Archives for category: Science

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to amaze. He is a lawyer; he worked for years for environmental protection. Then he became involved in opposing vaccines and spread the claim that vaccines cause autism. Most members of his illustrious family have publicly opposed him as a candidate.

He found a very wealthy running mate, Nicole Shanahan, the ex-wife of Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google. She poured millions into the campaign.

The Kennedy-Shanahan ticket has had trouble getting onto the ballot in every state. So far, they have succeeded in 19 states. Their ticket has declined in the polls, and it’s running short of money.

Kennedy has approached both of the major candidates about joining forces with them. Trump was enthusiastic and even hinted that there might be an important post for him, something like a major Cabinet post (Health and Human Services, perhaps?). Imagine RFK Jr. with the power to recall or ban vaccines.

He also tried to meet with Democratic leaders, but they rebuffed him. After Biden’s disastrous June debate performance, he offered to take Biden’s place at the top of the ticket. When Kamala became the consensus candidate, he tried to meet with her, but she was not interested.

It turns out that RFK Jr. draws more votes away from Trump than from Harris. The anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, and other conspiracy theorists like him.

The New York Times reported that Shanahan, RFK Jr.’s running mate, was interviewed in a podcast, where she mentioned that they were thinking of joining forces with Trump. She expressed bitterness towards the Democrats and blames them for undermining the Kennedy-Shanahan ticket. She said that one of the options for the future is forming a third party.

Hmmm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. working on behalf of Donald Trump? Trump is a guy who doesn’t believe in climate change. He says it’s a hoax. Will RFK Jr. abandon his many years as an environmentalist to get a shot at political power? Shameful.

Every once in a while, a story appears that is so riveting that you can’t put it down. Such a story is Clare Malone’s analysis of what makes Bobby Kennedy Jr. tick. It appears in The New Yorker, where Malone is a staff writer. Malone has interviewed him and numerous people who knew him at different points in his life. What emerges is a portrait of a man who is charismatic and charming but deeply troubled.

He is a man of many addictions. He was addicted to drugs for many years; she says he first tried heroin when he was 15, and he was deeply into drugs when he was a student at Harvard.

He is addicted to sex. Women flocked to him, and he bedded them as often as he could. He married three times, and she writes that he was a serial philanderer. He left his first wife for his second wife, who was six months pregnant when they married. He left her for his third wife and sued for custody of their children. The second wife committed suicide.

He is addicted, as she shows, to attention. A lawyer, he became involved in environmental activism, where he carved out a new identity and achieved great success litigating against major corporations. Then he became engaged in anti-vaccine activism, after a mother from Minnesota convinced him in 2003 that her son’s autism was caused by vaccines he received when he was only four months old.

Kennedy, she shows, was always susceptible to conspiracy theories. He believes the CIA was involved in the murders of his uncle and father. He easily saw a conspiracy to hide the evidence behind vaccines and autism. He became a leading opponent of vaccines.

Malone tells the story of Kennedy and the body of a black bear cub, which he found on the road in the Adirondacks in 2014. He put the dead animal in the trunk of his car and staged a photo of himself with his hand in the mouth of the dead animal.

That year, Kennedy and his wife moved to Los Angeles, where he became active with an anti-vaccine group called World Mercury Project, founded by a vaccine skeptic, Eric Gladen. The group was later named Children’s Health Defense.

At an event in Sacramento to promote a film by Gladen, “Trace Amounts,” Kennedy told a crowd that, when children receive vaccines, “that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”

Following a measles outbreak in 2019, his older brother and sister wrote an article denouncing Robert’s anti-vaccine advocacy. He was undeterred. Children’s Health Defense was one of the nation’s leading purveyors of vaccine skepticism.

With the arrival of covid, Kennedy’s reach exploded. He churned out books: “The Real Anthony Fauci,” “Vax-UnVax: Let the Science Speak,” and “A Letter to Liberals: Censorship and Covid.” In the summer of 2021, as covid vaccines were rolling out, Children’s Health Defense promoted its film “Medical Racism: The New Apartheid,” which was seemingly aimed at Black Americans. During the early weeks of Kennedy’s Presidential campaign, the New York Post published a video in which Kennedy said that covid was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people” and that “the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” Researchers in China, Russia, and the U.S., he went on, are developing “ethnic bioweapons” to “target people by race.” (Kennedy said that his remarks were taken out of context.)

After Kennedy decided to run for president as a spoiler, Kennedy’s former colleagues in the environmental movement were appalled. They were afraid that he would help Trump win, the candidate whose record on the environment was a disaster. He had turned from anti-corporate to anti-government.

