ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
When it comes to human health, why would we even care what we ate in the wild? We also probably raped and randomly killed each other in the wild, that doesn’t mean it’s the way to maximize human health.
Iodine didn’t exist in many parts of the world throughout time, does that mean that iodine shouldn’t be eaten in those regions?
As of now, I would say we’re just not good enough at chemistry to make artificial things that are healthier than natural foods. Of course that’s not even the main goal of most of the food science industry as they’re just trying to prevent stuff from going bad or make it really cheap to mass produce. But I could see in 100 or 200 years the healthiest foods being all artificial.
As of now, I would say we’re just not good enough at chemistry to make artificial things that are healthier than natural foods. Of course that’s not even the main goal of most of the food science industry as they’re just trying to prevent stuff from going bad or make it really cheap to mass produce. But I could see in 100 or 200 years the healthiest foods being all artificial.
Adding iodine to salt and fortifying milk with nutrition has been an incredible boon for human nutrition.
Most of the problems related to food is an incredibly modern problem of eating too much.
And I just don’t like the “natural vs unnatural” distinction. If people were talking about eating whole foods or minimally processed foods as a heuristic, that I can get onto. But people pretend seed oils are the most evil thing ever when nutrition science just doesn’t come close to saying this.
This story is really all you need to know about RFK Jr and his "work" against vaccines:
For the tl;dr crowd: RFK Jr. and his organization steals picture of kid that died, slaps it on his anti-vax book, kid's death has nothing to do with vaccines, parents reach out, nothing is done, kid's name and portrait is spread through the anti-vaxx movement together with their nonsense. Parents now have to grieve their d
More bullshit.
RFK jnr didn't "steal" a kid's picture. It's not his anti-vax book for a start. It's a book written by Ed dowd called "Cause Unknown. The epidemic of sudden deaths in 2021 and 2021". RFK provided the foreword, he didn't write the book. As the title states it's about sudden deaths of young people of (unknown causes). There is speculation in the book as to what maybe caused the spike in deaths. Evidence ( with data provided in the book) shows a correlation with the uptake in covid vaccines. It doesn't say that all the deaths were caused by the vaccine.
You might want to get your facts right before you keep making a fool of yourself all the time. I would suggest finding better media sources than the left wing propaganda outlets you seem to consume.
Hey humans weren’t designed to use AC, get open heart surgery, and drive in cars either so why don’t you go out in the forest and stop using up any of our modern amenities if you really feel like this argument has any logic whatsoever.
The difference is clear, all of these things help us, not hurt us but artificial chemicals in foods cause health problems such as diabetes, obesity and cancer.
I would bet if Kamala started saying "we should Make America Healthy Again and steer people away from sugar, soda and processed foods that are bad for them", you'd be coming on her thread praising and agreeing with her. But if Trump said it, you say the opposite just like the other Trump haters who use that over logic.
You can't argue that all the artificial ingredients in foods, including high fructose corn syrup and large amounts of sugar among other chemicals are good for us. You're comments are so biased against anything "Trump" it makes you look so ridiculous.
If Trump says "I wanna pressure our scientists to come up with a cure for cancer", are you gonna start saying "We don't want a cure for cancer?"
The difference is clear, all of these things help us, not hurt us but artificial chemicals in foods cause health problems such as diabetes, obesity and cancer.
Remember YOUR point was that it was natural for us to eat a certain diet. I pointed out how that’s a completely illogical way of evaluating if something is good or bad. Now you are essentially agreeing with me.
I would bet if Kamala started saying "we should Make America Healthy Again and steer people away from sugar, soda and processed foods that are bad for them", you'd be coming on her thread praising and agreeing with her. But if Trump said it, you say the opposite just like the other Trump haters who use that over logic.
This is just an NPC dialogue tree that has nothing to do with me or this conversation.
You can't argue that all the artificial ingredients in foods, including high fructose corn syrup and large amounts of sugar among other chemicals are good for us. You're comments are so biased against anything "Trump" it makes you look so ridiculous.
I didn’t argue this, stop strawmanning. I said it’s not the job of the FDA to ban food because it’s unhealthy for us, they just evaluate if it is acceptable for human consumption. And I also said it’s really stupid for anyone to believe that Trump, who wants to slash regulations, actually wants to ban high fructose corn syrup or processed foods. Do you realize this man’s favorite restaurant is mcdonalds?
If Trump says "I wanna pressure our scientists to come up with a cure for cancer", are you gonna start saying "We don't want a cure for cancer?"
NPC talking point.
More bullshit.
RFK jnr didn't "steal" a kid's picture. It's not his anti-vax book for a start. It's a book written by Ed dowd called "Cause Unknown. The epidemic of sudden deaths in 2021 and 2021". RFK provided the foreword, he didn't write the book. As the title states it's about sudden deaths of young people of (unknown causes). There is speculation in the book as to what maybe caused the spike in deaths. Evidence ( with data provided in the book) shows a correlation with the uptake in covid v
So, to summarize: He wrote the foreword of the book, he is the chair of the organization that funded it (Children's Health Defense), he promoted the book on social media, the book reiterates all his talking points and he has literally made millions of dollars from the Children's Health Defense organization.
Your conclusion from this is that he has nothing to do with the book and that anyone who thinks so is a fool.
Most processed foods contain a lot of unnatural chemicals that weren't designed to be ingested by the human body such as high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, preservatives, nitrates and nitrites, artificial colors and artificial sweeteners, and most importantly sugar and seed oils. When RFK was referring to processed foods, he's talking about foods containing all these chemicals that are horrible for the human body, as well as soda, candy, and sugar which are all extremely bad for our health (ba
I honestly wonder what it feels like to have your brain.
Donald Trump has given his name and approval to a new piece of merchandise for his supporters to snatch up - $100k watches.
Super fancy watches, his own crypto, commemorative coins - the man just can't stop giving.
Who need policies when you have heart like this! True hero of the people.
If we were discussing any random mammal, someone saying "whatever those mammal ancestors hate in the wild for the previous 10k generations is probably going to be very good nutrition for that mammal, unlike some random stuff we just came up with recently" would be uncontroversial.
for some reasons saying that of human beings becomes controversial, I suppose we could call this nutritional blank slatism.
a whole lot of people have problems with admitting all human behavior has heavy genetical underpinnings.
btw the problem isn't simple processing which we did for 200-500k years as a species (cooking, skinning and so on), which is why the focus is on ULTRAprocessing (which yes has to be defined, but there are solid workable definitions of that).
I wish the problem was mostly only about overeating but unfortunately there are serious reasons to think there are also other nutritional problems.
anyway RFK et al got on this in the worst possible way so it will be impossible to have decent conversations on the topic for a while, which was my point at the beginning
If we were discussing any random mammal, someone saying "whatever those mammal ancestors hate in the wild for the previous 10k generations is probably going to be very good nutrition for that mammal, unlike some random stuff we just came up with recently" would be uncontroversial.
for some reasons saying that of human beings becomes controversial, I suppose we could call this nutritional blank slatism.
a whole lot of people have problems with admitting all human behavior has heavy genetical underp
It is highly controversial. Animals don’t necessarily maximize for length of time surviving in the wild, and we shouldn’t assume that being adapted to eat certain things means that is the optimal thing they should eat. We shouldn’t also assume that it isn’t the optimal thing they should eat. It will be highly dependent on the ecological niche and the animal in question.
There’s no necessary connection between humans hunting some big game 150,000 years ago and that being what we should eat in 2024. It might lend some credence, but it is far underdetermined.
You often talk about how epidemiologists shouldn’t determine public health policies. Well, people that think that “natural diet = better” should stay far away from giving any nutritional advice if that’s the extent of their analysis (actually it is no analysis whatsoever).
very good (or even just "certainly a reasonable nutrition") doesn't mean optimal.
people who think "what our ancestors ate means nothing about how we should inform our dietary choices today" are just negationists of basic biology.
ofc we are already capable of improving food in various ways and we should keep doing so and eat improved food, so it's not about "natural=optimal".
it's about natural = already pretty decent, and in order to justify eating something else you need to clear a high bar , onus of proof is entirely on those who want to push the new food and so on.
mind, all free, in the sense that I have 0 problems with you being allowed to eat whatever stuff you want, and people being able to produce and sell those disgusting things to you.
btw one problem is that we havn't evolve for agriculture yet, and all historical accounts tell us that agriculture didn't give better nutrition that hunting and gathering, it "only" allowed far higher population density (which was great for other reasons).
so when talking "natural" it isn't about how a farmer would have lived 1000 years ago.
you mention big mammals as if the fact we ate them for hundreds of thousands of years (going to great lengths in order to do so, practically and figuratively) didn't matter at all.
it actually does, it's why on it's face being a vegetarian is implausibly appropriate for a human being.
yes you are probably able to survive well as a vegetarian or even worse as a vegan giving great care to supplement your diet appropriately and finding various solutions to satisfy appetite without overeating sugar and so on.
but it requires a very heavy additional cognitive load that in the complex lives we already live, can be a really big burden.
eating eggs meat cheese and so on is a practical healthy way to satisfy most biological urges and needs with decent health outcomes and the reason is, our ancestors did that and evolved to do that.
milk and derivatives are actually one of the few things we evolved genetically to get advantage from (not all human everywhere though), which means the advantage provided was really massive for the population that evolved that so quickly.
but ofc as a vegan you need blank slatism, you can't behave in a way that would have been fully incomprehensible for the totality of your ancestors going back 10k + generations unless you completely deny your biology matters for diet
for chicken eggs specifically we evolved the chickens instead of ourselves creating what is actually close to a "super food" for our species, packed with nutrients and having a zillion possible uses defying boredom as well (which is important for us).
