Wikipedia currently writes "Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places on his properties to allegedly record sexual activity with underage girls of prominent people for criminal purposes such as blackmail."
This suggests that more than one underage girl was passed around. The fact that the others don't have the same courage as Virginia Giuffre to speak publically about it, does not mean that there wasn't a problem.
It does show that the system to suppress information about it is working well, which is also shown by the fact that the FBI did not lose that video stack as material for prosecuting all those people.
I submit that this industry in particular does not exist, or at least would be a terrible way to make money on a risk-adjusted basis compared to drug dealing.
The blackmail potential existing matters in addition to being directly paid. J. Edgar Hoover could be effectively blackmailed by the mafia into saying that there's no mafia by having photos of his homosexual activities, but these days that wouldn't be enough to blackmail anybody.
Understanding how organizations like Epsteins operate is hard because they do everything they can to avoid being well understood.
As far as industry goes, it's quite old but https://wikileaks.org/wiki/an_insight_into_child_porn is a good read about how child pornography worked two decades ago. It's not the same as child prostitution but it's a good article about ground realities.
If you disagree with the question, why answer deep in the comments of one answer than at the top level?
My friends were a good deal sharper and more motivated at 18 than now at 25.
How do you tell that there were sharper back then?
But surely most people realize that it would be very hard for an organized child rape cabal to spread word about their offerings to customers without someone alerting police.
Epstein seemed to run something like an organized child rape cabal and most people involved in it didn't go to prison.
The current establishment position is that it's unethical to run randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials for vaccines if there's already an existing vaccine on the market that targets a given illness. Instead, new vaccines for illnesses with existing vaccines get tested against an existing vaccine. In practice, most of the commonly used childhood vaccines in the United States fall under that category.
Those are just the basic facts of the issue whether or not you like RFK Jr. The more interesting question is about whether his policy demand of requiring randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials for each vaccine is one that should be adopted or not. And if it gets adopted what happens with existing vaccines that fail that standard.
If that's your theory of change, how do you think that communication should work? Who could be tasked with creating the right communication so that it will work?
If a product derives from Federally-funded research, the government owns a share of the IP for that product.
How would you do that in practice? Is it a matter of adding a standard paragraph to NIH grants?
Readers from backgrounds like mine may balk at "diversity" as an explicit benefit; however, diversity is vital to properly exploring the hypothesis space without the bias imposed by limited perspectives.
There are different kinds of diversity.
It seems to me like the decision of the Ida Rolf Foundation to start funding research had good downstream effects that we see in recent advances in understanding fascia. That foundation being able to fund things that the NHI wouldn't fund was important. Getting a knowledge community like the Rolfers included in academic researchers is diversity that produces beneficial research outcomes.
If you follow standard DEI criteria, it doesn't help you with a task like integrating the Rolfing perspective. It doesn't get you to fund a white man like Robert Schleip.
I would suspect that coming from a background of economic poverty means that you likely have less slack that you can use to learn about knowledge communities besides the mainstream academic community. Having the time to spent in relevant knowledge communities, seems to me like a sign of economic privilege.
Maybe, you could get something relevant by focusing on diversity of illness burden within your researcher community as people with chronic illnesses might have spent a lot of time acquiring knowledge that produces useful perspectives, but I doubt that standard DEI criteria get you there.
To the extent that our needs are "actively shoot ourselves in the foot slightly less often", there's the question of why we currently shoot ourselves in the food. I suspect it's because of the incentives that are produced by the current policies.
Why do you make that assumption? Besides the antiviral effect of it, I would expect salt water to drain H_2O from the oral mucosa. Do you think the effect is too small to matter? Do you think it's a desirable effect?