Rank: #10 out of 4859 in peer accuracy at Metaculus for the time period of 2016-2020.
Basically, you do agree that nothing here is factual inaccurate as I was saying in the beginning.
It's superficially neutral, yes, but a layman reading the article would come out with an entirely different take on RFK's vaccine policy than someone who read the Wikipedia article.
It's a key aspect of writing that you can write essays that are factually correct that make readers come to different conclusions.
The "safety" concern here being the nonexistent risk of autism, and it frames the opposing view as a corporations less worried about safety and more concerned about more traditional business-oriented interests .
Most of those corporations regularly pay billions in dollars in fines because there are more concerned about traditional business-oriented interests than other aspects like safety.
The claim that risk of autism is the only potential safety concern of giving people a low amount of a neurotoxin is wrong, which is why it was removed from most childhood vaccines in 2001. It's not easy to rule out all subclinical side effects with standard safety testing.
Even the Wikipedia article for thiomersal does suggest that it sometimes leads to thiomersal allergy, which is not something you want in a yearly vaccine.
Which particular article are you speaking about what fact specific claim do you think is not accurate?
Also why are you using the word "responsible" here? Telling people about inconvenient truthful facts is often judged as "irresponsible". That's what I was referring to with "politically incorrect".
Grok makes statements about RFK Jr's vaccine policy like:
Key changes included reconstituting the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9, 2025, by replacing all members to eliminate pharmaceutical financial ties and prioritize safety data.[102] The new committee voted on July 23, 2025, to remove thimerosal—a mercury-based preservative—from U.S. influenza vaccines, invoking precautionary principles despite earlier findings of safety in low doses.[103] Kennedy called this a move to safer options, while manufacturers cautioned about potential supply disruptions.[104]
To me that seems like a quite neutral description. Grok explicit about earlier findings that thimerosal is safe.
You could practice just to dial 91. I would expect that if you have that trained well, finishing it won't be a problem.
A nurse or doctor having gone through the trouble of learning an obscure language to provide healthcare for Mennonites, is a costly signal that suggests that the doctor cares about Mennonites.
A costly signal like that is good to establish trust. Most of vaccine hesitancy is likely about lack of trust in mainstream medicine and an LLM nurse or doctor is unlikely very trustworthy for Mennonites who are skeptical of a lot of technology.
Any person working on a building (which is where you plausibly spend most of your time) should have at least a background check. Electrician, gas, HVAC, piping, water, masons… It’s Ok to be annoying with these people : after all, it’s about your life. If you’re renting a place and the landlord takes care of this, politely ask them explanations on where they found the services, for how long do they know them, etc. We’re talking about the Elven Guard of Life. Their Skill and Grace should be Known About in Legends of Great Deeds and By Masters of Unmistakable Craft.
It seems plausible that this is a good idea, but I don't think you have made an argument that it's a good idea. In particular, why do you believe that your background check will be able to distinguish those workers who might produce safety problems from those that don't?
Down in the basement, our boiler outlet pipe was disconnected. Two of us saw it, separately. There wasn’t a gaping hole, rather, it was odd, just slightly out of place, but nothing screamed "urgent!" Neither of us acted. Neither of us sent a picture to the group to say "Hey, this looks weird."
Asking a AI chatbot along with the a photo sounds to me like a better general habit than escalating things like that to a group chat.
The biggest problem is not one of technology, but that we don't really know how to train people "recognizing & adjusting for cognitive biases" in a way that actually translates into making better real life decisions.
Rejecting the strategy of garnering attention by means of domestic terrorism is an understandable heuristic, but it's worth noting that the consensus seems to be that Industrial Society and Its Future stands as a serious piece of political philosophy worth engaging with despite its origins.
The consensus among whom? How do you know that the consensus exists?
A company knowing or not knowing something is not binary. Reality is complex. Companies have plenty of communication about potential issues that don't definitely demonstrate that a problem exists. A situation where a low-level employee has given information is not the same as when the information is known to company leadership. There's a huge difference between the company knowing about the issue a decade before the "public revelation" and them knowing a month before it because the lead researcher asked them to look over their numbers.
Proving whether or not a chemical causes a given issue isn't easy. The scenario where an independent researchers is able to provide a definite proof that a chemical causes a certain illness and a company never got any idea that there's a possible link that could be investigated before the official publication seems to me not how these things usually play out.
Most of the time what we care about isn't a binary outcome. When deciding whether or not to take a drug, we care a lot about the strength of the effect of the drug. Measuring effect sizes is important.