I was reading somewhere recently (probably X) where people were lamenting that there's no RW version of Wikipedia. Then people pointed out that Vox Day tried to start one last decade. Don't know much about him, but the overall narrative is that RWers complain incessantly but never actually support their own parallel institutions.
Outside of news, the paper of record & historical records, there's also a huge problem with institutional capture in the hard sciences & medicine. Along with the subversion & censorship of the peer review process.
Even once you redpill professionals like frontline docs, it's a big problem when future advancements & changes to the standard of care become untethered from the scientific method.
The frontline clinician grunts actually treating the patients day-to-day have always had to rely on their "expert" academic counterparts to analyze the metadata to see which long-held beliefs & practices don't hold up to scrutiny. And which new discoveries are revolutionary vs the latest corpo slop.
Without some sort of grounding where your day-to-day guidelines aren't being rigorously tested for safety & effect, one becomes very susceptible to simply start winging it via anecdotes, profit motives, slick branding, the latest Current Thing whether it be Big Pharma or MAHA, etc.
I was reading somewhere recently (probably X) where people were lamenting that there's no RW version of Wikipedia. Then people pointed out that Vox Day tried to start one last decade. Don't know much about him, but the overall narrative is that RWers complain incessantly but never actually support their own parallel institutions.
Outside of news, the paper of record & historical records, there's also a huge problem with institutional capture in the hard sciences & medicine. Along with the subversion & censorship of the peer review process.
Even once you redpill professionals like frontline docs, it's a big problem when future advancements & changes to the standard of care become untethered from the scientific method.
The frontline clinician grunts actually treating the patients day-to-day have always had to rely on their "expert" academic counterparts to analyze the metadata to see which long-held beliefs & practices don't hold up to scrutiny. And which new discoveries are revolutionary vs the latest corpo slop.
Without some sort of grounding where your day-to-day guidelines aren't being rigorously tested for safety & effect, one becomes very susceptible to simply start winging it via anecdotes, profit motives, slick branding, the latest Current Thing whether it be Big Pharma or MAHA, etc.