Yeah, well, I think that's a shortsighted attitude. Society can learn to make accomodations for people with autism, instead of merely focusing on the pathological aspects. And tha's where RFK and his ilk's rhetoric about autism isn't helpful for people like me. Because it suggest a cure for autism is possible. I don't think it is- I don't think you can separate out the autism from the person, in many cases, it is an essential characteristic of who I am to a great extent. Better treatment and accomodations would do far more to help people with autism, than ridiculous quackery about autism being caused by vaccines or pesticides.
No I think Kennedy is being realistic and pragmatic. He isn't professing or pushing some cure or particular ideology. Its just plain and simple common sense based on the data. Many problems are being caused by poor management of the nations health and have done for decades. Its taking a toll. So its about time we got back to the basics. Putting good health before money.
If find it strange that people say its quackery when someone wants to stand on stopping say the obesity and diabetic epidemic in kids. This is just obvious first principle doing good, doing no harm. Which as a society we as adults should take responsibility for. I think modern society is very accommodating. We have all sorts of information and supports. Including treating people with respect.
We actually need to stop what is causing these problems in the first place. We talk about cleaning up the environment with climate change. What about cleaning up the health of kids and future generations.
This is an overly cynical attitude. Everybody cares about profits to a certain extent, it's just part of being human- we want a profitable use of our time and talents. That doesn't mean every desire or aim of humans should be treated with suspicion, especially when the track record of modern medicine is pretty good compared to the alternatives.
Come on we are talking about big Pharma. They have a history of scrupulous practices putting profits over peoples health.
"Poison" is an extreme statement, since for some people, having junk food is better than having no food at all.
No its not extreme. For example the high processed sugar content in foods is literally poison. Processed sugar is a poison to the body. Probably the number one. Strangly enough artificial sweetners are worse.
The idea that because some is less likely to starve in a western nation doesn't make poisoning kids with sugar and other chemicals ok.
The reality is that modern humans in developed countries are often suffering from diseases of affluence. Research on the so-called Blue Zones has shown that it's possible to have a highq quality of life without a certain level of affluence, and that afluence in some cases might even be contributing to poor health.
Its probably a bit of a number of factors. But the fact is the environment is contributing. Mass production and processed foods is definitely contributing to obesity and diabetes.
Obesity in American children has increased dramatically since John F. Kennedy's presidency, from around 4 percent in the 1960s to almost 20 percent in 2024. The causes of childhood obesity are complex, but a primary origin is clearly the modern American diet of highly processed foods. But our food problem goes well beyond obesity: Pesticides are proven risk factors for neurodevelopmental outcomes in kids, causing maladies like ADHD.
The exorbitant cost of the failing health of our kids, the needless suffering and death, can be ended by a Kennedy Commission on Childhood Chronic Disease.
www.newsweek.com
But it's far more complicated than just something ammenable to simple, and politically palatable solutions. Especially in a country like the United States, but even in regions like the EU, sugar and fat texes, which have a great deal of justification from a public health policy standpoint, often carry alot of political baggage.
Yeah its like environmental taxes. But at least the issue is being put forward as a policy concern. Thats what I like about Trumps team its multi dimensional. Its not just the issues like abortion or immigration but grassroots issues like kids health. Because there are different perspectives from outside the partisan party politics it is more representative.
Like I said, for some people processed food is better tha no food at all. The Green Revolution allowed billions of people to live who otherwise would have starved.
Well right now the issue of people starving is becoming a problem in supposed wealthy nations. Many having to choose between medicine and food. Many struggling to afford proper food.
Its ok to say well at least people have food. I think thats pessimistic. Because the thing is yeah they have food but because its not healthy we end up with doubling the problems by accepting the lower standard. Then we compound it again and again and before you know it we are accepting all sorts of stuff.
But we can set the bar high and thats what I like about Trump. Just having food or just surviving isn't good enough. It needs to be great again. That is how western societies built their nations on the basics like good health for kids nationally. As a national agenda. The expectation was for the highest of standards.
This is fatuitous reasoning, and a false dichotomy, like people on the "Left" can't also care about improving their health? Some of us just prefer not to turn to pseudoscience and grifters selling horse dewormers and supplements.
I am sure the Left can. They were the party of social welfare. National health schemes ect. But I find it ironic that coming from someone who just accused the Right of not being capable of coming up with a health plan as it was quackery.
All I am saying is not that the Left can't come up with a health platform but that I like how the Trump team has invited a range of people with different ideas they are passionate about. Rather than the same old ppartisan politics.
You have to admit its an unusual setup having more or less both Republicans and Dems as well as private bussiness minds together as a team. I have not heard of such a thing in modern politics.
This is stupid populist rhetoric. The incentives are intrinsic to capitalism. I don't see Donald Trump and MAGA being in favor of regulation of agribusiness. If anything, the Republican Party gets more than its share of donations from agribusiness, so the incentives are there to not kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
Thats why I like the idea that Dems like Kennedy and Gabbard are on the team because it breaks up the usual Rights based politics that over protects big business. Its adding ideas and positions from outside the usual hard Right politics and bring things back to the middle as each position balances the others. 
.png)
