I was able to witness the classes I was in start over at basics again and again with the expectation that incoming students would have no baseline from which to start. how true this was I don't know, but it meant that the task of deciphering a thesis statement in any text we were writing or reading, a "main idea," was reiterated to the point of losing its second, arguably more important factor: finding the position where one stands in relation to that idea, and arguing it.

this seems to me the main issue for the argument-neutral, content-averse censorship argument. locating the presence of a topic in a text is a red flag, because there was rarely enough time or resources in education to devote to properly picking apart the position of the author relevant to any given topic. on particularly blatant, binary positions, sure, but any position of authorial vs narrative perspective, unreliable narration, outdated framing or language, or complicated, contradictory positions enter the picture and a specific subset will get caught up in the surface narrative - much like the Tyler Durden admirers among us.

and to some extent, high school can only get anyone so far in that literacy! it is the PURPOSE of a college literature or language course to take the next step into dissecting the context, themes, motifs, etc of texts with more going on in them than Percy Jackson. and some people won't go to college, or will struggle with the already underfunded and pedagogically undermined public grade school classes, or will go to Harvard on trust fund money and coast by and still not quite get it and go on to claim they're the first YA novelist to write a feminist Cinderella retelling or something like that. sure, maybe they're responsible for being a little too loud on a subject they really don't have that much area knowledge on, but we're all immersed in so much storytelling media all the time that it's hard not to see why people want to talk about it!

so... that's my very long, unsourced essay on why that particular Atlantic article belied a few broader cultural obsessions that truly make so little sense to focus on at the end of the day, as well as thoughts on how all this thematic illiteracy shit (at least within the US) is in no small part because we have always and recently even more acutely struggled to teach every student how to analyze texts for arguments and multiple meanings. thank you

idk my stance on the whole thing is i don’t think there is an inherent stupidity or lack of worth or danger in the adult who only reads, on the one end of the spectrum, middle grade fantasy novels or, on the other end, Seduced By My Enemies To Lovers Billionaire Daddy Hockey Player booktok smut fare. i think developing a diverse palate of reading tastes, challenging yourself, etc is important but at the end of the day some people just want to, or for whatever reason, are only able to read more simplistic and digestible fare. plus reading fiction is only one way of (shudders) “Consuming Media™���” or exercising your brain more generally, and many of these people are quite probably perfectly intelligent and functioning adults who have just happened to put their “intellectual engagement with the world” stats in a different column. but on the other hand while i don’t think you can make a snap judgement about someone’s intelligence based on what they do or don’t read i DO think you can start to make those judgements based on how they react when this discourse comes up 😳

[qqueenofhades]

Could you expand a bit on the "death of expertise"? It's something I think about A LOT as an artist, because there are so many problems with people who think it isn't a real job, and the severe undercutting of prices that happens because people think hobbyists and professionals are the same. At the same time, I also really want people to feel free to be able to make art if they want, with no gatekeeping or elitism, and I usually spin myself in circles mentally thinking about it. So.

I have been secretly hoping someone would ask this question, nonny. Bless you. I have a lot (a LOT) of thoughts on this topic, which I will try to keep somewhat concise and presented in a semi-organized fashion, but yes.

I can mostly speak about this in regard to academia, especially the bad, bad, BAD takes in my field (history) that have dominated the news in recent weeks and which constitute most of the recent posts on my blog. (I know, I know, Old Man Yells At Cloud when attempting to educate the internet on actual history, but I gotta do SOMETHING.) But this isn’t a new phenemenon, and is linked to the avalanche of “fake news” that we’ve all heard about and experienced in the last few years, especially in the run-up and then after the election of You Know Who, who has made fake news his personal brand (if not in the way he thinks). It also has to do with the way Americans persistently misunderstand the concept of free speech as “I should be able to say whatever I want and nobody can correct or criticize me,” which ties into the poisonous extreme-libertarian ethos of “I can do what I want with no regard for others and nobody can correct me,” which has seeped its way into the American mainstream and is basically the center of the modern Republican party. (Basically: all for me, all the time, and caring about others is a weak liberal pussy thing to do.)

This, however, is not just an issue of partisan politics, because the left is just as guilty, even if its efforts take a different shape. One of the reason I got so utterly exasperated with strident online leftists, especially around primary season and the hardcore breed of Bernie Bros, is just that they don’t do anything except shout loud and incorrect information on the internet (and then transmogrify that into a twisted ideology of moral purity which makes a sin out of actually voting for a flawed candidate, even if the alternative is Donald Goddamn Trump). I can’t count how many people from both sides of the right/left divide get their political information from like-minded people on social media, and never bother to experience or verify or venture outside their comforting bubbles that will only provide them with “facts” that they already know. Social media has done a lot of good things, sure, but it’s also made it unprecedently easy to just say whatever insane bullshit you want, have it go viral, and then have you treated as an authority on the topic or someone whose voice “has to be included” out of some absurd principle of both-siderism. This is also a tenet of the mainstream corporate media: “both sides” have to be included, to create the illusion of “objectivity,” and to keep the largest number of paying subscribers happy. (Yes, of course this has deep, deep roots in the collapse of late-stage capitalism.) Even if one side is absolutely batshit crazy, the rules of this distorted social contract stipulate that their proposals and their flaws have to be treated as equal with the others, and if you point out that they are batshit crazy, you have to qualify with some criticism of the other side.

This is where you get white people posting “Neo-Nazis and Black Lives Matter are the same!!!1” on facebook. They are a) often racist, let’s be real, and b) have been force-fed a constant narrative where Both Sides Are Equally Bad. Even if one is a historical system of violent oppression that has made a good go at total racial and ethnic genocide and rests on hatred, and the other is the response to not just that but the centuries of systemic and small-scale racism that has been built up every day, the white people of the world insist on treating them as morally equivalent (related to a superior notion that Violence is Always Bad, which.... uh... have you even seen constant and overwhelming state-sponsored violence the West dishes out? But it’s only bad when the other side does it. Especially if those people can be at all labeled “fanatics.”)

I have complained many, many times, and will probably complain many times more, about how hard it is to deconstruct people’s absolutely ingrained ideas of history and the past. History is a very fragile thing; it’s really only equivalent to the length of a human lifespan, and sometimes not even that. It’s what people want to remember and what is convenient for them to remember, which is why we still have some living Holocaust survivors and yet a growing movement of Holocaust denial, among other extremist conspiracy theories (9/11, Sandy Hook, chemtrails, flat-earthing, etc etc). There is likewise no organized effort to teach honest history in Western public schools, not least since the West likes its self-appointed role as guardians of freedom and liberty and democracy in the world and doesn’t really want anyone digging into all that messy slavery and genocide and imperialism and colonialism business. As a result, you have deliberately under- or un-educated citizens, who have had a couple of courses on American/British/etc history in grade school focusing on the greatest-hit reel, and all from an overwhelmingly triumphalist white perspective. You have to like history, from what you get out of it in public school, to want to go on to study it as a career, while knowing that there are few jobs available, universities are cutting or shuttering humanities departments, and you’ll never make much money. There is... not a whole lot of outside incentive there.

I’ve written before about how the humanities are always the first targeted, and the first defunded, and the first to be labeled as “worthless degrees,” because a) they are less valuable to late-stage capitalism and its emphasis on Material Production, and b) they often focus on teaching students the critical thinking skills that critique and challenge that dominant system. There’s a reason that there is a stereotype of artists as social revolutionaries: they have often taken a look around, gone, “Hey, what the hell is this?” and tried to do something about it, because the creative and free-thinking impulse helps to cultivate the tools necessary to question what has become received and dominant wisdom. Of course, that can then be taken too far into the “I’ll create my own reality and reject absolutely everything that doesn’t fit that narrative,” and we end up at something like the current death of expertise.

This year is particularly fertile for these kinds of misinformation efforts: a plague without a vaccine or a known cure, an election year in a turbulently polarized country, race unrest in a deeply racist country spreading to other racist countries around the world and the challenging of a particularly important system (white supremacy), etc etc. People are scared and defensive and reactive, and in that case, they’re especially less motivated to challenge or want to encounter information that scares them. They need their pre-set beliefs to comfort them or provide steadiness in a rocky and uncertain world, and (thanks once again to social media) it’s easy to launch blistering ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with you, who are categorized as a faceless evil mass and who you will never have to meet or negotiate with in real life. This is the environment in which all the world’s distinguished scientists, who have spent decades studying infectious diseases, have to fight for airtime and authority (and often lose) over random conspiracy theorists who make a YouTube video. The public has been trained to see them as “both the same” and then accept which side they like the best, regardless of actual factual or real-world qualifications. They just assume the maniac on YouTube is just as trustworthy as the scientists with PhDs from real universities.

Obviously, academia is racist, elitist, classist, sexist, on and on. Most human institutions are. But training people to see all academics as the enemy is not the answer. You’ve seen the Online Left (tm) also do this constantly, where they attack “the establishment” for never talking about anything, or academics for supposedly erasing and covering up all of non-white history, while apparently never bothering to open a book or familiarize themselves with a single piece of research that actual historians are working on. You may have noticed that historians have been leading the charge against the “don’t erase history!!!1″ defenders of racist monuments, and explaining in stinging detail exactly why this is neither preserving history or being truthful about it. Tumblr likes to confuse the mechanism that has created the history and the people who are studying and analyzing that history, and lump them together as one mass of Evil And Lying To You. Academics are here because we want to critically examine the world and tell you things about it that our nonsense system has required years and years of effort, thousands of dollars in tuition, and other gatekeeping barriers to learn. You can just ask one of us. We’re here, we usually love to talk, and we’re a lot cheaper. I think that’s pretty cool.

As a historian, I have been trained in a certain skill set: finding, reading, analyzing, using, and criticizing primary sources, ditto for secondary sources, academic form and style, technical skills like languages, paleography, presentation, familiarity with the professional mechanisms for reviewing and sharing work (journals, conferences, peer review, etc), and how to assemble this all into an extended piece of work and to use it in conversation with other historians. That means my expertise in history outweighs some rando who rolls up with an unsourced or misleading Twitter thread. If a professor has been handed a carefully crafted essay and then a piece of paper scribbled with crayon, she is not obliged to treat them as essentially the same or having the same critical weight, even if the essay has flaws. One has made an effort to follow the rules of the game, and the other is... well, I did read a few like that when teaching undergraduates. They did not get the same grade.

This also means that my expertise is not universal. I might know something about adjacent subjects that I’ve also studied, like political science or English or whatever, but someone who is a career academic with a degree directly in that field will know more than me. I should listen to them, even if I should retain my independent ability and critical thinking skillset. And I definitely should not be listened to over people whose field of expertise is in a completely different realm. Take the recent rocket launch, for example. I’m guessing that nobody thought some bum who walked in off the street to Kennedy Space Center should be listened to in preference of the actual scientists with degrees and experience at NASA and knowledge of math and orbital mechanics and whatever else you need to get a rocket into orbit. I definitely can’t speak on that and I wouldn’t do it anyway, so it’s frustrating to see it happen with history. Everybody “knows” things about history that inevitably turn out to be wildly wrong, and seem to assume that they can do the same kind of job or state their conclusions with just as much authority. (Nobody seems to listen to the scientists on global warming or coronavirus either, because their information is actively inconvenient for our entrenched way of life and people don’t want to change.) Once again, my point here is not to be a snobbish elitist looking down at The Little People, but to remark that if there’s someone in a field who has, you know, actually studied that subject and is speaking from that place of authority, maybe we can do better than “well, I saw a YouTube video and liked it better, so there.” (Americans hate authority and don’t trust smart people, which  is a related problem and goes back far beyond Trump, but there you are.)

