Post #2393393

@sickburnbro@poa.st Timing is off, Scientific American was becoming a political rag no later than the end of the 1970s, for example always ran such an item as the first article which Czech refugee Petr Beckmann said was generally on a topic that a Communist Czech science policy rag has published half a year earlier.... :cirnoThink: I in particular watched a long string of anti-ballistic missile defense articles by one set of authors where they kept stepping on their dicks, in one really stunning example they claimed the mirror for the mid-19th Century Palomar Observatory Hale Telescope was beyond the foreseeable state of the art. :cirnoStare: Science, the AAAS journal that was second place after Nature in prestige published a lot of bullshit, perhaps most notably the TTAPS paper in 1983 on nuclear winter which was fatally flawed in many, many ways, to the point it was obviously deliberate. We're told it was a "make Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth plausible" scheme. Making lesbian and fabulist Boas acolyte Margret Mead president of the society in 1975 (a bit before I became a member) was a preceding obvious bad sign. Science also published a lot of non-science paper anti-science editorial content, it was a very mixed bag until I punted ... can't remember when, probably mid-1980s. The Lancet was also recognized as trash in my social circle of SCIENCE!!! types by the ending of the 1980s. But medical journals were always sketchier, see for example JAMA and/or NEJM's laughable anti-gun screeds. So the rot was long in the making, it just came into stark view for a lot of normie-ish types when COVID hit and for example the most prestigious Nature allowed itself to be used to suppress the lab leak hypothesis (a dire rice bowl threat). Which is finally getting some legal action. :cirnoHeh: