bettercaust

no profile record

comments

From what I have explored, those beliefs are based on misinformation or misunderstandings drawn from scientific research. In contrast, the vaccine orthodoxy is drawn from a strong body of evidence "where trials and statistics matter". If you are going to assert otherwise, then please provide specific examples.

I mean, that good sanitation reduced infectious disease incidence and mortality was something I was already aware of so I've already been "moved" so to speak. As for nutrition, the paper cites one researcher who concludes nutrition was a major factor, and it probably was a factor, though the magnitude of its impact is not firmly established by that one researcher.

I thought we were talking about public health interventions. How would "don't offer soft drinks, junk food, etc." be implemented? Are you going to propose a law or regulation that bans offering those things?

There's merit to the government food assistance (SNAP in the US) idea, though if you're trying to ban "junk food" from SNAP you're going to run into definition issues. Banning things like Twinkies and cola from SNAP is one thing, but "junk food" may also include ready-made ultra-processed food depending on your definition, and that may be the only type of food typical SNAP recipients can use (e.g. homeless who do not have access to cooking, people who live in food deserts). There is also a valid concern about micromanaging the food people eat, because SNAP recipients are normal humans and we tend to give normal humans leeway to indulge in a treat every now and then.

Not difficult to find? Maybe, maybe not. Effective public health solutions for obesity for which there is political will to implement them seem difficult to find to me. At the individual level, if you can manage to cut out ultra-processed food, exercise a few times a week, and get any comorbid medical conditions treated you're probably in the clear. All that is to say, it is relatively easy to identify at least some of the determinants of obesity for solutions.

I'm going to reply here to both comments.

I didn't contest the relationship between regular exercise and health. The questions I raised were: what evidence is there that [malnutrition] is a significant contributor to infectious disease in countries like the US? What evidence is there that an otherwise healthy immune system could be "boosted" with proper nutrition and elimination of environmental toxins to the point that it would have a meaningful impact on infectious disease?

I agree with all of these solutions for encouraging regular exercise, and I'm open to the solutions for encouraging healthier nutrition.

No one is contesting the role of nutrition, working conditions, and sanitation in infectious diseases generally. What I asked was: what evidence is there that this is a significant contributor to infectious disease in countries like the US? (I should clarify that I'm referring to present-day US, because we're discussing in context of MAHA which is present-day US)

Yes, measles death rates had dropped precipitously (fortunately), however incidence (new cases) had only dropped a little. It wasn't until the vaccine was introduced that incidence dropped to nearly zero[1]. Yours is a common anti-vaxx talking point, and one that seems to neglect that death is not the only negative outcome from measles. It's understandable to take the talking point at face value when it appears to be scientifically-supported, though this is a good example of how a talking point uses a cherry-picked fact and reframes the issue for a presupposed conclusion (that vaccines are unsafe or ineffective), because the origin of that talking point had no interest in comprehensively informing people but converting them to believers.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/measles-cases-and-death-r...

Nah, that's is just an artifact of an conflated claim made by RFK Jr. and others and the more complex reality that needs to be underlined to refute it. If the claim is "no vaccine products on the market were tested against a saline placebo", that is untrue because new first-in-class vaccines were. If the claim is "no vaccine classes on the market were tested against a saline placebo", that is untrue because as far as I can tell all classes were tested against a saline placebo at some point. If the claim is "some vaccine products on the market were not tested against a saline placebo", that would be true and it would not be a problem if those vaccine products were of vaccine classes that were previously tested against saline placebo.

How are you qualifying this strategy as "ultra-high risk"? How well do you understand the new drug and vaccine regulatory process in the US? An "unsafe" (vague) vaccine will be discovered via postmarketing surveillance (e.g. Rotashield). If two unsafe vaccines are trialed comparatively and the adverse event rate is unusually high for both groups than what was previously reported, that's not going to go unnoticed even if it appears like there's no significant difference between the two statistically. Your concern also assumes that because the first approval was erroneous that all subsequent ones will be too, which is an unfounded assumption.

If you want to claim that the medical profession have "routinely lied as a group about many things in the past", you'll have to back that up because I don't agree and will not accept your assertion at face value.

I don't know on what all (every single one) anti-vaxx beliefs are based, which is why I generalized based on my experiences with the beliefs I've encountered. I can't readily form an opinion on a belief I haven't encountered, can I? All of the common anti-vaxx talking points fit the criteria I listed above, and I know this from my experiences reviewing and researching them. So yes, it is a good idea to generalize for the sake of conveying my experiences here, though I'm not going to prejudge any new anti-vaxx views I haven't previously encountered.

This "miasmist approach" to public health starts from a belief, not a basis of fact or empiricism. There are certainly circumstances in which malnutrition makes someone more susceptible to infectious disease, but what evidence is there that this is a significant contributor to infectious disease in countries like the US? What evidence is there that an otherwise healthy immune system could be "boosted" with proper nutrition and elimination of environmental toxins to the point that it would have a meaningful impact on infectious disease?

No one's against nutritional public health measures or elimination of environmental toxins to improve public health. The fact is lifestyle interventions are ALWAYS first-line recommendations by medical doctors for things like obesity, but Americans are stressed out, overworked, inactive, eating garbage food, and have clamored for easy solutions like taking a pill for a long time rather than making lifestyle changes. There's been no neglect of "living a healthy life", it's just that Americans don't want to do it because it requires lifting a finger. There are many positive public health impacts HHS and the Trump admin could have, but they are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they claim "MAHA" while cutting food access entitlements, rolling back environmental regulations for clean air and water, and of course "drill baby drill". RFK Jr. made a deal with the devil to be HHS secretary.

> For example: most people assume vaccines are tested against an inert placebo like water, and will only be approved as safe if it doesn't cause more problems than the placebo does. This isn't what happens. The "placebo" in vaccine trials is usually another vaccine.

First, please consider from where and whom you received this information. It was probably RFK Jr. or someone on social media or maybe a news article, right? Did you bother to scrutinize that information? Because it's not true. All vaccines (like other medications) are tested against the standard of care. For a first-in-class vaccine, that's going to be a saline placebo because there is no standard of care yet; for subsequent vaccines, it will whatever is the current vaccine. This is completely sensible. The idea that the vaccines on the market now were never tested against saline placebo is mis/disinformation promulgated by a lawyer whose name escapes me; some of those saline placebo-controlled trials for vaccines are listed [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pUMNBewb0kgTU7g3augmOtPG...).

If you have a passing understanding of common anti-vaxx talking points, RFK Jr.'s arguments are easy to debunk.

The problem is that anti-vaxx concerns are based on unfounded beliefs (especially in conspiracy), misunderstandings, or out-right misinformation some of which RFK Jr. himself has helped sow over the past twenty years. This "I'm not anti-vaxx, I'm pro vaxx-safety" is merely a guise.

2년 전discuss

I wondered if that would be the case. If rain is falling in the desert where it previously didn't, that means rain is not falling elsewhere it previously did.

2년 전discuss

This is news to me. Where can I read more about this?

2년 전discuss

I'll second Monarch. I had issues with connections when I first started a month or so ago, but they've since been resolved. They seem to have a very active customer service team AND a roadmap (which is something Mint hasn't had in years). Budgeting is much better than Mint. Transactions are much better than Mint. Rules are much better than Mint. You have to subscribe to it, but you get to try it out for a month for free and in that time I genuinely felt a subscription would net me more than my money's worth.

2년 전discuss

Seems like a problem of applying a "one-size-fits-all" approach to all patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It's clearly inappropriate to try and change behaviors that are not harmful, but clearly appropriate to change behaviors that are. Banning ABA would throw out the baby with the bathwater.

2년 전discuss

I'm all for reducing inefficiencies if it reduces costs and/or improves service, but that is not the goal here. The goal is to make as much profit as possible as quickly as possible. Seems like that's what happened with a lot of these ABA clinic consolidations. The fact that successful clinics had to shut down because of this is sickening.

2년 전discuss

Christianity is faith, not a model of reality, so it can't be "wrong" but nor does it purport to be "right". It comes down to whether or not you continue to believe in its tenets.

2년 전discuss

Glad somebody pointed this out. If I'm going to get better sleep it's going to be for the sake of honoring my body's needs, not for the sake of productivity.

2년 전discuss

Probably limited as far as prions go. This particular advancement is in proteins that have sought-after mechanical properties like spider silk.

2년 전discuss

This study isn't "bunk science", nor is medicine a "soft science". It's just silly to apply your own government paranoia to the 12 million people in the study cohort without rational reason to do so.