Prasad and Cifu debate the question. Their arguments offer readers a chance to stop and think. I insisted that they make their case in less than 500 words. (You are welcome.)
I appreciated the debate and the good nature surrounding it. I give the nod to Prasad.
He laid out better arguments on more pressing issues.
Public health policy:
Good points on both sides, but I don’t think one can be more “anti-science” than when Harris, in a 10/2020 VP debate (as a Black & SE Asian woman), stated she would not take a Covid-19 vaccine if Trump was the one recommending it. It was really irresponsible from a public health standpoint for someone in her position to say that (knowing it could send mixed messages) & very disappointing.
Gender identity:
Agree current administration/Harris make a mistake by ignoring the UK Cass Report. Dear readers, PLEASE read the Cass Report VP references (or at least SOME of it). There are children being given medication with lasting impact based on studies of poor quality….let that sink in. Imagine if we had had a systematic review of the literature that took over 3 years to complete & had over 100 references when the opioid epidemic was just starting—how many lives could have been positively impacted by changes in prescribing/care approach at that stage instead of years later? We are missing a huge opportunity if we do not pay attention.
On men in women’s sports: the recent rule changes to Title IX under (Biden)Harris may have been well intended, but are disastrous to girls/women in sport & go against the spirit of the original legislation /ignore the sex binary well established in evolutionary biology. I can attest to the value of having a protected women’s sports category to compete in as a means to help pay for my college & as an opportunity for growth that gave me the confidence/ skills needed to succeed in medical training. If you have not been an athlete, it may be hard to fully understand the moral injury it causes to girls when they are told (by adults in authority) that their rights don’t matter. To those who argue, “this is such a small number of people, what’s the big deal?” I urge you to visit: https://www.shewon.org/
Censorship:
Agree with VP points.
This highlights a disturbing trend with the media in general over the last 10+ years, which physicians need to push back against. It should never be OK for media to treat serious physician researchers / physicians with disdain just for attempting to float ideas (not demands that their ideas be implemented, just a request that they be CONTEMPLATED) that are counter to popular opinion in the moment. One example: CNN’s John Berman and Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch, MD, PhD had an interview in 8/2020. Keep in mind this was at a point in the pandemic in which there were no vaccines & ZERO treatment options for high risk outpatient Covid-19 infected individuals…I have never seen a person of Dr. Risch’s stature be treated so poorly by a member of the press. Berman took an infantilizing & chiding tone toward his subject throughout the interview while proceeding to incorrectly use the term “random” instead of “randomized” when referring to clinical trials no fewer than 10 times!!! (You can count for yourself below; if posed as a drinking game, it would be ill advised).
Sorry, I guess I wrote an essay instead of a comment, but this is an important time in history, and this one struck a nerve. Even though I’m not terribly excited by either option, these issues are important.
Adam's critique of Trump's covid response falls a bit short- besides the hydroxycholorquine debacle, he didn't just think that covid would diminish during the warmer weather- he spent the nascency of the pandemic denying its existence, and then the majority of the rest of the year insisting that it would simply disappear forever. Let's not forget the freewheeling about the potentiality of bleach and other such disinfectants being employed in certain ways during a press conference...
The left's response to covid has been very misguided, but that doesn't mean that the right's position is the product of rigorous thought- it simply happened to align with political interests. People decide to listen to the experts who tell them what they would like to hear.
If you zoom out of covid, you'll see a long history of anti-vaccine sentiment, including recent rumblings about cutting funding for schools that have any vaccination requirements (this would include measles). Beyond his dismissal of climate change in general (the consequences of which will far outweigh any societal harms that could manifest from the handling of the covid pandemic or misguided transgender care), the man literally edited a NOAA hurricane path map with a sharpie marker because it suited him....
Donald Trump has no allegiance to any principle whatsoever. He will say or do whatever is politically expedient, or whatever happens to pop into his mind. Obviously all politicians are compromised to various degrees by their interests, but Donald Trump wields these characteristics to such an extreme that the risk is cataclysmic.
Vinay's arguments are quite weak, as well. These criticisms, are, in actuality, about the medical establishment and professional organizations- not politicians. Politicians are not equipped to critically appraise medical literature- they listen to the professionals in the room, and they go with the "consensus". He seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
The survey included here is completely worthless. I admire Vinay's incisive thinking in regards to critical appraisal of medicine, but one's head would need to be buried in the sand to not notice the type of brain-dead conspiratorial-thinking and reality-detached crowds he attracts polluting the comments sections of his social media posts. This is by no fault of his own, it is simply a result of individuals swept up on confirmation bias. Though it is ironic to observe, given the juxtaposition of his well honed thoughts versus that of the audience who will praise him but doesn't seem to get him.
Dr. Cifu, there are many assumptions baked into your predictions of how climate change will impact human health, and even more tenuous assumptions regarding the presumed success of climate policy interventions. I encourage you to read “False Alarm”, Bjorn Lomberg’s nonpartisan, data-driven, and pragmatic review of climate change and policy interventions. I expect you would find it illuminating.
Thanks again. This site is a beacon of reasonable discourse.
I do agree with Cifu in that it was disappointing to see SO many climate regulations rolled back by Trump, but I also agree with some of the points of the above comment. The subtitle of Bjorn Lomborg’s book that was referenced is important: “How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.” Even if you don’t agree with some of his numbers, the larger points he is trying to make are still valid. Lomborg does not suggest we don’t have a problem, he just advocates for being more focused/measured in how we approach it. Questioning policies does not equate to being “a denier.” Your dismissal of his book as a counterpoint calls to mind those who dismissed Dr. Jay Bhattacharya trying to advocate for focused lockdowns for the Covid 19 pandemic as a “fringe scientist”(he was also censored on social media as was revealed by the Twitter Files investigation). They did not bother to actually read what he was saying & did not put it into context.
You might want to watch the interview below. Andrew Revkin was a climate reporter for NYT for 20 years and is largely in agreement with Bjorn:
Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast:
I think they’re both whack jobs who shouldn’t be trusted to be the dog-catcher. Trump is a buffoon and Harris is an idiot. Get rid of both of them. I’m going to write in Mitch Daniels again.
Michael, would you consider writing in Nikki Haley, instead? Mitch won't run in four years (when he'll be 79 years old), but I can imagine Nikki will be running, and your message now might mean more.
Although I can’t imagine either candidate passing a high school chemistry class, I enjoyed your debate here. Given that I detest both candidates, this election is a “least worse” vote for me.
Dr. Cifu, I’d recommend reading some Bjorn Lomborg to broaden your perspective on climate science!
Considering both representatives of different corporate interest groups, I would call Harris as well as Trump selective-science candidates.
Regarding Trump being the more in-your-face brute, and Harris (as Biden and Obama) the more stab-you-in-the-back-with-a-smile type, the „orange man“ (VP as far as I recall) seems more of what the US „deserves/desires“, if comparable to Milei, Meloni, Orban and so forth on a global scale.
I absolutely fucking HATE Trump, but the policies speak for themselves. I don't have TDS, I just think he's a seething pathetic toxic mess with a talent for manipulation. US politics is FUBAR until we have some profoundly strong anti-corruption laws. Lobbyists have all the power. GET THEM OUT.
I prior posted in this thread long form interview of Dr. Judy Curry (climate scientist). Here is another long form interview with a different contrarian climate scientist to belief climate change is an existential treat: https://youtu.be/spKTb3wMmJM?feature=shared
For others who may not have read all comments to date (28 comments as of 1450 C.S.T. September 4, 2024), the reason there are many climate change comments is because Dr. Cifu mentions it as main reason why former President Trump is anti-science.
We cannot forget prolonged school closures as an anti-science policy. Yes, Trump bought into "2 weeks to stop the spread" but the Ds kept school closed long after evidence from Europe, southern states and private school showed that children could safely go back to school. Obesity spiked, mental health disorders worsened, gun violence increased. Chronic absenteeism is still way above pre-covid levels. The number of children who are at grade level continues to be shockingly low. Poor educational attainment is closely tied to health outcomes.
There are some schools that have briefly shut this fall for covid. Walz is certainly pro-closure and I have yet to hear Harris say that was a mistake.
Enjoyable debate. Tough call, as we should expect little in the way of scientific thinking from politicians. That said, there is nothing more "anti-science" than censorship, so have to give the nod to Dr. P. A D administration will clearly expand state-sponsored censorship.
One thing we can probably all agree on is that scientific and medical journals should not endorse political candidates no matter how "anti-science" the opponent is!
While neither is an intellectual giant in the sciences, Trump is far less doctrinaire in his willingness to listen to a spectrum of ideas.
Dr. Cifu ignored the fact that, ultimately, hydroxychloroquine has proved useful in fighting early mild covid infections. And I have long suspected that the "light" and "bleach" comments that Trump obviously muddled referred to a misunderstanding of UVBI therapy - or even UVB sunlight, very therapeutic! - and the diluted peroxide nasal wash that many medical groups recommend.
And it is certainly not settled science that climate change is anything approaching an existential threat - on the contrary, someone accustomed to advances in medical science should be able to appreciate that the free market and innovators will continue to mitigate the negative effects of climate change on our population. (And there are actually some positive effects, too, given that extreme cold is a bigger killer than extreme heat.)
Thank you for the illuminating discussion - gonna have to go "Team Prasad" on this one! (But much respect to Dr. Cifu as well.)
Adam, you would benefit from visiting www.wattsupwiththat--a blog covering climate. The critical appraisal skills you bring to clinical trials should be brought to bear on climate data (we can measure temperature from the Roman period using tree rings with accuracy to 10ths of a degree?). The skepticism you feel when you read mainstream media about medicine should be similarly applied when reading about climate. (Gell-Mann amnesia?) And finally, you should consider that money drives "science" in climate just as much as it affects research in drugs and medicine.
Catastrophic climate change driven by humans is a hoax.
A classic Hobson's choice. Their speech and actions show that neither has the faintest clue as to what science is and they don't really care. Some might give Trump a slight edge because he says he will oppose some of the climate change nonsense. But that is only because he is bought and paid for by some of the energy companies. His enthusiasm for the covid scam and vaccines in general might negate that slight edge. With Kamala Harris it is hard to know what to say. She doesn't seem to know much about anything and sounds incredibly stupid whenever she opens her mouth. In the final analysis their thoughts and words mean nothing as both are simply tools of the people in charge. Final thought for those who are worried about "climate change". Check out Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com.
I appreciated the debate and the good nature surrounding it. I give the nod to Prasad.
He laid out better arguments on more pressing issues.
Public health policy:
Good points on both sides, but I don’t think one can be more “anti-science” than when Harris, in a 10/2020 VP debate (as a Black & SE Asian woman), stated she would not take a Covid-19 vaccine if Trump was the one recommending it. It was really irresponsible from a public health standpoint for someone in her position to say that (knowing it could send mixed messages) & very disappointing.
Gender identity:
Agree current administration/Harris make a mistake by ignoring the UK Cass Report. Dear readers, PLEASE read the Cass Report VP references (or at least SOME of it). There are children being given medication with lasting impact based on studies of poor quality….let that sink in. Imagine if we had had a systematic review of the literature that took over 3 years to complete & had over 100 references when the opioid epidemic was just starting—how many lives could have been positively impacted by changes in prescribing/care approach at that stage instead of years later? We are missing a huge opportunity if we do not pay attention.
On men in women’s sports: the recent rule changes to Title IX under (Biden)Harris may have been well intended, but are disastrous to girls/women in sport & go against the spirit of the original legislation /ignore the sex binary well established in evolutionary biology. I can attest to the value of having a protected women’s sports category to compete in as a means to help pay for my college & as an opportunity for growth that gave me the confidence/ skills needed to succeed in medical training. If you have not been an athlete, it may be hard to fully understand the moral injury it causes to girls when they are told (by adults in authority) that their rights don’t matter. To those who argue, “this is such a small number of people, what’s the big deal?” I urge you to visit: https://www.shewon.org/
Censorship:
Agree with VP points.
This highlights a disturbing trend with the media in general over the last 10+ years, which physicians need to push back against. It should never be OK for media to treat serious physician researchers / physicians with disdain just for attempting to float ideas (not demands that their ideas be implemented, just a request that they be CONTEMPLATED) that are counter to popular opinion in the moment. One example: CNN’s John Berman and Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch, MD, PhD had an interview in 8/2020. Keep in mind this was at a point in the pandemic in which there were no vaccines & ZERO treatment options for high risk outpatient Covid-19 infected individuals…I have never seen a person of Dr. Risch’s stature be treated so poorly by a member of the press. Berman took an infantilizing & chiding tone toward his subject throughout the interview while proceeding to incorrectly use the term “random” instead of “randomized” when referring to clinical trials no fewer than 10 times!!! (You can count for yourself below; if posed as a drinking game, it would be ill advised).
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-chyron-trashes-yale-doc-during-tense-interview-with-berman-yale-epidemiologist-insists-against-evidence-hydroxychloroquine-works/amp/
Sorry, I guess I wrote an essay instead of a comment, but this is an important time in history, and this one struck a nerve. Even though I’m not terribly excited by either option, these issues are important.
A poor showing from both debaters, to be honest.
Adam's critique of Trump's covid response falls a bit short- besides the hydroxycholorquine debacle, he didn't just think that covid would diminish during the warmer weather- he spent the nascency of the pandemic denying its existence, and then the majority of the rest of the year insisting that it would simply disappear forever. Let's not forget the freewheeling about the potentiality of bleach and other such disinfectants being employed in certain ways during a press conference...
The left's response to covid has been very misguided, but that doesn't mean that the right's position is the product of rigorous thought- it simply happened to align with political interests. People decide to listen to the experts who tell them what they would like to hear.
If you zoom out of covid, you'll see a long history of anti-vaccine sentiment, including recent rumblings about cutting funding for schools that have any vaccination requirements (this would include measles). Beyond his dismissal of climate change in general (the consequences of which will far outweigh any societal harms that could manifest from the handling of the covid pandemic or misguided transgender care), the man literally edited a NOAA hurricane path map with a sharpie marker because it suited him....
Donald Trump has no allegiance to any principle whatsoever. He will say or do whatever is politically expedient, or whatever happens to pop into his mind. Obviously all politicians are compromised to various degrees by their interests, but Donald Trump wields these characteristics to such an extreme that the risk is cataclysmic.
Vinay's arguments are quite weak, as well. These criticisms, are, in actuality, about the medical establishment and professional organizations- not politicians. Politicians are not equipped to critically appraise medical literature- they listen to the professionals in the room, and they go with the "consensus". He seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
The survey included here is completely worthless. I admire Vinay's incisive thinking in regards to critical appraisal of medicine, but one's head would need to be buried in the sand to not notice the type of brain-dead conspiratorial-thinking and reality-detached crowds he attracts polluting the comments sections of his social media posts. This is by no fault of his own, it is simply a result of individuals swept up on confirmation bias. Though it is ironic to observe, given the juxtaposition of his well honed thoughts versus that of the audience who will praise him but doesn't seem to get him.
Thank you both for your perspective.
Dr. Cifu, there are many assumptions baked into your predictions of how climate change will impact human health, and even more tenuous assumptions regarding the presumed success of climate policy interventions. I encourage you to read “False Alarm”, Bjorn Lomberg’s nonpartisan, data-driven, and pragmatic review of climate change and policy interventions. I expect you would find it illuminating.
Thanks again. This site is a beacon of reasonable discourse.
That writing has been thoroughly debunked and is also extremely dated at this point.
I think you missed the point of the comment.
I do agree with Cifu in that it was disappointing to see SO many climate regulations rolled back by Trump, but I also agree with some of the points of the above comment. The subtitle of Bjorn Lomborg’s book that was referenced is important: “How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.” Even if you don’t agree with some of his numbers, the larger points he is trying to make are still valid. Lomborg does not suggest we don’t have a problem, he just advocates for being more focused/measured in how we approach it. Questioning policies does not equate to being “a denier.” Your dismissal of his book as a counterpoint calls to mind those who dismissed Dr. Jay Bhattacharya trying to advocate for focused lockdowns for the Covid 19 pandemic as a “fringe scientist”(he was also censored on social media as was revealed by the Twitter Files investigation). They did not bother to actually read what he was saying & did not put it into context.
You might want to watch the interview below. Andrew Revkin was a climate reporter for NYT for 20 years and is largely in agreement with Bjorn:
Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gk9gIpGvSE
I think they’re both whack jobs who shouldn’t be trusted to be the dog-catcher. Trump is a buffoon and Harris is an idiot. Get rid of both of them. I’m going to write in Mitch Daniels again.
Michael, would you consider writing in Nikki Haley, instead? Mitch won't run in four years (when he'll be 79 years old), but I can imagine Nikki will be running, and your message now might mean more.
Sure. I’d consider it.
Although I can’t imagine either candidate passing a high school chemistry class, I enjoyed your debate here. Given that I detest both candidates, this election is a “least worse” vote for me.
Dr. Cifu, I’d recommend reading some Bjorn Lomborg to broaden your perspective on climate science!
Considering both representatives of different corporate interest groups, I would call Harris as well as Trump selective-science candidates.
Regarding Trump being the more in-your-face brute, and Harris (as Biden and Obama) the more stab-you-in-the-back-with-a-smile type, the „orange man“ (VP as far as I recall) seems more of what the US „deserves/desires“, if comparable to Milei, Meloni, Orban and so forth on a global scale.
I absolutely fucking HATE Trump, but the policies speak for themselves. I don't have TDS, I just think he's a seething pathetic toxic mess with a talent for manipulation. US politics is FUBAR until we have some profoundly strong anti-corruption laws. Lobbyists have all the power. GET THEM OUT.
As the old saying goes, 95% of all scientists agree with whoever is funding them.
I prior posted in this thread long form interview of Dr. Judy Curry (climate scientist). Here is another long form interview with a different contrarian climate scientist to belief climate change is an existential treat: https://youtu.be/spKTb3wMmJM?feature=shared
For others who may not have read all comments to date (28 comments as of 1450 C.S.T. September 4, 2024), the reason there are many climate change comments is because Dr. Cifu mentions it as main reason why former President Trump is anti-science.
Adam, you should not go to "climate change"... that is some of the weakest science there is.
(I am happy to review any link to a concise summary supporting the claims of the climate change camp...)
Undermines your position... but trying to support the Harris camp as "science" is an impossible task.
We cannot forget prolonged school closures as an anti-science policy. Yes, Trump bought into "2 weeks to stop the spread" but the Ds kept school closed long after evidence from Europe, southern states and private school showed that children could safely go back to school. Obesity spiked, mental health disorders worsened, gun violence increased. Chronic absenteeism is still way above pre-covid levels. The number of children who are at grade level continues to be shockingly low. Poor educational attainment is closely tied to health outcomes.
There are some schools that have briefly shut this fall for covid. Walz is certainly pro-closure and I have yet to hear Harris say that was a mistake.
Enjoyable debate. Tough call, as we should expect little in the way of scientific thinking from politicians. That said, there is nothing more "anti-science" than censorship, so have to give the nod to Dr. P. A D administration will clearly expand state-sponsored censorship.
One thing we can probably all agree on is that scientific and medical journals should not endorse political candidates no matter how "anti-science" the opponent is!
"Scientists strongly agree with those who fund them."
That is the sole basis for the climate agenda.
Harris has an obvious lead in supporting an anti-science agenda.
While neither is an intellectual giant in the sciences, Trump is far less doctrinaire in his willingness to listen to a spectrum of ideas.
Dr. Cifu ignored the fact that, ultimately, hydroxychloroquine has proved useful in fighting early mild covid infections. And I have long suspected that the "light" and "bleach" comments that Trump obviously muddled referred to a misunderstanding of UVBI therapy - or even UVB sunlight, very therapeutic! - and the diluted peroxide nasal wash that many medical groups recommend.
And it is certainly not settled science that climate change is anything approaching an existential threat - on the contrary, someone accustomed to advances in medical science should be able to appreciate that the free market and innovators will continue to mitigate the negative effects of climate change on our population. (And there are actually some positive effects, too, given that extreme cold is a bigger killer than extreme heat.)
Thank you for the illuminating discussion - gonna have to go "Team Prasad" on this one! (But much respect to Dr. Cifu as well.)
Adam, you would benefit from visiting www.wattsupwiththat--a blog covering climate. The critical appraisal skills you bring to clinical trials should be brought to bear on climate data (we can measure temperature from the Roman period using tree rings with accuracy to 10ths of a degree?). The skepticism you feel when you read mainstream media about medicine should be similarly applied when reading about climate. (Gell-Mann amnesia?) And finally, you should consider that money drives "science" in climate just as much as it affects research in drugs and medicine.
Catastrophic climate change driven by humans is a hoax.
A classic Hobson's choice. Their speech and actions show that neither has the faintest clue as to what science is and they don't really care. Some might give Trump a slight edge because he says he will oppose some of the climate change nonsense. But that is only because he is bought and paid for by some of the energy companies. His enthusiasm for the covid scam and vaccines in general might negate that slight edge. With Kamala Harris it is hard to know what to say. She doesn't seem to know much about anything and sounds incredibly stupid whenever she opens her mouth. In the final analysis their thoughts and words mean nothing as both are simply tools of the people in charge. Final thought for those who are worried about "climate change". Check out Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com.