Will Aggressive COVID-19 Control Measures Cost More Than They Are Worth?
Politicians seem to be proceeding on the dangerous assumption that cost-effectiveness does not matter.
Politicians seem to be proceeding on the dangerous assumption that cost-effectiveness does not matter.
The worst-case scenarios projecting millions of deaths don't take into account adaptive behaviors.
Politicians of both major parties are using COVID-19 to advance their pre-existing policy agendas.
The agency's scaremongering about e-cigarettes undermined its credibility on the eve of a true public health crisis.
The U.S. may get a respite from COVID-19 this summer.
"Individual behavior will be crucial to control the spread of COVID-19."
It depends on how widely the virus spreads, which is difficult to predict.
In two weeks we will know if his public health measures are too little, too late.
Initial hopes that the public health consequences of the new coronavirus would be mild are fading.
FDA and CDC bureaucrats stopped private and academic diagnostic tests from being deployed.
More than $725 million has been spent across the world from non-governmental organizations.
Looking at better and worse projections.
It's too early to tell, but there are reasons for (relative) optimism.
The FDA has finally approved commercial diagnostic tests.
People are panicking and sketchy information is spreading fast, but rapid vaccine and anti-viral deployment should blunt the epidemic's health and economic effects in the coming year.
Plus: Supreme Court will hear Catholic foster agency case, Apple and TikTok reject Sen. Josh Hawley's testimony request, and more...
Efforts to control the flow of information fail, but they muddle the quality of what people share in defiance of the censors.
We will soon learn if humanity's increasing biotechnical prowess can prevent a modern pandemic.
This will fail and more pressing problems will be neglected
Is this just another example of epidemiologists torturing the data until they confess to a spurious but headline-grabbing statistical significance?
Good news: The cancer death rate which stood in 1991 at 215 per 100,000 people has dropped in 2016 to 156 per 100,000 people.
No, global warming will not spark a black death pandemic that kills millions
Nutrition nannies launch new cancer scaremongering campaign.
Consuming whole fat dairy foods lowers mortality and cardiovascular risks, according to a new Lancet study.
Implausible estimates of benefits or risks associated with diet reflect almost exclusively the magnitude of nutrition researchers' cumulative biases.
Nevertheless, U.S. cancer rates are stable for women and declining for men.
On the other hand, drinking may also reduce cardiovascular risks and boost your income. It's also a pleasure.
A Middletown, Ohio, lawmaker wants paramedics to stop treating to overdose patients after two strikes.
Yet the DEA wants to ban it.
A new book offers a potent antidote to toxic misinformation.
Exploring the absurdities of modern nutritional epidemiology.
Hypothesis: More sugar causes both more diabetes and more obesity
Good news: Cancer mortality rate has dropped from its peak of 215.1 (per 100,000 population) in 1991 to 166.4 in 2012.
Getting Risk Right is a potent antidote to the toxic misinformation peddled by activist scaremongers
Getting Risk Right reviewed by Ronald Bailey
Toxicologists liken the endocrine disruption hypothesis to homeopathy.
"Science, the pride of modernity, our one source of objective knowledge, is in deep trouble."
Prescription painkillers are not as deadly or as addictive as commonly claimed.
Absurdly precautionary International Agency for Research on Cancer admits it was wrong
It is not inevitable that there will be a major zika outbreak in the U.S.
While we wait for a vaccine, GMO mosquitoes are here now to help control the outbreak.
Sitting all day will kill you. Well, maybe not.
Add milk to your diet of salt, red meat, and eggs.