If production of Naugahyde was outlawed, over 40 million Naugas would be saved and climate change would be reduced by 52.7% (according to a study "Save the Naugas").
Well put. It seems it can never be stated too often that correlation is far from synonymous with causation. For whatever reason, however, this blazingly obvious dictum refuses to take root in the hippocampi of far too many clinical scientists…let alone the general public.
That said, it is quite clear that if amongst the readership each contributes $1 to my Sailboat and Subsequent Slip Fee Fund (SSSFF), 1,403 lives will be saved annually.
I am a lifetime subscriber to The New England Journal of Medicine and a retired pediatric pulmonologist. The NEJM is similar to The Lancet in its biases. What has irritated me so. much over the years is that it would be so easy and balance if the NEJM solicited alternate opinions on climate change and its supposed devastating impact on health or even COVID vaccines. It has clearly decided not to, which is the spirit of arrogance, not science. Thanks, Vinay.
Generally love all your takes but this one feels off the mark.
Yes, observational studies can't establish causation, but the Marvel movie analogy is a huge stretch and surprisingly intellectually dishonest. USAID was funding things like malaria prevention, and as funding increased, malaria-related deaths in Africa decreased by 51%. My friend worked for USAID in Zambia and the majority of what they did was educate people about malaria and distributed insecticide-treated mosquito nets (which have been shown to substantially reduce malaria infections and child mortality in endemic areas). Can’t we reasonably conclude these efforts prevented at least some malaria deaths? Even if we can’t quantify exactly how many.
I would love to see a detailed analysis of the really legitimate USAID grants that were cut versus the clearly political grants to study transgenderism and other LGBT+ needs in the Third World.
Possibly, but additional interventions ( malaria vaccines, indoor residual spraying, larval eradication) supported by WHO need to be accounted for also.
By WHO’s own statistics, malaria deaths have been increasing since 2021, well before USAID funds were removed. How do you account for this development if USAID was still funding the mosquito nets?
“In Zambia, the number of additional people expected to be enjoying better health and wellbeing is projected to be −597.3k (−967.9k – −226.4k) by 2025 compared to 2018.” Again from WHO. So worse health is correlated with USAID presence?
Possibly correlation and not causation?
As we all learned in med school, the plural of anecdote is not data.
That program was one of the 3% USAID programs that might have actually provided an outcome. The remaining 97% were fraught with fraud, corruption and bias. USAID was primarily a money laundering scheme with layers of bureaucracy designed to hide the money trail. Many of the worthwhile programs were transferred to other govt agencies.
Working "AID" into the acronym USAID to make people think it's a form of "aid" was actually brlliant. I mean, can't you just feel the sympathy welling up as soon as you read it??
9 out o 10 Americans have CKM and 70% are OBESE. Vaccines are not going to fix this issue and when MDs like you ignore it because it is embarrassing then the outcome for this country is clear-- decline disability death.
If production of Naugahyde was outlawed, over 40 million Naugas would be saved and climate change would be reduced by 52.7% (according to a study "Save the Naugas").
Well put. It seems it can never be stated too often that correlation is far from synonymous with causation. For whatever reason, however, this blazingly obvious dictum refuses to take root in the hippocampi of far too many clinical scientists…let alone the general public.
That said, it is quite clear that if amongst the readership each contributes $1 to my Sailboat and Subsequent Slip Fee Fund (SSSFF), 1,403 lives will be saved annually.
I am a lifetime subscriber to The New England Journal of Medicine and a retired pediatric pulmonologist. The NEJM is similar to The Lancet in its biases. What has irritated me so. much over the years is that it would be so easy and balance if the NEJM solicited alternate opinions on climate change and its supposed devastating impact on health or even COVID vaccines. It has clearly decided not to, which is the spirit of arrogance, not science. Thanks, Vinay.
Spot on! These studies are pure political theater
This article was very helpful. I didn’t realize the Lancet was compromised. Thank you!
Generally love all your takes but this one feels off the mark.
Yes, observational studies can't establish causation, but the Marvel movie analogy is a huge stretch and surprisingly intellectually dishonest. USAID was funding things like malaria prevention, and as funding increased, malaria-related deaths in Africa decreased by 51%. My friend worked for USAID in Zambia and the majority of what they did was educate people about malaria and distributed insecticide-treated mosquito nets (which have been shown to substantially reduce malaria infections and child mortality in endemic areas). Can’t we reasonably conclude these efforts prevented at least some malaria deaths? Even if we can’t quantify exactly how many.
I would love to see a detailed analysis of the really legitimate USAID grants that were cut versus the clearly political grants to study transgenderism and other LGBT+ needs in the Third World.
Possibly, but additional interventions ( malaria vaccines, indoor residual spraying, larval eradication) supported by WHO need to be accounted for also.
By WHO’s own statistics, malaria deaths have been increasing since 2021, well before USAID funds were removed. How do you account for this development if USAID was still funding the mosquito nets?
https://data.who.int/countries/894
“In Zambia, the number of additional people expected to be enjoying better health and wellbeing is projected to be −597.3k (−967.9k – −226.4k) by 2025 compared to 2018.” Again from WHO. So worse health is correlated with USAID presence?
Possibly correlation and not causation?
As we all learned in med school, the plural of anecdote is not data.
That program was one of the 3% USAID programs that might have actually provided an outcome. The remaining 97% were fraught with fraud, corruption and bias. USAID was primarily a money laundering scheme with layers of bureaucracy designed to hide the money trail. Many of the worthwhile programs were transferred to other govt agencies.
If you piiss on my shoes it doesn't mean it's raining.
Working "AID" into the acronym USAID to make people think it's a form of "aid" was actually brlliant. I mean, can't you just feel the sympathy welling up as soon as you read it??
9 out o 10 Americans have CKM and 70% are OBESE. Vaccines are not going to fix this issue and when MDs like you ignore it because it is embarrassing then the outcome for this country is clear-- decline disability death.
Precisely.