Of course this is an issue that could be avoided if cloud providers offered a simple way for users to enable client side encryption, not just of the content but the entire file system. Then they literally have no idea what they are storing and it's hard to see how any court could compel them to reveal it either.
I don't know the timeline of when thimersoal was withdrawn but it's one of the whackamole talking points of antivaxxers - MMR causes autism, mercury causes autism, vaccine schedules cause autism. Due to their constant scaremongering the rates of vaccination have changed significantly that if any of those things were true, that they caused autism then it should be observable in the rates of autism. And it isn't. It still doesn't stop them producing scare stories of course.
And DropBox is probably the most benign of mainstream cloud hosts. Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft all sell content and sign voluminous contracts for the sale of said content. It's not hard to imagine that they would or could be obliged to scan for infringing content and notify the content providers when they find any.
Secondly, if there were a link, then we should expect to be able to observe it thanks to the activity of celebrity morons like Jenny McCarthy. If vaccination or the minute traces of an antimicrobial called thimerosal (a mercury compound) used in some vaccines were the cause of autism then surely it should observable in the rates of autism? After the scare, less people vaccinated and manufacturers removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines so there should have been an observable effect on autism rates. There wasn't.
Or maybe, just maybe it's a combination of factors, each bearing its own small risk and in conjunction increasing the rate. Or maybe it's simply better and more sensitive diagnoses of the condition.
One thing is certain. The link between vaccination and autism has been extensively searched for and there isn't one.
But I wasn't suggesting that. A couple of million could be lobbed at a university or clinic to conduct a well designed study that compared an alt health treatment vs a placebo. If it works as well as the anecdotes would have us believe, then the result would be clear and reproducible and would ultimately legitimize it and lead to mainstream acceptance. Some large alt health companies have turnovers in the billions and the industry itself is enormous. They have deep enough pockets to fund the research.
Demand evidence of this (e.g. double blinded studies) and they'll provide anecdotes. If you go to the effort of explaining why anecdotes are weak evidence and prone to confirmation bias, you'll get increasingly bizarre and unconvincing explanations why the scientific method cannot possibly test these claims. Push hard enough and inevitably the response turns into a big rant about the FDA and big pharma, about how they kill people, are suppressing natural cures etc. What you won't get at any stage is actual evidence to support their claims.
It reminds me a little of Segway - heralded as a social revolution that would transform the way we travel. Then it turns out that riding a segway made someone look like an asshole so it was relegated to specialist roles - oil tankers, warehouses, promenades etc.
After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson