Two of the six are anti-vaxxer assertions that sound scientific studies debuking the pseudo-scientific claim of a link between vaccinations and autism are "BOGUS" or "lies"; one is a claim that diet can cure cancer, a belief common among even educated Russians, adherence to which killed the wife of a colleague of mine who could have, if not been cured, at least lived a lot longer, had her breast cancer been treated with modern western medical techniques; one is indeed a bogus claim about the Human Genome Project, that seems to be an invention of the authors; one, which does call foul on dubious science (climate modeling) has nothing to do with medicine; leaving the question of whether microcephaly rates observed in areas affected by Zika are due to Zika or a pesticide used extensively in the regions where the link was observed to suppress mosquitoes as the sole position relevant to medicine that the article takes which might have merit, though to decide this requires a good deal more epidemiological research.
Why exactly did you post this?
Opposition to the left's program to extend government control over the energy sector on the basis of hysterical claims made by climate modelers does not benefit from association of the climate realist position with the sort of pseudo-science represented by the bulk of this article, and no one is edified by reading false medical claims, so why are you giving it more clicks?
