I'm asking now, what if you're wrong in the root cause? There are a lot more people now than even in 1940. High population growth and better medical standards means even ridiculously young preemies have a chance of not dying. My point is nature and medicine have diverged. More people are living, more chances for errors.
To be clear I'm not saying I'm 100% right I'm saying we have enough lines of evidence to investigate it.
Personally, I wouldn't even focus on autism as a primary outcome. Partially because funding such studies would be expensive and time consuming.
I
nstead, I would highlight maternal health as a national priority and push non-pharma interventions for normalizing metabolic health.
If successful and maternal health improves, then next would be tracking rates of newly diagnosed autism resulting from healthier moms. This is already done so there's no additional expense here.
If rates hold steady, I'm wrong.
If rates decrease significantly, but rates are still high I'm partially right but there's other things contributing. Still a positive because it's situation one but some improvement and better understanding.
If rates plummet, we're on the right track and see what's left to address plus a healthier nation.
In the end it doesn't matter if I'm wrong if the focus is an overall good in itself. Decreased rates of genuine crippling autism would be a potential side effect, not the main focus. At worst you have healthier moms and can rule out one focus of study.
But none of this matters if instead the focus is put on some tiny aspect like red dye 40 instead of the larger scope, so I'm admittedly not that optimistic.
I've mostly seen from RFK Jr minor focuses on a very big problem. Fluoride, artificial dyes, items eligible for SNAP. All of these things are probably good, I'm not dooming here, but whether it could have a big enough impact to get answers to this question? I don't think those are enough alone.
Anyway some random round up stuff.
Some prayer before a press briefing.
A bird landed on doocy's head while he was in front of the Whitehouse on live TV. I could swear there was discussion about bird omens in the past thread...
Additionally, highlighting this weird exchange. Wired made a claim that was immediately rebuked. Do they even bother trying to verify the shit their "sources" pull out of their asshole?
Archive
I deserve for this statement, but I can only hope the same happens in Colorado. If this law survives legal challenges or other attempts to remove it, Democrats will use their success in Colorado as a template to destroy gun rights in other states, one by one, until they are weakened enough across the country to attempt again at the federal level and succeed.
