Scientific American has endorsed Kamala Harris for President because, they say, that she “supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts.”
Kamala Harris supports science? That’s funny because I clearly recall the Biden/Harris administration censoring even true comments about the Covid vaccine clinical trials. I recall them instating vaccine mandates for a Covid vaccine that did not stop the spread of Covid.
As for the climate crisis, environmentalists do not agree on this as an emergency. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that do predict climate catastrophe, do so with a confidence rating of “very unlikely,” “exceptionally unlikely,” or “low confidence.” The Biden/Harris administration’s push towards EVs has been a total bust and their attacks on fossil fuels has been a ruse.
As for her commitment to public health, under the Biden administration more vaccines have been approved through emergency or fast-track authorization so fewer and fewer clinical trials are being mandated for FDA approval. I’d say that they care more about the biopharmaceutical industry’s health than human health. Is that what they mean?
And yet, Scientific American – a publication that has featured scientists such as Albert Einstein, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, and J. Robert Oppenheimer – says that “for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific Americanare endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris.”
The above scientific failures of the Biden/Harris administration has me really confused as to what kind of scientific commitment they are committed to. It seems more like political science than science, no?
