I understand why people are skeptical of experts. I just feel really sorry for people who don’t have the intellectual tools to be selective in their skepticism. I don’t know what the answer is--and I doubt blanket deference to “experts” and “the science” is it.

It would be helpful if more people understood how robust randomised clinical controlled trials are. And how risk-averse regulatory agencies are.

It's quite possible that many more lives have been lost to the precautionary principle than saved.

But again it is "experts" that impose the precautionary principle. And it's other "experts" who oppose it. The trick is working out which experts to trust. I get that this is a hard task.