It's certainly disturbing that anyone charged with preserving an entire country's health would apparently have little time for science. Science, after all, has been responsible for much of the improvement in living conditions for the human species. Science depends, however, on:- 1) Intellectual honesty; 2) An understanding of what constitutes a well-designed experiment; 3) Replication (showing that the finding is reliable rather than a consequence of deliberate or unintentional bias) and 4) A professional consideration of all the available data. Science, we know, deals in probabilities and not absolutes. It's still, however, much better than the 'snake-oil solutions' of yesteryear. In health regulations, there should be little place for 'pet' obsessions and even less place for removing folk who fail to share them. Medical science is complex, so it's generally best if the decision-maker has a good understanding of the issues/complexities involved (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/12/rfk-jr-does-not-just-reject-vaccines-he-rejects-science-and-must-step-down). Casting unreasonable doubt on science, is most likely to injure folk, who would normally rely on 'expert' opinion.
%20mating%20NWCW.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment