Feed on
Posts
comments

Just another ‘devil’s advocacy’

Why did New York try to force unwilling health care workers to get the H1N1 vaccine, when it’s already known that flu vaccines are not very effective? That’s a good question.

 

    

Health expert and editor of NaturalNews.com, Mike Adams, points out that there has never been a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy of the flu shot (a fact that even most doctors don’t know). He recommends a tongue-in-cheek way to make a quick $100 bucks off of the confusion.
“If a doctor (or a friend) tries to push a flu vaccine on you, ask them this one simple question: ‘Do you think there have been any placebo-controlled studies that prove flu vaccines actually work?’ Your doctor will, of course, say, ‘Sure there are. There must be.’ You then answer, ‘I’ll bet you my flu shot against your hundred dollars that you can’t cite even one such study.’ After a few days of being scoffed at while they try to dig up a study that doesn’t exist, you’ll walk away $100 richer. Remember, the study has to be a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy of the flu shot. Such studies have never been done!”
But you don’t have to take Mike’s word for it. Here’s a quote taken directly from the flu vaccine FLULAVAL’s package insert (which you likely never see when getting the flu shot) for the 2009-2010 formula (pay special attention to the last line):
“FLULAVAL is an influenza virus vaccine indicated for active immunization of adults 18 years of age and older against influenza disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and type B contained in the vaccine. This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL.”

Read More

Something To Think About

“All my moral and intellectual being is penetrated by an invincible conviction that whatever falls under the dominion of our senses must be in nature and, however exceptional, cannot differ in its essence from all the other effects of the visible and tangible world of which we are a self-conscious part. The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is–marvels and mysteries acting upon our emotions and intelligence in ways so inexplicable that it would almost justify the conception of life as an enchanted state. No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural which (take it as you like) is but a manufactured article, the fabrication of minds insensitive to the intimate delicacies of our relation to the dead and to the living, in their countless multitudes; a desecration of our tenderest memories; an outrage on our dignity.”                        Joseph Conrad (Author’s note to The Shadow-Line)

I will Survive

Tagged as the “Safe Operating Space” by Nature Magazine, eco rules that are worth the try to keep our existence less intricate while making the most of the space and time.

What follows is a list of the nine environmental factors, and how we’re doing on living within each limit.

1)
Atmospheric carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming: Obviously, we have trouble with this one. The researchers say the CO2 limit is no more than 350 parts per million (p.p.m.) in the atmosphere, but we’re already at 387 p.p.m. and rising.

2) Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution: This one is split. We’re already over the limit with nitrogen, since industrialized agriculture already has humanity pouring more chemicals into the land and oceans than the planet can process [Time]. On phosphorus, another chemical used in fertilizer, we’re still below the limit.

3) Ozone: finally, some good news! The researchers say that atmospheric levels of ultraviolet radiation-blocking ozone are safe, thanks to a 1987 ban on ozone-destroying chemicals [Wired.com].

4) Fresh water use: So far, we’re beneath the threshold for water use, but if populations continue to boom we may soon be in trouble. One water expert even questions the threshold used in this paper, saying that it would allow further degradation at such environmental disaster sites as the drying Aral Sea in Asia and seven major rivers, including the Colorado in the U.S., that no longer reach the sea [Scientific American].

5) Land use: We also haven’t yet reached the point at which we’ll have converted too much natural terrain, like forests and wetlands, to less biologically useful landscapes, like monocrop agricultural fields and cities. But again, population growth is a looming factor.

6) Biodiversity: Boy, did we screw this one up. Many biologists argue that the planet is in the midst of a sixth great extinction event because of human actions, and the report finds that we’re way over the limit for species loss. “Today the rate of extinction of species is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times more than what could be considered natural,” they report [Canwest News].

7) Ocean acidification: Again, we haven’t crossed this threshold yet, but the carbon dioxide emitted by our industrialized societies is steadily being infused in the oceans, raising their acidity levels and making it harder for coral reefs to build skeletons and invertebrates to build shells. According to recent surveys, the ocean is now acidifying 100 times faster than at any time during the past 20 million years [Yale Environment 360].

8) Chemical pollution: Human activity is spreading toxic materials like heavy metals and radioactive waste, and researchers believe these materials are causing genetic damage in all kinds of organisms. But scientists don’t yet have enough info to establish a safe limit.

9) Atmospheric aerosols: Ditto with soot and other particles that cloud our atmosphere, causing smog and provoking heath problems in humans. Researchers believe that aerosols can have global-scale effects, but haven’t yet agreed on a threshold.

Source

Older Posts »