OT: *Bang* you are dead

Oops. I was quoting a medico I know, who is usually well-informed. A bit of googling suggests that it is the medical equivalent of an urban myth. I should have known that it was too neat to be true.

Specifically, if you have an Indian-type "thin-fat" physique, with lots of fat around the abdominal organs, and not much muscle or fat anywhere else, you can have a BMI of 22 and an excellent chance of getting type 2 diabetes.

Abdominal circumference is often touted as a better guide to health than BMI, and now I see one case where it works a lot better.

Thanks, that looks like good data. If I'd gone to the trouble of searching for myself, rather than relying on what has turned out to be medical mythology, I hope that I'd have managed to find it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

have known that it was too neat to be true.

can have a BMI of 22 and an excellent chance of getting type 2 diabetes.

mythology, I hope that I'd have managed to find it.

Hi Bill,

Off topic again, but here is something interesting on Columbus day for how society lies to itself about things, health, history etc:

People are still told Columbus was a good guy when in history he was terrible. Its the same thing for diet, we are told lies about what is healthy as human health isn't a priority for the industrial medical complex.

cheers, Jamie

Perhaps not, but since you know as much about human health as the average school-child knows about Columbus, what you tell us is misleading.

If you did know a bit more, you'd be a liar, but since your intention is to propagate your own dismal state of misinformation rather than to maliciously misinform, you are merely a fool rather than a rogue.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

drugs

triggered

type2

That silly poppycock again? First, get the crud out of the data starting with infant mortality due to now commonly vaccinated diseases. It really distorts the data. Next remove accidents, and surprise, life expectancy

200 to 300 years ago was about 60 years. Just removing childhood disease mortality boosts to 50+. Shame on you for not knowing the data or the assumptions any better. There are still cultures on this planet that do not count live birth until the child reaches one year.

?-)

--- It certainly does not, since the first case is unconditional and states that you always tell the truth, while in the second you admit that your belief that something is true might be flawed.

In your rather pedestrian way you've chosen to dodge the issue by clipping and falsifying, so here, for your perusal, is my reply to your earlier post where you state that you never do anything else but tell the truth.

"Your claim is fatuous, since being as intelligent as you claim to be should make you aware that one's personal idiosyncrazies often filter one's inputs in order to make them more palatable to - and thus mask their real content from - the viewer."

--- What that means is that many of us - either intentionally or not - filter the truth and then call the filtered version THE TRUTH and preach it as if it were.

---

"That being the case, it becomes _impossible_ to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and reports made as to the veracity of the hues of colors viewed through one's filters will be what one chooses to _see_, not what _is_."

--- When Greegor wrote: "Tell the truth." and you responded with the unconditional: "I never do anything else.", implicit in that reply was the claim that you're your own perfect verification service.

---

--- If I don't think that I can't think straight, then that's quite a roundabout double-negative way of saying that I _can_ think straight.

Thanks for the compliment! :-)

-- JF

Since I'm the one that's deciding whether what I post is true, this is an academic distinction.

The word you should have found was pedantic, rather than pedestrian, since it is based on a rather better grasp of discourse theory than you have mastered.

Of course I'm aware that one's personal idiosyncrasies filter one's inputs.

I don't happen to spend much time making my output more palatable to the reader, and I certainly don't spend time masking the content - if anything I'm careful to make it difficult for the reader to misconstrue what I write.

The English term for this is "calling a spade a bloody shovel".

If you haven't noticed this, you need to go to reading comprehension classes - as I seem to suggested in times past.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

maliciously misinform, you are merely a fool rather than a rogue.

Hi Bill,

Check out this link, it shows how modern science based agriculture has been proven to be inefficient and destructive compared to natural grassland feeding animals. It has a reference to scientific american in there.

Its the same for the immune system, engineered solutions like vaccines are inefficient and destructive too. There are epidemics of illness everywhere you look now, diabetes, dementia, autism.. these are all the products of what you consider "intelligent".

cheers, Jamie

Whilst grass fed beef certainly tastes better and massive overuse of prophylactic antibiotics and growth hormones by US industrial meat production is causing problems that report is strongly biassed.

US monoculture will come badly unstuck sooner or later since farmers are wilfully ignoring good crop rotation practices and as a result soils are damaged and weeds are also becoming RoundUp Ready(TM).

Minimum inputs farming is a rational solution to maximising yield and minimising environmental damage. Anything else is faddish junk science.

Vaccines are highly efficient. They were discovered as a result of the anecdotal evidence that milk maids who got cowpox didn't get smallpox. One of my maths teachers was one of the last people in the UK to catch smallpox. He bore the scars for the rest of his life.

Variolation - a much higher risk method of crude vaccination against smallpox was known to the Chinese and Indian cultures since the 10th century. Jenner perfected it in the west from cowpox. His verification of its efficacy would not be permitted under modern medical ethics.

Diabetes is mainly due to the US habit of vastly overeating junk food and huge amounts of high fructose corn syrup with everything. Dementia increasing because we are living longer. You don't have to go too far back to have infantile diseases killing a high proportion of all children and TB and malaria seeing off the rest by about 40. The few that were left standing after that tended to live to a ripe old age. (unless cholera or typhoid from contaminated water got them first)

UK is seeing a resurgence of measles mumps and rubella in the teenage population of the worried well who were not immunised due to the last big vaccine scare over MMR. This will be hardline Darwinism in action. Kids who have no protection against these nasty childhood diseases are at serious risk of lasting damage from infection. Certain regions herd immunity has broken down and outbreaks are proving hard to control.

