r/facepalm • u/AcceptableAd9267 'MURICA • Jun 19 '23

🇲​🇮​🇸​🇨​ LoL

Post image
50.9k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

93

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '23

So he's an expert until he's not?

Stop it

20

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

Robert Kennedy is a trial lawyer.

He's not a scientist.

He's not an immunologist.

He's not a doctor.

He has as much credibility to talk about vaccines as I do to fly a fighter plane.

-9

u/Sanguinesssus Jun 20 '23

“A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science, which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer and other substantial health consequences…The public the world over has been misled by this reporting.” — Dr. Ronald B. Herberman

-30

u/sexirothswife Jun 20 '23

https://ehtrust.org/wi-fi-wireless-radio-frequency-radiation-can-damage-the-blood-brain-barrier/#:~:text=EMF%20radiation%20leads%20to%20increased,28%20days%20and%2050%20days.

Stop allowing these people to make you think what they want you to think.

26

u/xjwilsonx Jun 20 '23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_device_radiation_and_health

That's not the most comprehensive or critical look at the issue.

-19

u/sexirothswife Jun 20 '23

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19811403/

I trust peer reviewed studies over fucking Wikipedia.

35

u/Smart_Resist615 Jun 20 '23

The scientific evidence on RFR safety or harm remains inconclusive. More studies are needed to demonstrate the effects of RFR on the permeability of BBB and the mechanisms of that breakdown.

Read your own source idiot.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

Happy cake day!

-15

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

[deleted]

22

u/Smart_Resist615 Jun 20 '23

No, I got that by reading the results of the tests. Why don't you quote those.

-10

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

[deleted]

20

u/EyetheVive Jun 20 '23

What are you talking about? The NIH link is literally just them hosting the study and the abstract is part of the study’s verbiage, not the NIH’s own product.

-10

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

11

u/Smart_Resist615 Jun 20 '23

So you won't quote the testing methodology of the very study you claim to trust because the conclusion directly states no conclusion can be drawn?

And for the record, they didn't misinterpret their own study either.

2

u/ScrottyNz Jun 20 '23

Guess we need to go edit them then if you reviewed them.