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.
Saying "whatever ways are reasonable" is ignoring the key issues.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes that all vaccines should require placebo-blind trials to be licensed the most other drugs do.
Whether or not that's reasonable is the key question.
Beyond that, a major health problem is obesity and here semaglutide seems like it would help a lot.
Do you believe that Medicaid/Medicare should just pay the sticker price for everyone who wants it?
Surely the state of the science has advanced since this lawsuit took place.
Yes, it does. We now have meta reviews which were not common back in 1990.
Cochrane is one of the best sources for metastudies and their read of the scientific evidence for chiropractics is: "The review shows that while combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short term and pain in the medium term for acute and subacute low-back pain, there is currently no evidence to support or refute that combined chiropractic interventions provide a clinically meaningful advantage over other treatments for pain or disability in people with low-back pain."
While it's not shown to be superior to conventional treatment it's also not shown to be without effect. Given that insurance covers a variety of treatments for back pain that are just as effective as chiropractics, the AMA has been essentially shown wrong.
To me, it's quite strange to advocate "Don't Dismiss on Epistemics" while at the same time ignoring scientific meta reviews on the topic.
I simply find it interesting that people feel the need to justify their terminal goals (unless they are emotions), and that the only way they can seem to do it is by associating it with an emotion.
I don't find it surprising that when you ask people "Why do you want that?", they feel pressure to justify themselves. That seems to me the basic way normal human beings reject to social inquiries. If you ask "Why X" normal people feel pressured to provide a justification.
How do you tell that there were sharper back then?