Tariffs are quite different than a sales tax because they can select winners and losers in a market. Cane sugar vs sugar beets etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet
However, they don’t have to be high enough to change who wins, even small ones adjust how much foreign subsidies manipulate the market. Foreign governments should consider how much US corn syrup impacts domestic consumption for example as a separate issue from how it impacts domestic sugar production.
China’s currency manipulation has second order effects that benefits Americans. We don’t necessarily want China to stop, instead the goal should be to minimize the harm while extracting maximum benefits. A small tariff that caused them to double down on currency manipulation would be a massive win.
Although aluminum at high doses can cause a variety of clinical manifestations, the quantity of aluminum in vaccines is too small to cause a direct toxic effect. Indeed, the quantity of aluminum in biological specimens from those receiving aluminum-containing vaccines is indistinguishable from unvaccinated subjects. The concern that aluminum in vaccines might be associated with a rare autoimmune disease called macrophagic myofasciitis has been refuted by previous studies.
Although aluminum at high doses can cause a variety of clinical manifestations, the quantity of aluminum in vaccines is too small to cause a direct toxic effect. Indeed, the quantity of aluminum in biological specimens from those receiving aluminum-containing vaccines is indistinguishable from unvaccinated subjects. The concern that aluminum in vaccines might be associated with a rare autoimmune disease called macrophagic myofasciitis has been refuted by previous studies.
To the people at large, a lot of "science" consists entirely of "hey look, a blessed paper says so; anyone who disagrees is a heretic", which is exactly what the atheists (and other-religion-ists) see for insert-religion-here.
Religion is dogmatic about its static, mutually exclusive, non falsifiable position(s) over extremely long periods of time.
The topics you are alluding to are usually novel, complex, changing, and subject to healthy debate. They are quite different.
I agree there is an aspect of belief amongst lay persons that they both share which i feel is the more subtle but valid aspect of your argument, but separating it from the initial part of my comment i feel invalidates its usefulness.
But we aren’t talking about firing one person. There are macro effects to firing people at this scale and shutting down whole departments. Not to mention the fact that it is illegal.
