Is anything tested and approved since the 1980s actually safe?
Any of it? Yes. All of it? No, and far from it.
Or did we recruit too many diversity hires into our FDA?
We did, but that's not even the primary problem. The FDA is another corrupt institution that leeched of us to protect the big corporations. The issue isn't diversity, it's corruption and greed.
Diversity is more of a side hustle or symptom of corruption and greed. It's an explicit representation of it, I suppose. Pure greed itself where a purely value-less enterprise exists only to sop money off the public and companies, as a sort of protection racket; but not the cause of corruption, for sure.
The issue isn't diversity, it's corruption and greed.
I want to ask a question in earnest to anyone who wants to answer this: How can you in good conscience truly suggest that this is "corruption" when these institutions were never pure in the first place?
These institutions need to be abolished in totality. They cannot be "fixed", for they were never broken. The idea they can be reformed when the foundation is so utterly rooted in control is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
If I had to venture a guess; people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with, and only when it reaches past a certain point does it become a problem.
White American-type culture assumes a very low-level of corruption, which is why it's one of the few that tends to stress 'fairness'. Start moving outside of that, though, and hoo boy...
people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
For something to have been corrupted, it must have tainted something that was once considered to be pure in some fashion. If these institutions were always impure through having it "baked into the cake", it was never really corrupted, that's simply how it was made from the very start. The description of being corrupt inherently relies upon the notion that it's not meant to be that way, and that it was once not that way at all but instead pure in some fashion.
It's a misnomer. To call these institutions corrupt gives them the benefit that the only issue is how they've been misused, and not the fact that anyone using these institutions will inevitably be using the very same powers and abuses as before with little more than a self-appointed rationalisation of "legitimacy". The reality is that these institutions have always been festering cesspools, and they'll never be anything else, no matter who is in charge in any given hypothetical.
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
Except it wasn't.
When I say 'low level corruption', I'm referencing stuff like nepotism, social networks, 'who you know'. People(normies) assume that you pass through the ranks of organizations via meritocracy, when if you have any experience whatsoever with how this shit actually works, anyone past a certain level of power is either really, REALLY fucking good at their job(rare) or knew the right people and sucked the right dicks.
So when all this was originally setup, I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible that the best people would fill the positions and do the best job.
And maybe it even worked, for a short while.
Then reality hit. And hit hard.
Most of the time, this isn't noticed. It goes by, and works... kinda well enough. Yet the moment anyone learns about this, or encounters it, or is forced to accept it, I'd bet good money the very initial, instinctive reaction is 'This isn't fucking fair. This is wrong.'
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it. They don't notice. They can't, because they don't have to deal with it. And if they don't notice, is it... really that bad? (Answer: Yes. But others may disagree.)
I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible
This is an irrelevancy. Their intentions, best or otherwise, mean jack fucking shit to their good or evil of their actions. Most people always have the best intentions. It doesn't stop them from transgressing against others, and having access to power doesn't change that.
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it.
I disagree. I think more people are definitely aware of it, but they don't care because they don't have to directly deal with it. They don't fully understand how that corruption impacts them directly. They think it impacts other things like office politics and not the real world and therefore their lives. It's another case of being short sighted, not on being uninformed.
If the only issue was informing the people, then these problems wouldn't exist too much. The issue is getting people to understand enough to see how it impacts them. It's apathy that's the challenge.
That is a good point. I remember reading on America during the late 1800 and early 1900s, and how there were feuds and political fights. Politicians would win elections and move into areas of power while bringing their minions and allies in to take over control over key positions in cabinets and industries. Methinks America was always a bit shady.
...these institutions were never pure in the first place...They cannot be "fixed", for they were never broken.
For the record, I never said anything to the contrary in my post.
These institutions need to be abolished in totality...The idea they can be reformed when the foundation is so utterly rooted in control is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
Probably, yeah.
Also, something that was shitty can still become more corrupted. It's not mutually exclusive. These agencies are and always were crap...they've also become a more corrupted form of their original.
I remember old chain letters claiming that Aspartame is poisonous and connecting it to Don Rumsfeld. Me, being very stupid, looked online and saw that 'hoax' websites branded it as false, so I believed it was safe.
Now I realize that while it's not good to believe random chain letters, you can't assume that something is safe based on organizations that have lied about so much.
Yes, something can be "a possible cancer cause" and still be "considered safe". That really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. As with all things, the dose makes the poison.
People have been fearmongering about aspartame for nearly 50 years now. Whenever I see the next batch of FUD like this I just lol. This is one of the most studied chemicals ever and an entire generation has consumed it for their entire lives. Even if you didn't believe any of the MANY studies that have been done (which would be foolish), wouldn't you expect to see a real uptick of cancer over the period? There has been none... cancer rates continue to be flat to slightly down.
And that fact alone should be heartening. Over the past half century humanity has been exposed to any number of chemicals, drugs, and environmental factors. And yet, those cancer incidence rates have stayed flat to slightly down. To me that means that, at least a far as cancer is concerned, we've been doing a pretty good job of getting rid of things that are actually dangerous.
Wouldn't be shocked if a lot of the fearmongering about sweeteners came from Big Sugar. They already did it once with blaming fat instead of increased sugar intake for the rise of heart disease. They did it again with Coca Cola funding a study that says you can "out exercise a bad diet". I wouldn't be shocked if it was found out that most of it was the direct action from these companies.
Yep. God only knows how many deaths the sugar industries lobbying* back in the 60s caused from diabetes, heart disease, etc. Not to mention making us a nation of land whales. One of the worst public health debacles of all time IMHO.
I think South Park had the right idea about the idiotic food pyramid lol:
Didn't they claim that in the 80's, actually? But it was determined from pumping rats full of the stuff or something. Maybe the media "fact check" campaign at the time was funded by Coke.
California caused us all to pass that point, and made cancer warnings the world over absolutely meaningless. Ironic, in that everything out of California is cancerous
I never understood how one fucking state can dictate the packaging of product labels for the rest of the country. You'd think some red state would've wised up and do the same thing but something ridiculous like if the product contains soy there should be a warning says this product contains phytoestrogen isoflavone which may feminize men, leading to soy boys. Or something equally stupid and force companies to stick that on their products.
4+ liters is the average Pepsi drinker in Norway. It's fucking weird how addicted people get, there were news reports of people hoarding shopping carts full when there were rumors of possible shortages.
I wouldn't put the blame solely on sugar. People also stopped fat shaming resulting in these "body positivity" movements. Just bring back fat shaming should solve a large chunk of it
On the one hand, yeah "chemical" is not inherently bad. On the other hand he's probably not wrong in his specific example, most cheap smoked meat is just dosed with artificial smokey flavorings (flavor analogues, not just purified naturally occurring flavors) rather than actually smoked, and some of them really suck at matching the flavor profile.
When a layperson uses "chemical" negatively as shorthand for manmade analogue, especially for things meant for consumption, I don't feel the same about it as people who just get hysterical about ethylene glycol in their ice packs.
That's a pretty hefty claim there... Just because people lack the technical language to describe the difference between a man-made chemical analogue and a natural product, doesn't mean they don't have the ability to understand there is a difference.
Whilst sugar is more specific than "chemical" it's still a pretty broad term, there are plenty of non-metabolizable oligosaccharides out there that none of your cells can use for respiration. And there are a couple that are generally non-metabolizable or processed at a low rate, but certain types of cancer uptake and process at a much higher rate (a fact used in some cancer treatments to help target said cancer cells specifically). Those could cause relative tumor proliferation in the bizarre situation where high proportionate consumption of those oligosaccharides is paired with a state of general starvation.
But again, being ignorant of the technical specifics does not automatically make one incapable of understanding or making rational judgements, just unfamiliar with the subject.
This is your public service reminder that Belladonna, deadly nightshade, is 100% organic, naturally sourced, raw, and optionally wild or garden-foraged. Those words do not mean "good".
Yes we are, and humans will also eat poison if someone puts it something that tastes good. Stop drinking soda. Calling it "diet" doesn't make it any better for you.
Hasn't this been common knowledge for at least 20 years? We knew that it caused cancer in high enough dose back when I was in high school.
The WHO is once again making common and old knowledge seem new for some reason, just like when they temporarily and conveniently somehow forgot all the studies of the past 20 years that showed that masks had little to no effect on viruses like influenza.
Any of it? Yes. All of it? No, and far from it.
We did, but that's not even the primary problem. The FDA is another corrupt institution that leeched of us to protect the big corporations. The issue isn't diversity, it's corruption and greed.
Diversity is more of a side hustle or symptom of corruption and greed. It's an explicit representation of it, I suppose. Pure greed itself where a purely value-less enterprise exists only to sop money off the public and companies, as a sort of protection racket; but not the cause of corruption, for sure.
I want to ask a question in earnest to anyone who wants to answer this: How can you in good conscience truly suggest that this is "corruption" when these institutions were never pure in the first place?
These institutions need to be abolished in totality. They cannot be "fixed", for they were never broken. The idea they can be reformed when the foundation is so utterly rooted in control is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
If I had to venture a guess; people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with, and only when it reaches past a certain point does it become a problem.
White American-type culture assumes a very low-level of corruption, which is why it's one of the few that tends to stress 'fairness'. Start moving outside of that, though, and hoo boy...
You're not wrong, though.
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
For something to have been corrupted, it must have tainted something that was once considered to be pure in some fashion. If these institutions were always impure through having it "baked into the cake", it was never really corrupted, that's simply how it was made from the very start. The description of being corrupt inherently relies upon the notion that it's not meant to be that way, and that it was once not that way at all but instead pure in some fashion.
It's a misnomer. To call these institutions corrupt gives them the benefit that the only issue is how they've been misused, and not the fact that anyone using these institutions will inevitably be using the very same powers and abuses as before with little more than a self-appointed rationalisation of "legitimacy". The reality is that these institutions have always been festering cesspools, and they'll never be anything else, no matter who is in charge in any given hypothetical.
Except it wasn't.
When I say 'low level corruption', I'm referencing stuff like nepotism, social networks, 'who you know'. People(normies) assume that you pass through the ranks of organizations via meritocracy, when if you have any experience whatsoever with how this shit actually works, anyone past a certain level of power is either really, REALLY fucking good at their job(rare) or knew the right people and sucked the right dicks.
So when all this was originally setup, I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible that the best people would fill the positions and do the best job.
And maybe it even worked, for a short while.
Then reality hit. And hit hard.
Most of the time, this isn't noticed. It goes by, and works... kinda well enough. Yet the moment anyone learns about this, or encounters it, or is forced to accept it, I'd bet good money the very initial, instinctive reaction is 'This isn't fucking fair. This is wrong.'
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it. They don't notice. They can't, because they don't have to deal with it. And if they don't notice, is it... really that bad? (Answer: Yes. But others may disagree.)
This is an irrelevancy. Their intentions, best or otherwise, mean jack fucking shit to their good or evil of their actions. Most people always have the best intentions. It doesn't stop them from transgressing against others, and having access to power doesn't change that.
I disagree. I think more people are definitely aware of it, but they don't care because they don't have to directly deal with it. They don't fully understand how that corruption impacts them directly. They think it impacts other things like office politics and not the real world and therefore their lives. It's another case of being short sighted, not on being uninformed.
If the only issue was informing the people, then these problems wouldn't exist too much. The issue is getting people to understand enough to see how it impacts them. It's apathy that's the challenge.
That is a good point. I remember reading on America during the late 1800 and early 1900s, and how there were feuds and political fights. Politicians would win elections and move into areas of power while bringing their minions and allies in to take over control over key positions in cabinets and industries. Methinks America was always a bit shady.
For the record, I never said anything to the contrary in my post.
Probably, yeah.
Also, something that was shitty can still become more corrupted. It's not mutually exclusive. These agencies are and always were crap...they've also become a more corrupted form of their original.
This is true, but there is the implication, and statists will use that implication to try and make arguments for reformation over abolition.
I remember old chain letters claiming that Aspartame is poisonous and connecting it to Don Rumsfeld. Me, being very stupid, looked online and saw that 'hoax' websites branded it as false, so I believed it was safe.
Now I realize that while it's not good to believe random chain letters, you can't assume that something is safe based on organizations that have lied about so much.
Yes, something can be "a possible cancer cause" and still be "considered safe". That really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. As with all things, the dose makes the poison.
People have been fearmongering about aspartame for nearly 50 years now. Whenever I see the next batch of FUD like this I just lol. This is one of the most studied chemicals ever and an entire generation has consumed it for their entire lives. Even if you didn't believe any of the MANY studies that have been done (which would be foolish), wouldn't you expect to see a real uptick of cancer over the period? There has been none... cancer rates continue to be flat to slightly down.
And that fact alone should be heartening. Over the past half century humanity has been exposed to any number of chemicals, drugs, and environmental factors. And yet, those cancer incidence rates have stayed flat to slightly down. To me that means that, at least a far as cancer is concerned, we've been doing a pretty good job of getting rid of things that are actually dangerous.
I'll just take any excuse I can get to not drink the stuff because I hate the taste. Fuck diet stuff, sugar & fat for life.
Wouldn't be shocked if a lot of the fearmongering about sweeteners came from Big Sugar. They already did it once with blaming fat instead of increased sugar intake for the rise of heart disease. They did it again with Coca Cola funding a study that says you can "out exercise a bad diet". I wouldn't be shocked if it was found out that most of it was the direct action from these companies.
