2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: ren on February 04, 2025, 05:33:23 PM
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2025/02/05/green-trump-loyalists-you-have-been-tricked/
“Honestly, it’s dumbfounding that anybody would vote for him when he doesn’t understand the health care system,” said Green.
Let's see past HHS Secretaries, how about under the Obama Admin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell
-
Medical school too far.
-
Stethoscope too hot.
-
If Immadoctor wants to moonlight as a lobbyist maybe he should be paying for his own travel and accommodation expenses.
-
Medical school too far.
Stethoscope too hot.
Stomach too big.
For a "health care professional". At least RFK Jr. is a prime example of health. He walks the walk.
Dr. Green can only waddle. I guess. Can only talk the talk. (while stuffing his face?) ;D :wave:
-
If Immadoctor wants to moonlight as a lobbyist maybe he should be paying for his own travel and accommodation expenses.
Yeah, dat fackah.
eh doctah, concentrate on running da state.
-
RFK won a libel lawsuit about the Samoa Vaxx hoax.
I hope he goes after Green next.
-
he's running for a higher office...
Yeah, dat fackah.
eh doctah, concentrate on running da state.
-
DOCTOR josh green, emergency room physician said on tv this morning that RFK jr is "partly to blame for the measles epidemic in samoa"
goalposts moved...
-
DOCTOR josh green, emergency room physician said on tv this morning that RFK jr is "partly to blame for the measles epidemic in samoa"
goalposts moved...
Carting out a debunked lie.
How are Green's opinions on Trump's cabinet in anyway appropriate for the governor to be publicizing? He's got no place in campaigning for or against anyone in the federal government, in particular the President's cabinet.
I guess Green's got free time on his hands since all the state's problems have been solved.
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=56070.msg497312#msg497312
Carting out a debunked lie.
How are Green's opinions on Trump's cabinet in anyway appropriate for the governor to be publicizing? He's got no place in campaigning for or against anyone in the federal government, in particular the President's cabinet.
I guess Green's got free time on his hands since all the state's problems have been solved.
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=56070.msg497312#msg497312
if ragging on Trump is a sign someone is running for higher office, then the entire population of Democrat office holders should be filing their campaign paperwork soon.
-
he's running for a higher office...
That's what I was figuring. He reminds me of obama. The good doctah is using hawaii as a stepping stone to higher aspirations.
Only thing is, instead of stones our heads are in the mud because the good doctah is stepping on it.
-
Stomach too big.
For a "health care professional". At least RFK Jr. is a prime example of health. He walks the walk.
Dr. Green can only waddle. I guess. Can only talk the talk. (while stuffing his face?) ;D :wave:
RFK at min is on TRT. But he has to train with weights to look like how he does and watch his diet. And cardio.
I know real doctor Green goes for walks as exercise. But it's obvious it's not good enough as his diet sucks. He could use the excuse that he doesn't have time, nor is on TRT or like drugs.
-
Carting out a debunked lie.
How is this a debunked lie?
Kennedy went to Samoa and campaigned against the vaccine in June 2019, 3 months before the measles outbreak there. We can certainly question what percentage of people changed their mind based on Kennedy's advice but to say it is a lie that he had anything to do with it seems to jump the gun.
-
Green needs to go away. The next election isn't soon enough.
RFK doesn't have the medical qualifications he should to do the job but that is the least of my concerns with him being in charge. His crackpot ideas about vaccines and odd stories are.
-
How is this a debunked lie?
Kennedy went to Samoa and campaigned against the vaccine in June 2019, 3 months before the measles outbreak there. We can certainly question what percentage of people changed their mind based on Kennedy's advice but to say it is a lie that he had anything to do with it seems to jump the gun.
You don't have a very good memory. November 16, 2024.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=55418.msg492999#msg492999
-
You don't have a very good memory. November 16, 2024.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=55418.msg492999#msg492999
When someone goes by feeling/opinion, it's hard to remember facts.
-
lol
you fell hook, line, and sinker for the narrative
for having such a long career at HPD, you show very little capacity for investigation or simple research
RFK Jr went to Samoa WELL AFTER vaccine uptake dipped to well below 80%
AND tonga and fiji both had nearly 100% vaccine uptake and had similar infection rates to samoa before DOCTOR Green's heroic mission to save the natives
the difference was that almost 20 kids died in samoa, not because they were unvaccinated, but because they were malnourished (specifically low in vit a and d)
DOCTOR green's mission worked because they also provided food and supplements and education, not because they vaccinated a bunch of people...
How is this a debunked lie?
Kennedy went to Samoa and campaigned against the vaccine in June 2019, 3 months before the measles outbreak there. We can certainly question what percentage of people changed their mind based on Kennedy's advice but to say it is a lie that he had anything to do with it seems to jump the gun.
-
You don't have a very good memory. November 16, 2024.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=55418.msg492999#msg492999
That doesn't address what I pointed out though. The 2018 medical mistake doesn't mean RFK's crazy ideas had no influence on the people of Samoa. I mean if RFK went and talked to a room of 5 anti-vaxers then I guess you could make the case his influence was likely negligible but if not I wouldn't dismiss his involvement outright.
-
you didn't read my post above?
focus...
That doesn't address what I pointed out though. The 2018 medical mistake doesn't mean RFK's crazy ideas had no influence on the people of Samoa. I mean if RFK went and talked to a room of 5 anti-vaxers then I guess you could make the case his influence was likely negligible but if not I wouldn't dismiss his involvement outright.
-
you didn't read my post above?
focus...
He read it, but the facts don't support his made up feelings stated. So now he will switch tactics like usual.
-
That doesn't address what I pointed out though. The 2018 medical mistake doesn't mean RFK's crazy ideas had no influence on the people of Samoa. I mean if RFK went and talked to a room of 5 anti-vaxers then I guess you could make the case his influence was likely negligible but if not I wouldn't dismiss his involvement outright.
RFK Jr himself has said many times, including in front of Congress, that he is NOT -- repeat: NOT -- in any way what could be called an "anti-vaxer."
What he was concerned with was that the government does not put enough emphasis on testing, quality control and supervision when people are receiving mass vaccinations.
The only way you can argue he caused any kind of outbreak is if you lied, want to use him as a scapegoat, or have no idea how to recognize fact versus fiction.
Get your facts straight.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - this seems to be your only basis for blaming RFK for what happened in Samoa. It's a fallacious argument.
-
he also wants manufacturer protections removed from vaccines...
RFK Jr himself has said many times, including in front of Congress, that he is NOT -- repeat: NOT -- in any way what could be called an "anti-vaxer."
What he was concerned with was that the government does not put enough emphasis on testing, quality control and supervision when people are receiving mass vaccinations.
The only way you can argue he caused any kind of outbreak is if you lied, want to use him as a scapegoat, or have no idea how to recognize fact versus fiction.
Get your facts straight.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - this seems to be your only basis for blaming RFK for what happened in Samoa. It's a fallacious argument.
-
That doesn't address what I pointed out though. The 2018 medical mistake doesn't mean RFK's crazy ideas had no influence on the people of Samoa. I mean if RFK went and talked to a room of 5 anti-vaxers then I guess you could make the case his influence was likely negligible but if not I wouldn't dismiss his involvement outright.
How do you measure the influence of RFK Jr.?
-
How do you measure the influence of RFK Jr.?
You could do a survey of Samoans and see how many people changed their opinion on vaccines due to RFK Jr.'s comments.
-
you didn't read my post above?
focus...
I did read it, it doesn't prove RFK Jr. had no effect.
-
RFK Jr himself has said many times, including in front of Congress, that he is NOT -- repeat: NOT -- in any way what could be called an "anti-vaxer."
What he was concerned with was that the government does not put enough emphasis on testing, quality control and supervision when people are receiving mass vaccinations.
The only way you can argue he caused any kind of outbreak is if you lied, want to use him as a scapegoat, or have no idea how to recognize fact versus fiction.
Get your facts straight.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - this seems to be your only basis for blaming RFK for what happened in Samoa. It's a fallacious argument.
So you believe RFK Jr. was just lying before in all his comments against vaccinations for years? Or perhaps he saw the light recently and changed his beliefs about vaccines?
Show me where I blamed RFK for what happened in Samoa because you either need to work on your reading comprehension or quite using strawman arguments.
-
I did read it, it doesn't prove RFK Jr. had no effect.
Then you didn't understand what it was saying. Maybe use multiple dictionary's as the definitions of words can vary from book to book.
-
So you believe RFK Jr. was just lying before in all his comments against vaccinations for years? Or perhaps he saw the light recently and changed his beliefs about vaccines?
Show me where I blamed RFK for what happened in Samoa because you either need to work on your reading comprehension or quite using strawman arguments.
Show me where he claimed you blamed him for Samoan.
Are we moving goal post or shape shifting?
-
You could do a survey of Samoans and see how many people changed their opinion on vaccines due to RFK Jr.'s comments.
This is so feasible right? Why don't you start this process if you think he has influence or not since it's your idea.
-
So you believe RFK Jr. was just lying before in all his comments against vaccinations for years? Or perhaps he saw the light recently and changed his beliefs about vaccines?
Show me where I blamed RFK for what happened in Samoa because you either need to work on your reading comprehension or quite using strawman arguments.
Show me where RFK said he's against vaccinations.
As for you blaming him for Samoa, maybe you should be checked for early onset Alzheimer's:
How is this a debunked lie?
Kennedy went to Samoa and campaigned against the vaccine in June 2019, 3 months before the measles outbreak there. We can certainly question what percentage of people changed their mind based on Kennedy's advice but to say it is a lie that he had anything to do with it seems to jump the gun.
-
Show me where he claimed you blamed him for Samoan.
Are we moving goal post or shape shifting?
Reply #27. read it till you find it. I would post a link to make it easy but you don't click links of things that prove you wrong so...
-
This is so feasible right? Why don't you start this process if you think he has influence or not since it's your idea.
Show me where I said it was feasible.
He asked how it could be studied, I gave him an example of how one could study this question if they wanted to.
Your reading comprehension is worse than usual today.
-
Show me where I said it was feasible.
He asked how it could be studied, I gave him an example of how one could study this question if they wanted to.
Your reading comprehension is worse than usual today.
Show me where I said you said it's feasible. More imagining things just to create an argument by yourself. The answer should have been, "no, it's not feasible as it happened many years ago and to locate all those people would be difficult". Then you would realize that your example to a study is dumb. But that is the entire reason why you instead made up where you think it's feasible.
Your imagination is once again off.
-
Reply #27. read it till you find it. I would post a link to make it easy but you don't click links of things that prove you wrong so...
So you won't copy and paste the quote? I'll take that then as it didn't happen. unless you post it.
-
Show me where RFK said he's against vaccinations.
As for you blaming him for Samoa, maybe you should be checked for early onset Alzheimer's:
Reading comprehension is hard. I pointed out that it is jumping to gun to dismiss that he had an influence, I didn't say he did have an influence. Surely you understand the difference between something being disproven vs something that hasn't been proven right? In other words just because we can't say how much of an effect his words had to Samoans doesn't mean you can then conclude his words had no effect.
RFK chaired the Children's Health Defense group for almost a decade which sells clothing for people to proclaim that they are not vaccinated. He has railed against vaccines for years with BS arguments about vaccine.
Here is video of one recent comment.
In one interview RFK Jr. said "There is no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4vP4GdHhoA
RFK has tried to soften his position by saying he just wants more studies etc. So either he has changed his mind (which is completely fine) or he is lying somewhere and putting on a different face so he could get confirmed.
But maybe I am wrong, feel free to show me where he has made pro-vaccine statements.
-
So you won't copy and paste the quote? I'll take that then as it didn't happen. unless you post it.
I am not going to enable your laziness.
-
Show me where I said you said it's feasible. More imagining things just to create an argument by yourself. The answer should have been, "no, it's not feasible as it happened many years ago and to locate all those people would be difficult". Then you would realize that your example to a study is dumb. But that is the entire reason why you instead made up where you think it's feasible.
Your imagination is once again off.
Do you have amnesia or something? You asked if it was feasible.
And the answer is yes, it is possible to do a study of that kind of thing. Send surveys out to a sufficient certain percentage of the Samoan population asking their attitudes on vaccines, RFK, etc. and see if there is any data that they changed their mind based on his comments.
Next time if you want to seriously know if it is feasible then simply ask instead of a stupid reply suggesting I go about funding such a study as if that somehow disproved what I said
-
Reading comprehension is hard. I pointed out that it is jumping to gun to dismiss that he had an influence, I didn't say he did have an influence. Surely you understand the difference between something being disproven vs something that hasn't been proven right? In other words just because we can't say how much of an effect his words had to Samoans doesn't mean you can then conclude his words had no effect.
RFK chaired the Children's Health Defense group for almost a decade which sells clothing for people to proclaim that they are not vaccinated. He has railed against vaccines for years with BS arguments about vaccine.
RFK has tried to soften his position by saying he just wants more studies etc. So either he has changed his mind (which is completely fine) or he is lying somewhere and putting on a different face so he could get confirmed.
But maybe I am wrong, feel free to show me where he has made pro-vaccine statements.
Apparently you like to hedge your comments by using indirect language to IMPLY what you mean just so you can deny holding an opinion when proven how stupid it is.
Yes, you CAN "dismiss that he had an influence." it was the dead kids from poorly controlled vaccines that had an influence. All RFK did was advocate for better management and quality control of anything the government intends to inject into people's bodies -- man, woman and child -- before more kids die from it.
Just stop. You love to post contrarian comments to stir the pot then pretend you never said what you alluded to.
Troll behavior.
-
Here is video of one recent comment.
In one interview RFK Jr. said "There is no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4vP4GdHhoA
RFK has tried to soften his position by saying he just wants more studies etc. So either he has changed his mind (which is completely fine) or he is lying somewhere and putting on a different face so he could get confirmed.
But maybe I am wrong, feel free to show me where he has made pro-vaccine statements.
Why did you take his comment out of context? I thought you were a stickler for context and nuance!
Can you name any vaccines that you think are good?
I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably a sort of curing more problems than they're causing. There's no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.
So you did say it. Do you still believe it?
Well, here's what here's what I ... here's what I would say. First of all, I'm not anti-vaccine.
How is that statement not anti-vaccine?
Well, it's...it's... it's... I can say right now there's no better medicine for cancer that safe and effective. It doesn't mean I'm against all [cancer] medicine. I've been fighting for two years to get mercury out of fish. Nobody calls me anti-fish. What I want is vaccines that are proven safe. And what I meant, which was a bad use of words. None of the vaccines that are currently on the mandated schedule for children, 72 vaccines have ever been tested in a licensing safety study. What that means is that we do not know. We do not know what the risk profile is for those products. And you cannot ... say with any scientific certainty that any of those products are causing...
You still believe that no vaccines are safe and effective?
Oh, I'm saying none of the 72 vaccines that ... that safety study relies...
He's anti-incompetence. I can see how you might be triggered by that.
With his speech issues, I think that contributes to the media's ability to misquote him and put an anti-vax spin on his statements. This interviewer kept interrupting him with the same question even though he answered it at least 3 times. These people are looking for sound bites to attack him with, not a honest exchange.
-
Apparently you like to hedge your comments by using indirect language to IMPLY what you mean just so you can deny holding an opinion when proven how stupid it is.
Wrong. I am speaking in a logical, scientific style. Perhaps you have heard of the phrase that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?
Yes, you CAN "dismiss that he had an influence." it was the dead kids from poorly controlled vaccines that had an influence. All RFK did was advocate for better management and quality control of anything the government intends to inject into people's bodies -- man, woman and child -- before more kids die from it.
Wrong. You can clearly illustrate that vaccine hesitancy increased due to the mistake with the MMR vaccine that killed two people but that does not prove RFK comments had no sway among the Samoans he spoke to.
Just stop. You love to post contrarian comments to stir the pot then pretend you never said what you alluded to.
Troll behavior.
You doing some introspection there?
-
Wrong. I am speaking in a logical, scientific style. Perhaps you have heard of the phrase that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?
i've heard of 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.' I think you're firmly seated in the latter.
Wrong. You can clearly illustrate that vaccine hesitancy increased due to the mistake with the MMR vaccine that killed two people but that does not prove RFK comments had no sway among the Samoans he spoke to.
Correlation does not equal causation. (Scientific fact)
You doing some introspection there?
Attitude. ^^^
-
Why did you take his comment out of context? I thought you were a stickler for context and nuance!
He's anti-incompetence. I can see how you might be triggered by that.
With his speech issues, I think that contributes to the media's ability to misquote him and put an anti-vax spin on his statements. This interviewer kept interrupting him with the same question even though he answered it at least 3 times. These people are looking for sound bites to attack him with, not a honest exchange.
So he can rail against vaccines, be part of a group that is against vaccines, and say there are no safe & effective vaccines but as long as he claims he isn't anti-vaccine you will believe he isn't? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....
BTW the context didn't help show he isn't against vaccines. Claiming he simply wants more evidence is just a cover to make his position sound more reasonable by sounding scientific and compassionate.
-
So he can rail against vaccines, be part of a group that is against vaccines, and say there are no safe & effective vaccines but as long as he claims he isn't anti-vaccine you will believe he isn't? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....
BTW the context didn't help show he isn't against vaccines. Claiming he simply wants more evidence is just a cover to make his position sound more reasonable by sounding scientific and compassionate.
Again, you mischaracterize his comments.
Can't change the mind of someone who thinks he knows it all.
-
i've heard of 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.' I think you're firmly seated in the latter.
So either you don't understand or don't want to admit you missed the difference initially...
Attitude. ^^^
Tit for tat....
-
Again, you mischaracterize his comments.
Can't change the mind of someone who thinks he knows it all.
I didn't mischaracterize anything, you want to pretend that "I am not anti-vaccine" somehow negates years of anti-vaccine statements and actions.
-
I am not going to enable your laziness.
Then I'll take that as you're wrong again. Thanks for trying.
-
Do you have amnesia or something? You asked if it was feasible.
And the answer is yes, it is possible to do a study of that kind of thing. Send surveys out to a sufficient certain percentage of the Samoan population asking their attitudes on vaccines, RFK, etc. and see if there is any data that they changed their mind based on his comments.
Next time if you want to seriously know if it is feasible then simply ask instead of a stupid reply suggesting I go about funding such a study as if that somehow disproved what I said
Do YOU have amnesia or something? Read what you showed me to find. I then pointed out you're making it up and now you're trying to diagnose me with something incorrectly.
Now you change the word to "possible". I didn't ask if it's possible, I asked if it's feasible.
I did ask and you seem to be making up conflict in your mind again. I think you may need help as your imagination is getting worst and worst.
-
So either you don't understand or don't want to admit you missed the difference initially...
Tit for tat....
Only a hypocrite bitches about others' statements while using others' statements as justification for doing the exact same thing.
-
Then I'll take that as you're wrong again. Thanks for trying.
You seem to be under this incorrect notion that if you declare yourself right that you are therefore right. :crazy:
-
Do YOU have amnesia or something? Read what you showed me to find. I then pointed out you're making it up and now you're trying to diagnose me with something incorrectly.
Now you change the word to "possible". I didn't ask if it's possible, I asked if it's feasible.
I did ask and you seem to be making up conflict in your mind again. I think you may need help as your imagination is getting worst and worst.
More nitpicking to try and achieve a win. Too bad it doesn't work.
Yes it is feasible.
-
Only a hypocrite bitches about others' statements while using others' statements as justification for doing the exact same thing.
I never lead my statements with attitude and insults, I only respond with them when people like you decide to take the conversation that direction. So when you complain about attitude it is because you gave it first.
-
You seem to be under this incorrect notion that if you declare yourself right that you are therefore right. :crazy:
You seem to be under this incorrect notion that if I post facts that you don't like, I am therefore not right. :crazy:
-
More nitpicking to try and achieve a win. Too bad it doesn't work.
Yes it is feasible.
Hahahhaa more imagination happening.
-
I never lead my statements with attitude and insults, I only respond with them when people like you decide to take the conversation that direction. So when you complain about attitude it is because you gave it first.
Hahahhahaa, now your mind is imagining even more.
-
You seem to be under this incorrect notion that if I post facts that you don't like, I am therefore not right. :crazy:
Facts? Are these facts in the room with us right now talking to you?
-
Facts? Are these facts in the room with us right now talking to you?
They were already posted in this thread. Maybe you should look around the "room" and re-read them slowly and over and over until you understand them.
-
I never lead my statements with attitude and insults, I only respond with them when people like you decide to take the conversation that direction. So when you complain about attitude it is because you gave it first.
Liar!
Do you have amnesia or something? You asked if it was feasible.
And the answer is yes, it is possible to do a study of that kind of thing. Send surveys out to a sufficient certain percentage of the Samoan population asking their attitudes on vaccines, RFK, etc. and see if there is any data that they changed their mind based on his comments.
Next time if you want to seriously know if it is feasible then simply ask instead of a stupid reply suggesting I go about funding such a study as if that somehow disproved what I said
-
RFK confirmed.
-
BOOM. in yo face #immadoctor
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2025/02/13/robert-kennedy-jr-sworn-26th-secretary-hhs-president-trump-signs-executive-order-make-america-healthy-again.html
-
Stomach too big.
For a "health care professional". At least RFK Jr. is a prime example of health. He walks the walk.
Dr. Green can only waddle. I guess. Can only talk the talk. (while stuffing his face?) ;D :wave:
Yes It looks like Dr. Green prescribed himself too many plate lunches.
-
Liar!
Dishonest of you to pick a quote from halfway through the conversation.
-
Dishonest of you to pick a quote from halfway through the conversation.
You said "never". You lied.
Calling me dishonest is highly dishonest and hypocritical.
-
You said "never". You lied.
Calling me dishonest is highly dishonest and hypocritical.
I called you dishonest because my first response in this thread was not an insult or attitude. You picked a post with an insult after you had already turned the conversation negative
-
I called you dishonest because my first response in this thread was not an insult or attitude. You picked a post with an insult after you had already turned the conversation negative
Since when does "never" include only your first response in the thread?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Since when does "never" include only your first response in the thread?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
'
I said never in terms of my initial post. It is always you who takes our conversations into the mud.
-
'
I said never in terms of my initial post. It is always you who takes our conversations into the mud.
You jump into the mud head-first when you lie then try to defend it.
Suck it up, Buttercup! :geekdanc:
-
You jump into the mud head-first when you lie then try to defend it.
Suck it up, Buttercup! :geekdanc:
Wrong. You are deflecting from your inability to have a polite disagreement.
-
Wrong. You are deflecting from your inability to have a polite disagreement.
Why does every thread devolve into The EEF Show? You spend more time in pissing contests than discussing the actual topic.
i try to have polite disagreements, but you turn them into arguments over things you have no actual facts to support -- normally making accusations about the reasons we post what we post as if you read our minds.
Stop pretending you're the victim when you know your contrary posts are what starts it all.
-
Why does every thread devolve into The EEF Show? You spend more time in pissing contests than discussing the actual topic.
i try to have polite disagreements, but you turn them into arguments over things you have no actual facts to support -- normally making accusations about the reasons we post what we post as if you read our minds.
Stop pretending you're the victim when you know your contrary posts are what starts it all.
When one post based on feelings or incorrect facts and then gets corrected, his replies are all that are left. Which are like clockwork as what stages he uses. Because the phrase "I was wrong" isn't in his vocabulary.
-
Why does every thread devolve into The EEF Show?
Because you turn it into one.
Stop pretending you're the victim when you know your contrary posts are what starts it all.
Another strawman.
You are free to ignore my posts, you just lack the ability.
I posted a short, factual post about the percentage of the budget that USAID takes up and you went straight to the mud for a pointless argument. You want that argument in the mud, everyone here knows it so you can stop pretending
You have now taken to complaining about "contrary posts" as if disagreeing is a problem. You prefer an echo chamber?
-
Because you turn it into one.
So, you think i'm the only one disagreeing with you? I think not.
Another strawman.
You are free to ignore my posts, you just lack the ability.
Just as you are free to stop acting like an infant, lashing out every time you feel offended.
I posted a short, factual post about the percentage of the budget that USAID takes up and you went straight to the mud for a pointless argument. You want that argument in the mud, everyone here knows it so you can stop pretending
Percentages are what liars use. if programs that promoted White Supremacy only used .001% of the budget, would that make them better?
You have now taken to complaining about "contrary posts" as if disagreeing is a problem. You prefer an echo chamber?
it's one thing to disagree. It's another thing entirely to try to pick everyone else's posts apart using your opinions -- no actual facts involved. That's what you do more than anything else. That's why for the longest time you started your posts with "not necessarily." I've pointed that out enough that you stopped, but the contrarian in you still enjoys being the one who seems to rarely agree with anyone.
-
Don't you know by now, we are all wrong and EEF is always right. (sarcasm).
-
So, you think i'm the only one disagreeing with you? I think not.
I have disagreements with others yet somehow we manage to have civil disagreements.
Just as you are free to stop acting like an infant, lashing out every time you feel offended.
Your honor, I would like to introduce the above post as evidence # 2,389....
Percentages are what liars use. if programs that promoted White Supremacy only used .001% of the budget, would that make them better?
Wrong. A percentage is just a percentage, you are attaching emotion to them. Facts don't care about your emotions.
it's one thing to disagree. It's another thing entirely to try to pick everyone else's posts apart using your opinions -- no actual facts involved.
Says the guy who argued a percentage fact wasn't real.
BTW, not every disagreement is a fact based issue but questions of opinion based issues.
That's why for the longest time you started your posts with "not necessarily." I've pointed that out enough that you stopped,
Wrong. Not necessarily points out non-sequiturs.
-
I have disagreements with others yet somehow we manage to have civil disagreements.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Swoooosh!
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Swoooosh!
I was gonna put the same thing.
-
Interesting how they're going to ban 1 form of red dye, but not the other main red one. Both have been banned in many countries like Canada and some in the UK for a while now. Or other colors.
Maybe RFK is taking baby steps? But it would be easier for the companies to reformulate all at once. But companies like Kellogs already have 2 formulas. 1 with artificial coloring to be sold in the US and like countries that allow it. And another version with zero artificial colorings.
Target brand food is already no artificial coloring since it's made in Canada. Been like that for a while now too.
-
Interesting how they're going to ban 1 form of red dye, but not the other main red one. Both have been banned in many countries like Canada and some in the UK for a while now. Or other colors.
Maybe RFK is taking baby steps? But it would be easier for the companies to reformulate all at once. But companies like Kellogs already have 2 formulas. 1 with artificial coloring to be sold in the US and like countries that allow it. And another version with zero artificial colorings.
Target brand food is already no artificial coloring since it's made in Canada. Been like that for a while now too.
A slow easing would make sense to reduce push back from the food industry as well as the libertarian minded.
I am ont he fence on the whole food dyes issue. We have the FDA saying they are safe for consumption but we are moving forward with banning them. Much of the arguments against them are sensational in nature, natural doesn't always mean safe, and artificial doesn't always mean dangerous. On the other hand there is a concern that these dyes are harmful so maybe we should ban them just to be safe.
-
A slow easing would make sense to reduce push back from the food industry as well as the libertarian minded.
I am ont he fence on the whole food dyes issue. We have the FDA saying they are safe for consumption but we are moving forward with banning them. Much of the arguments against them are sensational in nature, natural doesn't always mean safe, and artificial doesn't always mean dangerous. On the other hand there is a concern that these dyes are harmful so maybe we should ban them just to be safe.
It all depends if you trust what the FDA is saying. Countries that have "free healthcare" ban them. You need to ask yourself, why would that be? And can artificial coloring be equal health wise to natural coloring like beet root, turmeric, etc...
There is a docu about ADD and kids and once the parents switched to natural coloring like the above, their kids calmed down.
-
A slow easing would make sense to reduce push back from the food industry as well as the libertarian minded.
I am ont he fence on the whole food dyes issue. We have the FDA saying they are safe for consumption but we are moving forward with banning them. Much of the arguments against them are sensational in nature, natural doesn't always mean safe, and artificial doesn't always mean dangerous. On the other hand there is a concern that these dyes are harmful so maybe we should ban them just to be safe.
You give government agencies too much benefit of the doubt.
Rather than doing studies and tests for all possible uses of an additive, they simply rely on the lack of evidence that they pose a risk to declare them safe.
Professor Jim Stevenson from Southampton University and author of the
report said: "This has been a major study investigating an important area
of research. The results suggest that consumption of certain mixtures of
artificial food colours and sodium benzoate preservative are associated
with increases in hyperactive behaviour in children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration
It's not enough to test a food coloring in a few products or as a standalone substance in lab rats. There needs to be a standard clinical test process for anyone marketing any additives in their final food product. Effects of combinations are difficult to predict without such tests.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hawaii-governor-says-president-trump-told-him-of-criticism-have-at-it-as-long-as-you-re-leaving-me-out-of-it/ar-AA1AJu7u?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=87c46b974dc5467ab1c4e7b977c0e6d3&ei=16
Green: "But I'm going to at least represent our state's values". :rofl:
Green was more harsh leading up to the Presidential election. Way more harsh about Trump. But now that Trump has won and is now POTUS, Green is basically all flash in the pan, showing his hawaii supporters that he got their back by wasting taxpayer money to go to Washington in a feeble attempt to stop the inevitable.
Basically, the President is saying have at it but leave me out of it, lest you feel my wrath on your little banana republik out in the middle of nowhere. RFK Jr. can take care of his own battles, especially with little porky's like you who claim #immadoctor and marches to the blue-haired drum of pork barrel corruption.
-
You give government agencies too much benefit of the doubt.
Rather than doing studies and tests for all possible uses of an additive, they simply rely on the lack of evidence that they pose a risk to declare them safe.
It is not that I think the FDA is beyond reproach by any means but anyone can always come along and say "it needs more study" to cast doubt upon something. At what point do we say that a chemical should be allowed for consumption because there is no evidence it causes harm vs we should ban a chemical because we can't say for certain it is safe?
It's not enough to test a food coloring in a few products or as a standalone substance in lab rats. There needs to be a standard clinical test process for anyone marketing any additives in their final food product. Effects of combinations are difficult to predict without such tests.
I don't disagree but there seems to be an ideological disparity on what gets scrutiny. If a chemist develops a new artificial or flavor compound it gets a lot of scrutiny but if a farmer breeds a new variety of fruit he doesn't have to get his fruit tested and approved.
-
It is not that I think the FDA is beyond reproach by any means but anyone can always come along and say "it needs more study" to cast doubt upon something. At what point do we say that a chemical should be allowed for consumption because there is no evidence it causes harm vs we should ban a chemical because we can't say for certain it is safe?
I don't disagree but there seems to be an ideological disparity on what gets scrutiny. If a chemist develops a new artificial or flavor compound it gets a lot of scrutiny but if a farmer breeds a new variety of fruit he doesn't have to get his fruit tested and approved.
The people who control the most genetically modified produce is Monsato. You should google this and what kind of influence they have.
Something is causing the autism rate to increase in our nation. The tism is everywhere, there might even be people who have it and unaware.
Update: I forgot to add in ADD and food coloring. Enough parents have noticed the difference when removing it from a young childs diet for it to not be a coincidence. How come other countries like ours do not require the same amount of vaxx's?
-
It is not that I think the FDA is beyond reproach by any means but anyone can always come along and say "it needs more study" to cast doubt upon something. At what point do we say that a chemical should be allowed for consumption because there is no evidence it causes harm vs we should ban a chemical because we can't say for certain it is safe?
I don't disagree but there seems to be an ideological disparity on what gets scrutiny. If a chemist develops a new artificial or flavor compound it gets a lot of scrutiny but if a farmer breeds a new variety of fruit he doesn't have to get his fruit tested and approved.
You still believe there is always a one-size-fits-all process for every case in every discussion.
A chemical additive is totally different from a new fruit variety. The chemical composition of the fruit can be documented using a mass spectrometer or other means. If the composition is the same as other fruits, then there's no difference -- so extensive testing is not needed. Adding a chemical dye or flavoring can react to other chemicals, so the testing is more critical for safety.
-
You still believe there is always a one-size-fits-all process for every case in every discussion.
A chemical additive is totally different from a new fruit variety. The chemical composition of the fruit can be documented using a mass spectrometer or other means. If the composition is the same as other fruits, then there's no difference -- so extensive testing is not needed. Adding a chemical dye or flavoring can react to other chemicals, so the testing is more critical for safety.
What about GMO's? In a docu, there was a wheat plant that "blew in the wind" to a neighboring farm and began populating in that farm. The "DNA" is trademarked, so Monsato with tall their lawyers was able to take that farm from the mom n pop owner who has been producing wheat for generations cause their strain was able to be ID'd in court.
THeir wheat strain is supposed to be resistant to insects so they don't eat them. IDK if I would trust fully to knowingly ingest this type of wheat.
-
What about GMO's? In a docu, there was a wheat plant that "blew in the wind" to a neighboring farm and began populating in that farm. The "DNA" is trademarked, so Monsato with tall their lawyers was able to take that farm from the mom n pop owner who has been producing wheat for generations cause their strain was able to be ID'd in court.
THeir wheat strain is supposed to be resistant to insects so they don't eat them. IDK if I would trust fully to knowingly ingest this type of wheat.
From what I know, the GMO wheat can produce its own pesticides to become insect resistant. But the bigger benefit is in herbicides. A GMO crop is resistant to the herbicides developed to complement it. The crop can be sprayed with the herbicide to control weeds without destroying the crops.
-
From what I know, the GMO wheat can produce its own pesticides to become insect resistant. But the bigger benefit is in herbicides. A GMO crop is resistant to the herbicides developed to complement it. The crop can be sprayed with the herbicide to control weeds without destroying the crops.
This is why I'm hesitant to consume.
-
plus it can steal your thoughts...
This is why I'm hesitant to consume.
-
plus it can steal your thoughts...
It can definitely steal your gut bacteria, which has a direct impact on your ability to think clearly
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31442459/
-
plus it can steal your thoughts...
Focus.
I have a tin foil hat on 24/7, so this isn't possible.
-
Focus.
I have a tin foil hat on 24/7, so this isn't possible.
Aluminum (tin) foil apparel actually makes it easier for satellites to track you.
Just sayin' :geekdanc: :shaka: :shake:
-
heads
Focus.
I have a tin foil hat on 24/7, so this isn't possible.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxycEmc4avqKy-Gsk4s4fAQoDybxwDvFAydw&s)
-
Aluminum (tin) foil apparel actually makes it easier for satellites to track you.
Just sayin' :geekdanc: :shaka: :shake:
There are 2 sides to the foil. Dull side and reflective side. Reflective side up.
-
There are 2 sides to the foil. Dull side and reflective side. Reflective side up.
Reflective surfaces are also great for Infrared and radar returns.
You're making it too easy for them.
-
Reflective surfaces are also great for Infrared and radar returns.
You're making it too easy for them.
That's what the cloaking device is for.
-
That's what the cloaking device is for.
Take a few lessons from stealth technology. A surface that both absorbs and deflects radar in many directions works well to trick radar and infrared.
Being cloaked won't stop those. Heat signatures, radar and sonar, etc., are not dependent on visual acquisition.
Something like Klingons might use requires more power than you can provide while remaining mobile.
-
Take a few lessons from stealth technology. A surface that both absorbs and deflects radar in many directions works well to trick radar and infrared.
Being cloaked won't stop those. Heat signatures, radar and sonar, etc., are not dependent on visual acquisition.
Something like Klingons might use requires more power than you can provide while remaining mobile.
If the much more advanced Enterprise can't detected a cloaked ship, then our privative radar won't either.
-
Went to the new Don Don Donki in Kapolei. It's nothing different from Don Quijote in town. The food is the same and the food vendors aren't anything special. So not worth at rip to go to for anyone. THe enterance is on 1 side of the bldg and the exit on another. So if you park near the entrance, you have to walk all the way back. I also saw no cart return stations. The place wasn't packed at all and there were no carts available.
The point of this is I bought japanese strawberry yogurt and the dye used for the coloring was red cabbage. This product was made in Kobe, Japan. I checked another Japan made energy drink and the dye used was beet root.
-
You still believe there is always a one-size-fits-all process for every case in every discussion.
A chemical additive is totally different from a new fruit variety. The chemical composition of the fruit can be documented using a mass spectrometer or other means. If the composition is the same as other fruits, then there's no difference -- so extensive testing is not needed. Adding a chemical dye or flavoring can react to other chemicals, so the testing is more critical for safety.
You missed the point. The point was that there is a disparity in the way we look at food things. Much of the health conscious crowd is all into buzzword issues with flavors, GMO, preservatives, dyes, seed oils, synthetic, etc. and that is what gets the extra attention.
You can grow a tomato on a tobacco plant, no GMO needed yet you can end up with a tomato with a dangerous amount of nicotine in the tomatoes. People have selectively bred marijuana plants with higher and higher levels of THC for example.
Traditional methods of growing can result in dangerous foods as well but we don't question those the way we do with the more high tech food additives.
-
You missed the point. The point was that there is a disparity in the way we look at food things. Much of the health conscious crowd is all into buzzword issues with flavors, GMO, preservatives, dyes, seed oils, synthetic, etc. and that is what gets the extra attention.
You can grow a tomato on a tobacco plant, no GMO needed yet you can end up with a tomato with a dangerous amount of nicotine in the tomatoes. People have selectively bred marijuana plants with higher and higher levels of THC for example.
Traditional methods of growing can result in dangerous foods as well but we don't question those the way we do with the more high tech food additives.
You're giving examples of crossbreeding plants, not altering a single plant's genetic blueprint in a laboratory. Changing a gnome of a plant to make it more disease resistant or able to grow in arid climates targets a specific trait. Trying to grow tomatoes on a tobacco plant makes absolutely mo sense, which is why your hypotheticals always suck. you go way out in left field for an example that has no basis in reality.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/gm-plants/what-is-gm-and-how-is-it-done/
-
You're giving examples of crossbreeding plants, not altering a single plant's genetic blueprint in a laboratory. Changing a gnome of a plant to make it more disease resistant or able to grow in arid climates targets a specific trait. Trying to grow tomatoes on a tobacco plant makes absolutely mo sense, which is why your hypotheticals always suck. you go way out in left field for an example that has no basis in reality.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/gm-plants/what-is-gm-and-how-is-it-done/
I didn't give you any hypotheticals I mentioned actual cases of modifications to plants. Maybe you should have looked up a tomacco plant before putting your foot in your mouth.
You talk of altering a gnome in a lab as if it is somehow vastly different than selective breeding or cross pollination which shows you don't seem to understand the chemistry. Changing a gnome in a lab is faster than selective breeding but in the end you are doing the same thing, getting a plant with a higher yield or a disease resistance.
-
I didn't give you any hypotheticals I mentioned actual cases of modifications to plants. Maybe you should have looked up a tomacco plant before putting your foot in your mouth.
You talk of altering a gnome in a lab as if it is somehow vastly different than selective breeding or cross pollination which shows you don't seem to understand the chemistry. Changing a gnome in a lab is faster than selective breeding but in the end you are doing the same thing, getting a plant with a higher yield or a disease resistance.
It's not chemistry, Brainiac. It's biology.
-
It's not chemistry, Brainiac. It's biology.
Food additives and changing food are biology and chemistry. I hope you have a better rebuttal than that next reply.
-
Food additives and changing food are biology and chemistry. I hope you have a better rebuttal than that next reply.
That's not what you posted:
You talk of altering a gnome in a lab as if it is somehow vastly different than selective breeding or cross pollination which shows you don't seem to understand the chemistry.
Try again, Brainiac.
-
Wholes Foods sells cotton candy flavored grapes. I googled how it's done as I'm not a GMO (in a lab) fan. It's 2 different grapes gross bred, so more natural than "in a lab".