There are certain parts that definitely get a huge thumbs up from me:
When he describes how the regulatory agencies, specifically FDA and food related are staffed by people from giant food processor corporations and how this is not a good thing my libertarian juices flowed swiftly.
Let me be more specific about my thoughts on this. I know enough about biology to know what it is that "scientists" know and don't know. They have no way to predict chemical reaction chains of enormously complex molecules that could go on for a hundred transformations. It is physically impossible (at this time) to actually have a controlled experiment for biological effect. There are too many factors that cannot be ruled out. It's like weather models but ten times worse. Every different thing someone eats, every different chemical they are exposed to, every tiny difference in gene expression, every virus, every persistent bacteria THEY ARE ALL POTENTIAL FACTORS!
Since I understand this my analysis of specific medical/biological claims have been somewhat confusing for people who don't understand. I trust the experimental data when it says a correlation IS found. You take aspirin, your blood pressure goes down (or something). You take penicillin the bacteria die and the white blood cell count goes down. That sort of thing. The factors are all still there but correlation can be established simply by looking at two (or some finite) number of objectively measurable quantities.
However whenever someone makes a claim about what could not be (or is not) happening I become hyper suspicious. Hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin does not help covid for example. How do you know? What variables did you control for? Did you control for them all (no you didn't I promise).
It is an excellent example of where the asymmetrical chasm between positive burden of proof vs negative can be vast.
Bringing us to the method by which our government determines chemicals are safe. Basically they can't. They can eliminate the direct and simple correlations but that's it. In ancient China they used to drink mercury because they thought it would help. It doesn't, it hurts, but it hurts in such a delayed and conditional manner that they could not see the correlation. The same with Roman lead plumbing.
What we do when we test an artificial preservative or pesticide is more informed but ultimately we are vulnerable in the same way. RFK's point about the explosion of chronic illness cannot be brushed away. There are alternative hypotheses, the simplest of which is that we are subject to retroviruses which have wrecked our metabolic control systems combined with 'doctors' manufacturing their own job security by diagnosing everyone with subjective diseases.
It does need to be explained though and the hypothesis that there is some set of those artificial chemicals we have been using that is causing this is plausible not withstanding those (as I described) far from conclusive negative studies.
Bringing it back home, if there is anyone to mistrust on the matter it is the clearly easily and fully corrupted federal bureaucracy. It would be a miracle if the DOJ, EPA, CDC, and so many others are full of lying incompetent crooks (swamp monsters), but the food regulatory agencies were magically pure and above reproach.
A moral leader can control corruption for a time, but the stable long term solution is a system that motivates accuracy through self-interest, this is often best accomplished by an adversarial system, truth is found in the debate.
BTW this is what a candidate talking about policy looks like. It's not "democracy" that is choosing Harris over him.
