Why the MAHA obsession with chemicals in food, but not the environment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither Democratic politicians nor the EPA nor any other civil servants have done anything about PFAs or microplastics or endocrine disrupters or forever chemicals. We’ve kniwn about the dangers for 30 years.

The EPA has been kneecapped in every single way-- by courts, by congress, by Republican administrations, by industry-- for decades. They do not want it to work, in any way. They want to pillage the earth, with no rules, and who cares about any communities nearby. They're rich enough that it's not their concern.

[Anonymous]

OP - why are you trying to inject logic and reasoning into an administration that has been very clear that they are anti-logic and anti-reasoning and only pro-themselves and what they feel like in the moment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

I work in healthcare and have a friend who is a dentist. Getting fluoride out of water, unless the water is already naturally high in fluoride, is really based on poor thinking. Research showing fluoride impacts IQ tests is based on many magnitudes of higher fluroide dosage than we actually have in our drinking water. Meanwhile, you'll see dentist's make a killing, increased usage of antibiotics to treat infections (which only breeds more antibiotic resistant infections - we already have bacteria resistant to nearly everything in the US), and increased rare diseases like endocarditis (infection of heart valves that lead to embolic cardiovascular events) thanks to removing fluoride.

Are you saying fluoride kills bacteria? I thought it just strengthened teeth? If fluoride can kill living things, we probably shouldn’t be dosing our kids with it nonstop

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - why are you trying to inject logic and reasoning into an administration that has been very clear that they are anti-logic and anti-reasoning and only pro-themselves and what they feel like in the moment?

Seriously. The only people who wanted this administration were the voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

I work in healthcare and have a friend who is a dentist. Getting fluoride out of water, unless the water is already naturally high in fluoride, is really based on poor thinking. Research showing fluoride impacts IQ tests is based on many magnitudes of higher fluroide dosage than we actually have in our drinking water. Meanwhile, you'll see dentist's make a killing, increased usage of antibiotics to treat infections (which only breeds more antibiotic resistant infections - we already have bacteria resistant to nearly everything in the US), and increased rare diseases like endocarditis (infection of heart valves that lead to embolic cardiovascular events) thanks to removing fluoride.

Are you saying fluoride kills bacteria? I thought it just strengthened teeth? If fluoride can kill living things, we probably shouldn’t be dosing our kids with it nonstop

Are you intentionally trying to troll or actually this stupid?

[Anonymous]

MAHA needs to get junk food out of kids’ advertising, schools, food aid, and hospitals. Who cares if a foot roll up doesn’t have dye in it if it’s rotting kids’ teeth and giving them diabetes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither Democratic politicians nor the EPA nor any other civil servants have done anything about PFAs or microplastics or endocrine disrupters or forever chemicals. We’ve kniwn about the dangers for 30 years.

The EPA has been kneecapped in every single way-- by courts, by congress, by Republican administrations, by industry-- for decades. They do not want it to work, in any way. They want to pillage the earth, with no rules, and who cares about any communities nearby. They're rich enough that it's not their concern.

The EPA itself has been fighting for a decade to avoid looking into the fluoride toxin. They are currently defying a California Court order from an Obama judge. It’s ugly. This is a form of pollution that the EPA is committed to NOT regulating.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-fluoride-drinking-water-federal-court-ruling/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MAHA needs to get junk food out of kids’ advertising, schools, food aid, and hospitals. Who cares if a foot roll up doesn’t have dye in it if it’s rotting kids’ teeth and giving them diabetes.

Michelle Obama tried to get kids healthier school lunches and was attacked for it. But it's ok if RFK Jr does it now. Because why? No idea,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither Democratic politicians nor the EPA nor any other civil servants have done anything about PFAs or microplastics or endocrine disrupters or forever chemicals. We’ve kniwn about the dangers for 30 years.

The EPA has been kneecapped in every single way-- by courts, by congress, by Republican administrations, by industry-- for decades. They do not want it to work, in any way. They want to pillage the earth, with no rules, and who cares about any communities nearby. They're rich enough that it's not their concern.

The EPA itself has been fighting for a decade to avoid looking into the fluoride toxin. They are currently defying a California Court order from an Obama judge. It’s ugly. This is a form of pollution that the EPA is committed to NOT regulating.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-fluoride-drinking-water-federal-court-ruling/

I mean we can just look at Calgary who did remove it, then promptly added it back when they discovered it was not a good idea, caries rates jumped along with the rate of kids requiring antibiotics for dental infections including IV antibiotics.

The ADA represents dentists who stand to make a boatload of money from removing fluoride, yet somehow they are against it. It's fair to evaluate in areas where they may already have a high concentration of fluoride in their water, but otherwise if not, it's a stupid idea based on existing observation where it has already been tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MAHA needs to get junk food out of kids’ advertising, schools, food aid, and hospitals. Who cares if a foot roll up doesn’t have dye in it if it’s rotting kids’ teeth and giving them diabetes.

And PFAs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

I work in healthcare and have a friend who is a dentist. Getting fluoride out of water, unless the water is already naturally high in fluoride, is really based on poor thinking. Research showing fluoride impacts IQ tests is based on many magnitudes of higher fluroide dosage than we actually have in our drinking water. Meanwhile, you'll see dentist's make a killing, increased usage of antibiotics to treat infections (which only breeds more antibiotic resistant infections - we already have bacteria resistant to nearly everything in the US), and increased rare diseases like endocarditis (infection of heart valves that lead to embolic cardiovascular events) thanks to removing fluoride.

Are you saying fluoride kills bacteria? I thought it just strengthened teeth? If fluoride can kill living things, we probably shouldn’t be dosing our kids with it nonstop

Are you intentionally trying to troll or actually this stupid?

I’m asking a serious question. The PP is saying we’ll have lots of new infections if we don’t keep adding fluoride to the water supply. Is that right? And if fluoride DOES kill bacteria (and rats) instead of just hardening teeth, should we treat it more like a drug, where we control doses to balance the benefits and risks, instead of just putting it in the water?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAHA needs to get junk food out of kids’ advertising, schools, food aid, and hospitals. Who cares if a foot roll up doesn’t have dye in it if it’s rotting kids’ teeth and giving them diabetes.

Michelle Obama tried to get kids healthier school lunches and was attacked for it. But it's ok if RFK Jr does it now. Because why? No idea,

Because now they're trying to do away with public education, and the federal government won't be offering any money to schools so poor kids can eat lunch. So talking about food dyes is a way to distract from the larger, immediate issues that will affect kids' health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

I work in healthcare and have a friend who is a dentist. Getting fluoride out of water, unless the water is already naturally high in fluoride, is really based on poor thinking. Research showing fluoride impacts IQ tests is based on many magnitudes of higher fluroide dosage than we actually have in our drinking water. Meanwhile, you'll see dentist's make a killing, increased usage of antibiotics to treat infections (which only breeds more antibiotic resistant infections - we already have bacteria resistant to nearly everything in the US), and increased rare diseases like endocarditis (infection of heart valves that lead to embolic cardiovascular events) thanks to removing fluoride.

Are you saying fluoride kills bacteria? I thought it just strengthened teeth? If fluoride can kill living things, we probably shouldn’t be dosing our kids with it nonstop

Are you intentionally trying to troll or actually this stupid?

I’m asking a serious question. The PP is saying we’ll have lots of new infections if we don’t keep adding fluoride to the water supply. Is that right? And if fluoride DOES kill bacteria (and rats) instead of just hardening teeth, should we treat it more like a drug, where we control doses to balance the benefits and risks, instead of just putting it in the water?

We do control dose, dose given is far lower than in research studies being used as "evidence" for removing it, and see what happened in Calgary when they removed it - they added it back. Yes because of increased rates of caries. Tooth decay leads to infection and yes they saw increased kids requiring antibiotics including IV antibiotics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAHA needs to get junk food out of kids’ advertising, schools, food aid, and hospitals. Who cares if a foot roll up doesn’t have dye in it if it’s rotting kids’ teeth and giving them diabetes.

And PFAs?

Anything MAHA does about PFAs, even merely mentioning them, will be an improvement over the Dem status quo of ignoring them completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

I work in healthcare and have a friend who is a dentist. Getting fluoride out of water, unless the water is already naturally high in fluoride, is really based on poor thinking. Research showing fluoride impacts IQ tests is based on many magnitudes of higher fluroide dosage than we actually have in our drinking water. Meanwhile, you'll see dentist's make a killing, increased usage of antibiotics to treat infections (which only breeds more antibiotic resistant infections - we already have bacteria resistant to nearly everything in the US), and increased rare diseases like endocarditis (infection of heart valves that lead to embolic cardiovascular events) thanks to removing fluoride.

Are you saying fluoride kills bacteria? I thought it just strengthened teeth? If fluoride can kill living things, we probably shouldn’t be dosing our kids with it nonstop

Are you intentionally trying to troll or actually this stupid?

I’m asking a serious question. The PP is saying we’ll have lots of new infections if we don’t keep adding fluoride to the water supply. Is that right? And if fluoride DOES kill bacteria (and rats) instead of just hardening teeth, should we treat it more like a drug, where we control doses to balance the benefits and risks, instead of just putting it in the water?

We do control dose, dose given is far lower than in research studies being used as "evidence" for removing it, and see what happened in Calgary when they removed it - they added it back. Yes because of increased rates of caries. Tooth decay leads to infection and yes they saw increased kids requiring antibiotics including IV antibiotics.

DP to add, increased tooth decay requiring frequent dental work would increase risk of endocarditis though this is rare. There is a know association with dental procedures and endocarditis.