Trust the science, but I'm gonna manipulate you with emotion and sentiment \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

Trust the science, but I'm gonna manipulate you with emotion and sentiment

1218 sats \ 24 comments \ @kepford 4 Sep Politics_And_Law

Over and over again RFK triggers some of the worst responses in recent memory. It should not need to be said but I know how special people on the Internet can be so I'm gonna say it.

I'm not an RFK supporter. I'm not anti-science or anti-vax. What I am is a thinking adult that has paid attention to the world around from a very young age.

RFK is very popular. I live on the west coast and let me tell you. I have spoken with many old school liberals that love him and what he has tried to do for decades. What has he tried to do? Well, many years ago he went after corporations that polluted to excess. Back in those days he was a darling of the left and in the press (but I repeat myself). The story he tells is that a mom spoke to him at a protest about looking into the pharmaceutical industry and its refusal to look at the adverse affects of their vaccines.

I know this is hard for a lot of people but if you can't admit that ALL treatments and medications have some level or risk you should really seek help. You're lost. If you believe the majority of what the press reports you are lost. Seek help. Are all medical treatments bad? Nope. Are all news reports false? Nope. The world is complex. Its not as simple as people would have you believe.

There are these things called incentives. And they are at the root of almost everything.

Over and over again I hear and read statements meant to scare me. RFK is risking our health. Why? Because he is against the science. Or, he's cutting some funding of some miracle treatment.

I almost never hear arguments based in reason and logic. Instead we get character assignations, bromides, and emotion based stories about how someone was affected by some disease and they are fearful of what would happen if people stopped getting vaccines. Its emotion based crap.

In my experience, most people that think RFK is nuts have never actually looked at the problems in our system he has been talking about for years. Yeah, I don't buy everything RFK is pushing. I have a mind and I think for myself. But he has some strong points on the revolving door between industry and regulators. He has a strong point about how companies have been able to avoid liability. He has a strong point about freedom of choice.

May I remind people of a few things we are supposed to believe.

We have a health system built on profits. Its evil and maybe we should understand why a dude with a gun killed one of the CEOs
Large corporations are evil and they manipulate the government to their own benefit.
RFK is anti-vax
RFK is killing MRnA vaccines in favor or older technology
Older technologies do not work as well and have risks
Trust the science. And science is what the CDC, FDA, World Health say it is.

Do you see the contradictions? Honestly, I kinda feel sorry for people that just want some government entity to tell them what to do. I mean, that would be simple. It would be easier. But its not a good idea.

I'm not a fan of the state. I think its terrible. I think the FDA, CDC, and HHS should all be abolished in favor of private regulators that compete with each other and can be regulated by the public. I think every individual should be able to choose what is and is not put in their bodies.

The biggest lie in all of the pearl clutching about RFK is that before he was installed the agencies were about science. Yeah, I don't buy that. You can't be honest about how incentives work and look at the revolving door between industry and government and say that NOW its about ideology. Its laughable. And the retort is, we need to trust science. Good luck with that.

view all related items

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @test13 5 Sep

A funny story :

During the COVID days, we were hanging out at a friend’s house when another buddy of mine suddenly said, “I should go.” He didn’t mention he wasn’t feeling well—he was hiding it. I walked out with him, and the moment we stepped outside, he fainted right in front of me for about five minutes. I totally panicked, thinking it was COVID, but it turned out he just smoked too much weed and stressed himself out with all the virus talk. I gave him some water and even lent him my bicycle so he could get home. When I went back inside and told the others what happened, they also freaked out, convinced it was COVID. Everyone got so paranoid they started scrubbing and cleaning the whole house with disinfectants like crazy.

Till next day , we just started releasing things ; 😂

83 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Sep

The number of people who still believe all the Covid crap is bonkers. I have coworkers who are horrified that the boosters aren't available to young healthy adults anymore. They still say things like "I just got over covid for the fifth time. I can't imagine how bad it would be for someone who didn't have all the boosters."

The sooner public trust is lost in the CDC the better.

42 sats \ 12 replies \ @kepford OP 4 Sep

Amen.

I have a load of complaints about Trump but one of the biggest silver linings is how much he has brought the state down a peg in respectability.

We'd be far better served as individuals if we trusted politicians and government agencies about as much as we trust used car salesmen and tobacco industry executives. We've believed the lie that the private market is greed driven but the state is not driven by self interest and greed of a different sort.

105 sats \ 11 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Sep

The only problem I see with this is that I'm not sure people are learning the right lessons. Instead of learning that maybe it's not good to have such a powerful federal government, they may be telling themselves that even more authoritarianism is necessary to prevent another Trump from happening

72 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 4 Sep

The funny thing about RFK to me is that I'm skeptical of a lot of what he says. But the biggest thing, the biggest signal that there is something wrong is the reaction to him. He has some very valid points that almost never get countered. That's a red flag. A few people do counter his claims but when they do they really contradict the propaganda we are told about public health and their own statements about RFK's beliefs.

I recently saw a Bill Maher clip where he said he disagreed with RFK about vaccines but respected his balls. Apparently he's known the man for years and says he may be wrong about some things but he believes them. This isn't some act or scam. He has conviction. I believe that. That' doesn't mean he's correct but it does mean something to me.

Bottom line. I hate bullshit. I hate lies. Fauci is still a hero in many people's minds and he is one of the worst people I can think of in the last decade for what he did. I can respect people that I disagree with, but I don't respect liars. Especially not ones that deceive millions into making decisions they can't take back.

39 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 4 Sep

Fauci should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 4 Sep

Indeed.

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Sep

I don't doubt that it could go that way, but for the time being they just seem so defeated. I mean that emotionally.

I think there's still been absolutely no honest reflection about why Americans have largely rejected the modern left. All I hear is "fascism" this and "racism" that. Until they reckon with reality, they won't be a political threat.

96 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 4 Sep

I hope you're right. But Republicans certainly do their fair share of crazy which also turns people off.

74 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Sep

What they have going for them politically is that people are mostly upset at their lack of fulfilling campaign promises, whereas the Democrats are hated because they did implement their program.

It's easier to run on "We'll get it done this time." than "Please forget all the crazy shit we just did."

It should go without saying that this is not an endorsement of what Republicans want to do. Their crazy shit is just more popular than the Democrats' and it hasn't blown up in their faces yet.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford OP 4 Sep

Yep, that is the more likely outcome I'm afraid. Both sides basically want authoritarianism. They just don't admit it. I've told my more progressive friends this and they scoff at the idea.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 4 Sep

IMO, looking to government for solutions is the sign of an uncreative mind.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 5 Sep

Indeed.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @CliffBadger 5 Sep

deleted by author

2 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 5 Sep

Yeah, this does seem to be the mindset. Sadly, the reality is power is power.

47 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fenix 7 Sep

This post sums up a lot of what I think about this topic and I'm glad you wrote it. These subjects are always approached in an emotional and extreme way.

I know this is hard for a lot of people but if you can't admit that ALL treatments and medications have some level or risk you should really seek help. You're lost. If you believe the majority of what the press reports you are lost. Seek help. Are all medical treatments bad? Nope. Are all news reports false? Nope. The world is complex. Its not as simple as people would have you believe.

36 sats \ 7 replies \ @optimism 4 Sep

private regulators that compete with each other and can be regulated by the public.

Do you have some links to literature about this so I can understand your view better?

169 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 4 Sep

Not the point of my post, I hesitated to even include it. Its nothing special. Just the basic idea of market based review organizations. I don't have links handy but there are privately ran journals that often over many years have been quicker to approve both new treatments and recommend the ceasing of other treatments.

First off, if you don't recognize the problem of a monopoly group of politically motivated individuals making decisions that affect millions of people and the huge incentives that exist to manipulate and control such a group then I'm not sure if you will be open to anything else.

Currently we have a centralized monopoly that decides what should and should not be allowed. They make mistakes. That's not a crime. They are human. But if you have multiple groups that make recommendations and the technology we have today to compare their track records against one another I think we'd have a better picture of risk vs. reward. One that isn't so easily politicized and co-oped.

I'm NOT saying there wouldn't be the same incentives but rather that it would be more clear and that there would be competition. That doesn't solve the issue but it helps a ton in my opinion.

I think one of the biggest issues is the seemingly blind trust in institutions as if there are not subject to politics and manipulation by industry. The fact that these institutions have so much power is one reason they are so targeted for control.

What we are seeing now is RFK pissing off the pharma industry and the politicians they own. We are also seeing many people that still have trust in the system manipulated into a panic. Not accepting the fact that they have been trusting a system that could have been lying to them for decades. They would never know it. The average person has to be more skeptical. The world is a mess of complex things and if you decide you are gonna just trust the industry paid science and the government shills that push it you are at their mercy.

I don't think everyone down the line is corrupt. I don't think every doctor is a paid pill pusher. But some are and enough people just trust authority that its not hard to see how a system could be corrupted by monopoly and greed.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is another way this could be done but the status quo is not good. Personally, I would trust competitive agencies that were recommendation based only. Provided the companies were not protected against torts as they are today.

Hope that helps.

These books cover a more broad area but they have good resources related to this idea.

66 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 5 Sep

I largely agree with the rest of your post but I honestly never think too much about the status quo; prefer to look forward. That's why I asked about this particular sentence. I think it's clear what you're trying to relay for the rest of your post.

These books [..]

Thanks! Put "Primal Prescription" on my list!

142 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 4 Sep

Here's a more short and sweet version.

For many services today we have review sites.

Yelp
Open Table
Google

We all know they have flaws. Some are better for one thing than others. These also exist for things like supplements which are largely unregulated by the US gov.

Labdoor is the one I'm most familiar with.

The idea would be that there would be a massive market for consumer directed review sites for treatments. There would also be a huge market for a resource like this for medical professionals. The idea that something so important is best done by the state is absurd to me, but I realize it isn't to most people. I didn't always see it this way.

It might be hard to imagine but in a less centralized world I can see how companies could compete for doing testing and review or products. Today we know how quickly the market turns on a company that acts poorly. Cancel culture is toxic but the truth is that companies try to avoid bad press where they can.

I think people should trust the FDA and CDC about as much as they would trust a private company. So I'm not saying I would blindly trust the private industry. I'm saying it would be better to have options. Multiple groups competing for trust.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 5 Sep

review sites

Ah! Yes that could work, but I have 2 issues with this:

I'm a bit skeptical of reviews because many are gamed ¹
it's a surveillance nightmare

I feel we'd need something with a precise audit trail that doesn't involve people self-doxxing their medical issues. I know many good, morally grounded physicians and specialists that aren't in it for the gains, maybe there ought to be a role for them? Augmented with proper expert systems, maybe? Idk.

The idea that something so important is best done by the state is absurd to me, but I realize it isn't to most people. I didn't always see it this way.

For me personally, the problem starts with too many people, including many my age (Gen X), are expecting government to basically fix everything for them, because they voted so now fix my shit. But, as you say, the problem is often that government policy actually incentivizes much of what is wrong today, so "more government" isn't going to fix it, and "different people in government" is unlikely to either. But you or I can't make people let go of that idea, they'll have to do it themselves - I've decided long ago that all I can do is free myself from it, talk to people about it, but this won't be fixed in my lifetime. ²

I didn't see it like this in my early 20s either. I've learned a lot since.

Multiple groups competing for trust.

Or competing for results! The main issue may be the protection under the law, that's something that RFK iirc wanted to do something about.

One of my friends has a sidegig as a "professional reviewer": getting hired by manufacturers to test and write a great review, and get free products on top. You write a bad review, you're less likely to get hired. The incentives are off there too. ↩
I might get China-trolled once more now, as happens any time I write something about governance, but so be it. ↩

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 5 Sep

My description was in broad strokes. I'm sure people smarter than me would figure it out. You problems with it are valid. Obviously it would way different from simple review sites. My point is that it's not impossibly to imagine a different non-monopoly way.

The "review" sites would likely be testing / study based. Just done by an series of independent groups. Not imagining some surveillance based system on patients.

Anyway, the market has a way of coming up with creative solutions to problems.

100% agree with you on the problem. Government is expected to fix stuff a different the idea of voting to fix stuff is pretty homeless. Not sure I'd single out gen x there though. Multiple generations have had this idea.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 5 Sep

lol, I can't type on my phone. Such a boomer

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 4 Sep

Its funny. Right after I wrote this, a relevant podcast popped up. Worth a listen.

Bob Murphy Show: Ep. 441 Ray March on RFK's Disappointing Use of AI in Health Reform

Episode webpage: https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/ep-441-ray-march-on-rfks-disappointing-use-of-ai-in-health-reform

Media file: https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/546c368a-6a35-4a57-9593-3888bbf79808.mp3

Footnotes