Latest news with #JohnSnow
Epoch Times
19-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Improving Public Health
Commentary Once a field grounded in data, experimentation, and skepticism, public health has morphed into something resembling a secular religion. Where it used to prioritize measurable outcomes and open debate, it now often demands faith, enforces dogma, and ostracizes dissenters. This transformation, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, threatens the credibility of public health and its ability to serve the common good. The Academic Roots of Public Health Historically, public health was an academic discipline rooted in the scientific method. From John Snow's cholera investigations in 19th-century London to the eradication of smallpox in the 20th century, public health relied on evidence, hypothesis testing, and iterative progress. Practitioners debated fiercely, questioned assumptions, and adapted to new data. The field's strength lay in its humility: no single expert or institution claimed to have all the answers, and policies were shaped through scrutiny. This academic rigor produced tangible results. Life expectancy in the United States rose from 47 years in 1900 to 78 years by 2000, thanks to sanitation and disease surveillance. Public health was a collaborative enterprise, blending epidemiology, biology, and sociology to address complex problems. Its authority came from transparency and a willingness to be proven wrong. The Rise of Dogma Today, public health increasingly resembles a religion, complete with sacred tenets, high priests, and excommunication for heretics. The shift began subtly but became undeniable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mandates on masks, lockdowns, and vaccines were often presented as unquestionable truths, despite evolving evidence and legitimate uncertainties. For instance, early claims that masks were universally effective ignored nuanced studies showing varied efficacy depending on type and setting. Yet, questioning these mandates was labeled 'anti-science,' a scarlet letter that silenced debate. This dogmatism extends beyond pandemics. Public health now often prioritizes ideology over evidence. Take the debate over ultra-processed foods: while data links them to obesity and chronic disease, some public health officials downplay the issue, citing 'food equity' or industry ties. Similarly, harm reduction strategies like supervised injection sites are championed as moral imperatives, even where studies show mixed results on community impact. Dissenters—whether scientists, journalists, or citizens—are dismissed as heretics, their arguments ignored rather than engaged. The language of public health mirrors religious fervor. Terms like 'trust the science' evoke faith, not scrutiny. Institutions like the CDC and WHO are treated as infallible, despite documented missteps. On platforms like X, public health advocates often frame compliance as a moral duty, casting skeptics as selfish or dangerous. This echoes religious calls to sacrifice for the greater good, not the open inquiry of academia. The Priesthood and the Flock Public health's new clergy—celebrity experts, agency heads, and influencers—wield authority akin to religious leaders. Figures like Anthony Fauci became near-saintly during the pandemic, their words treated as gospel despite inconsistencies. Meanwhile, the public is cast as a flock, expected to follow without question. This dynamic erodes the academic principle of peer review, replacing it with top-down pronouncements. The priesthood enforces orthodoxy through social and professional penalties. Scientists who questioned lockdown efficacy, like those behind the Great Barrington Declaration, faced censorship and career threats. A 2023 study found that 25 percent of U.S. academics reported self-censoring on public health issues to avoid backlash. This is not science; it's inquisition. True academia thrives on challenge, but public health's new religion punishes it. Why This Matters The shift from discipline to dogma undermines public trust. A 2024 Gallup poll showed only 40 percent of Americans trust public health institutions, down from 70 percent in 2000. This erosion fuels skepticism toward vaccines, screenings, and other interventions, as people conflate legitimate tools with overreach. When public health demands blind faith, it alienates the very audience it needs to persuade. Related Stories 5/16/2025 5/8/2025 Moreover, treating public health as a religion stifles innovation. Academic fields advance by questioning orthodoxy—think Galileo—but today's public health punishes such courage. This risks stagnation at a time when chronic diseases affect 60 percent of Americans and new pathogens loom. Reclaiming the Discipline To restore public health as an academic pursuit, we must reject its religious trappings. First, institutions must prioritize transparency, releasing raw data and admitting uncertainties. The CDC's reluctance to share vaccine side-effect data, citing 'misinterpretation,' breeds distrust. Second, debate must be encouraged, not vilified. Platforms like X, where unfiltered voices challenge orthodoxy, can help, but only if public health engages rather than dismisses them. Finally, the field must diversify its priesthood, amplifying voices from outside the elite echo chamber—community doctors, statisticians, even skeptics. Public health's power lies in its ability to improve lives through reason, not revelation. By shedding dogma and embracing scrutiny, it can reclaim its academic soul. If it fails, it risks becoming a relic—a faith few follow, and fewer trust. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Business Times
15-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
The myths of corporate innovation
IF innovation has an iconography, it involves a genius, a breakthrough and a dash of serendipity. Alexander Fleming notices mould growing on a plate of bacteria and discovers penicillin. John Snow produces a map of the victims of a cholera outbreak in 19th-century London and traces the outbreak to a single water pump. A German chemist called August Kekule falls asleep, dreams about snakes eating their tails and realises upon waking that the benzene molecule has the shape of a ring. Moments like these make for good film scenes, but they are precisely the wrong way to think about corporate innovation. Firms make advances through sustained effort, the passage of time and teamwork. Take, for example, three stories of innovation from the new season of Boss Class, our podcast on how to be a great manager. Wayve, a self-driving software firm that is now one of Europe's hottest artificial intelligence (AI) startups, was an outlier for years. Alex Kendall, a co-founder, was studying at Cambridge when he became convinced that the best way to solve the self-driving problem was to have an AI learn patterns of driving behaviour for itself. That made him unusual. At the time, the industry was trying to write rules for what a car should do when it encounters a specific situation. Wayve's approach is much more orthodox now; last month, the firm signed a deal with Nissan to be part of the Japanese carmaker's autonomous-driving technology. But it has been an eight-year effort to get there. 'The biggest b******* is eureka ideas where you just wake up and have an idea that solves things,' said Kendall. A good idea can go nowhere if the circumstances are not right. By the same token, having tried something before is not a reason to ignore it in the future, as the case of Google shows. Liz Reid, its head of search, said that many of the tech giant's successes were tried several times before they finally caught on. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up One example is reviews for restaurants on Google Maps, a feature that the team was sure would be useful, but that initially asked too much of reviewers. The arrival of notifications and of location data was crucial. Before then, you had to remember to write a review or indeed, where you had been to eat. After that, Google's knowledge that you had been to eat in a specific restaurant, and its ability to prompt you to give a rating, made reviewing much simpler. Finally, consider Monumental, a four-year-old Dutch startup that is trying to mechanise bricklaying by using robots. It depends on constant feedback to improve. Salar al-Khafaji, a co-founder, sold his first startup to Palantir, a data analytics giant; there he saw the practice of 'forward deployment', whereby Palantir's developers work directly with customers to configure its software to suit their needs. His new firm adopts a similar principle of getting out into the real world. Monumental acts as a subcontractor on construction jobs, using human masons to finish any work that its machines cannot do. Working on projects in this way gives Monumental both a flow of money and, even more usefully, information about all the problems it has yet to overcome. Building sites are messy, unstructured places, where things get moved, weather changes and lots of things can go wrong. Operators on the site note down every glitch and obstacle that the robots encounter in a shared 'friction log'; engineers and coders at the firm's headquarters in Amsterdam try to resolve them. Companies achieve big breakthroughs all the time. Dramatic scenes can unfold. Wayve chose to train its cars on the streets of London, because the city's narrow streets, cyclists and jaywalkers make for a particularly testing environment for drivers. Late last year, the firm tested its software for the first time in America: on its first day, the car learnt for itself to drive on the right side of the road, as well as mastering other oddities. You can almost hear the soaring music in the film version. But, for the most part, corporate innovation is not cinematic. The myths of lone geniuses and moments of inspiration undoubtedly capture the imagination. But the reality – of problems solved by groups of determined people over many years – is an even better story. ©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
Economist
12-05-2025
- Health
- Economist
The myths of corporate innovation
If innovation has an iconography, it involves a genius, a breakthrough and a dash of serendipity. Alexander Fleming notices mould growing on a plate of bacteria and discovers penicillin. John Snow produces a map of the victims of a cholera outbreak in 19th-century London and traces the outbreak to a single water pump. A German chemist called August Kekulé falls asleep, dreams about snakes eating their tails and realises upon waking that the benzene molecule has the shape of a circle.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits
Water that comes straight from natural sources, dubbed 'raw water,' is gaining popularity. Raw water advocates reject public water supplies, including tap water, because they don't enjoy the taste or believe it's unsafe and depleted of vital minerals. On the surface, raw water might seem alluring – the natural surroundings may look beautiful, and the water may look clean and taste refreshing. But unlike tap or commercially bottled water, raw water is not evaluated for safety. This leaves the people who drink it vulnerable to infectious microbes or potentially other toxic contaminants. I'm a microbiology researcher studying infectious diseases. From a public health perspective, clarifying misconceptions about tap water and the health hazards of raw water can protect consumers and curtail the spread of infectious diseases. Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have long associated dirty water with negative health outcomes. As early as 1500 BCE, ancient Egyptians added a binding agent to their water to clump contaminants together for easy removal. Two major developments in the mid-1800s showed why impure water is dangerous. First, physician John Snow traced a deadly cholera outbreak to contaminated water from London's Broad Street pump. Second, Louis Pasteur advanced the germ theory of disease, which postulated that microbes can cause illness. Pasteur established that consumable liquids like raw water and milk can harbor disease-causing pathogens. These discoveries paved the way for large-scale infrastructure projects in the 20th century to ensure the public water supply is safe. Today, the process of cleaning water begins with the same steps employed by the ancient Egyptians, followed by extensive filtration to get rid of debris as well as most germs and chemicals. Chlorine is added to kill lingering pathogens, including those that may reside in the service pipes carrying the water to the faucet. Beginning in the 1940s, a small amount of fluoride was added as an inexpensive, safe and effective means to improve dental health. The cleanliness and fluoridation of the water supply has dramatically reduced infectious disease and cavities, and has been heralded as one of the 20th century's greatest public health achievements. People who champion raw water claim it has health benefits, such as essential minerals and beneficial bacteria called probiotics, that are stripped from tap water. Let's unpack each of these claims. Water dissolves bits of soil and rock at its source; therefore, its mineral content depends on the local geology. Areas with a lot of limestone, like the Midwest, have water that is higher in calcium. Water from deeper in the ground may have higher mineral content since it passes through more rock on its way to the surface. The idea that tap water is depleted of essential minerals is not true, as these nutrients are too small to be excluded by the filtration process. Test kits can determine the mineral content of your water, and if you find it lacking, mineral supplements can be added. Experts suggest, however, that most minerals you need come from your diet, not water. Some also claim that raw water contains probiotics that are removed from tap water. The amount of probiotics in water would also vary by location, and the notion that health-promoting bacteria reside in raw water has not been proved. There are no studies associating raw water with any health benefit. Anecdotal claims about smoother skin or increased energy are likely to be placebo effects. Even the idea that raw water tastes better might be more psychological than physiological – a 2018 study showed that most people preferred tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test. Raw water carries the risk of serious gastrointestinal infection from a wide variety of pathogens. Water-borne viruses include rotavirus and norovirus, which cause rapid-onset diarrhea and vomiting, and hepatitis A, which infects the liver. Bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella, or parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, also cause severe diarrhea that can lead to dangerous levels of dehydration. Toxoplasma gondii can also lurk in raw water and can cause miscarriage or birth defects if consumed during pregnancy. Carriers of diarrheal infections can transmit them to others if they swim in public pools or fail to properly wash their hands before touching others or preparing food. Norovirus is particularly durable and can survive on surfaces for days, increasing chances of it infecting someone else. Raw water can also contain algae that release toxins causing abdominal issues and damage to the brain and nervous system. Cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever are no longer health burdens in the U.S. thanks to a robust water treatment system. But areas of the world lacking this privilege suffer high child mortality and widespread diarrheal diseases. Tap water in the U.S. is among the safest to drink in the world. The Biden administration took steps to further improve it, including funding to replace lead pipes and new rules to monitor forever chemicals like perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and developmental disorders. Importantly, raw water is not necessarily free from lead, arsenic, pesticides or industrial contaminants. Raw water sources are not reliably monitored by experts, so it is difficult to say which ones pose less risk. In addition, the water may be acceptably safe one day, but not on another. For example, soil runoff from a storm could introduce new germs or pollutants into the area. The Environmental Protection Agency routinely screens for nearly 100 contaminants to ensure tap water is safe. In contrast, raw water remains untested, unregulated and untreated, leaving its safety to drink in question. In terms of risks and benefits, there are no demonstrated health benefits from drinking raw water, but clear evidence that you may be exposing yourself to harmful infectious and toxic contaminants. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Bill Sullivan, Indiana University Read more: Summertime can be germy: A microbiologist explains how to avoid getting sick at the barbecue, in the pool or on the trail PFAS are toxic 'forever chemicals' that linger in our air, water, soil and bodies – here's how to keep them out of your drinking water Toxoplasma is a common parasite that causes birth defects – but the US doesn't screen for it during pregnancy Bill Sullivan receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
