6 ms·

> 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 indus

> 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.

tombert 1y ago
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.
aredox 1y ago
[flagged]
- wand3r 1y ago
  This is one of the most darkly funny things I have read this week. Just want in the fuck is going on.
- tombert 1y ago
  Hey! I'm American and I think RFK Jr. is a moron and a dangerous person to give power with anything involving human health. Trump has never had a majority of the votes, just a plurality. The majority of voters did not want this.
  - brewdad 1y ago
    I would argue the majority of voters did actually want this. Anyone who voted third party in the presidential race was at the very least fine with this. By not casting a vote for the only person who could possibly defeat Trump, Trump became our President. They got to keep their ideological purity though. I guess that will keep them warm at night when it's their turn to get rounded up.
    - tombert 1y ago
      I think a lot of people, for reasons that will forever remain unclear to me, didn’t genuinely think Trump would do any of the stuff he said he would do. I heard a lot of people say that he wasn’t serious about tariffs for example. But I don’t want to pretend I understand what compels people to vote for people that I don’t like. Maybe the majority of people really did want to have RFK Jr. in charge all of our health stuff.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      2024 voting-eligible population: 244.6M Voted for Trump: 77.3M Voted for Harris: 75M Voted for other candidates: 2.6M Eligible to vote, but didn't vote: 90M Unfortunately, the largest constituency continues to be the "can't be fucked to vote" party.
      - tombert 1y ago
        Might be useful to put some commas or something. I thought you were saying that 244 million voted for Trump.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        Fixed. Forgot HN eats single newlines.
    - computerthings 1y ago
      [dead]
  - aredox 1y ago
    The majority of people did nothing to stop him and still, day after day, does nothing to stop him. The whole Republican party feels unthreatened enough by being voted out by "the majority of Americans" that they enable Trump. Where are your second amendment guys? Still in full support of tyranny? The only guys trying to get a shot at your politicians are psychos and dumb idiots who want to become famous. Not a single hint of politics - except as a show - in their empty head.
    - tombert 1y ago
      Most Americans have families and shit and don't want to go to jail for doing something violent towards a politician. This is, broadly speaking, a good thing, we really don't want any random schmuck vigilante to constantly attack politicians that they don't like. I'm not going to judge the majority of people for "not doing anything", because what you're suggesting would put them (and a lot of other people, some of which are innocent) at risk. I'm certainly not going to risk going to jail or facing capital punishment to hurt a politician, even if I thought it was a net good for the country. I'm definitely not a "second amendment" guy though, I don't really think most people should have guns.
      - aredox 1y ago
        >I'm not going to judge the majority of people for "not doing anything", because what you're suggesting would put them (and a lot of other people, some of which are innocent) at risk. Helloooo, have you already forgotten the topic you reply to? The guy in charge of public health want to breed bird flu. Do you think innocent people are safe?
        tombert 1y ago
        That’s not actually relevant to my point. Most people don’t want to kill politicians and I am not going to judge them for not wanting to do so. I am certainly not going to go assassinate a politician because I do not want to go to jail. I am not going to blame someone else for not doing it either, especially if that person has a family.
sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
"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.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  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.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    I was pointing out that you failed to make a strong point in the first place.
    - ekianjo 1y ago
      Are you suggesting regulatory capture is not a thing?
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        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.
        ekianjo 1y ago
        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.
elgenie 1y ago
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.
- tombert 1y ago
  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-s1-5271582/rfk-hpv-vaccine-merck https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/22/nx...
- ekianjo 1y ago
  > 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.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    So instead we should listen to the "health influencers" that surround people like RFK Jr? Are they independent?
    - ekianjo 1y ago
      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.
ben_w 1y ago
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_National_Health_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_hospitals_in_the_N...

> 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.

tombert 1y ago

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.

aredox 1y ago

[flagged]

wand3r 1y ago
This is one of the most darkly funny things I have read this week. Just want in the fuck is going on.
tombert 1y ago
Hey! I'm American and I think RFK Jr. is a moron and a dangerous person to give power with anything involving human health. Trump has never had a majority of the votes, just a plurality. The majority of voters did not want this.
- brewdad 1y ago
  I would argue the majority of voters did actually want this. Anyone who voted third party in the presidential race was at the very least fine with this. By not casting a vote for the only person who could possibly defeat Trump, Trump became our President. They got to keep their ideological purity though. I guess that will keep them warm at night when it's their turn to get rounded up.
  - tombert 1y ago
    I think a lot of people, for reasons that will forever remain unclear to me, didn’t genuinely think Trump would do any of the stuff he said he would do. I heard a lot of people say that he wasn’t serious about tariffs for example. But I don’t want to pretend I understand what compels people to vote for people that I don’t like. Maybe the majority of people really did want to have RFK Jr. in charge all of our health stuff.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    2024 voting-eligible population: 244.6M Voted for Trump: 77.3M Voted for Harris: 75M Voted for other candidates: 2.6M Eligible to vote, but didn't vote: 90M Unfortunately, the largest constituency continues to be the "can't be fucked to vote" party.
    - tombert 1y ago
      Might be useful to put some commas or something. I thought you were saying that 244 million voted for Trump.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        Fixed. Forgot HN eats single newlines.
  - computerthings 1y ago
    [dead]
- aredox 1y ago
  The majority of people did nothing to stop him and still, day after day, does nothing to stop him. The whole Republican party feels unthreatened enough by being voted out by "the majority of Americans" that they enable Trump. Where are your second amendment guys? Still in full support of tyranny? The only guys trying to get a shot at your politicians are psychos and dumb idiots who want to become famous. Not a single hint of politics - except as a show - in their empty head.
  - tombert 1y ago
    Most Americans have families and shit and don't want to go to jail for doing something violent towards a politician. This is, broadly speaking, a good thing, we really don't want any random schmuck vigilante to constantly attack politicians that they don't like. I'm not going to judge the majority of people for "not doing anything", because what you're suggesting would put them (and a lot of other people, some of which are innocent) at risk. I'm certainly not going to risk going to jail or facing capital punishment to hurt a politician, even if I thought it was a net good for the country. I'm definitely not a "second amendment" guy though, I don't really think most people should have guns.
    - aredox 1y ago
      >I'm not going to judge the majority of people for "not doing anything", because what you're suggesting would put them (and a lot of other people, some of which are innocent) at risk. Helloooo, have you already forgotten the topic you reply to? The guy in charge of public health want to breed bird flu. Do you think innocent people are safe?
      - tombert 1y ago
        That’s not actually relevant to my point. Most people don’t want to kill politicians and I am not going to judge them for not wanting to do so. I am certainly not going to go assassinate a politician because I do not want to go to jail. I am not going to blame someone else for not doing it either, especially if that person has a family.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago

"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.

ekianjo 1y ago
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.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  I was pointing out that you failed to make a strong point in the first place.
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    Are you suggesting regulatory capture is not a thing?
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      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.
      - ekianjo 1y ago
        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.

elgenie 1y ago

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.

tombert 1y ago
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-s1-5271582/rfk-hpv-vaccine-merck https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/22/nx...
ekianjo 1y ago
> 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.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  So instead we should listen to the "health influencers" that surround people like RFK Jr? Are they independent?
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    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.

ben_w 1y ago

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