Does Genomics Hold Back Advancement Against Racism In Medical Equality?
A new Hastings Report compilation is based on the notion that genomics are the reason we still have medical inequality. Since genomics is a field that exists to sequence our DNA content and therefore help understand disease, it seems odd to posit that it could promote inequality when studying biology we all share.TikTok Is The Newest Chinese App That Might Steal Your Secure Information
TikTok, the short video sharing app owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, has already been banned by the United States military, Wells Fargo, and the nation of India. A new report says no corporate phone, or private devices that may access secure information, should install it.Working Memory: A Psychological Reason Some Wouldn’t Social Distance Earlier During COVID-19?
Some people would not or said they could not socially distance effectively during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2019 coronavirus mutation that originated in Wuhan, China and spread worldwide. Is there scientific truth to why?American Academy Of Pediatrics: Children Don’t Transmit COVID-19, Schools Should Reopen This Year
The American Academy of Pediatrics is a rather reflexive group much of the time, so it seems bold for Pediatrics, the in-house journal for an organization that tried to argue kids should not be allowed to even walk to school until they are age 10, to take the position that children infrequently transmit COVID-19 to each other or to adults and that most schools can and should reopen in August.American Cancer Society Nutrition Statements Are More Aspirational Wellness Than Evidence-Based Guidelines
Can you prevent cancer? Not really. The number one risk factor for cancer is old age, if you live long enough you are likely to get some form or another. Despite the beliefs of the Longevity crowd, we are biologically self-terminating.To Have Great Science Literacy, We Must Have Greater Digital Literacy – An Experiment Shows How
The anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements are products of the digital age. While there were always vaccine deniers, they were a tiny religious fringe until the 2000s, when it took England and the coasts of the U.S. by storm. Similarly, odd beliefs about food always existed but they were relegated to obscure stores.Social media changed all that. Facebook and Twitter became hotbeds of misinformation because anti-science activists mastered creating 'buzz' by getting cabals of individuals, sympathetic journalists, and groups who capitalized on it to swarm around bombastic claims. Now those tweet storms become 'and here's how Twitter reacted' articles by lazy media outlets.
5G Update: Belief In Harm Is Still Belief In Magic
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, Berkeley psychologist Joel Moskowitz, and other anti-science conspiracy theorists use the language of science against it to advance their beliefs that we're all being harmed by the modern world.So when they see a scientific statement like "very low risk" of harm from any cell phone service, including 5G, they have a ready retort to mobilize the coastal Karens and Darrens who make up their ranks; that's not no risk.
Coronavirus Has Shown Alternative Energy Is Luxury Spending, Not Part Of A Realistic Strategy
If you know the government is going to subsidize your business, you are a lot more agreeable to starting a company with questionable prospects than if you have to compete in the free market. If government subsidies decline, you are in real trouble if you have not shown your business model works.That is the plight of alternative energy like solar and wind and ethanol today. Though pundits have insisted their economic models show it works, you can't spend virtual money. Financial reality is that without subsidies funded by governments who force conventional users to pay for those $25,000 solar installations, the industry will collapse. Governments can't tax economic models. They can't tax an expense.
New Study: Beef In A Healthy Diet Does Not Increase Risk Of Heart Attacks
For decades there has been a statistical controversy about meat. By statistical I mean it was never a real health issue. Instead, though we clearly evolved to eat it, epidemiologists statistically correlated meat to dying and said therefore we shouldn't eat it. Though such studies noted down at the bottom that the relationship was not causal, they wanted the public to believe it because they highlighted the causal inference in press releases, and so media rushed to claim that meat causes heart attacks.A few years ago, epidemiologists at France's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) joined in, using their own meta-analyses to declare that meat was just as hazardous to health as plutonium. And smoking. And mustard gas.