or that they are too afraid to voice their anti maga viewpoints

What I find hilarious about RFK, is that he’s supposed to be this paragon of health, with his spasmodic dysphonia, documented mercury poisoning, and history of heroin addiction. Also, while neurocysticercosis (most common brain worm) is common and is like the most common cause of symptomatic epilepsy in the developing world, DO NOT EVER take public health advice from someone with a history of a brain worm.

His take on antidepressants is also like he wants people to raw dog the next 4 years.

n widely recommended in the

yup the evidence on the TB vaccine had been pretty iffy and many argued that lowered TB exposure and infection rates were due to better population nutrition and improved air quality. That said, most other countries still use BCG in the world.

That presumes the part of the country which allowed this is capable of self-reflection.

It also presumes that the pulling back up will be done by the same who are responsible for hitting the rock bottom.

this one gets it. This is exactly how Viktor Orban’s system works.

Well, in this case you support the side that will fuck it up even more for Palestinians. But you know, at least we all can “enjoy” your moral superiority.

Yup. if they are same on this issue, people should have had the 95 other aspects where they are different. But again to quote another Lemmy user, “You won’t reason someone out of a viewpoint they’ve never reasoned themselves into in the first place”

And it’s incidentally the closest ASCII character to a swastika

Did you read the article?

Your point is taken poorly because you raise issue with people giving deservedly nonsensical interpretations to a nonsensical definition, while giving a pass on WH calling their definition an “incontrovertible biological truth”.

Dorian Gray’s dilemma.

winning what? debates? you mean reasoning with a pigeon?

And he doesn’t get convicted and he’ll campaign on how nasty the Dems are. An impeachment without conviction is a “win”.

It depends. Congress critters getting priority access to NIH/Walter Reed level care is one of those perks of being a politician. Of course, they can pay a lot for boutique medicine but I’d say, boutique medicine usually doesn’t provide the best care. And if they’d got to non-fed academic institutions, they’d get an earful about this fuckery.

So believe it or not, it would impact people in congress quite directly.

The US population is unhealthy and there is a strong relationship between covid mortality and obesity. So some of the susceptibility cannot be blamed on a single sitting president. That said, his lying in February and March cost a lot of lives up front and that’s where he could have made the strongest impact by showing leadership and preparedness (like getting masks so HCW wouldn’t have to wear the same N95 for a month). He used an Obama-era system to boost the development of the vaccine (moderna at least). And then he bitched about lockdowns, which should have been managed dynamically based on the local healthcare system resources/capacity. But the most telling thing was, the moment he LOST the election, he abandoned the vaccine deployment efforts, so Americans lost 2 months in the rollout.

The WH accidentally invented Schrödinger’s Sex.

Of course it’s also wrong because unlike dead/alive sex is a bimodally distributed continuum we binarize for simplicity. Also, don’t look up the Schrödinger dude’s sexual preferences because you’ll puke. But that stays on brand too.

If anything happened to Fauci, they’d see a massive exodus from HHS and it would start a movement those gerontocrats needing doctors would not appreciate.

What’s infuriating, and when I realized how homicidally bad trump is was February 2020, when there was all those rapidly published data trump had access to weeks prior to publication, and he kept on calling it the “flu”. Yet wingnuts had to go over tens of thousands of Fauci emails to attack him. Yet nobody’s criticized trump’s publicly recorded lying that caused tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

Can you point me to the part of the text where they provide clarification from a biological standpoint? This language sets up the interpretation: “the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female […] grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality”. So if this is an “incontrovertible reality” then why do people have such an easy time refuting it?

Which gives me flashbacks about having to learn the specific adrenal enzyme dysfunctions that lead to erroneous sex-assignments at birth. But again, I don’t think people need biology degrees to have an understanding of this and I’d like society to stop trying to give “good faith” interpretations to texts that are explicitly written in bad faith.

s clearly indicates the ‘belonging’ occurs ‘at conception’, not the production of disparately sized cells. When the production occurs is not specified at all and nothing in the definition depends upon when it occurs, merely that it does at some point. This creates it own set of problems, but not the ones everyone is pointing and laughing

Firstly, I have an MD and would have never commented on this without reading the specific text from the WH. Med school curricula cover this in molecular biology, embryology, medical genetics, pediatrics and obstetrics, and endocrinology.

Secondly, the definition implies that zygotes can be classified as male/female at conception, which they obviously cannot be without further clarification. Your “good faith” reasoning is that you can retrospectively make that assignment, but there are no criteria to determine how that assignment ultimately happens, which therefore requires additional layers of “good faith” reasoning. Which takes us back to, yeah, the WH definition is hot garbage.