|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 19 2025 17:18 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:30 Slydie wrote:
I loved in Sweden, where there was rent control, and I absolutely hated it. If the supply is lower than the demand and you force the rent down, first hand rental contracts became extremely valuable. You got into absurd situations where no one would ever let go of their contracts, and 2nd, 3rd and even up to 5th hand rental became normal. Each of these would add a little bit for themselves. Sure, the rent was great if you could get a contract, but that was outright impossible. Navigating and entering the rental market was extremely messy, and not very cheap. Sounds to me like construction of public homes didn't meet demand. Was that the case? Acrofales was making a similar point. Where would the new homes be built in a city already as dense as NYC?
The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity aims to construct over 108 000 new homes - an increase of almost 3% - over the next 15 years. They have a few workable ideas on how to reach that goal.
Mamdani himself aims for an increase of 200 000 - more than 5% - over the next 10 years. If the whole set of his policies goes through, he can pull it off.
|
On August 19 2025 17:42 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask? In my experience, Americans medicate themselves at a rate significantly above average, not just children, they just don't see it because it's "normal". The amount of medicine adverts on TV is truly staggering and something that shocked me when I first arrived.
Sure, but it's important to look at which medication we're talking about. The typical right-wing tactic is to just say "over-medication" and expect a shocked reaction from their audience. I'm not that audience so I'm only shocked after I research the medication and find that it causes significant harm. Depending on which answer oBlade gives, I'll either be shocked or fairly bored over the "over-prescription/medication" allegation.
|
On August 19 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 17:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 19 2025 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:30 Slydie wrote:
I loved in Sweden, where there was rent control, and I absolutely hated it. If the supply is lower than the demand and you force the rent down, first hand rental contracts became extremely valuable. You got into absurd situations where no one would ever let go of their contracts, and 2nd, 3rd and even up to 5th hand rental became normal. Each of these would add a little bit for themselves. Sure, the rent was great if you could get a contract, but that was outright impossible. Navigating and entering the rental market was extremely messy, and not very cheap. Sounds to me like construction of public homes didn't meet demand. Was that the case? Acrofales was making a similar point. Where would the new homes be built in a city already as dense as NYC? The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity aims to construct over 108 000 new homes - an increase of almost 3% - over the next 15 years. They have a few workable ideas on how to reach that goal. Mamdani himself aims for an increase of 200 000 - more than 5% - over the next 10 years. If the whole set of his policies goes through, he can pull it off.
Where?
|
On August 19 2025 17:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 17:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask? In my experience, Americans medicate themselves at a rate significantly above average, not just children, they just don't see it because it's "normal". The amount of medicine adverts on TV is truly staggering and something that shocked me when I first arrived. Sure, but it's important to look at which medication we're talking about. The typical right-wing tactic is to just say "over-medication" and expect a shocked reaction from their audience. I'm not that audience so I'm only shocked after I research the medication and find that it causes significant harm. Depending on which answer oBlade gives, I'll either be shocked or fairly bored over the "over-prescription/medication" allegation.
I would actually agree that this whole thing might be a problem. If you notice that in one country, a type of medication is prescribed and used significantly more often than in other countries, figuring out why isn't a bad idea. There might also be a connection to the absurd health costs america has in comparison to other countries.
I think few people here would disagree with the statement that the US healthcare system is kind of shit, and requires some massive reforms.
Where i don't follow is the anti-science diatribe that usually follows that then somehow leads to us injecting bleach of whatever as a solution.
|
I do not dismiss the idea there is always a lunatic you can find under a rock somewhere. But even with fluoride in the water, this church is doing what you say. So let's not consider them in our worldview.
Rabid opposition to public water fluoridation seems over the top. However, so does rabid defense of it to me. It may very well be a miracle. It remineralizes enamel so we don't die from our teeth in our 50s and 60s.
But it's in toothpaste. We all have toothpaste and toothbrushes. And we also have the miracle of drills, anaesthetics, and polymers. Is there no risk in fluoride? There are studies of childhood IQ drops at like 3x the levels the US uses? We know fluoride, like anything, is toxic at the right levels. The question is how much and over how long. Seems fine to take a look at that to know whether the risk is worth it.
On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask?
Statins, opioids, and SSRIs (or really anything psychiatric, like ritalin). Those are the worst from the standpoint of waste and individual and societal dependence.
+ Show Spoiler +Antibiotic overuse is also a problem because of resistance, but it's a worldwide problem because patients and doctors everywhere are stupid and doctors are rushed and everyone wants patients to feel better. It's not one that's US specific, the problems in the US are related to being one of the only countries with direct to consumer prescription advertising, and with the lucrative bonuses for unscrupulous overprescribing. Like what happened to precipitate the opioid crisis. The same perverse incentives don't exist for antibiotics to my knowledge, although I wouldn't put it past them either. When someone comes in with the sniffles, and you give them a generic cephalosporin, there are not exorbitant kickbacks for that. Nor are cephalosporin people on TV saying "Got the sniffles? Ask your doctor for our antibiotics" the way they do with statins.
So the issue of our antibiotics becoming useless and superbugs outpacing new drug developments is a problem, but the things the HHS report addresses when it suggests tightening direct to consumer advertising and prescription incentives are different, and their own separate issues.
There is a small degree of credit to the notion that people who are sicker need more medicine. However, that's an argument again in favor of making them healthier earlier to begin with.
|
On August 19 2025 19:10 oBlade wrote:I do not dismiss the idea there is always a lunatic you can find under a rock somewhere. But even with fluoride in the water, this church is doing what you say. So let's not consider them in our worldview. Rabid opposition to public water fluoridation seems over the top. However, so does rabid defense of it to me. It may very well be a miracle. It remineralizes enamel so we don't die from our teeth in our 50s and 60s. But it's in toothpaste. We all have toothpaste and toothbrushes. And we also have the miracle of drills, anaesthetics, and polymers. Is there no risk in fluoride? There are studies of childhood IQ drops at like 3x the levels the US uses? We know fluoride, like anything, is toxic at the right levels. The question is how much and over how long. Seems fine to take a look at that to know whether the risk is worth it. Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask? Statins, opioids, and SSRIs (or really anything psychiatric, like ritalin). Those are the worst from the standpoint of waste and individual and societal dependence. + Show Spoiler +Antibiotic overuse is also a problem because of resistance, but it's a worldwide problem because patients and doctors everywhere are stupid and doctors are rushed and everyone wants patients to feel better. It's not one that's US specific, the problems in the US are related to being one of the only countries with direct to consumer prescription advertising, and with the lucrative bonuses for unscrupulous overprescribing. Like what happened to precipitate the opioid crisis. The same perverse incentives don't exist for antibiotics to my knowledge, although I wouldn't put it past them either. When someone comes in with the sniffles, and you give them a generic cephalosporin, there are not exorbitant kickbacks for that. Nor are cephalosporin people on TV saying "Got the sniffles? Ask your doctor for our antibiotics" the way they do with statins.
So the issue of our antibiotics becoming useless and superbugs outpacing new drug developments is a problem, but the things the HHS report addresses when it suggests tightening direct to consumer advertising and prescription incentives are different, and their own separate issues. There is a small degree of credit to the notion that people who are sicker need more medicine. However, that's an argument again in favor of making them healthier earlier to begin with.
As a specalist dentist with 8 years of training and massive experience with dental research.
If you’re saying that "we need to take a look at flouride" you are already with the wrong crowd.
You are correct that water flouridation doesn't matter if the population is brushing with fluoride toothpaste.
But it's not an area that hasn't been studied. People who oppose fluoride aren't on that side because to little research, it's just a thing they like to say because they know it's an effective argument.
I personally don't care if people use fluoride or not, its their teeth. I feel bad for the kids some times tho.
But man up and state if you pick either the side with medical consensus or the theory conspiracy side with "nuclear waste in water" people.
As a side note naturally occuring fluoride in water can be (and often is) much higher then what is added. Studies on high fluoride content that give health effects are often done in areas where it's not filtered out.
|
Let's not forget that the party that is allegedly worried about the health risks of fluoride in water is also in favor of unrestricted fracking, destroying the EPA, etc. It's hard to believe anything the Republicans say or do is in good faith.
|
RFK is just "Flooding the Zone" and is deregulating shit.
My initial plan for business was to export highly toxic waste to the US, looks like my dream comes true!
|
United States44371 Posts
People going “all I’m saying is that I don’t know X so let’s stop and look into it” as a reason to change public policy when X has been researched by the people behind public policy and the research has been summarized and made public is annoying. If nobody knows the answer then sure, it should be answered when making policy. If the answer is known and the speaker should reasonably know it if speaking on the subject at all then they’re building an argument resting on a foundation of their own ignorance.
Oblade, just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been studied and answered. If government was limited to just the things you know then we’re not going to get anywhere.
|
"Just asking questions" only works if you're satisfied when the studies are actually provided and you read them. If you're still "just asking questions" about something with an overwhelming scientific consensus, and voting for the people who "just ask questions" while firing all the people who have read the studies themselves, you're now in "fucking moron" territory.
Reminder that RFK Jr. has no scientific expertise and should be in jail for 83 consecutive life sentences for what he did to the children of Samoa.
|
On August 19 2025 21:57 LightSpectra wrote:
....n "fucking moron" territory.
Don't be rude. They prefer the term "critical thinker".
|
United States44371 Posts
I’m also frustrated by the suggestion that the people who don’t have a clue are rabid but so somehow so are the people who know the answer. It’s a bothsidesism. The people who don’t know anything but are very angry about the issue are lunatics and so the people who are arguing the other side must also be lunatics. It assumes the two positions are equal and therefore anyone who feels strongly about it is a lunatic. The positions are not equal.
|
False equivalency is the basis of all modern conservatism. "So what if Trump is taking bribes, eaglefreedom.ru reported Biden embezzled $90t directly from the U.S. Treasury and you libcucks didn't care"
|
On August 19 2025 19:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 19:10 oBlade wrote:On August 19 2025 16:50 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Article is pulling nonsense rhetorical tricks. Poisoning isn't mentioned "explicitly?" Poisoning in that sense is like when a kid drinks draino and dies. Nobody is for that. Fun fact, some fundamentalist Christian sects are for that. They call it Miracle Mineral Solution and they believe it cures everything. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/doj-press-releases-involving-fda-oci/leader-genesis-ii-church-health-and-healing-who-sold-toxic-bleach-fake-miracle-cure-covid-19-andThey’re popular with the RFK alternative health anti vax no COVID horse worm crowd. I know that you’d like to believe that they’d draw the line at fighting fluoride, a mineral that has proven repeatedly to be a public health miracle. I’d like to believe that too. I’d like to dismiss out of hand the idea that these people need to be stopped from drinking bleach. But we don’t live in that world, we live in the world where RFK’s alternative science alternative medicine conspiracy Christian nutters are drinking bleach. I do not dismiss the idea there is always a lunatic you can find under a rock somewhere. But even with fluoride in the water, this church is doing what you say. So let's not consider them in our worldview. Rabid opposition to public water fluoridation seems over the top. However, so does rabid defense of it to me. It may very well be a miracle. It remineralizes enamel so we don't die from our teeth in our 50s and 60s. But it's in toothpaste. We all have toothpaste and toothbrushes. And we also have the miracle of drills, anaesthetics, and polymers. Is there no risk in fluoride? There are studies of childhood IQ drops at like 3x the levels the US uses? We know fluoride, like anything, is toxic at the right levels. The question is how much and over how long. Seems fine to take a look at that to know whether the risk is worth it. On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask? Statins, opioids, and SSRIs (or really anything psychiatric, like ritalin). Those are the worst from the standpoint of waste and individual and societal dependence. + Show Spoiler +Antibiotic overuse is also a problem because of resistance, but it's a worldwide problem because patients and doctors everywhere are stupid and doctors are rushed and everyone wants patients to feel better. It's not one that's US specific, the problems in the US are related to being one of the only countries with direct to consumer prescription advertising, and with the lucrative bonuses for unscrupulous overprescribing. Like what happened to precipitate the opioid crisis. The same perverse incentives don't exist for antibiotics to my knowledge, although I wouldn't put it past them either. When someone comes in with the sniffles, and you give them a generic cephalosporin, there are not exorbitant kickbacks for that. Nor are cephalosporin people on TV saying "Got the sniffles? Ask your doctor for our antibiotics" the way they do with statins.
