Elon may describe himself as a "free speech absolutist", but his actions betray his insincerity in saying that.
The man isn't even mildly pro free speech. He is only "absolute" about defending the speech that he likes and agrees with.
With that in mind, it really says something about his beliefs when he defends and even boosts actual nazis.
"long Lyme" isn't well defined, but you're probably thinking of chronic lyme [1]. This article refers to PTLD.
The distinction matters. Chronic lyme is quackery that encourages people to pursue aggressive long-term antibiotic treatment for a non-existent persistent bacterial infection. Often these are people who have never been infected with Borrelia in the first place.
The article directly contradicts the persistent (undetectable) bacterial infection "chronic lyme" theory.
Agreed. Long Lyme certainly exists. I appear to have it as do numerous acquaintances. I wrote "appear to have it" because a blood test for Borrelia returns negative. However, just two weeks ago a doctor told me that Borrelia can evade a blood test by infecting the nervous system. That was news to me so I found this from NIH in the USA. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8870494/ Borrelia can cross over to the CNS. Lovely.
> I wrote "appear to have it" because a blood test for Borrelia returns negative. However, just two weeks ago a doctor told me that Borrelia can evade a blood test by infecting the nervous system.
The theory of persistent infection hasn't really held up. There were a few researchers who claimed to have some evidence, but it hasn't really been replicated. It's largely been dismissed from mainstream research.
Sadly, it's still a favored theory in many alternative medicine communities. It's also a really contentious topic. There's a long history, including Lyme researchers leaving the field after receiving death threats following publication of research that didn't agree with the alternative medicine theories.
Is there a reason you refer to alternative medical communities in response to my comment? Considering I made no reference to using alternative medicine, what does it have to do with my comment? Do you have an agenda? I know that I don't have one and neither did my comment.
"Science" is simply a structured methodology that uses tangible evidence to substantiate hypothesis. How exactly would that framework be unable to "comprehend" something like Lyme?
This quote seems apt here: "You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine."
A few decades ago, the Republican party had one foot in the anti-intellectual camp, but only one.
They were the party of young-earth creationists, religious pro-lifers, climate-deniers and gun-lovers - but also of educated fiscally conservative folks. The party would welcome economics professors and leaders of medium-sized businesses, promising no radical changes, no big increases in spending or regulation, and a generally pro-market/pro-business stance.
The genius of Trump was in realising the educated fiscally conservative folk were driving 95% of the republican policy agenda but only delivering 10% of the votes. The average Republican voter loves the idea of disbanding the IRS and replacing all taxes with tariffs on imports. Sure, you lose the educated 10% who think that policy is economic suicide - but you can more than make up for it with increased turn-out from the other 90% who are really fired up by the prospect of eliminating all taxes.
And it works - jumping into the anti-intellectual camp with both feet has delivered the house, the senate, the presidency (electoral college and popular vote), and the supreme court.
The conservative movement has a brain-drain because they've realised they don't want the votes of smart, educated people.
Their take on scripture is deliberately anachronistic. We didn’t have the medicine or sanitation 2000 years ago to place their kind of value on a fetus.
The medicine in question comes from the very scientific establishment that grew out of scholasticism, which is why I find the accusation of anti-intellectualism rather strange.
My point is that you have to distinguish between arguing against the output of the intellectual activity and arguing against the intellectual activity taking place.
It’s possible that I misread it, since I don’t understand the accusation of anti-intellectualism.
Isn’t it rather pro-intellectual to found universities like that of Bologna in 1088 and pour massive amounts of resources into research to ensure we eventually get to the level of obstetric medicine that we have?
And isn’t it on the contrary intellectually lazy to throw your hands up and declare life to be disposable simply because you don’t know how to treat and prevent diseases and can’t be bothered to figure out how?
If I'm following you, I should state that I don't see anything anti-intellectual in Christianity as a concept or in practice. The anti-intellectualism I was referring to is specifically regarding the idea that the bible proscribes abortion, solely because the train of thought is anachronistic.
