Tariffs

[Cyclotron]

Its interesting with steaks that they lose alot of fat when they are cooked more. So while the food might be a little burned it also has a much higher ratio of protein to fat. And its edible, unlike over boiled meat.

Char or browning of meat is critical to creating the Mallard(?) effect, too lazy to check google. Anyway. It's the flavor that folks love in well-cooked meats. I think I recall it is also the same in vegetables. (also too lazy to validate that)

My favorite way to prepare steak is to sprinkle MSG and salt all around, then dry it on a drying rack in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Then smoke it slow at 180°Freedom degrees 82C as it slowly rises to 115°F 46C. Then I take it to a high flame and sear it while sprinkling some Montreal Steak seasoning on it. It will develop a deep red/brown crust rapidly due to the drying. I target rare to medium rare as my preference, 133F /56C.

Now I'm hungry.

[Cyclotron]

Back on topic.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4482946-us-businesses-are-absorbing-two-thirds-of-tariff-costs-so-far---goldman

Companies got a tax cut on one side, and basically tariffs take it on the other. That's wild.
I would think that those that have complained that Trump gave these tax breaks to the companies would be happy now, but I doubt it.

[vad]

]I've heard about concern over emulsifiers, preservatives, sweeteners etc. and data to suggest they increase the likelihood of developing health problems, from neurological conditions, to diabetes. Unfortunately the data only shows an association, not cause and effect.
 
I sick to my position that excess consumption of ultra processed food , containing the above is  most likely to be the cause of health problems.

Specifically, red dye 3 has been shown to cause cancer in rats, though there's debate about that being indicative of the same in humans.
Other dyes have also seen some evidence for higher risks of cancer. The FDA has banned Red Dye 3, but the ban doesn't take effect until 2027. Wild.

I love hotdogs, I risk my life for a good hotdog (I think that every time I eat one).

But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.

And what exactly makes you think a beetroot-based dye is less carcinogenic than a synthetic one at equivalent amounts? Or did you just pull that out of thin air?

What makes you think that it might be as, or more harmful than red dye 3?

The fact the pigment in beetroot it isn't absorbed by the human body, suggests it's highly unlikely to cause any harm. I suppose it's possible, if it's consumed in huge quantities but that's a moot point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetroot?useskin=vector#Pigment

You can get colorectal cancer from substances in food that aren’t absorbed into the bloodstream but instead pass through / remain in the gut. The internet lists some examples: PAHs and HCAs from charred or smoked meats, secondary bile acids produced from animal fats by the gut microbiota, certain mycotoxins from moldy grains. And surprise, these carcinogens are all natural.

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Red 3 was tested in animal studies, and: “The no-observed-adverse-effect levels established in these studies were 0.5% (251 mg/kg/day) for male rats and 1.0% (641 mg/kg/day) for females.” Long-term intake at 4,000 mg/kg/day caused thyroid gland enlargement in males only. No cancer was reported in any group.

Based on this and other scientific evidence, prior FDA administrations deemed it safe and non-carcinogenic at an ADI of 2.5 mg/kg/day in foods (100 below safe dose in animal studies). The top 10% of US consumers of Red 3 in foods ingest about 0.004 mg/kg/day, which is 62,500 times lower than the dose found to be safe in rats, and 1,000,000 times lower than the dose that caused thyroid enlargement in male rats (without cancer). The current FDA, run by an idiot, banned it without any scientific reason (but apparently that’s now called “free market capitalism,” as opposed to the left’s “socialism”).

Have there been similar safety studies on beet-based dyes? Has anyone tried feeding a poor rat 62,500 times and 1,000,000 times higher doses of beet juice to see how its thyroid gland is doing? That was my question, and my point.

[tggzzz]

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Factory farmed junk, however, is hardly natural. The unnaturally high fat content from animals left with little room to move at all is the most obvious difference, then there's growth hormones and bioaccumulated pesticides to worry about.

I think it could be argued that cooked food isn't natural, either. It's the first form of processing we invented. Burned meat is carcinogenic, so we've been getting it wrong for a million years.

By the way, does anyone else think it is remarkable that no other species in the past million years has discovered fire? A million years is a long time, even at the timescales evolution works over.

Ultimately, it's hard to argue with our life expectancy. I'm 51. Let me tell you right now, my 50s look WAY different than my parent's 50s.

I'm not saying that there aren't thing that can be improved, etc. I'm simply saying that things have been measurably improved.

So I have a hard time with "we've screwed everything up, we should go back to basics."  Back then, I would have been dead 20 years ago.  No thanks.  And even going back about 100 years, those people looked and acted like old men at my age. And I act and feel like a kid. So no thanks to that either.

I really question what "golden age" people are looking to go back to.

The one where they didn't have so many worries - because they hadn't screwed their life up yet, because they were less knowledgeable, and because other people around them did the worrying to shield them.

As for life expectancy, when I started work people of my age were, on average, dead. During my working life the life expectancy has been increasing at about 4 months every year. Stunning.

[Zero999]

]I've heard about concern over emulsifiers, preservatives, sweeteners etc. and data to suggest they increase the likelihood of developing health problems, from neurological conditions, to diabetes. Unfortunately the data only shows an association, not cause and effect.
 
I sick to my position that excess consumption of ultra processed food , containing the above is  most likely to be the cause of health problems.

Specifically, red dye 3 has been shown to cause cancer in rats, though there's debate about that being indicative of the same in humans.
Other dyes have also seen some evidence for higher risks of cancer. The FDA has banned Red Dye 3, but the ban doesn't take effect until 2027. Wild.

I love hotdogs, I risk my life for a good hotdog (I think that every time I eat one).

But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.

And what exactly makes you think a beetroot-based dye is less carcinogenic than a synthetic one at equivalent amounts? Or did you just pull that out of thin air?

What makes you think that it might be as, or more harmful than red dye 3?

The fact the pigment in beetroot it isn't absorbed by the human body, suggests it's highly unlikely to cause any harm. I suppose it's possible, if it's consumed in huge quantities but that's a moot point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetroot?useskin=vector#Pigment

You can get colorectal cancer from substances in food that aren’t absorbed into the bloodstream but instead pass through / remain in the gut. The internet lists some examples: PAHs and HCAs from charred or smoked meats, secondary bile acids produced from animal fats by the gut microbiota, certain mycotoxins from moldy grains. And surprise, these carcinogens are all natural.

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Red 3 was tested in animal studies, and: “The no-observed-adverse-effect levels established in these studies were 0.5% (251 mg/kg/day) for male rats and 1.0% (641 mg/kg/day) for females.” Long-term intake at 4,000 mg/kg/day caused thyroid gland enlargement in males only. No cancer was reported in any group.

Based on this and other scientific evidence, prior FDA administrations deemed it safe and non-carcinogenic at an ADI of 2.5 mg/kg/day in foods (100 below safe dose in animal studies). The top 10% of US consumers of Red 3 in foods ingest about 0.004 mg/kg/day, which is 62,500 times lower than the dose found to be safe in rats, and 1,000,000 times lower than the dose that caused thyroid enlargement in male rats (without cancer). The current FDA, run by an idiot, banned it without any scientific reason (but apparently that’s now called “free market capitalism,” as opposed to the left’s “socialism”).

Have there been similar safety studies on beet-based dyes? Has anyone tried feeding a poor rat 62,500 times and 1,000,000 times higher doses of beet juice to see how its thyroid gland is doing? That was my question, and my point.

Animal studies don't always translate to humans.

Don't worry I can see your point, but you appear to have missed mine: why bother going to the trouble of creating synthetic alternatives, for naturally occurring products? I could understand if the natural products were proven to be harmful, but in the case of plant based dyes, consumption of fruit and vegetables they're sourced from is generally associated with health benefits.

The FDA and CDC have done far more damaging and unscientific things before. I'm indifferent to the US's decision to ban dyes such as Red 3. Irrespective of scientific evidence. If there is widespread public support for a ban and people voted for it, then so be it. We all know that attitudes towards food are not governed by science. Most Westerners won't eat dogs so there would be outrage if it turned out that some food additives were made from dogs, even if they were proved to be safe.

I'd be more in favour of better labeling, consistent with my view on raw milk: consumer choice is king.

[Cyclotron]

The current FDA, run by an idiot, banned it without any scientific reason (but apparently that’s now called “free market capitalism,” as opposed to the left’s “socialism”).

I wanted to isolate the part of your statement that I think really matters to you.
Bans on this dye and others are everywhere, and the science linking them to problems may be tenuous.

I don't see such passion in the previously posted study used by California for its ban on this dye and all synthetic dyes.
Nor anything about the EU or UK.

Is it your strong feelings about RFK that you're trying to express, and this is your pathway to do so? Were you upset with RFK always, such as while a democrat or just as an independent?

[Zero999]

The current FDA, run by an idiot, banned it without any scientific reason (but apparently that’s now called “free market capitalism,” as opposed to the left’s “socialism”).

I wanted to isolate the part of your statement that I think really matters to you.
Bans on this dye and others are everywhere, and the science linking them to problems may be tenuous.

I don't see such passion in the previously posted study used by California for its ban on this dye and all synthetic dyes.
Nor anything about the EU or UK.

Is it your strong feelings about RFK that you're trying to express, and this is your pathway to do so? Were you upset with RFK always, such as while a democrat or independent?

I was thinking the same, but didn't want to be provocative enough to ask.

Many of RFK Junior's positions used to be widely held by the left; opposition: to vaccines, Big Pharma and artificial food additives. The situation recently reversed, when the Democrats implemented vaccine mandates, during the recent pandemic.

I've observed irrationality over food additives and vaccines by acquaintances and loved ones, so I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about it.

My hopefully soon to be ex-brother in law (my sister is separated from him and hopefully will divorce him) swears aspartame is toxic and gives him headaches, even though there isn't and credible evidence it causes harm. I've tried to explain to him that it's broken down by the human body into chemicals which already occur in natural foods. It's true some of these chemicals are harmful in large doses, but not at the concentrations found in diet sodas. I've told him that when people who claim aspartame causes them to suffer from health problems are involved in double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials, those who have the sweetener don't report any worse symptoms, compared to the placebo group. None of this makes any difference to his opinion, because it's not based on science and rationality.

My sister was convinced the nasal spray flu vaccine caused  the children at school to catch flu, because she didn't get her children vaccinated, and they were fine, yet most of the kids who got the vaccine were off sick. I tried to tell her it was most likely a coincidence and maybe the children to took the vaccine did so because they were are higher risk, but again it didn't make any difference.

My personal opinions are mixed:

Aspartame tastes bad and there isn't and credible evidence it's linked to weight loss.

Artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, have their place. They might help reduce the risk of dental decay and be useful for those with diabetes who have to limit their sugar intake.

Influenza vaccines aren't conclusively proven to cut the risk of severe infection. There's a lack of randomised data to support them. There are correlations showing those who take them are less likely to get sick, but confounding factors can't be ruled out i.e. those who see their doctor more regularly and/or are more concerned about their health get them; this is known as they healthy vaccinee effect. They're based on a prediction of the viruses which are in circulation, which is easy to get wrong.

Vaccines are a great invention and have saved millions of lives. Giving those who have are vulnerable an influenza vaccine might be a good idea, as a precaution.

I'm prepared to be proven wrong on any of the above, if shown good evidence.

[themadhippy]

Dont like the tarriffs? dont like the export restrictions to china? No problem slip us 15% of the revenue on sales and an export license can be yours

[Cyclotron]

Vaccines are a great invention and have saved millions of lives. Giving those who have are vulnerable an influenza vaccine might be a good idea, as a precaution.

I'm prepared to be proven wrong on any of the above if shown good evidence.

Agreed. I view artificial sweeteners as a means to continue a bad habit and "feel" less bad about it. I found that once I avoided sweeteners, both synthetic and natural, I craved sweets less. Before marriage, I disliked sweets for the most part. My wife, though, has a lifelong love afair with them, and I latched onto that at some point.

Vaccines are a great tool. Unfortunately, a level of vitriol and pure nonsense surrounds them. Those who harbor a complete fear and are wholly opposed to them are wrong and won't change minds. Those who call them names and browbeat them into believing that vaccines are 100% effective and safe are just as bad and aren't going to change anyone's mind. Neither appears to be trying to change minds, just determined that their team is right and scored a point to put on the board.

Vaccines are expected to kill people in rare circumstances and significantly harm some portion of the people who take them. This is the reason for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US. It is unlikely you'll suffer any harm, but you are rolling the dice.

Like you, I too believe I'll change my mind if presented with convincing evidence or information. I, like everyone, form views and set patterns that I expect and "believe" in.  The human brain is a fantastic machine at "guessing" or "predicting" outcomes because we are unable to process 100% of the input we get in real time.

So, I try to remember to question myself about my views, my intentions, and my expectations often. I also sometimes do that to others, as I did with my questions for vad. It isn't frequent that I get an honest response, but I hope that I provoked some thought of self-awareness. 

[Cyclotron]

Dont like the tarriffs? dont like the export restrictions to china? No problem slip us 15% of the revenue on sales and an export license can be yours

About the news article below being posted on many outlets?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgvvnx8y19o

[TimFox]

Politics again.
The “left” in the US is usually suspicious of Big Pharma, but when have they been suspicious of vaccines?

[Zero999]

Politics again.
The “left” in the US is usually suspicious of Big Pharma, but when have they been suspicious of vaccines?

Odd you didn't mention that when vad talked about it, only when I brought it up?

In fairness both sides of the political spectrum have had anti-vax tendencies. When it came to the right, opposition to vaccination generally came on religious grounds, but that was a minority and they were more supportive of capitalism and pharmaceutical companies.  The left tended to oppose vaccination because they feared Big Pharma, as you've said.

More recently, many Democrats were initially skeptical of the new COVID-19 vaccines through fear the Trump administration had rushed their approval, without adequate safety data. It became more of a right-wing viewpoint, when the Biden administration started mandating the vaccines. The right tend to be more individualistic and favour people choosing what's right for them, rather than the state. The left tend to be prone to support state collectivism i.e. people not necessarily doing what's best for them, but society as a whole.

That's about as objective as I can make it.

[TimFox]

Politics again.
The “left” in the US is usually suspicious of Big Pharma, but when have they been suspicious of vaccines?

Odd you didn't mention that when vad talked about it, only when I brought it up?

In fairness both sides of the political spectrum have had anti-vax tendencies. When it came to the right, opposition to vaccination generally came on religious grounds, but that was a minority and they were more supportive of capitalism and pharmaceutical companies.  The left tended to oppose vaccination because they feared Big Pharma, as you've said.

More recently, many Democrats were initially skeptical of the new COVID-19 vaccines through fear the Trump administration had rushed their approval, without adequate safety data. It became more of a right-wing viewpoint, when the Biden administration started mandating the vaccines. The right tend to be more individualistic and favour people choosing what's right for them, rather than the state. The left tend to be prone to support state collectivism i.e. people not necessarily doing what's best for them, but society as a whole.

That's about as objective as I can make it.

"Odd":  coincidence.

There's a huge set of references found by Google for the history of anti-vaccination movements.
Of course, they date back to Jenner and smallpox vaccination in the early 19th century.
Very little to be found about the relationship with major political parties in the more recent times--lots of activism stirred up by the purported vaccine-autism link and Covid-19 mandatory restrictions.
See  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00136-8/fulltext  which suggests links between anti-vax and the "right" (however you define it).

An article of historical interest, written during the controversy as the Trump administration tried to get a roll-out of the Covid-19 vaccine before the 2020 election:  https://www.science.org/content/article/calm-down-about-political-mischief-around-covid-19-vaccines-scientists-say
At a political rally shortly after, Trump was booed by his audience when he advised them to get vaccinated.

[Cyclotron]

Very little to be found about the relationship with major political parties in the more recent times--lots of activism stirred up by the purported vaccine-autism link and

I recall both Biden and Harris making negative statements about the "Trump" vaccine. I will go look for the quote, but I remember at least one of them saying they wouldn't take it or something to that effect.  In the case of vaccines, the most recent political information I operate with is that Trump, as you said, told people to get vaccinated, though, as you pointed out, he garnered some disapproval. At the same time, the Biden/Harris team first called it into question for politics, then encouraged it.

Politics encompasses everything, to the point that being apolitical remains politics.

Edit: here's a quote on the FUD that was spread for political reasons:
Joe Biden
"The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You're going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."

There's much more, and it appears to be washed in "But they were warning people not to listen to the President of the United States." That may be true, but it does not cleanse these leaders of their responsibilities.

[vad]

Joe Biden
"The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You're going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."

Do you know when and where Joe Biden made this public remark, so I can run it through a fact-check? Any link to a video or social media post?

[Zero999]

A big problem with looking for information on the internet regarding political affiliation and opposition to, or support of vaccination, is the lack of objective evidence. Recent articles and studies are biased in favour of the Democrats, because they've been conducted by universities who are upset with the current administration's decision to cut their funding.

In the end I gave up and went from memory.  I heard a lot of scepticism from the Democrats about Trump's vaccine, when it first appeared. Unfortunately many posts and articles have been deleted since then.

I'm fully aware of the fact my memory isn't perfect and is subject to my own bias. I could look into the archives but I honestly lack sufficient time and interest to do so.

[TimFox]

Very little to be found about the relationship with major political parties in the more recent times--lots of activism stirred up by the purported vaccine-autism link and

I recall both Biden and Harris making negative statements about the "Trump" vaccine. I will go look for the quote, but I remember at least one of them saying they wouldn't take it or something to that effect.  In the case of vaccines, the most recent political information I operate with is that Trump, as you said, told people to get vaccinated, though, as you pointed out, he garnered some disapproval. At the same time, the Biden/Harris team first called it into question for politics, then encouraged it.

Politics encompasses everything, to the point that being apolitical remains politics.

Edit: here's a quote on the FUD that was spread for political reasons:
Joe Biden
"The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You're going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."

There's much more, and it appears to be washed in "But they were warning people not to listen to the President of the United States." That may be true, but it does not cleanse these leaders of their responsibilities.

Yes, politics during a political campaign.  Biden eventually was vaccinated pour encourager les autres.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/politics/bidens-coronavirus-vaccination

See  https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/18/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-2/  for a transcript (including pauses) of an official statement after the election.

Also:  a CNN fact-check about a Biden interview. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn-town-hall-july

Above is history.  My personal opinion is that Operation Warp Speed, an unprecedently quick production and testing of a vaccine, was a major achievement of the first Trump administration, although it was not finished in time for the November 2020 election, to his frustration.

[Cyclotron]

Joe Biden
"The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You're going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."

Do you know when and where Joe Biden made this public remark, so I can run it through a fact-check? Any link to a video or social media post?

I honestly found this very amusing. Saying you need to run something through the big media machine to check it before you know what to do seems near surreal to me.
No insult intended but that's exactly what a large part of the population thinks the other half is doing.

Now, the punch line to the joke is even more salty I guess since I copied that quote from PolitiFact.com. We both can select parts of that text and google it. I might could use LMFGTFY.

There's a lot of examples if you're open to seeing them. There's lots of examples of Biden as President with negative impacts on the same agencies being decried today.
https://www.businessinsider.com/2-top-fda-officials-resigned-biden-booster-plan-reports-2021-9

[TimFox]

Unfortunately, I can't open that citation.
Trump took credit for his efforts on Warp Speed  https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-operation-warp-speed-vaccine-summit/
He and his wife were vaccinated promptly  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-melania-coronavirus-vaccine.html  as well as Biden, Harris, and Pence.
Later, Trump was booed at a public appearance   https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-reveals-he-got-covid-19-booster-shot-to-a-booing-crowd
In Trump's case, he was hospitalized (before the vaccine was available) for a serious bout of Covid-19, while the disease was rampant in the US.  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/politics/trump-covid-battle/

[Cyclotron]

Yes, politics during a political campaign.  Biden eventually was vaccinated pour encourager les autres.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/politics/bidens-coronavirus-vaccination

Indeed, Harris, Biden, and Trump were all claimed to be vaccinated. To me, that does not allow us to wipe away the dangerous rhetoric at the height of the pandemic and when the most attention on the words of these leaders would be had as simply "politics during a political campaign".

Above is history.  My personal opinion is that Operation Warp Speed, an unprecedently quick production and testing of a vaccine, was a major achievement of the first Trump administration, although it was not finished in time for the November 2020 election, to his frustration.

I think the administration supported the activities properly as well. I had problems with the statements and actions on masking. Originally making claims of fact on the ineffectiveness of masks and then later mandating them. At that time, I worked for a Medical Device manufacturer and we watched in awe of the crap people were wearing that they thought might provide them some sort of protection.

N95 masks are very effective but limited directly by the wearers training. I wish they had let me keep copies of our videos for testing in the chambers where we put several iterations of common materals through.  For all the anger and hate that went around, masks were generally no better than a screen door.

[Cyclotron]

Unfortunately, I can't open that citation.
Trump took credit for his efforts on Warp Speed  https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-operation-warp-speed-vaccine-summit/
He and his wife were vaccinated promptly  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-melania-coronavirus-vaccine.html  as well as Biden, Harris, and Pence.
Later, Trump was booed at a public appearance   https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-reveals-he-got-covid-19-booster-shot-to-a-booing-crowd
In Trump's case, he was hospitalized (before the vaccine was available) for a serious bout of Covid-19, while the disease was rampant in the US.  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/politics/trump-covid-battle/

Here are more links. Maybe one of them will work.
https://www.businessinsider.com/2-top-fda-officials-resigned-biden-booster-plan-reports-2021-9
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/health/fda-vaccine-officials-step-down
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/31/biden-booster-plan-fda-508149
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-probes-bidens-sidelining-of-fda-vaccine-experts/

[Zero999]

Joe Biden
"The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You're going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."

Do you know when and where Joe Biden made this public remark, so I can run it through a fact-check? Any link to a video or social media post?

I honestly found this very amusing. Saying you need to run something through the big media machine to check it before you know what to do seems near surreal to me.
No insult intended but that's exactly what a large part of the population thinks the other half is doing.

Now, the punch line to the joke is even more salty I guess since I copied that quote from PolitiFact.com. We both can select parts of that text and google it. I might could use LMFGTFY.

There's a lot of examples if you're open to seeing them. There's lots of examples of Biden as President with negative impacts on the same agencies being decried today.
https://www.businessinsider.com/2-top-fda-officials-resigned-biden-booster-plan-reports-2021-9

Yes. I remember that. I really wanted to avoid delving into this.

I find it odd that people posting anti-vaccine misinformation on social media are widely blamed for an increased opposition to vaccines and lower uptake rates, which might or might not be true, but I think pro-vaccine propaganda/misinformation pushed by the authorities and lack of evidenced-based policies have done far more damage.

I rushed out and got the vaccinated against COVID-19, but I honestly question whether I'd do it again, if there was another pandemic. My trust in the regulators has been completely crushed.

[TimFox]

Yes, politics during a political campaign.  Biden eventually was vaccinated pour encourager les autres.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/politics/bidens-coronavirus-vaccination

Indeed, Harris, Biden, and Trump were all claimed to be vaccinated. To me, that does not allow us to wipe away the dangerous rhetoric at the height of the pandemic and when the most attention on the words of these leaders would be had as simply "politics during a political campaign".

Above is history.  My personal opinion is that Operation Warp Speed, an unprecedently quick production and testing of a vaccine, was a major achievement of the first Trump administration, although it was not finished in time for the November 2020 election, to his frustration.

I think the administration supported the activities properly as well. I had problems with the statements and actions on masking. Originally making claims of fact on the ineffectiveness of masks and then later mandating them. At that time, I worked for a Medical Device manufacturer and we watched in awe of the crap people were wearing that they thought might provide them some sort of protection.

N95 masks are very effective but limited directly by the wearers training. I wish they had let me keep copies of our videos for testing in the chambers where we put several iterations of common materals through.  For all the anger and hate that went around, masks were generally no better than a screen door.

The hindsight surrounding mask wearing is complicated.  The evidence surrounding masks during the 1918 influenza epidemic is clearer (see multiple books).  Covid-19 was a new thing, and it was not yet understood that its contagion method was different from the known influenza route.
Masking probably worked better to prevent spread from an infected person, since full-strength masks are required to avoid exposure of the second person, but that required people to mask to prevent spread to others.
However, masks were in very short supply at the beginning of the epidemic in the US, and initial efforts concentrated on medical personnel protection.

[Cyclotron]

The hindsight surrounding mask wearing is complicated.  The evidence surrounding masks during the 1918 influenza epidemic is clearer (see multiple books).  Covid-19 was a new thing, and it was not yet understood that its contagion method was different from the known influenza route.
Masking probably worked better to prevent spread from an infected person, since full-strength masks are required to avoid exposure of the second person, but that required people to mask to prevent spread to others.
However, masks were in very short supply at the beginning of the epidemic in the US, and initial efforts concentrated on medical personnel protection.

I stay in touch with the scientists that still working on N95 and their surgical variant which is even better. I've asked how the data looks now that we've had some time to reflect and it is abysmal per them.

The surgeon general under Trump stood up in front of the US population not once, but twice and made claims or statements that he should know better than to make. Interestingly enough, this same person is now making negative claims towards the Trump administration.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-trump-surgeon-general-rfk-mrna-vaccine-research/

Now, how are the public to trust this person?  I hear people claim I must trust credentialed people. Really?  Fauci was also similarly sullied by conflicts of interest and evidence of do as I say not as I do activities. Such as not wearing a mask while watching a Nationals game which is very public and very slammed with people. Having financial links to various supposed organizations and so on. Biden's pardon of Fauci and others only enhanced the distrust of those that are worried.

But people get slammed for having doubts, for being concerned. It isn't about sway with a huge amount of people, it is about "winning" and what they "win" is some mythical point for their team.

[Zero999]

The hindsight surrounding mask wearing is complicated.  The evidence surrounding masks during the 1918 influenza epidemic is clearer (see multiple books).  Covid-19 was a new thing, and it was not yet understood that its contagion method was different from the known influenza route.
Masking probably worked better to prevent spread from an infected person, since full-strength masks are required to avoid exposure of the second person, but that required people to mask to prevent spread to others.
However, masks were in very short supply at the beginning of the epidemic in the US, and initial efforts concentrated on medical personnel protection.

I stay in touch with the scientists that still working on N95 and their surgical variant which is even better. I've asked how the data looks now that we've had some time to reflect and it is abysmal per them.

The surgeon general under Trump stood up in front of the US population not once, but twice and made claims or statements that he should know better than to make. Interestingly enough, this same person is now making negative claims towards the Trump administration.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-trump-surgeon-general-rfk-mrna-vaccine-research/

Now, how are the public to trust this person?  I hear people claim I must trust credentialed people. Really?  Fauci was also similarly sullied by conflicts of interest and evidence of do as I say not as I do activities. Such as not wearing a mask while watching a Nationals game which is very public and very slammed with people. Having financial links to various supposed organizations and so on. Biden's pardon of Fauci and others only enhanced the distrust of those that are worried.

But people get slammed for having doubts, for being concerned. It isn't about sway with a huge amount of people, it is about "winning" and what they "win" is some mythical point for their team.

Then there's the Cochrane review into masking and hand washing.
https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD006207_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses

It doesn't prove masks to be ineffective, which  is what many people falsely claim the results state, but it does find that mandating them probably didn't reduce the the spread. Maybe masks to work, maybe not, but however you dress it, forcing people to wear them hasn't been proven to be effective.

What's also interesting and is overlooked is, it does find some evidence to suggest hand hygiene measures do slightly reduce transmission rates. This seems surprising for a respiratory virus, but perhaps spread via physical contact has been underestimated?

Conclusion: don't mandate masks. Focus on hand hygiene: washing and sanitiser.