Whenever someone tells me that they are eating the Paleo diet, I always ask them where they get their Mastodon meat for their new diet. It rarely goes well, I guess my sense of humor is hard for some to understand. Just for fun, this is the ABC presentation about early diet ( FoxNews ) Tiger nuts, doesn't seem like enough tigers around for early man to castrate. Yikes, bad joke. But, I do like this piece, because it is mainstream news and it took a lot of guts to produce it since big agribusinesses advertise their products on Fox all the time. No one advertises a healthy way of eating sans processed food. No one.
Most Paleo proponents like to tell me that the reason to eat lots of meat is because that's how man evolved and as proof, they point out human tooth physiology. Canine teeth, for eating meat. Molars for crunching through nuts and berries. With some occasional greens found alongside the paths. Of course that doesn't exactly fit with the reality of the archaeological evidence found so far. (Way too much about teeth ) And of course most Paleo people relate the often quoted info about how wheat is a poison. Pseudo-scientific quacks like Dr. Davis, The Wheat Belly, and others all seem to have the same flawed conclusions about humans not ever eating wheat until about 8,000 years ago and how today's wheat differs dramatically from that early wheat. There is archaeological evidence of Paleo man eating grains 115,000 years ago. Grains, including the precursors of wheat. Wheat is a lot different than it back then, even 100 years ago. However, even with diploid and haploid gene sequences gained through cross breeding to have a higher gluten content; it isn't inherently toxic. I will say it again, Asian people on average eat up to three times more wheat than Americans and have one tenth the obesity problem. It ain't the wheat.
So what does the dental record of development really tell us about what Neolithic, Paleolithic and Holocene hominid diets? Quite a bit actually, and all of it is pretty interesting. What we see is that the dentition of Holocene humans growing smaller at an accelerated rate from about 50,000 years ago up to about the pottery age, about 8,000 years ago. Since then, a 1% size decrease per 1,000 years has been seen. ( Dentition reduction ) This can be explained by the scientific theory that has been shown that the process of evolution allows unnecessary biological structures to shrink and/or disappear with time. Not saying that teeth are unnecessary, but that the dentition of omnivores is not needed since the advent of cooking. Smaller teeth are all that is needed to chew cooked foods. What we also see going all the way back to the Neolithic man through the Paleolithic era, the dentition of man changing from large sets of molar like choppers similar to those seen in low land gorillas to a few canine like teeth of common omnivores with the predominance of large molars that over time have reduced in size. Along with the front canines. What we see is that as the predecessors of modern man began to eat a more varied diet, the dentition did in fact change (along with other physiological changes) to adapt to the more varied diet of an omnivore. Of course that means that man did in fact eat meat. In the beginning, man ate the rotting remains of kills left by other, larger, more vicious predators. I'm VERY certain that early man did not just one day go from picking away at the scraps left rotting on the savanna to hunting mastodons in a couple generations. It took a million years for that to happen. In the meantime, man ate tiger nuts. And whatever other roots, tubers, berries and seeds (AKA grains) that they could find.
Sigh, again, I don't dispute that man evolved eating meat. I also don't dispute the fact that along the way they dined on insects and grubs and a few rotting carcasses along the way. But hominids were never ever designed to eat the stuff in the supermarkets and fast food hovels that is for whatever reason, called meat. Modern meat is a frightening mess. Humans actually don't need meat, they can get along quite well without it. And in fact, are better off without it. My contention is that most humans would be better off consuming a diet that is fresh, raw, fermented and for the most part, meatless. That in reality is what Paleo hominids eat for the most part, with occasional meals of higher protein. And in today's world, that would be pastured eggs, organic chicken, wild caught seafood, and it pains me but yes, real grass fed beef is okay once in a while. Wild meat is probably okay as well, but stay away from the factory farmed venison and elk. Oh yeah, and nuts and berries as well. Organic of course.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Promises made, promises broken
Everyone makes little promises in their lives, little promises, and big ones too. You know, three times I stood before a judge and promised to love and care for someone forever. They did as well, and yet I am here, single, writing a sad story about promises. Enhhhh, not really about my problems and the choices I make in women; but this is more about the promises that a number of large corporations have made to not just me and you, but to the entire world.
Biggest Promise to me is the one that President Obama told Americans in 2007 while campaigning for votes to get elected and he promised, HE PROMISED, to label all GM products when elected. You can see a recording of his big lie here ( Obama Campaign LIE ) Yeah, I know, it's Mother Jones, but just look at the video.
Farmaceuticals was the big money making vision back in the early eighties. That vision certainly has proven itself to come true for some things, a whole lot of actual pharmaceuticals come from genetically engineered bacteria research. In fact most insulin comes to us from this research. And a few others as well, however the big ones that we were all promised are just empty lies. Real fun stuff was promised. potatoes that would provide us with vaccines for all the world's ills, green beans that would provide your meds for blood pressure and a host of other problems. The FDA has already taken the giant step of giving tentative approval to all drugs as food to Big Pharma and the Gene Tech Agrigiants to make money hand over fist. Oops, sorry, the approval was for them to make plants to help the human condition, and it was sort of like the blanket approval given to them for all Genetically Modified crops. No testing required, just tell the FDA it's good, and make money. Thankfully this big promise isn't working, who knows what would happen to our food supply if the genetic material for dangerous and harmful drugs were to infect the genetic material of the existing food supplies. I don't need blood pressure meds, but if the only potatoes available were contaminated with the genes to make those and no one knew, or wanted to confess to the problem, it just might kill me. And genetic contamination is a forgone conclusion, it happens, they can't stop it, and they don't want to try. the US Supreme Court just ruled against organic seed producers suing Monsanto for contamination of the products used for their livelihood. The Court said, contamination of non-GM crops by neighboring farms growing similar species that are Genetically Modified is inevitable. And that as long as the contamination is less than 1% then Monsanto DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BRING THE ORGANIC FARMERS TO COURT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT. Yes, you read that correctly. The Organic farmers that sued Monsanto because of unwanted genetic pollution were told that if the pollution got worse, then Monsanto could sue them for patent infringement. And yes, Former Monsanto directors sit on the Court.
GM plants can be engineered to solve the problems with contaminated Super Fund Sites. Wow, if this could be true, then it would in fact be the answer to the over 100 Super Fund Sites that plague our country. Then again, let's not forget that Monsanto is responsible for 48 of those sites and has done nothing about them. It was a nice idea, phytoremediation, however it has not been exactly successful. Basically there has been limited success with, are you ready for it, some regular species of non-GM plants doing long term remediation. Nothing from the genetech guys to help out yet though. Just another promise. But then again this is one that scares me, if they did make some super ragweed plant that was able to grow and breakdown PCB or accumulate heavy metals, what would happen if they were to crossbreed with plants everywhere else and then set to work concentrating whatever elements they could acquire in their neighborhood of plants and thus remove all the trace elements from the soils. Most scientists agree that the trace element content of virtually all of America's farmland is already highly depleted, this will just make it worse.
Genetically Modified Organisms will increase crop yields, require less usage of pesticides, produce crops that are substantially equivalent to conventional crops, reduce our country's dependence on oil and substantially raise the standard of living for farmers growing our crops. Yikes, those promises are all broken. ( The GM Truth ) and ( GM Myths ) and a dozen others, I write about it here a lot. The truth is that researchers have compared crop yields in the US, Canada and several countries in the EU and GM is losing. Roundup sales have tripled in 15 years, and now weeds are resistant and have infected 40% of the arable land in the US requiring farmers to use the even more dangerous weed killer, Agent Orange. Which coincidentally the genetech guys have begun creating new GM crops resistant to that. Yikes, only a matter of time until they will need stronger ones. Researchers have done tests on GM corn and soy and the nutrient content is not what was promised, it is lacking. Oil usage has gone up and the standard of living for farmers hasn't, they pay the genetech companies more and more each year.
Genetically Modified Crops are needed in order for us to produce enough food for a growing world population. I just wrote about this a couple weeks ago. ( Feed the World ) It's all about selling us things we don't need. That is the definition of marketing. Big businesses marketed Obama to us, and we bought him. They marketed GM foods to us, and because they are not labeled as such, we buy them. They market their lies, and hold onto promises, and we buy them, promises, lies, and all.
If in fact GM foods are what is needed to feed the world, why is it that the only ones eating GMcrops are humans in developed countries and animals, whose meat is then eaten by humans in developed countries?
Perhaps the rulers of the agrigiants really do think of us as just sheeple.
Biggest Promise to me is the one that President Obama told Americans in 2007 while campaigning for votes to get elected and he promised, HE PROMISED, to label all GM products when elected. You can see a recording of his big lie here ( Obama Campaign LIE ) Yeah, I know, it's Mother Jones, but just look at the video.
Farmaceuticals was the big money making vision back in the early eighties. That vision certainly has proven itself to come true for some things, a whole lot of actual pharmaceuticals come from genetically engineered bacteria research. In fact most insulin comes to us from this research. And a few others as well, however the big ones that we were all promised are just empty lies. Real fun stuff was promised. potatoes that would provide us with vaccines for all the world's ills, green beans that would provide your meds for blood pressure and a host of other problems. The FDA has already taken the giant step of giving tentative approval to all drugs as food to Big Pharma and the Gene Tech Agrigiants to make money hand over fist. Oops, sorry, the approval was for them to make plants to help the human condition, and it was sort of like the blanket approval given to them for all Genetically Modified crops. No testing required, just tell the FDA it's good, and make money. Thankfully this big promise isn't working, who knows what would happen to our food supply if the genetic material for dangerous and harmful drugs were to infect the genetic material of the existing food supplies. I don't need blood pressure meds, but if the only potatoes available were contaminated with the genes to make those and no one knew, or wanted to confess to the problem, it just might kill me. And genetic contamination is a forgone conclusion, it happens, they can't stop it, and they don't want to try. the US Supreme Court just ruled against organic seed producers suing Monsanto for contamination of the products used for their livelihood. The Court said, contamination of non-GM crops by neighboring farms growing similar species that are Genetically Modified is inevitable. And that as long as the contamination is less than 1% then Monsanto DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BRING THE ORGANIC FARMERS TO COURT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT. Yes, you read that correctly. The Organic farmers that sued Monsanto because of unwanted genetic pollution were told that if the pollution got worse, then Monsanto could sue them for patent infringement. And yes, Former Monsanto directors sit on the Court.
GM plants can be engineered to solve the problems with contaminated Super Fund Sites. Wow, if this could be true, then it would in fact be the answer to the over 100 Super Fund Sites that plague our country. Then again, let's not forget that Monsanto is responsible for 48 of those sites and has done nothing about them. It was a nice idea, phytoremediation, however it has not been exactly successful. Basically there has been limited success with, are you ready for it, some regular species of non-GM plants doing long term remediation. Nothing from the genetech guys to help out yet though. Just another promise. But then again this is one that scares me, if they did make some super ragweed plant that was able to grow and breakdown PCB or accumulate heavy metals, what would happen if they were to crossbreed with plants everywhere else and then set to work concentrating whatever elements they could acquire in their neighborhood of plants and thus remove all the trace elements from the soils. Most scientists agree that the trace element content of virtually all of America's farmland is already highly depleted, this will just make it worse.
Genetically Modified Organisms will increase crop yields, require less usage of pesticides, produce crops that are substantially equivalent to conventional crops, reduce our country's dependence on oil and substantially raise the standard of living for farmers growing our crops. Yikes, those promises are all broken. ( The GM Truth ) and ( GM Myths ) and a dozen others, I write about it here a lot. The truth is that researchers have compared crop yields in the US, Canada and several countries in the EU and GM is losing. Roundup sales have tripled in 15 years, and now weeds are resistant and have infected 40% of the arable land in the US requiring farmers to use the even more dangerous weed killer, Agent Orange. Which coincidentally the genetech guys have begun creating new GM crops resistant to that. Yikes, only a matter of time until they will need stronger ones. Researchers have done tests on GM corn and soy and the nutrient content is not what was promised, it is lacking. Oil usage has gone up and the standard of living for farmers hasn't, they pay the genetech companies more and more each year.
Genetically Modified Crops are needed in order for us to produce enough food for a growing world population. I just wrote about this a couple weeks ago. ( Feed the World ) It's all about selling us things we don't need. That is the definition of marketing. Big businesses marketed Obama to us, and we bought him. They marketed GM foods to us, and because they are not labeled as such, we buy them. They market their lies, and hold onto promises, and we buy them, promises, lies, and all.
If in fact GM foods are what is needed to feed the world, why is it that the only ones eating GMcrops are humans in developed countries and animals, whose meat is then eaten by humans in developed countries?
Perhaps the rulers of the agrigiants really do think of us as just sheeple.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
The GMO Experience or the Reality of "Who Let the Demon Loose"
I take a lot of flack from friends because I don't believe that those running the US government and most, if not all of its myriad of agencies, have the highest moral standards. Nor do they do what they are mandated to do. And of course their mandate is to govern, and responsibly protect the citizens of this nation. It sure seems like a noble mandate, one that should be easy to work toward achieving. It just doesn't happen. Just one of the myriad of examples, the FDA and Aspartame. (Money buys the FDA) But the world turns around and around, and those that lie steal cheat and destroy continue doing so. Those with money take the the advice of Yoda wisely, and they distribute money wisely. Well, maybe that's a stretch, the quote might have been from Raiders. Again, many people are blind to the corruption of our government, please, if you think it doesn't happen, look up Keating Five on wikipedia. I don't have any way to know or find out, but I'm sure that a lot of those that lost their entire life savings in the savings and loan failures went ahead and voted for McCain and John Glenn even after the Keating Bribery fiasco. It just seems that the mass news media glanced over all that, there was no mention of it on TV. And so those that cheat, were reelected.
But this article is actually about something far more sinister. It's about who let the demon loose. Specifically the GM demon. At this time, there is a lot of controversy as to whether that demon actually exists, and whether or not there should be any actions taken to confine and eradicate what might possibly be a demon in the future. This isn't an easy thing to prove, it isn't like the rabbits in Australia. One person thinking some rabbits would be nice to have around for some target practice and now hundreds of millions of them cause a billion dollars in agricultural losses yearly since there are no natural predators nor diseases there. Not exactly what the intent was for bringing rabbits there, but it happened. And then in Hawaii they had rats take over after they little vermin got off ships that carried them around in the old days. And of course, they took over. And yet human logic, flawed as it is, gave the Islands another great pest, the mongoose, as a way to stop the rats. That didn't work either, and now Hawaii and Australia join the ranks of places ravaged by species of plants, animals and insects that are not native to each individual locale. Things like snakeheads, pythons, kudzu, cane toads, and the lowly whitefly. All are horrific pests, and all are species that were introduced into local environments for one reason or another. And all are showing themselves to be costly. Here is a list of the top 100 non-native species causing some problems in their now new habitats. (100 species) But the greatest pest that will soon become a worldwide problem isn't the giant pythons eating the neighborhood dogs in Florida, nor the tiny whiteflies destroying crops all over the world; it goes down to the level and size of bacteria. Well, it is bacteria. All kinds of bacteria, little one celled bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
The problem is only partly the huge amounts of antibiotics that are fed to animals raised in crowded unsanitary feedlots. A big part of the new problem is in the development of Genetically Modified Foods from the outset. Gen Food is created using the technology of Horizontal Gene Transfer, or HGT. In the beginning, Gen food was created by mechanically splitting an embryonic seed germplast and actually shooting desired genetic material into the split seed and attempting to get it to grow. The technology has advanced dramatically as has mankind's understanding and mapping of the genes in living things. With the understanding that for the first billion or so years that life sprang into existence here on earth, it is generally agreed among geneticists that the living bacteria like things in the oceans here actually shared parts of their genetic material. All the time. It is a fact that scientists have seen, caused, measured and now COUNT on happening at a microscopic level with in the nucleus of cells in target plants. Once scientists are relatively confident that they have isolated genes that possess the characteristics that they are trying to merge into the genetic makeup of an entirely different species, they have discovered that they can get little tiny viruses to acquire the selected genes into its own nucleus. And then they force that virus to transfer the genes into the target plant. And here is where it gets a little crazy. Those scientists can't just look into the nucleus of a cell in the seed to see if their procedure worked, they have to figure out a way to confirm that it happened. The process is pretty simple, they affix a specific gene that they can test for into the gene sequence that they are attempting to insert into the target seed embryo. That "MARKER" gene is simple, it is for resistance to the methicillin family of antibiotics. They put it in there on purpose, as a marker.
Back in 2005 some scientists at Princeton did a rather interesting study using students as volunteer Guinea pigs. They gave them GM soy products to eat. Everyday for a week. Then they took stool samples and cultured the bacteria from the students digestive systems. Kind of a shitty job for some students. Then they tested the bacteria for any genetic markers from the GM soy. A very valid and viable test for HGT. They were astounded to find not only the genes for Roundup resistance from the soy, they also found BT toxin genes from corn products. Seems everyone of the students ate corn chips. Horizontal Gene Transfer, this is where bacteria share the genetic material in the environment, just as they have done for billions of years. Monsanto of course denounced the study as bad science. They denounced Seralini, one of the most prestigious researchers in France for his study as well. In fact I believe that Monsanto denounces any science that points out the flaws in their line of thinking. The Monsanto web site annual report states that two thirds of corporate income is from chemical sales, only a third is seeds. Everywhere on their site they describe their company as an agricultural farming company. And nowhere on the site is any mention whatsoever of HGT. Even though they use it to develop their gene altered seeds, they don't talk about it.
(Monsanto on why they don't do long term testing on GM crops) This is actually a very abbreviated treatise on how GM crops are made along with why they THINK they aren't required to test them
(The Feds info on HGT)
(NCBI info on HGT) The NCBI has over 6000 scientific papers on the subject
(Treatise on HGT in agriculture) Fantastic study on genetic pollution
The deal is that Monsanto is placing the genetic mutation that allows bacteria to have resistance to antibiotics into their crops, and they are then spreading that resistance all across the globe. Some people might think of Prince Charles as kind of a goofy looking rich guy who has slightly odd tastes in women; but the reality is the man is highly educated and quite the philanthropist. This is what he said about GM foods "We simply don't know the long term consequences for human health and the wider environment [from GM food] ... If something goes badly wrong we will be faced with the problem with clearing up a kind of pollution that is self perpetuating. I am not convinced that anyone has the first idea how this could be done."
Who let the demon out of the bag? And just how bad will it get some time in the very very near future?
But this article is actually about something far more sinister. It's about who let the demon loose. Specifically the GM demon. At this time, there is a lot of controversy as to whether that demon actually exists, and whether or not there should be any actions taken to confine and eradicate what might possibly be a demon in the future. This isn't an easy thing to prove, it isn't like the rabbits in Australia. One person thinking some rabbits would be nice to have around for some target practice and now hundreds of millions of them cause a billion dollars in agricultural losses yearly since there are no natural predators nor diseases there. Not exactly what the intent was for bringing rabbits there, but it happened. And then in Hawaii they had rats take over after they little vermin got off ships that carried them around in the old days. And of course, they took over. And yet human logic, flawed as it is, gave the Islands another great pest, the mongoose, as a way to stop the rats. That didn't work either, and now Hawaii and Australia join the ranks of places ravaged by species of plants, animals and insects that are not native to each individual locale. Things like snakeheads, pythons, kudzu, cane toads, and the lowly whitefly. All are horrific pests, and all are species that were introduced into local environments for one reason or another. And all are showing themselves to be costly. Here is a list of the top 100 non-native species causing some problems in their now new habitats. (100 species) But the greatest pest that will soon become a worldwide problem isn't the giant pythons eating the neighborhood dogs in Florida, nor the tiny whiteflies destroying crops all over the world; it goes down to the level and size of bacteria. Well, it is bacteria. All kinds of bacteria, little one celled bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
The problem is only partly the huge amounts of antibiotics that are fed to animals raised in crowded unsanitary feedlots. A big part of the new problem is in the development of Genetically Modified Foods from the outset. Gen Food is created using the technology of Horizontal Gene Transfer, or HGT. In the beginning, Gen food was created by mechanically splitting an embryonic seed germplast and actually shooting desired genetic material into the split seed and attempting to get it to grow. The technology has advanced dramatically as has mankind's understanding and mapping of the genes in living things. With the understanding that for the first billion or so years that life sprang into existence here on earth, it is generally agreed among geneticists that the living bacteria like things in the oceans here actually shared parts of their genetic material. All the time. It is a fact that scientists have seen, caused, measured and now COUNT on happening at a microscopic level with in the nucleus of cells in target plants. Once scientists are relatively confident that they have isolated genes that possess the characteristics that they are trying to merge into the genetic makeup of an entirely different species, they have discovered that they can get little tiny viruses to acquire the selected genes into its own nucleus. And then they force that virus to transfer the genes into the target plant. And here is where it gets a little crazy. Those scientists can't just look into the nucleus of a cell in the seed to see if their procedure worked, they have to figure out a way to confirm that it happened. The process is pretty simple, they affix a specific gene that they can test for into the gene sequence that they are attempting to insert into the target seed embryo. That "MARKER" gene is simple, it is for resistance to the methicillin family of antibiotics. They put it in there on purpose, as a marker.
Back in 2005 some scientists at Princeton did a rather interesting study using students as volunteer Guinea pigs. They gave them GM soy products to eat. Everyday for a week. Then they took stool samples and cultured the bacteria from the students digestive systems. Kind of a shitty job for some students. Then they tested the bacteria for any genetic markers from the GM soy. A very valid and viable test for HGT. They were astounded to find not only the genes for Roundup resistance from the soy, they also found BT toxin genes from corn products. Seems everyone of the students ate corn chips. Horizontal Gene Transfer, this is where bacteria share the genetic material in the environment, just as they have done for billions of years. Monsanto of course denounced the study as bad science. They denounced Seralini, one of the most prestigious researchers in France for his study as well. In fact I believe that Monsanto denounces any science that points out the flaws in their line of thinking. The Monsanto web site annual report states that two thirds of corporate income is from chemical sales, only a third is seeds. Everywhere on their site they describe their company as an agricultural farming company. And nowhere on the site is any mention whatsoever of HGT. Even though they use it to develop their gene altered seeds, they don't talk about it.
