Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

Experts in actual knowledge.

We were unsure whether there were any effects on tooth decay when fluoride is removed from a water supply.

Hence, no evidence. Where's this unequivocal evidence that fluoride is doing anything in water if it's such a known fact (according to you)? Surely, there will be completely objective and empirical evidence pointing to that very claim.

I'm begging you to actually read the link you cited.

It's a metastudy of 22 studies. Only one even looked at the effect of removing fluoride from existing sources, and says they can't be sure... yet that's what RFK wants to do.

On the effects of adding it, it indicated... a minor benefit. Before widespread availability of fluoride toothpaste, it was a major benefit, and afterwards it was a minor benefit (because the toothpaste now fulfils the same need). So fluoride isn't harmful. Is beneficial. Is now provided mostly by another source. But a small benefit remains in its presence in the water.

What did I believe about healthy food beforehand? Surely, I would've found that the food pyramid was then indeed correct because that's what I was taught in school.

No, I'm sure you believed different nonsense of your own creation instead.

You actually think the FDA is going to change any stance about vaccines because of RFK Jr?

You actually think the Secretary of the department of Health has no influence on health policy?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm begging you to actually read the link you cited.

It's a metastudy of 22 studies. Only one even looked at the effect of removing fluoride from existing sources, and says they can't be sure... yet that's what RFK wants to do.

On the effects of adding it, it indicated... a minor benefit. Before widespread availability of fluoride toothpaste, it was a major benefit, and afterwards it was a minor benefit (because the toothpaste now fulfils the same need). So fluoride isn't harmful. Is beneficial. Is now provided mostly by another source. But a small benefit remains in its presence in the water.



No, I'm sure you believed different nonsense of your own creation instead.



You actually think the Secretary of the department of Health has no influence on health policy?

So would you say someone who says the primary cause of obesity is genetics is an expert in knowledge or credential or both?

So where is this empirical evidence at?
Studies conducted after 1975 showed that adding fluoride to water may lead to slightly less tooth decay in children’s baby teeth. We could not be sure whether adding fluoride to water reduced tooth decay in children’s permanent teeth or decay on the surfaces of permanent teeth.

Adding fluoride to water may slightly increase the number of children who have no tooth decay in either their baby teeth or permanent teeth. However, these results also included the possibility of little or no difference in tooth decay.

The results I got speak for themselves.

You're changing the talking points again, I didn't say that.

 

[Silvanus]

So would you say someone who says the primary cause of obesity is genetics is an expert in knowledge or credential or both?

No idea, I haven't looked into her credentials. I just thought the term "expert in actual knowledge" was gold.

So where is this empirical evidence at?
Studies conducted after 1975 showed that adding fluoride to water may lead to slightly less tooth decay in children’s baby teeth. We could not be sure whether adding fluoride to water reduced tooth decay in children’s permanent teeth or decay on the surfaces of permanent teeth.

Adding fluoride to water may slightly increase the number of children who have no tooth decay in either their baby teeth or permanent teeth. However, these results also included the possibility of little or no difference in tooth decay.

The results I got speak for themselves.

They do indeed, though they don't say what RFK Jr. believes, or what you've been saying.

You're changing the talking points again, I didn't say that.

I'm merely mirroring your style of reply: ask an inane, leading question.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No idea, I haven't looked into her credentials. I just thought the term "expert in actual knowledge" was gold.



They do indeed, though they don't say what RFK Jr. believes, or what you've been saying.



I'm merely mirroring your style of reply: ask an inane, leading question.

I care about what people say and whether it actually makes logical sense, I don't care about credentials. What's there to look into? Someone that says that isn't an expert. Why can't you just admit that they don't know what they're talking about?

I said what has RFK Jr. actually wanted to do that would make people less healthy. I don't see removing fluoride as making people less healthy. I see a doctor on the dietary guidelines committee as believing the main cause of obesity is genetics is a potential massive issue in making people less healthy.

The person that's head of any organization like the FDA isn't going to have perfect takes on everything that organization does so you have to look at what they could possibly do and whether it would be a net positive or not.

 

[Silvanus]

I care about what people say and whether it actually makes logical sense, I don't care about credentials. What's there to look into? Someone that says that isn't an expert. Why can't you just admit that they don't know what they're talking about?

Because its not relevant. I wasn't even discussing the validity of what she said. I'm pointing out the utter absurdity of considering it worse than a truly unhinged, dangerous piece of shit like RFK.

I said what has RFK Jr. actually wanted to do that would make people less healthy. I don't see removing fluoride as making people less healthy.

Yes, and you also dismissed the other example, of dismantling the nutrition dept. You were always going to dismiss or ignore whatever examples I gave. That doesn't mean I didn't fulfil the brief.

The person that's head of any organization like the FDA isn't going to have perfect takes on everything that organization does so you have to look at what they could possibly do and whether it would be a net positive or not.

"Perfect takes"!! AIDS doesn't necessarily come from HIV?? Chemtrails are dangerous chemicals?? Vaccines cause autism??

Yes, I'm looking at everything his organisation can do. It has ultimate responsibility for these things. What they could possibly do, if they reflected his dogshit anti-science quackery? Incredible damage.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because its not relevant. I wasn't even discussing the validity of what she said. I'm pointing out the utter absurdity of considering it worse than a truly unhinged, dangerous piece of shit like RFK.



Yes, and you also dismissed the other example, of dismantling the nutrition dept. You were always going to dismiss or ignore whatever examples I gave. That doesn't mean I didn't fulfil the brief.



"Perfect takes"!! AIDS doesn't necessarily come from HIV?? Chemtrails are dangerous chemicals?? Vaccines cause autism??

Yes, I'm looking at everything his organisation can do. It has ultimate responsibility for these things. What they could possibly do, if they reflected his dogshit anti-science quackery? Incredible damage.

You originally responded to the fact I said these 2 people appointed by democrats are worse than RFK Jr so it is relevant unless you just responded to talk about what you wanted to talk about.

I asked you exactly what that department does and you didn't respond.

Also, you didn't answer my question about what department RFK Jr wants to dismantle and what that department does.

And none of those things have any possibility of being changed if RFK Jr. is appointed. Whereas that "expert" that said obesity is primarily caused by genetics is on a dietary guidelines committee that, you know, make dietary guidelines. If that doctor was like a brain surgeon on a surgery committee, I wouldn't give 2 shits about it then.

 

[Silvanus]

You originally responded to the fact I said these 2 people appointed by democrats are worse than RFK Jr so it is relevant unless you just responded to talk about what you wanted to talk about.

Yes. Because even if we assume everything she said was 100% entirely false, it still wouldn't be a tiny fraction as obscenely stupid or dangerous as RFK claiming vaccines cause autism. A despicable lie already responsible for untold misery and millions of deaths worldwide.

I asked you exactly what that department does and you didn't respond.

I assumed you'd be able to do your own research. More fool me!

FDA’s Nutrition Initiatives

FDA is prioritizing its nutrition initiatives to ensure people in the United States have greater access to healthier foods and nutrition information we can all use to make healthier choices more easily.

www.fda.gov

And none of those things have any possibility of being changed if RFK Jr. is appointed. Whereas that "expert" that said obesity is primarily caused by genetics is on a dietary guidelines committee that, you know, make dietary guidelines. If that doctor was like a brain surgeon on a surgery committee, I wouldn't give 2 shits about it then.

So your judgement on what the activist can change is based on the fact the committee issues some guidelines.

Did you know the Department of Health and Human Services also issues guidelines? It also does a fuckload more. It implements federal policy. It makes federal appointments. It's level of power and influence is thousands of times greater. And it's directly responsible for federal policy on vaccine guidance, HIV/AIDS policy, etc.

It's fucking laughable to argue that someone being on a committee is dangerous cos the committee can issue guidelines, while saying someone else can do no harm as the head of the fucking Department of Health and principle health advisor to the President. It's so utterly, utterly laughable. I don't believe you're that stupid.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Dismantling the nutrition department of the FDA, and ending fluoridisation of water would be two examples.

Edit: good lord, the dipshit even believes in chemtrails. He shouldn't be left in charge of a lego set.



Irrelevant distraction, this isn't what we're talking about.

To be fair, the FDA doesn’t give a shit about the health of American citizens either. A quick Google search will show how much garbage is allowed in foods, including some additives that have potentially damaging effects to DNA. Microplastics toxicity is another issue that has only recently had light shed on it. Americans on average are pathetically unhealthy compared to other developed nations. Obesity, heart disease, various cancers, diabetes, etc. are seen as “business as usual” in the vicious cycle of curing the symptom via pharmaceutical kickbacks and exorbitant medical expenses vs the root cause.

It’s also not as easy as simply telling everyone to “eat healthier” when densely populated areas are more prevalent than ever and a growing number of food corps have become bedfellows with the FDA, deliberately lying about the safety of any number of their products; especially with what’s marketed to kids. I couldn’t care less who gets it done politically, so long as something gets done about it. Granted he’s a bit off the deep end on some things but if RFK can put his money where his mouth is on the food issue and isn’t just talking out his ass then more power to him.

 

[Silvanus]

To be fair, the FDA doesn’t give a shit about the health of American citizens either. A quick Google search will show how much garbage is allowed in foods, including some additives that have potentially damaging effects to DNA. Microplastics toxicity is another issue that has only recently had light shed on it. Americans on average are pathetically unhealthy compared to other developed nations. Obesity, heart disease, various cancers, diabetes, etc. are seen as “business as usual” in the vicious cycle of curing the symptom via pharmaceutical kickbacks and exorbitant medical expenses vs the root cause.

Broadly I agree with this. But these issues stem from the FDA being too lax (Compromised by industry lobbying and hamstrung in what it is permitted to do). Eliminating regulation altogether is going in the opposite direction, giving those morbidly unhealthy food corps total free reign. The solution is to empower the FDA to actually do its job, and shield its independence.

I believe that he genuinely cares about these things. But he's easily led and has a poor grasp of both policy and science, so he's pursuing a course of action that will exacerbate everything he's talking about.

 

[Hades]

believe that he genuinely cares about these things. But he's easily led and has a poor grasp of both policy and science, so he's pursuing a course of action that will exacerbate everything he's talking about.

personally I think that’s to generous. People who scheme to get Trump into power and then take place in his government lose that benefit of the doubt. They’re not well meaning fools anymore at that point, but knowingly malicious actors

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes. Because even if we assume everything she said was 100% entirely false, it still wouldn't be a tiny fraction as obscenely stupid or dangerous as RFK claiming vaccines cause autism. A despicable lie already responsible for untold misery and millions of deaths worldwide.

So your judgement on what the activist can change is based on the fact the committee issues some guidelines.

Did you know the Department of Health and Human Services also issues guidelines? It also does a fuckload more. It implements federal policy. It makes federal appointments. It's level of power and influence is thousands of times greater. And it's directly responsible for federal policy on vaccine guidance, HIV/AIDS policy, etc.

It's fucking laughable to argue that someone being on a committee is dangerous cos the committee can issue guidelines, while saying someone else can do no harm as the head of the fucking Department of Health and principle health advisor to the President. It's so utterly, utterly laughable. I don't believe you're that stupid.

---

I assumed you'd be able to do your own research. More fool me!

FDA’s Nutrition Initiatives

FDA is prioritizing its nutrition initiatives to ensure people in the United States have greater access to healthier foods and nutrition information we can all use to make healthier choices more easily.

www.fda.gov

But what she can actually do is more dangerous than anything anyone has complained about RFK Jr. You keep bringing up RFK Jr. on vaccines or HIV/AIDS when that isn't going to change, that's not a possibility of happening. So why are you fear mongering about it? What has he actually said he wants to do that isn't basically in-line with European standards?

That's not a department, that's just a general overview of the FDA's nutrition initiatives. And what does he mean by dismantling or gutting whatever department he's talking about? Does he mean getting better people in there? I don't he means eliminating it since nutrition is his main overall goal with the possible appointment. The FDA has been horrible at nutritional guidelines in the past so how would this be a bad thing (there's kinda nowhere to go but up at this point)? The government has told people to eat wrong for like 50 years now; on your link they are still saying saturated fats are bad and promoting sodium reduction (there's really not much evidence on that). Also, if you just tell people to stop eating processed foods, salt consumption will drop anyway. We have the heart healthy symbol on foods like cereals that are the opposite of heart healthy.

giving those morbidly unhealthy food corps total free reign

They already have free reign...

 

[Silvanus]

But what she can actually do is more dangerous than anything anyone has complained about RFK Jr. You keep bringing up RFK Jr. on vaccines or HIV/AIDS when that isn't going to change, that's not a possibility of happening. So why are you fear mongering about it?

