The New Dark Age
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
If anti-science whackos like Trump, RFK Jr., and MAGA in general, are going to try to destroy science-based knowledge, and that is exactly what they are attempting to accomplish, then some scientists are entering the political arena to combat such abysmal ignorance. Trump wants to return our state of scientific and medical science-based knowledge to the Middle Ages.
www.theatlantic.com
In his run for governor of Maine, Nirav Shah holds standard Democratic positions. He aims, his campaign says, “to fix housing, fund health care, feed kids, and fuel growth, while fighting back against the overreaches of the Trump administration.” But Shah’s background is less conventional: In addition to being a lawyer, he’s an epidemiologist who directed Maine’s CDC during the coronavirus pandemic and was the principal deputy director of the federal CDC until earlier this year. Shah decided to resign from the CDC in part because of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as the secretary of health and human services. If he wins in 2026—a big if this early in the race—Shah suspects that he might be one of the first, if not the first, top CDC officials to secure such a prominent elected office.
Many science and health professionals have shied away from politics in the past. But as the Trump administration has rescinded its support for scientific research, restricted vaccine access, dismissed expert advisers, attacked doctors and scientists, and worked to curtail health-insurance coverage, researchers and health-care workers have had a surge of interest in running for office. Shaughnessy Naughton, the president of 314 Action, a political-action committee focused on electing Democrats with science backgrounds, told me that since January her team has seen almost 700 applications for candidate guidance, training, or funding, about seven times what the group would expect during an election off year.
Some of that interest has already translated into active campaigns. Candidates running in 2026 elections include a mathematician and a microbiologist, along with multiple pediatricians and former health officials. They are entering crowded races, in which even the primaries are months away. But many of these candidates argue that amid the administration’s attacks, voters will want to support scientifically minded politicians who can help fill the gaps in expertise that the nation’s leaders have left. Several told me that they specifically began their campaigns after Kennedy was confirmed and began to remake U.S. vaccine policy.
The number of candidates with science or health backgrounds is one more indication of how these fields are being forced to reckon with their role in the current political landscape. Plenty of science professionals still argue that their work shouldn’t be political. “Let’s get the politics out of public health,” Daniel Jernigan, who directed the CDC’s center for emerging and zoonotic diseases before resigning in protest of HHS’s approach to health policy, said at a rally in August. At the same time, the Trump administration’s attacks have created a political opening that many health and science experts are taking, even if it means politicizing science further.
The Epidemiologists Are Running for Office
Instead of trying to depoliticize their field, a swell of scientists want to become politicians.
www.theatlantic.com
In his run for governor of Maine, Nirav Shah holds standard Democratic positions. He aims, his campaign says, “to fix housing, fund health care, feed kids, and fuel growth, while fighting back against the overreaches of the Trump administration.” But Shah’s background is less conventional: In addition to being a lawyer, he’s an epidemiologist who directed Maine’s CDC during the coronavirus pandemic and was the principal deputy director of the federal CDC until earlier this year. Shah decided to resign from the CDC in part because of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as the secretary of health and human services. If he wins in 2026—a big if this early in the race—Shah suspects that he might be one of the first, if not the first, top CDC officials to secure such a prominent elected office.
Many science and health professionals have shied away from politics in the past. But as the Trump administration has rescinded its support for scientific research, restricted vaccine access, dismissed expert advisers, attacked doctors and scientists, and worked to curtail health-insurance coverage, researchers and health-care workers have had a surge of interest in running for office. Shaughnessy Naughton, the president of 314 Action, a political-action committee focused on electing Democrats with science backgrounds, told me that since January her team has seen almost 700 applications for candidate guidance, training, or funding, about seven times what the group would expect during an election off year.
Some of that interest has already translated into active campaigns. Candidates running in 2026 elections include a mathematician and a microbiologist, along with multiple pediatricians and former health officials. They are entering crowded races, in which even the primaries are months away. But many of these candidates argue that amid the administration’s attacks, voters will want to support scientifically minded politicians who can help fill the gaps in expertise that the nation’s leaders have left. Several told me that they specifically began their campaigns after Kennedy was confirmed and began to remake U.S. vaccine policy.
The number of candidates with science or health backgrounds is one more indication of how these fields are being forced to reckon with their role in the current political landscape. Plenty of science professionals still argue that their work shouldn’t be political. “Let’s get the politics out of public health,” Daniel Jernigan, who directed the CDC’s center for emerging and zoonotic diseases before resigning in protest of HHS’s approach to health policy, said at a rally in August. At the same time, the Trump administration’s attacks have created a political opening that many health and science experts are taking, even if it means politicizing science further.
'It was a cult': Mothers seduced by freebirth movement describe trauma and exclusion
Mothers who planned freebirths that ended in a hospital transfer say they've been "gaslit" or "abandoned" by birth workers and kicked out of group chats meant to support them. The movement is facing increasing criticism for "groupthink" and "extremism".
www.abc.net.au
Just saw a story on the free birth movement on the ABC i will post it if I can. Presently the greatest risk of death to a woman under 40 is domestic violence, for thousands of years, prior to modern medicine it was child birth. The absolute stupidity of people, taking actions against their own interests because of crazy **** they see and read on the internet is staggering.
It is a new dark age indeed.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Or maybe it is a necessary culling of the gene pool. Removing those who are not fit to survive to strengthen the remaining population. It happens in nature all the time. Maybe this is the way it happens in advanced societies for sentient life.
'It was a cult': Mothers seduced by freebirth movement describe trauma and exclusion
Mothers who planned freebirths that ended in a hospital transfer say they've been "gaslit" or "abandoned" by birth workers and kicked out of group chats meant to support them. The movement is facing increasing criticism for "groupthink" and "extremism".
Just saw a story on the free birth movement on the ABC i will post it if I can. Presently the greatest risk of death to a woman under 40 is domestic violence, for thousands of years, prior to modern medicine it was child birth. The absolute stupidity of people, taking actions against their own interests because of crazy **** they see and read on the internet is staggering.
It is a new dark age indeed.
Reminds me of an argument I had in a tutorial with a silly hippie girl in Uni, she was trying to argue against the industrial revolution, it was without doubt the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
Here the news report.
The stupidity is next level.
Red
Well-Known Member
The ignoramus RFK Jr. has struck again.
www.motherjones.com
Earlier this week, a new page titled “Vaccines and Autism” appeared on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Contrary to previous CDC guidance, the page alleged, “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism,” adding that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.” Those claims aren’t supported by evidence, but they do reflect talking points regularly promoted by anti-vaccine activists—of which Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a leader.
I spoke with five CDC staffers on Thursday and Friday to find out their reactions to the announcement. While they declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, they all said that they and their colleagues were shocked and dismayed by the misinformation put forth on the new page. “It’s horrifying, it’s embarrassing, it’s scary, it’s heartbreaking—it’s all of those things,” said a staffer at the CDC’s Injury Center. “To see our agency being used to spread lies and misinformation is a gut punch,” a CDC communicator with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease wrote in a message. “People will be harmed by this—parents will decide not to vaccinate their kids because of false information, and kids will get sick and die as a result.”
Another longtime CDC employee who works in communications said, “The best way I can put it is it feels like we’re on a hijacked airplane.”
Several employees noted that there had been no warning about the new page before it was posted—in fact, said the NCIRD staffer, even department leadership had “only learned about it today when somebody saw it the same way everybody else did.”
Others doubted the new page had gone through the agency’s rigorous protocol for vetting public-facing information, which the longtime communications staffer said, “can be clunky and take a long time. It is the bane of many people’s existence who work at CDC because it is so laborious and it requires so many different stages of review.” The new page, on the other hand, “popped up without going through CDC clearance processes.”
“I don’t even know who is updating these web pages, or if anyone at CDC has anything to do with any of that,” said another staffer who works on immunizations. Department supervisors told employees that “their understanding is that these updates to the website are not coming from CDC. Somebody at the HHS level is going in and changing these pages.”
HHS did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.
“Embarrassing” and “horrifying”: CDC workers describe the new vaccines and autism page
"The best way I can put it is it feels like we're on a hijacked airplane."
www.motherjones.com
Earlier this week, a new page titled “Vaccines and Autism” appeared on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Contrary to previous CDC guidance, the page alleged, “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism,” adding that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.” Those claims aren’t supported by evidence, but they do reflect talking points regularly promoted by anti-vaccine activists—of which Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a leader.
