> If alcohol came inside of little battery powered computers, we should ban those too.
I too am agnostic but do not understand this reasoning. BTW let me get severely downvoted by saying that if alcohol prohibition came up for a vote I'd vote yes in a heartbeat.
> You need to 2x+ the transportation cost of all products... Companies also need to double their specializations and adopt recycling processes that will largely be redundant with other companies
I think 3rd parties would spring up to deal with that stuff
Maybe they could use big trucks that just collect all refuse from the curb. And maybe that is something that the city should do so that we don’t have a dozen trucks collecting a dozen different trash cans from every house.
That was tried, and what ultimately occured was disgusting.
The world was full of new computers popping up and every middle class or above person buying new ones like they do with iphones now. Companies started recycling programs, and many immediately went the route of corruption. They would pack up shipping containers full of ewaste, with 40-50% reusable items, and the rest junk, allowing them to skirt the rules. These containers would end up in 3rd world countries, with people standing over a burning pile of ewaste, filtering out reusable metals. There was, at one point, even images of children doing this work. The usable items were sold dirt cheap, with no data erasing, leading to large amounts of data theft, and being able to buy pages of active credit card numbers for a dollar.
We are talking about less critical things now, like vape pens, but its not a far throw for it to instantly become an actually bad idea to let other companies do the recycling. Make the manufacturer deal with it, or even the city/state, via public intake locations (like was mentioned of switzerland in another part of this thread)
As far as i know a large portion of what i described shutdown after it came to light, although i would not be the least bit surprised if it was still happening in some capacity, or even in full under the disguise of something else
Nowadays the homeless or other less-than-living-wage earners do that for us. You can see them everywhere in cities all over north america and europe if you pay attention.
As European that is not spread everywhere, while you can get some money back in Germany and Greece, there is none to be had in Portugal.
In Germany, it is such a big issue with people not having other source of income, that there is a culture where and how to leave the bottles around so that they are easier to collect.
My neighborhood recycling occurs on Thursday night, so I take all my empty cans and put them in a clear plastic back and put them next to my trash. I do not think that the garbage people have ever gotten the cans; there is always a homeless person that will walk around and pick up the bag of empties, presumably to redeem them somewhere.
I don’t have an issue with it, if they want to do what I am too lazy to do, more power to them.
They've fully disowned Servo.
On the plus side that means you can donate to Servo directly, and the project actually has a decent amount of contributors now
Listening to him talk about the Spanish Flu, and clearly not understand why secondary bacterial infections killed more people than the flu itself, was my personal point of "wow, this guy is an idiot".
In his book "The Real Anthony Fauci" he spends a whole chapter claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS and it was actually caused by recreational drug use.
He believes germ theory is a creation of Big Pharma to push "patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and poisons and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology"
He believes in the miasma theory and just maintaining a healthy immune is enough to keep you from getting sick.
Just read his book, "The Real Anthony Fauci" and you'll realize that this man shouldn't be trusted to run a kindergarten nurses office.
Antivax, avocated against pasteurization, thinks fries are healthy when fried in beef tallow, swam in sewers with his grandkids to prove the human body is naturally immune to diseases and vaccines are unnecessary, tried to ban paracetamol based on bad research linking it to autism, and much more if you care to dig a little.
He's never been anti-vax, though he has advocated for better data about vaccines with good reason--it's abominable. He's advocated against requiring milk to be pasteurized. One of the few reasonable datasets suggesting it doesn't help is the amish. The other ones sound weird so I will indeed dig a little.
> One of the few reasonable datasets suggesting it doesn't help is the amish
When you literally live on the farm where the cow is milked, there is less benefit to pasteurization, yes. Unless you want us to live like the Amish, then let's keep our pasteurized milk, OK?
Some of us do want to live near where our food comes from and eat it fresh. I haven't seen anyone advocating that pasteurization should be banned, just that raw milk should be un-banned.
You were never forced to, don't change the subject. Issue is with the secretary of health spreading obvious lies about pasteurization, a process that saved countless lives over the course of more than a century.
Acetaminophen, honestly, shouldn't be recommended so frequently, especially for kids, and if he's against it, I view that as a big point in his favor. The distance between the therapeutic and liver toxic doses is too small for kids, less than 2.5x the max recommended dose, and it's based on kid's weight, so very young kids can't really be given the amount shown on the box. For example, a hepatotoxic dose for my 5 year old based on their weight is just 3/4 of the adult daily max recommended dose. That's a pointy-ass UX failure.
Growing up, my mom, a pediatrician, never let tylenol in the house because she saw too many kids come through the pediatric ER with liver failure because of it in her hospital shifts. It's the leading cause of acute liver toxicity in the US.
We don’t need good vaccines anymore even though infectious diseases are on the rise. Other global medical experts seem to be going against many of his plans.
> There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective. [interviewer pushes back, brings up polio vaccine] So if you say to me, “The polio vaccine, was it effective against polio?” I’m going to say, “Yes.” And if say to me, “Did it cause more death than avert?” I would say, “I don’t know, because we don’t have the data on that.”
> The most popular vaccine in the world is the DTP vaccine. [...] That vaccine caused so many injuries that Wyeth, which was the manufacturer, said to the Reagan administration, “We are now paying $20 in downstream liabilities for every dollar that we’re making in profits, and we are getting out of the business unless you give us permanent immunity from liability.” And by the way, Reagan said at that time, “Why don’t you just make the vaccine safe?” And why is that? Because vaccines are inherently unsafe. They said, “Unavoidably unsafe, you cannot make them safe.”
Not going quote the whole thing because it's long, but he repeatedly drives home his point that all vaccines are inherently unsafe, and the injuries and deaths they cause always outweigh their effectiveness against disease.
> I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, ‘Better not get him vaccinated.’ And he heard that from me. If he hears it from 10 other people, maybe he won’t do it, you know, maybe he will save that child.
> If you’re one of 10 people that goes up to a guy, a man or a woman, who’s carrying a baby, and says, ‘Don’t vaccinate that baby,’ when they hear that from 10 people, it’ll make an impression on ‘em, you know. And we all kept our mouth shut. Don’t keep your mouth shut anymore. Confront everybody on it.
This one is interesting because the interviewer prompts him with something like "we aren't anti-vaccine, we just want to make sure they're safe" and he does not agree, he repeatedly says, with no qualification, "tell everyone not to vaccinate their children".
I don't believe he has ever voluntarily made a positive public comment about any vaccine. He did during his confirmation hearing, but he was obviously heavily incentivized to do so. During that hearing he did not say his opinion had changed, he simply lied about all past comments and claimed they never happened.
The end result of his vax push has been to reduce the set of government required vaccines down to the same set used by Europe already. Additional vaccination is still available should an individual elect.
Are you of the opinion that the European recommendation is insufficient? Would you petition European healthcare industry that they are requiring too few vaccines? If so, I would expect Europeans to be chronically far more diseased than Americans, do we see that in the data?
They are based on denmark's guidelines, which as you know is a very cold country.
One of the vaccines made strictly optional was for dengue, which is not really a thing in denmark since I think they don't have that many mosquitos due to weather.
However, in the US, mosquitos and tropical weather are common for a large part of the population.
Point being, a huge country with a huge variety of climates and diseases shouldn't follow the lead of a small country with a fairly homogenous weather and disease pattern.
The only outlier is Hepatitis A, which is still recommended in some European countries. On the reverse side, the meningococcal vaccine is commonly scheduled in Europe but not in the US.
Once those additional vaccines are off the "routine" schedule, they'll be pulled by the suppliers, because it eliminates exemption from lawsuits. If you "choose" a non-routine vaccination, people can then sue pharma for ANY harm, and you can be sure there'll be a bunch of crackpot right-wingers trying to prove each one is "bad" and they'll disappear sooner or later. RFK's fans (Del Bigtree) have admitted that this is their plan. And if they're NOT routine, they'll probably not be covered by insurance, so you'll have to pay hundreds or thousands to get one. I would still do that, but not many others will.
Electing to get all ZERO optional vaccines actually available to you because of "reasons" isn't much of a choice.
"Once those additional vaccines are off the "routine" schedule, they'll be pulled by the suppliers, because it eliminates exemption from lawsuits"
Why is this bad? From one of the threads - "There IS scrutiny on vaccines, by the scientific and medical community - your "scrutiny" (as presumably neither a PhD in a relevant field or MD) is not valuable or relevant. There is decades of research that says that currently recommended vaccines are safe and effective."
OK, then there won't be grounds for lawsuits or lawsuits will be easily dismissed.
"you can be sure there'll be a bunch of crackpot right-wingers trying to prove each one is "bad" and they'll disappear sooner or later" - This logic can be applied to literally any product, be it a medicine, a vaccine, or any consumer good. Somehow pharma companies are able to sell any other drug without going into bankruptcy.
Anti-vaccine, anti-tylenol, stating that circumcision causes autism, stating wireless 5G damages DNA, stating that vaccines are part of a anti-black conspiracy, hiv/aids denialism, believing that contrails are actually chemtrails, etc etc etc.
I chose that source intentionally to underscore that nobody on any part of the political spectrum is actually contesting he said or believes these things. Regardless of how they choose to view them.
But he didn't say that. He cited the studies that said increased Paracetamol during pregnancy correlates with higher rates of autism, and people should know that and be careful.
Whenever we discover a link between two things, it's important to share that in a responsible way. It takes years or a decade of research to prove causation, but we should issue warnings once a link is established. A lot of people can be harmed if the government does not publish when it finds harm that correlates with a substance.
With serious studies showing the opposite. You also seem to ignore that fever is a major, and well-proven cause of birth defects and these kinds of fake announcements based on no solid proof could lead part of the population to simply not take any fever-reducing medication by not being knowledgeable on which medicines are NSAID or not.
All of this because of a promise that in the first 6 months of the mandate RFK would find "the great cause of autism", this was not because of a new study suddenly discovered.
I am uncertain if space aliens will abduct me as I sleep, but it would be insane to factor that into my daily decision making.
This is where it would help if the government would do the responsible thing and quantify the probability and talk about the risks of not taking medicine if you're pregnant and have a high fever. The fact that they aren't is a clear sign that this is absurd propaganda.
> He cited the studies that said increased Paracetamol during pregnancy correlates with higher rates of autism, and people should know that and be careful.
Don't mealy mouth it. He didn't say anything so nuanced as "be informed and careful".
He actually said it should be "minimized or avoided". Point blank. And then he said it should be "avoided entirely during pregnancy". It was only over a month later, when the WHO was clarifying that there was no conclusive evidence, and that acetaminophen is the safest pain relief to use during pregnancy, that he started suggesting "working with your physician".
Don't present RFK Jr's takes as reasonable. They're not.
> He cited the studies
He cited one fringe study that was discredited because it didn't consider confounding factors.
Not to support this particular but most doctors would advise "minimized or avoided" use of any medication during pregnancy, including OTC meds. Not that there aren't good reasons to sometimes use them, but you probably should not think it's OK to chug Nyquil every time you get a runny nose if you're pregnant.
I personally avoid all meds that aren't prescribed. I haven't taken a Tylenol or Advil or Sudafed or anything like that in years. I take some vitamin supplements and occasionally (but rarely) will use aspirin for a headache.
If you believe there might a real issue there, you've been misled. That's the danger of having people like RFK in a position of authority: it makes people who don't understand the issues much more likely to listen to them. Which is bad for everyone.
I mean he literally said this, without any citation(!): "There's two studies that show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism. It's highly likely because they are given Tylenol" [1]
He is continuously spouting non-sense not including aggresive anti-vaccine stance, hydrochloroquine curing COVID-19 and that pesticides makes kids go transgender [2]. Yes, you definitely should know all of that and be careful, because the secretary of health has said so.
Because of this I read the article twice and can't determine whether it's some kind of troll. Can anyone possibly think of Google this way in 2026? Asking sincerely.
reply