That Salzburg guy linked above appears to be well-aligned and connected with the AMA, Genome Project, Big Pharma, and Forbes magazine...in other words pro the current system which probably funds his work. While I don't think all vaccines are harmful (polio vaccine is a good one) I'm not gullible enough to think that injecting a toxic chemical into our body (like Aluminum or Mercury) along with an accompanying mix of soy, peanuts, egg, and other modifiers to make it more palatable to the body is the smartest thing. Where have all the food allergies come from (ie soy, peanuts, egg) that didn't exist 40 and 50 years ago?
Salzburg's view that supplements and vitamins are trash seems short-sighted (ie "6 vitamins you should avoid"). Some of his conclusions in that "vitamin" article don't jive with the clinical data. He missed the boat on vitamin D as there clearly are important studies showing a worthy link to diabetes and cancers (ie 10,000 Finnish infants monitored from 1966 to 1997 on Vit D intake during infancy). I guess you can believe the studies you want from the varying sources. It's all about percentages any ways rather than right or wrong. Nutritionist Guy Daniels did that in his book from 2010. He includes references to approx 700 major clinical studies in the fields of nutrition, supplements, and disease.... and the reasoning to support his conclusions. He provides all the references & sources so you can review them too. His bottom line is that some vitamin and mineral supplements do count. Big surprise there. Vitamins A and D are two of them, in the right amount (and no mega-doses).
I don't know where Salzburg expects us to get our Vit D from in the winter months from Oct-March if not from supplements. I'm sure he doesn't advocate indoor tanning (ie the sun's UVb rays don't penetrate the ozone layer in the majority of the US during fall and winter). So considering most Americans have low Vit D levels even after the summer months, how do you manage Vit D's short 1-6 week half life (25(OH)D) for the next 6 months? Your Vit D tank will be low by Dec. You can't get significant amounts from food no matter how much you eat (Eskimo's an exception)....but enough to not get rickets. A dilemma, especially when Vit D3 absorption has additional co-factors of magnesium, zinc, boron, vitamin K2, and calcium. It's half life is dependent on how you got it (food, UVb, D2 pill, D3 pill), how high your levels were to begin with...and may vary with obesity, race, type of foods, bodily inflammation/sickness, and calcium. It's no wonder that any single Vit D supplementation study can get very negative results.
The one major thing I took away from the Daniels' book is that internal chemical processes are complicated with much of it still unknown. You can't do a study just on Vitamin D when Vitamins A, K, and Calcium are also in the mix. They all work together. Daniels doesn't suggest all supplements are good and more is always better. Far from it. Reading his book will raise as many questions as it answers on nutrition, diet and disease. All you can do is follow what the best devised clinical studies tend to support and what makes sense for you. I don't think you're going to get those answers from our current HC system. What we need are proven facts and those aren't easy to dig out with so many conflicting studies. I tend to discount medical advisors that say everything is fine just the way it is and that govt can effectively regulate and monitor good health for us. I'm not the least bit surprised that Salzburg states the FDA is not happy with Dr. Mercola's anti-vaccine stance. Since there's a study to refute any study ever done, the FDA can claim harm by Mercola's preachings and silence the guy for the good of the people.
The first "natural" health book I ever read was Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures ("they" don't want you to know about). My wife had bought it years before I was interested in fixing my own health. I just happened to pick it up one day to see what it said about natural things I could do to help my blood pressure control. I ended up reading the whole book. That was the first time I recall knowing about Vit D's role in health and UVb exposure. I've since found much of that same information in other health books by leading doctors or researchers (ie. Prime Time Health, Dr. William Sears, Omnviore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, UV Advantage by Dr. Michael Holick, etc.). The FDA and FTC finally bagged Trudeau and he's now in jail for 10 years following a fraud conviction. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the fraud other than he sold a book stating weight loss was easy (note: it is once you do the right things). Fortunately, Daniels, Sears, Holick, Mercola and others are still free to preach about natural health remedies. Economic/financial analyst Martin Armstrong went to jail too (IRS). Doesn't mean he was wrong.
A nice post roadrunner. I agree on the importance of Vit D (especially in kids) - that link was just the first one I found to dig up the dirt on our quack in 10 seconds of googling. I'm sure there's hundreds more by better authors.
As much as I despise the term, I'll try to square the circle and get us back to metals. Several people here feel that government is by its very nature a negative entity. Sure, whatever floats your boat. However, many of the issues discussed here (healthcare, vaccines, climate change, national economic policy after a financial crisis) are classic collective action problems, and are often best addressed by the government of a society. This leads an otherwise thoughtful anti-government individual into a paradox: continue one's core belief that government is harmful to society, or challenge that belief by admitting that there are at least some complex problems that we need government's help to solve. The human mind is notoriously bad at ignoring all new information that challenges one's core beliefs, so we're left with situations like Stan's here.
Now Stan, I was too harsh on you. I'm sure you're a rational, intelligent guy in most cases. But here, given your core belief that government is not to be trusted, you're forcing yourself to cast your weight behind a snake oil-selling quack over the hundreds of real doctors who have done real research on the issue. I'm betting dollars to donuts that you do the same for climate change. It's easier to find someone, anyone who reinforces your core belief rather than side with overwhelming evidence to the contrary on a related issue. Add to that the always attractive element of getting in on a 'secret' by listening to someone who is telling you something that presumably 'they' don't what you to know, and you're left with a potent combination of personal belief and misinformation to support it.
Personally, I know that there are some serious issues in society that we need a working government to help us solve. I also know that humans are flawed, and sometimes make decisions that end up harming rather than helping. And of course, many times decisionmakers have interests other than those of their constituents in mind. For example, like most I'm not convinced that those in charge of the USA's macro economic policy fully know what they are doing. History suggests that they might not. Thus, I dig metals. It doesn't mean that I think that the gov't can't solve macro issues, or that they won't solve them, just that I don't need to bet my own financial future on them being right.
Perhaps most frustratingly, while believing that the moon landing was fake or giving yourself a colon blow cleanse every Thursday after a hard day's work doesn't make a lick of difference to me, for issues like vaccines or climate the cost of blurring science has powerful negative consequences for us all. Your willful ignorance helps make the world a patently, objectively worse place for my children, and that I cannot abide.
<< <i>A nice post roadrunner. I agree on the importance of Vit D (especially in kids) - that link was just the first one I found to dig up the dirt on our quack in 10 seconds of googling. I'm sure there's hundreds more by better authors.
As much as I despise the term, I'll try to square the circle and get us back to metals. Several people here feel that government is by its very nature a negative entity. Sure, whatever floats your boat. However, many of the issues discussed here (healthcare, vaccines, climate change, national economic policy after a financial crisis) are classic collective action problems, and are often best addressed by the government of a society. This leads an otherwise thoughtful anti-government individual into a paradox: continue one's core belief that government is harmful to society, or challenge that belief by admitting that there are at least some complex problems that we need government's help to solve. The human mind is notoriously bad at ignoring all new information that challenges one's core beliefs, so we're left with situations like Stan's here.
Now Stan, I was too harsh on you. I'm sure you're a rational, intelligent guy in most cases. But here, given your core belief that government is not to be trusted, you're forcing yourself to cast your weight behind a snake oil-selling quack over the hundreds of real doctors who have done real research on the issue. I'm betting dollars to donuts that you do the same for climate change. It's easier to find someone, anyone who reinforces your core belief rather than side with overwhelming evidence to the contrary on a related issue. Add to that the always attractive element of getting in on a 'secret' by listening to someone who is telling you something that presumably 'they' don't what you to know, and you're left with a potent combination of personal belief and misinformation to support it.
Personally, I know that there are some serious issues in society that we need a working government to help us solve. I also know that humans are flawed, and sometimes make decisions that end up harming rather than helping. And of course, many times decisionmakers have interests other than those of their constituents in mind. For example, like most I'm not convinced that those in charge of the USA's macro economic policy fully know what they are doing. History suggests that they might not. Thus, I dig metals. It doesn't mean that I think that the gov't can't solve macro issues, or that they won't solve them, just that I don't need to bet my own financial future on them being right.
Perhaps most frustratingly, while believing that the moon landing was fake or giving yourself a colon blow cleanse every Thursday after a hard day's work doesn't make a lick of difference to me, for issues like vaccines or climate the cost of blurring science has powerful negative consequences for us all. Your willful ignorance helps make the world a patently, objectively worse place for my children, and that I cannot abide. >>
Your beliefs are clearly from a far left stand point. It's hard to ever get through to people like you. For many it will never happen as their minds were captured/influenced when they were young by public schools and colleges run by many with far left ideologies.
The info on vaccines that I posted is proven medical facts from research and doctors. One of them being the highly touted Dr. Mercola. When you don't like the facts, and didn't like them being posted, you threw a fit a few posts back and said you were done. Why act that way?
They have a track record of lying to us. History proves it. BO care is just the latest where they were caught on tape admitting they lied to us to get it passed through and forced onto the American people. That's factual. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last that we never get the full story. They only tell us what they want us to know. Some are informed enough to see this. Just because a person can see through bull does not mean they are off of their rocker, so stop insinuating this nonsense.
As for climate change, that's another product of junk science that they have been caught rigging up in order to make us pay carbon taxes(their leaked emails a few years back where they were busted saying they had to make things up). As if paying those taxes to people like Al Gore are actually going to 'heal the earth'. It won't, but the clowns who rigged up this global warming conspiracy sure will get filthy rich from it. First it was global warming, then they had to change the name to 'climate change' once the warming hoax was exposed. Lord Christopher Monckton absolutely destroys these clowns' junk science when he takes them on with evidence to debunk this GW/CC conspiracy. Even the guy who created the weather channel stated this CC stuff is nothing but bull. The only scientists who back this global warming agenda are the ones being paid by the powers that be to push the agenda and promote their careers. Anyone who speaks out against the CC agenda has their character destroyed in the media that is bought and paid for by the very people wanting to push these carbon taxes on us.
I will try to be civil with you like I repeatedly said I wanted to be, but it's a 2 way street, miklia. What I have detailed on here doesn't make the world a worse place for your children. To suggest that is total nonsense. Quite the contrary. If you want to see what these people have planned for your children, you need to look up the UN's Agenda 21. Please, look in to it. Put your bias aside. I doubt you will, but if you do, you just might be shocked and horrified as to what your children are going to face in their future if these people are not exposed and stopped.
Perhaps most frustratingly, while believing that the moon landing was fake or giving yourself a colon blow cleanse every Thursday after a hard day's work doesn't make a lick of difference to me, for issues like vaccines or climate the cost of blurring science has powerful negative consequences for us all. Your willful ignorance helps make the world a patently, objectively worse place for my children, and that I cannot abide.
Here's a thought. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone refer to a fake moon landing or a weekly colonic in this thread, so I don't see the connection here to willful ignorance. Is this attempt at disparagement somehow objective?
I'm betting dollars to donuts that you do the same for climate change. It's easier to find someone, anyone who reinforces your core belief rather than side with overwhelming evidence to the contrary on a related issue. Add to that the always attractive element of getting in on a 'secret' by listening to someone who is telling you something that presumably 'they' don't what you to know, and you're left with a potent combination of personal belief and misinformation to support it.
Your "evidence" might be overwhelming for you, but it's been debunked with regularity. Miklia , for some reason you can't seem to resist making snied commentary about someone that you disagree with, to the extent that you try to cast them as somehow mentally or socially off balance or skewed in their thinking. This is typical of a losing argument, disparage the other side instead of debating the question. It doesn't give you credibility to do that.
The other day, I got suckered into buying a coffee table book about the solar system for my favorite 4 year old at Barnes & Noble. When you read a bit about the energy that the sun puts out and how it directly affects everything on earth, you gain some perspective about "climate change" - about how insignificant human influence really is in determining temperatures on Earth. There's your willful ignorance.
In understanding the tactics of junk science fear mongering, Al Gore comes to the rescue when you look carefully at the hypocrisy of his own carbon consumption footprint vs. what he says that the rest of us ought to be doing. Such is the massive scam of junk science that gets debunked over and over, but somehow the global warming cronies continue to ram it down peoples' throats as a political scare tactic (for huge personal monetary gain, of course). And then, they state that their BS is "settled science". As anyone who has been involved in science already knows, macro science like this is never settled. But hey, man - if there's money or power involved, you can be sure there's junk science behind it.
It's interesting that Al Gore, the poster child of "global warming" - can get special dispensation from his buddies to start his own TV station and then sell it out for a humongous profit to the propaganda machine for one of our most visceral enemies, but suddenly, he's practicing "capitalism" and he gets a pass. As a spokesman for any cause, including global warming, he is completely discredited through his own greedy self-indulgence whilst pumping his many scams for profit. Same goes for the college professors who depend on federal grants for their gravy train at taxpayers' expense. They've learned the same game as Big Al.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Couldn't have proven my points any better myself guys. Thanks for that. >>
You didn't prove any points. You refuse to accept the hard evidence, while you claim people that you disagree with are 'quacks'. As jmski52 said, you avoid the debate and evidence by tossing out disparaging personal insults. Like yesterday when you stated 'I must get all of the newsletters', as if I am not smart enough to know what I am debating on my own without talking points. Well, let me tell you, I don't receive any newsletters from anyone. I don't need them. I have been researching this stuff for many years and have a pretty informed understanding of how this world works and what their plans are for us. You don't have to agree with me, but the evidence is right before you if you ever decide to start researching such by reading their own words in white papers they have written, books they have written, as well as online research. You will totally change how you see the world once you know the real truth about who the string pullers are and what their agenda truly is.
