☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️
Damn that FDA and their suppression of…*checks list…sunshine?
Was the solar eclipse an inside job?!?
I think it’s like the FDA having just reasonable guidelines on how much UV you can safely be exposed to. RFKJR prolly thinks sun lotion prevents all the healthiness from the sun and crystallises your amygdala or something along those lines.
It’s Vitamin D. There was this whole thing during the COVID pandemic about how the FDA/CDC were SUSPICIOUSLY QUIET about how impactful Vitamin D levels were on COVID outcomes or something and how that’s how you know that… something something sinister ulterior motives.
So like the idea was that everybody going outside and getting some sun was actually the best thing for public health, but THEY were telling you to languish inside under lockdowns, because clearly they didn’t want you to be healthy.
It’s quite likely a belief that sunscreen lotion is a bad thing that harms people. Found that one out from an old high school crush from FL. She looks like leather now.
It’s quite likely a belief that sunscreen lotion is a bad thing that harms people.
I mean, it halfway is:
-
“Sunscreen” – stuff with a decently high SPF rating – is a good thing that prevents cancer.
-
“Suntan lotion” – usually glorified coconut oil with fuck-all SPF rating – is a bad thing that harms people.
-
“Sunscreen lotion” – a confused amalgamation of the previous terms – is not a thing and only misleads people by conflating good things with harmful ones.
“Sunscreen lotion” – a confused amalgamation of the previous terms – is not a thing and only misleads people
So confidently stated yet so very wrong. Citation - an example that’s available nationwide: https://no-ad.com/product/spf-85-sunscreen-lotion-3-oz/
-
In all that crazy, there’s, shockingly, two good points:
-
Psychedelics. There’s at least anecdotal evidence they’re good for treating certain traumas / PTSD. So, yeah, we should be looking into their medicinal applications. But is it the FDA or the DEA that’s cockblocking those?
-
Stem cells. Abso-fucking-lutely yes. But wasn’t it the “pro life” people holding that up?
-
Vaccines are the laziest, lowest effort medicine we have. There is no medical treatment that is more effective for so little actual work on the part of the patient. Which is exactly the kind of medicine we need to have the greatest impact on the population base.
Even better than that. You take the medicine and it reduces everyone else’s risk of getting sick, even the ones that refuse to take the medicine. It’s the closest thing we have IRL to literal magic.
As an immunocompromised person, thank you to everyone who gets vaccinated against communicable disease, you make my world a little less heinous to navigate.
[…] psychedelics […]
I’m glad that it seems like the war on drugs is showing cracks. I completely support a move to legalize psychedelics.
Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons. We used to justify legalization using arguments about personal freedom for recreational use and pushing for more rigorous research into the therapeutic use cases. Now its popularity in the population is just used to push a pseudo-scientific and anti-science agenda.
Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons.
This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.
If the end result is that psychedelics get used as an excuse to take power away from the FDA, then everybody’s safety gets compromised in all areas of healthcare.
I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn’t agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.
I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy.
Could you elaborate on what you mean?
If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn’t be favorable for all parties.
Apparently now conservatism is just constantly relitigating every minor perceived slight.
For the most part, liberals have moved past the fact that these assholes held the country hostage and killed a million people throwing their tantrum.
Meanwhile, conservatives are like “we haven’t forgotten that you made fun of us for the horse dewormer thing.”
He’s not conservative.
