Here's info on the "fentanyl candy" Jackson was going off about:
'Rainbow fentanyl' and Narcan in schools: What you need to know about illicit fentanyl
Dr. Michael Daignault
USA TODAY
Myth: 'Rainbow fentanyl' is the biggest threat to our youth
Public health and DEA officials have recently been sounding the alarm about rainbow-colored fentanyl pills — basically illicit fentanyl pills given different colors. Some officials believe that drug cartels are manufacturing "rainbow fentanyl" to target young people. They have claimed cartels are trying to increase profits through addiction to fentanyl pills that more closely resemble Skittles.
However, harm reduction experts and toxicologists are skeptical.
MDMA and other club drugs have featured bright colors for decades. The rainbow-colored fentanyl pills confiscated by the DEA are cleared marked with "M" and "30" – making them readily identifiable as pills, raising the question if adolescents would actually mistake them for candy. And it's unlikely teens have the discretionary income to afford the drug anyway.
The greater danger is likely from illicit drugs like cocaine and street narcotic pills like Percocet that are also laced with fentanyl to enhance the high. Even kids or adults who have taken a narcotic before can easily be overwhelmed by the smallest laced dose of fentanyl.
So, as expected, he's got no clue what he's talking about, which is really bad since he's allegedly a doctor.
Isn't that, like, at least a disciplinary concern? He has outright said he's relying on his experience and knowledge and that he is qualified therefore to make a medical determination about someone who is not a patient, and whose records he has never studied nor consulted on. I mean, unless he has.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:02 am
And that compared to the number of medical professional who delcared the former guy to be unfit of the office of potus.
I mean, almost every medical professional I have seen commenting on Trump's mental health, for example, has done so explicitly acknowledging they are breaking the conventional way-things-work by doing so but cite the extraordinary consquences of not doing so. So, yeah, I'm now wondering what the rules actually are; but at least the folks who do it to Trump seem to acknowedge there could be consequences for doing so, while R.J. here doesn't seem to think it's out of the ordinary. Or am I misunderstanding?
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
I thought Ronny was his doctor while he was in the White House and, as such, had personally examined him. He could be referring to his impressions from that time.
Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:39 pm
I thought Ronny was his doctor while he was in the White House and, as such, had personally examined him. He could be referring to his impressions from that time.
Jackson was Obama’s doctor, Biden used Kevin O’Connor when he was VP.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:39 pm
I thought Ronny was his doctor while he was in the White House and, as such, had personally examined him. He could be referring to his impressions from that time.
Jackson was Obama’s doctor, Biden used Kevin O’Connor when he was VP.
Jackson was TFG’s doctor for at least a short time, before he left the White House when stories if his pill pushing started coming out
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
Ya. Jackson was the Doctor who came out and said TFG was 239 pounds (conveniently 1 pound under Obese via BMI assuming he is 6 foot 3, which he isn't.) and has such superior genetics he could live to be 200.
Ronny Jackson @RonnyJacksonTX wrote:
I will NEVER eat one of those FAKE burgers made in a LAB. Eat too many and you’ll turn into a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. Real BEEF for me!!
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Ronny Jackson @RonnyJacksonTX wrote:
I will NEVER eat one of those FAKE burgers made in a LAB. Eat too many and you’ll turn into a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. Real BEEF for me!!
Why is he YELLING?? I went to his twit feed to see if there was something else he was responding to. Nope. I guess he hit the sauce early today, perhaps outside cooking BEEF on the BBQ and thought of Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat, throwing him into a rage.
Me, I'm still good with black bean burgers. No fake meat for me either. Black Bean burgers must have turned me into a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. Who knew?
raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 3:49 pm
What is it with this guy?
Ronny Jackson @RonnyJacksonTX wrote:
I will NEVER eat one of those FAKE burgers made in a LAB. Eat too many and you’ll turn into a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. Real BEEF for me!!
Off Topic
Personally, I love a portabella mushroom burger, grilled with cream cheese and garlic. It has a meaty texture.
raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 3:49 pm
What is it with this guy?
Ronny Jackson @RonnyJacksonTX wrote:
I will NEVER eat one of those FAKE burgers made in a LAB. Eat too many and you’ll turn into a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. Real BEEF for me!!
Off Topic
Personally, I love a portabella mushroom burger, grilled with cream cheese and garlic. It has a meaty texture.
I think Jackson is merely playing to his Texas cattlemen base. The tweet reminds me of the 1996 brouhaha over Oprah's episode on Mad Cow Disease wherein Texas cattlemen sued Oprah, etc. for disparaging Texas beef. An article from that time -
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) ruled Feb. 9 that Oprah Winfrey and one of her guests, Howard Lyman, did not knowingly and falsely depict American beef as unsafe. The court upheld the partial dismissal of the claims brought by Texas cattlemen after Winfrey’s show discussed “mad cow disease” in 1996.
“When Ms. Winfrey speaks, America listens. But her statement is neither actionable nor claimed to be so,” the court explained. “Instead, two false statements by Lyman and misleading editing are relied upon to carry the cattlemen’s difficult burden. Like the district court, we hold that they have not sustained their burden of articulating a genuine issue of material fact concerning liability under the (Texas Disparagement of Perishable Food Products) Act.”
At the core of the dispute is the mid-April 1996 “Dangerous Food” broadcast of the “Oprah Winfrey Show.” The show allegedly depicted American beef as unsafe in the wake of the British panic over “mad cow disease.” The beef market suffered substantial losses after the show aired, according to several Texas cattle ranchers.
In late May 1996, the cattlemen sued Winfrey, producers and distributors of the “Oprah Winfrey Show” and Lyman in a Texas trial court, but the suit was moved to federal court.
The cattleman alleged violations of the Texas Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act and damages from business disparagement, defamation and negligence.
In February 1998, the court dismissed most of the claims, including the food disparagement claim. The same month, a jury found in favor of Winfrey on the remaining claim of business disparagement. The cattlemen then appealed.
According to the appellate court, “The critical issue here is whether the appellees knowingly disseminated false information tending to show that American beef is not fit for public consumption.” The court noted that “the expression of opinions as well as facts is constitutionally protected so long as a factual basis underlies the opinion.”
The court ruled that Winfrey and Harpo Productions cannot be liable for the editing of the disputed show. “While the editor of the ‘Dangerous Food’ show was instructed to cut out the redundancies in the unedited interviews, he was also required to cut the piece to fit into a smaller time frame for the ultimate broadcast. Although the show’s producer undeniably spliced questions and answers, the editing did not misrepresent … responses.”