Can you please say this in english for people who aren't terminally caught up to politics du jour?
FDA is in drastic need of reform, ask anyone who deals with them directly (and is willing to be honest). That's not a political or ideological statement.
Not OP but I believe they are referring to the fairly sizeable part of the voting population who believe that we need to deregulate everything and dismantle any agency that is responsible for regulations. That and the increasing distrust by the right of medical professionals and scientists makes for a dangerous combination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
I personally refuse to blindly accept anything. Science is a work in progress. “Professionals” started just like I started - as a novice. I don’t need to be told what to think.
You maybe not, but a sizable part of your population is literally dumb enough to drink bleach to "cure cancer" or whatever [1], and around half the US can barely read at 6th grade level [2].
The root problem is not that science and journalism have their issues, there is no such thing as a "perfect system". The root problem is that the American population is, at large, too incompetent to keep up with the rapid changes in modern life, and that there are a lot of malicious actors exploiting this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement
[2] https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/02/us-literacy-rate/
Too incompetent by what definition? That presupposes that there's some level of competency that's mandated at-large. If you're dumb enough to believe drinking bleach will cure cancer, especially with the internet at your fingertips, you kinda deserve whatever consequences come from that. It's not yours, mine, or the government's job to prevent that.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this kind of thinking builds laws and societies catering to the lowest common denominator which is a preposterous suggestion. You hit the nail on the head in the sentence right before—there is no perfect system. But one that caters to the lowest possible subset of mental cognition is definitely not a step in the right direction.
The people do not need to be told what to believe.
That's where we disagree. A government's entire raison d' etre is to reasonably protect its citizens from harm, at least that's the conventional European ideal. And that includes keeping them safe from demagogues of all kind - I'm German, believe me if there's one thing we know it is just how much devastation it can bring in the end if left unchecked.
Americans see the world differently, but they haven't had a war on their home turf in like, what, 200 years (and haven't learned much of it either, given how absurdly popular Confederate flags seem to be). Here, we have people still alive who got shipped off to concentration camps in their youth!
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
It's even worse than that "science" has been politicized in the general discourse into a code-word meaning "you must obey and respect our policy" or "my political opinions are objectively correct." I mean, "I believe in Science" is a literal political slogan meaning the latter, FFS.
You also occasionally have scientists who exploit their positions to give their non-scientific views unearned authority.
Though this is all probably a later stage of a progressing disease. Science was one of the last institutions to enjoy widespread respect, so of course short-sighted tacticians can't resist the temptation to draft it into political fights.
The reason some people distrust it, is because some politicians have figured out the best way to stay in power is to create wedge issues out of everything, blame the "rich" "elites" at these agencies for everything that's wrong in their constituents' lives and seed distrust about everything claiming they're the only people who can fix it.
FUD as a policy is very powerful.
Massive error in going with the "we lied to the public about masks in order to retain supply for healthcare workers" angle.
Looks like the new error is to imply that distrust in the face of this is anti-Science.
Meanwhile the audible complaints from people dealing with them “directly” and evincing what you find “appropriately honest” amounts to a very biased sample. The acuity of the need for reform is far from settled, at least if we’re looking for an empirical basis.
If you aren't aware of those things, you are ignorant of some of the most important events in recent history. Covid-19 killed a million Americans, more than any war. Being clueless doesn't put you above the fray.
Covid _related_ deaths. Big difference.
It was a big deal.
Also, I'm not sure why a million deaths makes this "some of the most important events in recent history".
If we're going by this mindset, then we have to agree that Roe v Wade is perhaps the one of the worst events in all of American history—contributing to more than 64 million American deaths (and still rising). I might highlight that's more than all of the deaths in World War 1 (~40 million), and more than all of the directly-related causes of death in World War 2 (~53 million).
IMO, COVID was _a deal_, but we've much bigger deals afoot and COVID is basically gone now.
In this context, whether the death was directly due to COVID or a consequence of health strain/policy decisions/phobia delaying care is irrelevant to the overall impact of the virus on the population.
> For example, the deaths in World War 2 jumps from ~53 million, up to ~80 million if we include "related" deaths (famine, etc). So, it is definitively not quibbling.
I don't understand what you think this "definitively" demonstrates? Non-combat fatalities is absolutely relevant and should be included when discussing the impact of WWII on the world population.
The statement that WWII killed ~80 million people is valid and accurate.
> If we're going by this mindset, then we have to agree that Roe v Wade is perhaps the one of the worst events in all of American history—contributing to more than 64 million American deaths (and still rising).
I'm assuming you're referring to 64 million abortions suggesting you believe a fetus is considered a human being. This is not the view of the scientific community, 36/50 US states and the vast majority of the international community so no we don't have to agree on that.
Unless you've got sources, I'm going to have to respectfully disbelieve that you somehow speak for the scientific community at large, 36 whole states, and the world.
Despite the morally-devoid echo chamber that many choose to live in, we've seen time and time again that social consensus doesn't mean anything when it comes to morality or truth.
I seem to recall at one point, owning human beings as slaves was both lawful and even considered morally necessary by many US states, and even the international community! Yet we can easily look back and realize that was a bitter mistake that has and will continue to affect generations to come. Not because we somehow "came to a consensus" that slavery was wrong, but because we finally acknowledged what was always true—slavery is wrong. Our consensus was just us coming to our senses.
I'll say it again, consensus means nothing when the subject is murder. The entire world agreeing does not, in any way, shape objective moral truth.
I can't tell if you're seriously asking me for sources that the scientific community stance on abortion is that it is a basic right, fetuses are not human beings and abortion is not murder.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've somehow not heard any scientific opinion on the matter even though it's been reiterated post Dobbs v. Jackson and pervasive in media.
> Unless you've got sources, I'm going to have to respectfully disbelieve that you somehow speak for the scientific community at large
Scientific position statements:
ACOG (US): Abortion is an essential component of comprehensive, evidence-based health care. https://www.acog.org/clinical-information/policy-and-positio...
SOGC (Canada): In an era where restrictions limit access to abortion in only a handful of jurisdictions globally, American women now have fewer reproductive health rights than their mothers and grandmothers did. As our neighbours south of our border face a dawning crisis in health care, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) stands firmly in support of reproductive choice and equitable access to safe, high-quality abortion care for all people in Canada and around the world. https://www.jogc.com/article/S1701-2163(22)00548-5/fulltext
RANZCOG (AUS + NZ): The College strongly supports the availability of abortion being an essential aspect of safe healthcare delivery, and stands with healthcare professionals across the world in protecting patients’ access to care. https://ranzcog.edu.au/news/ranzcog-statement-on-roe-v-wade-...
Royal College of Obstetric and Gynecologists (UK): Like nearly 90% of the country, we believe in a woman’s right to choose. No woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will. https://www.rcog.org.uk/about-us/campaigning-and-opinions/po...
WHO (International): Access to quality abortion care is a critical public health, equality and human rights issue. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1476856/retrieve
Recommend the full decriminalization of abortion.
Decriminalization means removing abortion from all penal/criminal laws, not applying other criminal offences (e.g. murder, manslaughter) to abortion, and ensuring there are no criminal penalties for having, assisting with, providing information about, or providing abortion, for all relevant actors. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/349316/9789...
FIGO (International): Access to safe abortion is a human right and a critical component of the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of women and girls. https://www.figo.org/resources/figo-statements/addressing-ba...
> 36 whole states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_Sta...
> and the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
> I'll say it again, consensus means nothing when the subject is murder.
Whether your moral or religious conviction leads you to believe that human life begins at conception and therefore that abortion is murder is your prerogative but this is your opinion and completely unsupported by science, evidence, or even regulation in the majority of locales on the planet.
Abortion is a basic human right endorsed by nearly every professional and scientific authority.
> The entire world agreeing does not, in any way, shape objective moral truth.
Objective moral truth as determined by who, you? I provided my sources, I welcome yours.
I appreciate the good faith interpretation of my comment. Indeed I was not aware of the (seemingly) universal consensus on this topic within the scientific community. However, as I said earlier consensus does not in any way dictate morality.
Indeed I wish objective morality was determined by me, but that is not the case. By definition, it is self-evident and requiring no proof. I'd submit that the source of moral truth would be whatever has created that which is created. Though we may disagree on that, our opinions and disagreement don't change reality. (Ironically, I think we can both agree on that point).
Whether or not morality is universal does not change simply because one denies it. So again I say, the entire world coming together to congratulate itself on its "forward progress" by murdering the unborn, does not make it a good or moral thing.
> If we're going by this mindset, then we have to agree that Roe v Wade is perhaps the one of the worst events in all of American history
I strongly disagree with your original assertion that by applying the excess death metric to WWII or the pandemic we consequently have to agree on the applicability to abortion which is, as you have agreed, a morality discussion.
The question of whether abortion represents a tragic loss of human life is an entirely different discussion of morality for which I respect our differing views which need not be reconciled to resolve a debate on the most appropriate statistic to quantify the loss of human life during a pandemic or war as you stated in the original comment I replied to.
In fact, your usage of “unborn” obviates the debate. “Excess deaths” are derived from the population statistic and regardless of whether one believes a fetus has achieved moral personhood or whether abortion is murder we do not count an “unborn” person in the population or birth rate statistics prior to delivery (i.e. since inception the US has never counted a pregnant female as 2 people for census purposes) therefore abortion is not relevant to this statistical measure discussion.
Sure, I understand your point about not wanting to support the FDA, but simplifying the argument to "I care about saving lives while the FDA only cares about politics" oversimplifies things. The FDA exists because of political decisions, and we're currently facing a major crisis of knowledge, especially among certain groups of U.S. voters. Some of these groups are determined to break down regulatory agencies. Ignoring this situation could likely put any potential advantages of the FDA at risk.
The regulatory bodies are an extreme - their employees can basically never be fired, they have arbitrary and capricious control, and their existence has no market test. Most regulatory institutions were created many decades ago. It’s not absurd to think they are ossified, bureaucratic, and purposefully ineffective - “damaging to society”.
If a startup company can be a mess, and a large established company a mess, why not a regulatory agency? Pointing the finger at them and saying they are bad should not be a partisan issue. We should all be highly suspicious of their power, their unelected authority, and the innate desire of humans towards power and vanity who are attracted to such institutions.