Sources
Loading...
Additional media
Loading...
DeepNewz, mobile.
People-sourced. AI-powered. Unbiased News.
The Supreme Court has disempowered public health agencies and devalued science, raising concerns about the future of public health in the United States. This decision is linked to the Braidwood Management Inc v Becerra case, which involves conflicts between the intent of Congress, public health, and the law, and poses risks to the USPSTF. Additionally, the FDA's new mandate for diversity action plans in clinical trials has sparked debate over whether focusing on enrollment quotas could lead to tokenistic efforts. Experts, including Gregory Curfman, argue that modern medicine should rely on good scientific studies rather than medical dogma.
My (non-expert) prediction: the public health field as we knew it is dead. Trust can't be sufficiently revived. How do we address communicable disease after its funeral? Perhaps something like "evidence-based wellness" emerges as a new discipline & MPHschools teach science>dogma? https://t.co/EjmHAOSKbn
In this Viewpoint, @ProfCRobertson and JAMA's @KBibbinsDomingo and Gregory Curfman discuss the Braidwood Management Inc v Becerra case and how the intent of Congress, the health of the public, and the law may come into conflict and the risks to the USPSTF. https://t.co/f1msSjNRSX https://t.co/EAQDMCzOZ9
The Supreme Court Disempowers Public Health Agencies and Devalues Science https://t.co/b3TyTKYDxq
