The health of the people in our country

[PCHawk]

It sounds like most of your criticisms are of the media, and I am much more open to your points in that arena. It just seems to me that you are conflating media and the scientific community, and they are 2 completely different entities. My points were specific to the scientific community and medical communities, and I stand by those.

That said, science and medicine are practiced by humans, and humans are biased. And the academy is AT LEAST 90% liberal-leaning (more in some disciplines, slightly less in others). But I put a lot of blame on the right in this instance...it is hard to convince your adherents to go into science or academia if you are constantly spouting an anti-expertise and anti-establishment message (how oxymoronic is it that our modern "conservatives" are anti-establishment?). The homogeneity of political thought within the academy and science is a problem, though.

In my opinion the media was just the messenger. The connection of the advertising money the media gets from Big Pharma and the uniform way the media attacked subjects (in this case ivermectin) is too big to ignore. Each individual media outlet didn't decide on their own to call ivermectin horse paste. That message obviously came from somewhere. I think allowing Big Pharma to advertise is a recipe for disaster.

 

[PCHawk]

Gray areas, I suppose. I never looked at them as lies, I looked at them as over-simplifications. All science is shrouded in discussions of probabilities and uncertainties, and trying to communicate these in their fullest can lead to a jumbled message. But during COVID, some things blurred the line toward lies. There were public figures implying that those vaccinated from COVID would not get the disease, which is a ridiculous claim (even the best known vaccines don't have 100% efficacy). The vaccines have proven very effective at preventing death and hospitalization, but there is no way they could have lived up to that promise. So, I guess they were telling a lie for the greater good, which is what you have been claiming all along. I don't extrapolate that to all public health and medical messaging because I have some understanding of what goes into the process of shaping such a message, I have an understanding of supporting claims with evidence, and I think COVID was a uniquely challenging situation that these folks had to navigate. But I could easily see how much some of these actions could have destroyed trust. There were plenty in the media landscape who preyed off this distrust, making the situation even worse.

Just to be clear, I am fully aware of the possibility that the destroyed trust from covid could be clouding my judgement. I think I do do a pretty good job of staying in the lane of uncertainty instead of going full blown conspiracy theorist. I might not do a perfect job of wording my thoughts, but in my head that's where I'm at. Just very open minded to the likelihood that they're somewhere between "white lies for the greater good" and "outright liars who will make a buck at all costs".

 

[Hawkboys]

My father-in-law sewed parachutes in England for the Air Force during the Vietnam War.

Parachutes and the military industrial complex​

However sinister doctors may be, there are powers at large that are even more evil. The parachute industry has earned billions of dollars for vast multinational corporations whose profits depend on belief in the efficacy of their product. One would hardly expect these vast commercial concerns to have the bravery to test their product in the setting of a randomised controlled trial. Moreover, industry sponsored trials are more likely to conclude in favour of their commercial product,11 and it is unclear whether the results of such industry sponsored trials are reliable.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

You have to factor three things against each other to decide how worth it a vaccine is to take. 1 is how deadly the disease is. 2 is how harmful the vaccine is. 3 is how well the vaccine works to stop the disease. You need to have a pretty good idea on all three things to make a logical decision and every vaccine for every disease will have different numbers.

This is not only true, but applicable to any medical decision that you make - vaccine, medication, surgery, etc. The reality is that any healthcare decision a patient makes has a "benefit versus risk" component. That includes the decision to do nothing at all.

It's a conversation that I literally have at least 20 times a week.

In terms of research, like anything else, it requires a critical eye. It really doesn't matter if big pharma, organizations with an agenda, politicians, etc., fund or support a research project. IF the methodology, accrual, analysis, etc., is done correctly, the information is valid. The same can be said of a truism, regardless of the messenger. Just because you don't like or trust a person doesn't necessarily mean that everything they state is therefore false.

As for vaccines (and research in general), there is a distinction between the science and the way it is used and/or messaged. Calling out politicians, big pharma and lobbyists for manipulating scientific information for nefarious intentions absolutely is fair game but the science is science.

That said, I completely agree with you that the evidence that children and otherwise healthy people benefit from the vaccine is highly questionable, and that every vaccine should be judged by its own merits. Also, there is a "greater good" aspect to vaccinations. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I have many libertarian views, but some edicts make sense - I don't want to put my family in danger of small pox because a group of people are "anti-vaxxers," much like I don't want a billion people deciding to bankrupt the healthcare system by exercising their right to smoke three packs a day, live on Krispy Kreme donuts and drink a fifth of Wild Turkey every day. There has to be some degree of social responsibility.

The real question is, who decides what that level of responsibility entails?

.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

It sounds like most of your criticisms are of the media, and I am much more open to your points in that arena. It just seems to me that you are conflating media and the scientific community, and they are 2 completely different entities. My points were specific to the scientific community and medical communities, and I stand by those.

That said, science and medicine are practiced by humans, and humans are biased. And the academy is AT LEAST 90% liberal-leaning (more in some disciplines, slightly less in others). But I put a lot of blame on the right in this instance...it is hard to convince your adherents to go into science or academia if you are constantly spouting an anti-expertise and anti-establishment message (how oxymoronic is it that our modern "conservatives" are anti-establishment?). The homogeneity of political thought within the academy and science is a problem, though.

That's an interesting take. I would argue that the issue is much broader than scientists on the right not participating because they are "anti-expertise" or "anti-establishment."

For decades, academia has gradually cultivated a liberal culture that has become increasingly rigid and dogmatic. To that end, teachers and scientists with right-leaning views have been inappropriately marginalized and frankly demonized to the point where group-think has become doctrine. The end result is that not only are there fewer and fewer of those scientists, but any that exist stand little if any chance at moving up the "academic ladder."

What's interesting to me is that the anti-medical establishment for years was more on the far left. The common accusations were that corporate elites and big Pharma were not to be trusted, so don't vote for Republicans. The lady I referenced above was a staunch left Democrat. Cornel West, a self-professed "democratic socialist," is anti-vaxx, as are liberal actors Robert De Niro and Jim Carrey. I don't think you will find any of them at Trump rallies, unless they are carrying a gun...

I think the anti-vaxx reaction that swelled after Covid in large part relates to the heavy-handed approach the government took with the vaccines, especially knowing now that much of the "science" used to justify the mandates was either false (vaccine success rates) or devoid of scientific basis (masks, 6 foot distancing, etc.). Compound that with the billions of tax-payer dollars being handed over to the pharmaceutical industry, and it's not surprising that people with more libertarian-type views would migrate over to vaccine skepticism. That's very unfortunate, but at the end of the day, the culpability lies with the administration's handling of the pandemic, and the lengths that the media (social and otherwise) went to ostracize anyone who didn't toe the line.

 

[PCHawk]

That's an interesting take. I would argue that the issue is much broader than scientists on the right not participating because they are "anti-expertise" or "anti-establishment."

For decades, academia has gradually cultivated a liberal culture that has become increasingly rigid and dogmatic. To that end, teachers and scientists with right-leaning views have been inappropriately marginalized and frankly demonized to the point where group-think has become doctrine. The end result is that not only are there fewer and fewer of those scientists, but any that exist stand little if any chance at moving up the "academic ladder."

What's interesting to me is that the anti-medical establishment for years was more on the far left. The common accusations were that corporate elites and big Pharma were not to be trusted, so don't vote for Republicans. The lady I referenced above was a staunch left Democrat. Cornel West, a self-professed "democratic socialist," is anti-vaxx, as are liberal actors Robert De Niro and Jim Carrey. I don't think you will find any of them at Trump rallies, unless they are carrying a gun...

I think the anti-vaxx reaction that swelled after Covid in large part relates to the heavy-handed approach the government took with the vaccines, especially knowing now that much of the "science" used to justify the mandates was either false (vaccine success rates) or devoid of scientific basis (masks, 6 foot distancing, etc.). Compound that with the billions of tax-payer dollars being handed over to the pharmaceutical industry, and it's not surprising that people with more libertarian-type views would migrate over to vaccine skepticism. That's very unfortunate, but at the end of the day, the culpability lies with the administration's handling of the pandemic, and the lengths that the media (social and otherwise) went to ostracize anyone who didn't toe the line.

It is interesting that people in education, media, and entertainment all lean left. Is it because people with brains that make them lean left and people with brains that make them go down the career paths of education, media, and entertainment just go hand in hand? Or is it kind of a prerequisite for getting into those careers? Or maybe a combination of both?

 

[Fryowa]

There is none. End of story.

A huge part of the rise in ASD is that either it is being over diagnosed now or was under diagnosed back then, or a combination of both. Also, now the term "on the spectrum" is counted as being diagnosed. A lot of places will diagnose your child as ASD if you ask them to, along with ADHD, PANS, anxiety disorders, etc. which means money for the doctors and an incredible rise in Munchausen by Proxy.

Parents also like the fact that their kids get drugs to either feed mom/dad's jones or sell them. Just because a kid is weird or awkward doesn't mean they're ASD and believe me, as a HS teacher, it's crazy the kids that are diagnosed with things that just aren't true. My kids even say that kids fake/play up ADHD to get the meds to resell.

This is the crux.

It used to be that there were some kids (a lot of kids) who were just the "weird" kids. I can think of way over a handful in my childhood and adolescent days alone who would've been diagnosed as autistic/Asperger's, etc but they weren't. I know there are some who nowadays try to get meds, want attention, but the under-diagnosing aspect is HUGE.

In reality this type of thing (like most things in life) boils down to one or more groups choosing statistics to fit their respective points...with no regard to correlation vs causation.

I trust my gut with a lot of things in life, and even more as I get older. My gut tells me that the autism diagnosis rate is a low-hanging fruit for sensationalists to pick because they need a way to either support their conspiracist tendencies or because they lack critical thinking skills, which may or may not be their faults. Can I prove that? Nope.

But not being able to prove or disprove a point of view has been a problem with the human condition for time immemorial. That isn't going to change this millenia.

What I do know to be true is I'm not going to waste my time going to war with anyone from either side on facebook nor face-to-face. I'm 13 years away from the age my folks both were when they died, I have better shit to worry about and spend energy on in the meantime.

Support the "weird" kids better than we (I) did 20 years ago. Isn't that the important thing? Some people are soo wrapped up in being right that they don't see the real issue. I know I wasn't always a good guy to that crowd as a kid. in fact, I was the opposite of a good guy more times than I want to admit because it made me fit in with the cool crowd. Which is shitty.

 

[PCHawk]

You'd find the tucker interview podcast i posted w/ Casey Means MD very interesting. Kennedy is not an expert on what he says and why most don't take what he says seriously. Casey Means is a Standford Med grad and was in the field for like 5 years before her mission changed.

About — Casey Means MD

www.caseymeans.com

I finished it today. That should be mandatory listening for every American. I'm not sure if everything they are saying is true ( since there's money to be made speaking against the establishment too, there's motive to embellish) but some of those statistics are horrible. Even if some of what they say is embellished or outright lies, their overall message against American food is eye opening.

 

[Glass1/2fullguy]

I finished it today. That should be mandatory listening for every American. I'm not sure if everything they are saying is true ( since there's money to be made speaking against the establishment too, there's motive to embellish) but some of those statistics are horrible. Even if some of what they say is embellished or outright lies, their overall message against American food is eye opening.

Their message is the point. The question is what do we do about it. They provided some thoughts and ideas towards the end of the interview. It's interesting as i grew up in the 80-90's many people i recall smoked cigarettes. There were a ton of high schoolers and young adults who smoked cigarettes. You could smoke practically anywhere you wanted. Everywhere you turned you could find someone puffing on a cigarette. Smoking sections available at nearly every restaurant. In today's world it almost seems odd to see someone smoking; especially a young person. Obviously there are still those who choose to smoke but they pay for it. They pay for it through w/ higher insurance premiums, w/ the insane cost for cigarettes, and damage to their health. So how did we turn it around from so many people smoking 30 years ago to not many smoking today? We need to figure out a way to do w/ our food supply that which has been achieved in regards to cigarettes/smoking.

 

[PCHawk]

Their message is the point. The question is what do we do about it. They provided some thoughts and ideas towards the end of the interview. It's interesting as i grew up in the 80-90's many people i recall smoked cigarettes. There were a ton of high schoolers and young adults who smoked cigarettes. You could smoke practically anywhere you wanted. Everywhere you turned you could find someone puffing on a cigarette. Smoking sections available at nearly every restaurant. In today's world it almost seems odd to see someone smoking; especially a young person. Obviously there are still those who choose to smoke but they pay for it. They pay for it through w/ higher insurance premiums, w/ the insane cost for cigarettes, and damage to their health. So how did we turn it around from so many people smoking 30 years ago to not many smoking today? We need to figure out a way to do w/ our food supply that which has been achieved in regards to cigarettes/smoking.

The government not making it cheaper to eat shitty would be a good start.