Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

> defer extremely heavily to people who actually know about this stuff.

in a system with high regulatory capture, you would be defering your power to the industry's interests.

Which would still be better than defunding all our scientific research and telling people to eat Five Guys fries because they're fried with beef tallow.

"The experts work in the industry they are experts in" does not necessarily mean the experts are bringing incorrect information, or that the outsiders have better information.

You failed to address the capture of the experts I was referring to. Most experts have conflicts of interest, and only very few of them actually declare them.

I was pointing out that you failed to make a strong point in the first place.

Are you suggesting regulatory capture is not a thing?

Not at all. I do say there's a spectrum. I don't think everything a corporation-employed scientist does is necessarily tainted by the priorities of their employer. Similarly, I don't think every corporate priority is necessarily malicious in intent, or must come with negative societal outcomes.

You seem to come from a different presumption.

My presumption comes from direct observation. And no, I don't believe there's anything like 100% good or bad, but it's easy to understand that corruption can spread as long as there is no mechanism to stop it. In effect, there is a revolving door between the Pharma industry and the FDA, with a huge conflict of interest that is addressed by no one right now.

I'd be curious to hear how you explain things like Vioxx, OxyContin abuse, and the COVID19 vaccines that were never properly tested yet are so good for you they never cause side effects according to authorities and their producers, and are perfectly safe up to the xth injection, forever.

This is why I seek medical care at my local mechanic’s shop, and get my car fixed at the dentist’s office.

Otherwise there are too many intertwined and conflicting interests.

Or does this logic just magically not apply to things where the consequences of it are more immediately obvious?

Appointing a know-nothing conspiracy theorist doesn't have that exact issue, yes … but in a way where the cure is significantly worse than the disease.

You can cultivate state capacity and independent expertise to reduce regulatory capture, not replace it with a kakistocracy where regulatory capture is instead by woo-woo morons.

While I would agree with your overall synopsis, RFK Jr. actually has some conflicts of interest with regards to the anti-vax stuff. He directly profits from anti-vax lawsuits, and if he's in charge of the CDC and FDA he has the motivation to try and publish fake reports from (previously) respected departments.

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/22/nx...

> but in a way where the cure is significantly worse than the disease.

Since the US has by far the sickest human population on Earth (it's not even debatable), I guess the current system has been a spectacular failure. I don't think that RFK is the right answer either, but "continuing on the same path as before" is a bad idea just as well.

> independent expertise to reduce regulatory capture

What is independent expertise exactly? Where do you find virgin experts completely devoid of external influence? I have yet to meet any expert who has never had grants or speaker engagements.

So instead we should listen to the "health influencers" that surround people like RFK Jr?

Are they independent?

I'm not giving you a solution, I am simply observing that the current system is utterly broken. So continuing as is is not an option, obviously.

You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and handing control to insane people in the process.

I did not appoint RFK. So what's your solution, by the way?

> Since the US has by far the sickest human population on Earth (it's not even debatable)

I am having trouble finding evidence for this claim that you said is “not debatable”. I found some articles that the US is the sickest in the developed world, but that’s pretty different than “sickest human population on earth”.

> Since the US has by far the sickest human population on Earth (it's not even debatable), I guess the current system has been a spectacular failure

I suspect everyone affected by the sub-Saharan AIDS epidemic would disagree very strongly, even despite the improvements over the last 20 years.

More generally, the US may be an outlier among industrialised nations, but the floor for health in general is much lower than the USA.

This also means you have a long way further to fall if you allow incompetent leadership.

I don't think you will find any other country where the obesity rate and diabetes rate is as high as in the US.

USA is 13th for obesity rate according to the WHO in 2022, with Egypt at rank 12, Qatar at 11, and Kuwait at 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_r...

If you focus on obesity-related deaths, the USA is even further down the charts, as somehow even Palestine (albeit in 2021, but still) manages to get a higher percentage of those than the USA: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-deaths-obesity?t...

For diabetes rates, the USA (10.7%) isn't just lower than Egypt (20.9%), but also is also lower than Mexico (16.9%), and far short of the worst, which is Pakistan (30.8%): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/diabetes-prevalence?tab=c...

Each of Egypt, Qatar, and Kuwait are worse than the USA on both measures simultaneously.

While true, that's still an improvement on being a conspiracy theorist.

My mum was New Age type who regularly gave me homeopathic tablets labelled "sodium chloride" and "titanium dioxide", and later Bach flower remedies.

Someone in the pocket of, say, Big Tobacco is going to downplay smoking risks; but that's still not as bad as suggesting replacing all pharmacies with table salt and white sand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_hospitals_in_the_N...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com