> Again, could this be because there is such abundant access to life saving medication, that you are arguing against?
I'm not at all arguing that Epipens don't save lives or that doctors shouldn't prescribe them or that you shouldn't carry one.
Let me reframe my argument: Crime is a real risk no matter where you live in this country. But we should not be surprised that people that sell you security are incentivized to scare you about the risk of crime or its randomness.
I would not say people shouldn't take whatever precautions they need against crime, but don't think it's controversial to say the risk is overstated.
It's easy enough to say that never stepping outside of your house because crime exists is a silly conclusion to make. But people for some reason thought it was completely normal to deprive children of exposure to large swaths of the food pyramid despite no underlying history or diagnosis because a risk was overstated to them.
Still, I am admitting that my targeting of Epipens in particular something of a crackpot argument. But also we live in a world still reeling from the effects of the Sackler family and the marketing they used on the medical industry - would it be that far fetched if we learned in 20-30 years that the life saving ability of emergency epinephrine was overstated for profit?
Yes? It's silly to think Big Epipen is out to get you. I don't even know what you think your point is.
We do the best with the information we have. If in 30 years, the standard of care changes due to new consensus, that's a good thing. It doesn't mean everyone is an eeeeeevil moneygrubbing whatever, it just means we have more information.
I'm not at all arguing that Epipens don't save lives or that doctors shouldn't prescribe them or that you shouldn't carry one.
Let me reframe my argument: Crime is a real risk no matter where you live in this country. But we should not be surprised that people that sell you security are incentivized to scare you about the risk of crime or its randomness.
I would not say people shouldn't take whatever precautions they need against crime, but don't think it's controversial to say the risk is overstated.
It's easy enough to say that never stepping outside of your house because crime exists is a silly conclusion to make. But people for some reason thought it was completely normal to deprive children of exposure to large swaths of the food pyramid despite no underlying history or diagnosis because a risk was overstated to them.
Still, I am admitting that my targeting of Epipens in particular something of a crackpot argument. But also we live in a world still reeling from the effects of the Sackler family and the marketing they used on the medical industry - would it be that far fetched if we learned in 20-30 years that the life saving ability of emergency epinephrine was overstated for profit?