And HIV doesn't cause AIDS... Can't make this shit up.

This is what people voted for.

Enough people to put it there.

How can the country whose engineering skill and expertise managed to rocket their manufacturing economy into the stratosphere post WWI and into WWII, devolve into idiots like RFK Jr?

His uncle wanted to put people on the moon for fucks sake. What a terrible shame on his family to have this guy be one of the last representatives of the Kennedy name.

Hi, I would like to introduce you to Rupert Murdoch, the ruler of Newscorp and now Fox.
He tried to make sure most of his children wouldn't have any voting rights because they were too moderate compared to himself and his favorite son..
Fox is now its own separate entity, but it's still the Murdoch family on the board of it.
TL;DR: The reason the anglosphere, primarily the US, is so fucked, is actually an ozzie. Though he's been an American citizen for some 4 decades now.
- i wonder what classifies as too moderate compared to rupert murdoch
They managed that because of immigrants who knew how to do it. Now they are leaking brains all over the place. They are somehow turning the tv shows Brain Dead and Happy! and the movie Idiocrazy into a reality.
- The real problems in america could be solved with a simple solution: Brawndo. Its what plants crave
What a terrible shame on his family to have this guy be one of the last representatives of the Kennedy name.
Eh, agreed on some level, though it's actually also good proof of karma, which we all need. Shouldn't have lobotomized Rosemary, you sick fucks.
- That's very true. I honestly didn't mean to minimize the Kennedy scandals. I should have chosen my words better.
- good proof of karma
  Let's not pull an RFK on this. There is no such thing. Karma is something made up to make people feel good. It doesn't exist.
All the smart Kennedys died one way or another. This is what was left.

Bullets also open the blood-brain barrier and allow toxins into the brain, so are they going to be banned? 🧐

No. These actually do it mechanically, so it's fine.
WiFi obly does it in RFK's fantasies, so that's why banning it's fine.
- Maybe the WiFi affected his brainwork negatively, though in my equally uneducated opinion (compared to RFK), I just think there wasn't enough grey matter to sustain it.

Feels like empire is being run by boomer email forwards.

Brought to you courtesy of the conservative voters and the apathetic voters, well known exemplars of mental acuity.

Don't forget the heroes who voted for Jill Stein. Because if you didn't then you lOvE gEnOcIdE
- "The Democrats didn't fail us. We failed them"
- both RFK jr and jill stein had the same amount of voters; they are all likely republican voters anyways.
- Not loving genocide, but genocide wasn't a deal-breaker. Which is completely insane, if you stop to think about it for even a minute
Hey now, some voters are also oppressed by the US's non-compulsory voting system. Some voters have to choose voting or makijg a paycheck. Some voters can't vote because their work/school lets out after the polls close.
Bottom line is that Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) have gone out of their way to making voting in certain parts of the country difficult. Make it more convenient, or compulsory, and we'll see more representation than we do today.
- voter-id laws mean you sometimes have to drive hours and wait months to get an id just to vote also. Weirdly enough these voter-id laws disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.

One of the key characteristics of fascism is machismo: a kind of hyper masculinity, and one of the characteristics of machismo is seemingly that a man is right simply by stating something confidently enough. It's not about facts, evidence, or rigorous testing, it's just about being the right kind of man and having the right kind of masculine energy. That's why fascists are anti-intellectual, because intellectuals and academics understand that research, testing, and experimentation determine truth, not manly vibes.

thats why they are all obssesed with body image(gym bros culture), rfk jr takes STEROIDS to have a bodybuilder body at age 70, and tans himself to look like hes melting.
So, literally Hegeseth....

You know, I can get behind the sentiment of MAHA. Fast foods literally killing people, and worse, making thier lives miserable and expensive. Healthy skepticism of big pharma is, err, healthy. Bring that on.

Research into cell phone health issues is fine. The physics suggest it shouldn't be an issue, but still, data is good.

...But can we please take the quack medicine out?

Agreed that there's no such thing as "wasted" research. But there is no medicine to take out of the quack medicine. They're quacks because they refuse to accept results of research on emotional grounds and just keep squawking the same things their minds are made up about.
Focusing on problems that are fairly settled now because a 70+ year old heard they were mysterious and a problem at the age of six is so inefficient as to be regressive. Yes we should continue to research... everything but we should do so on the foundation of all the research available in
<current year>
, not on vaguely remembered tabloid scares from decades ago.
- there’s no such thing as “wasted” research
  Oh my sweet summer child.
An issue with focusing too much on a single topic, is, "if you look for it, you will find it". With enough time and effort spent, you will find a signal. Not a true signal, just one that appeared from randomness, and if you would do an analysis of all the studies, the signal would disappear again, but they're definitively not beyond pick and choosing their studies
Basically, this https://xkcd.com/882/
- As always, XKCD is spot on...
  Like, I wish that was pasted below every Kennedy interview aired.
Well, the only physics in EM that could be an issue is that the near-field isn't the same as the far-field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
- What is the issue?
but he also pedalls Ultra processed food company.

Wow. This is so utterly absurd, even for politican.

But if he can't explain it, maybe he should bring in an expert who can. I can't wait to hear that explanation. I'll have the popcorn ready.

Well, this arrow, here, is WiFi.
And this line is the blood—brain, barrier.
When the arrow comes to the line, it goes through it. See?
And other things can go through the hole. Like woke.
I will not be taking questions. Thank you.
- Yep. Exactly the best such an "expert" could provide. When did he lose his license to practice, again?

Roughly accurate transcription it seems:

Would love to see these tens of thousands of studies that show the danger
- Now you've gone beyond my university's subscriptions.
- are those tens of thousands of studies in the room with us right now?
- "You're going to think it's hyperbole, but that's only because it is hyperbole."

He's saying this so people think his ideas are crazy and won't believe it when the feds and intelligence organizations actually manipulate society with technology.

That's his role in the administration. Its all a long con preparing for the social control coming next.

I think that you're actually putting too much stock into these people. They are just nasty people being nasty as far as they can. Any planning is superficial.
- From some of them? Yes. From all of them? No. Steven Miller, Steve Bannon, maybe Dr Oz, almost certainly Linda McMahon, have plans
- They are the dangling keys. The planning is done by their handlers.

Wait until he finds out about the radiation from the Sun. Get him a mirror.

looks like hes had one too many tanning beds, considering his skin his horrible condition from all those tans.

If you look at how RFK jr is sitting, he's leaning back and to the left.

I'll need a tutorial--what did I miss that makes this make sense?
- Its about JFK assassination, there was a Seinfeld episode that joked about it heavily

There was debate into the late 90's in the scientific community if hiv caused aids due to the rigorous nature of Koch's Postulates. Even then it was just recognized not all the criteria were met. Later they proved it with a monkey variant. HIV causing aids. Not the crazy wifi thing.

Yeah, this seems to be the basis for all sorts of craziness. Something is sort of true at some point, latch onto some bastardized understanding and just never let that go
- basically. I mean it was given some credence because the scientific community takes technical specifics like that very seriously but even then it was still recognized as unlikely that hiv did not cause aids as lab accidents had caused it. Its sorta funny I heard a guy give his talk on a paper like that in like 95 and looking it up in 96 the paper was written arguing we had proved it already by the criteria.

Ban wifi. I dare you. Do it.

This but unironically. Flash drives and patience. We can function just fine.
- Drones dropping off and delivering 256GB USB drives so you can keep up with all the ~~porn~~ news.
- The RFC exists:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2549

This guy probably believes his blood is blue because he's descended from royalty or some shit.

Nah, he'd think his blood was blue not because of the royalty thing but because blue is actually the natural color of blood and it's just built up toxins that turn it red. That's why the royals had blue blood, not because they were just inherently better, but because they took better care of themselves unlike the peasantry.
Don't mention blood near him, we'll have to listen to a lecture on RH negative blood and lizard people.

Us government: "Let's hire that guy to be in charge of health care."

Is this how kids become mitochondrially challenged?

Pretty sure that's because you pasteurize your milk.
mitochondrially challenged?
I know you're just memeing on his previous statements, but mitochondrial challenge is a real thing. Like inflammation, it's something that's real and causes problems, but is not remotely as common as claimed by quacks, responsible for remotely the broad spectrum of problems that quacks claim, cannot be treated in the fashion quacks claim, and cannot be identified as easily as quacks claim.
It's the grain of truth you build your skyscraper of a lie on to make it seem just a tiny bit plausible to people who don't know better.

Maybe he thinks wifi is another term for worms. Because worms definitely opened up his blood brain barrier.

Worm should've finished the job.
Heroin certainly can cross the brain barrier.

That would be a really funny joke in a parallel universe.

Not sure if everyone who comments have actually read anything on the topic. While I'm not worried myself due to the sheer number of null studies that exist, he's not just dreaming this up. There are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific studies that claim to show that there indeed is such an effect. One selected randomly below:

As a result, it was found that there was no statistically significant difference in the BBB of rabbits exposed to 1800 MHz radiation, whereas there was a statistically significant difference at a 95% confidence level in the BBB of rabbits exposed to 2100 MHz radiation

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11517-024-03238-1

Oh please..."at a distance of 13cm" from a high powered transmitter. They saw a statistical difference of a minute effect, in a small animal. And if you actually look at the data, they did the statistics incorrectly.
There are researchers at U of Toronto using microwaves to break down the blood brain barrier to get cancer drugs into the brain. It's not easy, and what they have shown is that even when they can do it, the barrier can repeatedly repair itself.
People who leave scientific links on the internet without understanding them are just as bad as RFK Jr.
- What in my post makes you believe I don't understand the posted study? Did you not see the "While I'm not worried myself due to the sheer number of null studies that exist" part?
  I was a developer and researcher at a mobile phone manufacturer for 15 years. We kept well up to date on this topic.
Just pointing out two things that many people don't know about statistics and that I think are helpful when judging a larger body of scientific literature and listening to non-experts like RFK Jr.
First, the term "statistically significant" does not mean "big" or "meaningful". It means "unlikely due to chance", where "unlikely" is defined by the researcher, typically as a low-ish threshold like "with a probability of at most 5%". This is also the threshold that researchers use when they compute a 95% confidence interval, like in the paragraph quoted above.
Second, with a 5% threshold, studies investigating the same phenomenon (like the effect of radio waves on rabbits) have a 5% chance to find a statistically significant effect even if that effect does not exist. As a consequence, scientists don't regard it as proof of a phenomenon, when one study (or even several) out of a large number of studies finds something to be statistically significant. Instead, they require that this finding is replicated in independent replication studies (ideally ones that were conducted with a pre-registered protocol and a much larger sample).
Relevant xkcd, because of course there is one:
Image source: xkcd (no. 882)
- Exactly. I got the impression from the posts that were here when I made mine that people had never even heard of this being something that has been "debated" in the scientific community but just some random idea RFK Jr had himself.
  IIRC there was real worry in the late 90s due to the thermal effect mobiles back then had, which in the 00s transformed into electromagnetism and the blood-brain barrier instead. The thing that really gives away the non-scientific backing for those still trying to push this is that they keep trying to blame newer versions of the mobile networks "4G bad vs 3G!" "5G bad vs 4G!" when in reality every newer network standard has less penetrating energy and also, due to towers being much closer spaced, less transmitting energy overall from the phone.
  NMT back in the 80s however? I'd probably be somewhat cautious today tbh.
- Yep. Also, famously, a statistics/psychology professor was once quoted as saying the only reason you don't find a statistically significant difference is because we're "too damn lazy to drag enough people in." The larger the sample size, the less of a difference is needed to hit that 5% mark. So if you aren't "lazy," you can just add more folks to your study and be more likely to find a 'significant difference' that you can then publish.
  My statistics professor would rerun experiments that hit the 5% (p<0.05) mark and need it less than a 0.001 or 0.005 just to waggle his dick at others, saying his findings were a lot more reliable than theirs.
N=21
Eh, fuck you for trying to sanewash this. This is the lead of the fucking health and human services. That used to mean more than, "Yeah, I'm no doctor, but I think I read this article once. Might've skimmed it. Ask that Lemmy guy, he'll back me up."
- fuck you for trying to sanewash this
  Maybe you should take a course in the English language?
Wifi does not use any of those frequencies.