plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20865 stories
·
20 followers

The End of Science? Agnosis and American Fascism - Paul N. Edwards, 2026

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
10 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Israeli election committee bars main Arab parties from next month’s poll

1 Share

was $409 now $129 for your first year

Save now on our curated print edition delivered Monday - Saturday* plus our digitised print replica. Savings based on annual price.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
19 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Remove EDI from research funding decisions, parliamentary committee says - University Affairs

1 Share

Canada’s research granting agencies should remove all references to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) from the process of awarding federal research funding, the parliamentary committee tasked with studying the question recommends.

In its report, Impact of the Criteria for Awarding Federal Funding on Research Excellence in Canada, presented to the House of Commons on Monday, Sept. 21, the Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR) describes EDI policies as “discriminatory” and says they are “delivering bad value for Canadian taxpayers by weakening research excellence in Canada and undermining public trust and confidence in federally funded research.”

The report also recommends that the three main granting agencies — the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) — limit EDI considerations to the review of research project content, when appropriate, and “take steps to protect academic freedom and to promote viewpoint diversity” in funding programs.

However, the report also contains recommendations that support EDI awareness training and inclusive research teams.

The three agencies, collectively known as the tri-agencies, have gradually introduced EDI measures into Canada’s research system to address systemic barriers to access for underrepresented groups. In 2018, they began collecting demographic data from applicants to track participation of equity-seeking groups and have since incorporated EDI considerations into some funding programs and application requirements.

Among its 20 recommendations, the committee calls on the federal government to ban demographic quotas and proportionality targets in programs administered by the granting agencies. It also recommends an audit of existing EDI policies to provide “quantified measures” of their effectiveness. 

The committee says it heard “overwhelming testimony” criticizing EDI policies at the tri-agencies and Canadian universities in funding programs, grant applications and hiring.

“EDI policies are weakening the quality of Canadian research, Canada’s research reputation, and its overall research ecosystem by politicizing science, fostering cancel culture, empowering activist research, adding administrative burden to researchers, imposing mandatory diversity statements, pushing top research talent away, and limiting viewpoint diversity,” the committee writes.

The report also states that EDI has been “embraced and politicized by the far-left political agenda” and has become “deeply entrenched” in federal institutions and academia, “despite being unpopular with the Canadian population at large.”

The committee, chaired by Liberal Member of Parliament Salma Zahid, held a total of 10 meetings and heard from 49 witnesses, received 35 written briefs, four written responses to committee questions, eight reference documents and two information documents. It comprised six additional Liberals, four Conservatives, and one Bloc Québécois MP.

Requiring EDI in research design 

Other witnesses defended EDI measures, arguing that incorporating EDI into research project design reduces bias and ensures that research benefits all Canadians. They argued that greater representation of historically underrepresented groups— including women, people of colour, and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples — can improve research productivity, quality and relevance.

Three of the committees’ recommendations appear to support those positions. The committee recommends the granting agencies introduce compulsory training on EDI principles and the ethical and societal impacts of research for funding applicants. It also calls for EDI principles to be incorporated into the design of projects submitted for funding, despite their exclusion from awarding criteria.

A third recommendation calls for incentives for inclusive research teams and dedicated funding for projects that demonstrate equitable hiring practices, have diverse management teams and collaborate with historically excluded communities.

Dissenting opinions

The Liberal Party of Canada issued a dissenting opinion arguing that research failing to account for diverse populations creates gaps in knowledge that can harm Canadians’ health and well-being.

Citing testimony from the Partnership for Women’s Health Research Canada, they emphasize that “scientific progress is made on the questions scientists ask.” Their opinion points to evidence that women researchers are more likely to study pregnancy and Black scientists are more likely to study racialized health disparities, as examples.

The Conservative Party of Canada also issued a dissenting opinion, highlighting contradictions between recommendations supporting EDI measures and those seeking to remove or limit them.


READ MORE: Un rapport parlementaire recommande de renforcer la place du français en recherche (in French)


“These contradictions exist because the committee adopted the report as it was drafted, mutually agreeing to disagree on these contradicting recommendations,” the Conservative statement reads. “By doing so, the committee was able to advance the report while supporting and preserving the diversity of viewpoints expressed by witnesses throughout the study.”

The Conservatives write they support repealing EDI policies in all federal and academic institutions and favour “equal opportunity for all, where the best candidates are selected, hired, and rewarded based on their individual merit, not their individual identity.”

Other recommendations

The committee’s remaining recommendations include changes intended to address disadvantages faced by small and medium-sized postsecondary institutions in federal research funding. It calls on the granting agencies to stop using previous grant amounts as a funding criterion and review the Research Support Fund to better help smaller institutions and colleges cover the indirect costs of research.

The committee also recommends increasing the share of federal funding directed toward applied research at colleges, institutes, CEGEPs, college centres for technology transfer and innovative social practices, technology access centres and polytechnics. It proposes introducing criteria emphasizing research impact in some targeted funding programs while maintaining support for basic research.

Other recommendations focus on French-language research. The committee calls on the granting agencies to ensure applications submitted in French are treated equitably, support scientific research and publication in French and consider establishing funding targets for French-language applications.

The report also recommends that the granting agencies continue implementing the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which encourages research assessment to move away from journal-based metrics and recognize a broader range of research contributions.

The agencies should also experiment with alternative approaches to awarding some funding, the committee says, including de-identifying applications or randomly awarding a portion of available funds.

Finally, the committee recommends making disaggregated granting-agency data — including data on unsuccessful applications — available for scientific research, subject to appropriate ethical standards and data-security requirements.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
19 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

A new report from Europe raises serious alarms about orbital collisions - Ars Technica

1 Share

The 2013 sci-fi blockbuster film Gravity, starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, popularized the notion of the Kessler syndrome. In the movie, Russia shoots down a defunct satellite and creates a cloud of debris, leading to serious tension in orbit.

The movie is fantastic, a true thriller, and while some liberties were taken with the depiction of outer space, the basic premise of a cascading series of collisions rendering orbits too cluttered with debris to be usable is valid. The idea was first proposed by NASA scientists Donald Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais nearly half a century ago.

Still, the movie was science fiction, right?

Well, a lot has changed since Gravity‘s release. At the time that theatergoers were sitting on the edges of their seats and watching Bullock dodge debris, there were only about 1,000 active satellites in orbit. Today, that number is closer to 17,000, according to CelesTrak.

The preponderance of this growth has been driven by SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, which now has approximately 11,000 satellites in orbit, with many thousands more on the way. And SpaceX is not alone in the race to provide Internet from space. Amazon has launched hundreds of satellites, with thousands more to follow. Multiple Chinese Internet constellations are likewise in progress.

Then there are the orbital data centers, which may produce hundreds of thousands of satellites.

We’ve written a lot about these constellations, and they have generated a bunch of questions. Most prominent among them: Just how sustainable is all of this? Will we see the Kessler syndrome play out in real time? Here are some answers.

How bad is the situation?

It depends on who you ask, so let’s start with the glass-half-empty and glass-half-full outlooks.

Starting with the pessimists: A few years ago, one of the world’s experts in orbital debris, University of Texas at Austin professor Moriba Jah, told Ars that he worries a lot about the consequences of satellites and debris in low-Earth orbit.

“I think we are going to lose the ability to use certain orbits because the carrying capacity is going to get saturated by objects and junk,” Jah said. ” I also predict that we will see a loss of human life by (1) school bus-sized objects reentering and surviving reentry and hitting a populated area, or (2) people riding on this wave of civil and commercial astronauts basically having their vehicle getting scwhacked by an unpredicted piece of junk. I predict that both those things are going to happen in the next decade.”

At the other end of the spectrum is the person almost solely responsible for the remarkable growth in satellites over the last decade, SpaceX founder Elon Musk. His attitude has largely been that space is big, and things will probably be just fine. For example, during a SpaceX-produced interview this summer at the company’s Starlink terminal factory in Bastrop, Texas, Musk said, “Space is really big. It’s not like space is gonna get crowded. Space is enormous. If you actually look at it relative to the Earth, the satellites are so tiny you can’t even see them.”

So in one way of thinking, very, very bad things are coming. In another, everything’s fine. Where does the truth actually lie?

What’s really happening?

One of the most credible sources for this kind of information is the European Space Agency, which has long studied space debris and its impacts on various orbits.

Fortunately, it just released its annual Space Environment Report a week ago. The European agency has produced such a report over the last decade to provide a transparent overview of global space activities and assess the quality of efforts to preserve the sustainability of spaceflight.

There are some striking—and concerning—changes this year. For example, the European report has dramatically increased its projections of future satellites in this year’s report after reassessing the current trajectory of large constellations.

“The notable increase in the index this year is primarily driven by the substantially larger future population resulting from the current extrapolation scenario,” the report states. “In particular, the growing influence of large constellations highlights the limitations of traditional mitigation approaches when applied to future traffic at unprecedented scales. At the same time, the results are affected by the limited availability of detailed and verifiable information on future deployment plans, operational practices, and end-of-life strategies of these systems.”

The projection for objects in orbit in this year’s report has gone up dramatically.
The projection for objects in orbit in this year’s report has gone up dramatically. Credit: European Space Agency

More satellites mean an increasing probability of collisions, which helps to push us toward a Kessler-like scenario.

As part of the report, the European scientists modeled a number of different scenarios. Assuming that satellite launches continue to increase—by far the most likely trend—even if operators continue to follow best practices in terms of disposing of older satellites and avoiding collisions, the orbital environment will still become significantly more cluttered.

“The extrapolation of our current behavior, which assumes the continuation of explosion in orbits at current rates, adherence by constellations to at least the minimum desirable post-mission disposal success rates, and continuation of the currently estimated post-mission disposal success rates for all other objects, leads to an unstable environment with collision rates increasing exponentially,” the report states.

In its technically precise language, the European Space Agency is essentially saying we’re on a road that could ultimately lead to something like the Kessler syndrome. Such a scenario, with a dramatic growth in constellations using best practices for satellite disposal, looks like this in terms of collisions in orbit.

Number of cumulative collisions in low-Earth orbit in simulations.
Number of cumulative collisions in low-Earth orbit in simulations. Credit: European Space Agency

It does indeed start to look pretty dicey by mid-century.

Also worth noting: The projections in ESA’s 2026 report do not include the new category of orbital data centers, as they exclude projects “still being prepared” for launch. It remains unclear whether these mega-megaconstellations of data centers in space will prove to be economically viable, but if they do, they could be the ultimate tipping point for orbital sustainability.

What is happening up there now?

The European Space Agency talks a lot about the need for responsible behavior, and in managing its massive Starlink constellation, SpaceX has been responsible. The company has been effective at deorbiting satellites that lose functionality and at managing a constellation of thousands of satellites. It’s an unprecedented task that the company has learned, on the fly, to carry out at a scale no government or company has attempted before.

We know from mandatory reporting to the Federal Communications Commission that SpaceX is frequently moving satellites around in orbit, making small but precise maneuvers to avoid collisions. Five years ago, its (much smaller) constellation made about 500 such maneuvers a month. During the most recent reporting period, through May 2026, that number had jumped to nearly 35,000 per month. That comes to one maneuver every 75 seconds.

It is important to characterize these properly. Each maneuver is not a “near miss.” Rather, SpaceX has significantly lowered the probability threshold to trigger a collision avoidance maneuver. The NASA standard for maneuver is 1-in-10,000. At the outset of Starlink, though, SpaceX used a 1-in-100,000 threshold and has since become even more conservative, with a threshold of 3-in-10 million, according to a 2025 letter to the FCC.

So it’s clear that SpaceX is not operating its Starlink constellation in a cavalier manner. But it’s also clear that the company’s constellation, and those like it, are cause for significant concern going forward.

What should we be worried about?

No credible experts are saying that the Kessler syndrome could happen imminently—a single collision won’t set off a Gravity-style cascade.

But space is getting more crowded, and some orbits, particularly from 520 km to 1,000 km above Earth. A 2025 paper by Hugh Lewis and Kessler (yes, that Kessler) found that some orbital bands in this region have already reached what is known as a “collisional-runaway threshold,” which is to say that any serious collisions there may create new debris faster over time than debris would be naturally removed by the pull of gravity, down into Earth’s atmosphere.

Another concern comes from spent “rocket bodies,” upper stages from rockets that were not properly disposed of after launch. This was more common in decades past, but some launches today still do not reserve enough propellant to properly deorbit a second or third stage. These school bus-sized stages are particularly problematic at altitudes of 840 and 975 km, said LeoLabs space debris expert Darren McKnight. They are winging around uncontrolled, of course. And the higher the altitude, the longer the debris hangs around, from decades to centuries.

Finally, because there is so much stuff flying around orbit, it would be relatively easy for bad actors to start shooting missiles at satellites in low-Earth orbit, creating debris fields that could potentially wipe out communications and cause massive financial damage. The probability of Kessler syndrome becomes much higher if humans start deliberately blowing things up in space. Did we mention that Iran recently became the ninth country to put a domestically built satellite into orbit?

What’s the bottom line?

In the near term, it seems unlikely that space will become unusable. But it will likely become more and more expensive to operate there when considering avoidance technology, people to manage all of this, and propellant for maneuvers. And finding launch windows that avoid known debris will become more difficult.

Longer term, perhaps as early as 15 years from now but more likely longer, a Kessler-syndrome type outcome may start to become increasingly plausible.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

COVID-19 — not TikTok — is disabling young women - The Sick Times

1 Share
A young woman stands by a staircase with a backdrop of tree canopy.  She wears a white, high quality mask and has long dark hair. She wears a teal sweatshirt and black pants.Source: Charlotte May, Pexels

This commentary article was originally published in The Gauntlet, a Substack publication by Julia Doubleday. The Sick Times has republished it with permission.

Last week, The Telegraph published an article titled, “How having a disability became cool,” with the subhead, “Young women, nicknamed ‘sickfluencers’, are turning chronic illness into a lifestyle trend and entrenching a culture of economic inactivity.”

This article serves a political purpose.

It shores up the government narrative that rising rates of disability are being driven, not by the ongoing and unchecked spread of COVID-19, but by people just deciding they want to “identify as disabled.”

This claim is absurd on its face.

Let’s dive in.

People do not drop out of work in order to pursue the lucrative field of professional disability-check-collecting. Governments have a tried-and-true method of avoiding exactly this sort of thing: they force disabled people to live in abject poverty, which does the trick quite nicely.

Disabled people, quite simply, are not treated well. They aren’t treated well by governments. It’s not easy to get disability payouts, and even if one does, those payouts are paltry. They aren’t treated well by employers; disabled people are usually both micromanaged and underpromoted. They aren’t treated well by peers, who mix condescension with distaste with prejudice with presumption. In romantic relationships, disabled people are more prone to abuse.

There are quite simply no reasons to “fake” a disability, but there are many, many reasons, to “fake” being well, or better than one is.

Poppy Coburn disagrees, and she’s oh-so-unhappy about it:

POTS. ME. CF. ADHD. MDD. GAD. PMDD. EDS. FND. For a steadily growing group of British young women, these acronyms – and the conditions they represent – are fundamental to their lives. The country is sicker than it’s ever been before, and it’s not afraid of shouting about it. Disability is changing.

There’s almost — almost — nothing wrong with this paragraph other than the sneering tone of the author. “The country is sicker than it’s ever been before” — now why would that be? Six years after COVID-19 hit, four years after the virus has been allowed to run totally rampant without mitigation, the country is sicker than it’s ever been before, but we can’t come up with any reason why that would be other than “women be faking?”

Disability activists warned for years that this would be the outcome of allowing COVID-19 to spread unmitigated. Now that it’s time to pay the piper, the state and its media allies are working desperately to sever the connection between COVID-19 and its consequences.

Now that it’s time to pay the piper, the state and its media allies are working desperately to sever the connection between COVID-19 and its consequences.

Let’s examine a few of the acronyms named above. EDS [Ehlers-Danlos syndrome] is a connective tissue disorder that makes people higher risk for Long COVID. I have EDS, but prior to Long COVID, I didn’t think much of it. I also had underlying POTS [postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome], but again, it was mild compared to how severe it became once I contracted COVID-19 in November 2023.

My story is common. Many people — particularly women — had underlying issues like EDS and mild POTS, but lived normal lives until a SARS-CoV-2 infection surfaced those issues, collapsing the facade of “normalcy” they’d been able to build. My POTS became extremely severe. I also developed moderate-severe ME [myalgic encephalomyelitis], leaving me homebound and mostly bedbound, as well as a chronic migraine disorder.

Other people developed POTS and/or ME after being infected, or only identified their connective tissue disorder after developing Long COVID.

It’s very telling that POTS, ME, and EDS are all listed as common “sickfluencer” diagnoses. These are all associated with Long COVID and were considered relatively rare prior to COVID-19.

The data supports this.

A study from University of Toledo found, “From January 2018 to March 1, 2020 — the date researchers used as the cutoff for the pre-COVID era — the study found an estimate of 4.21 new [POTS] cases diagnosed per month. That rose to 22.66 new cases per month from March 2, 2020, to June 2024, representing a more than five-fold increase.”

A Journal of General Internal Medicine study found that ME/CFS cases are 15 times higher since the pandemic began, using data from the RECOVER initiative.

In terms of connective tissue disorders, risk goes the other way. It’s not COVID-19 leading to EDS but EDS leading to Long COVID. A BMJ Public Health study from 2024 found that “generalized joint hypermobility (GJH, a common marker of variant connective tissue) was significantly associated with non-recovery from COVID-19.”

It’s disturbing — though hardly surprising — that half a decade into the pandemic, people are so unaware of the myriad conditions COVID-19 can trigger and exacerbate. People are unaware that Long COVID is a well-documented illness which produces outcomes like ME, POTS, and autoimmune disease, as well as increasing the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots.

The blame for this widespread ignorance rests squarely on the shoulders of our governments and the press, both of whom continue to kick up dust storms of ambiguity around whether Long COVID is even an acknowledged illness in medical circles (it is), about whether it is psychosomatic (it is not), and about whether disability rates are really increasing (they are).

Crying “social contagion” has always been ironic considering that viral contagion is a real, well-established scientific phenomenon with tens of thousands of scientific papers demonstrating exactly how viruses, and, in particular, COVID-19, lead to post-viral conditions.

But, oddly, when weighing up the evidence for these two explanations (viral contagion vs. social contagion), while only one side can produce reams of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrably linking infectious disease to new-onset health problems, press outlets choose to embrace the absurd alternative: people are pretending because other people are pretending. No evidence, no papers, no problem. Just vibes, snark, and a great big dollop of motivated reasoning.

It should also be noted that the very thing Poppy is decrying young women for doing — “influencing” — can earn much-needed income, even a stable wage, depending on how successful and resonant the content is, and how consistently the creator can produce output.

For young disabled people who may no longer be able to work a full eight-hour day, stand on their feet at a service-industry restaurant or retail job, the flexibility and lack of oversight provided by “influencing” makes it an appealing source of income or supplementary income for a sick person struggling to make ends meet.

Disabled people have much higher self-employment rates than their peers. Despite being twice as likely to be unemployed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that in 2025, disabled people were self-employed at a rate of 9.1% vs only 5.9% for abled people.

The reasons for this are apparent. Many disabled people cannot maintain a consistent work schedule. I myself am not employed in a full-time role, because my migraines and severe crashes mean that I cannot predict which days I’ll be available to work, or for how long. That’s why my current work is consulting through firms that give me assignments as I request them, and writing this Substack.

Most disabled people struggle mightily to maintain as much income as possible and avoid falling into the poverty of government-provided benefits. To do so, we often must be scrappy, resilient, creative, and adaptable. Content creation is just one avenue that young disabled women have taken to remain visible and stable as their physical bodies limit their professional horizons.

Most disabled people struggle mightily to maintain as much income as possible and avoid falling into the poverty of government-provided benefits. To do so, we often must be scrappy, resilient, creative, and adaptable.

