Nobody is claiming that the US government doesn't include it's fair of idio ts. They may not be as stupid as you, but they did understand that the study do esn't provide much support for the idea that you should spend time and effo rt giving the elderly normal strength flu shots. As Fred Bloggs points out, they should have been giving the elderly extra-strength flu shots, but tha t reading of the results requires more background knowledge than is availab le to the average civil servant, and way more than you've got.
You might check that number again, because Linus Pauling recommended an order of magnitude higher doses. Clinical trials like those you refer to might be 'designed to fail'.
The pharmaceutical industry has huge vested interests which would be damaged were vit C looking only slightly successful.
I remember some discontent of Linus Pauling with the way the government set up an experiment 'trying to confirm' his results.
That argument is not so much an argument rather than a theory.
Bowel tolerance however is a much stronger argument pro Linux Pauling's theory: Sick people tolerate much higher oral doses/time of vit C without getting diarrea than healthy people. Supporting his claim that the oxidative stress in sick people is (of course) much higher in sick than in healthy people, therefore 'consuming' much more vit C/time (until the disease is over). I.e.: vit C is 'used' much more in sick than in healthy people. Should go for animals too. And how about the fact that goats produce orders of magnitude of vit C more under stressed conditions? Another useless overproduction?
I'd advice you to read a bit more about this topic, and don't skip too easily over Dr. Fred R. Klenner's results with polio patients: 60 cured out of 60, including the bulbar type. Not a small feat.
You've got the logic backwards. If what Jamie wrote were remotely credible, he might be getting paid. Since what he writes is obvious nonsense, nobody in their right mind would be paying for it.
Yes, that seems to be your logic. Exclusion of all possibilities that support a statement leads to the conclusion that the statement is wrong. Only 'all possibilities' normally doesn't include .
An unsupported proposition. The trouble with making that kind of claim is t hat you got to list a few of the possibilities and identify the ones that I 've neglected or excluded. You haven't bothered with that, probably because it's beyond you to articulate even one. Jamie supporters are at least as m oronic as he is - he can at least adduce data, even if he misunderstands it .
If you could, you would have written "Not to your standards, *to* which I'm happy not to adhere."
As it is, it looks more as if you are happy with your inadequate performance, rather than aspiring to some different standard (which you haven't bothered to identify).
obvious nonsense, nobody in their right mind would be paying for it.
Hi,
The paid shill disguised as a university professor was actually reading a script from Monsanto at one point Bill. It isn't about writing credible information, it is the appearance of credibility that Monsanto paid for. If Monsanto's arguments were credible there would not be a massive backlash to their products in the first place. I am interested in your arguments too since they all seem rather illogical but sadly I am guessing you are not getting paid by anyone, but instead they are an echo of your life lived in a corporate-scientific environment where science and corporate profit are inseparable.
that you should spend time and effort giving the elderly normal strength flu shots. As Fred Bloggs points out, they
should have been giving the elderly extra-strength flu shots, but that reading of the results requires more background
knowledge than is available to the average civil servant, and way more than you've got.
Hi,
Keep the arguments coming Bill, I can understand why you think a detrimental flu shot should just have a higher dose, it is just like your argument strategy of name calling, if it isn't working you just do more right? :D
could be vaccinated. They weren't being vaccinated because they were less healthy.
were increasingly drawn from the pool of the less healthy.
additional protection - doesn't provide much extra protection because the elderly immune system can't do all that much, even when well-primed.
except to label you as a nut and warn others to keep their distance.
Hi,
Drinking raw milk is a lot safer than milk from a factory farm in countless ways, here is a surprising way that it is healthier:
formatting link
Factory milk is linked strongly to breast cancer:
"They found that 59 percent of breast cancer samples had evidence of exposure to BLV, as determined by the presence of viral DNA. By contrast, 29 percent of the tissue samples from women who never had breast cancer showed exposure to BLV. ... When the data was analyzed statistically, the odds of having breast cancer if BLV were present was 3.1 times greater than if BLV was absent.
"This odds ratio is higher than any of the frequently publicized risk factors for breast cancer, such as obesity, alcohol consumption and use of post-menopausal hormones," said Buehring. "
Factory milk that is mixed amongst cows is dangerous for this reason, since if 1% of the cows have the virus then it is mixed, the virus can be widely spread, whereas small scale raw milk farms can be a lot safer as less mixing of milk is done, and also raw milk is just healthier anyway! :)
cheers, Jamie
to synthesise it to get that sort of level - is persuasive, but the counter-argument, that an excess is a lot less damaging than a deficit, so
animals tend to over-produce - doesn't get much airtime, least of all from the air-heads that Jamie follows.
ble, he might be getting paid. Since what he writes is
Large chunks of what Monsanto does and sells is perfectly credible. Their e nthusiasm for genetically modified organisms is more controversial, and som e of the back-lash is real. A lot more of it is ignorant affectation, of th e sort you peddle.
There are stronger arguments for taking science seriously that the fact tha t science-based technological change can lead to economic benefits.
Vaccination is a science-based technique (nowadays) that saves lives and ma kes a lot of people healthier. Your idiotic incapacity to balance the real benefits against the occasional - real - side-effects, and the much more nu merous imagined potential side-effects is dangerous and destructive, and - of course - illogical.
t vaccinated were frail and harder to get to the places where they
roportion not vaccinated fell, but the proportion who had been vaccinated
ake, which isn't the point that the study illustrates.
ly the > evidence shows that they are detrimental.
tem doesn't work well, and priming it by vaccination - while it provides
oses you to extra illnesses, and doesn't seem to do anything positive
ml
Rubbish. If being exposed to cows milk infected with bovine leukemia virus predisposes you to getting breast cancer, it can't predispose you strongly (otherwise breast cancer would be even more common), so you need to be expo sed to a lot of virus to enjoy the effect.
Occasional high exposure from one infected cow on a raw milk farm is going to be just as bad as sustained exposure to the more diluted output from a l arge herd.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.