Elections RFK Selected as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services

[Limbo Pete]

"Kennedy has advocated for regulating chemicals in food and limiting access to soda and processed foods through school lunches and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program"

Sounds good to me. But I'm sure Republicans will be up in arms about the restrictions on their kids freedom, just like they were when Michelle Obama was pushing something similar for school lunches, right?

The concern has always been less about what happens, and more about who gets to do it

 

[gatchaman]

I dont expect anyone in a capitalist system who subscribes to it to think so, but it's an effective means of curtailing the effects of corporate greed. I've seen Congressional hearings where pharmaceutical executives are asked about prices being 4x-10x higher here than other Countries for drugs. Essentially their answer is "because we can."

Excuse my interjection, but you stated, "The problem with pharmaceuticals will always be the nature of capitalism."

Were cars made safer due to the efforts of Ralph Nader without nationalizing the auto industry?

I think the problem with the pharamceutical companies is that too many think that a single large randomized control trial (funded by the pharamceutical company) is superior to replication by many smaller independent studies. The big guys are protected from competition by being the only ones capable of funding the large trials, and the obvious problem of the big guys faking the results is ignored.

I think that pharmaceutical company products could be made safer with something akin to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that already exists for cars. The safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical company products should be independently verified. Similar products from different pharmaceutical companies could even be compared against each other and ranked. Ivermectin vs Remdesivir?

 

[Berserker13]

I have in this thread and the other discussing it. Several times. Unless you want to go through each seed oil individually, this video going through the evidence sums it up pretty well. He's without a doubt one of the best and most unbiased ones on youtube, which is rare.



If you'd rather go through it here, we can but it's more time consuming. Lastly, I'm not the one making the actual claim though, which is that they are 'killing us', but I'll go through the evidence anyway.

As far as high fructose corn syrup goes, hopefully these two meta-analysis and a narrative review trial comparing the effect on metabolism and bodyfat to fructose, sucrose and glucose will suffice:

Effect of fructose instead of glucose or sucrose on cardiometabolic markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of isoenergetic intervention trials​

Isoenergetic substitution of fructose or HFCS for glucose or sucrose has no significant effect on most of the cardiometabolic markers investigated; however, some results were affected by residual between-study heterogeneity and studies with high or unclear risk of bias.

Effect of fructose instead of glucose or sucrose on cardiometabolic markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of isoenergetic intervention trials - PubMed

PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042930.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The effect of high-fructose corn syrup vs. sucrose on anthropometric and metabolic parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis​

In conclusion, analysis of data from the literature suggests that HFCS consumption was associated with a higher level of CRP compared to sucrose, whilst no significant changes between the two sweeteners were evident in other anthropometric and metabolic parameters.

The effect of high-fructose corn syrup vs. sucrose on anthropometric and metabolic parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been speculated to have stronger negative metabolic effects than sucrose. However, given the current equivocality in the field, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of HFCS use compared to sucrose on anthropometric and metabolic parameters...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sucrose, High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and Fructose, Their Metabolism and Potential Health Effects: What Do We Really Know?​

At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831322011085

That is not what is happening though. Caring about what is true and what is not true matters. You can't solve a problem if you don't understand it. I don't have any ties to any of this, I want to be healthy and understand what the health data says.

yes, and take this fact in for a second

Studies from the past have been refuted and debunked after the scam couldn't make them any more money...

If we cured cancer the entire economy would crash....

 

[Greco_Wiz]

The entire point is to remove dependence from big pharma....

Big Pharma and modern medicine go hand in hand. When you figure out how to replace what they provide, be sure to let me know.

Rest assured that at some point in your future, your life will be entirely dependent on a BF product and you won’t think twice about taking it.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Don't feed the troll.

We were buds irl. He left the group chat but I still fucks with the guy. He’s good people even if we don’t agree on politics.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I don’t think nationalizing would be a good idea tbh

Well, the important part of drug production is already nationalized as we pay for it with our taxes. Then once we've paid for the research and development with our taxes, the rights to the drugs are immediately privatized and sold back to the public at exorbitant prices for corporations.

If you don't think that's f***** up you're crazy.

 

[Sinister]

Excuse my interjection, but you stated, "The problem with pharmaceuticals will always be the nature of capitalism."

Were cars made safer due to the efforts of Ralph Nader without nationalizing the auto industry?

I think the problem with the pharamceutical companies is that too many think that a single large randomized control trial (funded by the pharamceutical company) is superior to replication by many smaller independent studies. The big guys are protected from competition by being the only ones capable of funding the large trials, and the obvious problem of the big guys faking the results is ignored.

I think that pharmaceutical company products could be made safer with something akin to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that already exists for cars. The safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical company products should be independently verified. Similar products from different pharmaceutical companies could even be compared against each other and ranked. Ivermectin vs Remdesivir?

Bringing up cars is a weird flex considering we have people on here railing against the dependency of Western medicine on pharmaceuticals, and the US is also wildly dependent on car ownership to the degree that we have horrible public transit systems on the whole, and have cemented further fossil fuel dependency. Were cars made safer? Sure, were safer modes of transportation left undeveloped, and in some cases torn down? Absolutely. Traffic deaths are a metric where each year theres just an acceptable amount of them agreed upon so long as the auto industry isn't threatened, and like pharmaceutical prices, those numbers are much higher here. Because regardless of the safety I improvements of cars, the infrastructure doesnt get better:



There are plenty of independent studies of pharmaceuticals. The idea that they're only studied due to funding from the industry itself isnt true. Academia provides plenty of infrastructure to study medicines, the problem is when that becomes political due to people not trusting Academia, either.

Also color me skeptical of one corporate industry being in the position of rating another corporate industry. Medical insurers here are f*ckin crooks. We have "good insurance" and we had to haggle down a $14k bill for my Son's broken wrist. No way I'm going to trust oversight of medicines by those cretins.

 

[gatchaman]

Bringing up cars is a weird flex considering we have people on here railing against the dependency of Western medicine on pharmaceuticals, and the US is also wildly dependent on car ownership to the degree that we have horrible public transit systems on the whole, and have cemented further fossil fuel dependency. Were cars made safer? Sure, were safer modes of transportation left undeveloped, and in some cases torn down? Absolutely. Traffic deaths are a metric where each year theres just an acceptable amount of them agreed upon so long as the auto industry isn't threatened, and like pharmaceutical prices, those numbers are much higher here. Because regardless of the safety I improvements of cars, the infrastructure doesnt get better:



There are plenty of independent studies of pharmaceuticals. The idea that they're only studied due to funding from the industry itself isnt true. Academia provides plenty of infrastructure to study medicines, the problem is when that becomes political due to people not trusting Academia, either.

Also color me skeptical of one corporate industry being in the position of rating another corporate industry. Medical insurers here are f*ckin crooks. We have "good insurance" and we had to haggle down a $14k bill for my Son's broken wrist. No way I'm going to trust oversight of medicines by those cretins.

Is the independent safety rating irrelevant to you when you are shopping for cars?

 

[Greco_Wiz]

Excuse my interjection, but you stated, "The problem with pharmaceuticals will always be the nature of capitalism."

Were cars made safer due to the efforts of Ralph Nader without nationalizing the auto industry?

I think the problem with the pharamceutical companies is that too many think that a single large randomized control trial (funded by the pharamceutical company) is superior to replication by many smaller independent studies. The big guys are protected from competition by being the only ones capable of funding the large trials, and the obvious problem of the big guys faking the results is ignored.

I think that pharmaceutical company products could be made safer with something akin to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that already exists for cars. The safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical company products should be independently verified. Similar products from different pharmaceutical companies could even be compared against each other and ranked. Ivermectin vs Remdesivir?

This is fiction. There’s no evidence that safety signals are routinely ignored, masked, or that data are manipulated during clinical trials by BF. What happens is there is a lack of power to detect the safety signal in the clinical trials, but it subsequently manifests in observational studies once brought to market. And even that is rare.

Agencies assessing safety always consider outside data, whether epidemiological or other clinical trials. Safety and efficacy are independently verified, dozens to hundreds of times, for most pharmaceutical products.

 

[Helden]

I would assume so. He's spoke out against seed oils and harmful food coloring.

Sooo.... he spoke out against some trivial nonsense and didn't say a peep about some of the biggest contributors to the declining health of Americans?

Off to a smashing start MAGA, thats for sure.

 

[gatchaman]

This is fiction. There’s no evidence that safety signals are routinely ignored, masked, or that data are manipulated during clinical trials by BF. What happens is there is a lack of power to detect the safety signal in the clinical trials, but it subsequently manifests in observational studies once brought to market. And even that is rare.

Agencies assessing safety always consider outside data, whether epidemiological or other clinical trials. Safety and efficacy are independently verified, dozens to hundreds of times, for most pharmaceutical products.

If agencies are considering epidemiological information to verify safety then why are none of these agencies attempting to replicate Barry Young's study?

 

[herpd807]

Big Pharma and modern medicine go hand in hand. When you figure out how to replace what they provide, be sure to let me know.

Rest assured that at some point in your future, your life will be entirely dependent on a BF product and you won’t think twice about taking it.

If we didn't need it before. We don't need it now. We were healthier before. And that says something considering our access to better quality food.

America, unlike the rest of the world has an obesity problem. And a dependency in persecution drugs.

That is what needs to change.

 

[Greco_Wiz]

If agencies are considering epidemiological information to verify safety then why are none of these agencies attempting to replicate Barry Young's study?

Go ahead and share the study with us. Let’s have a look.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Well, the important part of drug production is already nationalized as we pay for it with our taxes. Then once we've paid for the research and development with our taxes, the rights to the drugs are immediately privatized and sold back to the public at exorbitant prices for corporations.

If you don't think that's f***** up you're crazy.

I admittedly don’t know enough about this process. Is there something I can read up on it?

 

[Rob Battisti]

@terrapin just looked into it more.

I don’t think it’s an unjust model, but that it’s being unfairly implemented. I probably wouldn’t be in favor of completely nationalizing the whole process, but it looks like we need:

Total transparency
Far less exclusivity
FAR better negotiated rates for Medicare and Medicaid
And because it’s in part already publicly funded, price controls.

I’m never for price controls, but since we’re already funding it, this seems like a pretty clear exception.

I would be against complete nationalization because of the cost that the tax payer would incur across the board. Right now I’m paying for the research for everyone and then individuals pay for their own medication. I don’t want to pay for their medication as well.

OR have profit sharing

 

[Rob Battisti]

The fairest solution for the American people would balance incentivizing innovation in the pharmaceutical industry with ensuring affordability and fair returns on taxpayer-funded investments. Here are several potential approaches to achieve this balance:





1. Government Negotiation of Drug Prices





• Problem: U.S. drug prices are among the highest globally, partly because Medicare and other government programs historically haven’t negotiated prices directly with pharmaceutical companies (though this is starting to change under recent legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act).


• Solution: Allow government programs like Medicare to negotiate drug prices broadly, ensuring affordability for taxpayers and reducing the financial burden on public healthcare programs.





2. Public Return on Investment





• Problem: Taxpayer-funded research often leads to drugs that companies profit from without compensating the public.


• Solution: Require companies to share a portion of profits or revenue from drugs developed with significant public funding. This could involve royalties, public ownership stakes in patented drugs, or reinvestment obligations into further research.


• Example: The Bayh-Dole Act could be amended to mandate that federally funded research leads to reasonably priced drugs or risk losing exclusive patent rights.





3. Shorter or Conditional Patent Periods





• Problem: Long patents (usually 20 years) allow companies to maintain monopolies and set high prices.


• Solution: Shorten patent terms or require companies to justify exclusivity extensions by demonstrating public health benefits. Alternatively, implement conditional patents that require fair pricing for drugs based on their public funding history.





4. Increase Public Manufacturing of Drugs





• Problem: Dependence on private companies for drug production limits competition and affordability.


• Solution: Expand government-led or nonprofit manufacturing initiatives to produce essential medications at cost. This would provide competition to reduce prices and ensure the availability of critical drugs, especially for public health needs.


• Example: California recently launched its own initiative to produce affordable insulin.





5. Transparency in Drug Development Costs





• Problem: Companies often cite high development costs as justification for high drug prices, but these figures are not always transparent.


• Solution: Require companies to disclose R&D costs, especially when public funding was involved. Transparent pricing would help identify fair price points and hold companies accountable.





6. Cap Out-of-Pocket Costs for Patients





• Problem: High drug prices often lead to significant financial strain for patients.


• Solution: Set caps on out-of-pocket costs for essential medications, similar to caps on insulin costs under the Inflation Reduction Act. This protects individuals from financial hardship while broader systemic reforms take hold.





7. Reinvest Pharmaceutical Profits into Public Health





• Problem: High profits for companies often aren’t reinvested into areas of greatest public health need (e.g., rare diseases or global health challenges).


• Solution: Require pharmaceutical companies to reinvest a portion of profits into underserved research areas or public health initiatives as a condition of receiving taxpayer funding or patent protections.





8. Strengthen Global Competition





• Problem: Limited domestic competition allows companies to set high prices.


• Solution: Reduce barriers to importing safe, lower-cost drugs from countries like Canada and Europe, where prices are often regulated. This would increase competition and drive prices down.





Balancing Innovation with Fairness





While these reforms aim to address affordability, it’s important to preserve incentives for innovation. Pharmaceutical companies argue that high prices fund high-risk research. Striking a balance is key:


• Reward companies for genuine innovation (e.g., through milestone-based payments or performance bonuses).


• Penalize excessive profiteering or pricing practices that harm public access to medications.





Bottom Line:


A fair solution would ensure that:


1. Taxpayers receive tangible benefits from their investments in drug development.


2. Essential medications are accessible and affordable for all.


3. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry continues to thrive without exploitation.

 

[ShadowRun]

One of the doctors helping RFK for you low info people .

 

[Andy Capp]

Depends on the quality of the study, IMO. What we have in the US are epidemiological studies doing after-the-fact research. These types of studies are always burdened by confounding factors, and thus never appropriate to use when looking for causal associations.

Did you know that senior researcher on a major CDC study claiming no vaccine/autism association claimed that damning study data was thrown out AFTER an association between vaccine/autism was found?

Did you know that a government expert doctor who was supposed to testify about no vaccine/autism link reversed course and now says that there IS an association with some kids?

Also, there ARE studies that indicate an association between vaccination and autism (not that they don’t also have flaws) and the then head of CDC also conceded an association between vaccination and autism like illness (vaccine court has paid these cases out as well).

The whole “vaccines don’t cause autism and you’re a loon for being concerned” tact is not working, and people are right to ask questions and demand answers.

How about an actual source for all these claims?

Also,
*tack

 

[Andy Capp]

Rfk has some ideas that i absolutely agree with. It’s not the totality of his “platform” i disagree with.

-Ivermectin should be available for people so long as it passes all fda trials like any other drug. Same with hydroxychloroquine and nutraceuticals.

-I’m a big fan of psychedelics. I treated myself to a psilocybin Therapy session for my 40th birthday. Went through all the proper legal channels and set myself up for the next 40.

-I take peptides daily.

-fuck ya stem cells.

-raw milk? That’s a no from me, dog. There’s nothing wrong with pasteurization.

- hyperbaric therapy is fine.

-idk what chelating compounds are

- I don’t personally believe there’s evidence of the FDA suppressing vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, and exercise as he claims.

(I’d also put my abs up against anyone else in my age bracket on sherdog)

In case no one else has provided the info,

Chelation is a treatment for heavy metal poisoning. I presume "chelating compounds" are purported to bind to contaminants prophylactically. Sounds like broscience.

 

[Xanzito]

Love this election.
During the elections libs were already in favor of building a wall and fixing the border.
Now they're all in on big farma and big junk food companies.
Hope Trump goes hard in the economy so we can see these triggered libs defending big banks next.