In places, you're conflating the very bad meme problem, to which science itself is susceptible, with science itself. For example, the whole "fat is bad, carbs

In places, you're conflating the very bad meme problem, to which science itself is susceptible, with science itself. For example, the whole "fat is bad, carbs are good" meme was never backed up by solid science, it itself was a bad meme. > Pretty clear that most of medicine is based on fraud and regulatory capture I can't speak for you, but if I have a heart attack or cancer, I'll still go to the hospital, so it isn't as bad as you're stating. > Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. Ok, death penalty for non-triple blind is crazy. But if we're thinking of tough ideas: * Imprisonment for corporate lobbying. * Corporate dissolution for political donations or influence * Corporate dissolution for attempts to "influence science" * Corporate dissolution for PR campaigns that lied * No corporate-funded "scientific" studies should be published * The reproducibility crisis is a bad incentives problem in science and publishing. We need to change the incentives. The system needs to change to reward something like "points" where points come from publishing failure to reproduce as opposed to just the notoriety of "first to find some interesting result"