I share your contempt for dishonest and pernicious "experts".
But the Precautionary Principle is gibberish. It has no place in a Science Moment, and I wish you would stop talking about it as if it had any value whatsoever. Caution is a good thing, right up until the point at which too much caution becomes a bad thing. This "principle" is no principle at all, but rather a rhetorical device, or at best a "rule of thumb", as you yourself refer to it in Moment #113. No simple "principle" can determine the appropriate level of caution in a wide range of situations. It's nonsense, not science.
Our research team had shown this in this peer-reviewed study, November 2020.
https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part3
I share your contempt for dishonest and pernicious "experts".
But the Precautionary Principle is gibberish. It has no place in a Science Moment, and I wish you would stop talking about it as if it had any value whatsoever. Caution is a good thing, right up until the point at which too much caution becomes a bad thing. This "principle" is no principle at all, but rather a rhetorical device, or at best a "rule of thumb", as you yourself refer to it in Moment #113. No simple "principle" can determine the appropriate level of caution in a wide range of situations. It's nonsense, not science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle