In 1915 The temperance programThomas F. Hubbard et al. He presented the progressive case of why alcohol should be prohibited in a convincing way that in 1917, with the democratic control of both cameras of Congress and the White House, they obtained the 18th amendment to the Constitution of Washington, DC and to vote for the states. Down, Connecticut and Rhode Island, were irrelevant.
The book had a chapter on how to raise an alcoholic and contained things like Mexican food, pickles and even coffee. Those caused alcoholism. If you read as the conspiracy rhetoric of the Republican Party in 2025, you are right. It was also the 1960-2021 Democratic Party.
The oRganic ™ The industry addresses white mothers as the prohibitionists did, because it was shown that it was a proven model for success. Image of the chapter “How to make a drunk”.
Why did anyone believe that Mexican food was a gateway to alcoholism? In a small part, it was because of the casual racism of the progressives, now famous for popularizing the eugenics that went to minorities, (2) but in large part it was why he has continued undermining US confidence in science since then.
Epidemiology.
Epidemiology, despite what you can read in social networks publications or in an equivalent source as NewsweekIt is not science. It is only correlation. To correlate a food to damage it, ask people what they ate, then observe what diseases they have. If you get enough people who say they ate something and then had a disease that you can declare statistical importance, the United States government, thanks to Democratic President Johnson, creating the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, he will publish it in a magazine that they created and control Environmental health perspectives. (3)
The cultural mulás epidemiologically linked many things with alcoholism to advance their agenda, including pickles and Mexican food. They had the equivalent of yesteryear of “brother, even science?” correlation on your side. Basically, the crowds shouted at anyone who was skeptical. After all, people ate selections in bars and progressive believed the worst of all Mexicans than in the way they do so now. Then they argued the food caused he. That is not science, but there are 9,000 articles in magazines reviewed by pairs every year.
Not all epidemiology is bad. The epidemiologists were once so rigorous and methodologically conservative that they were the latter to agree on a hereditary link for cancer. They resolved the problem of smoking cigarettes so convincingly that everyone knew it was just a matter of time before almost 45% of people in the 1950s to 0%, which hopefully will soon be.
But he also had his suspect under belly and that is what Progressive exploded then and now. The first scare of chemphobia, about blueberries in 1959, was caused by epidemiology that became government policy, regardless of how many scientists they opposed. Once the epidemiologists became cultural ‘rock stars, after the general surgeon’s report on cigarettes in 1964, all in the field wanted to be the ones who found the next great tobacco. So they started lengthening a lot and many common chemicals, hoping to enter New York Times and testify before Congress. Then, on the miraculous food side of epidemiology, we obtained low fat diets and juice and berries of acai and quinoa. We obtained the International Cancer Research Agency (IARC) in France so desperate to find new agents that cause cancer that claim that Plutonium is as harmful as … pickles. Hot tea also causes cancer. They suggest that 900 different things supposedly cause cancer, while they place small impressions, only correlation, non -causality, that California, which was silly enough to abdicate their public health to IARC decades ago, now has the proposal 65 ‘can cause cancer warning labels in more than 80,000 products.
Since a modern lawyer of the Natural Resources Defense Defense Council Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is in charge of the health structure of the United States Government, including an FDA and CDC that can easily arise against them, companies rush to take to the colors of artificial foods of the products as they hurried to create electric cars and EDE programs when Trump’s budget of Trump sent a message to them. Not because they believe that food coloration is harmful, but because they know that the government is.
The same spurious correlation that links organic foods with autism and virtual pollution with obesity is the only thing that says that food color is bad.
That does not turn it into science. It is still only epidemiology. FDA has never approved a medication or product based on epidemiology. That is why it should never be used to promulgate public policies without a plausible scientific mechanism of why it has a claimed effect. Until then, it is only an effect that is on an Excel spreadsheet.
Grades:
(1) Together with the draft, the Espionage Law, the Food and Fuel Control Law, and the following year the Sedition Law. When a president is not physically suitable for carrying out the office and no one in the public knows it, bad things always happen and reason only comes to light later.
(2) Planned Parenthood and Sierra Club now do a good job, but anyone who knows their history knows how much of their mandate was originally to protect white culture, just like eugenics. Because the founders of both were Eugenists.
(3) If you are a Democrat who now believes that you cannot trust Nih due to Kennedy, why do you ever trust? Some of us complain about their poilitization of science and elongation propaganda for decades. Environmental health perspectives It is as rigorous as an astrology publication. Let me extend a welcome to be called ‘corporate shill’. The disadvantage is that money is terrible because no corporation really gives money. The advantage is that half of America hate you reflexively because it disputes the same elites with which they disagree two years ago.
#color #food #cultural #mulás #Mexican #food #gateway #disease