I spoke with five CDC staffers on Thursday and Friday to find out their reactions to the announcement. While they declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, they all said that they and their colleagues were shocked and dismayed by the misinformation put forth on the new page. “It’s horrifying, it’s embarrassing, it’s scary, it’s heartbreaking—it’s all of those things,” said a staffer at the CDC’s Injury Center. “To see our agency being used to spread lies and misinformation is a gut punch,” a CDC communicator with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease wrote in a message. “People will be harmed by this—parents will decide not to vaccinate their kids because of false information, and kids will get sick and die as a result.”
Another longtime CDC employee who works in communications said, “The best way I can put it is it feels like we’re on a hijacked airplane.”
Several employees noted that there had been no warning about the new page before it was posted—in fact, said the NCIRD staffer, even department leadership had “only learned about it today when somebody saw it the same way everybody else did.”
Others doubted the new page had gone through the agency’s rigorous protocol for vetting public-facing information, which the longtime communications staffer said, “can be clunky and take a long time. It is the bane of many people’s existence who work at CDC because it is so laborious and it requires so many different stages of review.” The new page, on the other hand, “popped up without going through CDC clearance processes.”
“I don’t even know who is updating these web pages, or if anyone at CDC has anything to do with any of that,” said another staffer who works on immunizations. Department supervisors told employees that “their understanding is that these updates to the website are not coming from CDC. Somebody at the HHS level is going in and changing these pages.”
HHS did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.
Red
Well-Known Member
In case we needed a reminder, Kennedy has no medical background whatsoever. On the other hand, his mind is under the complete control of conspiracy theories. Very, very sick in the head, and in charge of America’s health policies.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he personally directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to cast aside its long-held position that vaccines do not cause autism.
The move marks an unusual instance of a Health secretary unilaterally establishing public health guidance, undermining a long-held consensus from mainstream researchers and doctors and coming in an area where Kennedy has shown significant interest for decades.
In an interview with The New York Times published Friday, Kennedy argued that while studies have shown that some vaccines do not cause autism, the absence of more rigorous testing of all vaccines means the question of whether vaccines cause autism cannot be answered definitively.
“The whole thing about ‘vaccines have been tested and there’s been this determination made,’ is just a lie,” Kennedy said. “The phrase ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ is not supported by science.”
The change on the CDC’s website on Wednesday reversed a conclusion drawn from decades of research by vaccine scientists done, in part, to combat misinformation about vaccines and their potential link to autism. Before leading the nation’s public health agencies, Kennedy and the anti-vaccine activist groups he worked with were among the leading proponents of vaccine misinformation.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he personally directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to cast aside its long-held position that vaccines do not cause autism.
The move marks an unusual instance of a Health secretary unilaterally establishing public health guidance, undermining a long-held consensus from mainstream researchers and doctors and coming in an area where Kennedy has shown significant interest for decades.
In an interview with The New York Times published Friday, Kennedy argued that while studies have shown that some vaccines do not cause autism, the absence of more rigorous testing of all vaccines means the question of whether vaccines cause autism cannot be answered definitively.
“The whole thing about ‘vaccines have been tested and there’s been this determination made,’ is just a lie,” Kennedy said. “The phrase ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ is not supported by science.”
The change on the CDC’s website on Wednesday reversed a conclusion drawn from decades of research by vaccine scientists done, in part, to combat misinformation about vaccines and their potential link to autism. Before leading the nation’s public health agencies, Kennedy and the anti-vaccine activist groups he worked with were among the leading proponents of vaccine misinformation.
Last edited:
Ancient Killer Is Rapidly Becoming Resistant to Antibiotics, Scientists Warn
Despite having plagued humans for millennia, typhoid fever is rarely considered a threat in developed countries today.
www.sciencealert.com
Red
Well-Known Member
Is this one of our society’s leading intellectuals now? Down with “the cult of science”?
www.currentaffairs.org
I am used to debunking absurd right-wing arguments. But conservative podcaster and author Candace Owens is on another level entirely. Many of her proclamations are so bizarre, they seem better described as “symptoms” than “ideas.” She has said that the Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz are performing a“satanic ritual” when they celebrate the death of the Wicked Witch. She says Justin Trudeau, Barack Obama, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Emmanuel Macron are all gay. (And that this is “not a coincidence.”) She has cast doubt on the crimes of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, saying his ghoulish experiments sound “absurd” and would have been a “waste of time and supplies.” Naturally, she believes we faked the moon landing (in fact, all of our space programs were both “fake and gay”). She now claims that the French Foreign Legion were involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk, possibly at the direction of Brigitte Macron (whom Owens thinks is transgender), and believes she herself is being pursued by assassins dispatched by the French government.
You might think these delusions would limit people’s interest in listening to Owens. Doesn’t the average person have enough common sense to realize that she’s totally detached from reality? Well, I have bad news for you: she has an audience of millions. She has, according to one ranking, the second most viewed and downloaded podcast across all platforms, averaging 3.7 million listeners an episode. Her YouTube channel has over a billion views, 5.6 million subscribers, and brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. She has over 7 million followers on Twitter (“X”) and another 6.5 million on Instagram. She was the subject of a recent CNN special, The World According to Candace Owens, and is a leading part of a sprawling and hugely successful right-wing media ecosystem.
How can someone so delusional attract an audience of millions, and what does it say about our country? Well, for starters, Owens is a skilled presenter. Telegenic, polished, and a fluid speaker, she might be saying things that are patently untrue or lack any evidence, but she does it with such conviction and professionalism that one can see how a gullible person might think she knew what she was talking about.
But then there’s the Owens method. It is not the scientific method. Owens has said explicitly that she has “left the cult of science,” which she believes is a “pagan faith.” The epistemology of Owens—not to be confused with Owenism, a philosophy with a noble history—is, in her words, as follows: “If I don’t get it from the Bible, and I can’t observe it with my own eyes, I can’t stan it as the truth.” This means, for instance, that she professes herself agnostic on the question of whether the Earth is flat—“I’m not a flat Earther. I’m not a round Earther.” You won’t be surprised to learn that she rejects climate science, even claiming that Scientific American’s articles on the subject could not be trusted because the website is a .com rather than a .org. (Interestingly, Owens’ own website is also a .com, while Current Affairs is a more respectable .org.)
Nevertheless, there is an Owens method of “truth-seeking,” and it’s worth scrutinizing, because it helps us understand how normal, often intelligent people come to believe things that have no connection whatsoever with factual reality.
Candace Owens and the Decay of the American Brain
How can someone so delusional attract an audience of millions? What does it say about us that Owens is listened to by anyone other than a psychiatrist?
www.currentaffairs.org
I am used to debunking absurd right-wing arguments. But conservative podcaster and author Candace Owens is on another level entirely. Many of her proclamations are so bizarre, they seem better described as “symptoms” than “ideas.” She has said that the Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz are performing a“satanic ritual” when they celebrate the death of the Wicked Witch. She says Justin Trudeau, Barack Obama, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Emmanuel Macron are all gay. (And that this is “not a coincidence.”) She has cast doubt on the crimes of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, saying his ghoulish experiments sound “absurd” and would have been a “waste of time and supplies.” Naturally, she believes we faked the moon landing (in fact, all of our space programs were both “fake and gay”). She now claims that the French Foreign Legion were involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk, possibly at the direction of Brigitte Macron (whom Owens thinks is transgender), and believes she herself is being pursued by assassins dispatched by the French government.
You might think these delusions would limit people’s interest in listening to Owens. Doesn’t the average person have enough common sense to realize that she’s totally detached from reality? Well, I have bad news for you: she has an audience of millions. She has, according to one ranking, the second most viewed and downloaded podcast across all platforms, averaging 3.7 million listeners an episode. Her YouTube channel has over a billion views, 5.6 million subscribers, and brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. She has over 7 million followers on Twitter (“X”) and another 6.5 million on Instagram. She was the subject of a recent CNN special, The World According to Candace Owens, and is a leading part of a sprawling and hugely successful right-wing media ecosystem.
How can someone so delusional attract an audience of millions, and what does it say about our country? Well, for starters, Owens is a skilled presenter. Telegenic, polished, and a fluid speaker, she might be saying things that are patently untrue or lack any evidence, but she does it with such conviction and professionalism that one can see how a gullible person might think she knew what she was talking about.
But then there’s the Owens method. It is not the scientific method. Owens has said explicitly that she has “left the cult of science,” which she believes is a “pagan faith.” The epistemology of Owens—not to be confused with Owenism, a philosophy with a noble history—is, in her words, as follows: “If I don’t get it from the Bible, and I can’t observe it with my own eyes, I can’t stan it as the truth.” This means, for instance, that she professes herself agnostic on the question of whether the Earth is flat—“I’m not a flat Earther. I’m not a round Earther.” You won’t be surprised to learn that she rejects climate science, even claiming that Scientific American’s articles on the subject could not be trusted because the website is a .com rather than a .org. (Interestingly, Owens’ own website is also a .com, while Current Affairs is a more respectable .org.)
Nevertheless, there is an Owens method of “truth-seeking,” and it’s worth scrutinizing, because it helps us understand how normal, often intelligent people come to believe things that have no connection whatsoever with factual reality.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Yep. People are stupid.Is this one of our society’s leading intellectuals now? Down with “the cult of science”?
Candace Owens and the Decay of the American Brain
How can someone so delusional attract an audience of millions? What does it say about us that Owens is listened to by anyone other than a psychiatrist?
I am used to debunking absurd right-wing arguments. But conservative podcaster and author Candace Owens is on another level entirely. Many of her proclamations are so bizarre, they seem better described as “symptoms” than “ideas.” She has said that the Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz are performing a“satanic ritual” when they celebrate the death of the Wicked Witch. She says Justin Trudeau, Barack Obama, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Emmanuel Macron are all gay. (And that this is “not a coincidence.”) She has cast doubt on the crimes of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, saying his ghoulish experiments sound “absurd” and would have been a “waste of time and supplies.” Naturally, she believes we faked the moon landing (in fact, all of our space programs were both “fake and gay”). She now claims that the French Foreign Legion were involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk, possibly at the direction of Brigitte Macron (whom Owens thinks is transgender), and believes she herself is being pursued by assassins dispatched by the French government.
You might think these delusions would limit people’s interest in listening to Owens. Doesn’t the average person have enough common sense to realize that she’s totally detached from reality? Well, I have bad news for you: she has an audience of millions. She has, according to one ranking, the second most viewed and downloaded podcast across all platforms, averaging 3.7 million listeners an episode. Her YouTube channel has over a billion views, 5.6 million subscribers, and brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. She has over 7 million followers on Twitter (“X”) and another 6.5 million on Instagram. She was the subject of a recent CNN special, The World According to Candace Owens, and is a leading part of a sprawling and hugely successful right-wing media ecosystem.
How can someone so delusional attract an audience of millions, and what does it say about our country? Well, for starters, Owens is a skilled presenter. Telegenic, polished, and a fluid speaker, she might be saying things that are patently untrue or lack any evidence, but she does it with such conviction and professionalism that one can see how a gullible person might think she knew what she was talking about.
But then there’s the Owens method. It is not the scientific method. Owens has said explicitly that she has “left the cult of science,” which she believes is a “pagan faith.” The epistemology of Owens—not to be confused with Owenism, a philosophy with a noble history—is, in her words, as follows: “If I don’t get it from the Bible, and I can’t observe it with my own eyes, I can’t stan it as the truth.” This means, for instance, that she professes herself agnostic on the question of whether the Earth is flat—“I’m not a flat Earther. I’m not a round Earther.” You won’t be surprised to learn that she rejects climate science, even claiming that Scientific American’s articles on the subject could not be trusted because the website is a .com rather than a .org. (Interestingly, Owens’ own website is also a .com, while Current Affairs is a more respectable .org.)
Nevertheless, there is an Owens method of “truth-seeking,” and it’s worth scrutinizing, because it helps us understand how normal, often intelligent people come to believe things that have no connection whatsoever with factual reality.
Sardines
Well-Known Member
I'm so tired of the reality I live in. Couldn't I have spawned into one of the good timelines?
Red
Well-Known Member
Lol, sometimes I think I’m living in a Philip K. Dick novella. The guy loved playing with the idea of “time slips”, etc. I think “The Man in the High Castle”, where in that timeline the Nazis won WWII. I think someone made a movie of that one, maybe not. Then I look at Stephen Miller’s mug, and I think “wait a sec, could it be?!”. Yep, I am a fan of the multiverse, and ready to move to a better timeline anytime now. That works for me.