I honestly can’t remember nodding along with a Marc Thiessen opinion piece, but I did agree with most of this one in the Washington Post, where Thiessen writes “This is the ‘America First’ case for supporting Ukraine.”

Jamelle Bouie, writing in the Times, once again discusses the significant problems with the Supreme Court, both at present and for the foreseeable future:

“The problem of the Supreme Court isn’t that its members are mired in ethics scandals (although they are). It isn’t that it’s been captured by a network of conservative apparatchiks and right-wing billionaires (although it has). No, the problem of the Supreme Court is that it is a powerful and unaccountable branch of government whose traditional role has been to protect the rights of property and the prerogatives of the privileged above all other concerns.”

I’m afraid he’s right.

Madison Hilly writes in the NY Times about how the risks and health consequences of fission reactors (especially modern designs) are overblown, important since reactors may be necessary in order to reduce emissions as much as we need to in the next 2 decades.

As a physician, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act meant that any pharmaceutical or durable medical goods company giving me more than $25 had to report the gift to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; this reporting is publicly available here.  Since 2009, Massachusetts has required such companies to report any gifts in excess of $50.  105 CMR 970.00 prohibits gifting of entertainment or recreational items of any value, such as tickets to a sporting event or concert, or vacation trip and payments of any kind, except as compensation for bona fide services, etc.  As part of my academic appointment at Harvard Medical School, I had to annually disclose outside institution positions and appointments, resources and funding, outside activities, etc.  As a physician administrator, I did not allow Pharmaceutical Representatives to provide samples due to the well documented undue influence on physician prescribing patterns. Yet the Supreme Court, with much greater power and influence, the ultimate arbiter of justice here in the U.S., can’t see fit to self regulate behaviors that undoubtedly influence their behavior?  What’s wrong with this picture?  Since the supremes can’t seem to regulate themselves, they should be regulated by law.  See this NYT editorial.

Excellent article on the grid and environmental consequences of bitcoin mining in the U.S. by Gabriel Dance in the NYT here. Excerpts:

“34 of the largest mines identified by the Times together use more than 3,900 megawatts of electricity”
and
“The analysis found that the 34 mines’ power use was causing nearly 16.4 million tons of carbon pollution each year.”

To what end?

As those of us who carefully read the literature suspected, the alcoholic beverage industry’s support for “research” was carefully crafted to demonstrate some benefit to alcohol consumption.  But when corrected for a number of factors (especially the so called “sick quitters”, people who stopped drinking because of underlying medical issues and ended up skewing the non-drinking population) a large meta-analysis by Zhao, Stockwell, Naomi at al in JAMA Network  shows that in fact, drinking turns out to have on average no real benefit at all. The fact that previous research tended to focus on cardiovascular health and ignored the increased risks of breast, esophageal, and head and neck cancers associated with alcohol consumption also contributed to the false sense of harmlessness or even”benefit.”  Thankfully, many health organizations now specifically state that one should NOT consume alcohol in an effort to improve health. The National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics estimates that there are over 95,000 alcohol-related deaths annually in the U.S., and the WHO estimates that worldwide, 3 million people die annually due to the harmful use of alcohol, representing some 5.3% of all deaths. Anyone who has worked in Emergency Medicine has seen firsthand ethanol’s heavy societal toll.