(Monsanto on why they don't do long term testing on GM crops) This is actually a very abbreviated treatise on how GM crops are made along with why they THINK they aren't required to test them
(The Feds info on HGT)
(NCBI info on HGT) The NCBI has over 6000 scientific papers on the subject
(Treatise on HGT in agriculture) Fantastic study on genetic pollution
The deal is that Monsanto is placing the genetic mutation that allows bacteria to have resistance to antibiotics into their crops, and they are then spreading that resistance all across the globe. Some people might think of Prince Charles as kind of a goofy looking rich guy who has slightly odd tastes in women; but the reality is the man is highly educated and quite the philanthropist. This is what he said about GM foods "We simply don't know the long term consequences for human health and the wider environment [from GM food] ... If something goes badly wrong we will be faced with the problem with clearing up a kind of pollution that is self perpetuating. I am not convinced that anyone has the first idea how this could be done."
Who let the demon out of the bag? And just how bad will it get some time in the very very near future?
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Then there is that no liability thing.
Just out of curiosity, would you buy a product that stated right on the package that there are instances recorded of very serious side effects associated with the use of the product. Side effects included total disability and death. And in really small print, that the Federal Government of The United States of America has granted the manufacturer total immunity from any and all liability that might occur as a result of usage of the product? Tough question huh? Sadly it is very real.
I have been criticized for my belief that vaccines are not a good thing and are a possible trigger that leads to not just autism, but higher infant mortality, ADD, ADHD and a whole host of other problems. Most people think that. The prevailing opinion in most of America is that science rules, that those getting paid to do these research studies about vaccines, GM foods, pesticides and well, just about anything; are scientists with integrity and of the highest of morality. They believe that everything that has been approved by our government (as a result of that testing) is safe, wholesome, nutritionally intact and good for us. Including vaccines. I wish that were the case. It does seem as though that scientists at big companies doing the required research into the safety and efficacy of drugs, vaccines, food additives and yes, even Genetically Modified foods are pretty much all publishing results of their studies to be favorable to their employers.
November 2011 issue of "Journal of Virology" there is an article that is confirming that seasonal flu vaccines weaken the immune systems of children and increase their chances of getting sick from viruses not included in the vaccine, which is to say, all but three strains of the over two hundred known strains of flu and flu-like viruses. A Cochrane Database Review—which is the gold standard for assessing the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of commonly used medical interventions – concluded:
In 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in which all liability was removed from drug manufacturers for their vaccines. All vaccines. In 2011 the Act was upheld in the Supreme Court and the almost unanimous decision was that people injured by vaccines did not have the right to sue the manufacturer for any injuries that can be shown to be caused by vaccinations. That in fact the big drug companies could continue to manufacture those vaccines, with total legal impunity. TOTAL! The 1986 Act specifically states that vaccine manufacturers are not liable
for injuries and death that "result from side effects that were
unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was
accompanied by proper directions and warnings." The Supreme Court pointed to the "even though" clause, basically saying that
it lists the measures a manufacturer must take for injury to be
considered unavoidable, thus limiting liability. So, as long as a
vaccine maker manufactured the drug properly and included proper
directions and warnings, it is not liable for anything--included vaccine
defects related to design. What does this mean for people who are injured by vaccines? It's very
likely that, unless a victim can prove that a vaccine maker didn't
manufacture the product correctly, or didn't include proper directions
or warnings, he's stuck in the vaccine court and any limitations it has
imposed on recovery.
Aaaah, yes, the vaccine court. The 1986 Act setup the Vaccine Court. Well, that is the colloquial name for the Office of the Special Masters of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The entire reason the Feds setup Vaccine Court was back in 1980's, so many people were suing the drug companies because of permanent disabilities and deaths from the DPT vaccines that most of the drug companies stopped making them. It isn't a secret, it happens all the time, Congress does things that allows big businesses to make money. And a lot of it is done with the pretense of there being a benefit to the populace. Elected officials are pretty inexpensive when big businesses purchase their favors in wholesale quantities. (See Keating Five) The Vaccine Court does have money at its disposal in which to compensate any person or parents of persons that have been found to have been injured by a vaccine. Except autism. The Court refuses to acknowledge that vaccines could possibly be the cause. And the fund for payouts for other injuries, ones that the court will in fact recognize; two hundred billion dollars. That's a lot of cash that the Feds have set aside for compensating people for something that they claim is harmless and beneficial.
I don't believe a word of it anymore. They do seem to lie to us a lot.
I have been criticized for my belief that vaccines are not a good thing and are a possible trigger that leads to not just autism, but higher infant mortality, ADD, ADHD and a whole host of other problems. Most people think that. The prevailing opinion in most of America is that science rules, that those getting paid to do these research studies about vaccines, GM foods, pesticides and well, just about anything; are scientists with integrity and of the highest of morality. They believe that everything that has been approved by our government (as a result of that testing) is safe, wholesome, nutritionally intact and good for us. Including vaccines. I wish that were the case. It does seem as though that scientists at big companies doing the required research into the safety and efficacy of drugs, vaccines, food additives and yes, even Genetically Modified foods are pretty much all publishing results of their studies to be favorable to their employers.
November 2011 issue of "Journal of Virology" there is an article that is confirming that seasonal flu vaccines weaken the immune systems of children and increase their chances of getting sick from viruses not included in the vaccine, which is to say, all but three strains of the over two hundred known strains of flu and flu-like viruses. A Cochrane Database Review—which is the gold standard for assessing the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of commonly used medical interventions – concluded:
"Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review demonstrated that reliable scientific evidence confirming that influenza vaccines are effective is thin and there is plenty of reason to suspect that there may be a manipulation of conclusions when the studies are funded by drug companies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding."It isn't just me. This is the Cochrane Collaboration. (Cochrane) I don't know, I was a straight A student, breezed through statistics and the first 3 semesters of Calculus, but these guys make me look like a dolt. And yet they have reached the same conclusions that I have with just my limited resources available to me. Personally, I believe that to be significant. Not because I'm saying that I'm a genius, but because a dolt like me can find this stuff and see through the crass commercialism and rampant corruption of our government.
Aaaah, yes, the vaccine court. The 1986 Act setup the Vaccine Court. Well, that is the colloquial name for the Office of the Special Masters of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The entire reason the Feds setup Vaccine Court was back in 1980's, so many people were suing the drug companies because of permanent disabilities and deaths from the DPT vaccines that most of the drug companies stopped making them. It isn't a secret, it happens all the time, Congress does things that allows big businesses to make money. And a lot of it is done with the pretense of there being a benefit to the populace. Elected officials are pretty inexpensive when big businesses purchase their favors in wholesale quantities. (See Keating Five) The Vaccine Court does have money at its disposal in which to compensate any person or parents of persons that have been found to have been injured by a vaccine. Except autism. The Court refuses to acknowledge that vaccines could possibly be the cause. And the fund for payouts for other injuries, ones that the court will in fact recognize; two hundred billion dollars. That's a lot of cash that the Feds have set aside for compensating people for something that they claim is harmless and beneficial.
I don't believe a word of it anymore. They do seem to lie to us a lot.
Friday, February 7, 2014
It's all about sex.
Pretty much common knowledge I think, something that we here in America learn at an early age through the boob tube. Hmmm, even the colloquial term we use for our babysitter, our main source for news and entertainment, boob tube, is about human sex. Or perhaps human sexuality. We introduce it to our population, implant into the minds of our youth from a very early age the concept of sex and sexuality, and sad to say, how to profit from it. Both financially and socially. And even sadder to say, those that don't fit the concept broadcast to us via satellite and over the airwaves of the perfect sexuality, ie. those like me, that are a bit uglier, a bit fatter, and a bit more odd; are to have a life not to be confused with those in sitcoms with perfect hair and complexions, and even more perfect proportions. Some of us, me in particular, accept our lives and the imperfections we possess and learn to utilize life's greatest achievements to further our own existences. As I have, I have learned to utilize the world of sex. I want to let you have some of my hard won knowledge.
When I taught classes back at my store in Austin, one of the things I would ask every class was, "Do you know how to pick a sweet onion?" Of course someone would always pipe up and say they should go to the bin marked sweet onions. If they didn't, I would of course mention that. The thing is, even there, the differences in sugar content are dramatic, and it only takes a bit of knowledge to find the ones that are the sweetest. And, just like the title of this blather, it's all about sex. As is the purpose of all life, onions are predisposed to reproduce. To do that, the lowly onion starts its life by growing first the green tops that actually make the food to produce the onion bulb. The bulb is a storage vessel that serves to contain the nutrients necessary to sustain the plant while it undergoes the process of sex, and the subsequent nurturing of the offspring. Yes, it's the flowering and seed production. Sex, and child rearing. Something we need to emphasis in schools to teens, one comes with the other. Anyway, the onion bulb itself grows and makes those cool layers and as it does so, it expands outward. It makes an onion that is actually sort of more disc like rather than roundish or globular. Flatter. This is the time when the onion is putting the most effort into the making of sugars, which are stored in the onion bulb. Then, at some predetermined time that is genetically encoded into the onion DNA matrix (or as my holy roller brother says, god determined at creation) the onion then goes into sex mode. For an onion, there is no need for chocolates or music from Steven Tyler, it just knows that it needs to use all that stored sugar to push itself into developing the sole purpose of what it thinks its existence is and it begins to elongate and become less disk shaped, and more globular. All to the point where if you keep onions long enough, just before they sprout, they will be almost football shaped. And with this knowledge, we can in fact determine just by looking at them, which will be sweetest. Flatter means sweeter, rounder means nastier. Hmm, sort of like the cheerleaders at my high school.
When I first learned about eggplant, it was while interning at the French restaurant in east Phoenix. Interning is a stretch, slave is more of an appropriate term. But I digress, there we used eggplants to make little individual casseroles, a little something called ratatouille. My slave master told me to use the male eggplants and not the female ones for the slices, and for the actual hash filling, to chop up the female ones. If you don't know what ratatouille is, I will tell you what our version was. We took courgettes and eggplant and sliced them thinly, placed them in a well buttered casserole dish in a pleasing spiral design, then filled the dish with a hash mixture of onions, eggplant, tomatoes, herbs and wine. Then the dish was baked until crusty and inverted onto a plate to serve. It is a pretty tasty dish, but the sublime expression of the food critic from the animated movie of the same name is a bit much I think. Anyway, my first attempt to make the dish I was unable to determine which were males and which were females. With tremendous derision I was informed that little boy eggplants possessed a knob on the bottom and little girl eggplants had an indentation. I was also told that was why I would never get married and have children, both of course were found to be in error. However, it is in fact true that male eggplants have fewer seeds than females. It isn't really logical because eggplants are the fruits and they are in fact androgynous, or rather hermaphroditic. That is, having both male and female flower parts. But it seems that the reality is that after fertilization, they do in fact specialize and that there is a difference in the chromosomal makeup of the eggplant fruits. Like humans.
Now we come to the big one, bell peppers. There is a lot of confusion about bell peppers and why some have three lobes, and some have four lobes. Look on the Internet and there are sites that will tell you that three lobed are male, and better for eating, four lobed are female, and better for cooking. Criminy, as I write that I can't help but think how fifties that statement is. But the truth is that it is all a bunch of hooey, there is no taste or differences in the number of seeds between them. That's just how they are. Okay, that might be an explanation my brother would seize on to further the god is all things to all people even plants concept. Me, it only means that it's not REALLY all about sex after all. My mind has just been molded into that thought process by a youth growing up in America.
Well, and Playboy helped a lot back in the day.
When I taught classes back at my store in Austin, one of the things I would ask every class was, "Do you know how to pick a sweet onion?" Of course someone would always pipe up and say they should go to the bin marked sweet onions. If they didn't, I would of course mention that. The thing is, even there, the differences in sugar content are dramatic, and it only takes a bit of knowledge to find the ones that are the sweetest. And, just like the title of this blather, it's all about sex. As is the purpose of all life, onions are predisposed to reproduce. To do that, the lowly onion starts its life by growing first the green tops that actually make the food to produce the onion bulb. The bulb is a storage vessel that serves to contain the nutrients necessary to sustain the plant while it undergoes the process of sex, and the subsequent nurturing of the offspring. Yes, it's the flowering and seed production. Sex, and child rearing. Something we need to emphasis in schools to teens, one comes with the other. Anyway, the onion bulb itself grows and makes those cool layers and as it does so, it expands outward. It makes an onion that is actually sort of more disc like rather than roundish or globular. Flatter. This is the time when the onion is putting the most effort into the making of sugars, which are stored in the onion bulb. Then, at some predetermined time that is genetically encoded into the onion DNA matrix (or as my holy roller brother says, god determined at creation) the onion then goes into sex mode. For an onion, there is no need for chocolates or music from Steven Tyler, it just knows that it needs to use all that stored sugar to push itself into developing the sole purpose of what it thinks its existence is and it begins to elongate and become less disk shaped, and more globular. All to the point where if you keep onions long enough, just before they sprout, they will be almost football shaped. And with this knowledge, we can in fact determine just by looking at them, which will be sweetest. Flatter means sweeter, rounder means nastier. Hmm, sort of like the cheerleaders at my high school.
When I first learned about eggplant, it was while interning at the French restaurant in east Phoenix. Interning is a stretch, slave is more of an appropriate term. But I digress, there we used eggplants to make little individual casseroles, a little something called ratatouille. My slave master told me to use the male eggplants and not the female ones for the slices, and for the actual hash filling, to chop up the female ones. If you don't know what ratatouille is, I will tell you what our version was. We took courgettes and eggplant and sliced them thinly, placed them in a well buttered casserole dish in a pleasing spiral design, then filled the dish with a hash mixture of onions, eggplant, tomatoes, herbs and wine. Then the dish was baked until crusty and inverted onto a plate to serve. It is a pretty tasty dish, but the sublime expression of the food critic from the animated movie of the same name is a bit much I think. Anyway, my first attempt to make the dish I was unable to determine which were males and which were females. With tremendous derision I was informed that little boy eggplants possessed a knob on the bottom and little girl eggplants had an indentation. I was also told that was why I would never get married and have children, both of course were found to be in error. However, it is in fact true that male eggplants have fewer seeds than females. It isn't really logical because eggplants are the fruits and they are in fact androgynous, or rather hermaphroditic. That is, having both male and female flower parts. But it seems that the reality is that after fertilization, they do in fact specialize and that there is a difference in the chromosomal makeup of the eggplant fruits. Like humans.
Now we come to the big one, bell peppers. There is a lot of confusion about bell peppers and why some have three lobes, and some have four lobes. Look on the Internet and there are sites that will tell you that three lobed are male, and better for eating, four lobed are female, and better for cooking. Criminy, as I write that I can't help but think how fifties that statement is. But the truth is that it is all a bunch of hooey, there is no taste or differences in the number of seeds between them. That's just how they are. Okay, that might be an explanation my brother would seize on to further the god is all things to all people even plants concept. Me, it only means that it's not REALLY all about sex after all. My mind has just been molded into that thought process by a youth growing up in America.
Well, and Playboy helped a lot back in the day.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Autism Spectral Disorder info, some stuff that is of interest. Parental Age
Well, I have been told that I am unaware of the true causes of Autism Spectral Disorder, ASD, and that I look at the research that perpetuates the myths that I want to adhere to. That I WANT, I was told. And that the true causes of the high incidence of ASD is because the overall age of parents has gone up and chromosomal damage or degradation from this is the cause. I did read one study that stated that there might possibly a genetic propensity toward ASD within humans, but that to verify any such conclusion would mean doing genetic mapping of thousands of individual ASD babies and then utilize a supercomputer to analyze any specific genetic variant that would be common to all. The cost of course was prohibitive and so no plans were possible at that time. However I admit that most of my research has been in the area of triggers, specifically vaccines. So, to that end, this info.......
Starting with the CDC and finding out what they have to say about it. (CDC on Age of parents) Statistically, older parents, both male and female, higher for female, have a greater RISK for having children with a diagnosis of ASD. From an NCBI report dated 2008 and using 1251 children aged 8 and older with a diagnosis of ASD parents 25-29 had a 1.4 to 1.6 greater RISK of ASD. Parents at age 40 had a greater risk of 2.0 to 4.7 greater RISK with both age groups compared to parents age 35. However firstborn children of older parents >35 were three times more likely statistically to have ASD than second and third born children. This one puzzled me, one child, firstborn from older parents is more likely to be ASD than later born siblings from the same older parents is a conundrum.
Scientific American in an article dated Feb 11, 2010 has a similar listing of risk factors. However, the article also states, [the research] "suggests environmental processes and social influences (why someone would live in a particular neighborhood) might be contributing factors" and also "the present epidemiological study was important in clarifying the nuanced relationship between maternal age and autism, and defining its contribution to the rise in cases. It might have even provided biological clues. It really is a maternally mediated biological process that's going on". In case you missed the term, the article uses the term "nuanced" and here it does in fact mean, a small, or slight higher statistical risk factor.
There is a lot more of the same, basically the risks are higher for firstborn children of parents that are older. It is not in anyway THE specific cause of ASD. Not unless I am missing something, and here I think that someone will have to point it specifically to me and say "Hey stupid, you missed this!"
There is a lot of new info coming out about autism, and I have read a lot of it tonight. Some interesting stuff is out there now. A group of researchers did find that there are four specific antibodies that are part of a group called autoantibodies, and that they have discovered them in some women. If they are present during pregnancy they believe them to affect fetal brain development and that 23% of the mothers of ASD children tested had the antibodies. It is possible that certain infections during pregnancy may cause the mother to produce the four autoantibodies. There is also a new study that shows that after a baby is born, if the placenta is examined and those that have larger and more numerous folds along with trophoblasts then the children have a greater statistical probability of developing ASD. And researchers at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine have discovered an environmental factor that might be a cause of ASD. "A temporary exposure to a topoisomerase inhibitor in utero has the potential to have a long-lasting effect on the brain, by affecting critical periods of brain development. ” This is particularly interesting when you find out that the inhibitors are naturally occurring in things like soy, and the big one, MSG acts in the same manner. Yeah, it's true, vaccines contain MSG.
I haven't as of yet uncovered any smoking gun that any researchers anywhere have uncovered that points to any specific cause of ASD in children. There isn't one. I believe with all certainty that there are a large number of factors, diet, environment, possibly genetic, infection, and possibly, vaccines. There are just too many unknowns. However, with that said, with the risks of developing autism so high in countries where vaccines are pushed on children before the age of two being SIGNIFICANTLY higher than countries where vaccines are not given until after age two or older; then a choice to delay vaccination is not an untoward proposition.
So here is my blog entry that details just eighteen of the multitude of actual scientific papers that have been published in various medical, scientific and even popular science journals that have conclusions that do not in anyway dispute the above information, they simply show that there is a statistically significant possibility that vaccines may in fact be a trigger for development of ASD in children. (Vaccine Info) Take a look, it is in fact eye opening.
Starting with the CDC and finding out what they have to say about it. (CDC on Age of parents) Statistically, older parents, both male and female, higher for female, have a greater RISK for having children with a diagnosis of ASD. From an NCBI report dated 2008 and using 1251 children aged 8 and older with a diagnosis of ASD parents 25-29 had a 1.4 to 1.6 greater RISK of ASD. Parents at age 40 had a greater risk of 2.0 to 4.7 greater RISK with both age groups compared to parents age 35. However firstborn children of older parents >35 were three times more likely statistically to have ASD than second and third born children. This one puzzled me, one child, firstborn from older parents is more likely to be ASD than later born siblings from the same older parents is a conundrum.
Scientific American in an article dated Feb 11, 2010 has a similar listing of risk factors. However, the article also states, [the research] "suggests environmental processes and social influences (why someone would live in a particular neighborhood) might be contributing factors" and also "the present epidemiological study was important in clarifying the nuanced relationship between maternal age and autism, and defining its contribution to the rise in cases. It might have even provided biological clues. It really is a maternally mediated biological process that's going on". In case you missed the term, the article uses the term "nuanced" and here it does in fact mean, a small, or slight higher statistical risk factor.
There is a lot more of the same, basically the risks are higher for firstborn children of parents that are older. It is not in anyway THE specific cause of ASD. Not unless I am missing something, and here I think that someone will have to point it specifically to me and say "Hey stupid, you missed this!"
There is a lot of new info coming out about autism, and I have read a lot of it tonight. Some interesting stuff is out there now. A group of researchers did find that there are four specific antibodies that are part of a group called autoantibodies, and that they have discovered them in some women. If they are present during pregnancy they believe them to affect fetal brain development and that 23% of the mothers of ASD children tested had the antibodies. It is possible that certain infections during pregnancy may cause the mother to produce the four autoantibodies. There is also a new study that shows that after a baby is born, if the placenta is examined and those that have larger and more numerous folds along with trophoblasts then the children have a greater statistical probability of developing ASD. And researchers at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine have discovered an environmental factor that might be a cause of ASD. "A temporary exposure to a topoisomerase inhibitor in utero has the potential to have a long-lasting effect on the brain, by affecting critical periods of brain development. ” This is particularly interesting when you find out that the inhibitors are naturally occurring in things like soy, and the big one, MSG acts in the same manner. Yeah, it's true, vaccines contain MSG.
I haven't as of yet uncovered any smoking gun that any researchers anywhere have uncovered that points to any specific cause of ASD in children. There isn't one. I believe with all certainty that there are a large number of factors, diet, environment, possibly genetic, infection, and possibly, vaccines. There are just too many unknowns. However, with that said, with the risks of developing autism so high in countries where vaccines are pushed on children before the age of two being SIGNIFICANTLY higher than countries where vaccines are not given until after age two or older; then a choice to delay vaccination is not an untoward proposition.
So here is my blog entry that details just eighteen of the multitude of actual scientific papers that have been published in various medical, scientific and even popular science journals that have conclusions that do not in anyway dispute the above information, they simply show that there is a statistically significant possibility that vaccines may in fact be a trigger for development of ASD in children. (Vaccine Info) Take a look, it is in fact eye opening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)