But also true is not everyone that smokes get lung cancer. Some, die of a ripe old age of other "natural" causes (not normally associated with smoking).
The language being used in the arguments against diet having any relation to health is typically "all or nothing" logic, where neither extreme is accurate. Which is my whole point. Smoking increases the risk of cancer (causes), while eating well decreases the risk (prevents).
Disease-conferred immunity usually lasted a lifetime. As each new generation of children contracted the infection, the immunity of those previously infected was renewed due to their continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease; except for newly-infected children and the few individuals who’d never had the disease or been exposed to it, the ‘herd immunity’ of the entire population was maintained at all times.
Since Vaccines actually break "herd immunity", by not allowing natural cyclical re-exposure that is needed to maintain immunity. This is the lie of the Vaccine Big Pharma machine. This is why they are pushing vaccinations to protect against previously vaccinated people from getting the disease.
The problem is, as we found in the Disneyland case, was the vaccine didn't protect against out of zone (aisian in this case) version of Measles. Go figure, the herd immunity was gone.
So, you make my case that Measles vaccine doesn't prevent measles. I've been called uninformed because I know this fact.
Measles is miserable. Never said otherwise. But it also usually doesn't have long term adverse effects, that Vitamin A can't take care of. But Injecting poison into your body does have long term effects, and is actually harmful to about the same percentage of people who get adverse reactions to measles.
I am informed, you just don't like the information.
As opposed to bacon wrapped pork chops in a butter cream sauce.
Eating fresh fruits and vegetables is proven to contribute to good health. Eating poorly contributes to all sorts of health problems. I know people who get sick regularly, who eat crappy food (if you can even call it "food"). They refuse to believe diet affects health. You're not one of those are you?
Plenty of people live long lives and don't have adverse effects from smoking, dying of old age. Using your "all or none" approach, then smoking cannot be said to "cause cancer" because some people don't get cancer when they smoke for years.
Do Vaccines Prevent Measles? Then why do people with Measles vaccines get Measles (rare, but it happens)? So, using your logic, you cannot say Measles Vaccine prevents measles, because it isn't 100%.
Unfortunately eating right isn't as easy as not smoking. And that is the difference. It is easy to eat nothing but McDonalds and KFC, but that isn't eating well. Eating well is a choice, just like smoking is a choice.
To eat right, one must search for fresh and natural foods. Trust me, it isn't as simple as "not smoking".
Eating right means your immune system is able to fend off everyday environmental hazards. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative (Starbucks n Krispie Kreame for every meal)
And unfortunately for some, once the Cancer has arrived, eating right won't help, as the immune system is already compromised. Eating right helps keep the immune system optimized (helps, not perfect).
You are absolutely wrong. Eating right does prevent some cancers, because eating right reduces the risk of cancer, thus can be said to prevent. This is not "all or nothing" claim, which you are making it. Reducing the risk, means you prevent some.
Just as the opposite is true, increasing risk means "causes at least some" as in Smoking. Does smoking cause cancer if someone smokes their whole life and dies at age 100 of old age? Why yes, yes it does. It doesn't cause it in everyone. Increasing risk means helps cause... decreases risk means helps prevents.
If eating better reduces the risk of cancer, then by definition it prevents SOME cancer. Remove the "SOME" and the statement still implies "SOME". If you assume "ALL" instead of "SOME", it does break, because "ALL" and "NONE" are rarely true absolutes.
reduce the chances of getting cancer, but it has no hope of actually preventing it
If you reduce the chance, you do prevent it in at least some cases. So, your statement is in fact not accurate, as there is HOPE. I will repeat it, EATING well does prevent cancer in at least some people. Further, eating well does can reduce the severity of cancer, and that gives you a much better chance of beating it (at least certain forms). But if you insist on eating Bacon Wrapped Pork Chops thinking it doesn't matter to your health by all means keep eating it.
1) is not a reason to force vaccinations on everyone else. It doesn't stop the risk 2) There is no double blind tests that prove this. This is pure conjecture. The fact that people who have had Measles vaccine, still get measles proves that it is at least partially non-effective. 3) Measles vaccines do not prevent measles absolutely 100% of the time. In addition, there are vaccines that have been proven deadly (Guardacil) but are still being pushed by the Vaccine producers as being "safe"
4) THE ONLY effective prevention of Measles is to get measles. The fact that we can TREAT effectively measles and the negative consequences of measles is simple and doesn't involve poisons, namely doses of Vitamin A, is MY choice, not yours, not Government not anyone else. I actually care about my kids that I don't want them injected with poisons with harmful effects, negates the Pro Vaccine people's claim about parents not caring.