Rather than seeing these women as inspiring, however, Poppy is angry at their temerity — remaining visible while disabled, and unashamed of it at that!

To many, [disability] is no longer an adversity to overcome, but a social identity akin to one’s sexuality, gender, or race; an immutable reality to be celebrated by the subject and accommodated by the rest of us.

Well, mostly yes. Would I consider my disabilities “adversities to overcome?” Many chronic illnesses may be manageable to some degree, but far from “curable” — so what does, for example, “overcoming migraines” mean in this context?

I certainly take all the medications prescribed for my migraines and now I have fewer migraines. Is that inspirational enough for Poppy? I cut out gluten, caffeine, and aspartame after identifying them as migraine triggers, thus allowing me to live with fewer migraines, is that not me working to overcome my disability? I’d venture to guess that Poppy’s only definition of “overcome” is simply “not being disabled anymore”, which isn’t any option for most disabled people- sorry to disappoint!

In truth, the only acceptable definition of “overcoming disability” to people like Poppy is, “stop talking about it, stop complaining, stop existing in a sick body, oh — and get back to work!” In other words: accept that you were never really disabled, overcome your mental weakness, and embrace your physical wellness. Poppy fundamentally misunderstands disability.

Disability status is indeed a social identity akin to sexuality, gender, or race, because it describes the way we must move through the world in relation to others, and how others discriminate against us. Poppy herself demonstrates how difficult it is to move through the world as a disabled person under the weight of others’ assumptions and poor comprehension of chronic illness. That’s why community serves as a sanctuary for many disabled people — so we can find support and safety where we will not be mocked, judged, derided and told to simply “overcome” our illnesses by ignorant ableists.

Disability is indeed a reality — although hardly an immutable one, as people become disabled each day. Disability is the only minority group you can join at any time, is a phrase oft-repeated in the community, and one you will likely join someday. Abled people are encouraged to think of themselves as only “temporarily abled.” I do not believe Poppy is at all able to conceptualize herself as a “future disabled person.” This is a shame because it is this inability which leads a person to advocate against one’s own future self-interests.

As to Poppy’s claim that disabled people ask we be celebrated and accommodated. Yes, yes we do. I certainly demand to be accommodated, as that is supposed to be the law. I can’t force anyone to celebrate me, but I do celebrate, every day, what I’ve been able to survive. Two years into being homebound, I celebrate the strength I did not know I had.

Next, Poppy nearly achieves a breakthrough, but manages to resist thinking critically at the last second:

One in four British people is now disabled, according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ Family Resources Survey. To put this figure in context, this is a higher rate of disability than witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. The growth in those identifying as disabled does not reflect a sudden, shocking increase in the number of paraplegics. The twin driving factors are, instead: mental health disorders and chronic conditions. They can be hard to “prove” and harder to effectively treat, and are more likely to be experienced by young women.

Yes, Poppy has come dangerously close to doing her job — reporting!

Let me try my hand at it: One in four British people is now disabled. To put that figure in context, this is a higher rate of disability than witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. The twin driving factors are mental health disorders and chronic conditions, two issues that are known to follow SARS-CoV-2 infections, and are difficult to effectively treat.

In my rewrite, I’ve stressed, like Poppy, that this is a very high amount of disability. I’ve then connected it to the most major public health story of the last century, something one might think would occur to anyone who wasn’t born in the last 24 hours.

Unlike Poppy, I’ve failed to imply that these disabilities are likely fake, that they’re somehow less important than the one “real” disability which is (for some reason) paraplegia, and I’ve also left out the misogyny toward young women (whom, I can only guess by the paragraph’s tone, are to be judged as unserious liars). I can’t think of any reason why someone would expect paraplegia to be rising at a shockingly high rate unless the entire nation took up horseback riding in the morning and motorcycle riding in the evening.

But since we all took up catching COVID-19 instead, this outcome — the outcome of autoimmune disorders, chronic illnesses like POTS and ME, and mental illnesses like ADHD and anxiety following a neuroinvasive infection — is much to be expected.

Of course, the science has long been clear that many chronic conditions disproportionately affect women for various hormonal, biological, and social factors including underfunding of research. Studies find that women make up 80% of autoimmune disease cases including lupus, MS, and rheumatoid arthritis. That does not mean these illnesses are not real.

There is incentive for the state to continue to try and pour cold water over the increasing public awareness of chronic illness and disability. This incentive is that the state does not wish to pay for all these disabled people.

The state wanted and continues to want to force people “back to work” without controlling COVID-19, but it does not want to pay for the damage COVID-19 inflicts on our bodies after doing so.

The state wanted and continues to want to force people “back to work” without controlling COVID-19, but it does not want to pay for the damage COVID-19 inflicts on our bodies after doing so.

To be clear: not every disability or chronic illness is caused by COVID-19. However, the runaway acceleration in the diagnoses of common post-COVID conditions like ME, POTS, and autoimmune diseases is absolutely caused by the ongoing failure to control unmitigated COVID-19. And it’s why there’s an apparent “trend” in these diagnoses.

Unwilling to bear the costs of its own failed policy, the state takes a “divide and conquer” approach, casting doubt on Long COVID patients and activists, silencing those who report direct harm from SARS-CoV-2 infections with mockery, propaganda, accusations, and denial.

Across the political spectrum, we’ve seen a ratcheting up of anti-disability rhetoric and policy, from the return of “r” slur, to the normalization of euthanasia. We are likely to see more legalization of assisted dying with fewer and fewer safeguards as the crisis of Long COVID worsens.

In the U.K., we’ve seen hysteria over increased disability payouts, we’ve seen the public increasingly accused of being “work shy,” and we’ve seen the Labour government make cuts to disability benefits. We can assume there is worse austerity ahead as this problem accelerates.

This week is a particularly poignant time to be making this point. Simon Wessely, today on the board of the NHS [National Health Service], was one of the doctors who wrote dismissively about “World Trade Center Syndrome.” Read his words here, written eight months after the towers fell, as people were reporting their new-onset health issues after working at Ground Zero.

the emergence of ‘World Trade Syndrome’, a vague collection of symptoms among the residents of Lower Manhattan, blamed on various ‘toxins’ released after the collapse of the Twin Towers, only makes sense in the context of a seemingly endless list of other mysterious symptoms and syndromes that are blamed on similar toxic disasters….


We medicalise the non-pathological – and this is instituted not just by the medical professions but by the consumers themselves. So the normal symptoms and malaise that are part of the human condition, exacerbated by encounters with adversity such those on and after 11 September, are now more likely to be medicalised.

Wesseley has also been a major figure behind the psychologization of ME/CFS and, of course, has held the line in psychologizing Long COVID.

His leap to psychologize post-September 11 illnesses in the months following the disaster speak to his motivations. Of course, very little could have been known at that time about the long-term effects of inhaling the toxic mix of dust, gasses, and smoke. But it was clear enough that governments had motivation to deny first responders’ claims. Wesseley is a man who sides with power, reflexively.

In the 25 years since, it has been firmly established that the illnesses reported were indeed linked to the toxic smoke at Ground Zero and, today, over 9,000 deaths are attributed to breathing the air there. This is more than three times as many people as were killed in the initial attacks. Days ago, Mayor Zohran Mamdani released 170,000 pages of municipal records pertaining to air quality following the attacks.

“People got sick because the leaders they trusted lied and told them they were safe to breathe in toxic air,” he stated.

It’s critical that we observe how power moves to protect itself, and how it lashes out at vulnerable victims as they attempt to draw attention to themselves when it may cost the state.

It’s critical that we observe how some (not all) doctors and journalists will burn credibility to protect the state — because they know that siding with the state will not truly cost them in the end. Although Wesseley came out loudly and proudly to call 9/11 victims hysterical, 25 years later he has only been rewarded for his loyalty to official narratives.

He will likely never fall out of favor, because he continues to demonstrate usefulness to the state.

This is what Poppy is doing as well. She is demonstrating her value to the state. She is an asset; a good, productive, and loyal worker, someone who will question lazy and bad workers. They may claim to be ill, but Poppy knows better. There is no logical explanation for an increase in disability, for there is no pandemic. These “sick” people are hysterical — they’re mostly women after all. Shrill, irritating, irrational, emotional women. Poppy abandons solidarity with her fellow workers and with her fellow women in order to cast her lot closer to the oppressive patriarchal ruling class.

In order for there to a be a crisis, the crisis must have victims. When you silence those victims, you erase the crisis. That is how the erasure of millions of newly disabled people serves the narrative of COVID-19’s disappearance/harmlessness.

It’s important for those nominally on the left to understand how questioning Long COVID patients’ illnesses, as well as disabled people’s illnesses and disabilities in general, serves the state. Creating an environment of doubt, vitriol, and surveillance in which fellow workers are negatively radicalized against sick people is the goal of the state; again, this is a “divide and conquer” tactic.

Understanding the state’s motives and these tactics can familiarize people with this propaganda so they stop providing free labor to the state by punching down on ill workers, many of whom were disabled by negligent public health policy and labor in service of the state. Participating in this state project fractures the working class.

Poppy concludes her piece thus:

A chronically “sick” person does what a chronically sick person is supposed to do: they withdraw from regular life, struggle with previously simple tasks, receive support and condolences, and rarely, if ever, get better.

She’s almost correct here. Certainly, chronically ill people do withdraw from regular life and struggle with previously simple tasks. Rarely getting better — that’s sort of covered by the descriptor “chronic,” is it not?

But this description is intended to shift blame. In her presentation, people with chronic illness are choosing not to get better. The intended audience here is not people with chronic illness; it is well people. This piece aims to persuade the well audience: sick people are making a choice to behave as if they are sick, so don’t encourage them, and don’t be nice to them, and don’t support any government policies to give them any money.

To take the implications of this statement further, Poppy wants well people to consider that sick people, choosing to be sick as they are, are doing so to shirk their fair share of the work we’re all called upon to do collectively. Thus, the sickness and disability of a fellow citizen is an attack upon you. You’re working, yet these “sick” people are living the high life, basking in “support and condolences” from near and far, collecting big checks from the government instead of contributing to society, and decorating their wheelchairs with fun stickers and colors — yet more evidence that they’re not really sick! (As we all know, real sick people HATE fun stickers and colors!)

We must ask our abled fellow workers to engage more seriously with ableist propaganda, to learn to identify it, and most particularly to learn when state actors and their allies in the press are utilizing divide and conquer tactics to stoke hatred toward sick people.

We must ask our abled fellow workers to engage more seriously with ableist propaganda, to learn to identify it, and most particularly to learn when state actors and their allies in the press are utilizing divide and conquer tactics to stoke hatred toward sick people.

This article was originally published at The Gauntlet, a Substack publication by Julia Doubleday sharing COVID-19 and Long COVID information, updates, and commentary.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism | MIT Press Scholarship Online | Oxford Academic

1 Share

Abstract

“Fascist Pigs” investigates the breeding of new animals and plants embodying fascism. It details the role of technoscientific organisms in the national battles for food independence launched by Mussolini, Salazar, and Hitler, the first large scale mobilizations of the three fascist regimes. The narrative transforms the fascist “back to the land” into a modernist experiment involving geneticists and their organisms (wheat, potatoes, pigs), mass propaganda for peasants and urban consumers, and overgrown bureaucratic structures. In contrast to the generalized emphasis on race, it brings food to the forefront of a renewed understanding of fascism.The fascist obsession with land translated also into violent imperial quests for Lebensraum in Europe and Africa. The book unveils how agricultural experiment stations in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Auschwitz were central for putting in place colonial forced labor schemes for the production of coffee, cotton, and rubber. The story of karakul sheep standardized by scientists at the University of Halle goes a step further. It follows sheep around into Germany, Ukraine, South West Africa, Libya, and Angola, connecting through the travels of a single organism the white settler stories and frontier genocide of the three fascist regimes.This is not a study about what happened to scientists under fascism, but one that by following the historical trajectories of technoscientific organisms reveals how new forms of life intervened in the formation and expansion of fascism.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories