Nothing crazy about RFK Jr. he just knows more than you do and he's not afraid to share his ideas in an effort to help people live better. It doesn't take any guts to believe the "approved narrative" and mock people who think for themselves.
HereтАЩs a list of some fascinating historical figures whose ideas were initially mocked, suppressed, or dismissedтАФand though their work was later proven correct, many of them never lived to see full vindication. ---
No doubt you will not ever make a list like this....but RFK Jr. will:
1. **Ignaz Semmelweis тАУ Handwashing in Medicine**
- **Idea:** Doctors should wash their hands before assisting in childbirth to prevent childbed fever.
- **Reaction:** He was ridiculed, rejected by the medical establishment, and eventually committed to an asylum.
- **Outcome:** After his death, germ theory proved him right. Handwashing became a medical standard.
- **Vindication:** Posthumous, but never personally vindicated or honored in his time.
---
2. **Nikola Tesla тАУ Wireless Energy & Inventions Beyond His Era**
- **Idea:** Free wireless energy, wireless communication, and other radical innovations.
- **Reaction:** Labeled eccentric, undermined by competitors like Edison and JP Morgan, died penniless.
- **Outcome:** Many of his ideas laid the foundation for modern technologies (radio, remote control, wireless).
- **Vindication:** Pop culture reveres him now, but he died largely unrecognized for his contributions.
---
3. **Giordano Bruno тАУ Infinite Universe & Multiple Worlds**
- **Idea:** The universe is infinite and contains many worlds with life.
- **Reaction:** Burned at the stake for heresy in 1600 by the Inquisition.
- **Outcome:** Modern astronomy supports the notion of countless galaxies and potentially habitable planets.
- **Vindication:** Celebrated centuries later, but brutally punished in his lifetime.
---
4. **Barry Marshall тАУ Bacteria Cause Stomach Ulcers**
- **Idea:** *Helicobacter pylori* causes peptic ulcers, not stress or spicy food.
- **Reaction:** Laughed out of conferences, rejected by medical authorities.
- **Outcome:** Proved it by drinking the bacteria himself and developing gastritis; eventually won the Nobel Prize.
- **Vindication:** He was vindicated in his lifetime, but only after intense resistance and self-experimentation.
---
5. **John Snow тАУ Cholera is Waterborne**
- **Idea:** Cholera spreads through contaminated water.
- **Reaction:** Medical community rejected germ theory; he was ignored.
- **Outcome:** His mapping of a cholera outbreak eventually influenced modern epidemiology.
- **Vindication:** Credited later, but dismissed during the 1854 outbreak when he couldтАЩve saved more lives.
- **Reaction:** Widely ridiculed by geologists; lacked mechanism for movement.
- **Outcome:** Plate tectonics later proved him right.
- **Vindication:** Only decades after his death in 1930.
---
7. **Rachel Carson тАУ Environmental Hazards of Pesticides**
- **Idea:** Pesticides like DDT were destroying ecosystems and harming human health.
- **Reaction:** Attacked as hysterical and anti-progress by chemical industry and media.
- **Outcome:** Her work sparked the environmental movement and led to bans on DDT.
- **Vindication:** Recognized eventually, but faced extreme backlash in her time.
---
8. **Alan Turing тАУ Foundations of Modern Computing**
- **Idea:** Theoretical basis for computers and artificial intelligence.
- **Reaction:** Despite wartime contributions, he was prosecuted for homosexuality and chemically castrated.
- **Outcome:** His work underpins all modern computers and AI.
- **Vindication:** Received posthumous royal pardon in 2013; died tragically in 1954.
The Truth is more complicated than the sound bite lie (that you feed on). The sound bite lie makes it around the world 3x before the Truth gets out of bed.
RFK Jr. has it all figured out, imma right? Vaccines definitely cause autism. He'll be hailed as a revolutionary genius one day, on a par with Tesla and Turing. The countless studies showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism will be soundly discredited. You wait and see! Imma right?
What about the countless studies showing that there is a link between vaccines and autism that have been censored. Those are the ones that matter. Imma right? Troll much?
Retraction isnтАЩt censorship, ya big dummy. Even Wakefield's garbage "study" is still publicly available for anyone who wants to read it. No oneтАЩs censoring you. You're just mad your nonsense isn't being taken seriously. Screeching "censorship!" is the last refuge of the chronically wrong.
RFK Jr. is a quack. He wants to ban phones in schools not because theyтАЩre anathema to learning but because he thinks radio waves fry your brain. ItтАЩs a shame that MattтАЩs comments are full of right wing lunatics, but 95% of the populace are now lunatics of some variety so I guess itтАЩs unavoidable
RFK Jr is the quack. His supporters are merely ignorant. Oh, I'm sure a fair number of RFK Jr's apologists are also delusional and frighteningly unstable (most probably borderline unhinged my own research shows), but who's keeping track at this point?
Personally, I can barely afford the ink or parchment necessary for the project.
Calling people names doesn't dispute their arguments. It just means you have no counter argument.
In one post you called people you disagree with quacks + ignorant + apologists + delusional + unstable + unhinged.
I would say that is the lazy way out of the discussion.
You do know the definition of ignorant, right?
Ignorant is lacking knowledge or awareness in general;
I would say that those calling RFK Jr. and people who think similarly to him ignorant do not know what the word means.
I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true.
The average person listens to propaganda all day long and then when a person dares to step outside of the "narrative" and shares alternative findings, that person is called a "quack" or some other name by people who can't think outside of the "narrative" propaganda hive mind.
"Propaganda is information, often biased or misleading, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view. ItтАЩs designed to influence emotions and opinions, typically through selective facts, exaggeration, or manipulation, rather than fostering critical thinking. Historically, itтАЩs been used by governments, organizations, or individuals to shape public perceptionтАФthink wartime posters or modern social media campaigns. ItтАЩs not always outright lies; sometimes itтАЩs just a heavily skewed narrative."
From my experience people get called quacks because they're quacks.
"I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true."
Now you're singling out the entire Republican caucus and that's not fair.
You weren't having a discussion. You were dismissing RFK Jr. and people who support his message as quacks without saying why his/their message was quacky. That's not a discussion. If you can't say why something is quacky with facts and you use name calling as your tactic you will not be taking seriously. I wouldn't waste my time responding to someone I disagreed with without presenting facts with sources otherwise it is considered trolling or inciting and not actually adding to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Unironically yes. There are perhaps six sane, rational journalists in all of American media; the same ratio holds true for anyone else in the Anglosphere who follows politics to any degree.
Thank heavens you're there to keep tabs on everything for the rest of us, at least as long as you haven't been consumed by the Anglophone Succubus who preys upon men of piety and rectitude such as yourself.
It's 2025 Lanny and if you don't know that EMFs from cell phones/towers have some type of affect on human brains and CNS (thanks to the poor little rats that came before us) well then you are an Ostrich.
It's really easy these days to disprove nay sayers who love to parrot the "official narrative".
You call people who think for themselves lunatics and free thinkers call people like you who parrot the "official narrative" NPCs that are slow to the ever changing times.
You can't dismiss someone as a quack when there is scientific evidence to prove what they say is true. That is ignoring and gaslighting - very troll like behaviors.
Here are several key scientific studies that have investigated the potential negative impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by cell phones on the human body and brain:
1. Increased Brain Glucose Metabolism
Study: A study published in JAMA found that 50-minute exposure to cell phone RF-EMFs increased glucose metabolism in brain regions closest to the antenna. тАЛ
Implication: This suggests that cell phone radiation can affect brain activity, although the clinical significance remains unclear.тАЛ
2. Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption in Rats
Study: Research led by neurosurgeon Leif Salford demonstrated that GSM cell phone radiation caused albumin leakage through the blood-brain barrier in rats, leading to neuronal damage. тАЛ
WIRED
Implication: These findings raise concerns about potential long-term effects of cell phone radiation on human brain health.тАЛ
3. Systematic Review of Adverse Health Effects
Study: A systematic review in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine reported that cell phone radiation exposure could lead to various health issues, including oxidative stress, DNA fragmentation, and hormonal changes. тАЛ
Implication: The review highlights the need for further research into the biological effects of EMF exposure.тАЛ
4. Genotoxic Effects and Brain Tumor Risk
Study: An article in Environmental Research discussed studies indicating that long-term cell phone use might be associated with an increased risk of brain tumors, such as glioblastoma. тАЛ
Then there is the whole mental health aspect that RFK Jr. mentions and that is to be concerned about as well.
In The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt explores how smartphones and social media have contributed to a mental health crisis among Generation Z. He identifies four primary harms associated with smartphone use:тАЛ
CASSY+3WSJ+3New York Post+3
The Human Journey
Social Deprivation: Reduced face-to-face interactions leading to weakened social bonds.тАЛ
Sleep Deprivation: Disrupted sleep patterns due to screen time, especially before bedtime.тАЛ
Sherwood News+2CASSY+2The Human Journey+2
Attention Fragmentation: Constant notifications and multitasking impairing the ability to focus.тАЛ
Addiction: Design features of apps fostering compulsive usage patterns.тАЛ
Haidt cites studies indicating that adolescent girls spending over five hours daily on social media are significantly more likely to experience depression. He also references research showing that the introduction of platforms like Facebook correlated with increased anxiety and depression among college students. тАЛ
New York Post+5CASSY+5The Guardian+5
Critics of Haidt's work argue that the evidence linking smartphone use to mental health issues is correlational rather than causal. Some researchers suggest that the observed associations might be influenced by other factors, such as socioeconomic status or pre-existing mental health conditions. тАЛ
Sherwood News
Despite the debate, Haidt advocates for measures like delaying smartphone and social media use until later adolescence, promoting phone-free schools, and encouraging real-world social interactions to mitigate potential harms.тАЛ
Because they know their jobs are dependent on how he votes. The same goes for the aerospace industry, the teachers unions, the autoworkers, etc. The employers run campaigns in-house to influence politicians who vote to approve or disapprove what the corporation needs for the bottom line and the employee needs to keep his paycheck coming - the next big contract, the next rule-change that gives the company an edge. Apparently, pharmaceutical companies are good at this.
That's called bundling and it's due to campaign donation laws that put limits on individual donations.
Instead the corporations encourage (?) their workers to write checks and they make sure the recipients know where that money came from. Some even collect them and hand them in a "bundle" (not always legal but who's checking) to the targeted politician with a key vote so no imagination or speculation is needed as to the source.
A majority of his fundraising comes from small-dollar donations, and Senate races get more money spent on them than House races do. HeтАЩs probably in the top 5 Congresspeople for most industries.
Some other people in the thread say those ActBlue contributions are faked, that they come from big institutions misusing their employeesтАЩ names. IтАЩve never heard of such an accusation but it seems preposterous to me, particularly when applied to a self-proclaimed socialist.
I have never donated to a Sanders campaign, and I'm sure anyone who has must be mightily disappointed. I can't believe he's still stumping because it suggests that he must think his reputation is salvageable.
But then I suppose there may be some people out there who still fall for the fake populism of the former Democratic Party butt-boy.
I dunno, Bull, doesn't seem like the big, enthusiastic crowds Sanders draws are "mightily disappointed" with anything at all.
Maybe all the properly disappointed Sanders donors are avoiding the rallies, not wanting to rub shoulders with the cheap bastard Sanders supporters in their Birkenstocks and wool socks who write $5 checks and probably could be counted on (if not properly supervised) to swallow a few foamy steins of "fake populism" from, hell, even William Jennings Bryan.
Sanders has his faults, certainly, and plenty of detractors, but the bulk of the more jaundiced ones can be found in places like the comment sections of sites like Taibbi's who desperately want to believe Sanders has a reputation in need of "salvaging."
The latter site also alleges much higher donations from pharma, but unclear of the evidence or time frame involved (or the reliability of motivation of that site).
Correct me if I am wrong, but most of Bernie Sanders wealth is in real estate that he purchased years ago. A vacation home in Vermont 40 years ago would cost probably in the neighborhood of $50,000 , but would be worth over 1 million today. The same for any other home bought many years ago. The same with the stock market. If Bernie has been putting in even a small amount of his earnings into the market over the past 50 years, those funds would generate millions of dollars at the 11% per annum growth rate of stocks in general.
Bernie and his wife, an earner in her own right, are both over 80 years of age and I am sure that the assets they accumulated over the past half century have soared in value astronomically. It is shear speculation to conclude he came by his modest wealth dishonestly. I say тАЬmodest тАЬ wealth because it is dwarfed by the billions of dollars our two political partiesтАЩ friends and donors have come by through hook or crook since say NAFTA and the WTO came into existence. Take for instance, Jared Kushner or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or our current president or Elon Musk or all the rest. Take for instance Charles Schwab, who made $2.5 billion in one day when Trump tanked the market and then changed course a few days later to call off his tariffs( DonтАЩt take my word for it, president. Trump bragged about it at his press conference). BernieтАЩs just a common peasant compared to them. HeтАЩs like us.
Concerning BernieтАЩs position on strategic tariffs and a minimum wages for our working population, you might want to check his website or any reputable news agency to find out where he really stands. YouтАЩll see he is for tariffs if properly applied to protect American industry and working people and always has been and he is the person who is introducing and has been introducing legislation for at least $17 an hour wage to deal with all the inflation being caused by President Trump, his party and the Democratic party. Not to mention affordable health care.
In short, find out the facts before you start ad hominem attacks against one of the few persons in Washington who has shown respect for his duty to his fellow Americans. IтАЩm sure the oligarchs donтАЩt mind you bad mouthing and marginalizing him, but I hope youтАЩre not a tool for them and will use your own independent faculties before expressing as fact what is a lie.
I know the minimal gains of the stock market are supposedly 11% but I'd bet it's a rare fund that has averaged that for the last 20 years. Certainly none of the funds I've been in have. Not even close, and I invest aggressively. So Sanders must have really good advice if he made his money that way. But as you say, if his wealth comes in at the low end ($3m) it's not really much for a man in his position (though still much better than most of us).
However it happened, it could be unravelled if anyone wanted it unravelled. That it isn't is telling. If he was making IRA donations since the age of 18, it would be a wonderful story for everyone to emulate.
Why characterize Sanders' royalties as "a bit extreme?" Author's royalties are exclusively a function of sales.
If Sanders' wealth offends you, and if it's your belief that the senator is undeserving of such remuneration for his literary efforts, I would urge you to take it up with with his publishers and cavil with them, or buttonhole a few of his readers as they exit the bookstore with one of his books, demanding an explanation as to why in god's name people are buying and reading books written by this deviant Marxist from Soviet Vermont? What gives?
Perhaps even get to work on a book yourself offering a few salient reasons why the hispid, undoubtedly hirsute commie-hick senator from Vermont is properly seen (as you seem to suggest) volunteering in a soup kitchen rather than touring the country crassly hawking his literary wares. Not to mention bending the knee to BOTH Mammon AND Hermes. The ideer!
And what does the fact that a person is a socialist have to do with book sales? Are you intimating that the socialist senator from Vermont ought to give away his hard-earned royalties to the less deserving to better establish his "socialist" bona fides?
And there are dozens of websites and news organizations--- from Forbes to USAToday---that offer up details of Sanders' wealth and income---how much dough he's accumulated over the course of his life, where he got his dough, what sort of fancy stuff he owns---that sort of thing.
I never said his royalties were extreme. I doubt he made the bulk of 15 million off them though, and I suggested 15m was a bit extreme for as man of Bernie's means. I also said I was sceptical of the source that quoted that figure (15m), most quote the much lower figure of 3m.
Let's say you're right that socialists can't be rich and that Bernie's a hypocrite. What's your point? That Bernie's a hypocrite? That's a pitiably trivial conclusion. Incidentally, have you heard of the tu quoque fallacy? I despise fallacy bombs, but look it up.
It was an observation I made in passing, while trying to be open minded about whether Bernie was in fact getting massive campaign funding, or worse, getting rich, from pharma donations. If the higher end reports of Bernie's net worth are true, that does indeed seem hypocritical. It's not an argument against socialism, but are you saying that highlighting hypocrisy is not a valid exercise (because it's trivial)?
Most people allege hypocrisy as a way to dismiss their opponent's argument. That's fallacious. Bernie might be a hypocrite (very few of us aren't), but nothing of interest follows from that. It certainly doesn't follow that he's wrong about what he believes would make the US better. Highlighting hypocrisy is usually an exercise in sophistry, a way to score cheap points.
I think it's still worth highlighting in politicians and leaders. We're all guilty of it, but not all to the same degree, so it is a reflection of character. Clearly, we don't place much emphasis on character though. And if one were to, it would be hypocritical to hold opponents to different standards than those whom one supports, so, you give a very fair reminder.
ActBlue is about to be blown up. You can't serve as a money laundering operation by not requiring CVV #'s off credit cards while taking in hundreds of millions of credit card donations, many from offshore bundlers and governments trying to hid their political influence on our elections.
In small-dollar donations from rank and file employees, not from CEOs or lobbyists. Bernie is a weakling but this point is invalid
It's Act Blue. A lot of those small donors don't know that their name is being used to spread out the con.
Exactly. Probably the biggest money-laundering scheme for political donations ever.
Ya, if you don't count Trump and a few thousand others...
RFKjr disagrees with you and said so to Bernie's face in his nomination hearing. Now THAT was balls and I have to think RFKjr has the goods on Bernie!
Or maybe RFK Jr is just still batshit crazy...
Nothing crazy about RFK Jr. he just knows more than you do and he's not afraid to share his ideas in an effort to help people live better. It doesn't take any guts to believe the "approved narrative" and mock people who think for themselves.
HereтАЩs a list of some fascinating historical figures whose ideas were initially mocked, suppressed, or dismissedтАФand though their work was later proven correct, many of them never lived to see full vindication. ---
No doubt you will not ever make a list like this....but RFK Jr. will:
1. **Ignaz Semmelweis тАУ Handwashing in Medicine**
- **Idea:** Doctors should wash their hands before assisting in childbirth to prevent childbed fever.
- **Reaction:** He was ridiculed, rejected by the medical establishment, and eventually committed to an asylum.
- **Outcome:** After his death, germ theory proved him right. Handwashing became a medical standard.
- **Vindication:** Posthumous, but never personally vindicated or honored in his time.
---
2. **Nikola Tesla тАУ Wireless Energy & Inventions Beyond His Era**
- **Idea:** Free wireless energy, wireless communication, and other radical innovations.
- **Reaction:** Labeled eccentric, undermined by competitors like Edison and JP Morgan, died penniless.
- **Outcome:** Many of his ideas laid the foundation for modern technologies (radio, remote control, wireless).
- **Vindication:** Pop culture reveres him now, but he died largely unrecognized for his contributions.
---
3. **Giordano Bruno тАУ Infinite Universe & Multiple Worlds**
- **Idea:** The universe is infinite and contains many worlds with life.
- **Reaction:** Burned at the stake for heresy in 1600 by the Inquisition.
- **Outcome:** Modern astronomy supports the notion of countless galaxies and potentially habitable planets.
- **Vindication:** Celebrated centuries later, but brutally punished in his lifetime.
---
4. **Barry Marshall тАУ Bacteria Cause Stomach Ulcers**
- **Idea:** *Helicobacter pylori* causes peptic ulcers, not stress or spicy food.
- **Reaction:** Laughed out of conferences, rejected by medical authorities.
- **Outcome:** Proved it by drinking the bacteria himself and developing gastritis; eventually won the Nobel Prize.
- **Vindication:** He was vindicated in his lifetime, but only after intense resistance and self-experimentation.
---
5. **John Snow тАУ Cholera is Waterborne**
- **Idea:** Cholera spreads through contaminated water.
- **Reaction:** Medical community rejected germ theory; he was ignored.
- **Outcome:** His mapping of a cholera outbreak eventually influenced modern epidemiology.
- **Vindication:** Credited later, but dismissed during the 1854 outbreak when he couldтАЩve saved more lives.
---
6. **Alfred Wegener тАУ Continental Drift**
- **Idea:** Continents move (continental drift theory).
- **Reaction:** Widely ridiculed by geologists; lacked mechanism for movement.
- **Outcome:** Plate tectonics later proved him right.
- **Vindication:** Only decades after his death in 1930.
---
7. **Rachel Carson тАУ Environmental Hazards of Pesticides**
- **Idea:** Pesticides like DDT were destroying ecosystems and harming human health.
- **Reaction:** Attacked as hysterical and anti-progress by chemical industry and media.
- **Outcome:** Her work sparked the environmental movement and led to bans on DDT.
- **Vindication:** Recognized eventually, but faced extreme backlash in her time.
---
8. **Alan Turing тАУ Foundations of Modern Computing**
- **Idea:** Theoretical basis for computers and artificial intelligence.
- **Reaction:** Despite wartime contributions, he was prosecuted for homosexuality and chemically castrated.
- **Outcome:** His work underpins all modern computers and AI.
- **Vindication:** Received posthumous royal pardon in 2013; died tragically in 1954.
The Truth is more complicated than the sound bite lie (that you feed on). The sound bite lie makes it around the world 3x before the Truth gets out of bed.
RFK Jr. has it all figured out, imma right? Vaccines definitely cause autism. He'll be hailed as a revolutionary genius one day, on a par with Tesla and Turing. The countless studies showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism will be soundly discredited. You wait and see! Imma right?
What about the countless studies showing that there is a link between vaccines and autism that have been censored. Those are the ones that matter. Imma right? Troll much?
Retraction isnтАЩt censorship, ya big dummy. Even Wakefield's garbage "study" is still publicly available for anyone who wants to read it. No oneтАЩs censoring you. You're just mad your nonsense isn't being taken seriously. Screeching "censorship!" is the last refuge of the chronically wrong.
RFK Jr. is a quack. He wants to ban phones in schools not because theyтАЩre anathema to learning but because he thinks radio waves fry your brain. ItтАЩs a shame that MattтАЩs comments are full of right wing lunatics, but 95% of the populace are now lunatics of some variety so I guess itтАЩs unavoidable
Everyone is crazy but you, right? ЁЯдФ
RFK Jr is the quack. His supporters are merely ignorant. Oh, I'm sure a fair number of RFK Jr's apologists are also delusional and frighteningly unstable (most probably borderline unhinged my own research shows), but who's keeping track at this point?
Personally, I can barely afford the ink or parchment necessary for the project.
Calling people names doesn't dispute their arguments. It just means you have no counter argument.
In one post you called people you disagree with quacks + ignorant + apologists + delusional + unstable + unhinged.
I would say that is the lazy way out of the discussion.
You do know the definition of ignorant, right?
Ignorant is lacking knowledge or awareness in general;
I would say that those calling RFK Jr. and people who think similarly to him ignorant do not know what the word means.
I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true.
The average person listens to propaganda all day long and then when a person dares to step outside of the "narrative" and shares alternative findings, that person is called a "quack" or some other name by people who can't think outside of the "narrative" propaganda hive mind.
"Propaganda is information, often biased or misleading, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view. ItтАЩs designed to influence emotions and opinions, typically through selective facts, exaggeration, or manipulation, rather than fostering critical thinking. Historically, itтАЩs been used by governments, organizations, or individuals to shape public perceptionтАФthink wartime posters or modern social media campaigns. ItтАЩs not always outright lies; sometimes itтАЩs just a heavily skewed narrative."
And exactly what argument am I disputing here?
We're having a discussion?
From my experience people get called quacks because they're quacks.
"I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true."
Now you're singling out the entire Republican caucus and that's not fair.
You weren't having a discussion. You were dismissing RFK Jr. and people who support his message as quacks without saying why his/their message was quacky. That's not a discussion. If you can't say why something is quacky with facts and you use name calling as your tactic you will not be taking seriously. I wouldn't waste my time responding to someone I disagreed with without presenting facts with sources otherwise it is considered trolling or inciting and not actually adding to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Unironically yes. There are perhaps six sane, rational journalists in all of American media; the same ratio holds true for anyone else in the Anglosphere who follows politics to any degree.
Thank heavens you're there to keep tabs on everything for the rest of us, at least as long as you haven't been consumed by the Anglophone Succubus who preys upon men of piety and rectitude such as yourself.
IтАЩm probably in the lower half of people you should listen to for an accurate view of the world, but IтАЩm several deciles above RFK Jr.
Most roadkill have a more accurate view of the world than RFK Jr.
Your comments are nonsense/silliness and add no value - why bother?
Exactly!
So you think those waves are good for brains?
Especially young brains.
There is no scientific evidence that suggests them waves is good OR bad...
It's 2025 Lanny and if you don't know that EMFs from cell phones/towers have some type of affect on human brains and CNS (thanks to the poor little rats that came before us) well then you are an Ostrich.
It's really easy these days to disprove nay sayers who love to parrot the "official narrative".
You call people who think for themselves lunatics and free thinkers call people like you who parrot the "official narrative" NPCs that are slow to the ever changing times.
You can't dismiss someone as a quack when there is scientific evidence to prove what they say is true. That is ignoring and gaslighting - very troll like behaviors.
Here are several key scientific studies that have investigated the potential negative impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by cell phones on the human body and brain:
1. Increased Brain Glucose Metabolism
Study: A study published in JAMA found that 50-minute exposure to cell phone RF-EMFs increased glucose metabolism in brain regions closest to the antenna. тАЛ
JAMA Network+1PubMed+1 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/645813?utm_source=chatgpt.com - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28426166/
Implication: This suggests that cell phone radiation can affect brain activity, although the clinical significance remains unclear.тАЛ
2. Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption in Rats
Study: Research led by neurosurgeon Leif Salford demonstrated that GSM cell phone radiation caused albumin leakage through the blood-brain barrier in rats, leading to neuronal damage. тАЛ
WIRED
Implication: These findings raise concerns about potential long-term effects of cell phone radiation on human brain health.тАЛ
3. Systematic Review of Adverse Health Effects
Study: A systematic review in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine reported that cell phone radiation exposure could lead to various health issues, including oxidative stress, DNA fragmentation, and hormonal changes. тАЛ
PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38783888/
Implication: The review highlights the need for further research into the biological effects of EMF exposure.тАЛ
4. Genotoxic Effects and Brain Tumor Risk
Study: An article in Environmental Research discussed studies indicating that long-term cell phone use might be associated with an increased risk of brain tumors, such as glioblastoma. тАЛ
ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393512200648X?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Implication: While findings are mixed, some studies suggest a potential link between prolonged EMF exposure and cancer risk.тАЛ
Different methods for evaluating the effects of microwave radiation exposure on the nervous system
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000939?via%3Dihub#sec0035
Unemployment's a bitch, I know.
You know nothing, obviously.
Then there is the whole mental health aspect that RFK Jr. mentions and that is to be concerned about as well.
In The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt explores how smartphones and social media have contributed to a mental health crisis among Generation Z. He identifies four primary harms associated with smartphone use:тАЛ
CASSY+3WSJ+3New York Post+3
The Human Journey
Social Deprivation: Reduced face-to-face interactions leading to weakened social bonds.тАЛ
Sleep Deprivation: Disrupted sleep patterns due to screen time, especially before bedtime.тАЛ
Sherwood News+2CASSY+2The Human Journey+2
Attention Fragmentation: Constant notifications and multitasking impairing the ability to focus.тАЛ
Addiction: Design features of apps fostering compulsive usage patterns.тАЛ
People.com+3CASSY+3The Human Journey+3
Haidt cites studies indicating that adolescent girls spending over five hours daily on social media are significantly more likely to experience depression. He also references research showing that the introduction of platforms like Facebook correlated with increased anxiety and depression among college students. тАЛ
New York Post+5CASSY+5The Guardian+5
Critics of Haidt's work argue that the evidence linking smartphone use to mental health issues is correlational rather than causal. Some researchers suggest that the observed associations might be influenced by other factors, such as socioeconomic status or pre-existing mental health conditions. тАЛ
Sherwood News
Despite the debate, Haidt advocates for measures like delaying smartphone and social media use until later adolescence, promoting phone-free schools, and encouraging real-world social interactions to mitigate potential harms.тАЛ
New York Post
Welcome to America!
Why is it that Bernie gets so much money from rank and file employees of pharma companies?
Because they know their jobs are dependent on how he votes. The same goes for the aerospace industry, the teachers unions, the autoworkers, etc. The employers run campaigns in-house to influence politicians who vote to approve or disapprove what the corporation needs for the bottom line and the employee needs to keep his paycheck coming - the next big contract, the next rule-change that gives the company an edge. Apparently, pharmaceutical companies are good at this.
That's called bundling and it's due to campaign donation laws that put limits on individual donations.
Instead the corporations encourage (?) their workers to write checks and they make sure the recipients know where that money came from. Some even collect them and hand them in a "bundle" (not always legal but who's checking) to the targeted politician with a key vote so no imagination or speculation is needed as to the source.
He doesn't.
A majority of his fundraising comes from small-dollar donations, and Senate races get more money spent on them than House races do. HeтАЩs probably in the top 5 Congresspeople for most industries.
Some other people in the thread say those ActBlue contributions are faked, that they come from big institutions misusing their employeesтАЩ names. IтАЩve never heard of such an accusation but it seems preposterous to me, particularly when applied to a self-proclaimed socialist.
If it's true that "a majority of his fundraising comes from small-dollar donations," it's also true that there's a sucker born every minute.
It's called "Bundling". Look it up.
Meant to get around those pesky laws limiting campaign contributions.
Which means Bull will be celebrating his birthday any minute now.
I have never donated to a Sanders campaign, and I'm sure anyone who has must be mightily disappointed. I can't believe he's still stumping because it suggests that he must think his reputation is salvageable.
But then I suppose there may be some people out there who still fall for the fake populism of the former Democratic Party butt-boy.
I dunno, Bull, doesn't seem like the big, enthusiastic crowds Sanders draws are "mightily disappointed" with anything at all.
Maybe all the properly disappointed Sanders donors are avoiding the rallies, not wanting to rub shoulders with the cheap bastard Sanders supporters in their Birkenstocks and wool socks who write $5 checks and probably could be counted on (if not properly supervised) to swallow a few foamy steins of "fake populism" from, hell, even William Jennings Bryan.
Sanders has his faults, certainly, and plenty of detractors, but the bulk of the more jaundiced ones can be found in places like the comment sections of sites like Taibbi's who desperately want to believe Sanders has a reputation in need of "salvaging."
I'd like to see evidence to back up allegations of ActBlue abuse.
Estimates of Bernie's wealth range from $3m to $15m (https://publicistpaper.com/bernie-sanders-net-worth-in-2025-a-look-at-the-financial-life-of-americas-progressive-senator/). If he's getting most of this from book royalties, fair enough I suppose, but at the high end this is a bit extreme for an author and self proclaimed socialist.
The latter site also alleges much higher donations from pharma, but unclear of the evidence or time frame involved (or the reliability of motivation of that site).
Correct me if I am wrong, but most of Bernie Sanders wealth is in real estate that he purchased years ago. A vacation home in Vermont 40 years ago would cost probably in the neighborhood of $50,000 , but would be worth over 1 million today. The same for any other home bought many years ago. The same with the stock market. If Bernie has been putting in even a small amount of his earnings into the market over the past 50 years, those funds would generate millions of dollars at the 11% per annum growth rate of stocks in general.
Bernie and his wife, an earner in her own right, are both over 80 years of age and I am sure that the assets they accumulated over the past half century have soared in value astronomically. It is shear speculation to conclude he came by his modest wealth dishonestly. I say тАЬmodest тАЬ wealth because it is dwarfed by the billions of dollars our two political partiesтАЩ friends and donors have come by through hook or crook since say NAFTA and the WTO came into existence. Take for instance, Jared Kushner or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or our current president or Elon Musk or all the rest. Take for instance Charles Schwab, who made $2.5 billion in one day when Trump tanked the market and then changed course a few days later to call off his tariffs( DonтАЩt take my word for it, president. Trump bragged about it at his press conference). BernieтАЩs just a common peasant compared to them. HeтАЩs like us.
Concerning BernieтАЩs position on strategic tariffs and a minimum wages for our working population, you might want to check his website or any reputable news agency to find out where he really stands. YouтАЩll see he is for tariffs if properly applied to protect American industry and working people and always has been and he is the person who is introducing and has been introducing legislation for at least $17 an hour wage to deal with all the inflation being caused by President Trump, his party and the Democratic party. Not to mention affordable health care.
In short, find out the facts before you start ad hominem attacks against one of the few persons in Washington who has shown respect for his duty to his fellow Americans. IтАЩm sure the oligarchs donтАЩt mind you bad mouthing and marginalizing him, but I hope youтАЩre not a tool for them and will use your own independent faculties before expressing as fact what is a lie.
I know the minimal gains of the stock market are supposedly 11% but I'd bet it's a rare fund that has averaged that for the last 20 years. Certainly none of the funds I've been in have. Not even close, and I invest aggressively. So Sanders must have really good advice if he made his money that way. But as you say, if his wealth comes in at the low end ($3m) it's not really much for a man in his position (though still much better than most of us).
An index fund can get you that result. If you u
What ad hominem attack did I make?
While TDS is a fake syndrome, HDS and BDS are very real...seek medical attention.
You should pay attention ...
However it happened, it could be unravelled if anyone wanted it unravelled. That it isn't is telling. If he was making IRA donations since the age of 18, it would be a wonderful story for everyone to emulate.
Are you suggesting he can be accused of something and then has to prove his innocence?
Why characterize Sanders' royalties as "a bit extreme?" Author's royalties are exclusively a function of sales.
If Sanders' wealth offends you, and if it's your belief that the senator is undeserving of such remuneration for his literary efforts, I would urge you to take it up with with his publishers and cavil with them, or buttonhole a few of his readers as they exit the bookstore with one of his books, demanding an explanation as to why in god's name people are buying and reading books written by this deviant Marxist from Soviet Vermont? What gives?
Perhaps even get to work on a book yourself offering a few salient reasons why the hispid, undoubtedly hirsute commie-hick senator from Vermont is properly seen (as you seem to suggest) volunteering in a soup kitchen rather than touring the country crassly hawking his literary wares. Not to mention bending the knee to BOTH Mammon AND Hermes. The ideer!
And what does the fact that a person is a socialist have to do with book sales? Are you intimating that the socialist senator from Vermont ought to give away his hard-earned royalties to the less deserving to better establish his "socialist" bona fides?
And there are dozens of websites and news organizations--- from Forbes to USAToday---that offer up details of Sanders' wealth and income---how much dough he's accumulated over the course of his life, where he got his dough, what sort of fancy stuff he owns---that sort of thing.
No need for empty speculation.
I never said his royalties were extreme. I doubt he made the bulk of 15 million off them though, and I suggested 15m was a bit extreme for as man of Bernie's means. I also said I was sceptical of the source that quoted that figure (15m), most quote the much lower figure of 3m.
Let's say you're right that socialists can't be rich and that Bernie's a hypocrite. What's your point? That Bernie's a hypocrite? That's a pitiably trivial conclusion. Incidentally, have you heard of the tu quoque fallacy? I despise fallacy bombs, but look it up.
It was an observation I made in passing, while trying to be open minded about whether Bernie was in fact getting massive campaign funding, or worse, getting rich, from pharma donations. If the higher end reports of Bernie's net worth are true, that does indeed seem hypocritical. It's not an argument against socialism, but are you saying that highlighting hypocrisy is not a valid exercise (because it's trivial)?
Most people allege hypocrisy as a way to dismiss their opponent's argument. That's fallacious. Bernie might be a hypocrite (very few of us aren't), but nothing of interest follows from that. It certainly doesn't follow that he's wrong about what he believes would make the US better. Highlighting hypocrisy is usually an exercise in sophistry, a way to score cheap points.
I think it's still worth highlighting in politicians and leaders. We're all guilty of it, but not all to the same degree, so it is a reflection of character. Clearly, we don't place much emphasis on character though. And if one were to, it would be hypocritical to hold opponents to different standards than those whom one supports, so, you give a very fair reminder.
ActBlue is about to be blown up. You can't serve as a money laundering operation by not requiring CVV #'s off credit cards while taking in hundreds of millions of credit card donations, many from offshore bundlers and governments trying to hid their political influence on our elections.