ADVERTISEMENT

77 Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, medicine, physics and economics to US Senate: reject RFK Jr.

No. Revisit all the sugar and preservatives and all the other shit that goes into our food. Read jr’s stuff. We’re a country of pigs. Part is our slothful nature part is lack of nutrition etc. Let him emphasize change. Ingredients. Process. Labeling. On and on. Obesity and our shitty diet gives rise to so many of our maladies
When Michelle Obama wanted to do all that stuff, she was a goddamn dirty communist.
 
Less. We’re conditioned. There should be greater standards and enforcement. The industry has spent a fortune on lobbyists. Now we have ultra processed foods. Horrendous lunch options at school. Toxic chemicals. On and on. This isn’t news. There are endless articles and documentaries devoted to it. Go to your local wal mart and look at your fellow humans. They don’t look like us around the world

So you want some pointy headed bureaucrats in DC telling you want you can or cannot eat? Sounds kind of Socialist!!! to me.
 
So you want some pointy headed bureaucrats in DC telling you want you can or cannot eat? Sounds kind of Socialist!!! to me.
That’s not a pointy headed bureaucrat
robert-f-kennedy-jr-shirtless-in-video.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BradStevens
So you just want them to do a public campaign, or should there be standards and enforcement? How much sugar should be allowed in a spoonful of Sugar Frosted Flakes?
Sugar is fine….its the fake sweeteners. It’s the high fructose corn syrup. It’s all the preservatives…not salt. Hell…look at all the kids that now have food allergies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Sugar is fine….its the fake sweeteners. It’s the high fructose corn syrup. It’s all the preservatives…not salt. Hell…look at all the kids that now have food allergies.

So you're going to regulate those? Ban them? What about all the farmers in Iowa?
 
So you're going to regulate those? Ban them? What about all the farmers in Iowa?
No…I am not banning shit. I’m telling you what the problem is from my perspective. Maybe you had a table for all the kids with peanut allergies when you were in school…I sure as hell don’t remember seeing one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
So what do you want done, exactly? Outlaw Fruit Loops?

I love me some fruit loops, but they have no business in school cafeterias as a breakfast choice. We need to get rid of sugary snacks and get people off the sugar addiction. People want to support those that get addicted to alcohol, drugs, etc. but they don’t seem to give a damn about the effects of sugar on the brain.
 
Sugar is fine….its the fake sweeteners. It’s the high fructose corn syrup. It’s all the preservatives…not salt. Hell…look at all the kids that now have food allergies.

What are you even saying? Natural sugars in fruit are fine. Added sugars are one of the worst drugs introduced to society as we have become addicted. Sugar is literally responsible for more health issues and economic costs than anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
"long list of qualified so-and-so's"?

No...

77 of the very smartest people on the planet.

Sure, I might dismiss some of the economists and physicists, but NOT the experts in medicine, commenting on a potential leader for public health policy.


Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, medicine, physics and economics dating back as far as 1975 signed onto the letter, published publicly by The New York Times, calling on senators to reject Kennedy's nomination.

The signatories say Kennedy's "lack of credentials or relevant experience" make him unfit for the job, and cite several of his more controversial stances like vaccine skepticism and fluoridation of drinking water as reasons he poses a threat.

The letter is the first time in recent memory that Nobel Prize winners have come together to reject a Cabinet choice. Notable signatories of the RFK letter include 2024 winners in economics Simon Johnson and Daron Acemoglu; 2024 medicine winners Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun; and immunologist Drew Weissman, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 2023 after paving the way for one type of Covid-19 vaccine.

51 experts signed a letter that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. How'd that work out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa and DANC
What are you even saying? Natural sugars in fruit are fine. Added sugars are one of the worst drugs introduced to society as we have become addicted. Sugar is literally responsible for more health issues and economic costs than anything else.
I guess I’m saying add your own sucrose as opposed to buying products that are already filled with it. Processed foods and the like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadWakeboarder
Peanut allergies are mainly counted by self-reporting. There's no clinical evidence I'm aware of that the actual incidence has increased.

It's like "gluten allergies." A large percentage of them are complete bullshit.

I'm not sure that is really the case. People with actual allergies have obvious and intentional reactions. For example, my youngest has a peanut allergy, despite the fact that my wife craved peanut butter during his pregnancy and certainly ate plenty while he was breastfeeding. However, the first time he received PB&J, he only had a few bites, got very fussy and broke out with crazy hives and swelling in his face and neck.

Now we have to travel with an Epipen, though his doesn't seem bad enough where it is truly life-threatening, at least not in moderate ingestion.

Not sure why but allergies are all up - Peanuts, Gluten, Dairy, Eggs, etc.


Over the last several decades, the prevalence of peanut allergies in children in the United States has more than tripled. The reasons behind this dramatic increase are unclear. Lifestyle, diet choices and genetics all seem to play a role.

For example, one theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, highlights how the way people who live in developed countries may have an impact on childhood allergies, including peanut allergies. Babies born in developing countries have lower incidence of allergies than those in developed countries. But if a family moves to a more developed country, their children’s incidence of childhood allergies increases. So simply being in the environment of a developed country seems to change things.

The hygiene hypothesis suggests that children who have more exposure to germs and certain infections at a very early age develop immune systems that are better suited to differentiating harmless substances from harmful substances. In this theory, exposure to certain germs teaches the immune system not to overreact. It would also explain why children who grow up on farms or those who have certain types of pets are less likely to develop allergies than other children. But much more research is needed to understand exactly how childhood germ exposure might help prevent allergies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I guess I’m saying add your own sucrose as opposed to buying products that are already filled with it. Processed foods and the like.
I'm all for reducing processed foods, but you understand what your body does when you eat sucrose? It breaks it down into glucose and fructose. Table sugar is no better for you than HFCS.
 
I'm not sure that is really the case. People with actual allergies have obvious and intentional reactions. For example, my youngest has a peanut allergy, despite the fact that my wife craved peanut butter during his pregnancy and certainly ate plenty while he was breastfeeding. However, the first time he received PB&J, he only had a few bites, got very fussy and broke out with crazy hives and swelling in his face and neck.

Now we have to travel with an Epipen, though his doesn't seem bad enough where it is truly life-threatening, at least not in moderate ingestion.

Not sure why but allergies are all up - Peanuts, Gluten, Dairy, Eggs, etc.


Over the last several decades, the prevalence of peanut allergies in children in the United States has more than tripled. The reasons behind this dramatic increase are unclear. Lifestyle, diet choices and genetics all seem to play a role.

For example, one theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, highlights how the way people who live in developed countries may have an impact on childhood allergies, including peanut allergies. Babies born in developing countries have lower incidence of allergies than those in developed countries. But if a family moves to a more developed country, their children’s incidence of childhood allergies increases. So simply being in the environment of a developed country seems to change things.

The hygiene hypothesis suggests that children who have more exposure to germs and certain infections at a very early age develop immune systems that are better suited to differentiating harmless substances from harmful substances. In this theory, exposure to certain germs teaches the immune system not to overreact. It would also explain why children who grow up on farms or those who have certain types of pets are less likely to develop allergies than other children. But much more research is needed to understand exactly how childhood germ exposure might help prevent allergies.
I'm not saying allergies are fake. I'm just saying I'm not convinced there's been a huge increase in them.
 
I guess I’m saying add your own sucrose as opposed to buying products that are already filled with it. Processed foods and the like.

While I agree that would be beneficial, it's not realistic. Processed foods are a huge problem, but RFK doesn't appreciate the benefits. This country, and most countries more broadly, have made significant improvements in poverty rates as a result of food manufacturing done at scale.

Given the number of dual income families and general societal dynamics, it is unreasonable to expect everyone, let alone most, to ween themselves off processed foods in the near term. I do believe it to be a desirable endeavor over the long run though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312
While I agree that would be beneficial, it's not realistic. Processed foods are a huge problem, but RFK doesn't appreciate the benefits. This country, and most countries more broadly, have made significant improvements in poverty rates as a result of food manufacturing done at scale.

Given the number of dual income families and general societal dynamics, it is unreasonable to expect everyone, let alone most, to ween themselves off processed foods in the near term. I do believe it to be a desirable endeavor over the long run though.
You just really don't want to give them up, do you?

You Got This Paul Mccartney GIF
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
I'm all for reducing processed foods, but you understand what your body does when you eat sucrose? It breaks it down into glucose and fructose. Table sugar is no better for you than HFCS.
My point…which I obviously did a piss poor job with is to cook your own meals. Add your own salt and sugar. Don’t rely on processed foods for your meals. This applies to the school “cooks” as well.

I’m all for sending less of my money to Washington to piss away and more to local district to help with the increased cost of school lunches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
While I agree that would be beneficial, it's not realistic. Processed foods are a huge problem, but RFK doesn't appreciate the benefits. This country, and most countries more broadly, have made significant improvements in poverty rates as a result of food manufacturing done at scale.

Given the number of dual income families and general societal dynamics, it is unreasonable to expect everyone, let alone most, to ween themselves off processed foods in the near term. I do believe it to be a desirable endeavor over the long run though.
Trying to solve one problem has created another? I’m not surprised.

Your last paragraph says it all
 
I'm not saying allergies are fake. I'm just saying I'm not convinced there's been a huge increase in them.

I'd posit that many of today's food allergies are not new, but in the past were dealt with by saying "peanuts don't agree with me" and not eating them. Now they're life threatening and require immediate medical intervention if you're even downwind from them.

In this theory, exposure to certain germs teaches the immune system not to overreact. It would also explain why children who grow up on farms or those who have certain types of pets are less likely to develop allergies than other children.

This was my country doctor mom's take on it. She said too many kids don't play in the dirt enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
Fair point. Too many (*cough*CO.H*cough*) seem to think that being a lawyer qualifies you for everything, and then they forget that when the lawyer is someone they disagree with.
Having personally dealt with him, I'm thrilled to have the guy running point on health policy reform for the upcoming administration. It's one of the surest ways I know to guarantee that nothing will get accomplished in said reform. 🤣
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BadWakeboarder
Having personally dealt with him, I'm thrilled to have the guy running point on health policy reform for the upcoming administration. It's one of the surest ways I know to guarantee that nothing will get accomplished in said reform. 🤣
He and his team did quite well in calif against Monsanto on behalf of that groundskeeper. First case to boot. Always the hardest

Can’t be worse than the overweight tranny developing health policy 😉
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I'm not sure that is really the case. People with actual allergies have obvious and intentional reactions. For example, my youngest has a peanut allergy, despite the fact that my wife craved peanut butter during his pregnancy and certainly ate plenty while he was breastfeeding. However, the first time he received PB&J, he only had a few bites, got very fussy and broke out with crazy hives and swelling in his face and neck.

Now we have to travel with an Epipen, though his doesn't seem bad enough where it is truly life-threatening, at least not in moderate ingestion.

Not sure why but allergies are all up - Peanuts, Gluten, Dairy, Eggs, etc.


Over the last several decades, the prevalence of peanut allergies in children in the United States has more than tripled. The reasons behind this dramatic increase are unclear. Lifestyle, diet choices and genetics all seem to play a role.

For example, one theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, highlights how the way people who live in developed countries may have an impact on childhood allergies, including peanut allergies. Babies born in developing countries have lower incidence of allergies than those in developed countries. But if a family moves to a more developed country, their children’s incidence of childhood allergies increases. So simply being in the environment of a developed country seems to change things.

The hygiene hypothesis suggests that children who have more exposure to germs and certain infections at a very early age develop immune systems that are better suited to differentiating harmless substances from harmful substances. In this theory, exposure to certain germs teaches the immune system not to overreact. It would also explain why children who grow up on farms or those who have certain types of pets are less likely to develop allergies than other children. But much more research is needed to understand exactly how childhood germ exposure might help prevent allergies.
I agree with that theory completely. I was probably exposed to just about every germ and substances that existed and I have no alegies at all. My daughter has several. My wife was always “disinfecting” her as a child. My theory is that’s why she has the allergies she has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I agree with that theory completely. I was probably exposed to just about every germ and substances that existed and I have no alegies at all. My daughter has several. My wife was always “disinfecting” her as a child. My theory is that’s why she has the allergies she has.

It probably explains some allergies, but not ones that were prevalent from birth. I'm not smart enough to know how much of a factor genetics plays vs. environment, but there are obviously influences from both.
 
"long list of qualified so-and-so's"?

No...

77 of the very smartest people on the planet.

Sure, I might dismiss some of the economists and physicists, but NOT the experts in medicine, commenting on a potential leader for public health policy.
How many of them said in the 80s that we shouldn’t eat eggs? How many of them sold out to food companies and soda companies to terrify us about fat in our foods so Big Sugar could get a lead?

They’re all whores. Infighting, petty, do-nothing whores.

@twenty02 how’s that for coming in hot?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT