Culture Intelligent Design Science

New England Journal of Medicine joins the chorus, demanding that Americans vote Trump out of office

Spread the love

Here.

Breaking a tradition that goes back to 1812. We’ll let NPR tell it:

The editorial acknowledges the difficulties that all countries face in coping with the coronavirus. And it notes that some deaths are unavoidable in a pandemic. But in the U.S., the authors say, “we have failed at almost every step,” from having adequate protective gear to a problematic approach to testing and contact tracing to a failure to follow basic precautions such as wearing face masks.

“In much of the country, people simply don’t wear masks, largely because our leaders have stated outright that masks are political tools rather than effective infection control measures,” the editorial states.

Bill Chappell, “In Rare Step, Esteemed Medical Journal Urges Voters To Oust Trump” at NPR

This follows on Scientific American and Nature piling in.

But now, let’s do a thought experiment. Doubtless, the science journal editors believe that Trump will be defeated and they will claim some credit for that. Fair enough.

But it’s possible that Trump will be reelected. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all served two terms each. And Trump won the last election despite all the polls that announced he would lose. Should that happen, the journal editors will be in the unhappy position of being widely seen to be ignored. Which is why their predecessors didn’t go there. We shall see.

See also: Science writer mourns the slow suicide of science. Alex Berezow: “Political partisanship. There was a time when scientists knew better than to deal in politics. That time is now gone. Openly cheering for one side of the political spectrum over the other, scientists and science media outlets are gambling with their reputation.”

9 Replies to “New England Journal of Medicine joins the chorus, demanding that Americans vote Trump out of office

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Hey, this is just a form of Replication. All the endorsements and predictions in 2016 were wrong. Now they’re repeating the same experiment. As with the more ordinary replication, nobody actually gives up a theory when it’s proved wrong a billion times.

    Real science, which is now extinct, was supposed to abandon theories when they’re proved wrong CONVINCINGLY.

    Cults STRENGTHEN their belief when their predictions are proved wrong repeatedly and convincingly. All public and official “science” is a cult.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    NEJM thus forfeits claims to objectivity and credibility as a science-driven journal of first rank. This is regardless of outcome on the morrow.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    The quality of the science published by these journals has nothing to do with their political sympathies. Unless they look at the political credentials of the authors before looking at the science, much as the Trump administration has been doing with the appointments of Federal judges from the Supreme Court down.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    seversky doesn’t know anything about quality science

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, unfortunately, policy, politics, ideologies, worldviews and cultural agendas all strongly interact. Once leading Science Journal officially go ideological or just show it by consistent action, that colours everything they have to say. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. As, the dominant Internet players are going to also learn. KF

    PS: Quite the turnabout projection on ideological polarisation of the US Judiciary, there. It is patent who led in reverting the courts into legislatures [thus re-injecting the oligarchy principle], with the US Supreme Court being turned into the life tenure legislature of last resort that opened the flood gates to the mass slaughter of 63+ millions of living posterity in the womb, and climbing currently at 400k per year. This alone is enough to point to an utterly corrupt medical establishment, including its trade magazines such as NEJM.

  6. 6
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    “in the unhappy position of being widely seen to be ignored”

    Pre-poisoning the well, I see.

  7. 7
    orthomyxo says:

    But now, let’s do a thought experiment. Doubtless, the science journal editors believe that Trump will be defeated and they will claim some credit for that. Fair enough.

    Do you not think it’s possible that the editors of these journals see Trump’s horrific failure to comprehend let alone curb the pandemic, his efforts to undermine good science and the fact his own campaign has likely led to hundreds of covid fatalities when they make these decisions?

  8. 8
    News says:

    Orthomyxo at 7, there is plenty of blame to go around for how the COVID crisis was handled. One can certainly criticize Trump’s handling of the crisis.However, due to federalism, Trump faces more restrictions than many world leaders would; thus, poor decisions by state governors also played a big role. But political endorsements mean that one is a player, not a referee. A choice has been made. We will see what happens next.

  9. 9
    OldArmy94 says:

    On March 30th, Dr. Deborah Birx, the US Coronavirus Response Coordinator, warned that COVID death numbers could reach 2 million plus if no measures were introduced to control its spread. She said that the best case scenario if things were done “almost perfectly” would be about 200,000 deaths.

    As of November 2nd, there have been about 231,000 deaths in the United States attributed to COVID-19. It seems to me that America has done a pretty damn good job of managing the disease, based on what Dr. Birx stated, and armchair epidemiologists looking to score cheap hit points against Donald Trump need to shut the hell up.

Leave a Reply