I speak to the veteran journalist on his scathing new book about the decisions by cultural elites that kept kids out of school for a year and compare this story with pediatric gender medicine.
Thank you for this interesting conversation, bringing together the two topics that have helped alienate me from the Democratic Party (although NOT made me any more sympathetic to Trump, who is still a malignant sociopath).
It is interesting to consider the commonalities between these two seemingly disparate issues, and why people critical of one are often also critical of the other. I think you are correct that at the root of it is the way in which both expose the politically motivated use of evidence by the "expert" class, showing how little they ultimately care about scientific rigor if what they see as moral righteousness is at stake. At least that's what drives my continued interest in these topics, as someone with a background in historical epistemology.
Thanks to both of you for your courage in speaking up. I look forward to David's book launch event in DC!
Thanks, Kate. Yeah, and as we were saying, it really makes one stop and wonder, "What else about which I am not an expert am I being misled about?" I'm not one of those people who wants to undermine all scientific trust by any means. But I do want to hold experts to high standards!
It is definitely a problem that most people have to rely on their trust in experts in order to make good decisions, as few have the resources to critically appraise evidence themselves. We see this with vaccines - the way the Covid vaccine was pushed on every demographic indiscriminately, and its benefits for everyone were oversold, has led to broader mistrust in all vaccines. The public health establishment did this to themselves. I personally don't share the broader mistrust in vaccines, even if I have little faith left in the American CDC. I look towards European guidance when making medical decisions, as I already did before Covid when it came to mammograms, for instance. Back then it was more because I knew the American system was very profit-driven; post-Covid and gender, I realize they are also very much driven by tribalism.
On the other hand, I do find it hard to watch how many people who share my critical views on Covid and gender identity ideology, even those who are coming from the Left, have been so alienated by the Left's handling of these issues that they have become Trump apologists. I even got a hint of that in your conversation with David, who demurred when asked if the Trump administration is "better on science". While I think Makary and Bhattacharya are great picks, I don't agree that what the Biden administration did on Covid, as terrible as it was, was more dangerous than what the Trump administration is currently doing to the country and the world (let's also not forget that lockdowns started under Trump). I think that the obvious malicious incompetence on all sorts of matters, both science-related and otherwise (indiscriminate firings of civil servants by DOGE, international relations, trade, the rule of law, foreign aid) remains important to condemn, and I think reasonable voices on the issues of Covid and gender would have greater hope of being heard if they did that clearly.
I agree with a lot of what the guest says but I don’t get why we have to bend over backwards to defend for RFK.
Certainly RFK might raise some valid concerns. But he’s also a total bullshitter and totally unqualified to hold the position he holds. The Autism vaccine link has been debunked for years. This reminds me of some of the absurd defenses I’ve seen of Pete Hegseth — at what point do we draw the line and just say the obvious. Some people are not competent.
What I get from this conversation is that the antidote to bad science and scientistic beliefs is real science. Real science isn’t a right versus left issue. We can acknowledge the failures of one side of the political system without trying to absolve the other side for no reason.
After being very much in support of erring on the side of caution during COVID, including what to do about schools, I've come much closer to your guest's view that keeping kids out of school for that long did much more harm than good.
I have no doubt that his book is very thoroughly researched and fact-based. However true that is though, the difference between his zeal in criticizing the left vs. his apparent reluctance to criticize the current administration does make me skeptical about his impartiality on this. I'm glad you pushed him a bit on this in some of your questions, and I wasn't satisfied with the answers he gave in that part of the interview.
In my area, the teachers union was using manipulative "equity" arguments to keep schools closed, in addition to a few others. In our district they had way too much power. I think this is the result of the media is relying too heavily on talking points from organizations and political bodies and social media , and not hiring experienced and trained reporters and decreasing long form and investigative reporting.
"We find that exposure to open schools resulted in a small increase in infections among parents. Among teachers, the infection rate doubled, and infections spilled over to their partners. This suggests that keeping lower-secondary schools open had a minor impact on the overall spread of SARS-CoV-2 in society. "
Thank you for this interesting conversation, bringing together the two topics that have helped alienate me from the Democratic Party (although NOT made me any more sympathetic to Trump, who is still a malignant sociopath).
It is interesting to consider the commonalities between these two seemingly disparate issues, and why people critical of one are often also critical of the other. I think you are correct that at the root of it is the way in which both expose the politically motivated use of evidence by the "expert" class, showing how little they ultimately care about scientific rigor if what they see as moral righteousness is at stake. At least that's what drives my continued interest in these topics, as someone with a background in historical epistemology.
Thanks to both of you for your courage in speaking up. I look forward to David's book launch event in DC!
Thanks, Kate. Yeah, and as we were saying, it really makes one stop and wonder, "What else about which I am not an expert am I being misled about?" I'm not one of those people who wants to undermine all scientific trust by any means. But I do want to hold experts to high standards!
It is definitely a problem that most people have to rely on their trust in experts in order to make good decisions, as few have the resources to critically appraise evidence themselves. We see this with vaccines - the way the Covid vaccine was pushed on every demographic indiscriminately, and its benefits for everyone were oversold, has led to broader mistrust in all vaccines. The public health establishment did this to themselves. I personally don't share the broader mistrust in vaccines, even if I have little faith left in the American CDC. I look towards European guidance when making medical decisions, as I already did before Covid when it came to mammograms, for instance. Back then it was more because I knew the American system was very profit-driven; post-Covid and gender, I realize they are also very much driven by tribalism.
On the other hand, I do find it hard to watch how many people who share my critical views on Covid and gender identity ideology, even those who are coming from the Left, have been so alienated by the Left's handling of these issues that they have become Trump apologists. I even got a hint of that in your conversation with David, who demurred when asked if the Trump administration is "better on science". While I think Makary and Bhattacharya are great picks, I don't agree that what the Biden administration did on Covid, as terrible as it was, was more dangerous than what the Trump administration is currently doing to the country and the world (let's also not forget that lockdowns started under Trump). I think that the obvious malicious incompetence on all sorts of matters, both science-related and otherwise (indiscriminate firings of civil servants by DOGE, international relations, trade, the rule of law, foreign aid) remains important to condemn, and I think reasonable voices on the issues of Covid and gender would have greater hope of being heard if they did that clearly.
The erosion of research funding is going to harm us all.
I agree with a lot of what the guest says but I don’t get why we have to bend over backwards to defend for RFK.
Certainly RFK might raise some valid concerns. But he’s also a total bullshitter and totally unqualified to hold the position he holds. The Autism vaccine link has been debunked for years. This reminds me of some of the absurd defenses I’ve seen of Pete Hegseth — at what point do we draw the line and just say the obvious. Some people are not competent.
What I get from this conversation is that the antidote to bad science and scientistic beliefs is real science. Real science isn’t a right versus left issue. We can acknowledge the failures of one side of the political system without trying to absolve the other side for no reason.
After being very much in support of erring on the side of caution during COVID, including what to do about schools, I've come much closer to your guest's view that keeping kids out of school for that long did much more harm than good.
I have no doubt that his book is very thoroughly researched and fact-based. However true that is though, the difference between his zeal in criticizing the left vs. his apparent reluctance to criticize the current administration does make me skeptical about his impartiality on this. I'm glad you pushed him a bit on this in some of your questions, and I wasn't satisfied with the answers he gave in that part of the interview.
In my area, the teachers union was using manipulative "equity" arguments to keep schools closed, in addition to a few others. In our district they had way too much power. I think this is the result of the media is relying too heavily on talking points from organizations and political bodies and social media , and not hiring experienced and trained reporters and decreasing long form and investigative reporting.
Whatever it is… it’s about youth gender medicine…
I thought some teachers did worse?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2020834118
"We find that exposure to open schools resulted in a small increase in infections among parents. Among teachers, the infection rate doubled, and infections spilled over to their partners. This suggests that keeping lower-secondary schools open had a minor impact on the overall spread of SARS-CoV-2 in society. "