Make America Healthy Again - Trump populism comes to health regulation (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

This is going to need a thread as we move forward - there are now clear signs that Trump supports a new, critical if not dubious approach on vaccination, and his HHS nominee RFK Jr. regularly espouses eating raw milk and raw meat . . . dietary components most experts agree are more dangerous than their heated counterparts.

Health is certainly one of those areas were anti-institutionalism and turning to popular influencers over medical science comes with genuine risk of harm.

Today Trump provided his most clear indication that he is a vaccine skeptic - claiming (falsely of course) that the USA doesn't "do as well" as other nations that use no vaccines at all.

 

[Dragon]

This could go in multiple threads

Microscopic plastics could raise risk of stroke and heart attack, study says​

Doctors have warned of potentially life-threatening effects from plastic pollution after finding a substantially raised risk of stroke, heart attack and earlier death in people whose blood vessels were contaminated with microscopic plastics.
Researchers in Naples examined fatty plaques removed from the blood vessels of patients with arterial disease and found that more than half had deposits contaminated with tiny particles of polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
Those whose plaques contained microplastics or nanoplastics were nearly five times more likely to suffer a stroke, heart attack or death from any cause over the following 34 months, compared with those whose plaques were free from plastic contamination.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-risk-of-stroke-and-heart-attack-study-says?




With the Trump administrations attack on the environment - what could possible go wrong....

 

[Lapaz]

I take PrEP and so do most of my gay friends. The benefits of providing generic PrEP far outway the cost and negatives of not providing it. I get my PrEP through my private health insurance, but if it is not legally mandatory that it be covered, then private insurance will not cover it either. You will be affecting millions of people in this country and it will no doubt lead to an AIDS epidemic. That's just the plain truth. I mean, if you want to kill off gay people, that's a way to do it.

I wish I understood why the underlying intent of every health initiative of this administration was to bring back every epidemic we've ever had.

Sexually transmitted diseases is a risk for everyone that doesn’t practice safe sex. I don’t think that justifies giving away medicine to reduce the risk of catching a disease. Condoms and testing your monogamous partner would prevent them. I don’t know what other meds are mandated, but I suspect there are some others that aren’t justified, and there may be some that should be.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Article goes on to mention that some studies gave shown lower soerm counts today than 50 years ago but there is some debate about the results

This feeds right into the masculinity crisis the right is so obsessed with
==============



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has declared a new “existential problem”: declining testosterone levels and sperm counts in teenage boys.

The 71-year-old baselessly suggested that testosterone levels in teens were being dwarfed by 68-year-old men during an appearance on Fox News’ Jesse Watters Primetime Tuesday to discuss the government’s plans to ban eight common artificial food dyes by the end of the year.

“The food our kids are eating today is not really food,” RFK Jr told host Jesse Watters, adding that the science surrounding the petroleum-based synthetic dyes has been “systematically suppressed.”

After touting his war on chronic disease and listing a raft of health issues faced by Americans, the nation’s top health official turned his attention to male fertility.

“We have fertility rates that are just spiraling. A teenager today, an American teenager, has less testosterone than a 68-year-old man,” RFK Jr, who revealed previously that he takes the hormone as part of his anti-aging protocol, said.……

RFK Jr claims teenage boys in America have less testosterone than 68 year-old men

‘A teenager today, an American teenager, has less testosterone than a 68-year-old man,’ the nation’s top health official tells Fox News host Jesse Watters

www.independent.co.uk

 

[coldseat]

Sexually transmitted diseases is a risk for everyone that doesn’t practice safe sex. I don’t think that justifies giving away medicine to reduce the risk of catching a disease. Condoms and testing your monogamous partner would prevent them. I don’t know what other meds are mandated, but I suspect there are some others that aren’t justified, and there may be some that should be.

"Justify" is an interesting word here the way you use it. I mean, I can "justify" it on several levels. It saves lives. It cost the government and insurance less to provide Prep than it does to treat HIV/AIDS. It makes the overall population healthier with the spread of less disease. It makes finding a cure to HIV/AIDS easier with less transmission because it has less opportunity to mutate. I mean, those justification are clear reasons for me to keep it.

I guess if you're talking about typical "moral" justification, then I guess some would say no. Although I would again question that type of morality.

I'm assuming you have a problem with birth control as well?

 

[Lapaz]

"Justify" is an interesting word here the way you use it. I mean, I can "justify" it on several levels. It saves lives. It cost the government and insurance less to provide Prep than it does to treat HIV/AIDS. It makes the overall population healthier with the spread of less disease. It makes finding a cure to HIV/AIDS easier with less transmission because it has less opportunity to mutate. I mean, those justification are clear reasons for me to keep it.

I guess if you're talking about typical "moral" justification, then I guess some would say no. Although I would again question that type of morality.

I'm assuming you have a problem with birth control as well?

No, I'm talking about fiscal justification. I don't have problems with birth control of any sort, but I also don't think that should be given away on a fiscal basis, so I think it is reasonable to give them to the poorest that may not be able to afford it.

 

[bird]

No, I'm talking about fiscal justification. I don't have problems with birth control of any sort, but I also don't think that should be given away on a fiscal basis, so I think it is reasonable to give them to the poorest that may not be able to afford it.

Fiscal justification is the excuse of capitalism, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[coldseat]

No, I'm talking about fiscal justification. I don't have problems with birth control of any sort, but I also don't think that should be given away on a fiscal basis, so I think it is reasonable to give them to the poorest that may not be able to afford it.

So are you also against the government paying for vaccines and mandating that insurance cover them for free? Most vaccines are for disease that are preventable through other means (i.e. mask wearing, washing hands, staying away from sick people, etc.). If an HIV/AIDS vaccine is developed, would you be against the government paying for/requiring insurances to cover it?

I get that lines need to be drawn and decisions need to be made in terms of what is covered/mandated. I just don't think Prep is the line to make it at because of the positive overall affect is has for both gay men and society. As a society, we've already experience the horror of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and what it's like not to having PrEP. I don't want to go back to that. This is a very small price for the government/insurances to pay to not return to that reality.

 

[RobF]

So are you also against the government paying for vaccines and mandating that insurance cover them for free? Most vaccines are for disease that are preventable through other means (i.e. mask wearing, washing hands, staying away from sick people, etc.). If and HIV/AIDS vaccine is developed, would you be against the government paying for/requiring insurances to cover it?

I get that lines need to be drawn and decisions need to be made in terms of what is covered/mandated. I just don't think Prep is the line to make it at because of the positive overall affect is has for both gay men and society. As a society, we've already experience the horror of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and what it's like not to having PrEP. I don't want to go back to that. This is a very small price for the government/insurances to pay to not return to that reality.

Yep, and I want to underline that governments and insurances don't just decide to hand this stuff out on a whim. They carry out detailed assessments on effectiveness, including cost effectiveness, consequences, modelling of outcomes, etc.

In the UK the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence carries these out and their recommendations inform NHS spending and provision of treatment. It's free here, inline with their recommendations (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng221/chapter/Recommendations#pre-exposure-prophylaxis-for-hiv) and here (pdf) is the June 2022 evidence and discussion of effectiveness, including cost effectiveness.

The argument being presented against the actual reality and evidence is just problem solving through wishful thinking. "We wouldn't need this, if only we could somehow make the clear benefits of it redundant through other means including but not limited to mass behavioural changes and a huge increase in uptake and consistently successful usage of other preventative measures."

If that was an argument at all, it would still necessitate showing a plan for achieving that, implementing it, and then the actual evidence would show that PrEP is no longer necessary. But that's not the reality we're in. In this reality, it's clearly justified.

 

[zztop]

Considered how crazy expensive some after-the-fact treatments can be for us, preventative healthcare should be elevated and promoted more often

 

[Optimus Prime]

Autism experts and autistic people are pushing back on Robert F Kennedy’s “terrible” approach to autism as the health secretary plans more expansive monitoring of autistic people’s health records and proposes cuts to disability services.

A huge study on autism proposed by Kennedy will draw upon private medical records from federal and commercial databases, and a new health registry will track autistic Americans, CBS News reported on Monday.

A draft of proposed cuts to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), leaked on Wednesday, would also eliminate support for people with disabilities in the US, including education, research and services.


“It’s going to have an enormous chilling effect,” said Daniel Geschwind, professor and director of the UCLA Center for Autism Research and Treatment.

Researchers were “poised to make big advances in autism”, yet these cuts and harmful approaches will make those advances “stop in their tracks”, he said.

The moves come after Kennedy claimed incorrectly, in his first press conference as health secretary last week, that autistic people do not contribute to society or lead fulfilled lives and that autism “destroys” families.

Researchers say a lack of support, including the Trump administration’s proposed and existing cuts to health insurance, research and special education, are the real challenges for individuals and families living with autism.

“There’s a larger erosion of rights for people with autism and people with disabilities,” said Dora Raymaker, a research associate professor focused on autism at Portland State University.…….

Autistic people and experts voice alarm at RFK’s ‘terrible’ approach to condition

Health secretary is planning wide-ranging monitoring of autistic people’s health record and cuts to disability services

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dragon]

Autism experts and autistic people are pushing back on Robert F Kennedy’s “terrible” approach to autism as the health secretary plans more expansive monitoring of autistic people’s health records and proposes cuts to disability services.

A huge study on autism proposed by Kennedy will draw upon private medical records from federal and commercial databases, and a new health registry will track autistic Americans, CBS News reported on Monday.

A draft of proposed cuts to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), leaked on Wednesday, would also eliminate support for people with disabilities in the US, including education, research and services.


“It’s going to have an enormous chilling effect,” said Daniel Geschwind, professor and director of the UCLA Center for Autism Research and Treatment.

Researchers were “poised to make big advances in autism”, yet these cuts and harmful approaches will make those advances “stop in their tracks”, he said.

The moves come after Kennedy claimed incorrectly, in his first press conference as health secretary last week, that autistic people do not contribute to society or lead fulfilled lives and that autism “destroys” families.

Researchers say a lack of support, including the Trump administration’s proposed and existing cuts to health insurance, research and special education, are the real challenges for individuals and families living with autism.

“There’s a larger erosion of rights for people with autism and people with disabilities,” said Dora Raymaker, a research associate professor focused on autism at Portland State University.…….

Autistic people and experts voice alarm at RFK’s ‘terrible’ approach to condition

Health secretary is planning wide-ranging monitoring of autistic people’s health record and cuts to disability services

www.theguardian.com

This is truly terrifying. The creation of a national registry to track autistic individuals — especially when paired with cuts to support services and harmful rhetoric — is not just misguided, it's dangerous. History has shown us where this path can lead. In Nazi Germany, a national registry was one of the first steps used to identify and target disabled individuals for sterilization and eventual murder under the so-called "euthanasia" program. It began with the dehumanizing claim that some lives were less worthy — and ended with mass atrocities.

A national autism registry under the control of a government that is actively slashing disability support and spreading falsehoods about autistic people is not about care or inclusion. It’s about surveillance, control, and the potential for widespread rights violations. When medical privacy is eroded and communities are singled out, the risk of misuse is enormous. Autistic people already face stigma and systemic barriers. Turning them into entries in a government-controlled database — especially without clear safeguards or consent — opens the door to discrimination, forced intervention, and worse.

Autistic individuals live full, meaningful lives and contribute to society in countless ways. The real threat to their well-being isn’t autism — it’s a government that sees them as a problem to be managed rather than people to be supported. We’ve seen how this story begins. We must not let it be repeated.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[UriUT]

This is such an own goal. Measles have very low mutation rate and low break thru infections rate. So if you are up to date, you'll be fine. Even w just the first dose, if I remember right, has a 95% ish protection rate. Plus we ve had years of experience that it's safe.

Pretty stupid. We are that dumb as a specie.

 

[Lapaz]

So are you also against the government paying for vaccines and mandating that insurance cover them for free? Most vaccines are for disease that are preventable through other means (i.e. mask wearing, washing hands, staying away from sick people, etc.). If an HIV/AIDS vaccine is developed, would you be against the government paying for/requiring insurances to cover it?

I get that lines need to be drawn and decisions need to be made in terms of what is covered/mandated. I just don't think Prep is the line to make it at because of the positive overall affect is has for both gay men and society. As a society, we've already experience the horror of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and what it's like not to having PrEP. I don't want to go back to that. This is a very small price for the government/insurances to pay to not return to that reality.

No, I'm definitely not against vaccines because they are far and away the best way to stop the spread of diseases. You can keep trying to guess what I'm for and against, but I'm focused on PrEP, which is outrageously expensive, and I know it prevents diseases, but there are far more cost effective ways to stop the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases, such as testing and condoms. As you said, lines need to be drawn, and that is a reasonable line IMO. I get you don't agree, and you seem to think I'm anti-gay, but this has nothing to do with horrors visited on gay men and society. If it was the only reasonable way to prevent HIV, then I would be totally behind subsidizing it. If an HIV vaccine were developed, I would support subsidizing it, unless it required monthly shots, in which case I'd be back to arguing that there are other reasonable ways to prevent it.

 

[Lapaz]

Fiscal justification is the excuse of capitalism, nothing more, nothing less.

It is a lot to do with capitalism. We can't give everything away, because all of us have to pay. In the real world, we have to draw lines.

 

[TampaJoe]

It is a lot to do with capitalism. We can't give everything away, because all of us have to pay. In the real world, we have to draw lines.

Little in this life is free. Somebody always has to pay.

 

[bird]

It is a lot to do with capitalism. We can't give everything away, because all of us have to pay. In the real world, we have to draw lines.

Hmmm. What cost benefit analysis has been done regarding PREP and those drugs?

 

[coldseat]

No, I'm definitely not against vaccines stop the spread of diseases, and they are far an away the best way to stop their spread. You can keep trying to guess what I'm for and against, but I'm focused on PrEP, which is outrageously expensive, and there are simpler and much more cost effective ways to stop the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases, such as testing and condoms. As you said, lines need to be drawn, and that is a reasonable line IMO. I get you don't agree, but this is one that I think has enough nuance. This has nothing to do with horrors visited on gay men and society. If it was the only reasonable way to prevent HIV, then I would be totally behind subsidizing it.

Generic Prep isn't outrageously expensive, It's about $25-$35 per month. Prep is by far the most effective way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, that's what I think should be the focus. It isn't costing as much money as you seem to believe it is. Cutting it will not save the government any money, just cost more in the long term. Which would make it fiscally irresponsible to cut.