4 ms·

I think what I was trying to get at is that we see RFK at the podium because he doesn't trust the FDA is regulating industry as it should. Food should contain f

I think what I was trying to get at is that we see RFK at the podium because he doesn't trust the FDA is regulating industry as it should. Food should contain food, not dyes and other things, etc etc. > That is a laundered Daily Caller story I did point that out in my other posts around here on the topic, I missed it on this one. The fact that the article doesn't contain everything is irrelevant; I'm pointing it out under the assumption that there's more than just a PR stunt for the Texas lawsuit. Maybe more will come out in discovery, or maybe it really is just a PR stunt. Time will tell. > I mean, absent other criticism: it's talking about "studies". Studies get published. The thing that's wild to me in all of this is that people complain for years that industry shouldn't regulate itself, that it's too involved in studies about itself, and yet here we are, defending an indefensible status quo. Big Tobacco didn't publish their own studies showing how harmful tobacco was, and the extent and years that they knew about it and did nothing were big contributors to the judgments against them. > this thing you linked is probably fabricated to enable this very freakout. That would be pretty wild, but I imagine these memos will be part of the discovery in the Texas lawsuit. If it turns out to be nothing, then people will move on like they always do.

ajross 1y ago
See... this is where conspiracy thinking takes you. It's like an addiction, and you need to keep feeding it out of your head when the spigot runs dry. > people complain for years that industry shouldn't regulate itself, that it's too involved in studies about itself, and yet here we are, defending an indefensible status quo. You are inferring from the article (as it wants you to believe) that somehow this letter declares the existence of heretofore unknown studies funded, performed by and then suppressed by Johnson & Johnson. It doesn't say that, at all. The author just thanks someone for sending them a PDF or whatever. So I see a partisan rag making an ambiguous point and assuming that the straightforward interpretation ("ambiguous evidence" is like the easiest bet in science) holds. You see it, having already been primed with an interpretation, and need to start filling in details to preserve the conspiracy you've already adopted. Occam argues strongly that the Caller is just wrong and publishing garbage spin, as they've done many times in the past. Please stop.

ajross 1y ago

See... this is where conspiracy thinking takes you. It's like an addiction, and you need to keep feeding it out of your head when the spigot runs dry. > people complain for years that industry shouldn't regulate itself, that it's too involved in studies about itself, and yet here we are, defending an indefensible status quo. You are inferring from the article (as it wants you to believe) that somehow this letter declares the existence of heretofore unknown studies funded, performed by and then suppressed by Johnson & Johnson. It doesn't say that, at all. The author just thanks someone for sending them a PDF or whatever. So I see a partisan rag making an ambiguous point and assuming that the straightforward interpretation ("ambiguous evidence" is like the easiest bet in science) holds. You see it, having already been primed with an interpretation, and need to start filling in details to preserve the conspiracy you've already adopted. Occam argues strongly that the Caller is just wrong and publishing garbage spin, as they've done many times in the past. Please stop.