Taylor Farms Called White House to Try to Delay Cyclospora Recall
wsj.com
wsj.com
The false positive "doesn't call into question the conclusion of the outbreak investigation," McEntire said. Had the positive test been confirmed, "it could've resulted in a substantially expanded recall." <<
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-farms-cyclospora-outbrea...
I like the part where they say “No Taylor Farms branded products are involved in this recall.” As in there are other brands they do not mention which were but do not list them which they could own and distribute under.
https://www.taylorfarms.com/newsroom/taylor-fresh-foods-stat...
Nah. Power centers consolidate and seek slavery, whatever other differences they may have there is consensus there, which we can tell by their practices.
The "mission" of most people we recall by name is really just "knock out any pillars you can find, and cause chaos", they're given free hand and in that sense it's not planned or predictable, but overall it's no more random or silly than dead cows hurled via catapults. The cow has no name, no history, no meaning, it isn't hurled at a precise location in the exact right instant, but at a general location during the siege. And one thing is sure, it controls nothing.
it's one of those studies that got blown up into a worldwide news story sensation even though the actual paper didn't say what headlines claimed it did. I don't know if it was ever proven replicable or not, either.
The reality is even worse than “seeking out cats” because it means if it does this in humans, (which it appears to do) those among us who get infected will engage in all manner of risky, dangerous and destructive behaviors.
He's the opposite of Fauci, who Trump hates for contradicting him. And MAGA hates because during the pandemic they saw mask mandates as government overreach.
And he's the poster boy for conspiracy-loving anti-science halfwits like Trump and MAGA.
And he got approved because GOP senators get primaried and death threats if they go against Dear Leader.
I mean this is the guy who as head of HHS has funded research in his government department to "figure out which other government department is doing chemtrails" (He named DARPA as his prime suspect on an episode of Dr Phil, ye gods). You can't make this shit up. If it wasn't for his family name and connections he'd be living somewhere in a trailer as a sovcit with a Don't Tread On Me Decal adorning the back of his pickup truck on blocks in the front yard while he barbecues armadillo roadkill.
Why? To skirt the fact that this is reality and needs to be changed? There is no simulation. There is no super-natural teenager interested in making your life a tiny bit worse (I mean: a human teenager would just let N.Korea send nukes, and it's not as if you're living in Sudan either). Your question seems to be either trolling itself or delusional, or the feeblest attempt at humor. Neither is helpful.
Last year CDC scaled back the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network from eight monitored pathogens to two. Cyclospora was one of the six dropped. The remaining two are Salmonella and E. coli. For what it's worth, there has also been an uptick in salmonella cases. Food policy experts have pushed back on the assertion that the policy change caused the outbreak, but concede that outbreak response programs are underfunded and the fact that cyclospora no longer being monitored makes it difficult to understand how it fits in with longer trends.
What the food policy experts say really points to the broader issue - an overall decrease in response and monitoring capability - and that's a bigger concern than playing the blame game on one particular outbreak.
It's reasonable to question how government agencies are making these decisions and one just yesterday on the peptide industry may be one of the best examples yet of how flawed the decision-making process is. The FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) met and voted in favor of adding several peptides to the list of substances compounding pharmacies are allowed to produce. Eight members of the panel had been recently appointed under RFK, including six who run clinics that offer peptides, increasing the size of the panel from 6 to 14. The votes on the peptides were 8-6.
So... back to my comic book villain theory. This is exactly how a comic book villain would do it and fool everyone with a veneer of legitimacy.
I mean, it is not as if RFK was the darling candidate of HN at one time?
I wish we could open trade talks with these people instead. But, alas, that’s not how it works.
What do you propose I do?
Or did you just want my permission to be personally angry at me? Not sure you needed it, but you’ve now got it.
They asked to stop deflecting. Take that literally. Imagine this page without the comment and the comments hanging off it.
"Don't do this thing". "What should I do instead?" Your choice. Maybe nothing. When there is nothing serious to say, maybe sit with the silence, that space where a little joke or some cynicism would relieve the pressure without doing any productive work, and let it work on you. At least until you can't take it anymore, and maybe tomorrow you'll last longer, and maybe next week you'll have a breakthrough.
At any rate, others can't tell us how to fix a situation we're not part of causing. In a society of millions, while each can say "I'm just one of many", nobody else can say more, so we always have "full" responsibility, that is, the maximum possible. Put differently, it is not possible for a single person to be solely responsible for what two people do, but that doesn't change the responsibility they do have.
This isn't about spilled milk, but rather about the question on who it is to fix this. It is on you. If you cannot do it alone, you have to organise with others. But there is nobody, as long as you're an adult and a citizen, that you can point to that should be expected to "do it" instead.
Though I don't mean this in a finger-pointy way either because we all sit in glass houses. There may be differences in degree and all that, but when it comes to what should or could be, and how it is, we're all so far from the mark that bickering about who is the worst and who should get "the" blame for the situation, rather than how to change it, seems pointless.
> Or did you just want my permission to be personally angry at me? Not sure you needed it, but you’ve now got it.
I personally wish you a really awesome weekend, stranger. You insisted on making this personal, now deal with it >:[
That's merely a symptom of the underlying problem, which is that capital interests run the show, and have for many decades.
What we refer to as a democracy is illusory. We basically have a uniparty, but most people are fooled by the sports team arrangement of good cop / bad cop. Those who aren't fooled feel powerless, and they are right to.
Anyone who balks at this need only consider which things receive bi-partisan support.
Ha ha, what a glowing endorsement.
Sadly, there's enough MAGA here to share their downvotes but your "evidence" is pointing in a different direction.
They overlap with the climate deniers, the nukecels, libertarians and Trump fans.
And it clearly goes to the top, since his vice-president and primary funded was a Google CEO ex-wife, and he had high level support even before he went back on his stated opinions and joined the Trump campaign.
"Trump isn't Hitler, Hitler had policies" being one memorable zinger of his.
On Dr Phil, an audience member raised concerns about "stratospheric aerosol injections." Kennedy responded, "That is not happening in my agency. We don't do that. It's done, we think, by DARPA," referring to the Defense Department's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. "And a lot of it now is coming out of the jet fuel. You know, those materials are put in jet fuel. I'm going to do everything in my power to stop it."
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/rfk-jr-compared-trump-...
I've got a family member and ex friend (both trained in science) and they drank the koolaid hard. A funny story about them -- both had stayed at my home (different times) and I had taken to heating the water for my coffee in the microwave.
Both of them were horrified by that and refused to use that water. Neither could give reason why, and artfully deflected when I pressed the matter. I think antivaxers caught a virus that melted their brains.
Anti-vax thinking was around pre-pandemic. An article from 2018:
* https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6122668/
and 2015:
* https://www.bbc.com/news/health-33774181
2020+ was mostly about anti-vax 'contrarian' thinking merging with anti(-Democrat)-government thinking.
Before vaccines were created, Democrat and GOD death rates from COVID were about the same, but after they became available GOP rates became higher:
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37486680/
* https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/study-finds-large-gap-in-...
The pandemic provided healthy doses of copium. It absolved Grump of responsibility for not achieving any of the reforms he promised in 2016 (having to deal with the pandemic instead). It created something that looks like a coordinated conspiracy, even though it is just people's obvious reactions to mitigate a pandemic. It created a whole bunch of "unprecedented" authoritarian actions by institutions even though you merely had to look back to previous pandemics to see precedents.
All of these effects also applied to Grump personally as well, as it seemed like the "deep state" was lined up against him (in the same way that one's entire family becomes "against them" as their dementia progresses), creating his obvious conclusion that the administrative state (ie the system that has brought us prosperity and stability in the post-WWII period) must be destroyed.
But what is never discussed in the Lab Leak pursuit is: so what? I mean, yes, poor biosecurity and containment should be called out and not covered up, but the real value is in being the foundation of a conspiracy. "The government conspired to make you sick!".
Think about this: covid has mutated consistently since it's been tracked. Were those mutations coming from a lab or was it viruses doing virus things. Was Ebola made in a lab or did it come from a place we know viruses come from.
Was the Spanish Flu a Chinese plot? Was AIDS?
The handling of the outbreak was clearly bungled, but let's remember who was in charge in the US when it happened. The guy who shut down research and tracking teams because Obama had funded them (So had Bush -- until then, this kind of stuff was non-political and taken seriously as a non-partisan issue).
The failure for masking was again, on the then POTUS, and it's been conjectured by many (including myself) that he was against masks because it would mess up his makeup.
Yes, it could have been handled so much better, and sadly, could have been an incredibly valuable teachable moment that made us all safer in the future. But instead it was used to further divide us and foster the literal fucking insanity of antivaxxers. I have nothing but contempt for those people because they are a danger to humanity.
What was a conspiracy was the cover-up by health officials who knew that it had escaped a lab. And by the Chinese government, which knew even earlier, and which I believe saw an economic and strategic advantage in keeping the information and the genome of the virus to itself for a few months while it was already circulating in Wuhan.
One does not have to believe that the lab leak was intentional to believe that once it happened, the responsible parties conspired to cover it up.
As for the gain of function research itself, though defensive in nature and benign in intent, it was something that was deemed too risky to be performed in the US, and outsourcing it to a country with a much poorer safety record was wildly irresponsible. When it backfired, a cover-up naturally ensued.
I'm not a MAGA person (I've always voted Democrat, actually). This is just my take as to the most likely scenario given what's publicly known. And of course the virus has mutated in the wild, as viruses do. The question is whether the initial strain was given genetic advantages that were evolved under human guidance - defensively or not.
This does a good job of painting that picture: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/933
But this also returns to the "so what" path. The conspiracy paints GOF as "evil government doing bad things" (which is not unreasonable conjecture in many contexts), but the work is primarily intended for defensive measures:
https://asm.org/getmedia/ef3e09db-a3c3-4eff-8e73-5d7edbcabb4...
Search Google for this: "did the us outsource GOF research into sars to wuhan labs in china"
I found the answer to be reasonable and credible. Again, governments lie but so do conspiracy theories.
To make this more HN aligned I'll share a story:
I was introduced to Chuck Peddle at a wedding not long after the turn of the century. I first learned assembly language on the 6502 so I knew who he was and was thrilled to meet him and hear his stories. At that point in time he was working on some hardware startup in Malaysia (IIRC), and was a seasoned world traveller.
The last part of our conversation was his observation through his travels that due to the nature of overcrowded cities in third world countries and the advent of air travel where people could disperse rapidly to anywhere else in the world, he shared a fear that a deadly outbreak would eventually happen and would travel the world in days, with horrifying consequences.
That came to mind when Covid happened.
Lastly, I'm not at all fond of these types of conspiracies because they spread like a virus and their value is primarily in giving people the feeling that they know what's going on and they know better than everyone else -- and it becomes such a part of their identity that trying to debunk that conspiracy is only perceived as a personal attack -- there's no room for reason.
All of this "the truth is out there" while we have real conspiracies happening in broad daylight and people just shrug like "oh, that just happens, whatever". I'm referring to the current US presidential administration.
I think my point stands that once a gain of function-mediated virus escaped a lab, the incentives aligned in such a way that the people and the government responsible for that fuckup took steps to cover it up, and that is a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion.
I absolutely agree that government coverups are absolutely unacceptable.
I state my conclusion as "it seems to be this way" whereas I read you as saying "no, it was this, case closed".
Intent matters. In the courtroom and out of it. My frustration is that (from my perspective) the intent behind the lab leak theory is to turn it into a government plot against the people (and yes, those can happen), and that the whole affair of dealing with Covid was a nefarious plot to harm the population and importantly to force vaccines upon the masses.
As the purported incident happened in China, there will likely never be any admission or redress. And the torches and pitchforks will continue coming for vaccine research. And I have every right to be less than happy about that.
I would say this about the purported incident happening in China: From the perspective of the Chinese government, it really didn't matter whether it was a lab leak or not, as their concealment of the problem for 2-3 critical months would likely have happened even if saving face was not an issue. It was a simple projection to say that an authoritarian regime with a top-down economy and an unlimited ability to lock down outbreaks would gain an edge in relative GDP growth over a disorganized, democratic adversary, which would compound for every day they withheld information even though they were attempting to contain the spread within their own borders. That's the economic calculation I called an act of war.
Sure.
Face saving in China is a cultural institution (not that it doesn't happen in the US and elsewhere). Ascribing that to an intentional act of war is a stretch. Coverups are virtually all motivated by CYA by their very nature.
China is handily winning the economic war without taking the tactic you suggest, and if we are unable to shake the current regime and it's scions, will mop the floor with us.
The reason I am so testy about this conspiracy is that it focuses all attention off the conspiracy that Grump did by dismantling the institutions that were built to protect us from such an outbreak, and then bungle the reaction to it actually happening.
Again: let's say China comes out tomorrow and says: "Sorry, we fucked up. Our researchers got sloppy and lied to us. We're sorry"
What does that do to either protect us from future events (which can be from out of the wild)? Other than the satisfaction of "I told you so", what do we get from that?
RFK Jr is running the show, and must appease his boss and his whims. They'd likely take that confession and use it as a parade and patting themselves on the back while they continue to destroy the science and institutions that are there to prevent future pandemics.
They also tend to contaminate the raw milk bacteria you aren't using.
Close enough?
So these people have a leg to stand on. It's a wooden leg (arrrg) but they have a leg. Of course they, and their supporters, are never doing any kind of statistical analysis or risk calculus. The the "risk" part is the thing that really, really matters. I mean, we have chemotherapies which have a very high chance of fucking your shit up or even killing you. But untreated cancers are fatal, and sometimes very quickly. It's all nuanced.
I think the lesson here is just because someone is anti-something doesn't exactly mean they stand for something. Just because someone is anti-corruption it doesn't mean they are pro corruption etc. Because people always find it easy to run their mouths and be arm chair experts.
I had a chance to see the full 10 year cycle of an anti corruption candidate. He got elected into power and did nothing. Nada. Because all he knew was to fight and find someone to blame. He was just a weasel. 10 years later the place was worse off and corruption was even higher. When I pointed this out to some MAGA folks - they were like but how do you know until we try. Its like Americans want to tempt fate and want to see for themselves how institutions which took multi decades to get destroyed in few years.
RFK is similar case. He has a stance - whether right or wrong. But under pressure he just abandons them to save his own skin. He has never owned up to the issues his anti vax crusade causing the Samoa measles epidemic. And just like that Americans wanted to tempt fate with - "he is making good points about food". He is not. He demand accountability from others but owns up to nothing. He will weasel out of every issue is causing.
the "who you elect" is a specious argument. Everyone in California could elect democrarts forever, and 2 senators in Wyoming still have a larger sway per capita.
> Yuri Orlov: [Narrating] Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
Wasn't my darling candidate. Mostly because I can read research papers and understand that drinking raw milk and avoiding vaccines doesn't make me healthier.
Indeed. There is no reason to consume raw milk. Pasteurization is not actually the problem.
On the other hand, there is no reason to homogenize milk at all. It is safe and legal to procure "cream top" or non-homogenized milk at many grocery outlets. Cream-top milk is not processed, and in fact there have been detrimental effects linked to the consumption of homogenized milk, which you can avoid by drinking cream-top milk instead.
Homogenization does not make milk safer or healthier to drink. On the contrary, it permits the processors to remove healthful elements and sell them in a more profitable vehicle. Why not simply keep your entire product intact, as it was found in nature?
The "raw milk" craze is a bonkers red herring for everyone. Don't drink raw milk. Don't buy the hype. But you don't need homogenization, either!
Cream-top milk is not merely full-fat: the cream is unmixed and free floating. You can immediately tell it is different by texture.
Some people separate the cream and reserve it for coffee or something. Or you can agitate it for “manual homogenization”. The difference is texture, really. It may have bothered housewives trying to cook or to pour it. But I love the experience.
*directly = cow milked into a cup.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30234385/
Not every pre-pasteurization child died, but far more died than post-pasteurization.
Raw milk is just a bad idea at anything beyond incredibly tiny tightly controlled scale. Sure, you got lucky. It's still not a good way to feed a society.
1) extremely closely controlled cow health
2) minimal storage time
3) minimized chances of cross contamination/reasonably clean cows <- that's the big one
4) healthy immune system to minimize infection chances
If even one of those isn't there, it's basically sickness in a cup. Why take a risk if there's no benefit?
In germany, there's the concept of "Vorzugsmilch", which is raw milk from specifically controlled farms with super tight regulations with regular and intense controls and testing of milk, e.g. monthly testing of every individual cow's milk.
But even then, it's an - albeit small - risk without benefit, with the exception of raw-milk cheese, which can't be made in any other way. I just don't get it, practically none of the claims of the raw-milk-gurus could be proven under controlled circumstances. Why needlessly take risks?
"I drank raw milk and didn't get sick" is not actually the same as "drinking raw milk is safe."
Banning offal consumption. Banning blood donations from people who could have been exposed. Detecting the disease in postmortem examinations.
I had the total of more than six months in UK between 199x and 199y deferral for a long time. We're supposed to actually be experiencing symptoms by now.
I’m sure fans of BBQ will argue this, but I’d say the average person who is travelling just for BBQ is not really a standard foreigner.
I’ve even had co-workers visit from Ireland and Germany who only trust McDonald’s while they visit, or a local pub.
The beef in Switzerland is mediocre at best.
Some of the ~150,000 metric tonnes of beef recently imported from Australia?
Is it some kind of gotcha if I eat Japanese A5 in the USA, but still say that USDA Prime is amazing?
US beef has only just reached Australian health & safety standards* after being banned for import into Australia for two decades.
* perhaps it's more the case that Australia has only just bowed to US tariff pressure to accept US meat that isn't up to Australian standards for herd health tracking.
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-25/what-lifting-trade-re...
* https://aftinet.org.au/australia-lifts-ban-us-beef-imports
If you want BBQ, go to the US. Else for just a normal steak, just source good ANZ beef and pay for it. Cheaper Indian beef (mostly buffalo - you can get cow meat but that's mostly tougher) can also be mostly grass-fed but it's harder to source.
Australian wagyu is, for my money, the best beef in the world (yes, better than Japanese wagyu, which really is too richly marbled), but American Prime is no slouch either.
Australian wagyu is actually the worst offender in this regard, since it means that cattle spend 1-2 years in a factory farm feedlot.
Western cooking tends to prefer having rich fat marbling on the beef and let it cook in its own fats, but in Asia, we tend to prefer leaner cuts for our cooking, mostly because beef isn't usually eaten on its own as a steak.
Switzerland I cannot speak to, but having had meats from Australia, Britain, Ireland, Spain, Italy, and Japan - a lot of places around the world have great and superior quality meats.
Poultry isn’t even in the conversation here, American poultry is off putting by nearly any person you ask who didn’t grow up with it.
I remember a conversation in a Dallas hotel bar with an increasingly crestfallen cowboy as we talked about how the King Ranch "wasn't a particularly large ranch, all things considered". Initially, confusion. "What do you mean, it's the largest ranch in the world?" No, the US.
And then we talked about Australian cattle ranches, where Anna Station is over seven times bigger than King Ranch, bigger than Israel, and that if King Ranch was in Australia it'd be only be, at best, the 70th largest ranch in the country (and more likely only just scraping into the top 100).
Everything is not always bigger in Texas.
I despise American poultry - factory farming, copious saline injection, bleh.
(Honestly, what's the point of your post? You don't happen to know someone in a group, so the group doesn't exist? Weird.)
Odd. I live in the EU at the moment and all my friends here talk excitedly about all the meat options in the US.
And then there are concerns about human rights, rain forests, genociding Amazonian tribes, corruption and dictators. Now I will admit it is all hypocritical everyone of us happily buys stuff from AliExpress but that is the condition of man.
We know with certainty that CWD is transmitted/passed through fecal (esp ingestion) in the wild, where animals eat droppings for the stored nutrients, and 20 years ago field biologists discovered prions were transmissible through intestinal routes. At this point it's in the soil, and has been. Though good luck finding all the old, previously available official literature on this.
Remember the New Zealand farm where the sheep kept getting scrapie, so they slaughtered em all, then brought in new flocks, then watched them get re-infected, then finally said fuck it, and left the field alone, then essentially had to admit the land itself was infectious? There are many hard core highly demanding folks here who will scream for "the data" but won't mention that it's difficult to retain all this in memory over decades while the original sources become increasingly more obscure every year. In other words, no, I am not citing anything. If folks want to sneeze and giggle at prions and call me bad-man anti-data boy, go ahead.
Research has been self contradicting on this subject for many years. One day it's solvable with a bit of bleach, and the next even an acetylene torch won't do. It's transmissible through intestinal routes, no it's not, yes it is. Somewhere in between, though, a real problem persists, and my advice is to keep thinking about it, because thinking about it is bad, and looking at what most now call good, it might be a safe-enough inversion to assume bad is good, on this one.
Edit: I would also urge the question of where CWD originated. You will get speculation, but no certain answers. Wherever it came from originally, denying the intestinal route must have helped facilitate the spread.
I wonder if its time to rethink some of these institutions. It seems like Food Safety is especially important to the welp being of society; it might make sense to have food testing labs in every major population center/distribution hub. Funded by a tax on the food companies or perhaps even locally. Its just unbelievable that the entire US population is so vulnerable… what if a bad actor did something nasty deliberately?
(Ideally we'd move towards Ranked Pairs voting too, diminishing the two-party stranglehold as well)
I don't think department heads were particularly technocratic, either. That was more supported by the laws/customs protecting the actual workers who didn't lose their jobs every administration. The heads were political - just political with an eye towards getting appointed/confirmed, rather than popularly elected.
The only thing that can be done is "re-chartering" the court – immediate significant expansion/packing followed later by drastic structural reforms.
We now must consider the possibility that our president is a malicious or foreign actor, intent on destroying the US. Granted, we DID consider this in the beginning after the revolutionary war. But we slowly forgot, and did not build in nearly enough protections. Modern America is nothing like post-revolutionary America. Everything is more complex, and our government bigger and power powerful than ever.
What a way to abuse your customers!!!
They knowingly tried to sell tainted lettuce?
Meanwhile, the faintest whiff that Trump was anything more than occasionally in the vicinity of Epstein leads a significant part of the American population to scream conspiracy.
Gets that much worse when you think there’s a chance that not only did sexual abuse happen to all of these people, there may have been worse.
If Presdient Camacho can call a sport’s federation and have a penalty canceled and the administration is as rotten and corrupt as its demonstrated every day, it’s worth a shot for that company to try and avoid a recall.
A recall costs money, people they don’t know getting sick costs them nothing.
Pick up this comment and tell the bosses they stink. Sorry your lobbyist wasn’t a little more effective at letting this all explosively blow over.
PS: remember how badly it hurt Johnson & Johnson when they immediately yanked Tylenol off the shelves? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders#Johnso... Yeah you wouldn’t wanna be in that boat, good moves!
While they may just be focusing on trends/aggregate info, they often sample messages too.
This has been going on for at least 20 years (probably more, I just wasn't aware until then). It's not mainly interns, it's the web crawlers that are constantly indexing the internet.
Taylor Farms management has gotta learn the outcome of the Chicago Tylenol Murders like they should’ve learned in high school or college. Same for all TF competitors. Business ethics ain’t easy, they’re important.
Brandwatch and Sprinklr or whatever social media listening platforms have a blind spot or Taylor Farms doesn’t use them or what?
No Javascript, text-only
tnftp -4o "|grep -o '<p>.*</p>' \
|tr -d '\134' \
|sed '1s/^/<meta charset=utf-8>/'" \
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA28DmDY > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htm
#links 1.htm
#elinks 1.htm
#w3m 1.htm_______
* Trump does this regularly when justifying his latest tariffs.
"Taylor Farms donated more than $2 million to conservative political groups in 2025, according to Federal Election Commission filings. That includes a $1 million donation to MAGA Inc., the Trump-centric super PAC, and $1.1 million to other super PACs dedicated to electing Republicans."
So arguably... yes. They leveraged their 'professional courtesy' with the government.
"And are these bacteria in the room with us right now?"
To be able to irrigate even a fraction of the US’s crops with potable water, we’d have to build some massive infrastructure to purify, store, and deliver that water. Existing nonpotable infrastructure would be difficult to reuse for this purpose. Doing that would take years and cost billions.
Industrial agriculture is not like a backyard garden; the water infrastructure for irrigation is very different from the infrastructure for drinking water.
You don't always get a positive test, but this doesn't necessarily prevent you from concluding the cause of food contamination.
Software getting flagged by anti-malware as a false positive is a great way to get an evil corpo tale of woe to the top of HN with 800 points.
You're focusing on the weakest part of the argument, which HN guidelines explicitly request you not do: <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>.
(Less so if others are exculpatory. Which is not the case here. A known false positive is not conclusive proof, but neither does it explicitly clear a source.)
See for more explanation: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49044401>.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/07/21/taylor-farms-trump-do...
Once you destroy that trust, every single announcement becomes suspect. You no longer have anything you can believe.
But also whine.
Yep, now I’ll be second guessing everything I read from the CDC. Good news though, I can ask a fucking AI Chatbot what to do. As a normal person with basic civic values this shit makes me so mad. It’s beyond disgusting. The gates of Hell are wide open for these people.
The chat bot is only even correct because of obvious, authoritative, trustworthy sources like the CDC. Makes it even more enraging to see bot tech makers meeting with the destroyers of truth.
This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?
At this point they've lied enough that the assumption should just always be "They're probably lying again. I need more evidence / facts / details if this is a thing I care about at all." Honestly though, I'm at a point where I simply won't trust much anything anymore without seeing / hearing more (provably true) facts first. Lying / deceit has just become far too common / accepted / normalized these days.
My only advice is to become a domain expert or have friends who are domain experts.
During the COVID pandemic situations we’re evolving quickly and the admin admitted they were wrong previously or had updated their views based on new information.
If you ask this admin about their obviously incorrect or fallacious statements their response is to call you a nasty person or piggy and then double down on the lies.
It was very possible at the beginning of COVID that it was an airborne virus. However the CDC proclaimed that there was no evidence, therefore no one should wear masks.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-reverses-agai...
>In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-...
There was also the messaging that the vaccine did not cause myocarditis.
>This obvious error was compounded weeks later during a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee met to discuss what we knew and did not know about heart inflammation, or myocarditis, that had been linked to mRNA vaccination, and most notable in young men who received the vaccine.
I agree that the current administration is bad but I can't call it worse because the prior administration worked to illegally censor it's critics.
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/...
The administrative agencies response to the pandemic was very telling, there were multiple large conversations here with lots of comments about how we were being lied to.
The anti vaxxers and people not trusting this admin are not equivalent
>> FDA says... >This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?
The fact of the matter is that both sets of officials lied.
Fauci only admitted to lying when he was brought in front of congress and there was a chance they were going to prosecute him if he lied to them.
We will see what this admin does if they ever get brought up to task.
Fauci thought his intentions were noble.
RFK Jr. believes the same I am sure.
Doesn't make either of them right, understanding why the other side is/was upset is the first step to fixing the problem.
If you can't see the equivalence between saying don't trust the government because it's lying and don't trust the government because it's lying there is nothing that will convince you.
> This is the same argument that the anti-vaxers had about the COVID vaccine.
It’s not the same argument because one group is a true believer who will never admit fault. The other isnt. There is no equivalence to people who believe in anti vaxx ideology and people who don’t believe in RFK jr.
>Comments on YouTube videos during the COVID-19 pandemic clustered similarly around "concerns about side-effects, effectiveness, and lack of trust in corporations and government".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccine_activism
I don't share the same believes as anti-vaxers but I do believe that their cause was bolster by the government deliberately lying.
In the very early days of COVID, there were numerous studies that backed up the government position that COVID was not spread via airborne route.
>Airborne transmission, either by droplets (route 3) or by aerosol (route 4), contributes less than 1% of the total viruses needed to cause an infection....This finding is consistent with studies that sampled the air where symptomatic COVID-19 patients reside and found that all collected samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2
But earlier it even states:
>Due to the fact that most of these estimates were made in countries that lead a public health policy of immediate isolation of cases upon symptoms’ onset, these estimates represent the effect of pre-symptomatic carrier transmission. In fact, pre-symptomatic transmission was recently referred to as the Achilles’ heel of COVID-19 pandemic control, as symptom-based detection of infection is less effective in comparison to the control of the SARS epidemic in 2003
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.12.20099085v...
So we know that pre-symptomatic transmission is the primary driver but claim it's not airborne because we sampled air of symptomatic patients.
This was the quality of the "Science" that we were supposed to believe.
When you have the scientific establishment publishing what amounts to bullshit to back up the lies of government how can you trust it in the future?
Andrew Wakefield study is discredited, I am not aware of any others but there may be.
I doubt that I am going to change your mind that the argument you presented is the same as anti-vaxers. But my advice remains the same, become a domain expert or be close friends with one you can trust.
I have several family member in the medical field, when the push for adolescent vaccine began some of them quietly cautioned me about the risks that were being downplayed. I read through the studies and made my own decision. Just as I made my own decision about wearing a mask when the government was telling me it increased my risk of infection.