201–210 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
> Why? Locking people down at home for over 2 years. Damaging an entire generation of young children in the process. Destroying the economy in the process. Inflationary policies which lead to recessions and stagflation globally from which we still haven't recovered (and probably won't for the next 5-10 years). Spreading mass fear and hysteria based on little empirical (and often contradictory) evidence. Obliterating…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an expected consequence of over monopolization of industry. You lose all the natural power of moderation that comes from the market. With that gone, corruption is left unchecked, regulatory bodies are captured, and collusion is purchased to gaslight everyone over the truth. You also should never trust any court, in particular, the Supreme Court. A court has no special access to facts, yet it operates with com…
> A court has no special access to facts There are facts out there that can otherwise be kept private until subpoenad by court order, is that not special access to facts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely such a misanthropic shifting of blame to the poor themselves is well supported by research?
Who is blaming the poor? They are too poor to drink water? That makes no sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stating accurately what's in it is not the same as it doing something beneficial when ingested.
Of course it's not. I don't see that I made any such claim. I'm not seeing where the complaint is defined anywhere above, so we may be talking about completely different things. GP specifically said that the current law is what has caused this problem, and I dispute that. I think there's more to it than that. That doesn't mean the law is perfect, but it doesn't mean it's completely responsible either. The whole point…
And this is exactly what was meant when it was said supplements are essentially exempt from truth in advertising laws. They can and do regularly make health claims with little to no evidence to back them up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I do believe that the government should regulate use of the word “medicine” in trade. It also regulates a lot of other words, like “ketchup” and “ice cream”. The government regulates what “12 fl. oz” means when you buy a can of root beer, and regulates exactly how the number of calories should be printed on the wrapper for a chocolate bar. Notice how a lot of desserts in the frozen section of your grocery store…
> It also regulates a lot of other words, like “ketchup” and “ice cream”. It shouldn't. > The government regulates what “12 fl. oz” means when you buy a can of root beer, and regulates exactly how the number of calories should be printed on the wrapper for a chocolate bar. This is reasonable regulation. > I’m glad that this isn’t the Wild West of snake oil salesmen like we had back in the day. People used to really g…
This approach is too callous and cold-hearted for my taste. I can’t stomach it. The real consequences for human life is, I think, too severe to ignore. All I am asking is that the box, sold in stores, be labeled correctly and clearly. The labeling does not have to be perfect, but it should meet some minimum standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is blaming the poor? They are too poor to drink water? That makes no sense.
Blaming food choices is often blaming the poor, ignoring that nutritious foods tend to be more expensive. Even pure water can be pricey if you live in an area with degraded lead pipes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On homeopathy, I will say that when my mother in law's cancer got to the point where no more treatment was possible, she went home and diligently took her homeopathic "medicine" sent by her German health insurance. At first I thought it was 100% nonsense, but I realized it gave her a sense of agency over her situation, which was good for her (until she got too sick to do anything for herself). So only 98% nonsense.
German health insurance does not send out any medication, it also will not pay for homeopathic medicine anymore, but that's very recent and is not yet finalized
Clickbait. I have taken a lot of these in the past, and the label "pseudoscientific" is unwarranted. The "writer" cherrypicks and generalizes data to discount it, but if you want to understand the mechanism of, say, Ashwagandha, you probably should spend a few hours reading research and meta-analyses and not spending 10 minutes on Google to decide if it's "good" or "pseudoscience". Should these companies not be allow…
Animal studies in the lab suggest Ashwagandha may be effective for treating cancer, diabetes, and somehow, both reducing fatigue and as a sedative, but these effects have not been thoroughly tested on humans.
The article doesn't use the term psuedoscientific at all. That was OP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is blaming the poor? They are too poor to drink water? That makes no sense.
Blaming food choices is often blaming the poor, ignoring that nutritious foods tend to be more expensive. Even pure water can be pricey if you live in an area with degraded lead pipes.
I'm expressing skepticism about the assumption that food deserts are such a big problem because I've always looked for and found ways to get decent food. The specific example I had in mind with my original comment was from a place I used to live where I would see a guy who bought microwave lunch and a giant cup of soda at a 7-11 every day, even though there was a small grocery store with some fresh produce, a good selection of packaged foods, and large hand-made tasty sandwiches at the same price as the guy's 7-11 lunch literally across the street on the opposite corner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
> Why? Locking people down at home for over 2 years. Damaging an entire generation of young children in the process. Destroying the economy in the process. Inflationary policies which lead to recessions and stagflation globally from which we still haven't recovered (and probably won't for the next 5-10 years). Spreading mass fear and hysteria based on little empirical (and often contradictory) evidence. Obliterating…
The entire fiat economy is anti-scientific fiat decree of the political elite.
You want to eat? Oh sorry you do y have any of this hallucination called “money”.
If you want to go full edge-lord over socialized belief in anti-scientific BS, you got a whole lot of personal emotions to work through; like how no physics puts it on others to grow your food or be your airplane pilot. DIY rather than co-opt others agency.
Oh what’s that? Society isn’t built on textbook interpretation of physics? It’s built on diffusion of power through the many to keep some rando having too much?
The rest of us aren’t here to serve you either. Grow up, one of billions.