Who benefits from the MAHA anti-science push?
126 comments
·October 22, 2025vvpan
vitalredundancy
The distinction that there are separable and unrelated domains of knowledge and activity is a kind of Fordism of the mind that our current society has impressed upon us. It's artificial to not talk about politics in the same breath as science, since science and technology produce the resources that make our political process for distribution of those resources necessary. I think this is a correction for an aberrant distinction in our thinking.
thaw13579
It's especially hard given that big tech companies and their leaders are working closely with government and explicitly supporting certain political missions, there are few truly apolitical corners of tech now.
Rebuff5007
> That it has kept politics unrelated to tech out is a great achievement
I see your point, but is it an achievement? Is there not some amount of civil rights abuse or a breakdown of society that would warrant discussion on all possible spaces?
I say this as someone that feels conflicted to see a daily twitter feed of tech leaders celebrating the performance of their favorite LLM breaking some new record when citizens and residents are being detained or discriminated against in violent and appalling ways... sometimes just meters from a fancy tech office!
tinfoilhatter
Many of those tech "leaders", who are celebrating the performance of their favorite LLM are also large donors to politicians who are enabling the violent abuses of power you mentioned. I don't feel conflicted, because we're seeing exactly what they want to play out, play out.
Esophagus4
Can I make a distinction of separating politics (especially US politics) from current affairs?
Shining a light on current affairs, sure. It’s nice to engage with those on this site. I get just as tired of seeing the same posts about LLMs and the Ai BuBbLe as you do. And there are some political stories that are probably worth the real estate here.
But where I’ll draw a distinction is that there will always be a political story grabbing attention on social media. And someone will always be outraged enough about it to deem it important enough for your outrage as well.
For example, I’m sure there are people who would say this is important news: “politician responds to other people who respond to Trump’s ballroom construction”[1].
If we don’t have some line on politics specifically (because that has proven to be engagement-bait high-sugar content for the internet), we will end up with a lot of low quality content here and less interesting / focused discussion with the people that make this site interesting.
Someone will always think every political story is important enough for discussion, but I think it’s healthy to keep HN free of most of it. Most of the low hanging, high-sugar fruit, at least.
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5566872-donald-trump-whi...
ChrisRR
I really hope it doesn't become the norm. Check r/technology on reddit and it's 90% US politics posts
bix6
I understand the frustration but the people on this board have real ability to make change so I think it’s worthwhile.
oceanplexian
I guess doctors, scientists, and politicians are going to need to stop pretending COVID never happened then and acknowledge the massive loss in public trust that resulted in the pendulum swinging the other way.
I'm talking the mandates pushed by "experts" to force young K-12 students (Like my sister) into remote schooling that had profound impacts on their social life and education. Or when California arrested people for going to a beach or a public park based on the advice of their respective health experts. Or when Nevada closed Churches, but not Liquor Stores and Pot Dispensaries, because the experts had decided Constitutional Rights weren't an essential activity.
Perhaps when those mistakes are acknowledged things can go back to normal.
vunderba
There's a reason that churches were closed. It's an event which encourages lots and lots of people to gather in close proximity for an extended duration of time at the same time.
Remember this?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/coronavirus-washington-cho...
verall
A church is literally a place for mass assembly, while a liquor store or dispensary can easily be configured for social distancing, i.e. only let up to N customers in the store at a time depending on the size.
But just think how good of a talking point this is!
Bad government stop CHURCH allow LIQUOR and DRUGS! Want to corrupt your CHILDREN, steal them from GODS arms and deliver to SATAN!
oceanplexian
Public figures never had a problem with mass assembly.
That's why the Governor of California wined and dined at the French Laundry restaurant in violation of his own COVID protocols at the height of the pandemic. Or why public figures encouraged people to attend large protests. It's pretty obvious in retrospect that they were playing fast and loose with the science for entirely political reasons.
onewheeltom
Dying of Covid is worse than a bad impact to social life and education.
ceejayoz
> Or when Nevada closed Churches, but not Liquor Stores and Pot Dispensaries, because the experts had decided Constitutional Rights weren't an essential activity.
People die from alcohol withdrawal, and dispensaries are medical care for a lot of folks.
mindslight
> People die from alcohol withdrawal, and dispensaries are medical care for a lot of folks.
This is the exact type of argument that merely helped to inflame the debate.
The real distinction is that church services are mass gatherings of people, whereas liquor and pot are retail establishments that only serve a few people at a given time. Stores can institute policies to make people come into even less contact - whereas for churches the mass of people coming together is intrinsic.
The original argument fallaciously skips over that actual reality, and frames it as if public health administrators are godless heathens more interested in people getting their weed and booze than people going to church. Your counter argument, despite being technically correct, actually buttresses support for the original one.
redserk
Who’s pretending COVID didn’t happen?
quentindanjou
I think it was more meant as the society is ignoring it like a trauma that no one wants to talk about. This results in missing learnings on decisions that were taken back then.
hyperhello
It's a series of large-scale distractions while they steal from the Treasury to support their power games.
Uehreka
I wish people would stop with the whole “X is a distraction from Y” thing. It’s too optimistic: It makes it sound like the reason people aren’t “doing something” about Y is because they’re distracted by X, when in reality people have no ability to stop X or Y and are just helplessly and knowingly watching both happen.
deepfriedchokes
I think it’s much simpler than that.
It’s just a bunch of power games by individuals with NPD engaging in elite overproduction.
hyperhello
Does graduating college really make you elite?
msla
No, it's what they actually want.
Destroying vaccines, for example, is something they've wanted for a long time.
They're not masterminds. They really are this crazy.
aswegs8
It's about disillusion with everything that is established. It has a strategic component to it as well, sowing chaos to upend the power structures and overtake them. Contrarian thinking in all domains, challenging something as foundational as the scientific method, even. This is the moment of postmodernism, just for the political right.
woooooo
Is it a long time for the vaccine thing? I thought anti-vax was a California vaguely hippie-ish thing in the 90s. It's actually weird that conservatives picked it up. I guess the throughline is being anti-flouride in the 60s?
mindslight
Trumpists aren't actually deserving the label "conservative". They're the complete opposite - a mashed together hodgepodge of anti-everything grievance politics. Trump's main feature is a stream of drivel that sounds honest, opinionated, and assertive if you only listen to part of it. If you try to listen to everything he says and logically reconcile the statements, it's all contradictory. The only consistency is that grievance emotion. So it has created a big tent of follower-type people who value emotion over intelligence (think the stereotypical mind-blown hippie, man), from all sorts of (what are effectively) counter cultures. It doesn't matter that they aren't implementing good solutions, and that a lot of time there aren't any good solutions. The followers are just happy "someone is talking about it [, man]".
ge96
But they ironically also take the vaccines (recent reference)
hyperhello
I don't know about that. Does a schizophrenic "really want" to stop the CIA from implanting bugs in their teeth?
I think there are a hugely under appreciated percentage of people who are essentially fantasy based too. They've been encouraged to pick a cause, some of them decide that they know the secret that scientists are using vaccines to control the population or something.
If you talk to them they won't give you any more of a rational defense than the tooth bug guy. RFK Jr is just another resource Trump and the Republicans use to distract and degrade anyone in their way.
treetalker
To answer the question posed in the title: Russia and China, for two.
Herring
And Republicans! Damaged/hurt/frightened humans tend to vote for right wing and fascists. This is because going left wing is expensive, it requires time to know, like and trust your neighbors.
mlinhares
These folks are all selling supplements or some other quackery, they profit from it.
EvanAnderson
Since I feel powerless to stop it I wonder if I should shift my portfolio to the funeral industry and try to profit from it.
I'm only kind of joking.
dataviz1000
From the front page of Bloomberg today
> "Disaster Spending Has Become an $8 Trillion Engine for US Growth"
ge96
Hello Tech Crunch, we'd like to present our coffin made out of recyclable cardboard, buy it in bulk for your whole family for a discount
redserk
For TechCrunch you need to latch onto at least a few trends.
For example: Medium Memories is introducing an AI-enabled coffin personalized to the relationship between you and your late-loved one. Medium provides you an always-on cloud-connected camera to ensure you won’t have to lose sight of those who matter to you. Medium Plans start at $2.99/mo for 60 minutes of AI-enabled talk time a month. Here’s our interview with founder Bamuel Saltman.
Apreche
Prior to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) it was mostly illegal to sell dietary supplements that weren’t legitimate. You couldn’t have homeopathy on the shelves at a drug store since it wouldn’t get through FDA approval. You couldn’t put so-called structure/function claims on the box such as ”for flu symptoms“ either. You couldn’t even do things like sell smoothies and claim that they boost the immune system.
Once the DSHEA passed, snake oil was back on the menu. It has now become a multi-billion dollar industry. If science and facts win out, a lot of people stand to lose a lot of money.
jeffbee
There don't have to be beneficiaries driving it. RFKj is an actual eugenicist. He's not doing it for hidden reasons. He's doing it because he thinks your child who does not survive measles should have died because that's the better outcome.
cool_man_bob
Why did he not treat his brain parasites the same?
busssard
the eternal struggle of big corporations lobbying. Before it was big pharma now its big supplement.. in the end the consumer gets the stick
graybeardhacker
Saying "Everyone but me is lying to you." to ignorant people who are already suspicious of corporations and science is a simple way to consolidate power.
Once power is consolidated, you can then get paid by any snake oil salesman to say their snake oil is the best.
exrhizo
Raw milk doesn't seem to me the most anti science thing to me
But I believe the premise that financial interests aren't being challenged
shrubble
It’s scientifically valid to want to drink raw milk in some cases.
However pasteurized milk allows for factory production and raw milk does not. That’s the real reason why it’s banned.
The same government that banned raw milk allows Doritos to be sold in the billions and even bought with Snap/EBT, btw.
oceanplexian
Imagine believing articles like this and thinking somehow allowing a product that's legal in most advanced European countries is "Anti science"
ceejayoz
Now ask yourself why.
Their farms can’t get away with the same conditions we put American cows in. Because of regulation.
Same reason chicken sashimi can be safe in Japan.
hshdhdhj4444
What’s the scientific reason to choose raw milk over pasteurized milk?
dpc_01234
It has nothing to do with science really. I don't think "pro-raw-milk people" question safety benefits of pasteurization or doubt germ theory. It's only about people's lack of nuance, totalitarian ambitions and safetism. Some people just can't help but make decisions for other people because they think they are smarter and know better. Ban, ban, unsafe, ban, I know better. The idea that consuming raw milk is somehow "unscientific" is plain stupid and/or propaganda. All I want is to enjoy the taste of raw milk from time to time, I know how germs work, I'm not forcing anyone to drink it, but I'll be fine, please worry about yourself.
I would even appreciate government making sure that companies selling raw milk to me are taking additional (but reasonable) precautions. But anyone just trying to ban raw milk for being unsafe and "unscientific" is just stupid.
ceejayoz
> I don't think "pro-raw-milk people" question safety benefits of pasteurization or doubt germ theory.
The HHS Secretary of the United States does. https://www.wsj.com/health/rfk-jr-what-is-terrain-theory-66b...
troyvit
That's a really good way to put it. I'll add that in my experience with raw milk, while I can still taste the taste I also think fondly about the relationship I had with the farmer and even (once or twice) the help I got to give at the farm.
nullocator
How many human lives are worth the cost for you to enjoy the taste of raw milk that has been distributed across state lines from time to time? If possible please answer both in terms of acceptable deaths, but also in terms of hospitalization cases that did not result in death.
If banning the sale of raw milk saves a life is it still stupid and unscientific? What if it saves 10,000? A million?
People act like these things are a personal attack on them and their freedoms. Like they happened in a vacuum. Like a bunch of bros got together in the 40s - 70s and thought to themselves, "how can we deny future raw milk aficionado dpc_01234 his druthers decades from now". Pay no mind to the thousands of lives that could be saved from terrible diseases like tuberculosis.
This type of thinking and commentary (propaganda?) just constantly being thrust into the world is not only ignorant but it's dangerous. Good luck to you and yours man, I hope the worst that happens to you from this willful lack or regard for both science and history is the inevitable food poisoning you'll get from blindly ignoring food safety because "germ milk yummy".
underlipton
My understanding is that pasteurization denatures enzymes that would otherwise make the milk easier to digest. Which is true.
The problem is that the stringent production standards that would be required to make raw milk "safe" are incompatible with factory production and the profit motive. Unless you're personally vetting the sterilization of everything the milk comes into contact with and its immediate cooling to a temperature non-conducive to bacterial overgrowth, you probably shouldn't drink it.
throwaway091025
Maybe the fact that your mother didn't pasteurize her milk when you were a child?
ceejayoz
Pasteurization was discovered in 1860s, so she probably didn't have to. It was made mandatory starting in the late 1940s in the US.
Prior to that, a whole bunch of folks got TB from it. Here's a PSA about making milk safe for babies from 1912; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Give_The_Bottle-Fed_...
If you're referring to breast milk, your mother probably wasn't raised in a dairy farm.
deepanwadhwa
Are you directly sucking the cow? If yes, I'd support you drinking raw milk.
null
spacechild1
> her milk
Are you seriously equating breast milk with cow milk? Or did I misinterpret your post?
null
Refreeze5224
It is if you don't understand the germ theory of disease, and how many bacteria can be present in raw milk. There is a reason that pasteurization was revolutionary, and it's because it caused fewer people to die.
If you don't understand the science behind pasteurization, you should absolutely "trust the experts", aka scientists, or if you prefer, trust the old wisdom of previous generations who knew the value of pasteurization and watched people die of preventable illnesses before it came along.
dpc_01234
The biggest benefit of pasteurization is extending the shelf life, which is important in an industrialized economy. Dying due to consuming raw milk was not a problem, at least until milk had to be shipped long distances.
WorldMaker
Not just distance, but time. If you try to keep milk around for any amount of time after milking the cow, you run risks like Bird Flus and TB and other disease contaminants.
Which is also why in the other direction cheese was invented for time stability of milk.
Palomides
this is a shockingly false thing to see someone say, I have family members who have died due to drinking milk from their own farm
pasteurization and vaccination are the crown jewels of modern civilization
mtrovo
Really depends on the country and the access to clean processes between milking a cow and your glass tho.
Kind of related I was really shocked when I saw people eating raw pork mince in Germany when I lived there. My first reaction is that I would never do that based on my upbringing but if natural selection is a thing it's working fine for them I guess.
Refreeze5224
But it's not dependent on the country in this case, it's the US we're talking about. And I absolutely would not trust the US dairy industry to be able to properly produce and sell pathogen-free milk without pasteurization. And I would assume they don't want the liability of selling it anyway, most people and companies avoid selling things that can kill you if possible.
throwaway091025
It's funny, a tradition in European countries is to eat raw minced beef, but offer them a medium rare steak and they wince at the 'blood'.
loourr
Believing that one should be able to consume raw milk is not anti-science. Yes pasteurization kills bacteria that can be present in milk which can cause serious harm and also it kills bacteria that can be positive and people should have the right to choose to consume it and sell it with proper disclosures.
TeeMassive
I never understood the fear of raw milk. The best cheese are made with raw milk. I don't understand how it can't be safe when both the cow and the milk are tested for disease and bad germs.
hydrogen7800
Isn't cheese making just an old process of preserving milk for later consumption, which removes moisture and thus the environment for harmful bacteria?
nerdjon
By that logic I don't understand why you don't just drink raw sewage instead of waiting for it to be processed and made safe.
The act of making cheese is processing the raw milk. Fun fact Pasteurized milk was also once raw.
Same with meat but basically no one advocates eating raw chicken.
Why am I explaining that things change from a raw to a processed state and becomes safe to consume...
lukeinator42
I really wish I could buy raw milk for hobby cheesemaking. I'm in Canada where the laws are really restrictive.
rkomorn
Aren't cheeses made from raw milk cultured, and usually cure for a long enough time that bacteria does not survive?
mondainx
Not the most anti-science, but clearly foolish. The safety of humans consuming raw-milk was solved long ago by Pasteur. Its all part of the dumbing-down section of the control the people handbook.
WorldMaker
Pasteurization has been settled science since the 1860s. It's benefits are extremely well known and well studied. We understand the contamination issues it solved in trying to sell things across large distances and/or from grocery shelves that may take some amount of time to sell. We see those contamination issues in "Raw Milk" sales, exactly as predicted.
It seems pretty anti-science to me, going against such foundational food and health science.
It also seems directly related to anti-vax anti-science efforts because Louis Pasteur was also a critical early scientist involved in vaccines (through efforts against Cholera and beyond).
xhkkffbf
I think it's wrong to think of MAHA as "anti-science" because science is all about questioning. Something as important as medicine should be questioned and questioned again and again. Simply dismissing them out-of-hand with such a term is more anti-science than what they're doing.
Now having said that, it's perfectly fair to criticize some of their assumptions and methods. The article, for instance, talks about raw milk. Pasteurization seems like a smart idea to me, but to assert that anyone who drinks raw milk is "anti science" is wrong. They're just approaching science differently.
stetrain
Asking questions doesn't mean making policy changes or public health announcements before you have any answers.
It's important to understand that some people use "healthy skepticism" and "I'm just asking questions" as a cover screen to promote their desired policy. That isn't the scientific method.
woooooo
I hear you and I once cringed at a "believe in science" sign at a liberal protest.
But science is about questions demanding proof and rigor, verification, reproducible results. It's not about blindly saying "Yeah my questioning makes a bunch of unsupported claims equally valid".
ceejayoz
> I think it's wrong to think of MAHA as "anti-science" because science is all about questioning.
There's a lot more to science than just questioning, and the MAHA folks have little interest in questioning their own unfounded beliefs.
nxor
[flagged]
Hacker News is a little hard in these times. That it has kept politics unrelated to tech out is a great achievement, but as scientific method is being equated to flat-earth thinking by elected leaders talking about what's new in Rust seems off.