Kaizen Asiedu

And people have pointed out like the polio vaccine saved millions of people and RFK is creating vaccine skepticism that is being broadly applied to every vaccine, not just the COVID vaccine. So the strong argument would be, look, maybe he's right about, let's say, 1% or even generously 10% of vaccines.

And people have pointed out like the polio vaccine saved millions of people and RFK is creating vaccine skepticism that is being broadly applied to every vaccine, not just the COVID vaccine. So the strong argument would be, look, maybe he's right about, let's say, 1% or even generously 10% of vaccines.

And people have pointed out like the polio vaccine saved millions of people and RFK is creating vaccine skepticism that is being broadly applied to every vaccine, not just the COVID vaccine. So the strong argument would be, look, maybe he's right about, let's say, 1% or even generously 10% of vaccines.

But what about the 99% to 90% of vaccines that are helping us and have gotten us to this point as a civilization? He's creating a culture of dogmatic skepticism that is an equal and opposite reaction to scientific dogmatism that he's trying to correct for. So he's just swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.

But what about the 99% to 90% of vaccines that are helping us and have gotten us to this point as a civilization? He's creating a culture of dogmatic skepticism that is an equal and opposite reaction to scientific dogmatism that he's trying to correct for. So he's just swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.

But what about the 99% to 90% of vaccines that are helping us and have gotten us to this point as a civilization? He's creating a culture of dogmatic skepticism that is an equal and opposite reaction to scientific dogmatism that he's trying to correct for. So he's just swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.

And if we had had him around during maybe the polio vaccine, maybe he would have made this argument and then millions of people wouldn't have gotten the polio vaccine and died. So that's part of the cultural component. Part of the scientific component of this is he's not a scientist, right? He's someone who speaks a lot about science.

And if we had had him around during maybe the polio vaccine, maybe he would have made this argument and then millions of people wouldn't have gotten the polio vaccine and died. So that's part of the cultural component. Part of the scientific component of this is he's not a scientist, right? He's someone who speaks a lot about science.

And if we had had him around during maybe the polio vaccine, maybe he would have made this argument and then millions of people wouldn't have gotten the polio vaccine and died. So that's part of the cultural component. Part of the scientific component of this is he's not a scientist, right? He's someone who speaks a lot about science.

He's someone who's interacted a lot with scientists and scientific institutions. But there's genuine questions about whether he has the scientific discipline and training to actually evaluate some of this stuff on first principles. And there's a difference between being a creator and a critic. Right. So you can be a creator of novel scientific solutions to problems, which is very hard. Right.

He's someone who's interacted a lot with scientists and scientific institutions. But there's genuine questions about whether he has the scientific discipline and training to actually evaluate some of this stuff on first principles. And there's a difference between being a creator and a critic. Right. So you can be a creator of novel scientific solutions to problems, which is very hard. Right.

He's someone who's interacted a lot with scientists and scientific institutions. But there's genuine questions about whether he has the scientific discipline and training to actually evaluate some of this stuff on first principles. And there's a difference between being a creator and a critic. Right. So you can be a creator of novel scientific solutions to problems, which is very hard. Right.

And people spend their entire lives just trying to come up with one novel solution to a problem that's plagued us forever. It's much easier to be destructive. So you could argue that RFK, he's doing the easy job of a critic, which is just to critique fall flaws and fallacies in what is overall a functional system. So that's also part of the concern.

And people spend their entire lives just trying to come up with one novel solution to a problem that's plagued us forever. It's much easier to be destructive. So you could argue that RFK, he's doing the easy job of a critic, which is just to critique fall flaws and fallacies in what is overall a functional system. So that's also part of the concern.

And people spend their entire lives just trying to come up with one novel solution to a problem that's plagued us forever. It's much easier to be destructive. So you could argue that RFK, he's doing the easy job of a critic, which is just to critique fall flaws and fallacies in what is overall a functional system. So that's also part of the concern.

He's not actually in a position to evaluate the science directly himself. The third concern would be about institutions more generally. Ultimately, all nations rely on a social contract and rely on a level of trust. You just can't have a functioning, thriving civilization if you don't have a basic level of trust.

He's not actually in a position to evaluate the science directly himself. The third concern would be about institutions more generally. Ultimately, all nations rely on a social contract and rely on a level of trust. You just can't have a functioning, thriving civilization if you don't have a basic level of trust.

He's not actually in a position to evaluate the science directly himself. The third concern would be about institutions more generally. Ultimately, all nations rely on a social contract and rely on a level of trust. You just can't have a functioning, thriving civilization if you don't have a basic level of trust.

Because as I mentioned earlier, trust is why people believe things that they do, not verification. So why do I believe trust? that the vaccine schedule maybe is generally good for kids because that's what scientists and scientific institutions have told me, not because I verified this myself.

Because as I mentioned earlier, trust is why people believe things that they do, not verification. So why do I believe trust? that the vaccine schedule maybe is generally good for kids because that's what scientists and scientific institutions have told me, not because I verified this myself.