Slashdot Mirror

Most people in the USA are vitamin D deficient, and it has been linked to depression, schizophrenia, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, autism, influenza, and more. More on getting the right level of vitamin D through using D3 gelcaps or other means:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

Or another item on that blog on blood testing if you supplement:
  http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

Another site:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

A quiz on vitamin D:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/09/06/test-your-vitamin-d-knowledge.aspx

"Might Influenza be Little More Than a Symptom of Vitamin D Deficiency?"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/21/avoid-flu-shots-vitamin-d-is-a-better-way.aspx

Many people suggest the right amount of sun exposure may still be best, but it is hard to get. If you have darker skin and work indoors, it may be almost impossible even in summer to get enough sunlight far from the equator:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml
http://curtisduncan.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-michelle-obama-is-more-likely-to.html

Most people in the USA are vitamin D deficient, and it has been linked to depression, schizophrenia, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, autism, influenza, and more. More on getting the right level of vitamin D through using D3 gelcaps or other means:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

Or another item on that blog on blood testing if you supplement:
  http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

Another site:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

A quiz on vitamin D:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/09/06/test-your-vitamin-d-knowledge.aspx

"Might Influenza be Little More Than a Symptom of Vitamin D Deficiency?"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/21/avoid-flu-shots-vitamin-d-is-a-better-way.aspx

Many people suggest the right amount of sun exposure may still be best, but it is hard to get. If you have darker skin and work indoors, it may be almost impossible even in summer to get enough sunlight far from the equator:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml
http://curtisduncan.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-michelle-obama-is-more-likely-to.html

Not according to the FDA or the ACSH or MIT, among others. On the other hand, überquack Mercola and the holistic nutters agree. Basically, the aspartame thing is just like the vaccine thing: scientists with evidence versus quacks who try to dress their bias up as information. Sure, aspartame tastes like dog shit, but (unless you have a certain rare genetic disorder), it isn't dangerous.

BTW, a post from someone else on a Crohn's forum on vitamin D:
    http://www.crohnsforum.com/showthread.php?t=4951
"""
This video talks about the importance of vitamin D (which is best absorbed by humans from sunlight) for health.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/12/16/my-one-hour-vitamin-d-lecture-to-clear-up-all-your-confusion-on-this-vital-nutrient.aspx
The video mentions how it is thought that a vitamin D deficiency is thought to lead to more autoimmune diseases (like Inflammatory Bowel Disease). They showed how more northern climates (which have colder climates/less sun) often have greater occurences of things like colon cancer and MS than southern climates. Vitamin D was also explained to be anti-inflammatory.
    This was something new to me. It makes some sense to me as it seems that Canada has one of the world's highest rates of IBD. It may have a higher rate than the US due to a colder climate and less sunlight, even though the diets are fairly similar.
    While vitamin D needs differs, the video said that we should all be trying to get something like 5,000 IUs a day, but some people may need double that or more. The daily recommended intake though is currently like 400 IUs. It recommends sunlight as the best source of this (and says that as long as exposure is not excessive, it is safe for you) or that if you take a vitamin make sure you are taking it in the form of D3 (cholecalciferol). D2 is another form that is synthetic and an inferior form.
    Has anyone else heard anything about this before?
"""

I have not watched the video. That post is just a top match on a Google search on "vitamin+D"+Crohn's.

Posts in that thread then link to:
    "Vitamin D deficiency tied to increased IBD activity, reduced quality of life"
    http://ccfa.org/reuters/vitaminD
"Vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with IBD (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis), but whether vitamin D deficiency parallels disease activity or adversely impacts quality of life is not known, Dr. Alex Ulitsky and colleagues at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee point out in a meeting abstract."

If it kills bacteria in 12 seconds, it's "not nice stuff".

Another example from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/08/finally-something-good-you-can-do-with-your-microwave.aspx : "Interestingly, the microwave was even able to kill B. cereus spores, which are able to survive extreme heat and radiation (though it took four minutes, not two). It's no wonder, then, why heating food in a microwave changes the physical structure of foods, with virtually unknown consequences. "

I'm again at work.. I can't go through and put together a nice long response like you have. But when I said I've done research, I wasn't lying. Let me share just a few links I can find--this is by no means the sum total but it's the ones I can share now. Please open your mind to an alternate--side effects of statins can be terrible, and often they are completely unnecessary outside of rare genetic disorders affecting cholesterol.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/21/900-Studies-Show-Statin-Drugs-are-Dangerous.aspx

Some of his references from all parts of the spectrum of medical journals and research facilities: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/statin-drugs-ref.aspx

One that contains a diagram of production and explains a lot about the function of it in the body:
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html

But I encourage everyone to check things out for themselves--just do some searches on statin studies, side effects, and even alternate solutions to lifestyle-inflicted cholesterol problems. My mother is now off the statins (as well as sugar and grains) and she has improved so dramatically over the past 6 months, it's like she's a new person. The muscle pain, chronic fatigue, and constantly forgetting things that plagued her since she started taking them have just evaporated--and her cholesterol is on its way to healthier levels. The quality of life increased after she stopped taking them, and that doesn't appear to be an anomaly as the personal testimonies go. As a doctor, you don't want to hear it, but people should take charge of their own health and well-being and research anything they are going to put in their own bodies. Get information from a variety of sources, and watch where each research facility gets their money too--a study funded by the very company who manufactures the drugs and stands to gain or lose billions of dollars isn't exactly going to be objective, now is it?

I'm again at work.. I can't go through and put together a nice long response like you have. But when I said I've done research, I wasn't lying. Let me share just a few links I can find--this is by no means the sum total but it's the ones I can share now. Please open your mind to an alternate--side effects of statins can be terrible, and often they are completely unnecessary outside of rare genetic disorders affecting cholesterol.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/21/900-Studies-Show-Statin-Drugs-are-Dangerous.aspx

Some of his references from all parts of the spectrum of medical journals and research facilities: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/statin-drugs-ref.aspx

One that contains a diagram of production and explains a lot about the function of it in the body:
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html

But I encourage everyone to check things out for themselves--just do some searches on statin studies, side effects, and even alternate solutions to lifestyle-inflicted cholesterol problems. My mother is now off the statins (as well as sugar and grains) and she has improved so dramatically over the past 6 months, it's like she's a new person. The muscle pain, chronic fatigue, and constantly forgetting things that plagued her since she started taking them have just evaporated--and her cholesterol is on its way to healthier levels. The quality of life increased after she stopped taking them, and that doesn't appear to be an anomaly as the personal testimonies go. As a doctor, you don't want to hear it, but people should take charge of their own health and well-being and research anything they are going to put in their own bodies. Get information from a variety of sources, and watch where each research facility gets their money too--a study funded by the very company who manufactures the drugs and stands to gain or lose billions of dollars isn't exactly going to be objective, now is it?

Something like this?

I was at my bank a few days ago, and there was this silly person spouting on about the terrible, awful, no-good, very-bad Swine Flu! --Bearing a little bottle of disinfectant and a handiwipe, this fool was wiping down pens and surfaces before touching them, lecturing with a dire tone of self-importance that everybody INFORM themselves!

There was an obvious gleam of joy in this moron's eyes; some people just love to run around and shout about the apocalypse. It makes them feel special or something. Anyway, after this idiot left the establishment, the bank teller looked up, clearly quite upset. --As were a handful of other people who had been within earshot of the loud conversation. Me and another fellow in the line up who had actually gone to the effort of informing ourselves took a few minutes to explain to everybody what was really going on and why there was no reason to be afraid.

There are things we DO need to be concerned about in this world of ours, and right near the top of the list are governments and news media which promotes stupid bullshit like this swine flu nonsense. And why would they promote such a thing. . ?

Here's some interesting reading on the subject. . .

WHO Admits to Releasing Pandemic Virus into Population via 'Mock-Up' Vaccines and Swine Flu Shot Linked to Killer Nerve Disease

-FL

I was at my bank a few days ago, and there was this silly person spouting on about the terrible, awful, no-good, very-bad Swine Flu! --Bearing a little bottle of disinfectant and a handiwipe, this fool was wiping down pens and surfaces before touching them, lecturing with a dire tone of self-importance that everybody INFORM themselves!

There was an obvious gleam of joy in this moron's eyes; some people just love to run around and shout about the apocalypse. It makes them feel special or something. Anyway, after this idiot left the establishment, the bank teller looked up, clearly quite upset. --As were a handful of other people who had been within earshot of the loud conversation. Me and another fellow in the line up who had actually gone to the effort of informing ourselves took a few minutes to explain to everybody what was really going on and why there was no reason to be afraid.

There are things we DO need to be concerned about in this world of ours, and right near the top of the list are governments and news media which promotes stupid bullshit like this swine flu nonsense. And why would they promote such a thing. . ?

Here's some interesting reading on the subject. . .

WHO Admits to Releasing Pandemic Virus into Population via 'Mock-Up' Vaccines and Swine Flu Shot Linked to Killer Nerve Disease

-FL

Not as good as they make it sound ---> http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm

You may find this site interesting:

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

Some of it is a little overblown, but my background is biochem, and I'd say that in the whole, they are right. (See note from a skeptic at http://snhbw.blogspot.com/2009/02/update-on-soy-online-service.html)

Dr.Mercola is a snake-oil salesman, but even so lists a number of good studies: http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm

Soy-based baby formula is probably a major cause of plant allergies in adults (and likely of colic in babies); soy protein is known to be a broad-spectrum allergen. I personally know someone who, after a binge on toasted soy nuts, became allergic to practically all plant proteins. It happened almost immediately after the only time she ever ate lots of soy nuts, so there's little doubt about the trigger.

Pandemic means spread, not severity. Dr. Mercola suggests concerns about the swine flu may be overblown. See:
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/29/Swine-Flu.aspx
"To put things into perspective, malaria kills 3,000 people EVERY DAY, and it's considered "a health problem"... But of course, there are no fancy vaccines for malaria that can rake in billions of dollars in a short amount of time ... As of June 12, 2009, 74 countries have officially reported 29,669 cases of influenza A(H1N1) infection and only 145 deaths in the ENTIRE world from this illness. The United States has had 13217 confirmed cases, and 27 deaths. Mexico has had less cases but still has the majority of the deaths at 108. ... BUT to keep this in perspective the regular flu, not the swine flu, has killed 13,000 in the US since January. But there is strong support that these types of figures are grossly exaggerated to increase vaccine sales. However, the fact remains that the regular flu at this point in time is FAR more dangerous than the swine flu and were you worried about the regular flu before the media started talking this up?"

This would mean that only those who are producing GMOs would be violating patents. That Monsanto ave patented use of certain genes is claimed here (browse with JS off).

More to add for those "intellectuals" to poo poo http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/29/Swine-Flu.aspx

RTFA The Radiation Poisoning Of America. It's based on scientific research done by several reputable scientists and research institutes. Check the NOTES section for a complete list of references.

If you still believe RF radiation is completely harmless within FCC approved exposure limits, consider this:

Current FCC exposure limit in the US:
580 microW / cm^2 = 5.8 W/m^2

Current exposure limits in Russia for the 0.3-178.4 GHz frequency band (as reported by a friend of mine from Russia who works as a telecommunications engineer on cell phone towers and other types of RF equipment):
0.1 W/m^2 - for 24 hours at the most
0.1-1 W/m^2 - for no more than 2 hours
1-10 W/m^2 - for no more than 10 minutes

You may also want to know why Microwave ovens were banned in Russia in 1976 and read Dr. Mercola's Ten Reasons to Throw out your Microwave Oven.

For even more information check Wireless Networks (Wi-Fi): Consumer Health and Safety Advice.

There you go, scientific evidence as requested.

What do you think about the risk/reward ratio of the Hepatitus B vaccine administered at birth?

From:
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/10/12/hepatitis-b-vaccine-part-two.aspx
"Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996 only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported.

Let us put this in simpler terms. For every child with hepatitis B there were 20 that were reported to have severe complications. Let us also remember that only 10% of the reactions are reported to VAERS, so this means:

Traditional medicine is harming 200 children to protect one from hepatitis B."

also known as an airtube, voice tube, etc. Basically a tube to transmit sound instead of wires.

For example: http://products.mercola.com/blue-tube-headset/

Well there's a lot of debate, if you look into alternative health, ppl like Dr. Mercola and Dr. Tim O'Shea and do a bit of searching on the AIDS conspiracy/medical conspiracies you'll get some insight into the controversy.

I know slashdot whole heartedly embraces main stream medical science and believes everything their doctors tell them because it's science right? no corruption or greed or agendas right? Nobody ever falsifies data for ego reasons, research funding, or to get published etc etc... and that can be applied to anyone really. Look at the data and make up your own mind.

I think the two big things regarding the Gate's foundation is related to vaccination and AIDS. These are two topics that are full of conspiracy. Is HIV == AIDS? Some ppl think it is all based on shoddy research, and that AIDS is BS. In Africa supposedly a lot of deaths just get filed under AIDS, no proper testing or methodology. never mind the extreme poverty, starvation, war, lack of sanitation, and other minor things like that. And from what I've read on vaccination I don't ever want to be vaccinated again. You can believe it's good for you, personally I think it's poison.

So if you have that view that the multi-billion dollar sick industry, big drug companies and their doctors are in it for the money and power, and make things up in order to deceive a gullible public, and then you see Bill Gate's foundation pushing those things around the world, the cynics might see it as an extension of imperialism and not some altruistic good for humanity effort although that works well for public relations. "Don't hate on Bill and Microsoft, they took billions of your dollars but see? They're doing so much good in the world..... shame on you for questioning their intentions..."

Your ignorance on this matter is so profound I simply don't have time to disabuse you of it. Please do just a little research before shooting off your mouth like this. I'd suggest:

http://www.psrast.org/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/03/14/gm-foods-part-one.aspx

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm

as places to start. If you have any real interest in informing yourself about the situation, that is.

This sounds all too familiar, mostly because I grew up in Mendocino county (To give you an idea of how hippie friendly Mendo is, take this fact: "the marijuana industry is responsible for roughly 40% of all Mendocino County economic activity" -http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/413/mendocino.shtml ) . It wasn't all to long ago when my mom and one of her close friends spearheaded a movement against the installation of a cell tower. Funnily enough, they both owned cell phones. It wasn't long until she moved on to blaming my computer for all of my problems, under the basis of EMFs (ElectroMagnetic Fields http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm . These people in Sebastopol (Oh god, I only live a few miles away from this town at the moment: I live in Santa Rosa)are more than likely caught up in the EMF craze. ( To see how EMFs are being applied to wifi , just check out this http://members.aol.com/gotemf/emf/wifi.htm ) Personally, I think people like this should adopt a more well balanced perspective, instead of just feeding into modern societies fear tactics.

Take it from a doctor then

http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/10/corn_fat.htm

If they're observed rarely (like the Martian), you need to try to find a way to either observe them more frequently, or observe something other parameter that gives you the same information you need to constrain your model.

My point was that if you could talk to the Martian, he could provide you with data that I'd trust a lot more than guesses about the heights of Martians based on a single sample. Both stats and science have trouble dealing with singular events. Receiving the knowledge from an authority in this case would work quite well. But we're trained by our modern scientific sensibilities to consider argument from authority to be something of a heresy. But why? Wouldn't the Martian know the heights of his people better than we could guess based on a single sample?

Again, I'm not really doubting the usefulness of the scientific method. I simply think there are other methods by which we can gain information about the world as well.

The problem you're describing is the problem of scientific illiteracy in the public
That's a major part of the problem -- the other is, as I mentioned, the fact that falsehoods are held to be true. The scientific is supposed to give us truth about the world, but the system must necessarily publish falsehoods.

What really makes the problem worse is the bottom-drawer bias in publications. In other words, studies which show no correlation, or no new information tend to get unpublished, whereas papers which discover "a new link between cancer and breathing!" tend to get published. So falsehood becomes fact, and millions of people stop wearing deodorant or taking antacids because they're afraid of getting Alzheimer's:
http://www.mercola.com/1998/archive/aluminum_and_alzheimer_prevention.htm

Physicians make life/death decisions every day based on scientific models of human physiology, and medicine's failures are only very rarely due to the incorrectness of those models.

How do you know? Right now, there's probably a huge number of people in your hospital that have diabetes. Our model for the underlying cause of diabetes has been shaken up several times within the last few years. How do you know we're not killing thousands of Americans every year out of our ignorance or errors? I agree, we must do the best we can, but the best we can is still quite limited, especially when it comes to diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, and other diseases.

But what is the alternative to the scientific method? You can gain empirical knowledge (sorted from most- to least-reliable) through: testing, observation, tradition, and word of mouth. Most scientifically minded people are able to work with the first two comfortably, but feel uncomfortable when dealing with the last two. But sometimes the only way you have of learning a fact is through word of mouth. Sarry might have kissed Harry and told you about it -- but you can't put them into a double-blind controlled experiment and replicate the results.

I personally, feel more uncomfortable than most with the second category (observation, or epidemiological studies). Famously, a "scientific" report showed a link between ice cream and polio. But I am more comfortable than most with tradition (though I still don't put much stock at all in word of mouth). Where did aspirin come from? Tradition. And its efficacy has been upheld by the scientific method. Where do we find systems of relationships between people that have been shown to work in the long run? Tradition. And nowhere else, in fact.

Science has provided no evidence that there is another, therefore there is no reason to believe that another exists. I am not only a scientist, but a scientism-ist :)
Logical Positivism's fundamental axioms state: 1) That anything that isn't falsifiable isn't scientific. And 2) Anything that isn't scientific isn't worthy of being thought about. But many of the most important things in life are not falsifiable, and rather impossible to put in a test tube. There's more to life than what can be known scientifically, and there are more ways to know facts than through the scientific method.

One argument for GMOs is that they are very heavily tested

DO you have evidence GMOs are heavily tested? How can they be thoroughly tested when they relatively new and it could take generations to test? Are they also test in combinations, tested X, Y, and Z altogether? One thing may seem to be safe and so may another but put them together and they can be deadly.

it also allows farmers to use less weed/pest killers

This is entirely wrong. While some GMOs may cut down on the need for chemical inputs others make is easier to use those inputs. Monsanto created Roundup Ready, RR, crops so even more Roundup, one of those chemical inputs or herbicides, can be used. Whereas before there was Roundup Ready crops, herbicides could not only kill so called weeds but could harm the crop itself, but now with RR crops all the herbicide Roundup can be applied to crops the farmers wants to use. Since RR crops have been used there has been a marked increase in herbicide, those weed killers, usage.

I doubt that the widely grown crops will be making any pollen. Most GMOs are designed to be sterile. Plants can hybridize very easily, and reproduce very quickly. You don't want some random species to acquire the modifications, nor do you want natural selection working with the modifications

Yet Super Weeds have been shown to be created by the cross breeding of GMO stock and wild relatives. Genetically-Altered Crops Can Produce Tough, Hard-To-Kill Weeds.

In the case of the farmers, they don't want the surrounding weeds to acquire the herbicide-resistance gene from their crops.

See above.

I think you're being a little pedantic, and you'll find the GP meant foods like boxed macaroni and cheese, frozen pizzas and the like. These are traditionally very high in sodium content, as well as several other "not so healthy in high doses" things, like fats. Your body needs fats, but not the amount of fat you get from a Big Mac and Fries. These foods also don't taste as good to most people, but they offer a convenience factor that people are willing to tolerate a slightly less appetizing flavor to get.

Pasteurized milk is debatable in its health benefits: http://www.mercola.com/article/milk/no_milk.htm
I don't know if this guy is one of those extreme types, but the information he provides about milk is accurate. Pasteurization of milk in Europe is also a fairly recent trend, and it still isn't done in many other parts of the world.

In fact, looksie at these links. http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/26/corn_syrup_diab etes.htm - Corn syrup linked to diabetes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-200 3Mar10?language=printer - Average American consumes, in 2001! ... about 62 pounds of corn syrup per year... no wonder we don't have that much real sugar, we replaced it with a chemical :)

...and this, for dangers on aspartame.

Prescription drug deaths skyrocket 68 percent over five years as Americans swallow more pills - "Poisoning from prescription drugs has risen to become the second-largest cause of unintentional deaths in the United States, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

More Drug-Related Deaths Blamed on Poor Handwriting by American Doctors - "sloppy handwriting -- interpreted incorrectly by a nurse or pharmacist -- contributes to the deaths of more than 7,000 Americans annually. Another number that makes all the difference: Less than a third of all American doctors write 80 percent of the nation's overall prescription volume."

I normally try not to respond to cowards, but I didn't want people to believe your five-years-outdated story, which was inaccurate at the time of release.

Well I'm not a pro-debater/arguer/political activist. I'm not all refined and politically correct. But I do believe without question, that I am competent enough to decide what goes into my body and what does not. I resent and find it insulting that people would suggest that I or anyone is too stupid to think for themselves and make their own decisions for themselves. Trust the experts because you couldn't possibly understand. So shut-up and bendover and take whatever they tell you too. That's extremely offensive to me.

There are professionals who have counter arguments, so I will defer with some links to them and their arguments:

Mercola.com: Dr Mercola's site is good (Vid and article):
Shocking Documentary Will Convince You to Stay Away From Vaccines For Good

Alex Jones ranting on the topic, with political cartoons cycled for images to the audio stream (Sorry, I'm no fan of Alex Jones, but sometimes he does have facts to back up his sensationalism)

Tons of links and further stuff here regarding vaccines
Vaccine deception and tragedy

the doctor within (a great site IMO)
THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN BLOOD: VACCINATION I$ NOT IMMUNIZATION

VACCINES, ANTHRAX, AND WAR: THE MARKETING OF DISASTER

and this "here are already 82 reports of serious adverse events filed with the FDA.(mercola dot com)
"In the case reports submitted to VAERS, five of the reactions were described as "life-threatening," six were "disabling," and 210 (54.5 percent) had "not recovered" as of the date data were provided by VAERS. Hospitalization was reported in 12 cases and two-thirds sought additional care in an emergency room or doctor's office (see Use of Health Services section)."

With potential side effects up to death according to Alex Jones, reports of Eubola virus like reactions to the vaccine (bleeding out of every orifice). And that the vaccine is only supposedly protective against 4 of hundreds of known HPV variants that could cause cancer. And for me personally I'm skeptical it can protect against anything. I bet this will actually cause cancer in many people who receive it. So again no thanks.

Reminds me of this link I ran across recently:

http://www.mercola.com/article/microwave/hazards.h tm

I'd like to see some of the resident RF specialists around here take this apart. My favorite line from the whole thing:

Microwaved food contains both molecules and energies not present in food cooked in the way humans have been cooking food since the discovery of fire. Microwave energy from the sun and other stars is direct current based.

There are many other gems in there though.

That is true but at least sodium chloride is a naturally occurring substance that humans have consumed for thousands of years which is a pretty good long term study to look back on.

Chlorinated sugar on the other hand is only about 30 years old and NO long term studies have been done (and in total only THIRTY SIX humans were ever tested and the longest study was FOUR DAYS) while many of the studies that have been done show that pretty bad things can happen such as: "Sucralose (Splenda) may result shrunken thymus glands, impaired immune system and enlargement of liver and kidneys" (New Scientist, Nov 23, 1991). Take a look at the following article about the dangers of splenda for some more info:
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_danger s.htm

We don't know what long term problems could arise out of humans using sucralose and that is pretty scary and is the reason I won't use myself as one of the test subjects. If you want to assume that using man made chlorinated sugar is fine since using naturally occurring chlorinated salt is fine then go for it. I would prefer to see more long term testing done that shows more favorable results than all of the tests I have taken a look at so far.

I also don't understand why anyone would want to use a man made chemical when many natural sugar replacements are available. The reason the masses don't know about the safe, natural alternatives is because there is not nearly as much money in it as there is if a company comes up with their own man made alternative that they can patent. Did you know that stevia cannot legally call itself a sweetener here in the US because the artificial sweetener companies put pressure on the FDA to not allow it? Even though Japan has extensively studied the herb and proven it is a safe sugar alternative it cannot be called such because of that would threaten the profits that could be made using the man made sweeteners. The FDA would prefer to ban stevia if they could, read more about how stevia has been attacked here:
http://www.rense.com/general37/stev.htm

My two-year-old daughter had mumps in February - diagnosis was confirmed in hospital although no explanation given as to why the MMR vaccine had failed. My seven-year-old, who had MMR at 14 months and the pre-school booster is suffering now.
Justine, Buckinghamshire

People seem to be under the misapprehension that it individuals who have not been vaccinated against mumps who are being affected. This is simply not true. All my children had all their vaccination as and when they should have. My 17 year old son is just recovering from mumps. Is this vaccination really that successful?
Linda, York

I was born in 1986, and I have had the MMR and a booster, yet I still had mumps last November, along with many other students at my university who had also had the MMR, so it seems even those who have been vaccinated are at risk.
Lindsey, Cambridge

-comments from Cases of Mumps soaring across UK

Here's a link discussing what Australia found. I tried to find a news article, but couldn't immediately

http://www.mercola.com/2000/nov/5/victory_over_sid s.htm

I don't want to hear from Travelocity every week

Use SpamGourmet, url in my url field above.

With spamgourmet, you can create a new valid email on the fly in the format of:

newAccountName.X.myUserID@spamgourmet.com

At any time, newAccountName can be used. So travelocity can be use, or travel. or t, or tv, or whatever.

X is the number of mails you want to receive to that email. You can increase or decrease X if need be. 5 is usually sufficient for an online purchase.

myUserID is, well my userID that I use to login to the system.

Everything after @ should be self explanatory.

So, no Amazon, I will not see your deal of the week, nor will I get bothered by all of the people you sell my address to.

Also, spamgourmet lets you see how many emails have been eaten by each of your aliases. The leaders for eaten email are 1) a mortgage scam site I gave false info to. Just curious how much of a scam it was. 2) NyTimes registration. I now use the anonymous logins that you can find on the net. 3) http://www.mercola.com/ This is a health site, and boy they love to spam you.

I highly recommend the service. It really works well, and will keep your email much more uncluttered.

One thing I've noticed about Diet soda is that it creates gas and bloated feelings, especially when I have it with lunch. From what I understand, it's made from aspartic acid, an amino acid and excitatory neurotoxin. It also causes havoc with my GI and I crap like a racehorse.

Interestingly, Nutrasweet was originally owned by GD Searle and then got approved by the FDA under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld (he had a private career for a while in between Nixon and Bush..) Later Monsanto bought them. Then the brand went to

According to many people, Nutrasweet is not a good thing to be drinking in quantity. If you drink 8 cans of diet soda per day, you are risking your self. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, aspartame causes: Birth defects, Diabetes, Emotional disorders, Epilepsy/seizures, Migraines, Lowered sperm count, etc.

They are also lobbying to change the food labels in order to better hide additives: Truth in Labling. Of course, to be two sided, Nutrasweet denies that there is anything wrong with it. Sort of like tobacco used to be good for you.

One last article mentions the entire history. Very interesting to see the revolving door in the FDA and the pharma industry. Notice how they just now stopped putting "trans-fats" in chips and everyone knows they are bad, cause heart disease, etc.. 5 years ago, everyone thought they were fine. Nutrasweet is NOT good for you.

You'd much rather have splenda than aspartame. To me, that's like saying you'd rather have skin cancer than lung cancer ;-)
I avoid artificial sweeteners, all of them. I am not fanatic about it, I can drink an artificially sweetened soft drink if there are no others and I feel like one.
Check out some of the links returned by googling for sucralose. One of them (possibly more), like this one contain user testimonials (if asked for email just enter webmaster@mercola.com). Interesting stuff. Dr. Mercola has a page on it (link on the same page).

That stuff just isn't good for you.

... what if one of the various "environmental factors" models is right rather than the "single pathogen" model? IE, retroviruses start multiplying in people whose immune systems are shot already -- it's the symptom; not the cause.

I know we like single-pathogen disease models but frankly those are pretty rare. Especially with autoimmune and immunodeficient disorders, it's not as easy as people think to even define the given disorder in the first place, let alone establish a pathogenic cause. Take lupus: the diagnostic criteria is a list of 11 symptoms of which the patient must present 4. AIDS *was* like that for a long time, now it's defined by presentation of a short list of symptoms and presence of HIV antibodies. But then again, any death in Africa by pneumonia is counted as an AIDS case; antibodies are not even tested for. At any rate, there are numerous other that stress environmental factors.

Single pathogens are sexy for epidemiologists. They let you focus funding on a single area and clean up a mess with some drugs (which, btw, makes lots of money for pharmaceudical companies, who fund a lot of the research in the first place). Environmental causes are less sexy. They are hard to identify. They are hard to correct. And correcting them can cost a lot of money to the people funding your research.

Where, even though they are supposed to be phased out, to this day often have fair amounts of mercury in them...and the amount of shots required for children has increased dramatically over the decades.

We have a control group to compare today's heavily vaccinated children against, too:

http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/4/amish_autism.htm

It would be interesting to run the same tests on 11-year old Amish kids and see how they compare.

Usurper_ii

Use this:

http://www.mercola.com/forms/ferrite_beads.htm

Another question: Do we really want this in the hands of the defense department? There would be even less qualms about sending people into harms' way if something like this were in their medicine cabinet.

And don't think they wouldn't; they're quite willing to try and force potentially harmful vaccinations and other dubious treatments on their own personnel. Oh, and if something goes wrong, the drug company needn't worry - they probably won't be held accountable.

This drug definitely has a downside.

Notice all the Nutrasweet bashing going on among health gurus over the last couple of years. It was the perfect sweetener, now it causes everything from headaches to severe thunderstorms.

That bashing's been going on since soon after the product hit the market. I think the patent expiring is why you're hearing more about it because there isn't anyone to "stifle" the truth anymore. The headaches are actually caused by brain lesions. But, those aren't the worst part, the blindness is what really gets you. (For the tin hatters out there)

Notice all the Nutrasweet bashing going on among health gurus over the last couple of years. It was the perfect sweetener, now it causes everything from headaches to severe thunderstorms.

That bashing's been going on since soon after the product hit the market. I think the patent expiring is why you're hearing more about it because there isn't anyone to "stifle" the truth anymore. The headaches are actually caused by brain lesions. But, those aren't the worst part, the blindness is what really gets you. (For the tin hatters out there)

One of my employees had the same "tinfoil" thing going on. When she was 8 she had to get glasses. Each year her eyesight got worse and worse until she was 16 and her parents finally let her get contacts. Now her perscription stays about the same (rarely, but sometimes improves).

That got me on a search one night, partly because I have 20/40 vision and I have glasses, but they hurt to wear so I end up never wearing them. I don't recall where I saw the particular articles about eyesight and how optometrists would adjust things, but I think it was new scientists.

Anyway, the article talked about how in some countries optometrists were changing the way they have the focal point center in the eye. For a very long time now, they would have the focal point just before the retina. To me that always seemed kind of silly since the retina is what "sees". They have studies that were showing that doing that was causing the eyes to adjust the other direction usually making matters worse than better. While the people they studied with the adjustment to focusing the light directly to the retina had stable eyesight, and sometimes improving eyesight.

Kind of makes you wonder in ways. I mean, if you have blurry vision because your eyes aren't focusing light correctly, wouldn't the idea of focusing light directly where it should go be the way to do things and not just before? Oh well, doctors aren't always right and it's always a good idea to get second opinions and educate yourself anyway. I know when I get my next pair of glasses (probably won't) I'll specifically ask them to focus the light on my retina, not before it.

After some quick looking I found this. It's similar to what I read elsewhere. Since I'm shortsighted...hmmmmm

http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/4/eyeglass_prescri ptions.htm

You're the one leaving out the reactions of the driver.

Bullshit. Drivers are the initial cause of almost 100% of accidents. From here http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.h tm: "Moreover, some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single distracted driver."

Plus this is about "The Physics Behind Car Crashes", not about the people behind them.

Cars, in general, are safer than they used to be because of air bags, crumple zones, seat belts (and people wearing them), collapsable steering columns, reinforced roofs, etc. People simply do not die as much in cars as they used to. Other vehicles like SUVs are below the safety trend. That is why they are the car of choice for soccer moms.

Again:

"ABS keeps the front (steering) wheels of a vehicle from locking up under panic braking. This allows the driver to retain steering control. This should be a safety improvement, but only if the driver steers appropriately. Many drivers tend to oversteer in panic situations, turning the wheel farther than necessary. If the wheels are locked such oversteering is irrelevant, since a locked wheel slides sideways just as easily as forward. With ABS, however, oversteering is converted into real turning forces, so drivers who tend to oversteer may have more rollover accidents with ABS than without it."

http://www.parceng.com/newsletters/020201.html

You must be an ABS salesman, because nobody would defend at this length a device which has no safety benefits.

ABS is great at reducing rear end collisions especially when the roads are slippery like when raining and snowy. I used to slam on my brakes in the snow with ABS because it was cool. Driving more carefully (larger distance between you and the person in front of you) and slowly in wet and snowy conditions will save you and your car from damage than any ABS. Staying off of the road is your safest bet under those conditions. I have turned around and gone home in a 4x4 with ABS because the roads were snowy and icy.

To die in a rear end collision ABS will not save your life. You are already going too fast relative to the car in front. I've seen a person voluntarily drive a car into a tree at 50 mph with only a seatbelt and unbuckled the belt and walked out of the car (hightschool drivers ed class). It could have been rigged, I don't know. Insurance companies have not noticed a reduction in claims due to ABS.

My first experiment with ABS was in 1987 or 88 with a Mercedes on a wet road where the driver imitated the salesman who sold his parents the car by slamming on the brakes with his hands off of the wheel and you could feel the ABS working and you could see the steering wheel go slightly left and right as the ABS adjusted.

ABS seems like cool technology. Being a geek, I like the engineering behind them, but they don't do too much in the real world.

> I told her that the trick to fending off hypochondria is to gently tap the underside of her chin 5 times slowly and the symptoms will go away. > Guess what? It worked. I just made it up but I told her I heard about it on a medical show. You're not the only one to come up with this: http://www.mercola.com/2005/oct/13/tapping_your_fe ars_away.htm

Black cars and clothes are the reason for global warming. There we go.

These two men have a lot to answer for then!

In the study, published in the March 2, 2004 journal Annals of Internal Medicine, people who used antibacterial soaps and cleansers developed cough, runny nose, sore throat, fever, vomiting, diarrhea and other symptoms just as often as people who used products that did not contain antibacterial ingredients.

and then from the same article

Even the American Medical Association (AMA) does not recommend these products. So why do they persist? Simple; the manufacturers have relied on using fear to convince people that they need to use them to stay healthy.

The point is that antibacterial soap should have its uses and is recommended to be used in the hospitals. But when it is used at home and everywhere eventually the bacteria will develop resistance., because 1) A lot more bacteria is exposed to it so the chance of some individual developing resistance is higher and 2) People don't wash their hands long enough and well enough for the antibacterial soap to kill all the germs. Honestly, how many people you know that wash their hands at least for 1 minute and srub between their fingers and up to their forearms?

And then when antibacterial soap is needed, such as in a hospital dealing with a patient who's immune system is busted it would be desirable for the antibacterial soap to be very effective as not to expose the patient to that bacteria.

Here's are the seriously inflated CDC statistics. They're claim 36,000/year
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm

Here are the actual numbers as reported by the American Lung Association (see page 9)
http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-460 4-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/PI1.PDF

I like your post, but I'm pretty sure Sucralose is chlorinated sucrose molecule. At least, that is what the company that produces it says. Here are some links:
http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/ http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_danger s.htm# http://www.ific.org/publications/brochures/sucralo sebroch.cfm http://www.sucralose.org/facts.html

Please note I wasn't specifically looking for pros vs cons of the shit. I personally hate it, I can taste when it's in my food, and I have a sneaking suspicion it wrecked my digestive system. However, I don't know all there is to know about it so I really can't point fingers, but I can stop, and have stopped, eating it.