Okay but surely we can agree that the appropriate response to "legitimate medical community"'s failings shouldn't be RFK, nor should opposition to RFK be conditional on "look in the mirror, reflect on how he happened ..."? I agree such reflection should happen, but the "but before that happens ..." wording is bizarre. It's like having some domestic terrorist kill a CEO, and then responding to that with "before we can stop domestic terrorism, corporate america must look in the mirror about how it failed rural white blue collar workers in appalachia or whatever"
> but the "but before that happens ..." wording is bizarre
Biden was very much a status quo president who didn't do much to fix underlying problems. The result was the protest vote winning again.
Building things takes time, destruction does not. The protest vote was in favor of destruction.
I don’t think Biden was status quo so much as he led a deliberate and traditional administration.
In my opinion, 2nd term Trump is at least 10x worse than the first term.
Also, this is usually the case with any president because they are only focused on doing doing things in their first term that will get them reelected. Then all bets are off on the second term because who cares about ratings.
Keep RFK in place until the entire health sector completes an excercise in introspection?
“ Along with being more educated and reporting poorer health status, the majority of alternative medicine users appear to be doing so not so much as a result of being dissatisfied with conventional medicine but largely because they find these health care alternatives to be more congruent with their own values, beliefs, and philosophical orientations toward health and life.”
This! The amount of clinicians I know who simply read the abstract of a case study, with no real statistical interpretation of results, is a non-zero number.
Whenever I see some hyped up popular press article about a scientific study, my immediate reaction is to go to the primary literature. First, I read the study design and analysis methods, then I determine if its even worth continuing to read the rest. Study pre-registration should be a must and papers need to be more explicit about being exploratory when the sample size dictates it.
Agreed.
Furthermore, the CDC under both parties of capital interests has blood on their hands from the blatant COVID mishandling under multiple administrations, among other things:
https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co...
Until the root causes of this rot are targeted, symptoms like rotating-villain RFK Jrs are going to keep grabbing headlines while societal conditions continue to deteriorate.
TheGauntlet.news here has several well-written articles about what went wrong with the US’s response to COVID.
It’s like someone swept their arm across the kitchen table, tossing of all the junk, and said “let’s just lay out everything we know about how COVID went/is going, but only put down the science based and common sense stuff.”
I was trying to convince people to use real masks instead of surgical masks since basically day 1. I understand that at first there was a shortage of N95s, but not for that long. I totally agree with the article that it quickly became “I don’t wanna”.
But I never thought fully about what it would have been like, to be a parent that HAD to take a sick child to the hospital for treatment unrelated to Covid, and see lots of doctors and nurses wearing surgical masks when they could have been wearing 95s. That would have been infuriating.
And one of the articles also had great info on the fallacy that “getting COVID multiple times is good for children’s immune systems” type messages. It is becoming clear that is not true at all.
Really great, critically important journalism there!