For anyone still keeping up with this bill (arguably the most important news story there is), what do we think will happen here? A watered down version or nothing whatsoever? The clock is ticking.

climatologists have more work to do, proving that climate change is due to CO2 emissions from human activity. That's why I suggested that they need to do two things:

1. Explain the rise in earth temperatures with the greenhouse effect of (raised) CO2 levels.

2. Make a prediction of how temperatures will rise in (say) the next 10 or 20 years. — TheMadFool

Unless you've been living in a cave somewhere, this information is readily available. Perhaps you missed the latest IPCC report as well. Made some news a few weeks ago.

CO2 levels and increased average temperature of the earth are very well correlated, with data going back tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

Predictions about temperature rise have been made, shown to be accurate, and continue to be made. There are many scenarios taken into account -- business as usual versus a real shift in fossil fuel use, for example.

The evidence is overwhelming. Denial is rampant because it's a difficult thing to accept and because of a massive propaganda campaign from the fossil fuel industry, especially around 2009 -- of which you seem to be a casualty.

What's the best gameplan for us given that we don't know the truth about climate change? Should we assume climate change is real or should we assume it isn't and act accordingly? — TheMadFool

We do know the truth about climate change, with as much certainty as we can know about anything. It's now easy to see all around us, and to anyone who can read a graph.

But even if there were a 10% chance of catastrophe, we should still do something about it, yes -- especially given that there's almost no downside.

Try to keep up.
— Xtrix
You know, I will repay you and your ilk for this contempt. — baker

:broken:

I hold no contempt for you. If I did, I wouldn't bother talking to you at all. I don't think you're inferior to me -- I think you're wrong. You're confusing the two.

Riiight, you are the embodiment of kindness. — baker

Yes, because you're been so very kind in this discussion so far, starting the entire thing off with a condescending "irrelevant," and then accusing me of hatred and contempt. Spare me.

We weren't talking about what happens on the ground between doctors and patients, so this is irrelevant.
— Xtrix
It's the level on which trust in the medical system is build, or destroyed. — baker

The issue which was being discussed was whether laypeople, knowing nothing else but that high consensus levels existed among experts, should go with that consensus or not.

Incidentally, there are plenty of people who would otherwise trust their doctors who are not doing so now. Why? Because this has become politicized. That is a function of belief systems and perceptions shaped largely by media (including social media), not by the messaging of doctors on the ground level.

No one is arguing perfection.
— Xtrix

Given your righteous indignation, given your contempt, your hatred: only perfection justifies and warrants those.

If you want to be justified hate people for not thinking and acting the way you think they should, then you better be perfect. — baker

I don't feel any of that. Your projections are your own.

What does it help if the national health institute says one thing, but on the ground level, even medical personnel is skeptical about vaccination? — baker

About 96% of doctors in the US are vaccinated, with half of the rest willing to be vaccinated. And this was back in June.

There is an overwhelming consensus about vaccines among experts. If you want to talk about how this message is disseminated, or stress the importance of the ground-level relationship between doctors and patiences, fine -- but that's not what was being discussed. Try to keep up.

So the question is: how many times does the consensus of experts need to be proven true before we simply (as laypeople) trust them?
— Xtrix
Irrelevant. What is relevant is what happens on the ground level.

Ie. in terms of medicine, what is relevant is how actual doctors and other medical personnel actually interact with actual patients. This is the level at which trust is build, or destroyed. — baker

We weren't talking about what happens on the ground between doctors and patients, so this is irrelevant.

Irrelevant. — baker

Only for those like you who wish to change the topic.

You touch on a number of fascinating and related (but apparently disparate) topics: flow, Buddhism and meditation, and drugs (MDMA). All of these happen to be major interests of mine as well.

It’s interesting to compare flow and the “ready-to-hand” of Heidegger or wu-wei of Taoism with the awareness cultivated with meditation, particularly the Vipassana tradition out of Buddhism. I like to think of some drugs (particularly psychedelics) as allowing a shortcut to states that can otherwise be achieved through meditation practice.

I think this all has real world application and potential to change people for the better.

No, I do not believe governments act by and for the people. — NOS4A2

Thanks to people like you.

We don't know if vaccinated people transmit at a lower rate, per the internet. — frank

The capital of Massachusetts isn’t Albany, it’s Boston.

Do you really read anything before responding?

I didn’t bring up whether the vaccinated can spread the virus at a lower rate or not in the post you’re responding to.

Please try reading carefully before responding with non-sequitors. You’re not the objective referee you’re pretending to be.

If it was so easy to find the answers, then why not provide them here for everyone's benefit? — Harry Hindu

Because it’s been covered by numerous people numerous times. I’m not doing it again simply because you refuse to take 15 minutes and read.

Here's a question no one has asked: — Harry Hindu

It has. Anti-vaxxers (like you) raise these questions constantly. The very fact you think they’ve “never been raised” is laughable.

What threat are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated? If there is still a threat even though you are vaccinated, then why get vaccinated at all? If I can still carry and spread the virus even though I'm vaccinated, then what purpose is there to get vaccinated? — Harry Hindu

Did you stop for a second and think: “Maybe others — many others — have asked this question?”

Apparently not. If you did, you’d find answers on an interesting bit of technology called the Internet. Odd that you would miss that.

But feel free to go on thinking that experts have missed these questions somehow, and continue to push for vaccinations anyway.

about the actual position that variance in degree of support within the cohort of experts is not well correlated with a theory's predictive power, — Isaac

That’s not the “actual position,” except in your imagination.

Degree of consensus, like degree of experimental confirmation, like the degree of corroborating evidence, etc, I would suspect is indeed correlated with reliability.

But so far as I know, this hasn’t been systematically studied. Looking at historical and current cases where consensus is high — like climate change — it’s fairly obvious there’s a correlation. Which is why laymen should trust consensus, and which was the ACTUAL position of this thread.

Love the science post link. That’s hilarious.

People who nit-pick fluctuations/change, and then use them as evidence that science or government should not be trusted, are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how the scientific process works. — James Riley

I think that’s the underlying problem here, yes.

The WHO likewise reliably gave out false information early on. — frank

I’m talking about vaccine recommendations. But what false information are you referring to? “Early on,” when circumstances were changing rapidly, it’s understandable mistakes were made. No one is arguing perfection.

The question is: should the population (laypeople) trust the CDC and the WHO? Yes, they should. Should we trust scientists? Yes, we should. Neither implies we should do so because science and medicine never make mistakes. My mechanic makes mistakes — I still trust him with my car.

Now you have to show what mechanisms exist to make it impossible (or less likely) that a majority on any one question could be the result of any of these other factors, of which conflict of interest is just one. — Isaac

It’s always possible. It’s possible that Noah’s flood is responsible for all the world’s fossils too. So what?

Then it is a contortion to say that they have no other information. How can they use "a number of reasons" yet also have "no other information"? — Isaac

Number of emotional reasons, as I made clear. Knowing nothing else but betting odds, I know people who cheer for the underdogs. Why? Because they have information Vegas doesn’t? No—because they like rooting for underdogs.

I’d say the WHO, the CDC, the AMA, etc, represent a majority of experts. This is all most laypeople know. So is it right to trust the CDC?
— Xtrix

No. — Isaac

Well that answer is clearly and demonstrably wrong in this case. Likewise for other cases of “both sides.” So the question is: how many times does the consensus of experts need to be proven true before we simply (as laypeople) trust them? We can do deep dives into these issues if we want, as we can with quantum mechanics, but it’s best to just take their word for it. That’s the correct choice.

Those laypeople who go with a minority view are almost always doing so for emotional reasons, as is the case with anti-vaxxers.

So you're saying that when there's two competing theories, there is always overwhelming evidence in favour of one? — Isaac

No.

Yes, but you've given no evidence at all that the theories supported by the majority of scientists have a greater quantity of these properties than theories supported only by a minority. — Isaac

I did. The case of the theory of evolution was an example. Ask yourself why the consensus is so high. It’s because there’s overwhelming evidence to support it. Hence, very high acceptance and confirmation.

That’s not true in every case, but nearly without exception when you reach higher levels of consensus,

But maybe we could do something at societal level, because it does not seem normal to me that so many folks would chose to go irrational. We're doing something wrong. — Olivier5

Yes, we’re educating people poorly. Now every joe blow out there thinks he’s doing god’s work by “thinking for himself” and “questioning authority” — which sounds good until you see where this leads.

Something has gone wrong indeed. As Aristotle would say, something is out of balance.

Most people can now justify any belief based on the nonsense espoused by some in this thread: consensus of experts mean nothing— they’re all falling for group think, all establishment hacks. We, who are outside it all, will go with the righteous dissenters, the small minority who sees the REAL truth and who “they” try to suppress.

It’s a fantastic story for every charlatan and crackpot conspiracy theorist out there. So 97% of climate scientists agree? Who cares! That means nothing— don’t you know most scientists thought the earth was flat once? Etc.

Quite sad and quite scary.

Then you've agreed to fight it out on Isaac's terms, but I'm not sure you have to. — Srap Tasmaner

Me neither, since he doesn’t believe consensus means anything. So there’s no sense explaining, empirically, WHY this is the case.

This is what I wanted to get at: are we compelled interpose a step where we play at doing social science every time we face a decision about how to be a good citizen, or just a good person? — Srap Tasmaner

Sorry, but I really don’t know what you’re asking here.

I’m not talking about being a good citizen or a good person really.

I think one of the things that's getting mixed up here is the difference between the question "should we trust experts opinion?" (the answer is yes) and "should we trust the majority of experts over the minority of experts of the same education level?" the answer is no - by specifying that they're of the same education level we've removed (or severely limited) the one variable which had a link to 'rightness' (education level) so the remaining variables responsible for the within class variance may or may not be linked to 'rightness'.
— Isaac

I get that. It's an interesting point, a reasonable point, but what kind of point is it? — Srap Tasmaner

Complete and utter fabrication. That’s what kind of point it is.

Should a LAYMAN trust the majority of experts over a minority? Yes, he should, if this is all the information he has (as is normally the case). The case of climate change or evolution or quantum mechanics are cases in point.

There is no “link” between “rightness” and “education level.” I never said such a thing. An expert is an expert, whether a Ph.D or Masters level. The move he’s desperately trying to make here to avoid a truism is to pretend that consensus between experts doesn’t tell us anything— and it does.

I'm just correcting Xtrix's first error mistaking variance in a population with variance in a stratified cohort. — Isaac

In fact that’s exactly what you’re doing, which I pointed out several posts ago.

We should rather start with this simple truth and work outward to understand why it’s true— not deny it’s truth altogether, as if consensus means nothing and science means nothing.
— Xtrix

Yes, we should start with the conclusion we like and then keep changing our reasoning until we justify it regardless of any mathematics, evidence, or line of reasoning to the contrary - what a brilliant way to go about thinking over a topic. I couldn't have written a better explanation of exactly the process I was describing in theory selection. — Isaac

No, not with a conclusion, with a truth. A truth which you seem hellbent on diverting the conversation from.

We start from facts and then we try to explain them. So in the case of consensus, we should ask: why is that so? Not “it’s 50/50, and there’s no real way to know.” There is: the theory of evolution is correct, creation science isn’t. The earth is a sphere, not flat. These are not equal theories. Because they’re not equal, they likewise have a massive imbalance of expert opinion.

Second opinions, corroboration of witnesses, replication of experiments, etc, all contribute to greater confidence. This involves agreement of more than one person. Working with thousands of other scientists around the world as part of the scientific enterprise, greater consensus means something. You seem to think it doesn’t. And you’re wrong. You won’t worm your way out of it either.

I'd like to talk about more about what Plato is saying and whether we ought to care, but instead I'll close by noting yet again the cross-purposes in this damn thread: one side (mostly that's just you Isaac) is talking about this as an empirical question, and the other side (this would be you @Xtrix) sees all Isaac's talk as a shocking failure of citizenship. — Srap Tasmaner

On the contrary, it is indeed an empirical question. I never said otherwise.

We can get into WHY it’s a better choice to go with the overwhelming consensus when you’re a layman, but we’re not even at that stage if we deny that this is the correct move (which it is).

If it turned out that 97% had ties to the fossil fuel industry would it still make sense to go with the majority? — Isaac

Of course not.

it's been stated from the beginning that there is no other information that the layman has beyond the majority.
— Xtrix

Then you too are engaging in "ridiculous contortions" — Isaac

You yourself stated “both sides” are generally ignorant, which I agree with. This isn’t a ridiculous contortion— people simply go with one or the other “expert,” for many reasons, usually on the instinctive level, because it appeals to some other belief or value they hold.

I’d say the WHO, the CDC, the AMA, etc, represent a majority of experts. This is all most laypeople know. So is it right to trust the CDC? I think so, yes. Many don’t, and give their reasons — but they’re almost always bogus.

