4 ms·

What's crazy here is that FDA finally has a great head who actually tries to speed things up using Bayesian data modeling and understands drugs quite well (Mart

What's crazy here is that FDA finally has a great head who actually tries to speed things up using Bayesian data modeling and understands drugs quite well (Marty Makary) and does everything to make drug approval process cheaper and more efficient without compromising safety. Unfortunately it seems like this decision was overwritten by his boss for political a win.

nielsbot 8mo ago
> Unfortunately it seems like this decision was overwritten by his boss for political a win. I think RFK is actually mentally damaged. He's been on his "do your own research" anti-vax crusade forever.
- kelipso 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - archagon 8mo ago
    Unfortunately, “do your own research” is de facto shorthand for “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
    - ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
      There's a good standup bit out there: we used to have a word for "doing your own research": reading! Now everyone gives you shit for it.
      - archagon 8mo ago
        Reading is worthless if you don't vet your sources. Encyclopedia Britannica and Uncle Johnny's Chemtrail Digest are not equally valid sources of truth.
        ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
        And there's the actual hard part: institutional trustworthiness is in the shitter. Everyone will have their sources that they trust, and if were honest, none of us can really vet any of them. A lot of these disputes can be simplified to "I don't trust your sources".
        archagon 8mo ago
        That's true; but I also think a lot of these disputes originate with "your research invalidates my axiomatic beliefs, so I will find whatever 'evidence' needed to counter them." Especially disputes percolating down from the political strata.
        ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
        Sure. But you put evidence in quotes, presumably because you probably don't trust their source(s). Just like they don't trust yours. Obviously, in your head your sources are evidence while their sources are 'evidence', and the same might be true for them.
  - oliwarner 8mo ago
    Except for it being doublespeak. For individuals arguing on the internet, "Do your own research" has long meant cherry pick others' research to support your own worldview, regardless (or in spite) of its scientific flaws.
    - Schmerika 8mo ago
      Except kelipo is still 100% correct to say that. Doublespeak has a way of becoming exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin, regardless of its origins. It's literally in the name. The people 'in the know' know what "Department of Peace" means, and the masses use it to laugh at anyone who dares to think they invent wars. That's the point.
      - archagon 8mo ago
        Except reading Breitbart and watching some TikToks to validate your preexisting beliefs is not "research." So the analogy is still valid.
  - greggoB 8mo ago
    > you have already lost the debate from a long term point of view I don't get what this is alluding to - can you expand, specifically wrt the long term part?
    - Schmerika 8mo ago
      Not OP but I would have hoped that it is self-evidently good if not great for a population to be capable and motivated to research things for themselves without solely relying on authorities and institutions. Especially when so many of those entities are wildly rotten and corrupt; but even if they weren't.
      - igor47 8mo ago
        Capable -- yes. Having to actually do it -- no. I would prefer to live in a world where I can depend on my fellow humans instead of living out a fantasy of self-sufficiency. The "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" meme is hyperstitious. I wish people would think before spreading it.
        Schmerika 8mo ago
        > The "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" meme is hyperstitious. I wish people would think before spreading it. Out of the 27 authors of Daszak's Lancet paper, used worldwide to claim that Coronavirus couldn't have come from a lab, how many had a conflict of interest? How many news outlets repeated their claims verbatim, rather than reading it themselves to find the obvious 'errors'? And how many academic institutions pointed out its flaws? ... Too old an example? Ok - how many institutions sat on the Epstein files, lied about them, kept them sealed, etc, for decades? How many political leaders and business owners worldwide had direct links themselves? How many media companies are giving adequate attention to climate change, and refusing to run ads from fossil fuel companies? How many institutions/countries dared to tell Biden that arming genocide and vetoing ceasefires isn't actually okay? How many countries have sanctioned the perpetrators? Read anything about EPA corruption lately? How about what ICE have been doing? Anyone in DOGE face any accountability for permanently compromising key government databases yet? Because again, if you're relying on media and institutions to get your news on these things you might think everything is fine. It really, really isn't though. You gotta do your own research, I'm afraid. ... And no, none of that was because people believed the "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" "meme". It wasn't ever that they just didn't trust the system enough. Quite the opposite.
  - tim333 8mo ago
    I think the idea is it's better to rely on Phase 3 clinical trials like those done by Moderna in preference to say someone untrained searching X posts in a manner probably not unlike RFK. It's ok to do the X post thing on a personal level but not really as someone in charge of the health of millions of others.
  - sjs382 8mo ago
    If we are using a good definition of "research", I agree. But we aren't. Research within these contexts is consulting a Google search, a social media search, watching short form videos and consulting a sycophantic LLM.
  - tencentshill 8mo ago
    He can do more real research than ever as the head of the FDA, but ignores the results and fires the researchers. A real DEI hire - Destruction, Ego, Incompetence.
  - nielsbot 8mo ago
    Have I? I think it deserves to be mocked. Enough people mocking it turns it into a fringe philosophy. People giving credence to "do your own research" is partly how we got into this mess today.
- smt88 8mo ago
  > I think RFK is actually mentally damaged He is, and he's publicly admitted to both mercury poisoning (which leads to cognitive impairments and potentially insanity) and having part of his brain eaten by a worm[1]. 1. https://cnas.ucr.edu/media/2024/05/08/rfk-jr-revealed-he-had-parasitic-brain-worm-heres-what-know https://cnas.ucr.edu/media/2024/05/08/rfk-jr-revealed-he-had...
  - lostlogin 8mo ago
    On one hand it’s horrifying, on the other, this is what the administration was elected to do.
    - krapp 8mo ago
      The other hand is also horrifying.
blell 8mo ago
[flagged]
- bezier-curve 8mo ago
  I did read it, and it seems like a political witchhunt. Also, comments on HN are actually not that credible on average.
- greazy 8mo ago
  > FDA took issue with the “comparator” in its clinical trial — the vaccine the company used as a benchmark to evaluate its own shot. > FDA said the use of the standard flu shot as a comparator “does not reflect the best-available standard of care.” The standard flu shot is FDA-approved. The standard flu vaccine using inactivated virus grown in eggs is a very good comparator. Please elaborate further, currently you are acting more mysterious than helpful.

nielsbot 8mo ago

> Unfortunately it seems like this decision was overwritten by his boss for political a win. I think RFK is actually mentally damaged. He's been on his "do your own research" anti-vax crusade forever.

kelipso 8mo ago
[flagged]
- archagon 8mo ago
  Unfortunately, “do your own research” is de facto shorthand for “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
  - ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
    There's a good standup bit out there: we used to have a word for "doing your own research": reading! Now everyone gives you shit for it.
    - archagon 8mo ago
      Reading is worthless if you don't vet your sources. Encyclopedia Britannica and Uncle Johnny's Chemtrail Digest are not equally valid sources of truth.
      - ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
        And there's the actual hard part: institutional trustworthiness is in the shitter. Everyone will have their sources that they trust, and if were honest, none of us can really vet any of them. A lot of these disputes can be simplified to "I don't trust your sources".
        archagon 8mo ago
        That's true; but I also think a lot of these disputes originate with "your research invalidates my axiomatic beliefs, so I will find whatever 'evidence' needed to counter them." Especially disputes percolating down from the political strata.
        ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
        Sure. But you put evidence in quotes, presumably because you probably don't trust their source(s). Just like they don't trust yours. Obviously, in your head your sources are evidence while their sources are 'evidence', and the same might be true for them.
- oliwarner 8mo ago
  Except for it being doublespeak. For individuals arguing on the internet, "Do your own research" has long meant cherry pick others' research to support your own worldview, regardless (or in spite) of its scientific flaws.
  - Schmerika 8mo ago
    Except kelipo is still 100% correct to say that. Doublespeak has a way of becoming exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin, regardless of its origins. It's literally in the name. The people 'in the know' know what "Department of Peace" means, and the masses use it to laugh at anyone who dares to think they invent wars. That's the point.
    - archagon 8mo ago
      Except reading Breitbart and watching some TikToks to validate your preexisting beliefs is not "research." So the analogy is still valid.
- greggoB 8mo ago
  > you have already lost the debate from a long term point of view I don't get what this is alluding to - can you expand, specifically wrt the long term part?
  - Schmerika 8mo ago
    Not OP but I would have hoped that it is self-evidently good if not great for a population to be capable and motivated to research things for themselves without solely relying on authorities and institutions. Especially when so many of those entities are wildly rotten and corrupt; but even if they weren't.
    - igor47 8mo ago
      Capable -- yes. Having to actually do it -- no. I would prefer to live in a world where I can depend on my fellow humans instead of living out a fantasy of self-sufficiency. The "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" meme is hyperstitious. I wish people would think before spreading it.
      - Schmerika 8mo ago
        > The "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" meme is hyperstitious. I wish people would think before spreading it. Out of the 27 authors of Daszak's Lancet paper, used worldwide to claim that Coronavirus couldn't have come from a lab, how many had a conflict of interest? How many news outlets repeated their claims verbatim, rather than reading it themselves to find the obvious 'errors'? And how many academic institutions pointed out its flaws? ... Too old an example? Ok - how many institutions sat on the Epstein files, lied about them, kept them sealed, etc, for decades? How many political leaders and business owners worldwide had direct links themselves? How many media companies are giving adequate attention to climate change, and refusing to run ads from fossil fuel companies? How many institutions/countries dared to tell Biden that arming genocide and vetoing ceasefires isn't actually okay? How many countries have sanctioned the perpetrators? Read anything about EPA corruption lately? How about what ICE have been doing? Anyone in DOGE face any accountability for permanently compromising key government databases yet? Because again, if you're relying on media and institutions to get your news on these things you might think everything is fine. It really, really isn't though. You gotta do your own research, I'm afraid. ... And no, none of that was because people believed the "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" "meme". It wasn't ever that they just didn't trust the system enough. Quite the opposite.
- tim333 8mo ago
  I think the idea is it's better to rely on Phase 3 clinical trials like those done by Moderna in preference to say someone untrained searching X posts in a manner probably not unlike RFK. It's ok to do the X post thing on a personal level but not really as someone in charge of the health of millions of others.
- sjs382 8mo ago
  If we are using a good definition of "research", I agree. But we aren't. Research within these contexts is consulting a Google search, a social media search, watching short form videos and consulting a sycophantic LLM.
- tencentshill 8mo ago
  He can do more real research than ever as the head of the FDA, but ignores the results and fires the researchers. A real DEI hire - Destruction, Ego, Incompetence.
- nielsbot 8mo ago
  Have I? I think it deserves to be mocked. Enough people mocking it turns it into a fringe philosophy. People giving credence to "do your own research" is partly how we got into this mess today.
smt88 8mo ago
> I think RFK is actually mentally damaged He is, and he's publicly admitted to both mercury poisoning (which leads to cognitive impairments and potentially insanity) and having part of his brain eaten by a worm[1]. 1. https://cnas.ucr.edu/media/2024/05/08/rfk-jr-revealed-he-had-parasitic-brain-worm-heres-what-know https://cnas.ucr.edu/media/2024/05/08/rfk-jr-revealed-he-had...
- lostlogin 8mo ago
  On one hand it’s horrifying, on the other, this is what the administration was elected to do.
  - krapp 8mo ago
    The other hand is also horrifying.

blell 8mo ago

[flagged]

bezier-curve 8mo ago
I did read it, and it seems like a political witchhunt. Also, comments on HN are actually not that credible on average.
greazy 8mo ago
> FDA took issue with the “comparator” in its clinical trial — the vaccine the company used as a benchmark to evaluate its own shot. > FDA said the use of the standard flu shot as a comparator “does not reflect the best-available standard of care.” The standard flu shot is FDA-approved. The standard flu vaccine using inactivated virus grown in eggs is a very good comparator. Please elaborate further, currently you are acting more mysterious than helpful.