No one wants to defend JUUL at this point, it is a real struggle to defend the value of smoking cessation harm and harm reduction that e-cigarettes simply do better than gums or patches because it might implicitly help JUUL.

But there is legal jumping the shark, which JUUL would protest if they hadn't spent the last 18 months ignoring reality and insisting that their way was the right way because they made $2 billion. Instead, they are in an underground lair somewhere hiring everyone from Big Tobacco they can hire hoping this all goes away.

Glenlivet is staking its claim on young consumers who eat organic food from microwaveable pouches and might try whisky if pouring it and drinking weren't just so, you know, tedious.

It has all the right virtue signaling, for people who want their Class 1 IARC carcinogen and don't actually care about aroma. Those who claim that a special glass (wider at the bottom, to redirect the smell toward the nose) are just too pretentious for the modern age will feel right at home.

On September 30th I noticed something that I had probably been aware of for some time but which perhaps hadn't struck home so pointedly because the articles were not all in bunches. I noticed most science media is crap.

Though science journalists can lament that there aren't more science journalism jobs, that's a lot like lamenting there aren't more elevator operators. Most journalists just rehash what they got in a press release, the public can just read the press release. Or press their own floor button in the elevator.

If you are part of 350.org - hopefully not the part that endorses KKK tactics(1)- or Extinction Rebellion or whatever group will be claiming we need more violent action about climate change, this article is not for you because it discusses science, and if you are members of those groups, you don't know science any more than Discovery Institute knows evolution anyway, so you can move along.

If you care about the state of the science that can help right the ship yet are jaded by hype about how we are going extinct in 18 months (or 10 years, or 30 years), Dr. Henry Miller has a roundup of what will work, what is just political posturing masquerading as viable solutions, and what will simply increase the negative results of climate change by misdirecting resources.

Just because it is a supplement does not mean it is good for you - or in most cases necessary. And "the dose makes the poison" so even if it can't harm you at low levels (no matter what homeopaths and endocrine disruption proponents claims) it can harm you at high ones.

Vitamin D is essential but at high levels it can be toxic, which is why we have warned for years about the Vitamin D supplement fad. 

It's pretty common for politicians and the public to rant about Big Pharma but most people don't know what they are talking about. Though they say "Big Pharma" the real culprits in gouging the public are instead generic companies who bilk the public (Purdue, Mylan, etc.) even though they didn't spend a penny doing any original science.

And when it comes to people who believe in alternatives to medicine and hate the real thing, they'll throw in thalidomide. What they don't know is that thalidomide was never approved in the U.S. European doctors had been using it off-label for pregnant women and American scientists discovered it caused birth defects when Europeans wanted to sell it here.

Media are framing the reappearance of a "Spanish" Stonehenge dating back 7,000 years as a harbinger of climate change drought, and while there is plenty of reason to be concerned about emissions, this is not it.

Hyping things like this instead undermines confidence in science. But media do it every day, claiming a "bird apocalypse" last week and endocrine disruption every month before that. 

Tiger mom, sure, but don't mess with a walrus either. When a Russian navy landing boat got too close to her calves, a mama walrus sank it for them, CNN reports.  

The Russian navy did their best to salvage their pride, writing, "Serious troubles were avoided thanks to the clear and well-coordinated actions of the Northern Fleet servicemen, who were able to take the boat away from the animals without harming them."

A recent analysis of Board of Director's political makeup of S&P 1500 firms found that in 276 cases of financial misconduct, those whose members donated to conservative politicians (a reasonable proxy for their own proclivities) were 3X more likely to dismiss a CEO than liberal Boards.

The implication is that, at least when it comes to financial matters, the primary reason companies exist, conservatives will demand more ethical conduct.  The authors believe they have addressed sample‐induced endogeneity and alternative explanations with additional analyses.

If this holds up, how else might the ideology of board members influence critical actions companies take?