The health of the people in our country

I like your last question in that sentence. Some other answers could be....

Vaccines are overall a net positive so it's better to hide the negative affects.

The opioid situation was so obvious there was simply no way to keep it hidden.

More powerful people would go down with the vaccine scandal.

I'm not saying any of those are true. Just giving some possibilities reasons to your very reasonable question.

To your conspiratorial leanings, I will say this...

It never surprises me when rich and powerful people do some dirt to get more rich and powerful. So, at some point, if a story came out that some pharm corp applied some pressure somewhere they shouldn't have, or tried to cover something up, I would not be shocked. But vaccines, and drugs in general, are tested with great rigor. And they are tested independent of the pharm corps that produce them. So, we don't hear stories like that often because it is difficult/impossible for pharm companies to pull off such a swindle.

The opioid scandal had nothing to do with the effectiveness of oxycontin, or of immediate side effects. It had to do with ignoring reality (the "slow release" formulation meant to minimize the high and hence addictiveness was meaningless because patients were crushing and snorting), and highly unethical distribution practices (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2622774/).

If you want to wage war on the pharm giants, I think they have it coming in many cases. But mostly for price inflation and unethical marketing, not hiding evidence that their drugs are a sham or dangerous. But even in that sense, these companies are largely playing within the rules, so we get back to our broken, profit-driven healthcare system.
 
To your conspiratorial leanings, I will say this...

It never surprises me when rich and powerful people do some dirt to get more rich and powerful. So, at some point, if a story came out that some pharm corp applied some pressure somewhere they shouldn't have, or tried to cover something up, I would not be shocked. But vaccines, and drugs in general, are tested with great rigor. And they are tested independent of the pharm corps that produce them. So, we don't hear stories like that often because it is difficult/impossible for pharm companies to pull off such a swindle.

The opioid scandal had nothing to do with the effectiveness of oxycontin, or of immediate side effects. It had to do with ignoring reality (the "slow release" formulation meant to minimize the high and hence addictiveness was meaningless because patients were crushing and snorting), and highly unethical distribution practices (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2622774/).

If you want to wage war on the pharm giants, I think they have it coming in many cases. But mostly for price inflation and unethical marketing, not hiding evidence that their drugs are a sham or dangerous. But even in that sense, these companies are largely playing within the rules, so we get back to our broken, profit-driven healthcare system.
Truth be told "wouldn't be surprised" is exactly where I'm at. People on here think I'm more 'conspiracy theorist" than I am because I spend too much time arguing against the "no way anything shady is going on" crowd. One thing Kennedy explains (and again, he could be flat out lying) is that most places that do the studies are funded mostly by big pharma. He talks a lot about a huge conflict of interest that goes on in that world. I think if anyone listened to what Kennedy actually says instead of just soundbites they would be hard pressed to not walk away thinking he makes a lot of sense. He talks about so many specific cases and no one ever refutes those things. Put together they are very damning.

If he's not telling the truth it would be so easy to call him out on specific lies he's telling. Instead of doing that they just try to silence him and label him a conspiracy theorist. In my opinion, guys who are lying are more vague in what they say. They be careful not to site specific things that can be easily debunked. That's not what Kennedy does. He lists specific after specific after specific.

One thing Rogan has mentioned quite a few times about Kennedy is the book he wrote about Fauci. He says there are so many things in that book that he could be sued over for lying about if they were lies, yet he doesn't get sued. In Rogan's opinion, if someone says the things about you that Kennedy says about Fauci, you would almost have to sue him. I personally haven't read the book so I can't agree or disagree. But the line of thinking makes a lot of sense.
 
Not sure what's funny about that. Is it funny because when guys who are considered experts their whole career speak out against things they become conspiracy theorists while people say "show me evidence" and "experts say it's safe"? Or is it funny because you think if someone goes on Joe Rogan they are instantly not experts anymore?
Medical/health "experts" who go on Rogan are only considered experts by his cult following. I don't expect you to understand or agree with that. No need for either of us to try and persuade each other.

He has them on his show because 1) they're controversial and get clicks and thus more money, and 2) they espouse opinions he agrees with.
 
Is RFK Jr an expert or is he a conspiracy theorist? I'm pretty sure he leans heavily into the conspiracy theorist side of things. You want him to be in control of all your rights regarding your health care?
I think he's a little of both. Many of the atrocities of the 20th century were originally "conspiracies." Is he full of it on some things? Likely, but there's a lot of smoke in the areas of big Pharma and government agencies pushing agendas outside of the science.

I always tell my teenage kids, you have a choice - do you want to give the power to corrupt people in government or the corrupt people in corporations? Unlike Fry, I don't think individuals are corrupt that go into positions of power, but the systems they collectively produce make corruption almost inevitable. Which is why I like that RFK wants to provide some accountability in both gov't and corps. It just remains to be seen if he's looking in to the right places to do it.
 
Medical/health "experts" who go on Rogan are only considered experts by his cult following. I don't expect you to understand or agree with that. No need for either of us to try and persuade each other.

He has them on his show because 1) they're controversial and get clicks and thus more money, and 2) they espouse opinions he agrees with.
With that statement i'm curious just how many rogan interviews have you listened too? And BTW, i've only listened to three of them. Trump, Musk, & Casey Means. Casey Means is the only one i would consider an "expert" in the topic of what was discussed in the 3 hr long interview.
 
With that statement i'm curious just how many rogan interviews have you listened too? And BTW, i've only listened to three of them. Trump, Musk, & Casey Means. Casey Means is the only one i would consider an "expert" in the topic of what was discussed in the 3 hr long interview.
I subscribe to his podcast actually because I like a lot of the comedians he has on. So I see the other guests as well when he comes across my feed. I listen to a some of them. Listened to lots but not all of the pseudo scientific and conspiracy theorist episodes.

I don't disagree with everything RFK does. But he's a businessman first and profits greatly from the groups and positions he holds and represents. Anyone who tries to sell me advice that they stand to make money from isn't credible in my opinion.

Means is a salesperson first and not an expert. Look at her website. 90% of the "research" she goes on and on about isn't peer reviewed, it's her own "test results" on her own body. Look at her website newsletters. She's big into spirituality and "energy," and blah blah blah. But it sells products to idiots and it sells advertising on podcasts.

Also, she's not a doctor in the sense that she portrays. She doesn't treat patients, she doesn't have an active medical license, and she "practices functional medicine" (her quote) which is about the same level of quackery as chiropractic. She's not engaged in academic, peer-reviewed research, she isn't doing anything in the least that's scientific. She's also endorsed and supported by political lobbies for profit.

Remember, just because someone sounds really knowledgeable and expert-like in an interview doesn't mean he or she is an expert. People need to dig deeper into what's behind the facades of these "experts." Critical thinking like we were taught in grade school goes a long ways and it exposes a lot of these people who to me are more L. Ron Hubbard than legit professionals we should trust.

Like I've said numerous times though, I could not possibly care less about changing someone's mind here. This whole thread and OT forum to me is humor and some fun time-killing. It's hilarious banter with a bunch of people to add some spice to a dull day.
 

Latest posts

Top