573
RFK Jr. says a Trump White House would immediately push to remove fluoride from water (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 144 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 53 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can have safety, or you can have improvement via evolution.

    You can't have both.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •