People don’t trust the NIH, you mean people on the right. Although you’re probably right because the left doesn’t trust anything this administration has their fingers on, but overall people not Trumpers trust science.
No. By no means do I mean " people on the right." I mean the population in general. You are an outlier on just about everything you comment upon. "Trumps science" is another example of your continuing fight against TDS. Six feet, masks, you can go to the casino but not church, don't get together for the holidays...none of that bullshit is "Trumps science."
Here let’s help with yours and I’s debates/arguments just to save time from this silly back and forth where you say I don’t know what I’m talking about and where you say I lose credibility blah blah blah, you disagree with everything and everybody that goes against this administration in any manner, just to save time.
Things I've not said nor insinuated. But go on and save...face? But dude. Look at what you just did.
In the first paragraph you actually did what you're saying I'm going to accuse you of in the second paragraph. You took a conversation about the NIH and made it about Trump. How is that NOT the definition of TDS?
Let's go with your theory that this is "right wing" distrust. That would mean the "left wing" puts its trust in people who make things up under the guise of science: literally, a choice to believe in psuedo science. You are suggesting the left trust the people who lied to them about the social distancing, lied about the masks, lied about transmission, and most importantly lied about the vaccines as they were attempting to mandate them (and did in some situations.)
These are the people you trust with health decisions and guidance?
But, I’m wondering if you read the article or just saw words you disagree with and decided to highlight them and say some shit? Because his ideas in regards to global warming, animal welfare, and human labor abuses are important, but again you don’t like the words and don’t agree with anything remotely to that, so it’s wrong and you’re right.
Please. I linked an article and made a comment on it and your wonder if I read the article? You clearly didn't think through what you typed. I literally read the article posted, then looked up who was cited in said article, and the pasted part of his bio which came from researching the people who commented in the article: the experts, if you will.
But you wonder if I read...geez. Duck next time you walk into a hobbits den: the head trauma is beginning to show itself.
Do you not see the failure in logic? What does it take to make plants grow? CO2. Eat veggies...which requite CO2. But, this "fight" against global warming (CO2 emissions) is a benefit to ones diet? The two contradict each other, fundamentally. Hence, the saracasm above.
Labor abuse is important. But it has nothing to do what John Doe's diet. Whether a cow is processed by an underpaid, overworked laborer or one who is unionized in say, Chicago? It's still a cow. It's still a steak. Who processed it doesn't change its nutritional value and the suggestion is, once again, pseudo science.
Animal rights and diet. No relation. Unless...you aren't thinking along with the objections to the changes in the food pyramid you're also suggesting changes in the food chain? This doesn't make sense to me.
An organization who spearheaded ireputable harm to a generation due to the draconian measures and it's only one side of the aisle that is upset, and doesn't trust, that group with their families welfare? I don't see that "take" as anything other than asinine. The last time I checked concern for the welfare of ones family didn't depend on what side of the aisle you happen to stand.
And to be clear, I'm standing
in the aisle as I'm pointing out this exercise in Idiocracy.
Last, but not least. If "funded by the NIH" doesn't raise a host of red flags in your world. I don't know if I can muster any more empathy.