The problem is, I AM informed, and I KNOW the risks of both, it should be MY choice for MY kids, not some mandate by some functionally illiterate politician listening to Big Pharma adverts in Sacrament or DC.
And they will get sick, and live. And the tragedy is that you still think that is some how better than injecting poisons in you body, that the EPA says you shouldn't consume in water.
I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations.
I hate that legislation is allowed to force people into something the state mandates. And it is funny, I remember in the early days of AIDS / GRID when certain people suggested state mandated quarantines, how the same people who are supporting state mandated vaccines said it was unconstitutional. Injecting poison into your body by force of law is legal, to protect the public from disease, but quarantining people to do the same is illegal.
I know plenty of teachers that don't understand 6th grade math. They teach English and Art. And yes, it is seriously wrong.
I'm in education, and while there are some really fantastic teachers out there, there are some really seriously flawed ones as well. You can't dodge all the raindrops.
Slippery slopes are logical fallacies, not because they don't sometimes work, they are logical fallacies because they sometimes fail. That being said...
At what point can the state compel people to have medical procedures done? Pregnant at 15, forced abortion? Take kids away from parents the state doesn't like how they are being raised?
Additionally, THIS kind of ruling / law doesn't really bode well with Abortion. The line is "My body, my choice" is completely done away with.
And what happens when we actually prove that Autism disorder is caused by bad vaccines? We already know some vaccines have really bad adverse problems, and kill. And if Vaccines are completely safe, why do they hide the data regarding adverse reactions with structured settlements?
The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING. Those people at risk, are still at risk. Those people who have been vaccinated are still protected. In fact, the Measles outbreak at Disneyland had almost nothing to do with the no-vaccine advocates, but was due to a strain that the American Vaccine doesn't fully protected against, and many of the victims were simply too young to have been through the fully regime.
But Facts don't matter when you have government FUD on your side.
Okay a bit of Hyperbole, One in ten families could have a Tesla (current Estimated cost is approaching 70 Billion). Cost of Tesla is currently 71,000 (RWD, 60KWH battery), 674.5 billion/9.5
And we haven't even begun calculating the cost to ride... that is just to get the damn thing built.
And we haven't even begun calculating the subsidies when ridership peaks at less than estimated.
The best estimations for the cost have all been way off, a bit like my hyperbole, wouldn't you say? (9 billion bond now will cost 70 billion to build).
I don't love cars or trucks or trains or planes. I'm pragmatic like that. Right now, the cost of driving is cheaper (more pragmatic) than any other for of travel, up to about 500 miles, and depending on how many passengers are with me.
If I have to take a train, I have to take a taxi or park in $$ parking lot to get to the station, plus rent a car / taxi at the destination. Same with Airplanes. It isn't about love of cars, it is about cost of transportation.
Trains, especially HSR is a losing proposition, at current costs. It is better to build local trains to airports. I would love to be able to get on a train, to the nearest airport to fly the 500 miles. I would hope a train ride would be less expensive than parking in long term.
California HSR is a joke. The cost of the project is already exceeding what was promised to the voters of the bond. Which means, it won't be nearly done for the price promised to tax payers by the liberal democrats who want the thing. Not only that, the estimated cost of tickets has already exceeded the cost of airline tickets for the same trip, and are considerably more than gas / mileage in a car.
It would be cheaper to give every California family a Tesla and build electric charging stations in every town.
But, actual costs aren't the issue, or so liberals love to tell us. I have no idea why liberals love trains so much, they are just another mode of transportation.
Properly used, drug dogs are good at detecting drugs. The problem isn't the dogs, it is the handlers. A trained drug dog can "alert" when given a cue by the handler, falsely indicating drugs, when the dog didn't sniff any. There is no way to interrogate a drug dog in court about what it was smelling or if it was just following daddy's orders to alert on cue.
I would, if I were a lawyer, put a drug dog as a witness, and if I could get it to cue up an alert, then I would call for dismissal of all things after the dog alerted.
Doesn't negate "line of sight". Infrared is typically line of sight, but also can bounce off walls. And if anyone walks between the remote and the TV, it just doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
vast majority of lung cancer is people who smoked
True
But also true is not everyone that smokes get lung cancer. Some, die of a ripe old age of other "natural" causes (not normally associated with smoking).
The language being used in the arguments against diet having any relation to health is typically "all or nothing" logic, where neither extreme is accurate. Which is my whole point. Smoking increases the risk of cancer (causes), while eating well decreases the risk (prevents).
Herd Immunity doesn't apply to Vaccines.
http://vaccinechoicecanada.com...
Disease-conferred immunity usually lasted a lifetime. As each new generation of children contracted the infection, the immunity of those previously infected was renewed due to their continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease; except for newly-infected children and the few individuals who’d never had the disease or been exposed to it, the ‘herd immunity’ of the entire population was maintained at all times.
Since Vaccines actually break "herd immunity", by not allowing natural cyclical re-exposure that is needed to maintain immunity. This is the lie of the Vaccine Big Pharma machine. This is why they are pushing vaccinations to protect against previously vaccinated people from getting the disease.
The problem is, as we found in the Disneyland case, was the vaccine didn't protect against out of zone (aisian in this case) version of Measles. Go figure, the herd immunity was gone.
So, you make my case that Measles vaccine doesn't prevent measles. I've been called uninformed because I know this fact.
Measles is miserable. Never said otherwise. But it also usually doesn't have long term adverse effects, that Vitamin A can't take care of. But Injecting poison into your body does have long term effects, and is actually harmful to about the same percentage of people who get adverse reactions to measles.
I am informed, you just don't like the information.
unless it's outright rotten, it hasn't lost its nutritional value.
Even rotting food is nutritious ... or so I am told
http://www.foodrenegade.com/ko...
Well, "eating right" meaning balanced menu.
As opposed to bacon wrapped pork chops in a butter cream sauce.
Eating fresh fruits and vegetables is proven to contribute to good health. Eating poorly contributes to all sorts of health problems. I know people who get sick regularly, who eat crappy food (if you can even call it "food"). They refuse to believe diet affects health. You're not one of those are you?
Would you say that smoking causes cancer?
Plenty of people live long lives and don't have adverse effects from smoking, dying of old age. Using your "all or none" approach, then smoking cannot be said to "cause cancer" because some people don't get cancer when they smoke for years.
Do Vaccines Prevent Measles? Then why do people with Measles vaccines get Measles (rare, but it happens)? So, using your logic, you cannot say Measles Vaccine prevents measles, because it isn't 100%.
Unfortunately eating right isn't as easy as not smoking. And that is the difference. It is easy to eat nothing but McDonalds and KFC, but that isn't eating well. Eating well is a choice, just like smoking is a choice.
To eat right, one must search for fresh and natural foods. Trust me, it isn't as simple as "not smoking".
Eating right means your immune system is able to fend off everyday environmental hazards. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative (Starbucks n Krispie Kreame for every meal)
And unfortunately for some, once the Cancer has arrived, eating right won't help, as the immune system is already compromised. Eating right helps keep the immune system optimized (helps, not perfect).
Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong.
You are absolutely wrong. Eating right does prevent some cancers, because eating right reduces the risk of cancer, thus can be said to prevent. This is not "all or nothing" claim, which you are making it. Reducing the risk, means you prevent some.
Just as the opposite is true, increasing risk means "causes at least some" as in Smoking. Does smoking cause cancer if someone smokes their whole life and dies at age 100 of old age? Why yes, yes it does. It doesn't cause it in everyone. Increasing risk means helps cause ... decreases risk means helps prevents.
If eating better reduces the risk of cancer, then by definition it prevents SOME cancer. Remove the "SOME" and the statement still implies "SOME". If you assume "ALL" instead of "SOME", it does break, because "ALL" and "NONE" are rarely true absolutes.
reduce the chances of getting cancer, but it has no hope of actually preventing it
If you reduce the chance, you do prevent it in at least some cases. So, your statement is in fact not accurate, as there is HOPE. I will repeat it, EATING well does prevent cancer in at least some people. Further, eating well does can reduce the severity of cancer, and that gives you a much better chance of beating it (at least certain forms). But if you insist on eating Bacon Wrapped Pork Chops thinking it doesn't matter to your health by all means keep eating it.
1) is not a reason to force vaccinations on everyone else. It doesn't stop the risk
2) There is no double blind tests that prove this. This is pure conjecture. The fact that people who have had Measles vaccine, still get measles proves that it is at least partially non-effective.
3) Measles vaccines do not prevent measles absolutely 100% of the time. In addition, there are vaccines that have been proven deadly (Guardacil) but are still being pushed by the Vaccine producers as being "safe"
4) THE ONLY effective prevention of Measles is to get measles. The fact that we can TREAT effectively measles and the negative consequences of measles is simple and doesn't involve poisons, namely doses of Vitamin A, is MY choice, not yours, not Government not anyone else. I actually care about my kids that I don't want them injected with poisons with harmful effects, negates the Pro Vaccine people's claim about parents not caring.
The problem is, I AM informed, and I KNOW the risks of both, it should be MY choice for MY kids, not some mandate by some functionally illiterate politician listening to Big Pharma adverts in Sacrament or DC.
Liberty is absolute or it isn't liberty. When a state can define what is liberty, you end up with tyranny. Governance is NOT absolute. Liberty is.
Yes, I am a libertarian.
And they will get sick, and live. And the tragedy is that you still think that is some how better than injecting poisons in you body, that the EPA says you shouldn't consume in water.
I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations.
I hate that legislation is allowed to force people into something the state mandates. And it is funny, I remember in the early days of AIDS / GRID when certain people suggested state mandated quarantines, how the same people who are supporting state mandated vaccines said it was unconstitutional. Injecting poison into your body by force of law is legal, to protect the public from disease, but quarantining people to do the same is illegal.
Some of these people are quite literally proclaiming that vaccines have always work and never harmful
Always and never.
I don't understand why people who vaccinate are afraid of those that don't. It is almost like they don't trust vaccines to work or something.
I know plenty of teachers that don't understand 6th grade math. They teach English and Art. And yes, it is seriously wrong.
I'm in education, and while there are some really fantastic teachers out there, there are some really seriously flawed ones as well. You can't dodge all the raindrops.
Slippery slopes are logical fallacies, not because they don't sometimes work, they are logical fallacies because they sometimes fail. That being said ...
At what point can the state compel people to have medical procedures done? Pregnant at 15, forced abortion? Take kids away from parents the state doesn't like how they are being raised?
Additionally, THIS kind of ruling / law doesn't really bode well with Abortion. The line is "My body, my choice" is completely done away with.
And what happens when we actually prove that Autism disorder is caused by bad vaccines? We already know some vaccines have really bad adverse problems, and kill. And if Vaccines are completely safe, why do they hide the data regarding adverse reactions with structured settlements?
The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING. Those people at risk, are still at risk. Those people who have been vaccinated are still protected. In fact, the Measles outbreak at Disneyland had almost nothing to do with the no-vaccine advocates, but was due to a strain that the American Vaccine doesn't fully protected against, and many of the victims were simply too young to have been through the fully regime.
But Facts don't matter when you have government FUD on your side.
Okay a bit of Hyperbole, One in ten families could have a Tesla (current Estimated cost is approaching 70 Billion). Cost of Tesla is currently 71,000 (RWD, 60KWH battery), 674.5 billion /9.5
And we haven't even begun calculating the cost to ride ... that is just to get the damn thing built.
And we haven't even begun calculating the subsidies when ridership peaks at less than estimated.
The best estimations for the cost have all been way off, a bit like my hyperbole, wouldn't you say? (9 billion bond now will cost 70 billion to build).
I don't love cars or trucks or trains or planes. I'm pragmatic like that. Right now, the cost of driving is cheaper (more pragmatic) than any other for of travel, up to about 500 miles, and depending on how many passengers are with me.
If I have to take a train, I have to take a taxi or park in $$ parking lot to get to the station, plus rent a car / taxi at the destination. Same with Airplanes. It isn't about love of cars, it is about cost of transportation.
Trains, especially HSR is a losing proposition, at current costs. It is better to build local trains to airports. I would love to be able to get on a train, to the nearest airport to fly the 500 miles. I would hope a train ride would be less expensive than parking in long term.
I saw a movie like this once ... it had zombies or something.
California HSR is a joke. The cost of the project is already exceeding what was promised to the voters of the bond. Which means, it won't be nearly done for the price promised to tax payers by the liberal democrats who want the thing. Not only that, the estimated cost of tickets has already exceeded the cost of airline tickets for the same trip, and are considerably more than gas / mileage in a car.
It would be cheaper to give every California family a Tesla and build electric charging stations in every town.
But, actual costs aren't the issue, or so liberals love to tell us. I have no idea why liberals love trains so much, they are just another mode of transportation.
Properly used, drug dogs are good at detecting drugs. The problem isn't the dogs, it is the handlers. A trained drug dog can "alert" when given a cue by the handler, falsely indicating drugs, when the dog didn't sniff any. There is no way to interrogate a drug dog in court about what it was smelling or if it was just following daddy's orders to alert on cue.
I would, if I were a lawyer, put a drug dog as a witness, and if I could get it to cue up an alert, then I would call for dismissal of all things after the dog alerted.
Doesn't negate "line of sight". Infrared is typically line of sight, but also can bounce off walls. And if anyone walks between the remote and the TV, it just doesn't work.
Drawbacks are huge.