I wasn’t making a statement on whether sugar or HFCS are better for you. Clearly both are bad for you. It was a comment on “MAHA” and how the brain worm uses his office to promote sugar water and french fries as health successes.
1 Like
That article is not very informative.
He’s getting rid of the panel for being woke.
The panel recommends preventative care guidelines.
Those are two distinct claims. Does he think preventative care is woke? That seems like the desired conclusion. So then?
I don’t care what his rationale for being anti-vax or preventative care. The fact that he is systematically taking steps to reduce vaccinations and government support of preventative care in the US is bad whatever his artificial rationale is.
1 Like
I guess the details will come out later but Reddit believes it’s to target PrEP since mr. brainworm is an AIDS denialist.
Ignoring anything the brain worm is doing or promoting, let’s say the us government is going to spend $100 on “preventative healthcare,” how much of this $100 should be spent on medical tests and procedures that provide early detection of diseases? All $100?
If only there existed a panel of experts who focus solely on preventative healthcare who could make recommendations on that …
Likewise, I’ll defer comments on vaccine schedules to experts.
2 Likes
Those “experts” are really just shills for Big Pharma, looking to make the Illuminati richer.
Now, my Aunt Susie knows a guy on Facebook, and he says… /s
How is that panel of experts performing with their recommendations? How would the average American feel about them being removed?
You can “defer to the experts” all you want, but there is a reason why this guy is head of HHS and people are willing to try something different.
Some people are not smart enough to make such decisions. Blame shitty education system.
I mean, that is why a government exists, so people don’t have to “do their own research” about food safety, drug efficacy, etc.
It all ends up being a bit circular. We let the government decide what food is safe, then go eat whatever makes it to the grocery store shelf. Then we let the government decide at what point we need to take action on our diets, to start popping pills to fix our blood pressure or whatever else we are sick with. And the government provided education isn’t sufficient to give us the tools to navigate back to a healthy life.
These are all real problems though. We end up with mr brain worm willing to blow up the system and half of America cheers him on. He certainly won’t fix anything, but neither will the government of the last 30 years that delivered the current result.
So now what?
These people will listen if you can break through to them. Trusting experts is not the way to do that though.
No. You don’t have to put anything into your body that you don’t want.
I do not want a government with no expertise telling me i have to, or must not, ingest anything.
I will trust my doctor.
(Edited, cuz not an anti-vaxxer).
So are you pro or anti-vax?
The government definitely decides what is “safe” and “legal” to be ingested, and you get to pick from the economically viable offerings that meet those requirements and can sit on your grocery store shelf. Or the medicine cabinet. Companies lobby to have their products approved, like trans fats, or HFCS.
It’s a broken system. I don’t think I am going full RFKJ on the conspiracy theories to get to that conclusion. Look around at the results - go to rural America and severe obesity is everywhere. High rates of diabetes, HBP, addiciton etc. Preventative care panels, experts? Who are they helping? We are failing with the basics with half the population - the half willing to vote in Tump and conspiracy theorists.
Gotta offer something different if you want to get their attention. Right now, its brain worm vs the status quo. Want 4 more years of this nonsense? I don’t.
Please explain how taking the government out of the equation results in a better outcome. We let the people who make money from selling food decide what to put on the shelves and they decide a long term customer is better than short term profits, so we get healthy food? Every consumer decides, hey I better educate myself using the copious free time I have supported by the excellent public education I received for free to listen to scientific experts from an well-adjudicated forum like social media to choose the healthiest food?
The next thing I expect you to say is why don’t we let the marketing folks set the reserves.
ETA- OK reading the next post or two means you don’t actually think this. Or at least the current state of things needs to be changed. I can agree with that, but I don’t think tearing government down is going to make a positive difference. The same forces that push us to being unhealthy will continue to exist. Misinformation and disinformation will have greater sway, and lead to worse outcomes. We already have 5x the measles cases in 2025 than 2024. And that’s on something where there is a big scientific consensus. Do you really think obesity is easier to battle than measles?
1 Like
I’d say that the advisory panels that are being nuked are doing a good job within their areas of expertise. Just because there is a growing anti-vax movement doesn’t mean it should be catered to.
1 Like
Having good government involved is probably a net positive.
Having government dominated by business interests focused on profits, or government that is overly beholden to conspiracy theorists, involved is probably a net negative.
The challenge for the US is that the mythology surrounding the origins of the country creates a bias towards the notion that a large central government cannot be “good”.
No disagreement with that.
But given we have seen mortality improvement generally stagnate in the US, the collective board may not have the right collective priority. Now, if I were RFKJ, I would not fire the entire board. I would absolutely consider the makeup of the experts and look for opportunities to address areas where we are lagging.
Such as cutting funding for known issues regarding our mortality changes, like drug addiction treatment, including naloxone purchasing.
You are sorely mistaken about RFKJr’s and the administration’s goals.
On the cancer rates…I think more than half of that improvement is simply related to smoking. I found 20 per 100k decrease from 1999-2014 in a separate source.
An important change for sure, but has little to do with a large ongoing investment in other advances or recommendations.