Letter: Don’t trust ‘science’
After reading Mr. Essex’s recent column, I am afraid that I was left with more questions than answers.
It would appear that I am to trust the current designation of “science”-derived opinions or conclusions. And that we live in an age of denial of scientifically derived conclusions about events or the future. I find that such a blanket endorsement of trust in the establishment and politically derived “science” to be rather disconcerting. After all, most “scientific” research and conclusions that reach the media these days are filtered through government and politically correct funding and virtue signaling mechanisms. This is only reinforced by those saying that “if you don’t like it you simply deny it.” Rather than argue the argument, simply deploy the ad hominem “denier.”
After all, “science” has given us such previously dogmatic facts as the heliocentric universe, phlogiston, philosopher’s stone, spontaneous generation and the homunculus. If people did not question the orthodox “scientific” conclusions of the day, we might still be consulting wizards about electricity and witch doctors about our health.
For example, I highly respect Dr. Feinsinger as a physician. Yet, I question the “scientific” validity of every point made regarding vegetable-based diet regimens which are apparently accepted as gospel by Mr. Essex. To begin with, even meat consumers are simply eating vegetables, albeit in the sense that “vegetables are what food eats.” But more importantly, there is little scientific evidence that a vegan diet has much effect upon all-cause mortality. There are many confounding factors and it is very probable that calorie restriction is a more important factor. Moreover, there is little, if any, evidence that a vegan diet promotes increased well being or overall satisfaction with life. As the saying goes: “How can you tell a vegan? Don’t worry, they will tell you.”
And, as an interesting test of scientific validity, we can briefly discuss abortion. A topic which it should not be difficult, if I wished, to label certain individuals of certain political persuasions “deniers.” For example, I could ask Mr. Essex if it is scientifically clear that not only does a fetus suffer pain at a certain gestational age, has a functioning central nervous system, and that it can live outside the womb unassisted, as well. As such, do you support the abortion of a fetus at that gestational age? Up to, including, or even past the expected date of confinement? Well, the Democrat Party in this country does. I will patiently await your labeling of that large group of citizens “deniers.”
The lesson to be learned is to think for yourself. And question authority, as well as the lackeys of the power structure. And do not trust those who hide behind the curtains of orthodoxy nor those who resort to name calling rather than reason.
Michael K. Stahl, M.D.