Summary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that a Trump administration would prioritize removing fluoride from public water systems, a position at odds with major health organizations like the CDC, the American Dental Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which endorse water fluoridation as safe and beneficial for dental health.

Despite Kennedy’s controversial stance on health and environmental issues, which includes previously debunked claims linking vaccines to autism, Trump has praised his passion, stating that Kennedy would have significant freedom to influence health policy if Trump were elected.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    216
    ·
    1 month ago

    Roe v Wade: “This should be decided by the states!”

    Fluoride in water: “This should be decided by the federal government!”

    ???

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      146
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      They’re proposing to ban vaccines too, and they’re not mentioning particular vaccines, just “vaccines”. So no healthcare for trans people or pregnant women, and no vaccines. It’s only a matter of time before someone convinces them antibiotics are the devil’s work.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I mean…

        At this point let’s just tell them we forbid them from drinking arsenic because, even though it massively increases testosterone production, all liberal science says most humans aren’t strong enough to handle it.

        Fucking let moron nature take its course.

        • randompasta@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 month ago

          Except they’ll take a lot of us with them. We need herd immunity, clean air and water, safe roads. They’re going to fuck us all with their idiocy.

            • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              1 month ago

              You can actually, evolution is driven by selective reproduction, not selective survival. Yes, reproduction is usually tied to survival, but natural selection would still work even if everyone always lived to 80.

              It would not select for traits useful for survival though, it would most likely select for traits that get you laid.

              • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                This requires us to prevent people from reproducing, we have to pick and choose who can breed.

                Gonna put that in the “probably not a great idea” category.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                You have seen Idiocracy, yes? About selective reproduction.

                I’ve seen the kind of people that reproduce well. Most of them are both immoral and not very smart.

                My cousins’ parents are a good exception, though. They are exactly the kind of people that should have children, and their daughters too. My parents, on the contrary, were the kind of people about whom I’d never say that. It’s a pure miracle I’ve turned out at least kinda similar to a human.

                On the contrary, the best people I know personally of my generation either have problems they haven’t yet solved or are gay.

                OK, then thinking about myself, I actually think I’d not be that bad of a parent, in case one of those strange creatures likes me enough, but it would be really hard.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 month ago

        someone convinces them antibiotics are the devil’s work.

        Antibiotics are proof of evolution, since the various microorganisms create resistances to vaccines.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Antibiotics shouldn’t be used as easily as people think, though. Because, ahem, antibiotic resistance is a thing.

        It’s a responsible position to only use antibiotics when you really need it. Not when you have cold. EDIT: just in case, by cold I mean cold, not covid

        • floofloof@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s the kind of responsible and sensible advice the Republicans would never give. It requires too much nuance.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t think I’ve heard anything responsible and sensible from politicians with chances to succeed in a two party system.

  • rothaine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Don’t we have real problems to solve? Why are Republicans always making up new shit?

    • Gamoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      Because Democrats tend to agree with reality, so if republicans want to oppose them they must insist that reality isn’t true.

    • RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      Distraction 101. If we’re too busy fighting about stuff like this, we won’t come after them for the stuff they absolutely do not want to address. More often than not, the other side doesn’t really want to do the hard work either, so it’s easy to just fight with them about the meaningless shit and get credit for being the reasonable ones. Meanwhile the homeless camps get larger, the health care gets more expensive, the one income family with a pension for retirement becomes a two income family juggling multiple part time jobs with no benefits, higher education becomes something that traps you in a lifetime of loan debt, and we spend billions to elect people who will address none of it.

      Pick up a fiddle and enjoy the view of Rome.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sometimes I hope I’ll see a starship Enterprise, but it’s looking more like Bell riots and Eugenics wars for the rest of my lifetime.

        Vote blue and punch a nazi whenever you can, be the change you want to see.

      • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        65
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That paper specifically concludes that despite all that, there is no reason to even look into whether fluoridation in drinking water might be a problem because there has clearly been no corollary deleterious effect. So, knowing what it would look like if it was a problem, was enough to know that it isn’t even close enough to warrant checking how close it is. The highest reported extremes of exposure already didn’t cause issue, so there is certainly no cause for concern at normal levels.

        Basically, normal levels are so far below potential risky levels, that they aren’t even concerned of accidental overexposure due to mistakes or accidents. They concluded they had literally zero concern…

        So linking that paper isn’t really supporting your opinion.

          • airglow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            34
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The paper does not recognize fluoride as a neurotoxin in its current application in Europe:

            Overall, despite the remaining uncertainties, and based on the totality of evidence the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be considered as a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.

            • eramseth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              This is not true. To elaborate on what the other person who replied said… there is no safe level of lead in consumer products because lead accumulates in the body. Also, lots of consumer products still contain lead because there are loopholes. And the regulations any way aren’t that stringent.

      • macarthur_park@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 month ago

        Those concerns are for unrealistically high doses though. The last sentence of the abstract you linked:

        In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.

        Calling concerns about the safety of fluoridated water “founded” is a bit of a stretch.

      • nightingale@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 month ago

        The issue is not whether fluoride is good or bad. Conservatives vilify medical experts as “woke” and it that as a reason to dismiss their advice.

        I too can cherry pick an article to support my position. The number of cavities in children born in Calgary, Canada within the decade after they removed fluoride from their water was higher than nearby Edmonton who kept fluoride.

        We can argue about who has more links to support their argument; or we can argue about whether politicians should govern based on the recommendations of experts, or trust that “they know best”.