Friends, the latest Newsmaker Show is undoubtedly the answer to almost all of your prayers, except possibly the one for salvation, although some would say the jury is out on that one... Brian and I take a hard look at the economy and Americans' darkening mood about it, and what that portends for the presidential election. We also consider the escalating violence in Lebanon, the prospects for a resolution of the Russia-Ukraine War, the irrationality of TDS, the likely role of RFK, Jr. in a Trump administration, the future of the filibuster and Democratic court-packing schemes, and whether SCOTUS will be in the driver's seat this November. Holy cow! What a lineup. The ghost of Rush Limbaugh must be green with envy...
https://rumble.com/v5gaj85-wlea-newsmaker-september-25-2024-dr-nick-waddy.html
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the 9/25 Newsmaker broadcast:
ReplyDeleteRFK Jr. considers us the "most unhealthy country in the world". That is powerful nonsense , the like of which he expresses with troubling frequency and I think DJT ought to be very cautious in empowering him. Perhaps make him "Czar" of antiwokeness and let him bustle like a bull in a corral. Can't do no harm hassling those people.
It is of course widely perceived that the "American diet" as it were is unhealthy. Well: miraculous American prosperity and material well being is unprecedented and it may be that we do not understand its effects fully. "Prosperity Studies" might be a promising academic field were it not for the far left domination of the American academy which would no doubt turn such a discipline to characteristic, tiresome America hatred. We have more than enough food and endless variety both in foods generally perceived as good for us and those which are not so much so!!!!! That's not really the worst fix to be in. Entering an American supermarket presents one with a fantastic display of plenty and quality. What great good fortune we enjoy in this!
So what else is wrong with our health? Our medical care is ultramodern and ultraclean ;it routinely uses methods straight out of recent science fiction. It is not administered faultlessly but when one considers how some countries so ostensibly very devoted to "equality" have botched their sometimes already primitive medical systems: well, I think I'd just as soon submit myself to our system, thanx.
One only has to recall the piles of horse manure which reigned (or would that be "rained") down on the American conscience during and following the COVID pandemic to raise reasonable questions about our traditional medical care and treatment techniques.
ReplyDeleteOne only has to open their eyes to see the obesity and chronic disease epidemic our country is experiencing to see that RFK Jr is worth a listen.
It is sad that anyone would submit themselves to a system that is fraught with corruption, lies and void of a desire for true "wellness" without questioning what is really going on.
RAY TO RICHIE
DeleteRFK, JR. is definitely "worth a listen". He's already written a book about big Pharma and related issues, which makes him enemy number one for more than a few institutions and people here and there. In the end, the truth he is trying to get at has about the same chance of being exposed as the truth behind the assassinations of his Dad and his Uncle. Make that slim to zero.
Ray... Regarding any expose', I fear you're right, but I hope we're both wrong.
DeleteThough conservatives can find many points to disagree with RFKJ, his stand against the bullwork of Big Pharma and Big Food is heroic.
Despite attacks from even his own family, he is standing firm against what may be the most influential power inside our country. (Reminds me of someone else, BTW)
But (and this is important) his stand for a healthy America is on a plane that could cross party lines. Because of that (and admittedly, his left-of-center views on other issues), his involvement in the 2024 campaign could be the real, substantive difference in success for the GOP.
RFK Jr. 's stand is legit. He might be somewhat hyperbolic, but in my opinion, his cache on health is of greater caliber than any other potential crossover issue the left has in its chamber.
RAY TO RICHIE
DeleteI have high regard for RFK, Jr., and I hope he does expose the truth about Big Pharma and Big Food. However, if Trump does win, he needs to appoint RFK, Jr. to an office where he can do just that.
Ray... I am totally aboard that train!
DeleteRichie from Jack: My main objection was to what I consider RFK Jr.'s hyperbolically sweeping generalization about the state of our health.
ReplyDeleteYou are right: all of the concerns you raised are very legitimate and well worth serious consideration.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Again: I understand little about economics.But is it
ReplyDeletenot a good thing that China appears to be well integrated into the world economy? Perhaps that might be a disincentive to possible Chinese aggression (?) Eg. do they have much trade with Taiwan? Certainly they do with Japan, India and Australia and of course us, all of them otherwise possible foes. It would be hard thing to interrupt it.
I think I understand your point that Chinese economic difficulties might spell trouble for a world economy in which China is such an important factor. Is such a superbly individually entrepreneurial culture driven by a dynamic work ethic amenable to centralized control? When it was overdone by the commies it was catastrophic. Historically, China's economy was very uncentralized, except for physical infrastructure like canals. And China today still is, at heart, China.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Dem presumptuousness has reached new depths. "Why if we aren't winning, then we'll change the rules and if you object you are any one of a myriad of "isms" which condemn upon accusation". Now its filibuster they find consequently "unjust". Wow, they must be very certain they are going to take Congress! Gee but what if they fluff in Nov.?
ReplyDeleteOf course as soon as Scotus escaped their almost traditional dictatorial grasp, in which it served them well in forcing social change which could never have survived the legislative process, Scotus was held to be an implacable enemy of civilization itself and richly deserving of "fundamental transformation".
NY State's one party rule shows what happens when one party is able to impose its will and laugh at doubt or opposition. They get what they want whenever they want. In NY that is not for lack of filibuster but the effect is the same. Eg. Harris wants all of the states to embrace unfettered abortion and would be aided in imposing such a terrible stricture on us all by temporarily disabling filibuster (until, that is, such time as it is convenient for our antiamerican left redeemers to reestablish it).
Richie and Ray: Please elaborate on your concerns about Big Food. I just came back from the Great Plains. What an almost incredible agricultural engine that region is!
ReplyDeletePerhaps most terrible thing about want is lack of food. We have more than solved that problem in the US. What a miracle! What are its down sides in your opinion?
Oh boy, where do we start?
DeleteFirst, I am not an anti-big-business kind of guy unless and until they start taking advantage of their power to the detriment of their consumers. However, when it comes to the big food companies, that has happened in spades.
Here's just one article written in 2017 from NIH (an organization that one should be leery in trusting) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5737876/. A pull quote from that article states: "Today, there are more than 10,000 chemicals [4]—commonly referred to as food additives—allowed in food, which presents a critical challenge to the FDA's ability to effectively assess and manage the safety of all of these chemicals."
Then we see the wide-reaching use of:
-Glyphosate and GMO'd products
-Over abundant use of sugar in nearly everything
-Completely unnatural use of steroidal growth stimulants used with nearly any type of livestock and poultry.
-The latitude given to fast food companies in preparing and presenting their "food" products.
You don't have to look far to find abuses of what nature intended (or didn't) in our food supply and the disastrous results to our nation's health.
Richie from Jack: THanks for sending that link. I tried to call up the article but my device said it could not find it. Computers and I don't get along.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you have cited plausible empirical evidence of serious faults in our food system. To say that those faults (and others) can have disastrous results is believable.
But I would suggest that an overall assessment of a system as complex and ever changing due to new discoveries and an ever increasing, staggering amount of available information (in library school they taught us that medical info storage and retrieval was advanced beyond any other field of information science) should be evaluated on balance. It's almost fantastic benefits (compared to the past) must count against its shortcomings.
I'm wary when any influential prospective policy maker expresses comprehensive condemnation of a system as fundamental as our health care, as it appears to me RFK Jr. did. Had he the power over that or any other institution about which he had such overall doubt, would he attempt to work potentially disastrous radical change? Hillary tried to do that with health care; her frantic, incipiently dictatorial plans were deservedly defeated.
What's the opposite of wary? Unwary? Lean into?
DeleteLet's go with that. We should "lean into" politicians who speak out and seek the truth that goes counter to large industrial political donors and influencers in supposed arbiters of what's in the nations best interest of "health". If RFK Jr was purely a political animal, his stance on Big Pharma would be counterproductive to those ambitions.
What does RFK Jr have to gain by going counter to those industries' interests? Why would he put his political ambitions on the line while speaking out against those two seemingly innocuous, well-healed concerns (from the populist perspective)?
By the way, both "Health" (I loathe the use of that term in this context) and "Agribusiness" are among the top 10 political industry donors (to both parties by the way). Their combined $65 Million in 2023-24 doesn't necessarily make them bad actors. But again, what does the eye test reveal?
Just because a system is "complex" and "ever-changing" with a "staggering amount of available information," does that make it right or altruistic? Or, does it simply make it easier to deceive and manipulate the result?
If Covid didn't teach us any lessons, I'm not sure what will. It saddens me to see us continue to walk lock-step with what "new discoveries" have wrought.
Personally, I would love nothing more than for RFK Jr. to become the "policymaker" who advocates for "radical change" in our (holding my nose) "healthcare" system. It's desperately necessary.
And BTW, Anonymous... RFK Jr's efforts would bear NO resemblance to what Hillary tried to do!
Jack, as usual you are right: having too much food is a heck of a lot better than having not enough. And people come from all over the world to subject themselves to our "broken" health care system, so I think that tells you that its ministrations aren't all quackery. There are a lot of different ways to measure a country's "health", but I would suggest that life expectancy is a good one. We're not leading the pack, it's true, but most developed countries are bunched up around 75-80 years, and there's no evidence in our standing of a "crisis" in American health or health care.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
Having said all that, Richie is right that there is a tremendous amount of money sloshing around in our health care system and oodles of it is pure waste and profiteering. The overreliance on pharmaceuticals and the relative disinterest in diet and exercise is problematic. I would agree with Jack, though, that management of diet and exercise is mainly the responsibility of the individual. Most of us go to the doctor when something "breaks". It won't break as much or as badly if we take proper care of ourselves, and, in a free society, not everyone does.
Could RFK, Jr. contribute to a "healthy" and productive dialogue about America's health? He could try, and Trump could try to let him, but I have my doubts, because the corporate world, and its shills in the media, have clearly decided to burn his credibility to the ground. It's questionable if the Senate would confirm RFK, Jr. to an position of real influence. But at the very least Bobby and DJT together could open up a conversation worth having... And I would point out that ultimately NOTHING will change in this country unless the people take back power from corporations anyway.
As to RFK's "hyperbole", he's in good company there! Every politician portrays every problem as an existential crisis, and America as a morass of dysfunction. Well, they could all use a stiff drink, I say.
Jack, I sure don't pretend to understand the Chinese economy, much less how it has managed to grow by leaps and bounds for almost 50 years with nary a stumble. Clearly it's neither a fully command economy nor a laissez-faire one. I guess the question is whether the burdens of state mismanagement, waste, and possibly overproduction are becoming impossible to bear. But I agree that China's integration into a complex global economy will make it far less likely that the Chicoms will get itchy trigger fingers. They have much to lose.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take on food, Richie. That we are routinely eating things that nature never intended as "food" is a certainty. Exactly which of those things might be responsible for specific harms to public health is harder to nail down. My impression is that there's not a lot of evidence that the all-organic crowd fares much better in health outcomes than the omnivores, but prove me wrong and I'll happily reconsider.
Good point, Richie, that RFK, Jr. has little or nothing to gain by taking on Big Pharma, Big Food, etc., and he has already lost much by crossing these powerful interests. That alone doesn't make him right, though. Clearly, he gets a great sense of personal satisfaction from pontificating about a wide variety of issues, and, for a man who doesn't have to worry about putting food on the table (interesting question what Bobby eats!), that may be enough. I think the truth is that, with the vast majority of food additives, we just don't know the long-term effects. With sugar, by contrast, we do, and the overconsumption of sugar is a national tragedy...but a very delicious tragedy, so there's that.
Richie from Jack: I do not doubt RFK Jr.'s sincerity and good will. He has proven that by enduring painful public castigation from his own celebrated family.
ReplyDeleteWe know of course that most candidates cannot come close to fulfilling their intentions and promises. A candidate whose rhetoric strongly supports the expectation that he or she will in office lean toward the positions we desire is usually all we can ask. So the use of some exaggeration may not alone condemn a candidate. But too much is well, too much and to say the US is a predominantly physically sick country is, I think, hyperbolic to the point where it does raise serious concerns about RFK Jr.s judgement.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I would suggest that there is one political circumstance in which intense hyperbole is justified and that is when one is dealing with totalitarians. Total opposition , total resistance, total intolerance of such as the nazis or commies and their present devotees justifies much hyperbolic defense against them , including automatically judging them by their past evil. The last one hundred and twenty years have been a vast catastrophic laboratory for such appalling misconduct and the results are in. They MUST be overpowered lest we sink into what Churchill termed " a new Dark Age" . Though that term is a superlative and should be used advisedly he had intellectual and experiential authority enough to use that term very creditably.
ReplyDeleteRichie from Jack: No, I don't think that immensity and ever changing complexity alone confers virtue on an institution. But it does bid us exercise caution in changing it artificially. Attention is especially due to examples of counterintuitive consequences resulting from planning proven by experience to be wrong headed (Eg. in Canada), even if their overall structure is beneficial in many ways (again, like Canada). That standard must be applied to our health care system too but with restraint, lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater, as radicals delight in doing.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Jack... I was going to let this response go, but post read, compelled to post and potentially reply. Before jumping to conclusions, can you provide clarity on what you mean by:
Delete1. "bid us exercise caution in changing it artificially"?
2. Specifically what do you see as "wrong headed" and conversely "beneficial" in Canada's structure?
3. What you perceive as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater as radicals delight in doing"?
If you're open and willing, maybe we can continue with and understanding on your perspective.
Best regards,
Richie
Jack, let me get this straight -- you abhor hyperbole, but you adore Donald Trump? Have you ever listened to one of his speeches??? Egad!!!
ReplyDeleteI look forward to a more detailed discussion of the merits and demerits of our health care system. I fully intend to learn much from it, because I fully admit that I know very little about it. Talk about a multi-headed hydra!
Dr. Waddy and Richie from Jack : I neglected to read your concerns until now and I will be sure to honor them in one of the latest posts.
ReplyDeleteRichie from Jack: Very glad for discourse with you. 1. I think we should strongly consider allowing processes organic to our civilization (eg, the free market) to solve our problems before we turn to governmental remedies which often manifest counterintuitive artifice (eg. coddling of criminals). Far too often now (always on the left) we think that everything is the business of government. 2. The Canadian health system appears to be plagued by unconscionably long waits. But I also believe that when you do get their care it is top notch. 3. One of the prime lessons taught by the monstrous radical regimes of the 20th century was their willingness to destroy entire civilizations to make way for their unproven dreams. Chinese Communism was a good example. I see in the our far left the same conviction, especially in those institutions in which it already wields power (eg, the American academy, in which other than far left allegiance is ruinous to one's career; uncompromisingly enforced "wokeness"in many settings(eg. the military and law enforcement, secondary education, criminal law).
ReplyDeleteOur left manifests open reflexive and irresponsible intent to destroy most of the things America holds vital or cherished . They would probably willingly subject our medical professionals to dictation as to their specialities and locations. Same with the provision of medical care; they would probably ration it so that preference goes to politically exalted classes and the hindmost goes to the unforgiveably privileged(I.e. those who have earned medical care by pursuing constructive and positive employment and lifestyles). As always, far left rule would result in comprehensive equality of forced non well being (except for leftist cadre).
Thanx again for your questions. Sorry it took me so long.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I only disdain hyperbole when it is relied upon to bully and overpower opposite opinions, sans regard for creditable discourse. Yeah, sometimes DJT"s exposition at the podium is assinine. But ya gotta luv 'im. He's our guy and he's laboriously earned the honor.
ReplyDeleteOrganic, Free Market Jack:
ReplyDeleteWhat is "free market" about our "healthcare" system? (let's leave Canada's out of the equation because it's definitively less so and a pathetic case in point)
Would you define the role of the FDA, DHHS, and the NIH and all it's underling organizations (Institutes and Centers) controlled by pharmaceutical interests as resulting in a "free market"?
If the answer is even a marginal "yes", we, good sir, are not on even close to the same page of what a basic definition is for the term in question.
Richie from Jack: In my opinion, a market regulated with at least sensible intent can still be loosely termed a free market if only to differentiate it from comprehensive centrally controlled systems. A truly free market does not exist exist save in some places where barter still prevails. So, to question my use of the term free market is plausible and creditable. It's my opinion and I don't know very much about economics.
ReplyDeleteRichie from Jack: With that caveat (and perhaps others of which I am ignorant) I would still urge the primacy of organic (non governmental) functions over reflexive government control. Eg. In our civilization it is organic that individually demonstrated merit should be the rationale for advancement, not membership at birth in exalted or proscribed classes. Also: criminals are bad, the law abiding are good and a healthy society honors the grim reality that despite its potential for injustice (false accusation and/or conviction) that must be the model. Etc, etc . . . all of which appear to be targeted for destruction by antiamerica.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jack that market solutions generally work better than central diktats. I agree with Richie that the current health care system is, at best, quasi-market-based. The government closely regulates all aspects of the system, and it pays at least half the bills. Ergo, nothing happens in American health care without the government's say-so, and nothing happens in government, generally speaking, without key lobbies signing off, including insurance companies, drug companies, etc etc. Ironically, it's the customers/taxpayers who arguably have the least leverage.
ReplyDelete