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.

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    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
      51
      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
            14
            ·
            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
      25
      ·
      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
      5
      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
          5
          ·
          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.