So the issue of our antibiotics becoming useless and superbugs outpacing new drug developments is a problem, but the things the HHS report addresses when it suggests tightening direct to consumer advertising and prescription incentives are different, and their own separate issues. There is a small degree of credit to the notion that people who are sicker need more medicine. However, that's an argument again in favor of making them healthier earlier to begin with. As a specalist dentist with 8 years of training and massive experience with dental research. If you’re saying that "we need to take a look at flouride" you are already with the wrong crowd. You are correct that water flouridation doesn't matter if the population is brushing with fluoride toothpaste. But it's not an area that hasn't been studied. People who oppose fluoride aren't on that side because to little research, it's just a thing they like to say because they know it's an effective argument. I personally don't care if people use fluoride or not, its their teeth. I feel bad for the kids some times tho. But man up and state if you pick either the side with medical consensus or the theory conspiracy side with "nuclear waste in water" people. As a side note naturally occuring fluoride in water can be (and often is) much higher then what is added. Studies on high fluoride content that give health effects are often done in areas where it's not filtered out.
The dental effects of fluoride are not in question.
You recognize it has potential toxicity since you say much of the world needs to filter it out, but we also need to add a bit to get into the goldilocks zone.
Fluoride only has topical dental effects. It has no systemic role in the body, and the body doesn't use it in any part of metabolism. If you have too little of it, it doesn't imbalance a process that uses it by slowing it down. If you have too much of it, it doesn't accelerate a process that uses more of it. That we know, it only makes the surface of your teeth stronger, and is toxic to your brain and messes up your bones and other stuff if you have too much of it. The thing is "too much" is a population level measurement. If you drink a lot of water, you get a lot more fluoride. If you drink a lot of stuff that isn't water, it was probably produced using municipal water anyway right, meaning you also get more fluoride. As an individual a person won't necessarily show up in the population study even if it stunted their development by 5 IQ points, say, if it's within what background noise looks like and therefore not significant based on the size complexity and duration of the study.
The most recent study from the US, from 2016 to 2024, affirmed that over the WHO limit of 1.5 mg per liter is negatively correlated with IQ in childhood development. The US used to fluoridate at 1.2 mg per liter, which is under the WHO limit, but reduced that to 0.7mg for whatever reason.
How is a kid not at risk of losing IQ points in development if they, for example, over years, drink over twice as much water as average?
+ Show Spoiler +Like we all agree it's a dental miracle. But if it makes people's teeth stronger because they're too stupid to brush their teeth, but it drops IQ in kids so they grow up to become parents who are too stupid to get their children to brush their teeth so they have to drink fluoride, the circular effect might not be worth it.
Not that this is happening, but this picture demonstrates the principle of why you need to study things so the public and government can know the tradeoffs involved to make decisions.
There is not a study, that I know, that shows 0.7mg is "safe" - or rather measures how safe it is - rather, there are studies that show 2 and 5 and 10mg per liter are dangerous, and the US set 0.7 below that conservatively, after 1.2 ended up not being conservative enough anymore. (Please let us know otherwise.)
Yet we, and kids, don't just get fluoride from water. It's in toothpaste, it's in mouthwash, ye olde dentist applies it, and now people even get 1.1% prescription toothpastes. You have to constantly study this because the habits of the population change and their sources of fluoride change, and furthermore you can't rule in, you can only rule out. And the studies take a long time because human children take the longest time to develop.
It would obviously be prohibitive to filter to 0.000000000000mg/L even in the worst case, and people swallow more than that from toothpaste, but that's not a reason not to study as long as the government runs the water supply. We get information, not policy, from scientists. Dentistry does not have a monopoly on the interests of water.
+ Show Spoiler +Let me use a wonderfully manifested analogy. Imagine there were a compound, soluble in water, that gave you a small SPF protection when applied topically. The compound didn't do anything else that we know, but if a population drank water with 3x the regulated level the US govt put in water, or 33% more than the world limit, adverse effects appeared and could be correlated at an identifiable rate in the population. And the government put it in water so people would, say, shower with it and this would hopefully reduce incidence of sunburn and therefore later skin cancer and so on. All great but there's nothing wrong with just applying sunscreen.
|
On August 19 2025 17:53 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 17:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 19 2025 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:30 Slydie wrote:
I loved in Sweden, where there was rent control, and I absolutely hated it. If the supply is lower than the demand and you force the rent down, first hand rental contracts became extremely valuable. You got into absurd situations where no one would ever let go of their contracts, and 2nd, 3rd and even up to 5th hand rental became normal. Each of these would add a little bit for themselves. Sure, the rent was great if you could get a contract, but that was outright impossible. Navigating and entering the rental market was extremely messy, and not very cheap. Sounds to me like construction of public homes didn't meet demand. Was that the case? Acrofales was making a similar point. Where would the new homes be built in a city already as dense as NYC? The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity aims to construct over 108 000 new homes - an increase of almost 3% - over the next 15 years. They have a few workable ideas on how to reach that goal. Mamdani himself aims for an increase of 200 000 - more than 5% - over the next 10 years. If the whole set of his policies goes through, he can pull it off. Where?
Where what? They have their plan laid out. If you have a question about their plan, you should ask them.
|
On August 19 2025 23:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 17:53 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 19 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 17:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 19 2025 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:30 Slydie wrote:
I loved in Sweden, where there was rent control, and I absolutely hated it. If the supply is lower than the demand and you force the rent down, first hand rental contracts became extremely valuable. You got into absurd situations where no one would ever let go of their contracts, and 2nd, 3rd and even up to 5th hand rental became normal. Each of these would add a little bit for themselves. Sure, the rent was great if you could get a contract, but that was outright impossible. Navigating and entering the rental market was extremely messy, and not very cheap. Sounds to me like construction of public homes didn't meet demand. Was that the case? Acrofales was making a similar point. Where would the new homes be built in a city already as dense as NYC? The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity aims to construct over 108 000 new homes - an increase of almost 3% - over the next 15 years. They have a few workable ideas on how to reach that goal. Mamdani himself aims for an increase of 200 000 - more than 5% - over the next 10 years. If the whole set of his policies goes through, he can pull it off. Where? Where what? They have their plan laid out. If you have a question about their plan, you should ask them.
I am obviously not going to ask them. You are the one making the argument here, I'm not going to google it, but I will happily check what you consider to be a reputable source on the subject. I am curious to see how you're going to build affordable housing in NYC but not curious enough to spend my afternoon looking for good sources.
|
On August 19 2025 19:10 oBlade wrote:I do not dismiss the idea there is always a lunatic you can find under a rock somewhere. But even with fluoride in the water, this church is doing what you say. So let's not consider them in our worldview. Rabid opposition to public water fluoridation seems over the top. However, so does rabid defense of it to me. It may very well be a miracle. It remineralizes enamel so we don't die from our teeth in our 50s and 60s. But it's in toothpaste. We all have toothpaste and toothbrushes. And we also have the miracle of drills, anaesthetics, and polymers. Is there no risk in fluoride? There are studies of childhood IQ drops at like 3x the levels the US uses? We know fluoride, like anything, is toxic at the right levels. The question is how much and over how long. Seems fine to take a look at that to know whether the risk is worth it. Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask? Statins, opioids, and SSRIs (or really anything psychiatric, like ritalin). Those are the worst from the standpoint of waste and individual and societal dependence. + Show Spoiler +Antibiotic overuse is also a problem because of resistance, but it's a worldwide problem because patients and doctors everywhere are stupid and doctors are rushed and everyone wants patients to feel better. It's not one that's US specific, the problems in the US are related to being one of the only countries with direct to consumer prescription advertising, and with the lucrative bonuses for unscrupulous overprescribing. Like what happened to precipitate the opioid crisis. The same perverse incentives don't exist for antibiotics to my knowledge, although I wouldn't put it past them either. When someone comes in with the sniffles, and you give them a generic cephalosporin, there are not exorbitant kickbacks for that. Nor are cephalosporin people on TV saying "Got the sniffles? Ask your doctor for our antibiotics" the way they do with statins.
So the issue of our antibiotics becoming useless and superbugs outpacing new drug developments is a problem, but the things the HHS report addresses when it suggests tightening direct to consumer advertising and prescription incentives are different, and their own separate issues. There is a small degree of credit to the notion that people who are sicker need more medicine. However, that's an argument again in favor of making them healthier earlier to begin with.
Statins
Not overprescribed in adolescents/children. Much rather underprescribed.
Very important medication, not viewed as a problem.
Opioids
Frequently misused, including in adolescents. But not overprescribed to my knowledge.
Benefit has been clearly proven. Can be viewed as a potential risk when taken outside of medical treatment.
Antidepressants
Not overprescribed to my knowledge.
Overall benefit is unclear, needs more research. May or may not be a risk.
Methylphenidate
Not misused. High prescription rate is not concerning.
Benefit has been clearly proven. Cannot generally be viewed as a potential risk.
Antibiotics
Occasionally misused. High prescription rate is mildly concerning.
Benefit has been very clearly proven. Can generally be viewed as a potential risk.
|
On August 19 2025 23:37 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 23:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 17:53 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 19 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 17:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 19 2025 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:30 Slydie wrote:
I loved in Sweden, where there was rent control, and I absolutely hated it. If the supply is lower than the demand and you force the rent down, first hand rental contracts became extremely valuable. You got into absurd situations where no one would ever let go of their contracts, and 2nd, 3rd and even up to 5th hand rental became normal. Each of these would add a little bit for themselves. Sure, the rent was great if you could get a contract, but that was outright impossible. Navigating and entering the rental market was extremely messy, and not very cheap. Sounds to me like construction of public homes didn't meet demand. Was that the case? Acrofales was making a similar point. Where would the new homes be built in a city already as dense as NYC? The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity aims to construct over 108 000 new homes - an increase of almost 3% - over the next 15 years. They have a few workable ideas on how to reach that goal. Mamdani himself aims for an increase of 200 000 - more than 5% - over the next 10 years. If the whole set of his policies goes through, he can pull it off. Where? Where what? They have their plan laid out. If you have a question about their plan, you should ask them. I am obviously not going to ask them. You are the one making the argument here, I'm not going to google it, but I will happily check what you consider to be a reputable source on the subject. I am curious to see how you're going to build affordable housing in NYC but not curious enough to spend my afternoon looking for good sources.
Why would you not ask them if you have questions? Do you want me to call them up or what? Over here from Austria? Do some research yourself, seriously. What the heck.
|
On August 19 2025 23:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 19:10 oBlade wrote:On August 19 2025 16:50 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Article is pulling nonsense rhetorical tricks. Poisoning isn't mentioned "explicitly?" Poisoning in that sense is like when a kid drinks draino and dies. Nobody is for that. Fun fact, some fundamentalist Christian sects are for that. They call it Miracle Mineral Solution and they believe it cures everything. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/doj-press-releases-involving-fda-oci/leader-genesis-ii-church-health-and-healing-who-sold-toxic-bleach-fake-miracle-cure-covid-19-andThey’re popular with the RFK alternative health anti vax no COVID horse worm crowd. I know that you’d like to believe that they’d draw the line at fighting fluoride, a mineral that has proven repeatedly to be a public health miracle. I’d like to believe that too. I’d like to dismiss out of hand the idea that these people need to be stopped from drinking bleach. But we don’t live in that world, we live in the world where RFK’s alternative science alternative medicine conspiracy Christian nutters are drinking bleach. I do not dismiss the idea there is always a lunatic you can find under a rock somewhere. But even with fluoride in the water, this church is doing what you say. So let's not consider them in our worldview. Rabid opposition to public water fluoridation seems over the top. However, so does rabid defense of it to me. It may very well be a miracle. It remineralizes enamel so we don't die from our teeth in our 50s and 60s. But it's in toothpaste. We all have toothpaste and toothbrushes. And we also have the miracle of drills, anaesthetics, and polymers. Is there no risk in fluoride? There are studies of childhood IQ drops at like 3x the levels the US uses? We know fluoride, like anything, is toxic at the right levels. The question is how much and over how long. Seems fine to take a look at that to know whether the risk is worth it. On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask? Statins, opioids, and SSRIs (or really anything psychiatric, like ritalin). Those are the worst from the standpoint of waste and individual and societal dependence. + Show Spoiler +Antibiotic overuse is also a problem because of resistance, but it's a worldwide problem because patients and doctors everywhere are stupid and doctors are rushed and everyone wants patients to feel better. It's not one that's US specific, the problems in the US are related to being one of the only countries with direct to consumer prescription advertising, and with the lucrative bonuses for unscrupulous overprescribing. Like what happened to precipitate the opioid crisis. The same perverse incentives don't exist for antibiotics to my knowledge, although I wouldn't put it past them either. When someone comes in with the sniffles, and you give them a generic cephalosporin, there are not exorbitant kickbacks for that. Nor are cephalosporin people on TV saying "Got the sniffles? Ask your doctor for our antibiotics" the way they do with statins.
So the issue of our antibiotics becoming useless and superbugs outpacing new drug developments is a problem, but the things the HHS report addresses when it suggests tightening direct to consumer advertising and prescription incentives are different, and their own separate issues. There is a small degree of credit to the notion that people who are sicker need more medicine. However, that's an argument again in favor of making them healthier earlier to begin with. StatinsNot overprescribed in adolescents/children. Much rather underprescribed. Very important medication, not viewed as a problem. OpioidsFrequently misused, including in adolescents. But not overprescribed to my knowledge. Benefit has been clearly proven. Can be viewed as a potential risk when taken outside of medical treatment. AntidepressantsNot overprescribed to my knowledge. Overall benefit is unclear, needs more research. May or may not be a risk. MethylphenidateNot misused. High prescription rate is not concerning. Benefit has been clearly proven. Cannot generally be viewed as a potential risk. AntibioticsOccasionally misused. High prescription rate is mildly concerning. Benefit has been very clearly proven. Can generally be viewed as a potential risk.
Yes children almost never get statins. That's obvious. I got ahead of myself and was answering for the systemic problems in general. If you're asking for kids specifically it's mainly SSRIs and ADHD meds, stuff like that. Because the fact that communities are fragmented, all your peers are phone addicted and weed is more common than alcohol, and you have no connections or hugs, can be easily medicalized and fixed with a pill and you're always either on your parents' insurance or medicaid so it's like printing money for big pharma.
|
On August 20 2025 00:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2025 23:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 19:10 oBlade wrote:On August 19 2025 16:50 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Article is pulling nonsense rhetorical tricks. Poisoning isn't mentioned "explicitly?" Poisoning in that sense is like when a kid drinks draino and dies. Nobody is for that. Fun fact, some fundamentalist Christian sects are for that. They call it Miracle Mineral Solution and they believe it cures everything. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/doj-press-releases-involving-fda-oci/leader-genesis-ii-church-health-and-healing-who-sold-toxic-bleach-fake-miracle-cure-covid-19-andThey’re popular with the RFK alternative health anti vax no COVID horse worm crowd. I know that you’d like to believe that they’d draw the line at fighting fluoride, a mineral that has proven repeatedly to be a public health miracle. I’d like to believe that too. I’d like to dismiss out of hand the idea that these people need to be stopped from drinking bleach. But we don’t live in that world, we live in the world where RFK’s alternative science alternative medicine conspiracy Christian nutters are drinking bleach. I do not dismiss the idea there is always a lunatic you can find under a rock somewhere. But even with fluoride in the water, this church is doing what you say. So let's not consider them in our worldview. Rabid opposition to public water fluoridation seems over the top. However, so does rabid defense of it to me. It may very well be a miracle. It remineralizes enamel so we don't die from our teeth in our 50s and 60s. But it's in toothpaste. We all have toothpaste and toothbrushes. And we also have the miracle of drills, anaesthetics, and polymers. Is there no risk in fluoride? There are studies of childhood IQ drops at like 3x the levels the US uses? We know fluoride, like anything, is toxic at the right levels. The question is how much and over how long. Seems fine to take a look at that to know whether the risk is worth it. On August 19 2025 17:32 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote:
Overmedicalization - US medicates under 18 for mental health at least twice as much as the 2nd highest countries. This is 100% big pharma at work. There is nothing in the DNA of American children that makes them doubly mentally unhealthy as everyone else. Twice the drugs going out doesn't make you twice as healthy. Which medication(s) exactly are of concern if I may ask? Statins, opioids, and SSRIs (or really anything psychiatric, like ritalin). Those are the worst from the standpoint of waste and individual and societal dependence. + Show Spoiler +Antibiotic overuse is also a problem because of resistance, but it's a worldwide problem because patients and doctors everywhere are stupid and doctors are rushed and everyone wants patients to feel better. It's not one that's US specific, the problems in the US are related to being one of the only countries with direct to consumer prescription advertising, and with the lucrative bonuses for unscrupulous overprescribing. Like what happened to precipitate the opioid crisis. The same perverse incentives don't exist for antibiotics to my knowledge, although I wouldn't put it past them either. When someone comes in with the sniffles, and you give them a generic cephalosporin, there are not exorbitant kickbacks for that. Nor are cephalosporin people on TV saying "Got the sniffles? Ask your doctor for our antibiotics" the way they do with statins.
So the issue of our antibiotics becoming useless and superbugs outpacing new drug developments is a problem, but the things the HHS report addresses when it suggests tightening direct to consumer advertising and prescription incentives are different, and their own separate issues. There is a small degree of credit to the notion that people who are sicker need more medicine. However, that's an argument again in favor of making them healthier earlier to begin with. StatinsNot overprescribed in adolescents/children. Much rather underprescribed. Very important medication, not viewed as a problem. OpioidsFrequently misused, including in adolescents. But not overprescribed to my knowledge. Benefit has been clearly proven. Can be viewed as a potential risk when taken outside of medical treatment. AntidepressantsNot overprescribed to my knowledge. Overall benefit is unclear, needs more research. May or may not be a risk. MethylphenidateNot misused. High prescription rate is not concerning. Benefit has been clearly proven. Cannot generally be viewed as a potential risk. AntibioticsOccasionally misused. High prescription rate is mildly concerning. Benefit has been very clearly proven. Can generally be viewed as a potential risk. Yes children almost never get statins. That's obvious. I got ahead of myself and was answering for the systemic problems in general. If you're asking for kids specifically it's mainly SSRIs and ADHD meds, stuff like that. Because the fact that communities are fragmented, all your peers are phone addicted and weed is more common than alcohol, and you have no connections or hugs, can be easily medicalized and fixed with a pill and you're always either on your parents' insurance or medicaid so it's like printing money for big pharma.
I don't think ADHD medication (e.g. methylphenidate) are a problem in general or in the US. Of course it can have side effects but those are minimal and addictive effects are also minimal. When prescribed by a pediatrician it's considered safe and effective. These are not the kinds of medications that people need to worry about.
SSRIs (antidepressants) are a more controversial topic. Side effects are more obvious and possibly long-term, which is why some concern is warranted. It's not an epidemic though I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
