jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

It isn't vaccines

KidDoc said:

---

I'm interested to see what he does with the HHS. I've been digging into some nutrition literature lately and working on cutting junk from my personal diet using YUKA app. It is VERY hard to eat clean in the USA, it is really nuts how bad our food industry has become.

I believe the radical change in our diet over the last 60+ years is responsible for a significant percentage of chronic physical and mental health problems that have become epidemic in developed countries especially the USA. If we can get all the additives, preservatives, seed oils out of our day to day foods I expect we will see a pretty radical change in disease rates in 20ish years.

---

This makes intuitive sense. I think the food coloring factory fire recently opened some eyes.

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/how-science-lost-america-s-trust-and-surrendered-health-policy-to-skeptics/ar-AA1uoPxF?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Quote:

---

The rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from fringe figure to the prospective head of U.S. health policy was fueled by skepticism and distrust of the medical establishment-views that went viral in the Covid-19 pandemic.

People once dismissed for their disbelief in conventional medicine are now celebrating a new champion in Washington. Scientists, meanwhile, are trying to figure how they could have managed the pandemic without setting off a populist movement they say threatens longstanding public-health measures.
…
Kennedy has said he opposes food coloring and additives, the widely used pesticide glyphosate, seed oils and foods with added sugars, among many other issues. Medical authorities say some of his views, such as suspicion of ultra-processed foods, have scientific merit, while others are unfounded. The food and pharmaceutical industries are planning to win him over where they can and do battle where they can't.

---

The way libs think of science is wrong. They see it as a final authority in how to think. But science is supposed to be skeptical. That's the way it was started (by Christian monks in the Middle Ages, BTW).

Science never proves anything. Best you can do is decide there's a preponderance of evidence showing something definitive. But a good scientist is always open to new data. It is particularly ill-suited for politics, and that is why people no longer "trust" it.

---

If they are truly asking this question, perhaps they should take a long hard look at changing careers to one that requires little to no actual critical thought, because these people are dumb as sht if they can't see what is directly in front of them.

TarponChaser said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

I'm interested to see what he does with the HHS. I've been digging into some nutrition literature lately and working on cutting junk from my personal diet using YUKA app. It is VERY hard to eat clean in the USA, it is really nuts how bad our food industry has become.

I believe the radical change in our diet over the last 60+ years is responsible for a significant percentage of chronic physical and mental health problems that have become epidemic in developed countries especially the USA. If we can get all the additives, preservatives, seed oils out of our day to day foods I expect we will see a pretty radical change in disease rates in 20ish years.

---

I doubt you can ever get away from it completely but I do my best to eat most everything I can from the outer ring of the grocery store. IE- fresh fruits & produce, fresh meats & fish, milk, eggs, etc. Even fresh-frozen fruits and veggies are still pretty good.

The 3 things that I consistently eat that are from the inside aisles are peanut butter, honey (although I get local, raw, unpasteurized honey from a friend who keeps bees), and coffee.

Do that with your diet and you'll be in a pretty good spot.

---

Be careful with peanut butter. If you have to keep it in your fridge you are fine. The normal stuff is full of garbage.

For example, this article was published TODAY.

https://www.newsweek.com/inflammatory-bowel-disease-united-states-youth-highest-globally-1989092

We have a serious food industry problem.

KidDoc said:

---

I'm interested to see what he does with the HHS. I've been digging into some nutrition literature lately and working on cutting junk from my personal diet using YUKA app. It is VERY hard to eat clean in the USA, it is really nuts how bad our food industry has become.

I believe the radical change in our diet over the last 60+ years is responsible for a significant percentage of chronic physical and mental health problems that have become epidemic in developed countries especially the USA. If we can get all the additives, preservatives, seed oils out of our day to day foods I expect we will see a pretty radical change in disease rates in 20ish years.

---

Yep.

Our food industry is like anything else - it's an industry based earnings, and the absolute best way to make those dollars is a combination of cheaper ingredients and designing foods that are addictive.

I also contend that there is a working arrangemetn between the food industry and big pharma as they are dependent on one another to ensure a steady supply of people and income.

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

I'm going to pick on you here a bit, since you've given an absolute master class example of the issue of "trusting the science".

In your first example, you list moon landing deniers as science skeptics. I'll agree with you here, because the moon landing was a definitive event, and those who theorize that it was faked are confronted with multiple proofs that discredit their theory. The existence and consistency of moon rocks, the reflective mirror on the moon, tons of A/V data, first hand accounts, etc. A moon landing denier denies a specific event happened.

But in the second example you lump a hypothesis that vaccines cause autism into the same 'science skeptic' example. This is a hypothesis that has NOT been conclusively disproven. There are many theories seeking to definitively source the cause of autism and we still do not absolutely know what causes the mutations that result in autism. However, your lumping the hypothesis into the same category of a moon landing denier in no way disproves the hypothesis. Rather, it is the scientific equivalent of "nuh uhhh" as a rebuttal.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the problem with the author of the article in the OP. Well done!

---

"you can't prove vaccines DON'T cause autism" and "vaccines cause autism" are two different positions, perhaps you should reread my post to see which one I was talking about. you don't get to assume a hypothesis is true just because it hasn't been disproven.

KidDoc said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

I'm interested to see what he does with the HHS. I've been digging into some nutrition literature lately and working on cutting junk from my personal diet using YUKA app. It is VERY hard to eat clean in the USA, it is really nuts how bad our food industry has become.

I believe the radical change in our diet over the last 60+ years is responsible for a significant percentage of chronic physical and mental health problems that have become epidemic in developed countries especially the USA. If we can get all the additives, preservatives, seed oils out of our day to day foods I expect we will see a pretty radical change in disease rates in 20ish years.

---

I doubt you can ever get away from it completely but I do my best to eat most everything I can from the outer ring of the grocery store. IE- fresh fruits & produce, fresh meats & fish, milk, eggs, etc. Even fresh-frozen fruits and veggies are still pretty good.

The 3 things that I consistently eat that are from the inside aisles are peanut butter, honey (although I get local, raw, unpasteurized honey from a friend who keeps bees), and coffee.

Do that with your diet and you'll be in a pretty good spot.

---

Be careful with peanut butter. If you have to keep it in your fridge you are fine. The normal stuff is full of garbage.

---

Not really. Regular old Peter Pan is peanuts, salt, a little bit of sugar, and a little bit of cottonseed oil. It's not partially hydrogenated stuff. And the recipe is the same as it's been forever.

MJ20/20 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

"Science" exposed itself. Everyone should be a skeptic of the narratives we are force fed. They lied to us throughout Covid. They have lied about climate "science" from the beginning.

Actual science requires proven hypotheses, not mere conjecture and consensus, or the suggestion of consensus.

---

Amen brother. Science is a more fluid term than ever.

---

"I am 100% correct in my science until someone or something proves me wrong" - Science, Inc.

KidDoc said:

---

For example, this article was published TODAY.

https://www.newsweek.com/inflammatory-bowel-disease-united-states-youth-highest-globally-1989092

We have a serious food industry problem.

---

How many of these kids would have died very young 50-60 years ago?

Quote:

---

Scientists, meanwhile, are trying to figure how they could have managed the pandemic without setting off a populist movement they say threatens longstanding public-health measures.

---

They could start by not lying.

Science and government is their religion.

Science is good, but the left too often adheres to bad science and ignore real science.

TarponChaser said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

I'm interested to see what he does with the HHS. I've been digging into some nutrition literature lately and working on cutting junk from my personal diet using YUKA app. It is VERY hard to eat clean in the USA, it is really nuts how bad our food industry has become.

I believe the radical change in our diet over the last 60+ years is responsible for a significant percentage of chronic physical and mental health problems that have become epidemic in developed countries especially the USA. If we can get all the additives, preservatives, seed oils out of our day to day foods I expect we will see a pretty radical change in disease rates in 20ish years.

---

I doubt you can ever get away from it completely but I do my best to eat most everything I can from the outer ring of the grocery store. IE- fresh fruits & produce, fresh meats & fish, milk, eggs, etc. Even fresh-frozen fruits and veggies are still pretty good.

The 3 things that I consistently eat that are from the inside aisles are peanut butter, honey (although I get local, raw, unpasteurized honey from a friend who keeps bees), and coffee.

Do that with your diet and you'll be in a pretty good spot.

---

Be careful with peanut butter. If you have to keep it in your fridge you are fine. The normal stuff is full of garbage.

---

Not really. Regular old Peter Pan is peanuts, salt, a little bit of sugar, and a little bit of cottonseed oil. It's not partially hydrogenated stuff. And the recipe is the same as it's been forever.

---

Good point! I was thinking Jif but had not checked Peter Pan. Props to them for keepin it real!

TarponChaser said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

For example, this article was published TODAY.

https://www.newsweek.com/inflammatory-bowel-disease-united-states-youth-highest-globally-1989092

We have a serious food industry problem.

---

How many of these kids would have died very young 50-60 years ago?

---

OH lots of them. The treatments are amazing but the rapidly increasing incidence has to be questioned. Especially since it is USA specific and not world wide.

Old McDonald said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

I'm going to pick on you here a bit, since you've given an absolute master class example of the issue of "trusting the science".

In your first example, you list moon landing deniers as science skeptics. I'll agree with you here, because the moon landing was a definitive event, and those who theorize that it was faked are confronted with multiple proofs that discredit their theory. The existence and consistency of moon rocks, the reflective mirror on the moon, tons of A/V data, first hand accounts, etc. A moon landing denier denies a specific event happened.

But in the second example you lump a hypothesis that vaccines cause autism into the same 'science skeptic' example. This is a hypothesis that has NOT been conclusively disproven. There are many theories seeking to definitively source the cause of autism and we still do not absolutely know what causes the mutations that result in autism. However, your lumping the hypothesis into the same category of a moon landing denier in no way disproves the hypothesis. Rather, it is the scientific equivalent of "nuh uhhh" as a rebuttal.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the problem with the author of the article in the OP. Well done!

---

"you can't prove vaccines DON'T cause autism" and "vaccines cause autism" are two different positions, perhaps you should reread my post to see which one I was talking about. you don't get to assume a hypothesis is true just because it hasn't been disproven.

---

Seriously? That's all the climate lobby does. They assume their views on climate change are gospel, and anyone that disagrees is a "climate change denier".

Fauci and his vaccine stance of "I am the science" was an absolute assumption that his hypothesis was true. He then proceeded to personally attack anyone who questioned the government stance.

Personally, I don't agree with RFK's belief that vaccines cause autism, but I'm not so arrogant to assume his position has zero merit and there's zero correlation between EVERY vaccine and autism. Lots of research has yet to be done. Plus, he's stated that his kids take vaccines, and he has no plans to outlaw them. So even though his belief may be out of the mainstream, he's not proposing to outlaw vaccines.

KidDoc said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

I'm interested to see what he does with the HHS. I've been digging into some nutrition literature lately and working on cutting junk from my personal diet using YUKA app. It is VERY hard to eat clean in the USA, it is really nuts how bad our food industry has become.

I believe the radical change in our diet over the last 60+ years is responsible for a significant percentage of chronic physical and mental health problems that have become epidemic in developed countries especially the USA. If we can get all the additives, preservatives, seed oils out of our day to day foods I expect we will see a pretty radical change in disease rates in 20ish years.

---

I doubt you can ever get away from it completely but I do my best to eat most everything I can from the outer ring of the grocery store. IE- fresh fruits & produce, fresh meats & fish, milk, eggs, etc. Even fresh-frozen fruits and veggies are still pretty good.

The 3 things that I consistently eat that are from the inside aisles are peanut butter, honey (although I get local, raw, unpasteurized honey from a friend who keeps bees), and coffee.

Do that with your diet and you'll be in a pretty good spot.

---

Be careful with peanut butter. If you have to keep it in your fridge you are fine. The normal stuff is full of garbage.

---

Not really. Regular old Peter Pan is peanuts, salt, a little bit of sugar, and a little bit of cottonseed oil. It's not partially hydrogenated stuff. And the recipe is the same as it's been forever.

---

Good point! I was thinking Jif but had not checked Peter Pan. Props to them for keepin it real!

---

What does your YUKO app say about Jif Natural? (Asking for a friend....)

It's good.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientists, meanwhile, are trying to figure how they could have managed the pandemic without setting off a populist movement they say threatens longstanding public-health measures.

---

They could start by not lying.

---

Even very early on in Italy the data was against what these healthcare experts pushed for here in the USA.

In Italy the virus hammered the elderly and the smokers and people in Italy still smoke like chimneys vs. folks in the USA. And China they smoke even more than they do in Italy, even the young. Meanwhile in Italy the younger and healthier fared just fine. It was the older people and those with various issues such as smoking, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes who got hammered over there same as in the USA.

There was never any scientific basis for the lockdowns, face masks, or social distancing. Instead we saw boat ramps locked off and police arresting guys for paddle-boarding in the ocean with nobody within 100 yards of them.

They completely ignored the idea of naturally-acquired immunity (ie- folks who had covid and recovered just fine) and demanded they subject themselves to an experimental drug regimen. And a drug regimen which they claimed would prevent transmission even when they knew it didn't while completely ignoring all reported issues of side effects. They refused to let people make valid, rational risk assessments regarding their own health decisions.

The "scientific experts" also sought to exile and discredit any sort of contrary opinion from persons with every bit the scientific and/or medical expertise and in many cases with more expertise and credentials.

There was also the complete distortion over ivermectin. Ivermectin is well known and well studied and a very safe drug. The proponents of its usage weren't doing so for antiviral properties (which are negligible if at all) but because it's a well-known anti-inflammatory and was beneficial in heading off the cytokine storm in some covid patients.

Then you had ridiculous distortions of statements- like the claim Trump said to inject bleach or UV light into the body as a means to treat covid when that's not remotely what he said. He was speaking off-the-cuff with an inexpert knowledge and vocabulary on medical treatments and jargon. Never mind the fact that it's been proven that sunshine and fresh air are great ways to prevent the transmission, infection, and even mitigate the effects of covid infections.

"Mostly False" ruling on Trump wanting to inject bleach

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

"Science" exposed itself. Everyone should be a skeptic of the narratives we are force fed. They lied to us throughout Covid. They have lied about climate "science" from the beginning.

Actual science requires proven hypotheses, not mere conjecture and consensus, or the suggestion of consensus.

---

Exactly. Vaccine's don't work and we now know that viruses are actually caused by small gnomes in our bodies that must be appeased with horse hoof mash.

We live in the healthiest time of human history and we ***** about it. What a time to be alive.

RAB87 said:

---

The Marxist … refrain of ……. They don't deserve a voice.

---

Edited for the irony

We are living longer than we ever have. We can cure simple diseases now that could kill droves of people when our grandparents were kids. We can cure childhood leukemia. We can fix tons of simple ailments and problems with easy to get medication. We can literally give ourselves boners in our 80's and keep ****ing.


Yes, medically and health wise we are far better off than at any time in history and any people from those days, especially mothers who had to watch several of their kids die before adulthood, would happily trade places with us in an instant.

Isn't it all relative?

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

"Science" exposed itself. Everyone should be a skeptic of the narratives we are force fed. They lied to us throughout Covid. They have lied about climate "science" from the beginning.

Actual science requires proven hypotheses, not mere conjecture and consensus, or the suggestion of consensus.

---

Exactly. Vaccine's don't work and we now know that viruses are actually caused by small gnomes in our bodies that must be appeased with horse hoof mash.

---

Who is saying that? This board is full of (mostly) intelligent people. We are critical when and where it is warranted. The scientific and medical communities have destroyed their own credibility.

Teslag said:

---

We are living longer than we ever have. We can cure simple diseases now that could kill droves of people when our grandparents were kids. We can cure childhood leukemia. We can fix tons of simple ailments and problems with easy to get medication. We can literally give ourselves boners in our 80's and keep ****ing.


Yes, medically and health wise we are far better off than at any time in history and any people from those days, especially mothers who had to watch several of their kids die before adulthood, would happily trade places with us in an instant.

---

All true points. However we are more sickly now than ever with chronic diseases. Not just old folks either. We have record high levels of childhood obesity, type 2 dm in kids, inflammatory bowel disease, mood disorders, adhd. From my rather extensive experience and training it is painful obvious that are food industry is not focused on health just profit.

Eta: for the first time in modern history the life expetectency is decreasing! Why ?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220831.htm

But is it really hurting? Our fat kids will live longer and do more than healthy kids 100 years ago.

Teslag said:

---

But is it really hurting? Our fat kids will live longer and do more than healthy kids 100 years ago.

---

No they are not, see my edit.

I guess what I'm postulating is, have we essence cured "being unhealthy"?

Teslag said:

---

I guess what I'm postulating is, have we essence cured "being unhealthy"?

---

That is what pharma would love.. everyone on multiple meds starting in childhood. Myself, I would prefer prevention and looking for root causes of our Declining health, and increasing reliance on chronic drugs, as a nation.

KidDoc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

But is it really hurting? Our fat kids will live longer and do more than healthy kids 100 years ago.

---

No they are not, see my edit.

---

They won't live longer than kids in 1924? I didn't see that referenced in your link.

KidDoc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I guess what I'm postulating is, have we essence cured "being unhealthy"?

---

That is what pharma would love.. everyone on multiple meds starting in childhood. Myself, I would prefer prevention and looking for root causes of our Declining health, and increasing reliance on chronic drugs, as a nation.

---

I agree as well, but is it because we simply feel that's better? I mean, we have basically extended the human life to its extents. If people can live that long doing what they want, including being fat and eating whatever they want who cares.

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

Science skeptics, even if they seem way off the accepted standard, aren't bad to have around.

If we didn't have science skeptics then we wouldn't study plate tectonics and the earth would be at the center of the earth universe and the speed of light would not be considered a constant.

It's up to each of us to educate ourselves and understand what is the best explanation of natural processes, especially the processes that affect our daily lives.

Being skeptical of science is fine as long as people rely on the scientific method to do so.

Teslag said:

---

Being skeptical of science is fine as long as people rely on the scientific method to do so.

---

Of course, you must understand the scientific method to use it.