Wow he doesn't understand the drug market, who pays, etc

Will be really interesting to see what Senators do --- their universities are a core constituency.

A perhaps more interesting question is whether one can see a measurable difference in life expectancy in populations that are explicitly anti-science (eg anti-vaxxers). My intuition is that the difference would be tiny, and perhaps take generations to manifest. But that's a perhaps worthy study.

Take a look someday at sunspot cycles vs Republicans in the Senate. I used to keep that plot on my office wall to remind me that correlation is not causation

Geez. So we know life expectancy is shorter in poor populations in the US South (vs, say, the US NE). Id be willing to bet the fraction of evangelicals is significantly higher among the poorer South than the NE. Correlation (poor or not) is not causation.

And there are a ton of atheists here in CA who are antivax.

We know, for example, that the US population in the south has a lower life expectancy than, say, the Northeast (and yes I know life expectancy is not a great measure). We also know the South has a greater preponderance of evangelicals. Correlation is not causation.

I would add that the Rs are not very convincing, and should have error bars.

That's exactly what you said. And death rates for evangelicals can be due to a ton of confounding factors. For example, a fried food rich diet. Lower income levels and hence less access to health care. The list of potential factors is long. I also know serious evangelicals who are very pro-science

The larger point is that you proposed a hypothesis: if you're anti-science you are Evangelical. I gave you 2 examples of people who clearly are anti-science and are not Evangelical. If you believe in the scientific method, as I do (I'm a PhD physicist), then your theory is refuted.

Whatever, but as I said one can clearly be anti-science and not an evangelical. In fact there's a whole philosophical movement that is a natural evolution of post-modernism that calls into question the scientific method

Seriously. RFKjr is no evangelical. Trump is no evangelical.

And then there's this:

If you had strong Parties that weren't simply rubber stamps this wouldn't be an issue. Parties used to serve as gatekeepers and had the ability to enforce both electoral viability and ability to maximize policy goals

Agreed. Every CEO and executive knows this.

That's how the Ariane rocket is spelled...

Typically for the NYT, you have to go pretty far down the article before you find out that support for the union is pretty weak, and it's a small protest that likely will have zero impact