As for art: it’s funny how people devalue it constantly until they need it to survive. Ask anyone how they spent their time in lockdown. Did they listen to music? Did they watch movies or TV? Did they read a book? Did they look at photography or pictures? Did they try to learn a skill, like drawing or writing or painting, and realize it was hard? Did they have a preference for the art that was better, more professionally produced, had more awareness of the rules of its craft, and therefore was more enjoyable to consume? If anyone wants to tell anyone that art is worthless, I invite you to challenge them on the spot to go without all of the above items during the (inevitable, at this rate) second coronavirus lockdown. No music. No films. No books. Not even a video or a meme or anything else that has been made for fun, for creativity, or anything outside the basic demands of Compensated Economic Production. It’s then that you’ll discover that, just as with the underpaid essential workers who suffered the most, we know these jobs need to get done. We just still don’t want to pay anyone fairly for doing them, due to our twisted late-capitalist idea of “value.”

Anyway, since this has gotten long enough and I should probably wrap up: as you say, the difference between “professional” and “hobbyist” has been almost completely erased, so that people think the opinion of one is as good as the other, or in your case, that the hobbyist should present their work for free or refuse to be seen as a professional entitled to fair compensation for their skill. That has larger and more insidious effects in a global marketplace of ideas that has been almost entirely reduced to who can say their opinion the loudest to the largest group of people. I don’t know how to solve this problem, but at least I can try to point it out and to avoid being part of it, and to recognize where I need to speak and where I need to shut up. My job, and that of every single white person in America right now, is to shut up and let black people (and Native people, and Latinx people, and Muslim people, and etc...) tell me what it’s really like to live here with that identity. I have obviously done a ton of research on the subject and consider myself reasonably educated, but here’s the thing: my expertise still doesn’t outweigh theirs, no matter what degrees they have or don’t have. I then am required to boost their ideas, views, experiences, and needs, rather than writing them over or erasing them, and to try to explain to people how the roots of these ideas interlock and interact where I can. That is -- hopefully -- putting my history expertise to use in a good way to support what they’re saying, rather than silence it. I try, at any rate, and I am constantly conscious of learning to do better.

I hope that was helpful for you. Thanks for letting me talk about it.

[justanotherexpatinkorea]

Update 2020~2021 // 업데이트 2020~2021

January 22, 2021 / 1월 22일 2021

WHAT A WILD RIDE IT’S BEEN (AND WILL BE)

It’s been almost a year since my last blog update. It feels like so much yet so little has changed.

For one, coronavirus has taken over our lives. Because of the virus, we’ve had to stay inside, stay home. I miss being able to travel, visit people, make new friends. All of that has come to a halt. In some ways it feels like life has stalled, become stagnant. Yet that’s the price we pay for staying safe.

COVID 19 has become more than anything we could’ve imagined. A global pandemic that affects the lives of every person on this planet. We’ve had to confront the worst possible outcomes, and find it within ourselves to work together with our communities to overcome it.

As of this writing, here are the stats:

South Korea:

confirmed cases = 73, 918

total deaths = 1,316

United States:

confirmed cases = 24,196,086

total deaths = 420,285

WTF AMERICA….

No country has been perfect in their COVID response. This is a wickedly difficulty problem to tackle. However, living in a foreign country during this unprecedented time, I’ve gained a valuable perspective on this pandemic.

I hate to say this, but I am embarrassed. So many countries around the world look up the US. We’re one of the wealthiest, most developed countries in the world. A strong democracy renowned for its freedom, liberty and justice for all. Among my friends and coworkers here in South Korea, many of them aspire to travel or live in the US one day. I used to encourage them to do so. However, I’m more hesitant now.

I was extremely disappointed in the way the US responded to the virus. We have all the resources, the manpower, the knowledge. All the things that make other countries think so highly of us. Yet despite our alleged greatness, why did the US fail so miserably? fail to contain the virus? fail to keep Americans properly informed in a timely manner? fail to provide strong leadership in such a desperate time? If ever there was a time to step up and band together, this would have been it. Yet in my opinion, America missed the mark horrendously. Hospitals are overflowing. COVID patients are dying in makeshift hospital beds set up in parking garages. People are ignoring the heed to mask up and socially distance. Simple actions that could save ones life and that of others. Yet many Americans are too selfish to look out for the health of their fellow countrymen.

Watching news from back home, there are things that seem so strange to me now. As an expat, I live outside the frame, analyzing from a different context.

Masks. I cannot for the life of me understand how masks become so  politicized. Korea, like many Asian countries, have been wearing masks for years. There is nothing controversial about it. It’s a piece of fabric designed to keep you and the people around you safe. A mere health-related courtesy. The fact that so many Americans cannot concede to this simple gesture makes me greatly concerned. Are we so divided as a nation? That when a global pandemic strikes - the worst health crisis in our lifetime - we cannot recognize the humanity in one another? Is there no love within us, to help us overcome this small personal discomfort for the sake of our fellow Americans? For the sake of us all? If we can’t grow up and do this one simple thing, I worry for our ability to tackle together the more complex issues facing our nation.

THE SOUTH KOREAN RESPONSE:

South Korea was one of the first hit by COVID. The proximity to China and the rapidity with which coronavirus spreads should have drastically increased the likelihood that the country would be decimated by the virus. But that’s not what happened. South Korea has become known worldwide as a model for how to approach the virus.

Widely and readily available testing and contact tracing

Mandatory masks and social distancing

Daily televised updates from government health officials - sharing data, updates on cases and deaths, etc.

Government measures (the closing and re-opening of schools, restaurants, businesses etc. depending on the current situation, in response to confirmed case numbers, etc. )

Quarantine for people coming from overseas, people who have had contact with COVID patients

In short, the Korean response was swift, thorough, and transparent. It required (and still requires) the collective will and cooperation of the people. Which includes myself.

As a teacher, my life has been affected professionally as well. I’m so lucky to have steady employment here as a government employee in the public schools. COVID-related measures in schools include: wearing masks at all times, washing hands regularly, sanitizing classrooms, social distancing as much as possible, keeping students separated and spread out in the cafeteria. And moving to online class when needed.

The government has a system of levels from 1 to 3. Here’s how the levels are decided and what measures they trigger. (For example, most places move to online classes around Level 2~2.5)

What is Level 1?

if the average cases per week are:

30 or fewer in a given province, 100 in large cities

socially distance when going out, wear a mask

What is Level 1.5?

if the average cases per week are:

increasing by 30 or more in a given province, 100 in large cities

if the average cases for people over 60 per week are:

increasing by 10 or more in a given province, 40 in large cities

Level 1+ thorough sanitizing of dangerous, infected areas

What is Level 2?

more than a week of level 1.5, and the cases in the affected community double and persist

OR total national cases reach at least 300, and persist for a week or more

Level 1.5 + recommend that unnecessary outings are limited, reduce meetings and gathering

What is Level 2.5?

total national cases reach 400~500, increase drastically and persist

special consideration - number of hospital beds for those with pre-existing conditions, elderly

Level 2 + stay home

What is Level 3?

total national cases reach 800~1,000, increase drastically and persist

Level 2.5 + stay home whenever possible, limit interactions with others as much as possible

YEAH, IT SUCKS

Around Christmas / New Year, Korea saw a spike in cases, about 300~500 a day. For Korea, this is considered dangerously high. (As an American I laugh at how small these numbers are, comparing it to the thousand of deaths that are occurring every day back home. But alas, this is no laughing matter, regardless of the magnitude of cases.)

The government introduced a new policy:

Gatherings of 5 or more people are banned.

This sucks big time. I was planning on doing a Secret Santa gift exchange with my friends, all thirteen of us. I really wanted to spend the holidays chowing down on sentimental comfort foods, having a drink or two, watching movies, etc. But we had to cancel everything. It was originally only a two-week policy, but the government has continued to extend it two weeks at a time. If COVID cases aren’t dramatically reduced, they’re not going to lift it. It sucks. I wish I could hang out, go out to restaurants and cafes and bars. But everyone is struggling through together. It would be easier to cast my worries aside and let up a little. But the risks are out there. COVID is a serious disease with serious consequences. Even if you don’t die you have the aftereffects of damaged lungs. And who knows what else? Years down the road, who knows what health concerns survivors will have to endure? It’s not worth it.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Like everyone else, I can’t wait for this to all be over. I can’t wait to travel again, explore, and live my life carefree. But who knows exactly when that will be.

However, there is one thing I know for sure. I’m  not moving back to the US any time soon. I’d rather live in a country where I have stable employment, in this unstable world. Where I can get rapid testing and readily available (and affordably dirt cheap!) health care should I happen to have a COVID scare. (Or any other health concern, for that matter.) Where I know the people around me respect their communities, and will wear a mask, etc.

Where people with guns and molotov cocktails and weapons don’t attack the buildings of their democracy. Where facts and reason aren’t under attack, in a way that is tearing apart the fabric of the nation. (But that’s a conversation for another day.)

Of course Korea isn’t perfect. There are flaws in this society that concern me deeply as well. But at the end of the day, I feel much more safe and comfortable in Korea than I do back home. As long as that’s true, this is the place where I will continue to live and make my life.

[thesethingsofours]

Parents are the Worst.

I recently began listening to Nice White Parents, a new podcast hosted by self-confessed nice white parent, Channa Joffe-Walt. It’s produced by the people in and around Serial, This American Life, S-Town and The New York Times. If you are familiar with those titles, you’ll know what to expect – in-depth, considered analysis of a heretofore, under-exposed social issue, executed with an East Coast progressive liberal stride; a pleasingly audible, irreverent gait and the swagger of emotional intelligence and self-aware humility. Through research, interviews and attaching herself to the Brooklyn School of International Studies for several years, Joffe-Walt tells the story of the New York Public school system and its apparent failure to meaningfully integrate itself since Brown v Board of Education made racial segregation illegal over 65 years ago.

In episode 2, Joffe-Walt tracks down and interviews some nice white parents from around the time the school opened in 1963. These people had written letters encouraging the school board to erect the school building closer to their own neighbourhood (and consequently further away from the darker-skinned families it was more likely to serve). They expressively emphasised their wishes to send their kids there and virtuously aid the process of integration, which they believed to be morally imperative.

But apparently, none of these letter writers subsequently sent their kids to that school. It remained, as anticipated, a predominantly non-white school. Laid alongside the tense machinations of the contemporary school’s invasion by a large new cohort of white parents and their issue, Joffe-Walt’s hypothesis is that white parents have always held liberal aims, and the clout to impose them, but do so with little consideration for their non-white counterparts or any real commitment to seeing through the incumbent practicalities. From the outset, this natural conclusion is persistently hinted at, not least from the podcast’s deliberately provocative title. Perhaps, on an individual level, this hypothesis contains some truth.

However, as the story extends, the blame gains weight and the theory mutates into a generalised accusation. Responsibility for the mediocre state of New York’s (and by implication, America’s) public schools is explicitly laid at the pale feet of white parents. It's an exposition of what is often described as “White Guilt” and its corresponding effort at contrition (i.e. the guilt felt from the inherited sin of one’s ancestors’ oppression of non-white people, primarily through slavery). While White Guilt might have its conceptual uses for a few people to come to terms with idea of race (although even there I am sceptical), its value as a wider social narrative is deeply unconvincing, and potentially damaging. Nice White Parents does a good job showing why.

In the podcast, anecdotal evidence is drastically extrapolated to justify White Guilt. Unless backed up by unequivocal data, it is inherently flawed to base so much on interviews with a handful of people in their 80s about a letter they wrote in the 60s, and (in episode 3) a now middle-aged woman about her perception of school when she was 13. Equally so is to use the example of a single New York school to imply that nice white parents are universally responsible for all the failings of American public schooling. A quick empirical comparison with countries unburdened by America’s racial psychosis would almost certainly reveal this argument to be fundamentally false. I hazard to suggest that Joffe-Walt set out, either consciously or subconsciously, to prove the theory of Nice White Parents, and has therefore fallen into the trap of verification bias.  

Of course, the truth is likely to be far simpler – green, cheddar, dead presidents and moolah (which middle-aged white people in American disproportionately possess). Better schools arrive from broad, deep and perpetual community investment – from good, affordable housing and well-paying jobs to well-paid teachers and decent facilities. That means higher taxes on the wealthy and better provincial management. If a completely non-white school district received $50 billion to invest in their community with educational improvement as its ultimate goal (that or the abolition of private schools), I suspect the idea of nice white parents would quickly evaporate.

It is plainly a damaging distraction to focus on the role of supposed-predisposed-racism of well-meaning, middle-class people, who simply want the best possible education for their children. Instead, the message for the “hereby accused” should be to use their numerical majority and voting power to advocate for systems that would reduce inequality, regardless of race. In this respect, it strikes me that wealth is a sacrosanct subject in America, something that one can never apologise for having too much of. Quite the opposite – the culture is built on celebrating those who hoard capital. Is it possible that Americans are taught never to apologise for having money, so those who see something wrong develop other issues, such as race, for which they can atone?

More deeply, the podcast reveals how the White Guilt narrative is in ideological conflict with the very wrong it is supposedly trying to right. Taken to its conclusion, it inevitably reinforces the idea that white people are innately superior, and race is the primary determining factor for success in American life. In the context of the podcast, it is applied to suggest that New York public schools are destined to fail their students unless white kids and their parents get involved. It is gloriously ironic that condemning the influence of white parents on public schools serves to reinforce the supposed inferiority of non-white participants in the education system… because of their lack of whiteness. At the end of episode 3, Jaffe-Walt lays this out:

Nice white parents shape public schools even in our absence, because public schools are maniacally loyal to white families even when that loyalty is rarely returned back to the public schools. Just the very idea of us, the threat of our displeasure, warps the whole system. So “separate” is still not equal because the power sits with white parents no matter where we are in the system. I think the only way you equalise schools is by recognising this fact and trying wherever possible to suppress the power of white parents. Since no one is forcing us to give up power we white parents are going to have to do it voluntarily, which, yeah how's that going to happen? That's next time on Nice White Parents…

(Consider replacing every mention of “white” in this excerpt with “affluent”. Would that not feel infinitely more true?)

In fairness, the honourable, “anti-racist” intention is clear – in order to defeat “white supremacy” white people need to accept their inherited and systemic superiority and eliminate it. Sadly, any idea centred around race – whether malicious or well-intentioned – is bound to collapse under even the slightest pressure. To be truly anti-racist is to recognise that race itself doesn’t exist (other than as an abstract concept that, having infected people’s perceptions after four centuries of concerted, localised propaganda, must be eradicated). Race has no basis in science or nature; it cannot be quantified in any reasonable, measurable way. Simply, it is a lie; invented to excuse the exploitation of others for the purposes of wealth-generation. To base one’s actions on it in any way is to take a leap of faith into a void with no landing. Race is a malignant, empty God; belief in which is destined to lead to malignant, empty behaviour. “Racism” and “Anti-Racism” (as it is currently understood) are therefore both empty, malignant religions, practiced in service of a non-existent deity.

Notably, there are still two episodes to go (released August 13th and 20th). Either might serve to recover some balance. But by episode 3, the stage is not only set for this conclusion to be drawn, but the 1st Grade nativity is in its final scene and the wise men are long since gone.

All that said, if you let the incessant racialization of all things drift past you rather than choking on it, as plain entertainment – storytelling rather than journalism – it’s still an engaging listen; well-constructed and convincingly told. Furthermore, on a non-racial level (if you can somehow listen beyond it), the podcast does have some value, since it reminds me of something I have long half-joked about – that parents (of all stripes) are the worst.

Aside from the obvious, complex Freudian reasons, on a socio-political level, when a choice arises between a laudable, achievable change and putting one’s own children at a perceived disadvantage in order to effect it, a parent will choose its child’s advantage almost every time. No matter their colour, few parents will sacrifice their own child’s prospects – even minutely – to advance the hypothetical children of someone else, or society more widely. Parents are company directors whose primary obligation is to their miniature, genetically-derivative shareholders – they’ll only vote for large-scale change if it is net-profitable or government-imposed.

And of course, parents should pay their kids the maximum dividend. Who else will? A parent is legally and morally obliged to do the best for the young life they are charged with defending. And therein lies the joke. Parents are the worst only because they are ubiquitous. They created you, me and everyone else. We all had them, and most people end up being one. It is therefore less of a criticism than an inevitable, evolutionary truth – just one we should probably be more honest and upfront about. Unknowingly, underneath (and in some ways, because of) its misguided, exhausting racial handwringing, Nice White Parents just about makes this point.

Listen to Nice White Parents here or wherever you get your podcasts.

[secretkelly]

Why I’m A Democrat

WHY I'M A DEMOCRAT

I get this question a lot surprisingly as a trans woman. I think it is due to so many of my fans are surprisingly conservative, as well many of my fans are subscribers to Blaire White. So maybe from watching her they think I would hold the same ideology. Yes, there are plenty of conservative trans-women. I actually got this idea from my trans girl friend Veronika where she explained to her followers and trans women why she’s a Republican as a trans woman. I thought I would do the same. I think healthy discourse is so needed in this political environment. I feel we all throw fits and run to our corners, so I want to give the reasons I’m democratic voter.

I am a democrat because

I believe in economic security for everyone, not just the top 5 percent of Americans.

I believe that government giving money to the rich doesn’t create jobs for the rest of us.

I believe government should reward businesses only after they have created jobs for Americans.

I believe in a free enterprise system for the working and middle classes, not just global corporations.

I believe in both limited government within reason and limited big business.

I believe in free competitive economic markets for local and small businesses, not just distant and monopolistic corporations.

I believe no one should go bankrupt, lose their home and life savings, or die because they can’t afford health care and don’t have reasonable health insurance.

I believe in the family; specifically in policies that support the family — like paid parental leave, more support for public schools, a safe and sustainable environment, more prenatal health care, better support for working moms, better day care programs for our children and immigration policies that don’t punish children or split up families.

I believe that my opinions, beliefs, and values should be based on reason, evidence, and compassion, not on fear, anger, and ignorance.

I believe in fiscal responsibility, but that sacrifice should first come from those who can afford it, not from the poor.

I believe the rich don’t always earn their wealth, and the poor frequently aren’t to blame for their poverty.

I believe no one should be homeless, hungry, abused, or neglected regardless of the causes.

I believe prisons should be for violent offenders, not drug addicts.

I believe terrorism is a reprehensible criminal act, not an act of war. Thus the “war on terror” is deeply flawed.

I believe to be great America doesn’t have to be better than every other country, but only constantly improving in providing every American the equal and fair opportunity to flourish.

I believe each person, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, deserves equal respect and equal rights to pursue a meaningful life. That an American is American and we are all born with the same rights.

I believe obviously that overall democrats are better on social issues and rights especially for my community.

I believe our government should reflect most of the country. Our government doesn’t reflect most Americans. It is 2020 and we need to catch up in Washington.

I believe in Climate Change and we need to do something about it.

I don’t believe cutting regulations for banks and Wallstreet helps us

I don’t believe if the Stockmarket is doing good it means the economy is good.

I believe in reparations.

I believe we spend way too much on military spending and not enough on education, homelessness, and infrastructure.

I believe in the separation of church and state.

I believe in Labor Unions

I believe in commonsense gun control and immigration reform

Finally, I am a Democrat because I believe we are responsible for each other. That we need to work together to protect America and its people. All people! I fundamentally believe that our government and the laws it makes should give rights to our citizens, not take them away. That is why I support same-sex marriage and protections for LGBT rights, for example. That is why I think states should make it easier, not harder, for residents to vote.

[kiramekisakurai]

Takumi, Odin and Xander? I like reading what people think about Xander, lol.

Hello! Likewise; reading about Xander has almost become a pastime of its own for me as of late. :P Interesting stuff. -And now, here’s a very long post.(^_^)

1. How I feel about him/her

Thiiiis guy. At first, I couldn’t help but be annoyed when he wouldn’t freely give me his trust as all the other Hoshido siblings had, (then Xander came along, and) but should I have been in his place, what would I have done? Excellent question. Considering the placement of events he wouldn’t have been quite old enough to remember Corrin, and will have already had his own reasons to bear distrust (more explanation below with sibling relationships).

He’s a slow-burning character with development (and flaws, which make him all the more easy to relate with), more so than the other Hoshidan royals, as far as I’d noticed at this moment.

2. Who I ship him/her with romantically

I ended up marrying him to Azura in Revelations, but I’m not quite sure why; I want to say it’s because when I played Birthright first had saw her heal him with her song, I was quite moved and kept this alternate storyline point in the back of my mind.

3. Who I ship him/her with platonically

Leo. 8| They’re frenemies and hate different things for the same reasons, but sometimes hate the same things and that’s how they bond.

4. What do I like about this character

There’s a lot to love about Takumi, from my perspective. He’s got the burden on him of being the younger sibling, always standing in the shadows of his older brother (much like his Nohrian equivalent, Leo), and as a result may sound like he has a somewhat jaded outlook on certain things at times in addition to being overly competitive as well as a perfectionist. While I don’t have siblings, I do have peers and often feel as though I’m “shrouded by the shadows of my predecessors” in different circumstances, but am often told I have nothing to worry about because there’s only one me, much like there’s only one Takumi. Besides, Takumi is the one who often saved me during many missions. :’D

His endearing fatherly relationship with his son(s) is also fantastic too (which in my case, is both Shigure and Kiragi).

5. Would I marry this character

When I play through Birthright once again, I very well may marry him (but it’s a tough choice, because there’s also Jacob, who I also adore).

6. What would I do if this character was real

I’d tell the poor guy to chill a little, but I’m a 100% pure®︎, verified✔️non-confrontational™️person by circumstance. Regardless, I might want to try to approach him to make small-talk (unusual for me!) but knowing him, I’m sure he’d give me his Tacomeat Face®︎ and take wide strides to avoid me thinking I’m Nohrian based on the way I dress and my general disposition.

1. How I feel about him/her

He reminds me of all the kids I used to hang out with back in middle school, junior high, and high school who were involved with band but also regularly brought their entire Pokémon/Yu-Gi-Oh!/Digimon/Magic card decks to school with them to duel/show off. They somehow also memorized every artillery, weapon, and aircraft used by the US and German military during WWII and could emulate sounds for each one of them. Oftentimes, they had a disposition to speak in role-play (they did that too), but excelled in both school and in social life. I did not always know what they were talking about when they went on their great digressions, but I always listened; in return, they listened to my digressions of similar interests. Many of them have gone off to become writers, software designers, public representatives, and actors. These people, each and every one of them, resonate with me as the Odins of my childhood.

2. Who I ship him/her with romantically

I had no idea who to marry this guy to, since “aching blood” seemed too strong for many, but Selena ended being a great match for him! Coincidentally enough, I was just asked about Selena and talked about this a little while ago.

3. Who I ship him/her with platonically

His “retainer buddy” Niles, because someone has to balance sinnamon rolls with cinnamon rolls.

4. What do I like about this character

I implicitly and talked about this in a nostalgic way back in the first prompt, but this guy reminds me of childhood acquaintances, which reminds me of simpler times, as a result.

Here’s something curious: during the A support conversation with the Avatar, Odin finally comes up with a name for his incredible pose, which just so happens to be “Shadow Glitter.” Alright, so this doesn’t sound so spectacular for me to mention on the surface, one would think, but it is. You see, he named it after me. Yup, it’s true. More specifically, he named it after my in-game character, Kirameki (キラメキ), which means “glitter.” I didn’t even know of this support when I named my character. Goodness, I’ve used “Kirameki” for years (look at my blog’s name, after all). It’s coincidental, but I think it’s adorable and made me really smile that day, which I needed x100.

5. Would I marry this character

I’m not sure, but there’s always a chance.

6. what would i do if this character was real

We’d probably become fast (platonic) friends interested in pretty similar things, but he would do most of the talking, I’m afraid!

1. How I feel about him/her

I apologize in advance, yet I couldn’t help but get a little personal here. It’s not often I find a character with whom I can relate with on such a deeply personal level, down to the very point that it’s physically and emotionally painful (which I admit is embarrassing, but hey I’m going through some rough times and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), but here one is.

H o w e v e r . There are several stark contrasts between him and I, mostly surrounding the circumstances of immediate family: I have no siblings, and have an excellent relationship with both my parents, which is stronger than any bond I’ve shared with anyone else in this life I’ve lived. They’re also my best friends, after all. In some ways, I’m as much “their retainer” as they are “my retainers.”

Furthermore, I was born more like Leo: school came easy for me, and I continue to excel without too much of a struggle (but of course, grad school does indeed require more work). Because of this, however, here’s where the likeness to Xander comes in: being an only child, being the first-generation to go to and graduate from college, being the first in the entire family to go to grad school, living around resentful family members who wish for your ruin, and finally the lament of your own by-gone dreams ever lingering on the edges of your mind can make you feel like a battle-worn crown prince/ss. Like Xander, it has fallen upon me, partly due to my own aspirations but somewhat by fate, to shoulder heavy responsibilities which may ultimately overwhelm me —and like Xander again, he doesn’t know who or what he has to turn to, only that it is HE who must overcome it all to fulfill his oath. What a feeling.

2. Who I ship him/her with romantically

On a lighter note, Corrin. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’ve been reading so much cute, fluffy doujinshi over on Pixiv, you have no idea

3. Who I ship him/her with platonically

I adore the strong bond he shares with his siblings; I’ll never know what that feels like, and it’s such a dear thing [insert the adorable and incredibly well-done Nohr sibling group hug fan art here].

4. What do I like about this character

Yet again, I spent the first prompt talking about this a little bit, but let’s see if I can get some new information flowing.

He’s awkward. We can tell he’s not comfortable getting out of his teeny-tiny comfort zone (“elbow-room?! What elbow-room!? Referring to one of his skills), but dear goodness, does he try. He tries for his loved ones, for his country, and for the good of the future. But he’s still so awkward at making small talk, it’s adorable; I get second-hand embarrassment and realize I’m hypocritical feeling this way considering I’m terrible at small talk too; “let’s talk business or let’s adjourn so I can do more business elsewhere.”

He’s genuine. Long story short, he’s got no time to be anything but, again, for his loved ones and his kingdom.

He’s respectful, —to both his friends (no matter the social rank) and foes. Regardless of the odds, he’s as diplomatic and respectful as he can be under the nasty circumstances.

He’s a workaholic, much to his own undoing. (Hey look, I too am one and also don’t know when to stop. What a coincidence.) Note: while useful, this is not always a good trait and is one which can be very, very easily taken advantage of. He’s found himself at the mercy of this situation often, much like I have, as many of us have.

He’s highly intelligent, yet often oblivious (especially in commoners’ ways, thanks to his early sheltered life).

He’s apparently got great handwriting, which for me is a treasure; I too take pride in my handwriting, and really liked reading this little note about him. (*^_^*)

He’s not just another cold, cardboard, bland, stoic, big brother stock character added to the story. Instead, he’s got a story of his own which he’s willing to share, while he listens to yours and even attempts to offer some advice. (I’m remembering his support logs with Hinoka, Sakura, Kaze, Mozu, and Felicia here).

He’s pretty (/^/ω/^/)

5. Would I marry this character

I did. Twice. And I’ve only played all three games once so far. c:

10/10 would marry again

6. What would I do if this character was real

[Kirameki.exe stopped working. Please contact system administrator for assistance.] Which is strange, considering he’s not quite my type in the physical sense, albeit quite close. Fun (but unchecked) facts: if he was indeed real, he’d easily be more than 12in (30.5cm+) taller than me. That’s more than enough reason for my graphics driver to crash, amirite? *ba dum tshh*

Levity aside, and should I already have a good idea of what his real-life personality is like based on the games (rock-solid logic, here), I really would “want to get to know him better” in not quite yet in the ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) way (yeah yeah I know what you’re thinking), but rather in a friendly manner. He’d make a warm companion, and I admit that it would be nice to finally share with someone these aspirations and pains. I would just hope he’s more forthcoming than I am and also approach me somehow, considering I’m far more shy than I sound here.

[friend-clarity]

When Politics Corrupts Science

When Politics Corrupts Science

By Yonoson Rosenblum | SEPTEMBER 2, 2020

How politics polluted our search for a COVID cure

Lawrence Krauss writes in the Wall Street Journal ("The Ideological Corruption of Science," July 12) how as a young physics professor at Yale, he and his colleagues in the hard sciences looked with bemusement at the dominant deconstructionism of the comparative literature department, which denied the existence of objective truth itself. That could never happen in the sciences, they assured themselves, except under a totalitarian regime such as Stalin's.

That idealized view of science as a separate realm devoted to the pursuit of truth and devoid of all political bias, Krauss notes, is no longer sustainable. In June, the American Physical Society, representing 55,000 physicists, declared a one-day "strike for black lives" to eradicate "systemic racism" in science. No evidence was adduced for the latter, other than the underrepresentation of blacks in the sciences.

One of the day's activities was to organize a protest campaign that resulted in the removal of physicist Stephen Hsu as vice president for research at Michigan State University. His crimes: his own studies in computational genomics to study how human genetics might be related to cognitive ability, and research by MSU psychology professors that did not support the narrative of racial bias in police shootings.

A distinguished Canadian chemist was censured by his university provost for calling for merit-based hiring, and the editors of a journal that accepted an article by him were suspended. Meanwhile, Francis Collins, the director of NIH, declared that he will no longer attend scientific conferences where white males, like him, predominate, regardless of their professional merit.

The pure objectivity of science is further clouded by fact that scientists are also human beings, prey to normal human temptations, such as the billions of dollars at stake in the race to produce medical cures or the quest for academic advancement. In 2005, Stanford professor Dr. John Iaonnidis published a paper titled "Why Most Published Research Findings are False," analyzing how bias creeps into study designs; it quickly became the most downloaded article in the history of the Public Library of Science. And in 2014, his group argued in the Journal of the American Medical Association that 35 percent of the results of controlled clinical trials could not be replicated upon reanalysis of their raw data.

THE POLITICALLY CHARGED field of climate science has been beset by data manipulation by leading research centers. And now there is evidence that politics has crept into the search for cures to COVID-19, argues Dr. Norman Doidge in a lengthy article in Tablet, "Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale."

On March 21, President Trump tweeted that a combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin might be a real "game changer" in treating COVID-19. Since that moment, the mainstream media, led by the Washington Post and CNN, has trumpeted every piece of evidence that HCQ is ineffective against COVID-19 and/or potentially dangerous, and downplayed or ignored all evidence to the contrary, in order to establish that Trump is a dangerous idiot. The MSM has, uniquely in the history of pandemics, engaged in what Doidge terms "unwishful thinking" — fervently hoping that a drug with the potential to save tens of thousands of lives, at a low cost, and without dangerous side effects, would turn out to be a bust.

Now, I would not recommend getting one's medical information from the president's Twitter feed. And his tweet was, in any event, premature. At most, there was, at the time of his tweet, tantalizing evidence of a "proof of concept." A study from China published in Nature, a respected science journal, showed that HCQ inhibits COVID-19 in cells in test tubes. As often happens in medicine, the idea of testing HCQ arose when front-line physicians in Wuhan noticed serendipitously that none of those admitted to hospital for COVID-19 were being treated with HCQ for diseases of the connective tissues.

In May, however, Dr. Didier Raoult, the most cited microbiologist in Europe, and a researcher with long experience repurposing existing generic drugs for new diseases, published a study of 1,061 COVID-19 patients given a combination of HCQ and azithromycin, which showed that over 90 percent showed a significant decrease in viral load over the course of treatment. Around that time, a survey of 6,000 front-line physicians in 30 countries showed that a large plurality — 37 percent — chose HCQ, out of 15 possible medicines, as the best response to a diagnosis of COVID-19.

But a non-peer-reviewed Veterans Administration study, a month after President Trump's tweet, showed a much higher percentage of patients treated with HCQ died than those who were not treated with it. The CNN headline trumpeted: "No Benefits; Higher Death Risks."

That VA study, however, proved highly flawed. It had ignored a crucial confounding factor: Those patients receiving HCQ in the study were much sicker than those who did not. At that time, HCQ was only approved for use as a desperation measure for seriously ill patients. Dr. Anthony Fauci was still recommending doing nothing for patients quarantined at home.

Yet no proponent of the HCQ-azithromycin combination had ever suggested it is anything more than an early intervention remedy to reduce the viral load and thus the severity of the disease. No one ever proposed it was a wonder drug that could repair failing organ systems at a late stage of the illness.

If the VA study was flawed, sister studies published in Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, two of the world's leading medical journals, and whose lead author was an eminent Harvard professor, constituted, according to Lancet editor Richard Horton, "monumental fraud." The studies, which purported to be based on data obtained from 96,000 patients on six continents, showed a 30 percent higher mortality rate for patients treated with HCQ and a greater danger of adverse cardiac events. But when 100 scientists around the world wrote to Lancet seeking the underlying data, the studies' authors immediately withdrew the two articles.

By labeling the articles a "monumental fraud," Lancet's editor sought to divert attention from the no less monumental failure of the peer-review process. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of medical record-keeping, argues Doidge, would have been extremely skeptical that there existed comparable data sets from around the world. (Incidentally, the week before publishing the study, Lancet called editorially for Trump's defeat in November.)

DEEPLY FLAWED, EVEN FRAUDULENT, negative studies of HCQ do not establish either its efficacy or safety. But if I tested positive for COVID-19, I would not hesitate to take the HCQ-azithromycin combination.

HCQ has been in use for 65 years and has been given to at least one billion people to treat malaria and lupus. Physicians know what dosages are safe. Yale Medical School epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch terms the risk from proper doses, administered over a ten-day period, negligible — 9/100,000. In addition, it is cheap — sixty cents per tablet — and can be taken at home with water.

No doubt other early intervention drugs will be developed: No single drug is appropriate for every patient, and the possibility of better drugs is always there.

On July 1, the Henry Ford Medical Center in Detroit published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases a study of patients in which the severity of illness was fully taken into account, which showed that HCQ reduced the mortality hazard (mortality over a fixed period of time) by 66 percent. Another study from Italy at the end of July found the same 66 percent reduced mortality rate.

And yet Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post's media critic, opened her July 31 column (nearly a month after the Henry Ford study was published), ridiculing "fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about HCQ as a COVID-19 wonder cure." She was engaged in "unwishful thinking" that Donald Trump would prove right about something.

Doidge's enumeration of the multiple errors of experts and institutions we trusted to help us solve our most pressing scientific and medical problems includes "academics who increasingly see all human activities as 'political' power games, and so in good conscience can justify inserting their own politics into academic pursuits and reporting."

What, for instance, besides "implicit bias," at a minimum, can explain a presumably intelligent Harvard medical school professor making the following self-contradictory statements in one breath: HCQ is possibly dangerous, and we must save it for patients suffering from lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Be wary of the experts.

Related Topics:  Intellectuals, Personalities, Social Issues receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free jewish media resources mailing list