> A general subjective notion that the evidence "isn't good enough" with no reference to the level of evidence that is typically used to approve other treatments with similar risks and benefits

> The focus on randomized controlled trials as the only acceptable form of evidence, despite (or because of) their expense and length

> Common and easy-to-collect indirect markers of effectiveness (presence of antibodies, lower reported suicidality) are against them, so they insist on using only rare, hard-to-collect direct markers (prevented illnesses, reduction in completed suicide attempts) despite lacking any reason to believe the results will be different

> The insistence on unnecessary, lengthy trials or tests for treatments that are time-sensitive, to the point of overrunning the time when they ought to be administered (RCTs for flu vaccines that would delay them past flu season, vs insisting on a large and arbitrary minimum number of assessments before allowing puberty blockers such that puberty starts before the patient is approved). For the anti-treatment side in both cases, a long enough delay is effectively a victory that doesn't require them to prove any of their points.

So, what can we draw from these tactics? They want to make their opponents waste time and resources on long, difficult trials (the longer the better,) because every day it goes on is a day that treatment is delayed or a "temporary restriction" can continue. Plus, if they need more time, they can always push the arbitrary standard of evidence they demand arbitrarily higher. They can always demand more trials, or more specific and difficult-to-collect data.

But on some level, they know they can't say "THIS is the study that will prove vaccines/HRT are unsafe" because they understand that the results will probably not go in their favor (or, that they'd get caught if they faked it).

It seems like they understand that the evidence is against them, but that stalemate is in their favor.

Makes me wonder how expensive these were to make.

I'm not sure he's bringing it up for that reason. He thinks the label is losing its power because it really is losing power over him, because he's becoming more comfortable with it and beginning to accept it. Keep an eye out for if he starts to call himself a fascist "ironically".

> It was not immediately clear if that happened, or to what extent. AP journalists inside Gaza saw no immediate evidence of Netanyahu’s speech being broadcast on phones there.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348273

Points: 8

# Comments: 0

The idea that airlines are passing on qualified white candidates to hire unqualified black candidates to fill a diversity quota, because there aren't enough qualified black candidates to fill it honestly, is a white supremacist conspiracy theory. Real life DEI programs don't let them do that. To a white supremacist, any number of black pilots is "just a few too many" to have hired honestly, and so there must be some hypothetical white people being "stolen" from. See GP.