The New York Times thinks online patient reviews of doctors spouting dangerous anti-vaccination swill is the first place to express your concern, not the state licensing authority. I have always seen the value in such sites, but what have we become that we no longer think state medical boards care about science?
I stop and read when articles on the long term health implications of PM 2.5 exposure catch my eye. I follow the science, in this casual way, as well as the environmental action (or inaction) taken in response to the deleterious effects of decades of exposure to these tiny lung-damaging industrial particles.
And, I also casually track the discussion among long ago childhood friends on the lived experience we shared of growing up within the dreaded four kilometer range of a coal burning power plant. It ain’t pretty. Some see any criticism of what we were exposed to — living within the four kilometer range of not one but two coal burning power plants– as criticism of the hard work their blue collar parents did at dirty and sometimes dangerous work to achieve their modest financial stability. Others, of course, are terrified of what the data appears to show and what the patterns of disease and cause of death in their own families has shown them.
COVID-19 may write the risk large, which is even harder to face.
Mr. Trump had no explanation for why his White House shut down the Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense established at the National Security Council in 2016 by President Barack Obama after the 2014 Ebola outbreak, stammering to suggest the coronavirus had been a surprise.
Maybe we should just start with, who is thinking — at all? Let's start there.