why is this so heavily focused on the supposed merits of rfk as a debater? that kinda sounds tangential at best to the yes or no question that you're responding to
Before HN posters can get to the point of actually debating the issues motivating this kind of decision, they have to accept that there actually are issues and that RFK Jr isn't just deciding things randomly.
As an example of what can go wrong, CNN failed to understand the point I was making here and screwed up very publicly. They tried to use "crowdsourcing" to gather counterpoints to an argument RFK Jr made, in fact, the one about trials not using inert placebos. In other words they gish-galloped him. In return they got a 1,330 word rebuttal that goes through their list showing, that none of the studies they claimed used inert placebos actually did (except a few that weren't used by the US anyway):
No you could just answer the question. You keep acting like you're getting ready to do that and then not doing it. I think you feel compelled to fill the space with something and aren't all that concerned about the substance of what you fill the space with.
