It’s Time to Be Realistic About the Value of Popular Rationalism

We cannot afford not to invest in deep analyses.

I’ve kept Popular Rationalism completely free since day one, benefit from the 0.03% paid subscribers carrying the load for everyone.

I told myself that’s what the mission required — that rigorous, independent science analysis should be accessible to everyone. I still believe that. And I’m keeping half of what I publish free, because I meant it.

But I have to be honest with you.

The articles you’ve read here — setting the record straight, the detailed breakdowns of the CDC’s immunization schedule report, the analysis of the MAHA SNAP reforms, the point-by-point rebuttal of Scott Gottlieb’s Washington Post piece, the coverage of HHS 2026 reforms while most of the media was still asleep — none of that is quick work. It looks clean on the page because the hours don’t show. But they’re there.

I’m a scientist. I don’t publish hot takes. I publish analyses — referenced, reasoned, and built to withstand scrutiny. That takes time. A lot of it. And for years I’ve been doing it for free, on the assumption that the value would find its own way back to me.

It hasn’t. Not sustainably.

So here’s what’s changing: going forward, roughly half of what I publish will remain free to everyone — including the advocacy work, the breaking policy coverage, and anything I believe the public genuinely needs to read without friction. The other half — the deeper analyses, the future-looking analyses, the science-behind-the-headlines work — will be for paid subscribers.

A paid subscription is [$7/month or $70/year]. That’s it. No tricks. Free readers still get real content. Paid subscribers get all of it — and make it possible for me to keep producing it at this level.

I’m not asking you to pay for a newsletter. I’m asking you to invest in deep, independent scientific analysis at a moment when it has never mattered more.

If you can, I’d be grateful. If you can’t, stay. The work continues either way.

— Dr. Jack