and the natural there comes back again in the sense that it should be a basic heuristic to think that chicken raised like the 1k+ generations of chicken raised before them would yield eggs more appropriate for human consumption than chicken raised "un naturally" (unlike their ancestors), onus of proof again would be on the people claiming the contrary.
given we are very rich (so the higher prices for many of us are easy to bear) telling people that eating free range eggs is very good for their health basically is good advice, ofc I don't want the government involved in this at any step to be clear.
very good (or even just "certainly a reasonable nutrition") doesn't mean optimal.
people who think "what our ancestors ate means nothing about how we should inform our dietary choices today" are just negationists of basic biology.
ofc we are already capable of improving food in various ways and we should keep doing so and eat improved food, so it's not about "natural=optimal".
it's about natural = already pretty decent, and in order to justify eating something else you need to clear a high bar , on
Pretty much nothing of what you said is a real response to what I said, you are just pretending it is, and think typing a lot is a substitute for a response.
You said it yourself, natural does not mean optimal, but even further it doesn’t mean adequate either. We are naturally evolved to drink alcohol, and we have done, but it’s also very bad for our brain.
We evolved to eat this =\= we should eat this.
Luciom. Can you shutup for five minutes? Jesus Christ.
No-one else can get a word in.
So, to summarize: He wrote the foreword of the book, he is the chair of the organization that funded it (Children's Health Defense), he promoted the book on social media, the book reiterates all his talking points and he has literally made millions of dollars from the Children's Health Defense organization.
Your conclusion from this is that he has nothing to do with the book and that anyone who thinks so is a fool.
I didn't say he had nothing to do with the book. Once again you are not being factual. I said he provided the foreword for the book, but he didn't write the book.
You said RFK stole a kid's picture and slapped it on his own anti-vax book. That's a lie. You said it was his book. It isn't. You lied.
By the way, RFK did actually write his own book called "The Real Anthony Fauci". It is a meticulously researched and referenced book full of factual information with evidence to back it up. You should read it. You might learn something.
#1 on AMAZON, TWENTY WEEKS on the NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER LIST, and a WALL STREET JOURNAL, USA TODAY and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY NATIONAL BESTSELLER
Over 1,000,000 copies sold despite censorship, boycotts from bookstores and libraries, and hit pieces against the author.
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauc...
Also here's a bonus fascinating discussion between RFK and Jordan Peterson about how and why he joined the Trump campaign. They also talk about the chronic disease/highly processed food connection.
I didn't say he had nothing to do with the book. Once again you are not being factual. I said he provided the foreword for the book, but he didn't write the book.
You said RFK stole a kid's picture and slapped it on his own anti-vax book. That's a lie. You said it was his book. It isn't. You lied.
By the way, RFK did actually write his own book called "The Real Anthony Fauci". It is a meticulously researched and referenced book full of factual information with evidence to back it up. You should re
The organization that paid for the book is one he leads and chairs, he wrote the foreward, he promoted the book, the book contains his talking points, he makes money of the book. Of course it is his book and nobody is lying about it. You are being pedantic to cover for your own naivety.
Why people go out on a limb for someone who is milking an organization called "Children's Health Defense" for millions of dollars to enrich themselves is beyond me. Enough willing to use their braincells and connect the dots can clearly see that this is a scam being led by a scammer. Stop linking their social media and Youtube videos, because all you are doing is contributing to the scam.
The organization that paid for the book is one he leads and chairs, he wrote the foreward, he promoted the book, the book contains his talking points, he makes money of the book. Of course it is his book and nobody is lying about it. You are being pedantic to cover for your own naivety.
Why people go out on a limb for someone who is milking an organization called "Children's Health Defense" for millions of dollars to enrich themselves is beyond me. Enough willing to use their braincells and co
You're a liar dude, as I have proven. Sadly you haven't got the balls to own up to it.
I really don't understand what your issue is here.
Are you saying that sugar and artificial chemicals are good for our bodies?
If you disagree, that's fine you're entitled to an educated argument but when you say things like "your're just stupid", "you're brain is fried", etc., it only shows some major immaturity on your end and how unintelligent YOU are, not me bud.
speaking of proper nutrition I wouldn't recommend to listen for advice from a person that went full "beef only" diet claiming that healed him of many ailments only to then have a nervous breakdown that lasted like two years
speaking of proper nutrition I wouldn't recommend to listen for advice from a person that went full "beef only" diet claiming that healed him of many ailments only to then have a nervous breakdown that lasted like two years
To be fair, RFK does most of the talking. Peterson is pretty quiet throughout the whole interview, which is quite unusual for him.
I really don't understand what your issue is here.
Are you saying that sugar and artificial chemicals are good for our bodies?
If you disagree, that's fine you're entitled to an educated argument but when you say things like "your're just stupid", "you're brain is fried", etc., it only shows some major immaturity on your end and how unintelligent YOU are, not me bud.
Some of us still remember the 80s when conservatives were calling things like organic food---you guessed it another Commie plot 😀
