Today, 01:02 AM
Heh. I was wondering if anyone was going to mention this. Could be we'll see more federal agency (CDC) officials invited before Congressional committees for explanations to recent trends. We've seen it before. More frequently as it is.
The thing about the natural sciences, angela, and I'm sure you'll agree given that you're noted for your interest in them, is that absence of evidence does not in any way indicate that there exists evidence of absence. And it is exactly true with regard to claims made of Autism as well. The very nature of science is that we must always ask more questions. Then more questions. And followed by even more questions. This is what makes science science. You know? I mean, you can't just call something "pseudo-science" because you don't like the other guy's hypothesis or because he has some more questions that you may not want to hear and then go lobby for a politician who will impose your open-ended hypothesis as some new scientific law or something. That isn't how the natural sciences work. That's how politics works. This is political science.
Of course, that is a two-way street, too. Perhaps there may not be any link between Autism and the consumption of specific pharmaceutical products on the free market. This is why we continue to ask questions about such things.
Now, I don't care for Trump much either but you're politicizing this stuff again. And caricaturing the guy because it is the popular thing to do and for the purpose of advancing your own personal whims is deceptive to say the least. Political science and the natural sciences are two entirely different fields. Granted, one does often guide the other. That isn't how it is supposed to work, though. And it is unfortunate that it does. Of course, there are also solutions to that problem, too. I had a thread on that very thing some place around here. It's a very simple solution. One that is actionable and practical. I'll have to dig it up and bump it now that I'm reminded of it. But you can't let your politics define your hypothesis in terms of the natural sciences. Well...I suppose you can, but that is, itself, pseudo-science, too, which leaves the pot calling the kettle black.
Of course, you never know. Trump is a bit of an authoritarian. He might go your route, too, and try to enforce the notion that a government agency (CDC) is the authority on defining and overseeing the traditional processes that dictate the very structure of research from within the various fields of the natural sciences as a whole. Now, the downside of it is that it'll lead to government mandated consumption of specific commercial pharmaceutical products at gunpoint if the right people get into the right ears and you end up with yet another government agency arbitrarily assuming the role of moral authority. And with the right fear porn scribbled up and circulated, that victim-status card stuff works sometimes if you pull it out at the right time. Heck, maybe your portfolio will even see some positive hits, too, if you're invested right.