Vaccines have eliminated smallpox and nearly got TB and polio under control until religious zealots started killing the medical teams.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

Those deaths were only because spooks got caught actually using a vaccination team as a spy cover. Blaming that onto religious zealots or anti-vaccination people is wrong.

--
Ah, then, since later on in your post you admit that: "Of course I'm 
aware that one's personal idiosyncrasies filter one's inputs.", you 
should realize that that applies to you as well as to everyone else 
and that your own idiosyncrazies may make you post what seems to you 
to be true, but which - in reality - isn't. 

Therefore, your statement that you never do anything but tell the 
truth could be wrong.

Hi,

The UN just came out with a similar report entitled "wake up before its too late"

Here's a bit on it from the Guardian:

It argues against industrial monoculture and supports switching to decentralized small scale farming:

"The 2013 Trade and Environment Review, calls on governments to "wake up before it is too late" and shift rapidly towards farming models that promote a greater variety of crops, reduced fertiliser use and stronger links between small farms and local consumers."

Here's a link to the pdf: (341 pages!)

The soil damage is from tilling the soil, crop rotation is beneficial especially when the soil is left untilled so the soil gains more organic matter and less or no fertilizer is required.

If you want to know how to make farms sustainable read about this guy, the US department of agriculture calls him the "Obi-Wan Kenobi of soil." and he is against tilling/fertilizer/GMO solutions as he knows they are what destroy the soil.

The resurgence of disease is not due to lack of vaccines its due to poor nutrition and actually due to the vaccines themselves according to this link some resurgences of disease are actually mainly in the vaccinated groups, however in the media they have largely blamed un-vaccinated people for causing these outbreaks, but actually the outbreaks of whooping cough was 81% in the vaccinated population (ironic!)

Here's the links:

Here's a story of a nurse who got fired for not taking the flu vaccine, also the nurses union in BC defends nurses that don't want the vaccine (many of them) based on scientific evidence that it is ineffective, but still the government is planning to make it compulsory.

cheers, Jamie

>

Since I'd just said that I'm the one that decide whether what I post is true, your point is implicit in what I said, and - to any realistic observer - in what I originally posted.

I can certainly be wrong about it being true - as happens from time to time - but I can claim that I don't post anything that I don't believe to be true, which is all that is humanly possible to claim, and thus implicit in my original claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Since the religious zealots were claiming that vaccinations were actually a cover for a plot to sterilise Muslims, as opposed to a cover for spying, this seems unlikely.

Not an an impressively well-reasoned claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Modern agriculture can be inefficient and unsustainable. Sadly, it's effect ive and productive. Good luck with your implicit program to persuade Americ ans to eat less meat.

I stopped subscribing to "The Scientific American" some years ago - the bal ance between science and journalism tilted a bit far to the journalistic si de.

More frightening the reader for profit.

How are vaccines "inefficient"? In terms of lives saved and disabilities av oided per dollar expended, they seem to be the most effective medicines we have.

ia, > autism. These are all the products of what you consider "intelligent ".

The high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the USA reflects a remarkably stu pid unwillingness to tackle endemic obesity, which is a treatable condition.

The rising prevalence of dementia reflects the fact that more people are ge tting old enough to exhibit dementia before they drop dead. It might be int elligent to kill them younger, or offer them euthanasia when the syndrome b ecomes obvious, but we don't do that.

The rising prevalence of autism seems to reflect only an increasing willing ness to diagnose the condition in children who would earlier have been rega rded as shy and retiring. I don't consider this intelligent.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Thrash around as much as you like, your original response was a lie 
and, of course, you're trying to ameliorate its effect and save face 
by saying, in effect, "Any rational being should have known what I 
meant." 

You're a cheat, Sloman, and the longer you post the tighter the noose 
gets.

Not true, but since you suffer from defective reading comprehension, you are not going to be able to work out why.

Precisely. Though not *any* rational being, only those that can parse English sentences correctly.

And I'm not "thrashing about", just pointing out why your deluded claim is false.

You're nitwit, Fields, and you haven't got enough sense to know when you are making it blindingly obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Also their claimed justification does not falsify Martins point:

Vaccines are indeed efficient; 100% in the case of smallpox.

--

John Devereux

G > Those deaths were only because spooks got caught G > actually using a vaccination team as a spy cover. BS > Since the religious zealots were claiming that BS > vaccinations were actually a cover for a plot BS > to sterilise Muslims, as opposed to a cover BS > for spying, this seems unlikely. G > Blaming that onto religious zealots G > or anti-vaccination people is wrong. BS > Not an an impressively well-reasoned claim. If you found out that foreign spooks were involved with vaccines injected into your bloodstream, you wouldn't be alarmed, right Slow man?

Not unless Osama Bin Laden lived just around the corner. And the spies probably got better training in how to inject vaccines than the local health workers. They wouldn't want to blow their cover by making the people they injected sick.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney