Brownstone Journal

Brownstone Institute

Daily readings from Brownstone Institute authors, contributors, and researchers on public health, philosophy, science, and economics.

  1. 11 HR AGO

    The Sludging of Rural America

    By Paula Yockel at Brownstone dot org. In recent weeks, a major pipeline erupted in Maryland spilling over 243 million gallons of sewage into the Potomac River that flows along the southern border of Washington, D.C. You couldn't have missed this news because it was reported everywhere: NPR, NBC, the New York Times, and Wall Street Journal. Even the British Guardian ran several stories, reporting that the sewage spill caused a rift between Maryland's Governor and President Trump over who bears blame. A disaster declaration was approved. But each year, as our primary means of sewage disposal, millions of tons of toxic sewage sludge, labeled as "biosolids," are spread as agricultural fertilizer across our nation's farmland, where rural Americans call home. I know this because my family lived it, and it made us very sick. We had to leave our home to save our health. The unthinkable illnesses my family suffered motivated me to seek independent facts. After all, we had authorities at every level telling us that this practice was safe, but our experience told us otherwise. What we uncovered in our testing and research—including the statistically significant increased relative risk of disease in a community where sludge is used on farmland—left us no option but to take action. I founded the nonprofit Mission503, to not only raise awareness of this practice, but to end it, and lead the way to real solutions. As Americans are aligning on concerns regarding toxic chemical exposure, including PFAS from sludge practices, it's timely to share some of our key findings. But first, let's level set on three quick things about our nation's sewage disposal practices. Number one. Sewage sludge is the solid material that remains after liquid is separated from wastewater that enters the nation's sewer plants. It's typically the consistency of thick brownie batter. While the facilities are designed to treat and discharge the liquid effluent into our natural waters, like rivers, streams, and lakes, the cleaner the liquid, the more concentrated the toxins and pathogens are in the solids. Although sludge is considered "treated" and is often digested to reduce its volume, the more than 17,000 sewer plants in the US are neither engineered for, nor mechanically capable of, safely disposing or destroying sewage solids. Number two. Consider what flows into city sewers—then imagine it concentrated. Sludge isn't just flushed toilets (though human waste is chemically and biologically hazardous); it is the condensed residual of everything entering the sewer system: industrial and manufacturing discharge, institutional and medical waste, mortuary and slaughter operation drains, residential waste, street drains, fuels, narcotics, poisons, parasites and pathogens, microplastics, toxic chemicals—including PFAS "forever chemicals"—and so much more. Number three. Yes, we have a US federal rule, 40 CFR Part 503, that promotes using municipal sewage sludge as fertilizer on agricultural land—where food is grown, beef and dairy cattle graze, among rural communities across the nation. For sludge to qualify for land application (the term for spreading sludge on farmland), the rule regulates only nine metals and a fecal indicator. All other pollutants are ignored. Even mercury, lead, and arsenic are allowed at certain levels, meaning these toxic metals can legally be present in sludge. We've utilized this practice for decades and have successfully kept it off the American people's radar. Sludge is rebranded as "biosolids," promoted as "beneficial reuse," and misleadingly described as "organic," while farmers are not informed of its contents. Medical practitioners and researchers are largely unaware of it as well, complicating diagnosis and treatment for families who suffer illness from it. That, alone, is a topic for another day. Proponents of the rule—those whose budgets generally benefit from it and are contractually bound to deploy it—often refer to sludge practices a...

    13 min
  2. 1 DAY AGO

    Is Free Speech Maximalism Just for Young Men?

    By Gabrielle Bauer at Brownstone dot org. Consider the below statements. Do any of them resonate? Make you angry? Do some not even merit a response? Any group differences in outcomes can be traced to systemic racism. If systemic racism exists at all, it works against so-called privileged groups. Abortion is murder, period. The sanctity of human life is a made-up concept. Jews have a biblical right to Israel. Hitler was right about a few things. Masculinity is inherently toxic. If women ran the world, we would still be living in grass huts. The colonialists need to give back the land they stole. Indigenous people need to get over the fact that they were conquered. Providing sex is an obligation within a marriage. Any sexual coercion constitutes rape. I can't tell you exactly how I would respond to a dude who defended Hitler, but I know what I wouldn't do: stalk him on social media, contact his employer to try to get him fired, or lobby my government representative to help criminalize such talk. Does this make me a free speech absolutist? Not quite. Like Robert Jensen, a professor emeritus at the University of Austin and prolific blogger, I suspect that most people who call themselves free speech absolutists don't actually mean it. They wouldn't countenance speech like "Let's go kill a few Germans this morning. Here, have a gun." Instead, they're prepared to "impose a high standard in evaluating any restriction on speech," Jensen writes. "In complex cases where there are conflicts concerning competing values, [they] will default to the most expansive space possible for speech." In other words, they're free speech maximalists. A more contemporary and nuanced variant of absolutism, the maximalist position grants special status to free speech and puts the burden of proof on those who wish to curtail it. While accepting some restrictions in time, place, and manner, free speech maximalism defaults to freedom of content. It aligns with the litmus test developed by US Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, which holds that government should limit its regulation of speech to speech that dovetails with lawless action. Let's go kill a few Germans? Not kosher. The only good German is a dead one? Fair game. Some pundits view this position as misguided. A 2025 Dispatch article titled "Is Free Speech Too Sacred?" laments America's descent into an era of "free speech supramaximalism," in which "not only must speech prevail over other regulation, but nearly everything is sooner or later described and defended as speech." A New Statesman essay about Elon Musk, written a few months before he acquired Twitter (now X), decries Musk's "maximalist conception of free speech usually adopted by teenage boys and libertarian men in their early 20s, before they realise its limitations and grow out of it." The implication: free speech maximalism is an unserious pitstop on the way to more mature thinking. Only testosterone-soaked young men, drunk on their first taste of freedom, would spend more than a minute on such a naïve view. This 69-year-old woman disagrees. I grew into my passion for free speech during the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, when the pressure to conform in both word and deed reached an intensity I had never witnessed before. Any concerns about the labyrinthine lockdown rules elicited retorts like "moral degenerate" or "mouth-breathing Trumptard." (Ask me how I know.) Unexpectedly jolted into awareness of free speech principles, I began reading John Stuart Mill and Jean-Paul Sartre and writing essays about freedom of expression in the Covid era. One thing led to another, and in 2025 the newly minted Free Speech Union of Canada found a spot for me on its organizing committee. What most of us in the group shared, along with age spots and facial wrinkles, was a maximalist position on free speech. Perhaps we're all immature. Or maybe we've lived long enough to understand exactly what we lose when free speech goes A...

    8 min
  3. 2 DAYS AGO

    Who Needs Glyphosate?

    By Joel Salatin at Brownstone dot org. President Donald Trump's executive order of Feb. 18 invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950 to ensure US glyphosate production and availability is neither necessary nor helpful. HHS Secretary and Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) founder Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s endorsement of the order has created a firestorm in that health-interested base. On Feb. 22, Kennedy conducted triage explanations to his base with this statement: "Unfortunately, our agricultural system depends heavily on these chemicals." He went on to post that "if these inputs disappeared overnight, crop yields would fall, food prices would surge, and America would experience a massive loss of farms even beyond what we are witnessing today. The consequences would be disastrous." Kennedy then described the many weed control alternatives that are being developed. All of us farmers in the nonchemical community already use many of these innovative alternatives: lasers, AI-driven wipes, steam nozzles, cover crop crimping, and soil balancing. The grain farmers I patronize for our chicken and pig feeds do not use glyphosate or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We pay a slight premium, but these farmers have great yields and are certainly not going out of business like many more conventional operations. This showdown has been a long time developing. On Apr. 14, 2025, The Wall Street Journal's Patrick Thomas reported that "Bayer said it could stop producing the world's most popular weed killer unless it gets court protection against lawsuits blaming the herbicide for causing cancer." Bayer and friends tried to slip in liability protection in an appropriations bill earlier this year, but the effort failed. With thousands of lawsuits, many of them winning, still scheduled for court hearings, and its multibillion-dollar war chest to fight them and/or settle them impacting profits, Bayer, manufacturer of the popular Roundup brand, is desperate to shed this liability. Most of the time, things like this executive order happen after long-term wrangling and cogitating behind the curtain, and I suspect that is the case now. At the risk of irritating my MAHA friends, I take umbrage with this whole sordid affair because glyphosate is a deadly poison, is not needed, and certainly does not jeopardize American security. Its use is primarily on genetically modified corn and soybeans. But consider that nearly half of America's corn production goes to ethanol fuel; it has nothing to do with food. What about soybeans? Half of them are exported and not even used in America. Roughly 40 percent of glyphosate is made by Bayer in the United States, Belgium, and Argentina, which are all friendlies. If we eliminated half the corn and half the soybeans because they aren't needed for food, we'd only need half the glyphosate, which is nearly all manufactured either domestically or in friendly nations. That's giving the benefit of the doubt to the inherent need for glyphosate, which is a dubious argument. It's like demanding special concessions for cocaine because some addicts have an inherent need for cocaine. While they may be addicted, arguing that funding and fueling their continued addiction is necessary for their survival is dubious at best and erroneous at worst. The real national security breach is that we have thousands of farmers producing unnecessary corn and soybeans and a federal government determined to keep them in business. Herbivores don't need grain; they were not built to eat grain any more than children were built to eat candy bars. If we drop the exports and drop the fuel, America's need for corn and soybeans is only 30 percent of current production, which can easily be met by the glyphosate produced domestically and in friendly nations. The point is none of the scaremongering and none of the math adds up or makes sense. Something else is going on here, and it has nothing to do with national defense. It has to do with offering a sh...

    6 min
  4. 3 DAYS AGO

    Is the UK Still a Liberal Democracy?

    By Ramesh Thakur at Brownstone dot org. If the keening of pessimists is to be believed, this paper is written in the midst of the darkling dusk of an authoritarian age. Studies of the fate of democracy around the world—the countries that can be classified as democratic according to various criteria and the expansion and contraction in their numbers over time—has become a mini cottage industry in the academic and think tank worlds. In theory, setbacks and curtailments can come from either or both conservative and liberal sides of the ideological political divide, often reflecting their differences in how best to reconcile the tension between the liberal and democratic components of the aggregative concept of 'liberal democracy.' Majoritarian excesses can ride roughshod over the liberal protections for individuals against the state and society as collective entities, while unbalanced liberal emphases can ignore majority policy preferences. This was seen in the clash between the individual-centric civil libertarians and the collective focus of public health during the Covid years. Political polarisation in the age of falling confidence in the mainstream media and the amplifying potential of social media has exacerbated the pathologies of shifting perceptions of the other side as not merely people with a different point of view but as immoral and a threat to the system. As the world's most populous democracy by far, more than four times bigger than the US as the second most populous albeit the world's most important democracy, India occupies a place of special significance in the global comparison of the measures of democracy and their rise and fall over time. Not too many would have rated its prospects highly against the apparently unfavourable correlates of poverty and illiteracy at independence in 1947, yet it has survived as a recognisably functioning democracy. Conversely, the UK, known as the mother of parliamentary democracy with Westminster as the mother parliament, seems to be backsliding on its democratic credentials. Concerns about the health of democracy in both India and the UK exist alongside worries about its status in several other countries. I. Measuring the Health of Democracy My interest in democracy has spanned my entire professional life. My very first academic article, exactly fifty years ago, was on 'The Fate of India's Parliamentary Democracy' (Pacific Affairs, Summer 1976). This was a reaction to the declaration of an emergency by Prime Minister (PM) Indira Gandhi in 1975. It was followed by the more reflective 'Liberalism, Democracy and Development: Philosophical Dilemmas in Third World Politics' (Political Studies (September 1982). As someone who grew up in India; voted as a national in elections in Australia, Canada and New Zealand; with advanced degrees in political science; lived for periods of my life in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US; and participated in discussions on the topic with real-world examples with colleagues in the United Nations, I have a particular appreciation of the role of electoral systems in mediating popular voting preferences into political outcomes. When I last looked at the democracy ratings five years ago, the Economist Intelligence Unit classified India as a 'flawed' democracy; Freedom House called it only 'partly free,' and the Gothenburg-based V-Dem described it as an 'electoral autocracy.' That's quite a dishonourable trifecta from three reputable international democracy ratings agencies. The disparate indexes have their individual flaws and strengths, but they do provide a latitudinal snapshot of almost all countries at any given time, permit a longitudinal analysis of trendlines in any given country, and are a useful externally validated prop for civil-society advocates in countries of concern that are trying to improve standards of governance within the framework of inclusive democratic citizenship. That said, as a cross-country comparison, any classifica...

    25 min
  5. 4 DAYS AGO

    Observe the Economic Fallout Six Years Later

    By Jeffrey A. Tucker at Brownstone dot org. Many people want to be done with Covid lockdowns as a topic. The trouble is that Covid lockdowns are not done with us. Nothing like this had ever been tried in real life, a forced stoppage of most human activity as it affects the material and social world. The impact would be far reaching, long lasting, and devastation – one of the more significant calamities of modern times. Prevailing economic weakness and resulting stagnation for living standards is only one result. It's nowhere near over. The Friday, March 6, 2026, jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was far more grim than anyone expected. Employers shed 92,000 positions for the month as the unemployment rate ticked slightly higher to 4.4 percent. December and January jobs growth was revised down by 69,000. The more alarming fact (which you can peruse at B-1) is that these losses were unconstrained. In addition to health-sector sector losses, we have: Leisure and hospitality: Down 27,000 jobs, including accommodation and food services down 34,700, indicating ongoing weakness or contraction in consumer-facing services. Transportation and warehousing: Down 11,300 jobs, with couriers and messengers seeing a steep drop of 16,600. Information sector: Down 11,000 jobs, including movies and sound recording industries down 9,500. Administrative and support services (within professional and business services): Down 14,300 jobs, signaling problems in business support. Manufacturing: Down 12,000 jobs (with nondurable goods down 8,000). Construction: Down 11,000 jobs. None of these sectors had fully recovered from the body blow of 2020, as small businesses were forcibly shut and large businesses shot up their employees with an experimental potion. All enterprises have struggled ever since. But with high tariffs and soaring costs of health insurance hitting in 2025, it was just too much. There's nothing to be gained by blaming AI. These are not jobs AI can do. Labor costs eat into profitability so maintaining it requires offloading as much as possible to deal with hard times. More revealing are the numbers of employment/population ratios. They were dealt a huge hit with lockdowns, obviously, and have not regained their strength going from 2019. It amounts to a permanent downshift. Every time we see gains here, the gravity of the economic environment pushes them down again. The chart itself makes for a salient picture, a huge gash into labor markets, resulting in many permanently sidelined and many having left the labor force permanently. You cannot just "close the economy" without long-lasting consequences. Among many existing workers, we've seen an explosion of people listed as disabled. You might think this is partially due to increased benefit offerings and probably some degree of fraud. But you might also consider that vaccine injury is far more extensive than people know, amounting to millions of people who have been physically harmed by the shots distributed to prevent against a virus that everyone contracted anyway. There is no way the truth about these injuries can be permanently suppressed. The higher gas prices are in the news and the obvious culprit is the war on Iran which has disturbed shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. But there is another factor here rarely mentioned. Refining capacity in the US never recovered from lockdowns. Before, the previous peak was 19M barrels per calendar day. That dropped in 2021 to 18.1M and further to 17.9M in 2022. We are still 0.5-0.6 million below the pre-lockdown peak, meaning that any disruption was destined to have a big effect on oil prices and prices at the pump. That disruption came with the Iran war. As for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that was already tapped out during the last lockdown-driven and inflation-induced price spike. The low prices of 2025 could not last with any stress on production structures. And speaking of inflation, that lockdown-triggered mone...

    7 min
  6. 5 DAYS AGO

    What Does the Fifth Doctor Think about Ozempic?

    By Alan Cassels at Brownstone dot org. This is a slightly shortened version of a Feb 26 New York Times article where journalist Katrin Bennhold interviews Dani Blum of the Times' "Well Team" about Ozempic and GLP-1 drugs. The Fifth Doctor snoops in on the conversation and adds his two cents' worth. I've known several people who are on Ozempic who lost weight really fast. How exactly do these drugs work? Dani: …Basically, the drugs mimic naturally occurring hormones that blunt our appetites and leave us feeling fuller, for longer. When people take these drugs, they're just less hungry. Fifth Doctor: Yes, less hungry, but also potentially more mentally unwell. Mounting reports of anxiety, worsening depression, and thoughts of suicide surround those taking GLP-1s, drugs like Ozempic. While it might be rare that the drugs make you go crazy, the potential troublesome psychiatric effects added to the long list of nasty physical effects makes the treatment intolerable for most patients. These effects are so severe that most patients stop taking the drug and thus a trial of these drugs becomes an expensive failed experiment for most people. Do people have to stay on them forever to keep the weight off? Dani: Basically, yes. It's possible, but rare, for people to keep the weight off when they go off these drugs. Even Oprah gained back 20 pounds when she went off them. Doctors I talk to say we should think of these medications like statins — something to be taken long term. Fifth Doctor: Look, if Oprah can't sustain weight-loss post-Ozempic, what are your chances? Problem is, she probably found out the hard way that the weight comes back but the muscle you've also lost on GLP-1s stays lost, so you may end up in worse shape after you stop the drug than before you started. Also: "What the heck is '"long term?'" At best we have up to 18 months randomized data for current doses of GLP-1s, plus several years of followup from real-world studies, but not decades-long randomized exposure at obesity doses. As for staying on statins "forever," geez, that statement ranks among the dumbest bits of medical advice possible. It would take me a whole article to explain why "statins for life" is a loser's game, so stand by for the Fifth Doctor's advice on that file. But back to these game-changing weight loss drugs. Do we know yet what the side effects of long-term use might be? Dani: No, we don't really know a lot about potential long-term side effects yet. We just don't have decades and decades of data. We do know that these medications can have side effects in the short term. Most commonly, these are gastrointestinal issues: nausea, constipation, diarrhea, stomach pain. People can also get fatigued. In rare cases, people can experience more severe problems, like kidney or gallbladder issues, or pancreatitis. Fifth Doctor: The tip-of-the-iceberg side effects are the ones we know, but like any new, widely-used drug there is that other thorny class of drug effects, the Rumsfeldian "Unknown unknowns" which for GLP-1s, are undoubtedly a minefield. Before you embark on your Ozempic-trip, you have to imagine yourself staring down the barrel of a .44 magnum and Clint Eastwood saying: "Ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?" But at the same time, there seems to be a new study out every week showing GLP-1s help treat various ailments. What's going on there? Dani: Such a good question. We've seen positive data on how these drugs can help with things like sleep apnea, heart issues and kidney issues…Some think that these drugs can reduce inflammation throughout the body, which could have big benefits. But again, these drugs are pretty new, and there are many open questions. Fifth Doctor: The caveats are welcome in an ass-covering sort of way, but let's call a spade a spade. Every new study of a new drug is often little more than a marketing opportunity for the companies making them. When the manufacturers control the release of the research, ie: publishing th...

    8 min
  7. 6 DAYS AGO

    How to Build a Post-WHO Global Health Architecture

    By Roger Bate at Brownstone dot org. The United States' withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) is more than a diplomatic rupture. It creates a unique opening to rethink how global health cooperation should actually work. The real question is not whether countries should cooperate. They must. Humans matter. Health brings economic stability. Pathogens cross borders. Data sharing matters. Standards matter. Scientific collaboration matters. The question is architectural: how do we cooperate without recreating the institutional incentives that weakened trust in the first place? The WHO was established as a normative and technical body — to set standards, coordinate information, and support struggling national health systems to achieve self-reliance. It was not designed as a centralized global emergency authority. Not intended to be a perpetual role expander. but to reduce the necessity of its own existence. Yet over time, and especially during Covid-19, the emergency function came to dominate its identity. Pandemic governance, compliance frameworks, and centralized preparedness structures increasingly overshadowed the WHO's original role. This shift was not merely political. It was structural. Permanent emergency infrastructures create permanent incentives. Staff, budgets, and institutional relevance depend on the continued salience of crisis. A bureaucracy organized around exceptional events will struggle to declare normality. That is not conspiracy; it is institutional logic. At the same time, the WHO's funding model — heavily dependent on earmarked voluntary contributions — has diffused accountability and encouraged agenda distortion. When financing is fragmented and politically directed, priorities inevitably drift. Withdrawal alone does not solve these problems. Simply constructing a new institution with the same permanent emergency mandate would reproduce the same incentive distortions under a different name. While permanent disengagement amounts to self-harm. If reform is to mean anything, it must begin with functional differentiation. Certain global health functions are inherently multilateral and relatively non-controversial: disease classification, laboratory standards, burden-of-disease measurement, and the efficiencies attained by standardization of disease management across borders. These require legitimacy, transparency, and wide participation — not coercive authority. Emergency powers are different. Border closures, lockdown recommendations, stockpile deployment, and compliance monitoring directly affect domestic law, civil liberties, and economic life. These effects, like those of the target disease, vary widely between populations and demand local context. These decisions carry political consequences and must remain anchored in national accountability. Embedding such authority within permanent global bureaucracies risks normalizing emergency governance and weakening democratic oversight. Preparedness is essential. Permanent centralized command is not. A more disciplined alternative would rely on event-triggered compacts among willing states. These would activate only when predefined epidemiological thresholds are met. They would be time-limited. They would include automatic sunset clauses and mandatory post-event scientific and fiscal review. They would preserve domestic implementation authority, and work only within the fundamental human rights norms on which modern public health is supposed to be based. Such a system aligns incentives differently. It allows rapid cooperation without building a standing workforce whose institutional survival depends on crisis continuity. It implements through subsidiarity. Covid-19 revealed weaknesses not only in the WHO's performance but in the broader architecture of global health security. Expanding permanent emergency authority is unlikely to restore public confidence. Transparency, proportionality, and time-bounded and accountable authority are more likely to ...

    6 min
  8. 6 MAR

    The Three Big Lies about Mammography Screening

    By Peter C. Gøtzsche at Brownstone dot org. I dedicate this article to all women invited to mammography screening and those who love them because the public has consistently been lied to, for over 40 years. In invitations to screening, women have been told that by detecting cancers early, screening saves lives and leads to less invasive surgery. I shall demonstrate that all three statements are wrong. Women are still being told these lies, by professional associations, screening advocates, screening researchers, cancer charities, and national boards of health. The American Cancer Society declares in a headline that "Mammography Saves Lives" and claims, with no references, that results from many decades of research clearly show that women who have regular mammograms are less likely to need aggressive treatments like surgery to remove the entire breast (mastectomy). Screening Does Not Save Lives In the randomised trials of mammography screening, the risk ratio for overall mortality after 13 years of follow-up was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03) for those trials with adequate randomisation. The estimate happened to be the same for the other trials, some of which were so poorly randomised that the average age in the two compared groups was not the same, which makes an analysis of overall mortality unreliable. For two of the three adequately randomised trials, those from Canada and the UK, there are follow-up data after 25 and 23 years, respectively. The risk ratio for overall mortality was 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.03) for all three trials (both with a fixed effect and a random effects model, Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 3.0). In the table, the year means the year the trial started: This is a very strong result as it is derived from a total of 25,046 deaths. We can therefore say with great confidence that mammography screening does not save lives. If we restrict the analysis to the two trials with a very long follow-up, the result is the same, a risk ratio of 1.01 (0.99 to 1.04). Breast Cancer Mortality Is a Seriously Flawed Outcome It will surprise most people to learn that we cannot trust what has been reported in the randomised trials about the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality but this is an objective fact. A minority of the women who died were autopsied, and in several trials, cause of death was not assessed blindly. I have documented that assessment of cause of death was seriously biased. If we include all trials in the analysis, we would expect to see the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality in those trials that were most effective in lowering the rate of node-positive cancers (cancers that had metastasised) in the screened group. This was indeed the case, but the regression line was in the wrong place. It predicts that a screening effectiveness of zero (i.e. the rate of node-positive cancers is the same in the screened groups as in the control groups) results in a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality (95% confidence interval 9% to 23% reduction). This can only happen if there is bias, and further analyses showed that assessment of cause of death and of the number of cancers in advanced stages were both biased in favour of screening. Systematic reviews that include all the trials, also the poorly randomised ones, have reported that mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 16-19%. As this estimate is of the same size as the bias in the regression analysis, this suggests that screening does not lower breast cancer mortality. Another reason why breast cancer mortality is a flawed outcome is that screening leads to overdiagnosis, which is the detection of cancers and precursors to cancer (carcinoma in situ), which would not have come to the attention of the woman in her remaining lifetime and therefore would not have become a problem without screening. Since it is not possible to distinguish between harmless cancers and dangerous ones, they are all t...

    25 min

About

Daily readings from Brownstone Institute authors, contributors, and researchers on public health, philosophy, science, and economics.

You Might Also Like