Yep. God only knows how many deaths the sugar industries lobbying* back in the 60s caused from diabetes, heart disease, etc. Not to mention making us a nation of land whales. One of the worst public health debacles of all time IMHO.
I think South Park had the right idea about the idiotic food pyramid lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIGXkh6S8Zw
Didn't they claim that in the 80's, actually? But it was determined from pumping rats full of the stuff or something. Maybe the media "fact check" campaign at the time was funded by Coke.
At some point the words "might cause cancer" become utterly meaningless.
California caused us all to pass that point, and made cancer warnings the world over absolutely meaningless. Ironic, in that everything out of California is cancerous
I never understood how one fucking state can dictate the packaging of product labels for the rest of the country. You'd think some red state would've wised up and do the same thing but something ridiculous like if the product contains soy there should be a warning says this product contains phytoestrogen isoflavone which may feminize men, leading to soy boys. Or something equally stupid and force companies to stick that on their products.
4+ liters is the average Pepsi drinker in Norway. It's fucking weird how addicted people get, there were news reports of people hoarding shopping carts full when there were rumors of possible shortages.
I wouldn't put the blame solely on sugar. People also stopped fat shaming resulting in these "body positivity" movements. Just bring back fat shaming should solve a large chunk of it
Everything smells of chemicals, because everything has chemicals in it. Natural bacon has chemicals in it, because chemicals are natural.
Water is a chemical compound. This over reliance on "muh chemicals" is tiresome.
On the one hand, yeah "chemical" is not inherently bad. On the other hand he's probably not wrong in his specific example, most cheap smoked meat is just dosed with artificial smokey flavorings (flavor analogues, not just purified naturally occurring flavors) rather than actually smoked, and some of them really suck at matching the flavor profile.
When a layperson uses "chemical" negatively as shorthand for manmade analogue, especially for things meant for consumption, I don't feel the same about it as people who just get hysterical about ethylene glycol in their ice packs.
Except they're the same people
That's a pretty hefty claim there... Just because people lack the technical language to describe the difference between a man-made chemical analogue and a natural product, doesn't mean they don't have the ability to understand there is a difference.
This is just another form of climate alarmism and people who swallow whatever PETA tells them.
They genuinely don't understand the difference. People think sugar causes cancer, because cancer cells feed on sugar.
Every cell feeds on sugar.
Whilst sugar is more specific than "chemical" it's still a pretty broad term, there are plenty of non-metabolizable oligosaccharides out there that none of your cells can use for respiration. And there are a couple that are generally non-metabolizable or processed at a low rate, but certain types of cancer uptake and process at a much higher rate (a fact used in some cancer treatments to help target said cancer cells specifically). Those could cause relative tumor proliferation in the bizarre situation where high proportionate consumption of those oligosaccharides is paired with a state of general starvation.
But again, being ignorant of the technical specifics does not automatically make one incapable of understanding or making rational judgements, just unfamiliar with the subject.
This is your public service reminder that Belladonna, deadly nightshade, is 100% organic, naturally sourced, raw, and optionally wild or garden-foraged. Those words do not mean "good".
The 80s? Much further back than that. Wasn't margarine invented in the 1800s? That crap has been basically poison the whole time.
The FDA's corruption predates the diversity push. This goes back to the late 60s, as in the case of the LNT model.
Sometimes it's not even about 'diversity', but plain old corruption. Look at the guy who approved Oxycontin.
Dopesick is one of my favorite dramas on Oxycontin
If animals, even bugs, refuse to eat it, then neither should you.
Bugs don't eat it because it doesn't have any sugar in it, not because it's poison.
Rats eat rat poison.
If you put it in peanut butter they do.
You should stop using the animal and bug example it makes zero sense. We aren't animals.
Yes we are, and humans will also eat poison if someone puts it something that tastes good. Stop drinking soda. Calling it "diet" doesn't make it any better for you.
are you retarded
What?
No, rats are stupid and will eat food that has poison in it. Humans are also stupid and will eat food that has poison in it. That's my point.
"This can't be good for me, but I feel great!"
It's cute you think the FDA was good pre-1980s.
I used to avoid aspartame because I didn't like the hours long aftertaste in the mouth and on the lips.
Now I'll avoid it because of that, and this.
Nothing is truly safe. Even "all natural" is a marketing term.
Hasn't this been common knowledge for at least 20 years? We knew that it caused cancer in high enough dose back when I was in high school.
The WHO is once again making common and old knowledge seem new for some reason, just like when they temporarily and conveniently somehow forgot all the studies of the past 20 years that showed that masks had little to no effect on viruses like influenza.