Stan, earlier you dismissed 99% of vaccine research to call the 1% of people that support your worldview the 'correct' hard evidence. I then said that I bet you do the same for climate. And then you did exactly that. You proved just how powerful core beliefs are in the mind when it comes to bending rationality and confronting evidence that calls such beliefs into question.
Funny that 30 years ago (and even today in most parts of the world) what I said about a government's role in society would have been considered the most innocuous, non-partisan, boring thing to say, and has been so for thousands of years, back to the Greeks. Your claim that it's somehow 'far-left' shows how toxic the debate is today in the states.
JMSKI - you just said that you got your science information from a book geared towards 4 year olds. I'll let you take that one back.
Stan, earlier you dismissed 99% of vaccine research to call the 1% of people that support your worldview the 'correct' hard evidence. I then said that I bet you do the same for climate. And then you did exactly that. You proved just how powerful core beliefs are in the mind when it comes to bending rationality and confronting evidence that calls such beliefs into question.
Funny that 30 years ago (and even today in most parts of the world) what I said about a government's role in society would have been considered the most innocuous, non-partisan, boring thing to say, and has been so for thousands of years, back to the Greeks. Your claim that it's somehow 'far-left' shows how toxic the debate is today in the states.
JMSKI - you just said that you got your science information from a book geared towards 4 year olds. I'll let you take that one back.
<< <i>Stan, earlier you dismissed 99% of vaccine research to call the 1% of people that support your worldview the 'correct' hard evidence. I then said that I bet you do the same for climate. And then you did exactly that. You proved just how powerful core beliefs are in the mind when it comes to bending rationality and confronting evidence that calls such beliefs into question.
Funny that 30 years ago (and even today in most parts of the world) what I said about a government's role in society would have been considered the most innocuous, non-partisan, boring thing to say, and has been so for thousands of years, back to the Greeks. Your claim that it's somehow 'far-left' shows how toxic the debate is today in the states.
JMSKI - you just said that you got your science information from a book geared towards 4 year olds. I'll let you take that one back. >>
No, I didn't. I posted a link to research from many doctors about the dangers of vaccines. Do I have to post it again?
The far left talking points these days are climate change, illegal immigration, pushing vaccines, big 'G' is great and we need to depend on them to fix things', etc.. In reality, they rarely ever fix things. Most things they do costs way more than it ever should have, and they are constantly caught up in corruption and scandals always benefitting themselves and/or their friends/family.
As jmski stated, the sun is where it's at. Not from some 'man made' bull that they can tax us for while they get filthy rich off of a scam of epic proportions. Your climate change hustlers on the left are some of the biggest hypocrites on earth.
Ted Koren, DC stated, "Dyslexia, minimal brain damage, ADD, autism, allergies, visual and many other neurologic diseases grouped together as "developmental disabilities," barely existed before mass vaccination programs. Probably twenty percent of American children-one youngster in five-suffers from a 'developmental disability.' This is a stupefying figure Developmental disabilities" are nearly always generated by encephalitis. And the primary cause of encephalitis in the United States and other industrialized countries is the childhood vaccination program.
To be specific, a large proportion of the millions of U.S. children and adults suffering from autism, seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia, and other developmental disabilities, owe their disorders to one or another of the vaccines against childhood diseases." [Emphasis mine.]
Some 40-50 years ago children were not vaccinated until they were ready for the first grade at age 6. Neurological disorders were very uncommon then. Today, children are vaccinated at birth for HiB and begin their long vaccination-journey at 2 months of age, before the blood brain barrier is fully developed. A review of the medical literature around the world will turn up many articles linking vaccinations with many neurological disorders. Before the 1940s, autism was extremely rare or unheard of. Then in the mid-1940s we began a massive vaccination programs and autism was "born". At first, it only occurred in the children of wealthy parents, since vaccinations were not free or government sponsored like today. Later autism became a disease of all classes (with government-sponsored vaccine programs).
The encephalitis form vaccinations is much more prevalent than we would like to realize, since all vaccines are neurotoxic to begin with. That one child develops encephalopathies from a vaccine and another remains "normal" is not the issue. All children are affected, but some are affected more than others. For example, if a child develops uncontrolled high pitched crying after a vaccine is given, that is written off as a normal reaction and is even listed in medical texts as such. But if that same child has a slower speech development, slower learning (which is so common today), or slower ability in walking, who would know. Unvaccinated children walk sooner, talk sooner, and have a high degree of manual dexterity at an earlier age.
Their minds are not assaulted by the neurotoxins that most "normal" children receive. Vaccinations cause the brain to swell and that is "encephalitis", regardless of diagnosis. During the period after vaccines are given children often lose their soft spot in their cranium, as the swelling increases. Why would one's brain swell after vaccines were given? The four points of infection are pain (dolor), redness (color), fever (rubor) and swelling (tumor). Infections of the brain might produce these same points too
I have two children, 6 and 8. I'd be very curious how many children others have themselves, particularly those with sufficient time on their hands to read and write so much about these issues.
And whether those children have been vaccinated, and if not, how they get into things like schools, daycare, and activities and stay out of things like hospitals, hospice care, and graveyards
<< <i>And whether those children have been vaccinated, and if not, how they get into things like schools, daycare, and activities and stay out of things like hospitals, hospice care, and graveyards >>
They lie and deceive parents into believing children have to be vaccinated for school. They don't. You can obtain a waiver. Staying out of hospitals, hospice, and graveyards is just silly rhetoric not worthy of a reply, in my opinion. I know many children that are not vaccinated and they are usually more intelligent and healthier than those that are vaccinated.
Cohodk, what do you see when you look around your town. Do you see healthy looking folks or as I do, instead see numerous obese, I mean grossly obese people? Do you see healthy looking retirees or old broken ladies with hunchbacks and thinning hair?
I believe that we live in quite different parts of the nation so I am really interested in the condition of our fellow citizens.
When the Commander in Chief addressed the nation prior to proposing the ACA, he chastised the working uninsured as "irresponsible".
He did not call the grossly overweight "irresponsible". He did not call alcoholics or cigarette smokers "irresponsible" just the folks that wanted to keep a bit of their hard earned income in their pockets, and spend it on health care as they saw fit. >>
Well, I happen to live in one of the healthiest cities in America, but I do see lots of overweight people. And I agree, we have serious problem in the education of people on their eating habits and there only consequence is decades of chronic illness. The solution involves serious "ethical" questions that we are not capable or willing to address.
JMSKI - you just said that you got your science information from a book geared towards 4 year olds. I'll let you take that one back.
I said that? Really, man - pay attention instead of trying to make it just another put-down. I bought the book because the pictures are great and I'm hoping to interest my favorite 4 year old in science.
To wit, "It keeps Earth at a temperature above the freezing point of water, even though we are 93 million miles away. For the Sun to maintain this energy output, it needs to destroy mass at the rate of 4.3 billion kilograms/second. It does this by converting 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium every second. This might sound like a huge loss of mass, but the Sun has a total mass of 2 x 10 to the thirtieth kg, and when it was first formed, 77.9 percent of its mass was hydrogen. So this mass destruction of the Sun's "fuel" occurs very slowly, and it will last for about 5 billion more years."
If find this stuff interesting, Miklia - and I always have. You might feel superior in that you can joke about a fake moon landing, but you don't know how ludicrous you sound to a generation of people who grew up in the age of space exploration, who witnessed everything from the first Sputnik launch to the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs - and we witnessed them in many ways including the coverage on TV. Reporting in those days wasn't the same 15-second sound bite that we have to endure these days.
I invite you to listen on youtube to at least one of the JFK-Nixon debates that was televised in the 1960 Presidential Campaign. The discussion had substance, not the scripted non-stop propaganda sewage that we hear now. Go listen to some of JFK's other speeches and compare it to now. Do yourself a favor.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
When it comes to global warming myths I like to read Bob Hoye, who is also one heck of a financial and economic cycle analyst. He's not usually too far off the mark on a cycle change in anything. Having a geophysics degree he knows a thing or two about the globe. Some of his charts in the first link are interesting. He comes out with an article on the environment a couple times per year. Some of his GW articles from 2009-2014 are worth a read. It is an inconvenient truth that we've actually had global cooling for the past 17 yrs, something that certainly doesn't fit with the GW models. Hoye's charts show a decreasing trend in the frequency and severity of tornadoes, hurricanes, rain/flooding events, and wild fires. Antarctic ice has been growing. What has increased though is C02, which the GW community figured meant increasing ambient temps. It hasn't worked out that way.
H.H. Lamb was the meteorologist who set up the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. His climate history was widely accepted and even used by the IPCC in its early reports. This included that the 25-year span centred on the 1930s was the warmest such period in a thousand years. Then there was the question about the Middle Ages being warmer than the 1930s and the establishment had to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period.
CAGW theories based solely upon industrial CO2 could not explain that warming.
Michael Mann's job was to eliminate this embarrassment and his "hockey stick" graph did that and also eliminated the Little Ice Age. It has been said even putting baseball scores into Mann's computer model would generate a hockey stick. This marks the corruption of the CRU after Lamb's watch.
The Earth has been getting warmer and cooler since its formation. Without this process we wouldnt have the Great Lakes or Yosemite. The Egyptians might still be a superpower. It is only through the arrogance of mankind that thinks they control the climate. Just as the arrogance of mankind thinks it can make people live forever. Natures boom and bust population cycle can only be postponed.
“Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.
That is troubling because it nullifies the entire gist of this story. "Leading some to worry"---probably PCGS message board participants.
I like the links to conspiracy and tabloid stories in the margins.
“Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.
That is troubling because it nullifies the entire gist of this story. "Leading some to worry"---probably PCGS message board participants.
I like the links to conspiracy and tabloid stories in the margins. >>
Doesn't nullify the story. If the vaccines were the source, then having it spread via birth, blood transfusions, or other human to human contact is certainly feasible...and far worse than just the vaccine itself. There's no debate that those early vaccines were infected. There's only debate as to whether the SV40 virus causes cancers or other auto-immune diseases in humans. Considering that thousands of things cause cancers in human I'm not surprised that the AMA or National Cancer Institute dispute such a link. In the same manner the mainstream medical community denies that Vitamin D3 plays an anti-cancer role or anti-autoimmune disease role whatsoever. Yet, there are numerous well-run studies proving the opposite. Modern medicine promotes what makes it money. The last thing they want are cancer cures that aren't profitable. Vaccines and drugs are a cash-cow. Those will be defended until people are dropping dead left and right. And up to that point the AMA will vigorously defend them despite evidence to the contrary. These days, the only irrefutable evidence is too many people dropping dead from the same exposures.
I don't know about you, but when I see a smoking gun I figure that weapon has been fired. These days you'll never get irrefutable proof until you're dead. Common sense should prevail. There was certainly enough elevated risk here for people to take action. Personally, I prefer not to ingest myself with things that cause cancer in other animals. Call me crazy. Vaccines do have crap in them that can make you permanently sick or kill you. The effect on each person is different based on their own make up and immune system. No flu vaccine for this guy until I'm no longer in good health.
Considering that thousands of things cause cancers in human I'm not surprised that the AMA or American Cancer Society dispute such a link
Exactly. Cancer was given to humans (and all animals) as a self destruct mechanism by God. Tinkering with such mechanisms will probably have a very detrimental effect someday.
By posting the link you are trying to associate corporate health care profits to diseases that may or may not have been created or expanded by human involvement. And along those lines we should give credit to all the open heart surgeries over the last 40 years that have become a constant revenue stream to the health care system. By allowing people to live longer we have increased the probability of them getting additional diseases which "lines the pockets" of the million dolllar per year doctor. Right?
The longer we live, the more it costs. And we want to live longer but we dont want to pay for it. So we beech and moan until we die. How great.
I prefer not to ingest myself with things that cause cancer in other animals. Call me crazy.
I wont call you crazy, but I will suggest that people have been dying of cancer since after about the 10th generation of the human race. Those people didnt ingest any vaccines or GMOs or greasy potato chips.
I wont call you crazy, but I will suggest that people have been dying of cancer since after about the 10th generation of the human race. Those people didn't ingest any vaccines or GMOs or greasy potato chips.
I'm really only interested in the post WW-2 years, the boomer generation and their offspring. At least in this way we have a sizable population group and fairly even conditions. Let's not mess up the analysis with J6P from 1900 and all the issues he was dealing with to get past age 10 (and if he did he lived to be in his mid-60's). The "what's changed" since the 1945 is the question. And it's not just obesity. I don't think the HC Industry wants to find out the real answers, at least not any time soon. If you dig into heart surgeries in general you'll probably find that a large percentage of them, maybe even a majority of them were unnecessary and did little to prolong life. Cholesterol and heart disease was a big boom for HC since the 1970's. They latched on to cholesterol and ran with it. These days, it's looking like it's only a secondary or tertiary factor.
maybe even a majority of them were unnecessary and did little to prolong life
I have lots of personal relations that would differ.
All disease are self destruct mechanisms. The more we try to "fix" them the greater chance we have of exposing more time bombs. It took 2000 years to increase life expectancy by 20 years, and only 40 more to increase it another 20 years. You better believe we are opening (have opened) a can of very, very bad worms. And the "organic" industry is leaping out of their seats to take advantage of one of mankinds greatest emotions---fear. We humans cant rid ourselves of money fast enough.
Considering that thousands of things cause cancers in humans
The two biggies probably the person's own genes, and time itself. Very tough to escape from either
Let's not mess up the analysis with J6P from 1900 and all the issues he was dealing with to get past age 10
LoL, no, but let's lament the loss in purchasing power of a dollar since 1900, because that's relevant to the modern J6P (maybe he should cut it down to 3 a day if he wants to tack on some years..
... or increase it to 9 and drink them with some fun people, if he wants to have a better time in the days and years he has left
Comments
<< <i>oh yeah, put all your eggs in that basket.
You are an old fool. I am done. >>
That Salzburg guy linked above appears to be well-aligned and connected with the AMA, Genome Project, Big Pharma, and Forbes magazine...in other words pro the current system which probably funds his work. While I don't think all vaccines are harmful (polio vaccine is a good one) I'm not gullible enough to think that injecting a toxic chemical into our body (like Aluminum or Mercury) along with an accompanying mix of soy, peanuts, egg, and other modifiers to make it more palatable to the body is the smartest thing. Where have all the food allergies come from (ie soy, peanuts, egg) that didn't exist 40 and 50 years ago?
Salzburg's view that supplements and vitamins are trash seems short-sighted (ie "6 vitamins you should avoid"). Some of his conclusions in that "vitamin" article don't jive with the clinical data. He missed the boat on vitamin D as there clearly are important studies showing a worthy link to diabetes and cancers (ie 10,000 Finnish infants monitored from 1966 to 1997 on Vit D intake during infancy). I guess you can believe the studies you want from the varying sources. It's all about percentages any ways rather than right or wrong. Nutritionist Guy Daniels did that in his book from 2010. He includes references to approx 700 major clinical studies in the fields of nutrition, supplements, and disease.... and the reasoning to support his conclusions. He provides all the references & sources so you can review them too. His bottom line is that some vitamin and mineral supplements do count. Big surprise there. Vitamins A and D are two of them, in the right amount (and no mega-doses).
I don't know where Salzburg expects us to get our Vit D from in the winter months from Oct-March if not from supplements. I'm sure he doesn't advocate indoor tanning (ie the sun's UVb rays don't penetrate the ozone layer in the majority of the US during fall and winter). So considering most Americans have low Vit D levels even after the summer months, how do you manage Vit D's short 1-6 week half life (25(OH)D) for the next 6 months? Your Vit D tank will be low by Dec. You can't get significant amounts from food no matter how much you eat (Eskimo's an exception)....but enough to not get rickets. A dilemma, especially when Vit D3 absorption has additional co-factors of magnesium, zinc, boron, vitamin K2, and calcium. It's half life is dependent on how you got it (food, UVb, D2 pill, D3 pill), how high your levels were to begin with...and may vary with obesity, race, type of foods, bodily inflammation/sickness, and calcium. It's no wonder that any single Vit D supplementation study can get very negative results.
The one major thing I took away from the Daniels' book is that internal chemical processes are complicated with much of it still unknown. You can't do a study just on Vitamin D when Vitamins A, K, and Calcium are also in the mix. They all work together. Daniels doesn't suggest all supplements are good and more is always better. Far from it. Reading his book will raise as many questions as it answers on nutrition, diet and disease. All you can do is follow what the best devised clinical studies tend to support and what makes sense for you. I don't think you're going to get those answers from our current HC system. What we need are proven facts and those aren't easy to dig out with so many conflicting studies. I tend to discount medical advisors that say everything is fine just the way it is and that govt can effectively regulate and monitor good health for us. I'm not the least bit surprised that Salzburg states the FDA is not happy with Dr. Mercola's anti-vaccine stance. Since there's a study to refute any study ever done, the FDA can claim harm by Mercola's preachings and silence the guy for the good of the people.
The first "natural" health book I ever read was Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures ("they" don't want you to know about). My wife had bought it years before I was interested in fixing my own health. I just happened to pick it up one day to see what it said about natural things I could do to help my blood pressure control. I ended up reading the whole book. That was the first time I recall knowing about Vit D's role in health and UVb exposure. I've since found much of that same information in other health books by leading doctors or researchers (ie. Prime Time Health, Dr. William Sears, Omnviore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, UV Advantage by Dr. Michael Holick, etc.). The FDA and FTC finally bagged Trudeau and he's now in jail for 10 years following a fraud conviction. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the fraud other than he sold a book stating weight loss was easy (note: it is once you do the right things). Fortunately, Daniels, Sears, Holick, Mercola and others are still free to preach about natural health remedies. Economic/financial analyst Martin Armstrong went to jail too (IRS). Doesn't mean he was wrong.
Vit D slide show - it can't all be bunk
<< <i>The Tally ban and Al Kader really hate vaccinations too.
Hard to believe, in this day and time that anyone actually thinks a vaccination for diseases like Polio should not be used. It strains credulity >>
There's a small town near me that's pronounced, "El Kader". It's spelled Elkader. I'm going to credit you with my new joke.
As much as I despise the term, I'll try to square the circle and get us back to metals. Several people here feel that government is by its very nature a negative entity. Sure, whatever floats your boat. However, many of the issues discussed here (healthcare, vaccines, climate change, national economic policy after a financial crisis) are classic collective action problems, and are often best addressed by the government of a society. This leads an otherwise thoughtful anti-government individual into a paradox: continue one's core belief that government is harmful to society, or challenge that belief by admitting that there are at least some complex problems that we need government's help to solve. The human mind is notoriously bad at ignoring all new information that challenges one's core beliefs, so we're left with situations like Stan's here.
Now Stan, I was too harsh on you. I'm sure you're a rational, intelligent guy in most cases. But here, given your core belief that government is not to be trusted, you're forcing yourself to cast your weight behind a snake oil-selling quack over the hundreds of real doctors who have done real research on the issue. I'm betting dollars to donuts that you do the same for climate change. It's easier to find someone, anyone who reinforces your core belief rather than side with overwhelming evidence to the contrary on a related issue. Add to that the always attractive element of getting in on a 'secret' by listening to someone who is telling you something that presumably 'they' don't what you to know, and you're left with a potent combination of personal belief and misinformation to support it.
Personally, I know that there are some serious issues in society that we need a working government to help us solve. I also know that humans are flawed, and sometimes make decisions that end up harming rather than helping. And of course, many times decisionmakers have interests other than those of their constituents in mind. For example, like most I'm not convinced that those in charge of the USA's macro economic policy fully know what they are doing. History suggests that they might not. Thus, I dig metals. It doesn't mean that I think that the gov't can't solve macro issues, or that they won't solve them, just that I don't need to bet my own financial future on them being right.
Perhaps most frustratingly, while believing that the moon landing was fake or giving yourself a colon blow cleanse every Thursday after a hard day's work doesn't make a lick of difference to me, for issues like vaccines or climate the cost of blurring science has powerful negative consequences for us all. Your willful ignorance helps make the world a patently, objectively worse place for my children, and that I cannot abide.
