If you don’t think it relates to the question at hand, why did you brought up the point in the first place?
I think you are too much focused on Trump (likely because the media likes to focus on Trump) and not on how a successful campaign to repeal the act would look like. It’s unlikely that Trump makes it his agenda, but that’s not required given that the legislature is independent from the executive.
Trump’s recent demand that the US Senate should confirm his appointees via recess appointments, similarly really does not strike me as Trump caring about what party elites think.
Trump made that demand and John Thune became Senate majority leader without making a clear promise to appoint all candidates via recess appointments.
Elites already managed to prevent the pro-antitrust, pro-Snowden pardon appointment of Matt Gaetz and replace him with a more conventional Republican that’s less likely to go after corporate power and other elite interests.
I also have a pure EAA protein powder which is entirely fermented and have a balanced amino acid profile. These are generally very poorly marketed supplements but they are widely available.
What’s the name under which the protein powder is sold?
Most politics is not top down from the president. If Trump would care about repealing the act he could do it, but it’s unlikely a topic he cares very much about.
If you want change, you likely need to convince congressional Republicans. I would expect that such congressman have a reasonable fear of being attacked for going against “America First” if they would move to repeal the Jones Act.
If DOGE would want to get rid of it, they would need to convince congressmen. There are likely a lot of laws that would be easier for them to target with the political capital they have.
There’s a question of how much of the iodine goes to the thyroid and that might produce side effects. On the other hand, the salt water might also have side effects. Do you have reason to believe the salt water to have negligible side effects?
If you promote “diversity” then you have not only take in mind what you mean with it, but also how policy is likely going to work in practice.
In practice, there are some dimensions that are easy to measure like race and gender. There are other dimensions that are harder to measure. Some dimensions are also not conducive to research progress. Researchers with IQ under a hundred are underrepresented in grant giving.
Then there are variables like vaccination status, where being unvaxxed does not result in you having a worse ability to do research in the same way as having a lower IQ but there are perspectives on medical research that will correlate with vaccination status.
If your policy tries to increase the representation of unvaxxed researchers, that might be threatening to hegemonic beliefs and thus a research bureaucracy likely prefers increasing representation of minority races that are unlikely to threaten any hegenomic beliefs.
If you don’t specify the dimensions, the dimensions that are going to selected are most likely those that don’t threaten hegemony of current opinions and thus the dimensions that are least likely to actually matter for diversity of ideas and the selected dimensions might even be chosen to strengthen the hegemony of the existing ideas.
If you actually want real diversity by doing things like calling for diversity in vaccination status you should do that explicitly.
One big political problem is that Trump campaigned on “Make in America” so, convincing Republicans under his watch of just replacing the Jones Act is hardly possible.
Maybe the policy positions should be: “Tariffs are great if you want ‘Make in America’, repeal the Jones Act and replace it with a 100% tariff on foreign build ships (with the president having the ability to change the tariff as needed)”.
If you decrease ship costs from 4-5x to 2x of what it costs outside of the US, you might still get a renaissance of ships and you have a bunch of money that you can use to pay off people.
I assume salt water has lower side effects, so that seemed like a promising thing to check.
Why do you make that assumption? Besides the antiviral effect of it, I would expect salt water to drain H_2O from the oral mucosa. Do you think the effect is too small to matter? Do you think it’s a desirable effect?
Wikipedia currently writes “Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places on his properties to allegedly record sexual activity with underage girls of prominent people for criminal purposes such as blackmail.”
This suggests that more than one underage girl was passed around. The fact that the others don’t have the same courage as Virginia Giuffre to speak publically about it, does not mean that there wasn’t a problem.
It does show that the system to suppress information about it is working well, which is also shown by the fact that the FBI did not lose that video stack as material for prosecuting all those people.
I submit that this industry in particular does not exist, or at least would be a terrible way to make money on a risk-adjusted basis compared to drug dealing.
The blackmail potential existing matters in addition to being directly paid. J. Edgar Hoover could be effectively blackmailed by the mafia into saying that there’s no mafia by having photos of his homosexual activities, but these days that wouldn’t be enough to blackmail anybody.
Understanding how organizations like Epsteins operate is hard because they do everything they can to avoid being well understood.
As far as industry goes, it’s quite old but https://wikileaks.org/wiki/an_insight_into_child_porn is a good read about how child pornography worked two decades ago. It’s not the same as child prostitution but it’s a good article about ground realities.
If you disagree with the question, why answer deep in the comments of one answer than at the top level?
My friends were a good deal sharper and more motivated at 18 than now at 25.
How do you tell that there were sharper back then?
But surely most people realize that it would be very hard for an organized child rape cabal to spread word about their offerings to customers without someone alerting police.
Epstein seemed to run something like an organized child rape cabal and most people involved in it didn’t go to prison.
The current establishment position is that it’s unethical to run randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials for vaccines if there’s already an existing vaccine on the market that targets a given illness. Instead, new vaccines for illnesses with existing vaccines get tested against an existing vaccine. In practice, most of the commonly used childhood vaccines in the United States fall under that category.
Those are just the basic facts of the issue whether or not you like RFK Jr. The more interesting question is about whether his policy demand of requiring randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials for each vaccine is one that should be adopted or not. And if it gets adopted what happens with existing vaccines that fail that standard.
If that’s your theory of change, how do you think that communication should work? Who could be tasked with creating the right communication so that it will work?
If a product derives from Federally-funded research, the government owns a share of the IP for that product.
How would you do that in practice? Is it a matter of adding a standard paragraph to NIH grants?
Readers from backgrounds like mine may balk at “diversity” as an explicit benefit; however, diversity is vital to properly exploring the hypothesis space without the bias imposed by limited perspectives.
There are different kinds of diversity.
It seems to me like the decision of the Ida Rolf Foundation to start funding research had good downstream effects that we see in recent advances in understanding fascia. That foundation being able to fund things that the NHI wouldn’t fund was important. Getting a knowledge community like the Rolfers included in academic researchers is diversity that produces beneficial research outcomes.
If you follow standard DEI criteria, it doesn’t help you with a task like integrating the Rolfing perspective. It doesn’t get you to fund a white man like Robert Schleip.
I would suspect that coming from a background of economic poverty means that you likely have less slack that you can use to learn about knowledge communities besides the mainstream academic community. Having the time to spent in relevant knowledge communities, seems to me like a sign of economic privilege.
Maybe, you could get something relevant by focusing on diversity of illness burden within your researcher community as people with chronic illnesses might have spent a lot of time acquiring knowledge that produces useful perspectives, but I doubt that standard DEI criteria get you there.
To the extent that our needs are “actively shoot ourselves in the foot slightly less often”, there’s the question of why we currently shoot ourselves in the food. I suspect it’s because of the incentives that are produced by the current policies.
Saying “whatever ways are reasonable” is ignoring the key issues.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes that all vaccines should require placebo-blind trials to be licensed the most other drugs do.
Whether or not that’s reasonable is the key question.
Beyond that, a major health problem is obesity and here semaglutide seems like it would help a lot.
Do you believe that Medicaid/Medicare should just pay the sticker price for everyone who wants it?
Surely the state of the science has advanced since this lawsuit took place.
Yes, it does. We now have meta reviews which were not common back in 1990.
Cochrane is one of the best sources for metastudies and their read of the scientific evidence for chiropractics is: “The review shows that while combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short term and pain in the medium term for acute and subacute low-back pain, there is currently no evidence to support or refute that combined chiropractic interventions provide a clinically meaningful advantage over other treatments for pain or disability in people with low-back pain.”
While it’s not shown to be superior to conventional treatment it’s also not shown to be without effect. Given that insurance covers a variety of treatments for back pain that are just as effective as chiropractics, the AMA has been essentially shown wrong.
To me, it’s quite strange to advocate “Don’t Dismiss on Epistemics” while at the same time ignoring scientific meta reviews on the topic.
Congress does have leadership that’s separate from the president. People like Nancy Pelosi have political power.
You also have a lot of other organizations. Organizations like the Chamber of Commerce can drive legislative change as well.