Laymen would do well to stop pretending to know things they don’t, and listen to what experts are telling them — especially the mainstream of experts, as reflected in the aforementioned organizations.

If you're arguing it isn't correct, then you're essentially saying that a laymen ISN'T better off going with the overwhelming consensus, and in fact cannot know either way -- perhaps it's 50/50, etc. Which is an absurdity, as demonstrated by the facts.
— Xtrix

What facts? — Isaac

Amazing. So then you concede this is indeed what you believe.

What facts? The facts of reality; the overwhelming evidence that supports one theory (which is usually why there is such a consensus) over others (e.g., evolution vs creationism).

In your view, for the layperson, a bet on evolution theory isn’t any wiser than betting on creation “theory.”

This is how you know you’re on the wrong track.

One obvious way to tie-off this daisy chain is trust. At some point, early or late, you trust someone or some institution. Done. But don't we have to talk about how you make such a trust decision? Maybe not. Maybe people just choose, but you're not going to like everyone's choices of whom too trust. Yuck. — Srap Tasmaner

It is a matter of trust, yes. A large part of the country -- 30 or 40% maybe -- go with the 3% who dissent on climate change (actually less than that, perhaps 1% or so). That's a huge mistake. If we struggle to say this, then we’re deluding ourselves. We should rather start with this simple truth and work outward to understand why it’s true— not deny it’s truth altogether, as if consensus means nothing and science means nothing.

The rest of the country, who are equally ignorant of climate science, throw their support behind the 97% consensus. They are making the correct move, even if by accident. I argue that it isn't completely an accident, and that there is something intuitive or instinctive about their decision -- just as winning poker players can make theoretically correct moves without knowing anything about game theory -- that deserves at least some credit, though minimal.

That's what started this odd discussion. What's followed is typical of those who try to use the little they've learned in philosophy in order to justify their awful reasoning: when in doubt, bullshit your way through rather than admit it. Throw in abstractions, empty verbiage, multisyllabic words, ludicrous hypotheticals, etc. Go so far as to even question the very nature of truth.

You see this in much discourse these days. When a QAnon supporter is confronted with facts and evidence, they're forced to undermine it all (“no one trusts those data or those polls”). When confronted with the idea that there is no evidence supporting their claims, I heard this nugget once remarked: "Well, there hasn't been any non-evidence yet."

This is what’s happening here. Maybe others will be bewildered by it; I will not. There’s a simple matter at stake, and no amount of bullshit will divert from the question.

But the aptness of that analogy is exactly what Isaac is disputing, isn't it? — Srap Tasmaner

Sadly, it appears so. Which basically means there's no reason to go with the overwhelming scientific consensus over anything else -- because, who knows? Theory of evolution or creation science -- all experts, so who should we non-experts believe? No way to tell. Take the vaccine, which is the overwhelming medical consensus, or go with Alex Jones? No way to know.

If this is where we've arrived, then we should realize something has gone drastically wrong.

I'll pose this again:

Should laypeople go with the 97% consensus on climate change? Why or why not?
— Xtrix

At the risk of flogging the dead horse of statistical misunderstanding, I'll try another explanation. Remove climate change and replace it with issue X. — Isaac

No. That's not the question. Issue "X" is an abstraction; what I'm asking about is a specific real-world example. You can't answer that simple question, and so have to fall back on empty verbiage.

Regardless, I'll go over this again with you.

On issue X the facts are such that two possible theories can be both held without being falsified by them (you're familiar with underdetermination of theories?). Theory X1 is favoured by experts with green eyes, theory X2 is favoured by experts with blue eyes. 97% of experts have green eyes. Now does it benefit the layman in any way to go with the 97%? — Isaac

This is what I mean by employing ridiculous contortions when all else fails. But to answer your question: if it could be determined, somehow, that experts with green eyes causes them all to choose the same theory, then this is extra information that is relevant, and one should take that into account when deciding who to listen to. But that, as I've now stated for the umpteenth time, is not the question, because it's been stated from the beginning that there is no other information that the layman has beyond the majority.

If you add to the climate change example this important piece of information: "The 97% who agree are all graduates of Liberty University," that is important indeed. Likewise, if it turns out that most of the 3% of dissenters have ties to the fossil fuel industry, that's also relevant. But that's not the question.

To show that the layman (assuming he's interested in being right) is better off pinning their flag to theory X1, you'd have to show that the variance in support for each theory is caused by (or at least correlated with) the variable {rightness/accuracy/utility}, otherwise the fact that theory X1 has a high score in the variable {numbers of experts supporting} has no bearing at all on the variable of interest. — Isaac

And it does correlate. How do we know? For the same reasons that greater experimental confirmation increases likelihood of accuracy. Not only is there historical data, but we know from predictive accuracy as well.

It helps to think about the consequences of what you're arguing. If it leads to absurd conclusions, which it does, then you know you're on the wrong track.

This still doesn't address the original question.

Scientific consensus on any particular issue usually pertains to theories -- whether quantum theory, the theory of evolution, atomic theory, the big band theory, or anthropogenic climate change. When there is overwhelming evidence that supports a theory, the experts (as experts) will be familiar with this, the consensus will change and often reflect the level of confidence in a theory. This can change/adapt over time with the emergence of new theories and new evidence.

The same is true in other cases, like vaccinations. Experts run experiments, check data, gather evidence, conduct studies, etc. -- all around the world. Experts do not come to consensus because they've got green eyes or want to jump on the bandwagon, and certainly not at higher levels of consensus. It can, of course, turn out that they're wrong or everyone has missed something -- that's happened. But that's very rare in well supported theories. People like to point to Newtonian mechanics and Einstein, but Einstein didn't falsify Newton's theories.

So back to the question: Is the layman better off choosing the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change (evolution, quantum mechanics, etc) or not, knowing nothing else?

If you aren't able to answer in the affirmative, then you're simply wrong, because that's the correct answer. In the same way it would be the right answer to bet on something with a 60% chance of winning and not a 40% chance of winning -- knowing nothing else and not getting better betting odds. It's really that simple.

If you're arguing it isn't correct, then you're essentially saying that a laymen ISN'T better off going with the overwhelming consensus, and in fact cannot know either way -- perhaps it's 50/50, etc. Which is an absurdity, as demonstrated by the facts.

in opposition to any understanding of statistics of or the way expert discourse works — Isaac

This from someone who rejects the idea that overwhelming scientific and medical consensus is the correct choice for a layperson. You have no idea what you're talking about.

They can either attack the 97% statistic, or go with the 3% :cool: — Wheatley

:up:

Mostly it’s the former, because they too know very well that going against the overwhelming international consensus looks bad.

I'll pose this again:

Should laypeople go with the 97% consensus on climate change? Why or why not?

In my view, the answer is obvious -- not because it happens to be supported by the overwhelming evidence, but because it's the correct move when there is not more information.

a study has never been done about this
— Xtrix

Yeah it has. I mentioned it. It's why we're talking about this. — Srap Tasmaner

No, it hasn't.

What you mentioned is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about involved a hypothetical consensus of experts (in this case, umpires) on a particular call. Which is only to demonstrate the point I was making much earlier in this thread, and which led to the baseball example.

There's a fair amount of noise in any umpire's calls, and in umpires taken as a group. — Srap Tasmaner

They're accurate about 94% of the time, or that's the average anyway. That's not bad. I wonder how that compares to laypeople, which is the relevant point here. Would we presume they're better or worse? Would we imagine two or more umpires analyzing a particular pitch, if more agreed with each other than not, were more likely to be right -- or not? I think the answer is fairly straightforward and commonsensical. But evidently I'm wrong about that, as many seem to be struggling with it.

https://www.dailynews.com/2021/06/23/hoornstra-baseballs-best-and-worst-umpires-by-the-numbers/

I'd say the computer would confirm the majority opinion, more so with higher consensus.
— Xtrix

Then you'd be wrong. — Srap Tasmaner

No, because a study has never been done about this.

I haven't looked at Fangraphs in a while, but the "average called strike zone" tends to move around from year to year. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm talking about one instance being analyzed by 100 umpires. If 97 say it's a strike, I'd go with that. It would be extremely rare that they'd all be incorrect. That level of consensus is unusual in sports, I'd imagine. This is also why they do instant replay reviews and have conferences to discuss calls in various sports. Why? Because more people looking, and more data analyzed, the higher the confidence.

If it really turned out that umpires are usually wrong, then they're hardly experts in the first place. But if we consider them experts, then more eyes looking -- and a higher consensus among these eyes, leads to increased confidence.

Here's one example I recall: umpires are, as a group, somewhat reluctant to make game-deciding strike calls. That is, when a called strike would decide the outcome of the game, then and there, umpires are slightly more likely to call a ball a pitch they would usually call a strike. — Srap Tasmaner

A distribution of individual umpires. First, this group will perform better than others, as experts. So betting on them as a group instead of non-experts is the question -- and I'd argue you must go with the umpires, mistakes aside.

Second, and most importantly, think about if, instead of one umpire making a call, it were a hundred -- and 97 percent of them agreed that it was a strike and not a ball. How confident should we be that they got it right? Say we let the computer analyze it -- would the computer call it a ball or a strike?

I'd say the computer would confirm the majority opinion, more so with higher consensus.

Thus, as a non-umpire (and non-expert, or layperson), the smart bet would be on the expert consensus, not the dissent. Seems almost like a joke that this even has to be justified, but here we are.

Science and experts make mistakes, sometimes they get things wrong, sometimes the prevailing ideology changes, new theories emerge with new evidence, and on and on we go. That's a truism. The question is: what do we, as people who cannot be experts in everything, do when we want to learn something about the world? When we have to base our decision and actions on other people, who do we trust? Who do we "bet on"? That's the question.

The answer, in my view, unless there's good reason to believe otherwise (and there almost never is), one goes with the experts, and the expert consensus within the field of science or medicine.

If this rule of thumb were followed by most people today, the pandemic would be lower than the levels they were at in June (at least in the US), we wouldn't have such "division" about climate science and could actually pass some legislation to do something about it, etc. Instead, we have people listening to anti-vaxxer enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists, industry propaganda, climate deniers, astrologers, psychics, 9/11 truthers, media pundits, etc. A lot of this stems from not only ignorance (as most people are ignorant of all kinds of things), but bad instinct. The ones who have the instinct to make the correct choice don't deserve much praise, but they deserve some.

Alternatively, as Yohan pointed out earlier, this undermines the idea of majority consensus. If it's just linearly related to intellect then the majority are almost certainly wrong, as they don't represent the cohort with most intelligence. The group that are right will will one of the minorities but we won't be able to judge which (are they the most intelligent, or the most stupid?) because we won't understand the arguments. — Isaac

First of all, by what metric are you judging "intelligence" by? The IQ distribution? In which case, this is not the general population but a group of people who are experts in their field. To argue there's a similar distribution within this subgroup in terms of general intelligence or expertise is bizarre and unfounded.

Second, think for a second about the logical consequences of this reasoning. It would mean that the majorities are almost always wrong, since they constitute the mediocre middle 80%. The super smart top 10% will usually have it right, since they're the top 10% -- but it's just a matter of figuring out if they're actually the super smart ones or the stupid ones, the bottom 10%.

By this reasoning, we'd certainly want to bet on flat earth theorists and Creation scientists, who themselves argue along similar lines and, according to you, are correct to do so.

This is a ridiculous argument. Why you go on like this, simply to justify your own decision to bet on a minority view (in this case, I assume, issues around COVID), is beyond me. But it's truly embarrassing to read, in my view. You've now had to regress to empty verbiage and abstractions, as is the typical tactic of those who no longer have any real argument. This was one of Trump's tactics, for example, when confronted with realities.

All (sufficiently detailed) theories about how to handle COVID are new theories, — Isaac

No, they aren't new. And they're not theories.

If it was a trending item, there seems to be a coordinated effort to "dislike" almost anything from mainstream news that trends. You see it in every news video that pops up on YouTube. It's almost always right-wing, as far as I can see. If it's Trump speaking or something they consider positive, the ratios change. I'm not sure if bots are being employed, but I imagine they are.

I noticed this a while ago. It's pathetic.

Anyway -- funny video, and he's exactly right.

There are a few serious side effects, most notoriously the blood clots that in "Some cases were life-threatening or had a fatal outcome", according to the UK Government. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You're right -- my last statement wasn't clear, but I was referring more to the issue of birth control and blood clots which was raised by Baker.

It's part of how Astrazeneca got a bad reputation. I've heard it on the national news, and I'm sure they can fact-check better than I can. — baker

I think that had to do with blood clots, and was shown to be mistaken.

Aww. And completely excuse the men. Because, hey, boys will be boys, right. — baker

Excuse the men for what?