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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well there was the Biden legislation Trump rolled back so it seems we are now more behind with regard to our drinking water. Seed oil research is weak, PFA research is strong but sure let's focus on seed oils.

[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.

I don’t mean make the dose lower than a high number used in a study, I mean control the dose specifically like with any other medicine. Tooth decay is a weird choice for the one disease that should be addressed by medicating the water.

[Anonymous]

Guys, the regulators are captured and corrupt. The Biden administration did nothing to protect people from PFAs. MAHA is more promising, but will ultimately let us down as well. But no-one should mourn the Biden administration or any FDA or EPA bureaucrats on this issue. They collectively did NOTHING to protect the public from PFAs.

[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.

+1. Fluoride strengthens teeth and makes them less prone to decay. Decayed teeth can easily become painful, infected teeth, and then painful, infected jaws, and can lead to sepsis.

People may not know this because we our insurance system pretends that teeth are separate from the body, but an infected tooth can kill you. I had one relative die and another come dangerously close to it because of an improperly treated tooth infection. The one that didn’t die had his heart nearly destroyed and has been suffering the consequences ever since. You don’t mess around when it comes to kids teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t mean make the dose lower than a high number used in a study, I mean control the dose specifically like with any other medicine. Tooth decay is a weird choice for the one disease that should be addressed by medicating the water.

Tooth disease leads to infection and increased risk in a variety of other disease including heart disease, diabetes, etc. We don't just prevent caries for our teeth to look pretty.

Fluoride prevents infection more by prevention of tooth decay which becomes a breeding ground for infection, rather than its brief bactericidal impact while in the mouth.

[Anonymous]

IDK, it would be rather hypocritical. What's also weird is that RFK was a big environmental lawyer before. He is now heading HHS. Is he going to give up environmental angle? It would be failing his supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the regulators are captured and corrupt. The Biden administration did nothing to protect people from PFAs. MAHA is more promising, but will ultimately let us down as well. But no-one should mourn the Biden administration or any FDA or EPA bureaucrats on this issue. They collectively did NOTHING to protect the public from PFAs.

I agree as a leftist, but I have far more faith in Democrats to address it than Trump who has no plan and literally immediately rolled back the one thing Biden was doing to help reduce it in our drinking water.

For all the pseudoscience RFK Jr spouts on about (beef tallow healthier than seed oils? Ugh, what an idiot), here is one thing he COULD actually talk about.

And yet MAHA is completely silent on PFAs even though they are far more significant and impactful to our health, our children's health than seed oils, food dyes, and frankly, fluoride. It just smacks of hypocrisy and I say this while agreeing that Democrats have not done enough either (but anything they try is also countered by the GOP, so it feels hopeless).

[Anonymous]

What about informed consent and proper dosing? Why does tooth decay get this weird special status as the one disease that deserves to have the drug dumped in the water instead of properly measured and administered by dentists, doctors, and parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about informed consent and proper dosing? Why does tooth decay get this weird special status as the one disease that deserves to have the drug dumped in the water instead of properly measured and administered by dentists, doctors, and parents?

Move somewhere else if you don't want it. Buy it at CVS, they sell fluoride-free water. I, for one, prefer to keep it in my drinking water as a mother to two kids. I do not want to go back to the first half of the 1900s when we did not have it in our water, but if you want to go back in time to a lower life span, have at it.

There are fair questions to ask - making sure we look at the dose in our water in combination with using fluoride toothpaste, and whether the local region water supply has sufficient fluoride naturally or not.

To be clear, PFAs in our water - I am far more worried about that. Are you familiar with the research on PFA impact on our health? If you want to worry about something, that would be the biggest concern and the MAHA movement is blatantly ignoring it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about informed consent and proper dosing? Why does tooth decay get this weird special status as the one disease that deserves to have the drug dumped in the water instead of properly measured and administered by dentists, doctors, and parents?

This. It should be an additive not a starting point. Make ways to add it to as an option, but not everyone wants it and it’s expensive to remove it at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about informed consent and proper dosing? Why does tooth decay get this weird special status as the one disease that deserves to have the drug dumped in the water instead of properly measured and administered by dentists, doctors, and parents?

This. It should be an additive not a starting point. Make ways to add it to as an option, but not everyone wants it and it’s expensive to remove it at home.

Do you have a citation for how it's causing more harm than benefit which uses the same doses we use in the US? If you want to make a change, cite good research. Please don't cite studies that use multiple times the dose.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile everyone is distracted by the RFK Jr talking point of fluoride and cannot even seem to fathom that RFK Jr is not talking about a lot that DO impact our health (PFAs) and also, that whereas RFK Jr talks about Upregulating at FDA, the Trump administration wants to Deregulate at EPA. EPA is not under RFK Jr and there are plenty of chemicals overseen at EPA that can impact your health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the regulators are captured and corrupt. The Biden administration did nothing to protect people from PFAs. MAHA is more promising, but will ultimately let us down as well. But no-one should mourn the Biden administration or any FDA or EPA bureaucrats on this issue. They collectively did NOTHING to protect the public from PFAs.

I agree as a leftist, but I have far more faith in Democrats to address it than Trump who has no plan and literally immediately rolled back the one thing Biden was doing to help reduce it in our drinking water.

For all the pseudoscience RFK Jr spouts on about (beef tallow healthier than seed oils? Ugh, what an idiot), here is one thing he COULD actually talk about.

And yet MAHA is completely silent on PFAs even though they are far more significant and impactful to our health, our children's health than seed oils, food dyes, and frankly, fluoride. It just smacks of hypocrisy and I say this while agreeing that Democrats have not done enough either (but anything they try is also countered by the GOP, so it feels hopeless).

Our partisanship is of no help on this topic. Both political parties AND the regulators care far more about polluters than about the public. The dangers of PFAs are not new news. Almost everyone who works at FDA and EPA is a Democrat. Democrats have controlled the White House and Congress at various times. And nothing has ever been done about PFAs. In fact, most of them were approved by Democratic regulators AFTER their dangers were clearly understood.

RFK is the only hope, just because he’s possibly a tiny bit different from the status quo. I don’t have high hopes. But yearning for a normal Democratic administration on this issue makes no sense. You already had them, repeatedly, and they showed you what they care about. Approving MORE dangerous PFAs. Same with normal establishment Republicans. Trump and RFK will disappoint us. But the Clintons Bushes Obamas Bidens etc have ALREADY disappointed us on PFAs and proven there is no meaningful difference between the parties on this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the regulators are captured and corrupt. The Biden administration did nothing to protect people from PFAs. MAHA is more promising, but will ultimately let us down as well. But no-one should mourn the Biden administration or any FDA or EPA bureaucrats on this issue. They collectively did NOTHING to protect the public from PFAs.

I agree as a leftist, but I have far more faith in Democrats to address it than Trump who has no plan and literally immediately rolled back the one thing Biden was doing to help reduce it in our drinking water.

For all the pseudoscience RFK Jr spouts on about (beef tallow healthier than seed oils? Ugh, what an idiot), here is one thing he COULD actually talk about.

And yet MAHA is completely silent on PFAs even though they are far more significant and impactful to our health, our children's health than seed oils, food dyes, and frankly, fluoride. It just smacks of hypocrisy and I say this while agreeing that Democrats have not done enough either (but anything they try is also countered by the GOP, so it feels hopeless).

Our partisanship is of no help on this topic. Both political parties AND the regulators care far more about polluters than about the public. The dangers of PFAs are not new news. Almost everyone who works at FDA and EPA is a Democrat. Democrats have controlled the White House and Congress at various times. And nothing has ever been done about PFAs. In fact, most of them were approved by Democratic regulators AFTER their dangers were clearly understood.

RFK is the only hope, just because he’s possibly a tiny bit different from the status quo. I don’t have high hopes. But yearning for a normal Democratic administration on this issue makes no sense. You already had them, repeatedly, and they showed you what they care about. Approving MORE dangerous PFAs. Same with normal establishment Republicans. Trump and RFK will disappoint us. But the Clintons Bushes Obamas Bidens etc have ALREADY disappointed us on PFAs and proven there is no meaningful difference between the parties on this issue.

RFK has zero control over PFAs in his roll. Zero. And Trump's actions at EPA are likely to make PFAs worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, the regulators are captured and corrupt. The Biden administration did nothing to protect people from PFAs. MAHA is more promising, but will ultimately let us down as well. But no-one should mourn the Biden administration or any FDA or EPA bureaucrats on this issue. They collectively did NOTHING to protect the public from PFAs.

I agree as a leftist, but I have far more faith in Democrats to address it than Trump who has no plan and literally immediately rolled back the one thing Biden was doing to help reduce it in our drinking water.

For all the pseudoscience RFK Jr spouts on about (beef tallow healthier than seed oils? Ugh, what an idiot), here is one thing he COULD actually talk about.

And yet MAHA is completely silent on PFAs even though they are far more significant and impactful to our health, our children's health than seed oils, food dyes, and frankly, fluoride. It just smacks of hypocrisy and I say this while agreeing that Democrats have not done enough either (but anything they try is also countered by the GOP, so it feels hopeless).

Our partisanship is of no help on this topic. Both political parties AND the regulators care far more about polluters than about the public. The dangers of PFAs are not new news. Almost everyone who works at FDA and EPA is a Democrat. Democrats have controlled the White House and Congress at various times. And nothing has ever been done about PFAs. In fact, most of them were approved by Democratic regulators AFTER their dangers were clearly understood.

RFK is the only hope, just because he’s possibly a tiny bit different from the status quo. I don’t have high hopes. But yearning for a normal Democratic administration on this issue makes no sense. You already had them, repeatedly, and they showed you what they care about. Approving MORE dangerous PFAs. Same with normal establishment Republicans. Trump and RFK will disappoint us. But the Clintons Bushes Obamas Bidens etc have ALREADY disappointed us on PFAs and proven there is no meaningful difference between the parties on this issue.

RFK has zero control over PFAs in his roll. Zero. And Trump's actions at EPA are likely to make PFAs worse.

*roll not role