Do you believe the telegraph was giving telegraph operators cancer? If not, it's only because there was no Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or US Right To Know group promoting fear and doubt about it the way they do vaccines, food, and cell phones.

On May 24th, 1844 a telegram was sent from the Capitol because Samuel Morse, the inventor, wanted a government contract. Because he was diplomatic, he let the daughter of Henry Ellsworth, first Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office, draft the message. And because young people need to Live In Important Times, the message proposed by young Annie was "What Hath God Wrought.” (1)

England is in crisis. They lost a beloved figurehead this month but for decades prior were losing scientific ground. If you look for the home of the modern organic food and anti-vaccine movements, you find their nexus in 1990s England.

The primary royal behind those beliefs is now King Charles III. 

SAR, R0, these are all terms that became part of the pop culture lexicon during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, because they were used in simplistic fashion they were more helpful for those engaged in wedge politics than the public.

Part of the problem can be laid at the feet of social media. COVID-19 was the third coronavirus pandemic of the last 17 years but it was the first to truly spread worldwide and have so much concern that the country where it originated created a campaign of disinformation, and even got the World Health Organisation to be complicit. And it all happened in real time on social media.

Food fraud is common. Probably 25 percent of imported food with an "organic" label is just conventional food and even in America some organic farmers are just selling regular food. In Europe, everyone knew that Russia was not magically producing all of the organic food they were selling to France and Germany so those companies could pretend it works to feed the world.

Roundup, and its important ingredient glyphosate, act on a biological pathway only found in plants. In the American legal system, science is basically irrelevant in a jury trial, though, so anyone can sue over anything. Only in an appeal will science in science and health lawsuits be important.

Yet sometimes the science is so clear no jury outside California is so opposed to evidence that they will find harm. That is why Monsanto has prevailed for a fifth time against claims that a compound that only acts in plants magically caused someone's cancer. And the only financial victory anti-science activists and their predatory lawyers got was gutted on appeal, because judges looked at the science rather than emotion.

The standing desk fad, and disastrous future outcomes for those who followed it, happened because epidemiologists correlated sitting and 'higher risk' of death. Obviously there is a 100 percent chance of dying but correlation looks for rows of behaviors, like eating cilantro or skydiving, and disease outcomes. Find enough correlation and you can declare statistical significance. Unfortunately, you can even do that with coin flips to show coins are prejudiced against landing on heads. Or tails.