RFK Jr.

Because the man deserves his own thread. I just discovered YouTube took down his recent interview on Dr. Jordan Peterson’s podcast.

 

Without digging in, I'm going to guess it's the Covid discussion. I pulled up a news story on YouTube the other night, which was just the talking heads discussing RFK Jr. Under the video and above the comments section, YouTube/Google felt compelled to include this link: COVID-19 Vaccination which of course is not something they include on most videos. Upon further research, pretty much any reputable news organization covering RFK Jr's candidacy has this tag under the videos.

I think he has a point about "big tech" censoring things. Some people can be influenced more easily than others, but we should be able to get all sides of a story without the intervention and censorship. I find the funding of gain of function research troubling. There's likely nothing illegal in what Google is doing, but suppressing dissenting views is probably going to become illegal (at least to an extent) in the coming years. It gets into anti-trust issues. Big tech shouldn't be a government mouthpiece. Government should be free to promote its positions on social media, but there shouldn't be an ongoing effort to suppress or cancel content that questions the government's position. This becomes a danger in a democracy very quickly.

If nothing else, I support RFK Jr. on this issue.

 

Correct. It garners a lot of attention and then it's a two second drive to Twitter to watch the interview. But I think all censorship, whether the personality is well-known or not, is troublesome. There is a ton of reprehensible content on YouTube and Instagram that goes uncensored. So there's a double-standard component also.

 

Various endpoints other than brain function or male fertility were investigated in in vivo or in vitro experiments published over the last four years, and they include DNA damage in various tissues (83, 90, 91, 92), effects on heat shock proteins (93) and cellular stress (94), changes in microRNA expression (95), functional cardiovascular changes (96), oxidative stress in various tissues (89, 97, 98), development of teeth (99), female hormonal status (100), diabetes-like changes (101), changes of cornea (102) and lens (103), and adverse effects in the liver (104), kidneys (105), thyroid gland (106), thymus (93), heart myocardial cells (107), and microtubular cell structure (108).

Besides serious design and methodological flaws, there is a bias towards publishing only positive findings, as was pointed out in the IET 2016 report (36). For example, among the above referenced studies evaluating potential biological effects of Wi-Fi exposure, vast majority reported adverse effects. Judging by these studies, Wi-Fi exposure appears to be able to adversely affect virtually every tissue in mammals. However, bearing in mind that the output power of Wi-Fi devices is markedly below that of mobile phones and that evidence of adverse health effects of mobile phones is limited in terms of weight and scope, Wi-Fi can hardly be expected to present a greater risk than mobile phones. In fact, the IET 2016 report (36) states that it is “remarkable that four out of five experimental studies, using a wide range of both models and exposure parameters, report the detection of a biological effect”. Were all of these studies reliable and robust, such adverse health effects would be common and easily reproducible in animal assays, which is not the case for the majority of outcomes.

Wi-Fi Technology and Human Health Impact: A Brief Review of Current Knowledge

 

I don't see how they can really strap a human down to a wifi router for 5 hours a day and say "hey, we're trying to figure out if this gives you cancer." But they can with rats and the results in rats are pretty startling. Not saying it's the same with humans, but this isn't a complete non-issue. NIH essentially saying it's unverifiable, but clearly evidence showing that the wifi waves have an adverse affect on humans.