We have filed our appeal against the dismissal of our case against Walmart and their deceptive sale of homeopathic snake oil:
“Walmart knows homeopathy doesn’t work,” said Little. “The confusion it causes consumers is intentional. The potential for harm is obvious. And we will be happy to make that very clear when this case finally goes to trial.”
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal: Here’s what happened when God learned about homeopathy.
Benjamin Radford at our blog: Beware of anti-vaccination alarmism from within one’s own political bubble:
Unless all these respected experts and companies are secretly colluding with Trump to falsely portray an eventual vaccine as safe—which would indeed be a remarkable conspiracy theory—we can be fairly certain that procedures are indeed being followed in vaccine development and thus fears about vaccine safety are as yet unfounded.
Steven Salzberg on the research on the Russian COVID vaccine published in The Lancet: “It’s clear that something is wrong with the data.”
Cass Sunstein says, to smooth the rollout of an eventual vaccine, address the three C’s: convenience, complacency, and confidence.
Joe Schwarcz: Slow and steady wins the vaccine race.
78 researchers and doctors from Stanford Medical School call out their former colleague, White House COVID czar Dr. Scott Atlas, for spreading “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science.”
Political appointees at the CDC are blocking or making changes to scientific reports on the coronavirus, as “senior officials openly complained that the agency’s reports would undermine President Donald Trump’s optimistic messages.”
David Gorski on whether we can trust the CDC or the FDA anymore: “I don’t know.”
Biostatistician Jacques Raubenheimer: “Few realise how mammoth, chaotic and complex the task is of tracking statistics on a disease like this,” and “armchair statisticians” aren’t helping.
Bigfoot says: “Sasqwash your hands for at least 20 seconds.” and “I may be a hoax, but COVID-19 is not.”
We’re keeping track of COVID-19 pseudoscience, snake oil, fake cures, and more at CFI’s Coronavirus Resource Center. Separate fact from fiction and inoculate yourself from misinformation at centerforinquiry.org/coronavirus.
Tyler Broker on “an increasingly theocratic judiciary”: “It takes a massive, unsubstantiated leap … in direct contradiction to plain language, to argue that our government was made only for religious people, or that it may favor religion over nonreligion.”
Politico: A survey predicts “an 11 percentage point swing toward Biden among evangelicals and Catholics who backed Trump in 2016.”
The presidential campaigns are wondering: Mormons; are they swingy?
The Federalists (not The Federalist) of the early 1800s were the anti-democracy theocrats of their time, according to a new book by Chris Rodda, From Theocracy to Religious Liberty.
TP O’Mahony: 45 years after John Lennon sang about imagining no religion, “the overall impact of the process of secularisation on the religious landscape globally has been less than many predicted or others hoped for.”
Joseph D’Souza considers if it’s time to add “caste” to American antidiscrimination laws.
The west coast is on fire. The LA Times minces no words: “California’s Climate Apocalypse.”
The NOAA just hired a climate change denier, David Legates. NPR: “Legates has a long history of using his position as an academic scientist to publicly cast doubt on climate science.”
Philosophy professor Adrian Bardon: climate change denial has more to do with politics than theology.
I loved this paragraph from Daniel Dennett’s review of The WEIRDest People in the World, a book on the peculiarities of global westerners:
A good statistician (which I am not) should scrutinize the many uses of statistics made by Henrich and his team. They are probably all sound but he would want them examined rigorously by the experts. That’s science. Experts who don’t have the technical tools — historians and anthropologists especially — have an important role to play as well; they should scour the book for any instances of Occam’s broom (with which one sweeps inconvenient facts under the rug). This can be an innocent move, since Henrich himself, in spite of the astonishing breadth of his scholarship, is not expert in all of these areas and may simply be ignorant of important but little-known exceptions to his generalizations. His highly detailed and confident relaying of historical and anthropological facts impresses me, but what do I know? You can’t notice what isn’t mentioned unless you’re an expert.
Linking to a story or webpage does not imply endorsement by Paul or CFI. Not every use of quotation marks is ironic or sarcastic, but it often is.