All you've offered is incredulity. Incredulity that the Secretary of the Department of Health would affect the policies of the Department of Health.

That's not a department, that's just a general overview of the FDA's nutrition initiatives. And what does he mean by dismantling or gutting whatever department he's talking about? Does he mean getting better people in there? I don't he means eliminating it since nutrition is his main overall goal with the possible appointment.

"That's not a department"... dude, it shows what the FDA does regarding nutrition. Are you going to argue that all the FDA's nutrition initiatives are done by... other departments unrelated to nutrition? Or maybe that there is no 'nutrition department' so RFK's statement was entirely meaningless? What?

There is no reasonable interpretation by which "eliminate" means "improve and re-staff".

They already have free reign...

No: currently they have very limited, insufficient regulation.

RFK wants to eliminate what tiny regulation there is.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm begging you to actually read the link you cited.

They will not. And you can also bring a bunch of evidence to the table and they will claim that you brought no evidence

It's like RFK claims about vaccines and Austim. His claimed already been fixed for over two decades. It's already been pointed out to RFK has been fixed at least a decade ago. He still goes on about it like it's a real thing. No amount of evidence will prove anything to RFK or Phoenixmgs because they are deliberately not looking for evidence.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Broadly I agree with this. But these issues stem from the FDA being too lax (Compromised by industry lobbying and hamstrung in what it is permitted to do). Eliminating regulation altogether is going in the opposite direction, giving those morbidly unhealthy food corps total free rein. The solution is to empower the FDA to actually do its job, and shield its independence.

I believe that he genuinely cares about these things. But he's easily led and has a poor grasp of both policy and science, so he's pursuing a course of action that will exacerbate everything he's talking about.

There has been conflicting language out there regarding “reform” vs “elimination” because there are two competing sides to this, and typically it’s the one lobbing the most outlandish claims that feels most threatened or has something to hide.

Together with Kennedy, the next FDA commissioner will give direction to the agency. On the day that Trump nominated Marty Makary to be in charge of the FDA, he wrote on Truth Social: “FDA has lost the trust of Americans, and has lost sight of its primary goal as a regulator. He [Makary] will work under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to, among other things, properly evaluate harmful chemicals poisoning our Nation’s food supply and drugs and biologics being given to our Nation’s youth, so that we can finally address the Childhood Chronic Disease Epidemic.”

RFK Jr. Says He Wants To Untie Links Between Industry And FDA

It's unclear to what extent RFK Jr would want to disrupt a drug review process that has given the US a comparative advantage, albeit at the expense of industry dependency

www.forbes.com

We’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

All you've offered is incredulity. Incredulity that the Secretary of the Department of Health would affect the policies of the Department of Health.



"That's not a department"... dude, it shows what the FDA does regarding nutrition. Are you going to argue that all the FDA's nutrition initiatives are done by... other departments unrelated to nutrition? Or maybe that there is no 'nutrition department' so RFK's statement was entirely meaningless? What?

There is no reasonable interpretation by which "eliminate" means "improve and re-staff".



No: currently they have very limited, insufficient regulation.

RFK wants to eliminate what tiny regulation there is.

Did not say that at all. I said X, Y, Z will not happen, not that "the Secretary of the Department of Health would [not] affect the policies of the Department of Health."

There could be multiple departments in the FDA that do something to do with nutrition. Why would RFK Jr. get rid of at least the function of the FDA with regards to nutrition when that's one the main things he wants to do?

What are you taking about, that's the opposite of what RFK Jr. wants to do.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Marty Makary to be in charge of the FDA

Marty is an amazing selection, the guy knows his stuff.

 

[Silvanus]

Did not say that at all. I said X, Y, Z will not happen, not that "the Secretary of the Department of Health would [not] affect the policies of the Department of Health."

You are, in essence, arguing that RFK Jr's beliefs on disease and medicine will not affect the policies of the Department he will control, which oversees those exact areas.

There could be multiple departments in the FDA that do something to do with nutrition. Why would RFK Jr. get rid of at least the function of the FDA with regards to nutrition when that's one the main things he wants to do?

So when RFK said the "department of nutrition needs to go", you're suggesting he... just didn't know what he was talking about?

What are you taking about, that's the opposite of what RFK Jr. wants to do.

And yet it's what he's saying he'll do.