The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in April published an article openly championing segregation as a way for medical students to learn more effectively. Unsurprisingly, the article is steeped in incredible amounts of racism.
Seven academics from the University of California at Berkeley and UC San Francisco begin with the premise that traditional medical education is “systemically racist.” They propose to split up medical students into what they call “racial affinity group caucuses,” where would-be doctors can discuss what they have been learning in their antiracism classes with other people who share their skin color. The euphemism may be “racial affinity group caucusing,” but the authors, in fact, are really advocating segregation.
An organization of doctors, nurses, and health care professionals poked holes in a study claiming to prove the marginal benefits of cross-sex hormones for teenagers who persistently identify with the gender opposite their biological sex.
The group, Do No Harm, called the study “fatally flawed and borderline unscientific” in a report first provided to The Daily Signal. The report criticizes the study, “Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones,” led by Dr. Diane Chen at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and published by the New England Journal of Medicine in January.
The New England Journal of Medicine has published an article called “Protecting Transgender Health and Challenging Science Denialism in Policy.” It is the latest example of using denialism to denigrate any opinion contrary to that of the latest set of experts to claim sovereignty over a controversial subject. The technique is to stifle debate and force discussion from the subject to defense of an unrelated issue. This is what the NEJM paper does to perfection.
Challenging COVID-19 conventional wisdom has given some scientists their first meaningful interactions with journalists — and left them wary of the fourth estate, they told Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom conference in D.C. last week.
Catherine Stein, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Ohio’s Case Western Reserve University, anonymously criticized the state’s COVID policy and personally contacted state lawmakers to share her skepticism, particularly on mask efficacy. “What blew my mind was the fear-mongering in the media,” she said.
In a terse essay titled “Science and Dictatorship,” Albert Einstein warned that “Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.” And on his deathbed, Einstein cautioned, “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important affairs.”
With reckless disregard for both of those principles, powerful government officials and big tech executives have corrupted or suppressed the central scientific facts about face masks. The impacts of this extend far beyond the issue of masks and have caused widespread harm and countless deaths.