Covid vaccines are 98% percent effective at preventing infection and transmission.

Remember that statement? It was drummed into us as we were locked away. Later, as the efficacy percentages dropped, month to month, our livelihoods and access to basics like foodstuffs and accommodation became dependent on accepting a treatment that many were beginning to suspect wasn’t “as described” on the package insert. If one could be found anywhere.

Now, in 2023, in what can loosely be described as a post-pandemic phase, the lies continue. Despite glaring warnings from people in the know that mRNA can indeed transcribe itself into our DNA, thanks to DNA contamination (intentional or otherwise) of the vaccines that exceeds recognized safety levels by a number of factors, we still persist in the lie. That Covid vaccines are safe.

The world, or at least those who care to research the issue properly, know otherwise, and yet, the entire medical and scientific complex continues to promote mRNA vaccines, encouraging parents to vaccinate children as young as six months.

Can we trust science?

That’s the million dollar question and science seems hell bent on convincing us to the contrary. Little wonder then, that climate change skepticism is on the rise. Why would we trust the same community that propagated a half-truth for the duration of the pandemic and still, pathetically clings to it, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary?

I tend to look at evidence and data when evaluating a claim, and I must admit that in the past I placed a lot of faith in the medical community and science itself. What benefit, to the community, I asked myself, to propagate a lie? It turns out, my base assumption was both flawed and naïve, and for one simple reason. Science no longer exists solely for the purposes of advancing knowledge.

Clinical studies, long seen as the hallmark of evidence-based medicine, can be corrupted and data coerced to produce the desired results. No medical journal or publication escapes this insidious coercion of science. While I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, it’s when science and politics converge, it’s challenging to determine who is believable. Science must return promptly to its historic mission to explore and publish untainted data.

Disinformation is blamed for increased climate skepticism, but in truth, the root of the blame lies squarely at the door of science. They have misled us, been caught in the lie, and despite this, still persist. It is therefore little wonder that the continuous deluge of news relating to climate change and our impending doom is greeted with growing skepticism.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Science must recognize that its absolute trust has been shattered. How do we believe in the urgencies of public health when we question the source of the information? Science and its advocates must revisit how to regain public confidence.

So is Climate Change real?

Undoubtedly. Our planet is warming. We know the earth is subject to cycles of hot and cold, and we’re headed into a hot one What role we play, if any, in accelerating this process is still largely debatable, and given the length of records we have access to, we can hardly make accurate predictions. 300 years pales in comparison to the planet’s billion year old history. Its been around awhile and undoubtedly will be here after our demise.

Science would you have you believe you are completely responsible for this natural cycle. Our role in speeding up the process is unknown and anyone who can claim to know otherwise is simply selling you snake oil.

What is true however is that we are polluting our natural resources. Plastics are contaminating every corner of the earth and we are endangering our access to clean drinking water. Unlike the occasional heat wave, potable drinking water is key to human survival, so in the end, the argument may be moot.

We won’t be around to see the poles covered in tropical vegetation.

The post Covid’s Impact on Climate Change and Health appeared first on Medika Life.

Science journalism paints a rosy picture of the advances of medical research. A quick look at the “Health and Medicine News” section from Science Daily communicates optimism on our understanding of aging, pain relief, depression, and cancer. If one were to read these articles, one could expect an experience that gives the impression that the future is today and that the cure for cancer is just around the corner.

Such a writing style has its benefits, and I admittedly seek to impart a sense of hope in my writing. We do not understand many things, and hearing someone confidently communicate solutions to our big questions helps one sleep better at night. Touching on an article that I wrote earlier in the pandemic on the efficacy of vaccines against COVID-19 in November 2020, I would imagine most would agree that they would rather hear of how a therapy could turn our lives around versus portraying a cynical picture.

Writers must still inform individuals accurately. If an asteroid were headed for Earth, writers claiming that this was false would be acting in an unethical manner, even if they were motivated by helping readers sleep at night. Science must be communicated poignantly because information that stretches or does not represent the whole truth can cause harm, as observed with individuals taking overdoses of ivermectin trying to treat/prevent COVID-19 and, instead, making themselves very sick. This illustrates the importance of objectivity in science writing.

Going off on science articles discussing an investigative treatment for leukemia, science writing must be communicated considering its relevance. New therapies, such as the big new cancer drug, that show promise are well and good. Their significance for the audience of families looking for hope must be considered.

Losing hope can be traumatic, as many can attest. As seen in numerous examples of animal cancer models, experimental findings in a non-human do not necessarily translate to improved clinical care. The relationship is even more strained if the result was observed in a test tube or a dish. A great example of the latter is ivermectin’s observed effectiveness in ridiculous doses against SARS-CoV-2 in a test tube. The therapy ultimately proved to provide no clinical benefit for individuals with COVID-19, and prescribers have already appropriately started to lose their jobs for issuing it.

Fortunately for patients and their families, clinical trials are strictly moderated, and participants must be informed to make an educated decision on what they want to do. So for a new chemotherapy agent, individuals in a randomized control trial would be told that there is the possibility that they would not receive the experimental therapy and would instead receive the routine “standard of care.” They would be advised that it is possible that the new treatment would not be more effective than existing therapy while stating the experimental evidence that makes them believe that there is reason to be optimistic. Most importantly, they would be advised of their option to withdraw from the study at any time without any repercussions.

Most science writers that I have seen have acted ethically, and I am proud to write alongside them. Nonetheless, science writers have a responsibility to readers. They are obliged to present factual and holistic stories to allow readers to decide for themselves how they feel about the state of the field they are reading about.

While there may be reasons for authors to go beyond their expertise or data, stretch the truth, or find a way to maximize their views, what we say matters. We have a responsibility to maximize our readers’ ability to think and behave in a consistent manner with their identities as individuals.

The post How To Be An Ethical Science Writer appeared first on Medika Life.