RFK - Make America Healthy? again?
I believe this guy is going to need his own thread.
The earth is not flat , another win for nasa .
its about health topic so i put it here but that was hilarious by trump "great economic and finance mind " of his.
getting to understand why he bankrupt so many times...
"I ain't no anti-vaxxer, but I don't get vaccinated."
At this point, it's just another flu shot. Get both when your cold season begins, it takes 20 minutes out of your year. Anyone coming up with reasons to avoid either are being babies.
When I first skimmed that wall of text, I didn't realize it was from a linked article. As a result, when I first read:
If you’ve read my article on logic
I thought BJ was saying that he had written an article on logic. I was excited for what I was certain would be an entertaining read. But alas, it wasn't to be.
Except that the ancient Greeks figured out that the Earth wasn't flat more than two thousand years before NASA even existed.
And I myself got the double-jab Covid vaccine in 2021.
So, I ain't no anti-vaxxer.
#defundNASA
Doesn’t change the meaning of my answer to your reply.
When science is right , it got nothing to do with some certain corporations being favoured or not vs truth .
It just is .
Doesn’t change the meaning of my answer to your reply.
When science is right , it got nothing to do with some certain corporations being favoured or not vs truth .
It just is .
I agree we should follow science when it is right.
But BigPharma isn't primarily driven by science; it's primarily driven by $$$.
And sometimes BigPharma produces drugs that are life-saving and wonderful.
And sometimes they literally manufacture health conditions to sell drugs to gullible folks like me to make $$$.
I agree we should follow science when it is right.
But BigPharma isn't primarily driven by science; it's primarily driven by $$$.
And sometimes BigPharma produces drugs that are life-saving and wonderful.
And sometimes they literally manufacture health conditions to sell drugs to gullible folks like me to make $$$.
Ok
But vaccine isn’t a problem despite w.e BJ try to prove for years.
I guess RFK decided to back off his ludicrous claim about Tylenol causing autism (using same garbage “scientific studies like BJ) , afraid of gigantic defamation suits ….
The role and responsibilities matter far more than personal appearance or lifestyle.
Policy outcomes and qualifications are what should be evaluated, not body type or identity.
I agree we should follow science when it is right.
But BigPharma isn't primarily driven by science; it's primarily driven by $$$.
And sometimes BigPharma produces drugs that are life-saving and wonderful.
And sometimes they literally manufacture health conditions to sell drugs to gullible folks like me to make $$$.
This is simply conflating big pharma and science. This discussion is about listening to and understanding science. You then say but big pharma doesn't use science. Cool man, didn't say listen to and understand big pharma.
Example: Benadryl. Science says don't take it. Big pharma is still trying to sell it to you.
We're saying don't take it because science shows it is less effective and has worse side effects than alternatives. It would make no sense for you to reply "but you can't trust big pharma!" as a reply to that. Our advice is in line with the science, not big pharma.
Side note: you are correct not to blindly trust pharmaceutical corporations.
Meanwhile, science, not big pharma, is out here curing another type of cancer previously thought uncurable.
Universal Base-Edited CAR7 T Cells for T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
This is simply conflating big pharma and science. This discussion is about listening to and understanding science. You then say but big pharma doesn't use science. Cool man, didn't say listen to and understand big pharma. Example: Benadryl. Science says don't take it. Big pharma is still trying to sell it to you. We're saying don't take it because science shows it is less effec
All very well said.
But nothing I wrote would be inconsistent with your main points here.
The point was you dragged big Pharma into the conversation when it was about science and started attacking big Pharma for no reason.
The point was you dragged big Pharma into the conversation when it was about science and started attacking big Pharma for no reason.
+1
The point was you dragged big Pharma into the conversation when it was about science and started attacking big Pharma for no reason.
The reason I dragged BigPharma into this is because someone brought up vaccines. Just because someone wears a labcoat and has a science degree doesn't automatically mean they're doing 'science.'
Back in the 1960's and 1970's the cigarette companies hired 'scientists' to produce 'scientific' reports showing that there was no causal-link between smoking and lung disease.
There is truism about scientific models and studies: the model/study will almost invariably produce the result desired by whoever is funding it.
The reason I dragged BigPharma into this is because someone brought up vaccines. Just because someone wears a labcoat and has a science degree doesn't automatically mean they're doing 'science.'
This is simply a straw man. Nobody claimed what you are arguing against here.
And yes, vaccines are supported by pharmaceutical companies and science. You STILL were not being asked to trust the pharmaceutical companies at all. There are scientific studies that support vaccines. That's what you were being asked to look at and understand.
And note that I didn't say blindly trust. All science should be approached critically. But that doesn't mean mistrust because pharma. It means use science to assess the validity.
Dragging pharmaceutical companies into discussions about science is simply an excuse to avoid science you don't want to believe without having to think critically about it.
That's it. There's no other reason to do it.
If you feel like there is reason to cast doubt on a particular scientific study, show the reason for it using logic and critical thinking. Don't simply wave your hands vaguely at the big pharma boogey man.
Everyone understands there has been fraud in the scientific community. It was not unearthed by vaguely distrusting info you didn't want to believe. It was approached critically and logically and the flaws were demonstrated using better science that stands up to the scrutiny. That's how we know Andrew Wakefield was a fraud.
Take the L, geezer.
You (wrongfully) injected your (reasonable) beef with big pharma into a conversation that was about something else.
The reason I dragged BigPharma into this is because someone brought up vaccines. Just because someone wears a labcoat and has a science degree doesn't automatically mean they're doing 'science.'Back in the 1960's and 1970's the cigarette companies hired 'scientists' to produce 'scientific' reports showing that there was no causal-link between smoking and lung disease.There i
Just so you know, the leaders of every tobacco manufacturing company in the early 1960's knew that cigarettes caused cancer. What they did at that point was try to convince people that their company's cigarettes were safe even though they knew they weren't.
And yes every cigarette company hired scientists to produce reports showing there was no causal link between smoking and lung disease. But ultimately all it proved was that if you pay a corrupt scientist enough money they will do anything for you.
Here is an article that explains it
"Internal industry documents reveal that the tobacco companies knew and for the most part accepted the evidence that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer by the late 1950s. The documents reveal that the tobacco companies conspired to deliberately confuse the public debate about smoking and health and co-opted scientists through the offer of research funding provided by shadowy “independent” funding organizations. In her ruling against the tobacco companies, Judge Kessler observed that the practices of the tobacco companies had not changed materially (ref. 8, see pages 1606-07). She observed that Phillip Morris's had already established a new research program essentially combining the functions of the CTR and CIAR into a single program. Judge Kessler cautioned that the RICO enterprise of TI, TIRC, CTR, and CIAR “can be resurrected, recreated, or reincarnated at any time at [the tobacco companies] wish” (ref. 8, see page 1534). The implication of Judge Kessler ruling is clear: the tobacco companies cannot and should not be trusted."