After the assassination attempt on Trump, Kennedy praised Trump for his courage. Trump called Kennedy and let him know that there would be a place for him in the next Trump administration. Kennedy appeared at the Republican National Convention.

In a recent text exchange, Kennedy told one person that Trump was “a terrible human being. The worse president ever and barely human. He is probably a sociopath.” But, Kennedy went on, Biden was “more dangerous to the Republic and the planet.”

Kennedy’s press secretary told Malone that Trump wanted Kennedy to drop out of the race because he was hurting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy was tempted by the role as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The article is engrossing. At the end, I felt that Kennedy was a man of intellect and passion who squandered his talents. Too much money, too much privilege, too much tragedy, too consumed by his addictions. And now, championing a cause that may lead to the deaths of countless children.

Alexandra Petri, the Washington Post’s great humorist, wrote about the bear cub incident from the perspective of Kennedy’s brain worm:

Hello again. I had been hoping to continue my peaceful existence, far from the news cycle. But I have heard my name invoked and I simply must set the record straight. I would not rest well knowing that people thought I was implicated in the episode that recently came to light involving Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s disposal of a dead bear cub. That was all my host. I, the brain worm that died inside his skull in 2010, had no part in it.

“Isn’t picking up a dead bear cub and bringing it along in your car, ‘Weekend at Bearnie’s’-style, for an afternoon of outdoor activity and dinner at Peter Luger Steak House, then ditching it in Central Park along with a bicycle in an attempt to implicate cyclists in its demise the kind of suggestion that a brain worm would make?” First of all, rude. Second of all, no. What self-respecting parasite would say, “Yes, let us spend more time with meat that has been improperly handled? I want maximum competition for my spot within my host’s brain!” There is no logic in it.

Worse yet, there is an image circulating of my erstwhile host posing with the dead bear cub that he drove around for that memorable afternoon in 2014; he suggests that perhaps taking this photo was when he picked up his brain worm. This is slander, and my legal team will be in contact with his. I died in 2010 and was not involved in the bear incident.

Candidly, no part of the story makes any sense to me. I have watched the video in which my former host attempts to explain the situation to Roseanne Barr, whose presence is, improbably, the most normal part of the video. My host’s explanation, as far as I can understand it, is that he was on his way to do falconry (no, this is still not the strangest part of the story! If I lose you now you are lost forever), saw an unknown driver hit a bear and then he put the dead cub in his van because he was going to eat the meat.

I had thought that we parted on bad terms and he would not want a repeat brain-worm visitor, but the decision to eat roadkill bear meat, especially roadkill bear meat that had sat in his car all day while he did falconry, leads me to wonder if perhaps he missed me, or if I had left an emptiness in him that he wished to fill with another guest. But I can only speculate.

He had such a good day of falconry that he forgot all about the bear carcass in his van. (I am just a simple brain worm. Is this a normal sentence that human beings say all the time?) And then he had to go to dinner at a famous steakhouse and then realized he had to go to the airport and couldn’t just leave the bear carcass in his car at the airport. The part about not leaving a bear carcass in your car at an airport makes sense to me, once you have reached the point where you have a bear carcass in your car. It is that first part, though, that continues to baffle me.

And then his friends, who had been drinking (when you are a human being and your drunk friends all say, “This sounds like a good idea!” is this how you know that you have hold of a good idea?) signed off on his plan for disposing of the bear, which was as follows: There had been a lot of bike accidents, and he had an old bike in his car that someone had asked him to get rid of (okay!), so why not drive the bear to Central Park and stage the bike to make it appear that the bear had perished in one such accident? Just as a treat for the people who would find the bear. (Is this what you would consider a treat? I don’t know! I am just a brain worm, asking questions. I do not have a brain, except a little bit of it which I enjoyed consuming very much.)

Anyway, I had no part in any of this. And for the record, the talks about taking a Cabinet position in a second Trump administration weren’t my idea, either.

Trump has said repeatedly that he will defund schools that mandate vaccines. Every state requires vaccinations before enrolling students. I may be mistaken but I think every state requires children to be vaccinated for a long list of diseases. So, he is threatening to defund every public school in the nation.

Dr. Paul Offit, a specialist in infectious diseases, explains what a dangerous idea this is. Vaccines work. Vaccines save lives. Trump is pandering to the anti-vaccine people. They are wrong and so is he. Children will die if Trump gets elected and follows through on this vile promise.

Dr. Offit writes:

At a campaign rally on June 22, 2024, former president Donald Trump told a crowd of cheering fans, “I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate.” Given that every public school in the United States has vaccine mandates, this would mean eliminating all federal funding for public schools. Will Trump’s statement pressure schools to eliminate mandates? More to the point, why are school vaccine mandates important?

The best way to understand school vaccine mandates is through the lens of measles virus, the most contagious vaccine-preventable disease. Measles vaccine first became available in 1963. At that time, every year in the United States, 3-4 million people would be infected with measles, 48,000 would be hospitalized, and 500 would die. Deaths were primarily caused by pneumonia, severe dehydration, and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). By the late 1960s, measles vaccination led to a 95 percent drop in the incidence of the disease. By the early 1970s, however, immunization rates had become stagnant. Measles cases increased. In 1971, about 150,000 cases were reported. Although the number of states requiring vaccines for school entry increased from 25 in 1968 to 40 in 1974, health officials hadn’t enforced them.

By 1981, all 50 states had school immunization requirements. By 2000, because school mandates were enforced, measles was eliminated from the United States. However, 45 of 50 states now allow philosophical or religious exemptions to vaccination. Because a critical percentage of parents have now chosen these exemptions, measles is coming back.  At the end of December 2022, schools and daycare centers in Columbus, Ohio, reported 85 cases of measles; 32 children were hospitalized; all were unvaccinated. During the past four years, 338 cases of measles have been reported. This year, 188 cases of measles were reported in the United States, triple the number of cases seen in 2023. If Donald Trump were to pressure schools to eliminate mandates, hundreds of cases of measles will become thousands of cases. The case-fatality rate for measles is about 1 in 1,000. If return to a time when measles infects thousands of people, children will once again die from a disease that is entirely preventable.

The notion that Donald Trump would withhold federal funding for schools is highly unlikely. But there is another way that Trump could weaken vaccine rates—eliminate the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC), which launched in 1994 and provides vaccines for all children who are uninsured or underinsured. The program is estimated to prevent about 30 million hospitalizations a year. Were the Trump Administration to eliminate the VFC, we could expect to retreat to a time, not that long ago, where every year polio paralyzed as many as 30,000 children and killed 1,500, rubella (German measles) caused 20,000 cases of birth defects, diphtheria was the most common killer of teenagers, and bacteria like Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) caused 25,000 cases of meningitis and bloodstream infections.

Although Donald Trump may have found an applause line at his campaign rallies, if his disdain for vaccine mandates translates into public policy, children who needlessly suffer preventable illnesses won’t be applauding.

Dr. Paul Offit is an authority on vaccines and infectious diseases. Please read this post from his blog Beyond the Noise.

He writes:

On July 16, 2024, Brandy Zadrozny, an investigative reporter and journalist for NBC News, posted a video on X of a conversation between RFK Jr. and Donald Trump. “Whoops,” writes Zadrozny. “Seems like RFK Jr.’s son posted and has since deleted a video of a call between RFK Jr. and Trump.” When he realized that his son had posted the video, RFK Jr. was mortified. “When President Trump called me,” he wrote. “I was taping with an in-house videographer. I should have ordered the videographer to stop recording immediately. I am mortified that this was posted. I apologize to the president.”

Trump was talking to RFK Jr. about vaccines.  “Something is wrong with the whole system,” said Trump. “Remember, I said you need small doses. Small doses. [Children receive] 38 different vaccines and it looks like it’s meant for a horse, not a 10 pound or 20-pound baby. And then you see the baby starting to change radically. And I’ve seen it too many times.”

None of this was new. Trump had repeated what he had said during a presidential debate on September 17, 2015. “Autism has become an epidemic that has gotten totally out of control,” he said, suggesting that high concentrations of vaccines given all at once was causing the problem. “Just the other day, two years old, two- and one-half years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick and is now autistic.” Trump said that he wanted vaccines to be given in “smaller doses over longer periods of time.” Donald Trump, a reality TV star, real estate developer, and politician is asking us to believe that his knowledge of phase 1 dose-ranging studies is greater than the scientists and physicians who evaluate those studies.

Alison Singer, the president and co-founder of the Autism Science Foundation and the mother of a child with autism, responded to that immediately. “Donald Trump is a part of a fringe movement that…[has] dangerously perpetuated the false link between vaccines and autism,” she said. “The facts are clear. Vaccines do not cause autism. Some people may not like the facts, but they don’t get to change them, even if they are running for president of the United States.”

The most worrisome part of the conversation between RFK Jr. and Donald Trump occurred at the end, when Trump said, “I would love for you to do something. And I think it would be good for you. [Because] we are going to win. We’re going to win.” Was Trump implying that RFK Jr. might have a place in his administration. If so, the public should be aware that no one has propagated more false information about vaccines and vaccine safety than RFK Jr. When asked on a recent podcast with Lex Fridman to name a vaccine that he thought was valuable, he couldn’t think of one. If RFK Jr. is given a place in the Trump administration, we can be sure that his vaccine disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false beliefs will be center stage, putting the health of children and this nation at risk.

Imagine RFK Jr. as head of the Centers for Disease Control. The Federal Drug Administration. Good grief!

Leslie Postal of the Orlando Sentinel reports that Florida’s Department of Education has warned textbook authors to delete references to climate change, although some apparently are getting through. This is especially egregious since Florida is one of the states most threatened by climate change.

She writes:

Textbook authors were told last month that some references to “climate change” must be removed from science books before they could be accepted for use in Florida’s public schools, according to two of those authors.

A high school biology book also had to add citations to back up statements that “human activity” caused climate change and cut a “political statement” urging governments to take action to stop climate change, said Ken Miller, the co-author of that textbook and a professor emeritus of biology at Brown University.

Both Miller and a second author who asked not to be identified told the Orlando Sentinel they learned of the state-directed changes from their publishers, who received phone calls in June from state officials.

Miller, also president of the board of the National Center for Science Education, said the phrase “climate change” was not removed from his high school biology text, which he assumed happened because climate change is mentioned in Florida’s academic standards for biology courses. [Note: The state standards for science were adopted in 2008, before DeSantis was elected Governor.]

But according to his publisher, a 90-page section on climate change was removed from its high school chemistry textbook and the phrase was removed from middle school science books, he said.

The other author said he was told Florida wanted publishers to remove “extraneous information” not listed in state standards. “They asked to take out phrases such as climate change,” he added.

The actions seemed to echo Florida’s previous rejection of math and social studies textbooks that state officials claimed include passages of “indoctrination” and “ideological rhetoric.” And they fall in line with the views of many GOP leaders, who question both the existence of climate change and the contributions of human activities to the problem, despite a broad scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is transforming the earth’s environment.

In May, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that stripped the phrase “climate change” from much of Florida law, reversing 16 years of state policy and, critics said, undermining Florida’s support of renewable and clean energy…

But there are no textbooks for high school environmental science classes on the approved list, though three companies submitted bids to supply books for that class, according to documents on the department’s website. Course material for that subject typically includes significant discussion of climate change.

“How do you write an environmental science book to appease people who are opposed to climate change?” asked a school district science supervisor, who is involved in science textbook adoption for her district. She asked not to be identified for fear of job repercussions.

She and other educators, the textbook authors and science advocates said the state’s actions will rob students of a deeper understanding of global warming even as it impacts their state and communities through longer and hotter heat waves, more ferocious storms and sea level rise.

Florida had already earned a D — and was among the five lowest-ranked states in the country — in a 2020 study that graded the states on how their public school science standards addressed climate change, said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the center for science education, which was a partner in the study.

Is there a grade lower than F? F-?

Steve Ruis raises an interesting question: Why did four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court agree to take the abortion pill case, then rule unanimously that the litigants had no standing to sue? Wouldn’t the four who wanted to hear the case know that in advance? Why did they waste everyone’s time?

Steve has a suspicion that the six justices who voted to strike down Roe v. Wade were sending instructions for the next legal challenge to the pill: try again but avoid these pitfalls. Find a plaintiff with standing.

Just as he predicted, the plaintiffs are lining up to challenge the pill again. They are taking their cases to the same far-right judge in Amarillo, Texas, who previously said the Federal Drug Administration should never have approved the pill.

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk will have to decide later this summer if three conservative states that want to continue the fight against the drug can do so in his court. The decision is one of several in coming weeks that will determine whether – and if so, how quickly – the case against mifepristone makes it back to the Supreme Court.

Before Trump appointed him, the judge was an attorney for a Christian advocacy group. He is known for his anti-abortion views.

Three conservative states—Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas—want to block access to the pill, and they plan to file their case in Amarillo, knowing that it will be heard by a friendly judge.

An immediate question for Kacsmaryk is whether the states can continue to do so in his court. Generally, parties must be able to justify filing lawsuits in a specific federal court. The doctors and anti-abortion groups who sued over mifepristone incorporated a group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in Amarillo  months before their lawsuit.

The groups’ move to bring the case in Amarillo, a far-flung court division in Texas’ panhandle, was among the most controversial aspects of the lawsuit. Kacsmaryk is virtually guaranteed to hear every case that is filed there, and his courthouse has become a favorite option for conservative litigants and states seeking to halt the Biden administration’s agenda.

Steve Ruis was prescient. A few days after he posted his warning, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, a lawyer, dug down into the decision about the abortion pill.

She wrote:

Just as they did when the Supreme Court managed to reject the utterly outlandish independent state legislature theory in Moore v. Harper, too many credulous court watchers rushed forward last week to praise the high court for its “reasonableness” in rejecting a half-baked claim to restrict access to mifepristone, the medical abortion drug. It gets no brownie points for knocking down on technical standing grounds one of the more outlandish opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and antiabortion activist District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

Despite headlines that the court was saving or preserving mifepristone, it did nothing of the sort. Worse, Americans have plenty of reason to fear what the most radical and aggressive Supreme Court since Dred Scott is up to.

The majority found that the respondent, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, lacked standing because the group’s members were already spared from any obligation to perform medical abortions by federal conscience clause protections, had only the most speculative injuries, and had to do more than prove it devoted resources to the issue to qualify for “associational” standing. (Plaintiffs cannot “spend” their way into standing, the majority held.)

As a preliminary matter, Justice Clarence Thomas (under fire for yet more unreported lavish gifts from right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow) filed a concurrence that was downright scary. He argued that no organization or association should ever be allowed to assert organizational standing. Here, he went after a nearly 50-year-old precedent.

As Reuters explained, “Thomas essentially attacked a long-recognized legal doctrine relied upon by associations ranging from the nation’s biggest business lobby — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — to environmental groups and gun rights advocacy organizations to challenge government policies by suing on behalf of their members.” By depriving the most able plaintiffs from challenging statutes, Thomas would give the federal government and states license to run roughshod over individual rights without necessarily changing the substantive law.

Following his attack on Brown v. Board of Education in the South Carolina redistricting case and his assault on Griswold v. Connecticut in the Dobbs case, Thomas once more reveals just how radical the Supreme Court, with the addition of more radical justices, might become in the future.

What was hyperbole is now a road map straight from the concurrences of one of the most radical justices. In the upcoming election, Democrats would do well to focus on the extremism of the Supreme Court as they explain how even more extreme the court would become with more MAGA appointees.

One could simply substitute Thomas for Robert Bork, the radical nominee whose appointment was scuttled in 1987, in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s famous denunciation:


[Clarence Thomas’s] America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

What was hyperbole is now a road map straight from the concurrences of one of the most radical justices. In the upcoming election, Democrats would do well to focus on the extremism of the Supreme Court as they explain how even more extreme the court would become with more MAGA appointees.

Drilling down on the majority opinion, one finds that the court says nothing that would restrict states from banning all abortions, medical or otherwise. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern remind us, “It remains unlawful to prescribe in states that criminalize abortion; it has even been deemed a ‘controlled substance’ in Louisiana.” Moreover, Thomas and other radicals’ pet theory for banning all abortions — expansion and contortion of the Comstock Act to prevent use of the mail to send abortion devices or literature — “will roar back with a vengeance,” the authors note, if Trump prevails and the Supreme Court, freed from worries about a national backlash, decides to take the issue on squarely.

Furthermore, while this particular plaintiff was denied standing, another party, such as a state or individual doctor, might easily establish standing to take another crack at outlawing mifepristone. Jenner & Block, a litigation firm, explains on its blog:

First and foremost, this decision does not spell the end of the mifepristone litigation. While this case was pending at the Supreme Court, three states — Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — successfully intervened at the district court. Now that the case has been remanded, these three states will continue their challenge to the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone, and based on their complaint, they intend to make many of the same arguments as the Alliance. Specifically, the three states have challenged the FDA’s decisions to expand access to mifepristone from 2016 onward, including the ability to have mifepristone dispensed via telehealth services and distributed by retail pharmacies. Given the district court’s willingness to enjoin the FDA’s approval entirely and the Supreme Court’s failure to reach the merits, it is likely that the states will prevail on at least some of their claims. This would mean another year or more of appeals to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, with continuing uncertainty surrounding the regulation of mifepristone in the interim.

Mifepristone, therefore, has not been “saved” in any sense. If anything, it’s on life support, pending an election that would give the court a green light to go wild and/or offer felon and former president Donald Trump the chance to add to the ranks of the most extreme justices.

Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic in early 2020, there has been intense interest in how the pandemic started. Was it started by a leak of the virus from a dirty seafood market stall in China? Did it begin because the virus leaked from a research laboratory in Wuhan, China?

Republican elected officials in Washington became convinced that it began because the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China, that researching dangerous viruses; that the lab was involved in gain-of-function research; that the research was funded by the United States; and that Dr. Anthony Fauci knew and must be held accountable.

In other words, a worldwide pandemic that caused millions of deaths was Dr. Fauci’s fault. They launched hearings yesterday at which Dr. Fauci was grilled.

Dr. Paul Offit is an infectious diseases specialist. He blogs at “Beyond the Noise” and recently wrote a book about COVID. He wrote the following post to explain what scientists know about these issues.

He wrote:

On February 13, 2024, National Geographic published a book I wrote called, TELL ME WHEN IT’S OVER: AN INSIDER’S GUIDE TO DECIPHERING COVID MYTHS AND NAVIGATING OUR POST-PANDEMIC WORLD. For the past few months, I have been writing about various issues discussed in that book.


In the wake of some emails that recently came to light, the question of whether the United States government knowingly funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology has resurfaced. Does this new information prove the lab-leak theory?

First, what is “gain-of-function” research? Second, did gain-of-function research give birth to SARS-CoV-2 virus? One way to understand gain-of-function research is through the prism of rabies virus. People get rabies when they are bitten by a rabid animal. Once under the skin, the virus travels up the nerves and enters the brain, where it causes delirium, seizures, coma, and invariably death. Rabies is without question the deadliest infection of humans.

Now, imagine that a scientist engineers rabies virus so that, instead of being transmitted by animal bites, it is transmitted by small droplets from the nose and mouth, like the common cold. This new virus would be highly contagious and uniformly fatal. In the absence of an effective vaccine, it could eliminate humans from the face of the earth. The good news is that no one has tried to make rabies virus more contagious. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not possible or that no one would be willing to try. Indeed, in 2011, one experiment so frightened U.S. public health officials that within two years federal regulators made gain-of-function research illegal.

The worrisome experiment took place at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Researchers took a strain of influenza virus found in birds and altered it to grow in ferrets (which, like humans, are mammals). In other words, these researchers had taken a strain of influenza virus that was limited to birds—to which no one in the world had immunity—and altered it so that it might cause disease in people. They had created a potential pandemic virus.

In 2016, three years before SARS-CoV-2 virus entered the human population, the lead researcher studying coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was Dr. Zheng-Li Shi. Her studies were funded in part by the United States government through EcoHealth. Dr. Shi was studying a coronavirus strain called WIV1 (Wuhan Institute of Virology-1): a bat coronavirus that could grow in monkey cells in the laboratory but didn’t cause disease in people. The WIV1 strain bears no resemblance to SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Shi wanted to see what would happen if she combined WIV1 with each of eight different bat coronaviruses that had been found in caves in and around Wuhan. None of the combination viruses that she created, however, were more dangerous than the strain she had started with (WIV1). None of them, like WIV1, could cause disease in people. Although Dr. Shi had performed gain-of-function studies that would have been illegal in the United States, she didn’t create a coronavirus strain that was dangerous to people.

So, while it was true that the United States government funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, no function was gained. The recent seemingly endless posting of hidden emails and secret communications by government officials—all breathlessly claiming conspiracy and coverup—has, in the final analysis, been much to do about nothing.

Indeed, overwhelming evidence continues to support an animal-to-human spillover event that occurred in the western section of the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market at the end of 2019. This is consistent with many other animal-to-human spillover events in history. Influenza virus (birds), human immunodeficiency virus (chimps), Ebola virus (bats), mpox (rodents), and the coronaviruses SARS-1 (bats) and MERS (bats) were all originally animal viruses. Indeed, about 60 percent of human viruses and bacteria have their origins in animals.

For a lengthy but complete discussion about why it is now clear that SARS-CoV-2 was an animal-to-human spillover event, you might want to check out a podcast called Decoding the Guruswhich features evolutionary biologists Michael Worobey, Kristian Anderson, and Eddie Holmes.

Thomas Ultican, retired teacher of advanced mathematics and physics, reports on a new book by literacy scholars, The book, he concludes, demolishes the hype associated with “the science of reading.” Ultican believes that states should not mandate how to teach reading. I agree. Legislators are not teaching professionals or literacy experts. They should not require teachers to follow their orders.

Ultican writes:

Two eminent professors of instruction and literacy teamed up to write “Fact-Checking the Science of Reading.” P. David Pearson of UC Berkeley and Robert J. Tierney of University of British Columbia are Emeritus Professors with high reputation in their respective countries.

In the introduction, they inform us that Emily Hanford’s 2022 “Sold a Story” podcasts motivated them to write. In particular, they noted:

  1. “A consistent misinterpretation of the relevant research findings; and
  2. “A mean-spirited tone in her rhetoric, which bordered on personal attacks directed against the folks Hanford considered to be key players in what she called the Balanced Literacy approach to teaching early reading.” (Page XIV)…

After reviewing their findings, Ultican concludes:

SoR advocates say when teaching reading, the “settled science” of phonics “first and fast”, should be applied. They are working to make it against the law to disagree, claiming other forms of instruction cause child harm. SoR reading theory may have some holes but their political power is unquestioned and global. Laws mandating SoR have been enacted in 40 US states, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other English-speaking countries. These rules limit teacher autonomy and attempt to make reading a scripted subject. (Page XII)

The Orwellian labeled science of reading (SoR) is not based on sound science. It more accurately should be called “How to Use Anecdotes to Sell Reading Products.” In 1997, congress passed legislation, calling for a reading study. From Jump Street, establishment of the National Reading Panel (NRP) was a doomed effort. The panel was given limited time for the study (18 months) which was a massive undertaking, conducted by twenty-one unpaid volunteers. NRP fundamentally did a meta-analysis in five reading domains, ignoring 10 other important reading domains. In other words, they did not review everything and there was no new research. They simply searched for reading studies and averaged the results to give us “the science of reading.”

SoR’s real motivation is to sell products, not helping children struggling to read. Scholars like Pearson and Tierney are ignored and swept away by a podcaster with no credentials. 

For the sake of the future, we must stop legally mandating SoR as a solution to a fraudulent“reading crisis” and put our trust in education professionals.

In recent years, religious freedom has been used to undermine public schools and public health. This trend damages communities and endangers children. In the following post, an authority praises Connecticut for eliminating the religious exemption for vaccination.

Dr. Paul Offit is a pediatrician who specializes in infectious diseases and vaccines. He is currently  the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology, professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. He writes a blog where he warns about the dangers of refusing to vaccinate against diseases.

He wrote:

On February 13, 2024, National Geographic published a book I wrote called, TELL ME WHEN IT’S OVER: AN INSIDER’S GUIDE TO DECIPHERING COVID MYTHS AND NAVIGATING OUR POST-PANDEMIC WORLD. For the past few months, I have been writing about various issues discussed in that book.


Between January 2020 and March 2024, the CDC reported 338 cases of measles in 30 US states and jurisdictions. These outbreaks were consistent with a CDC survey showing that more parents are choosing non-medical vaccine exemptions, such as religious or philosophical exemptions, for their school children. Connecticut, however, is standing up to those who, in the name of religious freedoms, are putting children at unnecessary risk.

In 2000, the United States eliminated measles, the most contagious of the vaccine-preventable diseases. Success centered on the enforcement of school vaccine mandates that have existed in all 50 states since 1981. Unfortunately, during the past few years, legislative efforts by anti-vaccine groups have made it easier to opt out of vaccines for non-medical reasons. As a consequence, immunization rates among school children have dropped and measles has come back.

In Connecticut, on the other hand, immunization rates have risen for two straight years, exceeding pre-pandemic levels. During the 2022-2023 school year, more than 97 percent of Connecticut kindergartners were vaccinated against measles, up from 95.7 percent the year before and 95.3 percent the year before that. Why? The answer can be found in a 2021 law that eliminated the state’s religious exemption to vaccination.

Immunization rates of 95 percent or higher are required to provide herd immunity against measles. When rates drop, which is true in many states that now offer either religious or philosophical exemptions, measles comes back. The most dramatic example being an outbreak in Philadelphia in 1991 that centered on two fundamentalist churches that refused vaccines. During a three-month period, measles virus infected 1,400 people in the city and killed nine. All the deaths were in young children.

On its face, the phrase “religious exemptions to vaccination” is a contradiction in terms. All religions teach us to care about our children and our families and our neighbors. Choosing to put our children and those with whom they come in contact at risk is the opposite of a religious act. Further, about 9 million people in the United States, because they are on immune suppressive therapies for their cancers or transplants or autoimmune diseases, can’t be vaccinated. They depend on those around them for protection. Do we have a responsibility to love our neighbor?

Amy Pisani, a Connecticut resident, and head of the national group Vaccinate Your Family, praised the hard work required to counter the efforts of anti-vaccine groups to overturn vaccine mandates. “From the top down, we have incredibly supportive legislators,” said Pisani. “And when you have government agencies that are supportive at that level, it allows our public health officials to do their job.” As measles cases rise this year, and will no doubt return next winter, parents in Connecticut can feel more comfortable that state health officials and legislators have their backs.

Standing in stark contrast to efforts to protect children in Connecticut are those in Mississippi. In July 2023, Mississippi, which had up to that point only offered medical exemptions, became the most recent state to offer a religious exemption to vaccination. More than 2,000 parents immediately chose to exempt their children. The effort was not spearheaded by a religious group, but rather a virulent anti-vaccine group called Informed Consent Action Network. The lawyer who headed that effort paradoxically declared, “Freedom wins again.” Freedom to catch and transmit potentially deadly infections. Hardly a victory for children.

The next frontier of the abortion debate is rapidly approaching. It is the movement to legislate that life begins at the instant of conception, and that fetuses in the womb (or stored in a tank in an In Vitro Fertilization clinic) are human beings, with the same rights as other human beings. Thus, to kill a fetus for any reason (e.g., to save the life of the mother, or because the pregnant girl is a 10-year-old victim of rape, or because the fetus has fatal abnormalities) is murder.

Are fetuses “natural persons?” Some people think so. They have the right to believe whatever they want, but they should not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

But they are trying.

One-third of states have laws defining “fetal personhood.” In Georgia, individuals can claim a $3,000 tax deduction for an unborn child. The deduction applies even if there is a stillbirth or miscarriage. State auditors may have to dig into medical records to verify claims.

Critics complain that the state of Georgia is hypocritical: “This was not necessarily a good faith attempt to support people in pregnancy because, at the same time as this was being passed, we were still fighting to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people beyond 60 days after delivery,” [Kwajelyn Jackson, executive director of the Feminist Women’s Health Center in Atlanta] said. She also stressed the need to improve Georgia’s maternal mortality rates, which are the worst in the country, and address systemic racism within health care, which results in Black maternal mortality rates being twice as high as white women in the state.”

In Texas, a woman who was given a ticket for driving alone in the HOV lane claimed that she shouldn’t have to pay the ticket because she was 34 weeks pregnant. But Texas has not yet passed a fetal personhood law, so she was required to pay the ticket.

In several high-profile murder cases, men have been charged with a double homicide when they killed their pregnant wife.

Planned Parenthood is keeping watch on Republican efforts to pass a federal law recognizing “fetal personhood.”

Similar to what we’ve seen on the state level, anti-abortion members of Congress have pushed ”fetal personhood” attacks for years, and fights are expected to continue this spring. Federal lawmakers trying to ban abortion have tried to embed personhood language in maternal health bills, birth control bills, tax codes, child support laws, college savings plans, COVID-19 relief packages, and essential safety-net programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. And they aren’t stopping. Like other personhood attacks, if taken to its most extreme, this language could affect birth control — including the pill, IUDs, and emergency contraception.

Currently, 125 members in the House, including Speaker Mike Johnson, support the Life at Conception Act, a federal personhood bill that would extend all inalienable rights afforded to Americans by the Constitution to apply at all stages of life, including to fetuses and embryos. Last year, during the first full Congress since Dobbs, as many as 166 members signed on as co-sponsors.

This attempt to legally define when personhood begins would make all abortion illegal nationwide. And, like the legislation proposed at the state level, would have grave implications for a range of sexual and reproductive health care, including some forms of contraception, infertility treatment, and miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy management. This language could also, in some circumstances, subject health care providers to criminal charges. “Personhood” language in our federal code would take away people’s ability to make safe and healthy choices about their reproductive futures and well-being. 

Laws of this kind are troubling because they turn religious beliefs into legal mandates. They inject Big Government into the most intimate details of people’s private lives. And, they are profoundly hypocritical. The states that insist on “fetal personhood” are the very ones that oppose almost every federal or state program to improve the lives of children. They are states that reject the expansion of Medicaid, leaving large numbers of people without medical insurance; they are states that weaken child labor laws, allowing teens to work long hours in dangerous jobs. They are states whose elected representatives oppose extending the child tax credit, which cut child poverty in half during the year in which it was in effect. Almost any legislation you can think of that would have improved the lives of born children has been opposed by the same people who insist on “fetal personhood.”

What’s the lesson in all this? Each of us may see it differently.

Here’s what I conclude:

Republicans care passionately about fetuses and unborn children. Once they are born, the children are on their own.