Brownstone Institute
The New York Times: Latest Descent into Madness
From the Brownstone Institute
By
Sunday morning Belle and her husband drove to the emergency room at the University of North Carolina Hospital; got two rabies shots, one in each arm; and “paid $600 E.R. copays with heftier hospital bills to come.”
The New York Times really outdid itself this past weekend. On Sunday, the it published an Op Ed titled, “A Bat Flew Into My Bedroom and Reminded Me of All We Take for Granted.” I took the bait — I found the strange mix of triviality and hyperbole irresistible.

The article starts out innocently enough. A mom in North Carolina, Belle Boggs, didn’t like the oppressive summer heat and the evening news so she went to bed early. But things quickly went off the rails.
While she slept, her husband (who was working late) left a screen door open and a bat flew into the house. A light sleeper, she noticed the bat, told her husband to capture it (so that they could turn it in to the authorities!) but the bat flew away.
That should be the end of the story, right?
Nope, Belle Boggs was just getting started. She lets us know that this incident was part of a heroic journey. “What happened over the next few days restored my faith in the systems in our country that keep us safe.” What!?
I’ll let her explain:
To decide what to do next, we consulted every resource.
Richard, my husband, read the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.
I called our health care after-hours line and spoke to a nurse who also consulted the C.D.C.
We called our county’s animal control center, and an officer was at our house within 10 minutes. He searched the house and garage for bats, found none and put in a report to our county’s public health department.
Lady, THE BAT DID NOT TOUCH YOU AND FLEW AWAY.
But Belle’s undiagnosed hypochondria was now in full bloom. So on Sunday morning Belle and her husband drove to the emergency room at the University of North Carolina Hospital; got two rabies shots, one in each arm; and “paid $600 E.R. copays with heftier hospital bills to come.”
Wait, she got rabies shots because she saw a bat that flew away!? That makes no sense.
But it gets worse because she uses this harrowing tale — a bat flew into her house and then out again — to launch into a political critique!
She explains that Donald Trump and Project 2025 want to shrink the administrative state. And that is bad because the layers and layers of civil service officers (C.D.C., night nurse, county animal control center, and university hospital) are what kept her safe from this bat that flew into her house and then out again on its own without touching anyone.
She concludes the op-ed by saying that she’s supporting Kamala Harris because “I don’t want to live in a country that doesn’t hold the health and safety of its citizens in high regard, and I don’t want to be left to make important decisions without guidance from qualified professionals. But for now and for at least the next six months, I don’t. I live in the United States of America — land of bats, land of doctors, land of public health — and that’s worth fighting for.”
It apparently never occurred to Belle that these “qualified health professionals” might be part of the problem.
The crack editors at the New York Times thought this was one of the best op-eds they’d read all week so they published it in the Sunday Opinion Section read by millions of people.
II. A Technical Aside
To be clear, I take the threat of rabies seriously. According to StatNews there were 89 rabies deaths in the US from 1960 to 2018 (so, about 1.5 per year). An estimated 96% of bats don’t have rabies but the remaining 4% do, so prudence is in order. One still has to get scratched or bitten though in order to get infected and that’s extremely rare (because bats are scared of humans and try to avoid us).
What Belle Boggs and the New York Times absolutely refuse to do is to look up how many people are injured by rabies vaccines every year — that’s the information one needs in order to do a proper cost-benefit comparison.
So I went over to OpenVAERS to find the results for myself. I discovered that:
- Since 1990 there have been 6,305 VAERS reports of rabies vaccine injuries including 184 deaths.
- If one restricts the search to just the US there are 4,332 VAERS reports of rabies vaccine injuries including 9 deaths.
- Those are really high numbers of injuries given that so few rabies vaccines are administered every year (a CDC Rabies Vaccine information Statement from 2009 claims 16,000 to 39,000 people are vaccinated against rabies in the US every year as compared with over 150 million flu shots annually).
- And remember: the underreporting factor for VAERS is between 10 and 100 so the actual number of rabies vaccine injuries and deaths are likely much higher.
Furthermore, if you’re bitten, what saves your life is human rabies immune globulin (HRIG), not the vaccine (immunity to rabies from the vaccine takes much longer to develop).
So if one has not been exposed and is not in a high-risk group (bat researchers for example) the rabies vaccine is almost all risk and no benefit.
My hunch is that Belle Boggs actually got HRIG in one arm and the rabies vaccine in the other, rather than “two rabies vaccines” as she claimed — please see additional details below.
III. Takeaways
My takeaways from the article are that:
• Vaccines in general and Covid in particular broke the brains of progressives.
• These people are now completely insane.
• I should not have to explain this but you do NOT need a rabies shot if you happen to see a bat!
• Hypochondria is a serious mental illness; Belle Boggs and her husband need psychological counseling not rabies shots.
• Articles like this convince me of the urgent need to abolish the administrative state.
• The grifters in public health need to stop taking advantage of crazy Democrats who are not thinking straight.
Also, what is going on with the New York Times!? Do they really believe that a small flying mammal who made one wrong turn is equivalent to fighting a house fire with a single glass of water (as the graphic accompanying the article suggests)!?

And is this really the sort of cutting-edge journalism that they want in the Sunday Opinion section? Is everyone at the New York Times now just completely nuts?
But then there is a final twist. Longtime uTobian reader April Smith pointed out that there is a new mRNA rabies vaccine. Was this article actually paid product placement to try to get this new shot approved? Given everything we know about the New York Times seems more than likely.
I note also that the CDC recently published Rabies Post-exposure Prophylaxis which includes a dose of human rabies immune globulin (HRIG) and FOUR DOSES of rabies vaccine. Perhaps the CDC just placed the article to try to sell more product on behalf of their Pharma patrons?
Bats feed every evening at dusk where I live. They swoop and swirl eating the bugs — mosquitoes mostly. They are incredibly beautiful and they use echolocation to avoid coming in contact with us. I’ve been inside temples, caves, and archeological sites in Southeast Asia with thousands of bats and never feared for my safety. I don’t want to live in Belle Boggs’ hypochondriacal dystopia where the risks of nature are exaggerated and toxic injections are worshipped.
We are a part of nature, inseparable, and this extreme estrangement from nature is the source of so much misery. Healing from the current crisis does not require more civil servants, it requires a restored relationship with the natural world. I’m grateful for the people who understand this and are troubled by the New York Times’ brazen attempts to manufacture unnecessary anxiety and increased alienation.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Brownstone Institute
Bizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
From the Brownstone Institute
A walk through a dozen convenience stores in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, says a lot about how US nicotine policy actually works. Only about one in eight nicotine-pouch products for sale is legal. The rest are unauthorized—but they’re not all the same. Some are brightly branded, with uncertain ingredients, not approved by any Western regulator, and clearly aimed at impulse buyers. Others—like Sweden’s NOAT—are the opposite: muted, well-made, adult-oriented, and already approved for sale in Europe.
Yet in the United States, NOAT has been told to stop selling. In September 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the company a warning letter for offering nicotine pouches without marketing authorization. That might make sense if the products were dangerous, but they appear to be among the safest on the market: mild flavors, low nicotine levels, and recyclable paper packaging. In Europe, regulators consider them acceptable. In America, they’re banned. The decision looks, at best, strange—and possibly arbitrary.
What the Market Shows
My October 2025 audit was straightforward. I visited twelve stores and recorded every distinct pouch product visible for sale at the counter. If the item matched one of the twenty ZYN products that the FDA authorized in January, it was counted as legal. Everything else was counted as illegal.
Two of the stores told me they had recently received FDA letters and had already removed most illegal stock. The other ten stores were still dominated by unauthorized products—more than 93 percent of what was on display. Across all twelve locations, about 12 percent of products were legal ZYN, and about 88 percent were not.
The illegal share wasn’t uniform. Many of the unauthorized products were clearly high-nicotine imports with flashy names like Loop, Velo, and Zimo. These products may be fine, but some are probably high in contaminants, and a few often with very high nicotine levels. Others were subdued, plainly meant for adult users. NOAT was a good example of that second group: simple packaging, oat-based filler, restrained flavoring, and branding that makes no effort to look “cool.” It’s the kind of product any regulator serious about harm reduction would welcome.
Enforcement Works
To the FDA’s credit, enforcement does make a difference. The two stores that received official letters quickly pulled their illegal stock. That mirrors the agency’s broader efforts this year: new import alerts to detain unauthorized tobacco products at the border (see also Import Alert 98-06), and hundreds of warning letters to retailers, importers, and distributors.
But effective enforcement can’t solve a supply problem. The list of legal nicotine-pouch products is still extremely short—only a narrow range of ZYN items. Adults who want more variety, or stores that want to meet that demand, inevitably turn to gray-market suppliers. The more limited the legal catalog, the more the illegal market thrives.
Why the NOAT Decision Appears Bizarre
The FDA’s own actions make the situation hard to explain. In January 2025, it authorized twenty ZYN products after finding that they contained far fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes and could help adult smokers switch. That was progress. But nine months later, the FDA has approved nothing else—while sending a warning letter to NOAT, arguably the least youth-oriented pouch line in the world.
The outcome is bad for legal sellers and public health. ZYN is legal; a handful of clearly risky, high-nicotine imports continue to circulate; and a mild, adult-market brand that meets European safety and labeling rules is banned. Officially, NOAT’s problem is procedural—it lacks a marketing order. But in practical terms, the FDA is punishing the very design choices it claims to value: simplicity, low appeal to minors, and clean ingredients.
This approach also ignores the differences in actual risk. Studies consistently show that nicotine pouches have far fewer toxins than cigarettes and far less variability than many vapes. The biggest pouch concerns are uneven nicotine levels and occasional traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, depending on manufacturing quality. The serious contamination issues—heavy metals and inconsistent dosage—belong mostly to disposable vapes, particularly the flood of unregulated imports from China. Treating all “unauthorized” products as equally bad blurs those distinctions and undermines proportional enforcement.
A Better Balance: Enforce Upstream, Widen the Legal Path
My small Montgomery County survey suggests a simple formula for improvement.
First, keep enforcement targeted and focused on suppliers, not just clerks. Warning letters clearly change behavior at the store level, but the biggest impact will come from auditing distributors and importers, and stopping bad shipments before they reach retail shelves.
Second, make compliance easy. A single-page list of authorized nicotine-pouch products—currently the twenty approved ZYN items—should be posted in every store and attached to distributor invoices. Point-of-sale systems can block barcodes for anything not on the list, and retailers could affirm, once a year, that they stock only approved items.
Third, widen the legal lane. The FDA launched a pilot program in September 2025 to speed review of new pouch applications. That program should spell out exactly what evidence is needed—chemical data, toxicology, nicotine release rates, and behavioral studies—and make timely decisions. If products like NOAT meet those standards, they should be authorized quickly. Legal competition among adult-oriented brands will crowd out the sketchy imports far faster than enforcement alone.
The Bottom Line
Enforcement matters, and the data show it works—where it happens. But the legal market is too narrow to protect consumers or encourage innovation. The current regime leaves a few ZYN products as lonely legal islands in a sea of gray-market pouches that range from sensible to reckless.
The FDA’s treatment of NOAT stands out as a case study in inconsistency: a quiet, adult-focused brand approved in Europe yet effectively banned in the US, while flashier and riskier options continue to slip through. That’s not a public-health victory; it’s a missed opportunity.
If the goal is to help adult smokers move to lower-risk products while keeping youth use low, the path forward is clear: enforce smartly, make compliance easy, and give good products a fair shot. Right now, we’re doing the first part well—but failing at the second and third. It’s time to fix that.
Addictions
The War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation
From the Brownstone Institute
Cigarettes kill nearly half a million Americans each year. Everyone knows it, including the Food and Drug Administration. Yet while the most lethal nicotine product remains on sale in every gas station, the FDA continues to block or delay far safer alternatives.
Nicotine pouches—small, smokeless packets tucked under the lip—deliver nicotine without burning tobacco. They eliminate the tar, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens that make cigarettes so deadly. The logic of harm reduction couldn’t be clearer: if smokers can get nicotine without smoke, millions of lives could be saved.
Sweden has already proven the point. Through widespread use of snus and nicotine pouches, the country has cut daily smoking to about 5 percent, the lowest rate in Europe. Lung-cancer deaths are less than half the continental average. This “Swedish Experience” shows that when adults are given safer options, they switch voluntarily—no prohibition required.
In the United States, however, the FDA’s tobacco division has turned this logic on its head. Since Congress gave it sweeping authority in 2009, the agency has demanded that every new product undergo a Premarket Tobacco Product Application, or PMTA, proving it is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” That sounds reasonable until you see how the process works.
Manufacturers must spend millions on speculative modeling about how their products might affect every segment of society—smokers, nonsmokers, youth, and future generations—before they can even reach the market. Unsurprisingly, almost all PMTAs have been denied or shelved. Reduced-risk products sit in limbo while Marlboros and Newports remain untouched.
Only this January did the agency relent slightly, authorizing 20 ZYN nicotine-pouch products made by Swedish Match, now owned by Philip Morris. The FDA admitted the obvious: “The data show that these specific products are appropriate for the protection of public health.” The toxic-chemical levels were far lower than in cigarettes, and adult smokers were more likely to switch than teens were to start.
The decision should have been a turning point. Instead, it exposed the double standard. Other pouch makers—especially smaller firms from Sweden and the US, such as NOAT—remain locked out of the legal market even when their products meet the same technical standards.
The FDA’s inaction has created a black market dominated by unregulated imports, many from China. According to my own research, roughly 85 percent of pouches now sold in convenience stores are technically illegal.
The agency claims that this heavy-handed approach protects kids. But youth pouch use in the US remains very low—about 1.5 percent of high-school students according to the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey—while nearly 30 million American adults still smoke. Denying safer products to millions of addicted adults because a tiny fraction of teens might experiment is the opposite of public-health logic.
There’s a better path. The FDA should base its decisions on science, not fear. If a product dramatically reduces exposure to harmful chemicals, meets strict packaging and marketing standards, and enforces Tobacco 21 age verification, it should be allowed on the market. Population-level effects can be monitored afterward through real-world data on switching and youth use. That’s how drug and vaccine regulation already works.
Sweden’s evidence shows the results of a pragmatic approach: a near-smoke-free society achieved through consumer choice, not coercion. The FDA’s own approval of ZYN proves that such products can meet its legal standard for protecting public health. The next step is consistency—apply the same rules to everyone.
Combustion, not nicotine, is the killer. Until the FDA acts on that simple truth, it will keep protecting the cigarette industry it was supposed to regulate.
-
armed forces1 day agoIt’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
-
Daily Caller2 days agoMcKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections, predicting fossil fuels will dominate well after 2050
-
Business2 days agoTrump: Americans to receive $2,000 each from tariff revenue
-
Business2 days agoCarney’s Floor-Crossing Campaign. A Media-Staged Bid for Majority Rule That Erodes Democracy While Beijing Hovers
-
Housing2 days agoTrump advancing 50-year mortgage to help more Americans buy homes
-
Business21 hours agoLiberals refuse to disclose the amount of taxpayer dollars headed to LGBT projects in foreign countries
-
International2 days agoBBC boss quits amid scandal over edited Trump footage
-
Daily Caller13 hours agoUS Nuclear Bomber Fleet Shares Fence With Trailer Park Linked To Chinese Intel-Tied Fraudster