<< <i>A nice post roadrunner. I agree on the importance of Vit D (especially in kids) - that link was just the first one I found to dig up the dirt on our quack in 10 seconds of googling. I'm sure there's hundreds more by better authors.
As much as I despise the term, I'll try to square the circle and get us back to metals. Several people here feel that government is by its very nature a negative entity. Sure, whatever floats your boat. However, many of the issues discussed here (healthcare, vaccines, climate change, national economic policy after a financial crisis) are classic collective action problems, and are often best addressed by the government of a society. This leads an otherwise thoughtful anti-government individual into a paradox: continue one's core belief that government is harmful to society, or challenge that belief by admitting that there are at least some complex problems that we need government's help to solve. The human mind is notoriously bad at ignoring all new information that challenges one's core beliefs, so we're left with situations like Stan's here.
Now Stan, I was too harsh on you. I'm sure you're a rational, intelligent guy in most cases. But here, given your core belief that government is not to be trusted, you're forcing yourself to cast your weight behind a snake oil-selling quack over the hundreds of real doctors who have done real research on the issue. I'm betting dollars to donuts that you do the same for climate change. It's easier to find someone, anyone who reinforces your core belief rather than side with overwhelming evidence to the contrary on a related issue. Add to that the always attractive element of getting in on a 'secret' by listening to someone who is telling you something that presumably 'they' don't what you to know, and you're left with a potent combination of personal belief and misinformation to support it.
Personally, I know that there are some serious issues in society that we need a working government to help us solve. I also know that humans are flawed, and sometimes make decisions that end up harming rather than helping. And of course, many times decisionmakers have interests other than those of their constituents in mind. For example, like most I'm not convinced that those in charge of the USA's macro economic policy fully know what they are doing. History suggests that they might not. Thus, I dig metals. It doesn't mean that I think that the gov't can't solve macro issues, or that they won't solve them, just that I don't need to bet my own financial future on them being right.
Perhaps most frustratingly, while believing that the moon landing was fake or giving yourself a colon blow cleanse every Thursday after a hard day's work doesn't make a lick of difference to me, for issues like vaccines or climate the cost of blurring science has powerful negative consequences for us all. Your willful ignorance helps make the world a patently, objectively worse place for my children, and that I cannot abide. >>
Your beliefs are clearly from a far left stand point. It's hard to ever get through to people like you. For many it will never happen as their minds were captured/influenced when they were young by public schools and colleges run by many with far left ideologies.
The info on vaccines that I posted is proven medical facts from research and doctors. One of them being the highly touted Dr. Mercola. When you don't like the facts, and didn't like them being posted, you threw a fit a few posts back and said you were done. Why act that way?
They have a track record of lying to us. History proves it. BO care is just the latest where they were caught on tape admitting they lied to us to get it passed through and forced onto the American people. That's factual. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last that we never get the full story. They only tell us what they want us to know. Some are informed enough to see this. Just because a person can see through bull does not mean they are off of their rocker, so stop insinuating this nonsense.
As for climate change, that's another product of junk science that they have been caught rigging up in order to make us pay carbon taxes(their leaked emails a few years back where they were busted saying they had to make things up). As if paying those taxes to people like Al Gore are actually going to 'heal the earth'. It won't, but the clowns who rigged up this global warming conspiracy sure will get filthy rich from it. First it was global warming, then they had to change the name to 'climate change' once the warming hoax was exposed. Lord Christopher Monckton absolutely destroys these clowns' junk science when he takes them on with evidence to debunk this GW/CC conspiracy. Even the guy who created the weather channel stated this CC stuff is nothing but bull. The only scientists who back this global warming agenda are the ones being paid by the powers that be to push the agenda and promote their careers. Anyone who speaks out against the CC agenda has their character destroyed in the media that is bought and paid for by the very people wanting to push these carbon taxes on us.
Weather Channel founder debunks climate change hoax
leaked emails snag global warming alarmists (you can find others like the Huff Post detailing this info too if you type it into any search engine)
You tube video of Lord Monckton debunking climate change hoax at hearing in CA legislature (listen to him starting at the 30 min mark)
I will try to be civil with you like I repeatedly said I wanted to be, but it's a 2 way street, miklia. What I have detailed on here doesn't make the world a worse place for your children. To suggest that is total nonsense. Quite the contrary. If you want to see what these people have planned for your children, you need to look up the UN's Agenda 21. Please, look in to it. Put your bias aside. I doubt you will, but if you do, you just might be shocked and horrified as to what your children are going to face in their future if these people are not exposed and stopped.
Here's a thought. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone refer to a fake moon landing or a weekly colonic in this thread, so I don't see the connection here to willful ignorance. Is this attempt at disparagement somehow objective?
I'm betting dollars to donuts that you do the same for climate change. It's easier to find someone, anyone who reinforces your core belief rather than side with overwhelming evidence to the contrary on a related issue. Add to that the always attractive element of getting in on a 'secret' by listening to someone who is telling you something that presumably 'they' don't what you to know, and you're left with a potent combination of personal belief and misinformation to support it.
Your "evidence" might be overwhelming for you, but it's been debunked with regularity. Miklia , for some reason you can't seem to resist making snied commentary about someone that you disagree with, to the extent that you try to cast them as somehow mentally or socially off balance or skewed in their thinking. This is typical of a losing argument, disparage the other side instead of debating the question. It doesn't give you credibility to do that.
The other day, I got suckered into buying a coffee table book about the solar system for my favorite 4 year old at Barnes & Noble. When you read a bit about the energy that the sun puts out and how it directly affects everything on earth, you gain some perspective about "climate change" - about how insignificant human influence really is in determining temperatures on Earth. There's your willful ignorance.
In understanding the tactics of junk science fear mongering, Al Gore comes to the rescue when you look carefully at the hypocrisy of his own carbon consumption footprint vs. what he says that the rest of us ought to be doing. Such is the massive scam of junk science that gets debunked over and over, but somehow the global warming cronies continue to ram it down peoples' throats as a political scare tactic (for huge personal monetary gain, of course). And then, they state that their BS is "settled science". As anyone who has been involved in science already knows, macro science like this is never settled. But hey, man - if there's money or power involved, you can be sure there's junk science behind it.
It's interesting that Al Gore, the poster child of "global warming" - can get special dispensation from his buddies to start his own TV station and then sell it out for a humongous profit to the propaganda machine for one of our most visceral enemies, but suddenly, he's practicing "capitalism" and he gets a pass. As a spokesman for any cause, including global warming, he is completely discredited through his own greedy self-indulgence whilst pumping his many scams for profit. Same goes for the college professors who depend on federal grants for their gravy train at taxpayers' expense. They've learned the same game as Big Al.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Couldn't have proven my points any better myself guys. Thanks for that. >>
You didn't prove any points. You refuse to accept the hard evidence, while you claim people that you disagree with are 'quacks'. As jmski52 said, you avoid the debate and evidence by tossing out disparaging personal insults. Like yesterday when you stated 'I must get all of the newsletters', as if I am not smart enough to know what I am debating on my own without talking points. Well, let me tell you, I don't receive any newsletters from anyone. I don't need them. I have been researching this stuff for many years and have a pretty informed understanding of how this world works and what their plans are for us. You don't have to agree with me, but the evidence is right before you if you ever decide to start researching such by reading their own words in white papers they have written, books they have written, as well as online research. You will totally change how you see the world once you know the real truth about who the string pullers are and what their agenda truly is.
Funny that 30 years ago (and even today in most parts of the world) what I said about a government's role in society would have been considered the most innocuous, non-partisan, boring thing to say, and has been so for thousands of years, back to the Greeks. Your claim that it's somehow 'far-left' shows how toxic the debate is today in the states.
JMSKI - you just said that you got your science information from a book geared towards 4 year olds. I'll let you take that one back.
Funny that 30 years ago (and even today in most parts of the world) what I said about a government's role in society would have been considered the most innocuous, non-partisan, boring thing to say, and has been so for thousands of years, back to the Greeks. Your claim that it's somehow 'far-left' shows how toxic the debate is today in the states.
JMSKI - you just said that you got your science information from a book geared towards 4 year olds. I'll let you take that one back.
<< <i>Stan, earlier you dismissed 99% of vaccine research to call the 1% of people that support your worldview the 'correct' hard evidence. I then said that I bet you do the same for climate. And then you did exactly that. You proved just how powerful core beliefs are in the mind when it comes to bending rationality and confronting evidence that calls such beliefs into question.
Funny that 30 years ago (and even today in most parts of the world) what I said about a government's role in society would have been considered the most innocuous, non-partisan, boring thing to say, and has been so for thousands of years, back to the Greeks. Your claim that it's somehow 'far-left' shows how toxic the debate is today in the states.
JMSKI - you just said that you got your science information from a book geared towards 4 year olds. I'll let you take that one back.
No, I didn't. I posted a link to research from many doctors about the dangers of vaccines. Do I have to post it again?
The far left talking points these days are climate change, illegal immigration, pushing vaccines, big 'G' is great and we need to depend on them to fix things', etc.. In reality, they rarely ever fix things. Most things they do costs way more than it ever should have, and they are constantly caught up in corruption and scandals always benefitting themselves and/or their friends/family.
As jmski stated, the sun is where it's at. Not from some 'man made' bull that they can tax us for while they get filthy rich off of a scam of epic proportions. Your climate change hustlers on the left are some of the biggest hypocrites on earth.
<< <i>oh yeah, put all your eggs in that basket.
You are an old fool. I am done. >>
To be specific, a large proportion of the millions of U.S. children and adults suffering from autism, seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia, and other developmental disabilities, owe their disorders to one or another of the vaccines against childhood diseases." [Emphasis mine.]
Some 40-50 years ago children were not vaccinated until they were ready for the first grade at age 6. Neurological disorders were very uncommon then. Today, children are vaccinated at birth for HiB and begin their long vaccination-journey at 2 months of age, before the blood brain barrier is fully developed. A review of the medical literature around the world will turn up many articles linking vaccinations with many neurological disorders. Before the 1940s, autism was extremely rare or unheard of. Then in the mid-1940s we began a massive vaccination programs and autism was "born". At first, it only occurred in the children of wealthy parents, since vaccinations were not free or government sponsored like today. Later autism became a disease of all classes (with government-sponsored vaccine programs).
The encephalitis form vaccinations is much more prevalent than we would like to realize, since all vaccines are neurotoxic to begin with. That one child develops encephalopathies from a vaccine and another remains "normal" is not the issue. All children are affected, but some are affected more than others. For example, if a child develops uncontrolled high pitched crying after a vaccine is given, that is written off as a normal reaction and is even listed in medical texts as such. But if that same child has a slower speech development, slower learning (which is so common today), or slower ability in walking, who would know. Unvaccinated children walk sooner, talk sooner, and have a high degree of manual dexterity at an earlier age.
Their minds are not assaulted by the neurotoxins that most "normal" children receive. Vaccinations cause the brain to swell and that is "encephalitis", regardless of diagnosis. During the period after vaccines are given children often lose their soft spot in their cranium, as the swelling increases. Why would one's brain swell after vaccines were given? The four points of infection are pain (dolor), redness (color), fever (rubor) and swelling (tumor). Infections of the brain might produce these same points too
Read the entire link here:
vaccines are damaging our children
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>And whether those children have been vaccinated, and if not, how they get into things like schools, daycare, and activities and stay out of things like hospitals, hospice care, and graveyards >>
They lie and deceive parents into believing children have to be vaccinated for school. They don't. You can obtain a waiver. Staying out of hospitals, hospice, and graveyards is just silly rhetoric not worthy of a reply, in my opinion. I know many children that are not vaccinated and they are usually more intelligent and healthier than those that are vaccinated.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>oh yeah, put all your eggs in that basket.
You are an old fool. I am done. >>
Zing! I knew I'd get that one back.
Shirley, I'm going to hell!
How about we talk about circumcision next?
<< <i>
<< <i>I feel sorry for Stan Musial's family.
Cohodk, what do you see when you look around your town. Do you see healthy looking folks or as I do, instead see numerous obese, I mean grossly obese people? Do you see healthy looking retirees or old broken ladies with hunchbacks and thinning hair?
I believe that we live in quite different parts of the nation so I am really interested in the condition of our fellow citizens.
When the Commander in Chief addressed the nation prior to proposing the ACA, he chastised the working uninsured as "irresponsible".
He did not call the grossly overweight "irresponsible". He did not call alcoholics or cigarette smokers "irresponsible" just the folks that wanted to keep a bit of their hard earned income in their pockets, and spend it on health care as they saw fit. >>
Well, I happen to live in one of the healthiest cities in America, but I do see lots of overweight people. And I agree, we have serious problem in the education of people on their eating habits and there only consequence is decades of chronic illness. The solution involves serious "ethical" questions that we are not capable or willing to address.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I said that? Really, man - pay attention instead of trying to make it just another put-down. I bought the book because the pictures are great and I'm hoping to interest my favorite 4 year old in science.
To wit, "It keeps Earth at a temperature above the freezing point of water, even though we are 93 million miles away. For the Sun to maintain this energy output, it needs to destroy mass at the rate of 4.3 billion kilograms/second. It does this by converting 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium every second. This might sound like a huge loss of mass, but the Sun has a total mass of 2 x 10 to the thirtieth kg, and when it was first formed, 77.9 percent of its mass was hydrogen. So this mass destruction of the Sun's "fuel" occurs very slowly, and it will last for about 5 billion more years."
If find this stuff interesting, Miklia - and I always have. You might feel superior in that you can joke about a fake moon landing, but you don't know how ludicrous you sound to a generation of people who grew up in the age of space exploration, who witnessed everything from the first Sputnik launch to the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs - and we witnessed them in many ways including the coverage on TV. Reporting in those days wasn't the same 15-second sound bite that we have to endure these days.
I invite you to listen on youtube to at least one of the JFK-Nixon debates that was televised in the 1960 Presidential Campaign. The discussion had substance, not the scripted non-stop propaganda sewage that we hear now. Go listen to some of JFK's other speeches and compare it to now. Do yourself a favor.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>How about we talk about circumcision next? >>
Parliamentary procedure demands that we discuss wholesale removal of tonsils first!
Bob Hoye on Global Warming - tyrannical duncery
Hoye's compilation of articles
H.H. Lamb was the meteorologist who set up the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. His climate history was widely accepted and even used by the IPCC in its early reports. This included that the 25-year span centred on the 1930s was the warmest such period in a thousand years. Then there was the question about the Middle Ages being warmer than the 1930s and the establishment had to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period.
CAGW theories based solely upon industrial CO2 could not explain that warming.
Michael Mann's job was to eliminate this embarrassment and his "hockey stick" graph did that and also eliminated the Little Ice Age. It has been said even putting baseball scores into Mann's computer model would generate a hockey stick. This marks the corruption of the CRU after Lamb's watch.
Used to be, "gods" caused that stuff... then, it was "nature".. now it's Man?
Such hubris
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>>> tornadoes, hurricanes, rain/flooding events, and wild fires<<
Used to be, "gods" caused that stuff... then, it was "nature".. now it's Man?
Such hubris >>
Lol, ain't dat what crm dubbed ev lution?...
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Everyone can thank Mr.O!
SV40 and the boomers come home to roost
<< <i>You can probably also thank things like the SV40 simian virus in polio vaccines. I must have missed this when it was first published in 2013.
SV40 and the boomers come home to roost >>
“Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.
That is troubling because it nullifies the entire gist of this story. "Leading some to worry"---probably PCGS message board participants.
I like the links to conspiracy and tabloid stories in the margins.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>You can probably also thank things like the SV40 simian virus in polio vaccines. I must have missed this when it was first published in 2013.
SV40 and the boomers come home to roost >>
“Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.
That is troubling because it nullifies the entire gist of this story. "Leading some to worry"---probably PCGS message board participants.
I like the links to conspiracy and tabloid stories in the margins.
Doesn't nullify the story. If the vaccines were the source, then having it spread via birth, blood transfusions, or other human to human contact is certainly feasible...and far worse than just the vaccine itself. There's no debate that those early vaccines were infected. There's only debate as to whether the SV40 virus causes cancers or other auto-immune diseases in humans. Considering that thousands of things cause cancers in human I'm not surprised that the AMA or National Cancer Institute dispute such a link. In the same manner the mainstream medical community denies that Vitamin D3 plays an anti-cancer role or anti-autoimmune disease role whatsoever. Yet, there are numerous well-run studies proving the opposite. Modern medicine promotes what makes it money. The last thing they want are cancer cures that aren't profitable. Vaccines and drugs are a cash-cow. Those will be defended until people are dropping dead left and right. And up to that point the AMA will vigorously defend them despite evidence to the contrary. These days, the only irrefutable evidence is too many people dropping dead from the same exposures.
Wiki linky SV40
Why did the CDC remove the SV40 info from its website? Why did the NIH in 1961 say there was a cancer link? If the virus was of no convern why was it removed from the US by 1963?
I don't know about you, but when I see a smoking gun I figure that weapon has been fired. These days you'll never get irrefutable proof until you're dead. Common sense should prevail. There was certainly enough elevated risk here for people to take action. Personally, I prefer not to ingest myself with things that cause cancer in other animals. Call me crazy. Vaccines do have crap in them that can make you permanently sick or kill you. The effect on each person is different based on their own make up and immune system. No flu vaccine for this guy until I'm no longer in good health.
Is the SV40 cancer organization just a bunch of whacko's? Look what it took to get agent orange recognized by the govt as a cancer causer.
How the SV40 cancer foundation came about - this is interesting as the incident stems from an oral polio vaccine administered in 1997
3400 scientific articles on SV40 as a cancer agent. Man, don't those people have something better to do with their time?
In 1999 the NIH has an entry in the federal register for the potential licensing of an SV40 treatment that they owned - strange stuff if it's all a made-up fairy tale.
Exactly. Cancer was given to humans (and all animals) as a self destruct mechanism by God. Tinkering with such mechanisms will probably have a very detrimental effect someday.
By posting the link you are trying to associate corporate health care profits to diseases that may or may not have been created or expanded by human involvement. And along those lines we should give credit to all the open heart surgeries over the last 40 years that have become a constant revenue stream to the health care system. By allowing people to live longer we have increased the probability of them getting additional diseases which "lines the pockets" of the million dolllar per year doctor. Right?
The longer we live, the more it costs. And we want to live longer but we dont want to pay for it. So we beech and moan until we die. How great.
I prefer not to ingest myself with things that cause cancer in other animals. Call me crazy.
I wont call you crazy, but I will suggest that people have been dying of cancer since after about the 10th generation of the human race. Those people didnt ingest any vaccines or GMOs or greasy potato chips.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I'm really only interested in the post WW-2 years, the boomer generation and their offspring. At least in this way we have a sizable population group and fairly even conditions. Let's not mess up the analysis with J6P from 1900 and all the issues he was dealing with to get past age 10 (and if he did he lived to be in his mid-60's). The "what's changed" since the 1945 is the question. And it's not just obesity. I don't think the HC Industry wants to find out the real answers, at least not any time soon. If you dig into heart surgeries in general you'll probably find that a large percentage of them, maybe even a majority of them were unnecessary and did little to prolong life. Cholesterol and heart disease was a big boom for HC since the 1970's. They latched on to cholesterol and ran with it. These days, it's looking like it's only a secondary or tertiary factor.
I have lots of personal relations that would differ.
All disease are self destruct mechanisms. The more we try to "fix" them the greater chance we have of exposing more time bombs. It took 2000 years to increase life expectancy by 20 years, and only 40 more to increase it another 20 years. You better believe we are opening (have opened) a can of very, very bad worms. And the "organic" industry is leaping out of their seats to take advantage of one of mankinds greatest emotions---fear. We humans cant rid ourselves of money fast enough.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The two biggies probably the person's own genes, and time itself. Very tough to escape from either
Let's not mess up the analysis with J6P from 1900 and all the issues he was dealing with to get past age 10
LoL, no, but let's lament the loss in purchasing power of a dollar since 1900, because that's relevant to the modern J6P (maybe he should cut it down to 3 a day if he wants to tack on some years..
... or increase it to 9 and drink them with some fun people, if he wants to have a better time in the days and years he has left
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry