He was an environmental lawyer, but being a lawyer is about being an advocate. It is different from scientific training. I was taught that when an experiment turned out different from what you expected, that this was better than if it had turned out as you expected--because now you learned something. Science-based medicine had a good description of the difference about a month or so ago.
EDT
David Gorski
wrote, "What I do like to point out is that lawyers, like RFK Jr., tend to approach data and studies very differently than scientists. While scientists test a hypothesis by doing experiments and studies to test it, potentially falsifying it—i.e., they care if the hypothesis is actually aligned with nature and reality and will reject it if it fails to stand up to experimental testing—lawyers are trying to make a case for they position that they are defending. To that end, they will cherry pick evidence to support their case and look for any way to denigrate or discredit evidence that does not. This is exactly what RFK Jr. will do, but even more so. Now that he controls the CDC and NIH, he will be in a position to fund new research and cherry pick existing research that results in “evidence”—no matter how dubious—to support his policies, namely undermining confidence in vaccines and removing them from the market, and that is exactly what he will do."