No, vitamins and trace minerals will not ‘cure’ you, but will help your body build and maintain it’s own natural defenses against all these intruders and diseases.
True, it will Help, but it`s still really an excersize in damage limitation at best.
Woh, woh, let's not pester Thunderay with science and history lessons. Clearly he has seen the Great Truth. Let me help them. Should Thunderay (or anyone that agrees with him) find themselves in an ICU dying of Covid, just PM me here on BLF. I will dispatch all the oranges from my fruit bowl to save your life. Upon receiving the contraban, please immediately sign over all your worldly possessions to me. It's a small price to pay for the gift of life. When messaging me about this miracle cure, we should use a code to protect ourselves from Them. Please use the code donatemybodytoscience.
You're missing the point. Take care of your body now and it will return the favour 100 fold. Build up the proper vitamins and nutrients in your body and it will reward you immensely. It was mentioned in this thread a few times how to stop viruses from replicating in the body, especially when it is under severe attack.. Some of you guys should take note when everything else fails. It's simple and cheap and works every time. Anyway I promised way back that I would stop posting in this thread, but I actually do care for my fellow human beings and would love to see some basic common sense instead of the same old fake fact checkers day in day out promoting the same fake peer reviewed skewed studies sponsored by big pharma as the ultimate truth, but this time I'm done. If I ever come back here I'll have to open an X80 giveaway thread, that will make sure I don't!
Ie, unless there’s a ream of internationally published peer-reviewed papers, it’ll still be insufficient.
That’s the thing, there is a ream of peer reviewed papers on the subject of vitamins & their (lack of) effectiveness in preventing various illnesses.
Peer reviewed is the gold standard in research……until these 3 jokers showed up and made a whole farce of peer review.
They literally copied and pasted from My Kamf, and shuffled it around and got rave peer reviews. They did it 7 times in a similar funny way until they got caught by WSJ.
The only way I’ve heard the term “peer review” used is to make scientific study reports, and often the data and methodology used in the study, available to other researchers in the relevant fields, so that they can apply rigorous scientific principles and methods proven to minimize bias to an examination of the work. The purpose of this is to determine where the research is weak, where it is strong, and suggest ways to improve the objectivity of the research and/or the reporting of the research. Peer review is about eliminating bias and improving the objective accuracy of research and reporting on that research.
Peer review is therefore the opposite of bullying people to force them to have your beliefs, or to produce particular results desired by the reviewers, which seems to be the subject of the article linked above.
Science is a process that some have chosen to idealize almost to the point of some sort of religion. Although I am one of those that would like to hold that process to a very high standard, in my later years I have come to see that it has often fallen as short of that ideal as the legal system being the pure pursuit of truth and justice
The promise of western medicine; to eat barely digestible craptastic processed junk food and when you get sick, go to your doctor for the magic pill to cure (or more likely ‘treat’) your illness.
Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, are rampant. This and many other conditions are directly linked to diet, nutrition, exercise; lifestyle choices.
No, vitamins and trace minerals will not ‘cure’ you, but will help your body build and maintain it’s own natural defenses against all these intruders and diseases.
On the gurney in the emergency room is not the time to start your nutrition and vitamin supplements!
Lymphoma seem to be connected to viral infections.
Seems to me that science is a tool that is the best way we’ve found as a species to minimize bias in determining what is true and what is not true. Idealization and bias come from the human beings using the tool, not from the tool itself. That’s one reason why peer review is helpful – it helps correct the bias of individuals.
The Epoch Times has been consistently very biased when it comes to its content related to science, politics, and a number of other matters. Considering the source of the publication, that isn’t terribly surprising.
One thing I learned a looooong time ago is that they’re all biased. Other countries have their leftist newspapers, rightist papers, anarchist papers, etc., and they make their biases known. So you know where they’re coming from, and just like setting the white-balance on a camera, you can filter their stories accordingly and get to the truth.
It’s only here in the USofA that all our “news” sources claim to be unbiased.
As far as the ET column, it’s easy to check. Find the listed articles in Science, Nature, the NEJM, etc., and see if the articles actually exist, or if the author just made it up.
I get the feeling those articles actually do exist. And if so, yeah, what’s it to “science” rags to go politicising things? So in that sense, the author’s spot-on, and makes the point beautifully.
Way back when I was into shortwave, I’d catch The Beeb and listen to their news reports. They just presented the facts, dryly, that it’s as if they were reading the weather report or stock results. No commentary, no tsk-tsking, nothing like that. I’d almost nod off, but then it became kinda refreshing. And I had no idea why.
And when I tuned into the local “my 9” news, and the talking heads would “editorialise” things and make faces and roll their eyes, etc., that’s when I saw the difference. They were quite openly putting their spin on the stories, and I realised I didn’t want that. I just wanted the news, not their opinions.
So if “science” journals turn political, how can I trust them or what they’re reporting?
Seems to me that science is a tool that is the best way we’ve found as a species to minimize bias in determining what is true and what is not true. Idealization and bias come from the human beings using the tool, not from the tool itself. That’s one reason why peer review is helpful – it helps correct the bias of individuals.
The Epoch Times has been consistently very biased when it comes to its content related to science, politics, and a number of other matters. Considering the source of the publication, that isn’t terribly surprising.
Exactly!
Science is just a tool to get at the truth. A tool used by people that are not infallible.
Was quite amusing to read the reference article. The cognitive dissonance of someone who works for the Discovery Institute lamenting the damaging effects of Ideology in Science is sublime.
OK, let’s be clear here. I didn’t say that there are any completely un-biased news sources. After all, the decision to try to be un-biased incorporates a value-judgment, just as the decision to be biased also incorporates a value judgment.
But let’s also be accurate in our comparisons. Have the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or the Washington Post created companies under other names that use fake media personalities and fake organizations to promote its content elsewhere? Have any of those newspapers written news stories as if they are opinion op-editorials, heavily praising one particular party’s candidates and promoting false conspiracy stories intended to smear candidates of a competing party? Have any of those newspapers had a regular column promoting pseudo-science as if it was scientifically proven, like using meditation to develop “supernormal abilities,” or cancer detection inventions that are allegedly exponentially faster, less expensive, and more accurate than real methods? Were any of those newspapers’ parent companies banned from Facebook for creating more than 600 fake online personalities posing as USA citizens but in fact based in Asia, for the purpose of spreading false conspiracy theories supporting a particular USA president and discouraging support for a competing politician?
No, they haven’t, and they weren’t. But the Epoch Times did, and it was.
The way I look at it, if Hitler rose from the dead and told me it’s raining out, and I poke my head out the window and sure enough get drenched, then he’s right.
I don’t have to believe other things that he tells me, but if he says one thing, and it’s verifiable, then in that one case he’s spot on.
It might be his “opinion”, too, that it’s raining out, but if it’s news to me, then great, I can use that tidbit of knowledge and scoot out and close my car windows.
The alternative, of course, is to dismiss anything’n‘everything he says, and come out tomorrow to a car with a drenched interior.
No dog in this fight. Never read the thing but if it is as NH says, why would you be there in the first place? It’s like the old saying about voting, “I don’t vote, it only encourages them”. Or “ a broken clock is right twice a day”.
I certainly agree with the premise that if there is a verifiable fact it doesn’t matter who said it. It is all about the fact. Nothing in that convoluted stretch of an article would rise to the point of fact in support of the premise. The author blasts a science magazine for publishing an editorial. (e.g. Hitler) Attacks opinion while offering nothing of factual evidence as to misplaced science.
He even goes on to argue that doctors should be allowed to practice opinion rather than science! Verifiable fact that guns are a cause of death. Doctors who acknowledge that fact are being politicized anti-second amendment. Insanity.
… Okay, fine. I do have an agenda. I want disease transmission to go down. I want to keep this community safe. I want fewer people to die. Why is that controversial?
We weren’t set up well to deal with this virus in Missouri. We have the worst funding in the country for public health, and a lot of the things we’ve needed to fight the spread of covid are things we should have had in place 10 years ago. We don’t have an emergency manager. We don’t have anyone to handle HR, public information, or IT, so that’s all been me. We didn’t get extra funding for covid until last month. I’m young and I’m motivated, and I took this job in January because public health is my absolute love. It doesn’t pay well, but would I rather be treating people who already have a disease or helping to prevent it? That’s what we do. We help take care of people. At one point this summer, I worked 90 days straight trying to hold this virus at bay, and my whole staff was basically like that.
We hired 10 contact tracers to track the spread, starting in August, but the real problem we keep running into is community cooperation. We call everyone that’s had a positive test and say: “Hey, this is your local health department. We’re trying to interrupt disease transmission, and we’d love your help.” It’s nothing new. We do the same thing for measles, mumps, and tick-borne diseases, and I’d say 99 percent of the time before covid, people were receptive. They wanted to stop an outbreak, but now it’s all politicized. Every time you get on the phone, you’re hoping you don’t get cussed at. Probably half of the people we call are skeptical or combative. They refuse to talk. They deny their own positive test results. They hang up. They say they’re going to hire a lawyer. They give you fake people they’ve spent time with and fake numbers. They lie and tell you they’re quarantining alone at home, but then in the background you can hear the beeping of a scanner at Walmart.
I’ve stayed up a lot of nights trying to understand where this whole disconnect comes from. I love living in this county. I know in my heart these are good people, but it’s like we’re living on different planets. …
It is sad. Everything is fake or fraud. The country has been handicapped by a barrage of lies and conspiracy crap. It is like a cult. We all need debriefing.
I’m rather amused now, because there are diatribes about Goggle and Facebroke and other “news sources” that choose which stories you see based on your preferences/history, letting people feed upon themselves to build a biased and increasingly insular worldview, and that’s “unhealthy”.
Ie, if you’re red or blue, all the stories spoon-fed to you are from similar red/blue biases. If you’re pro-Truden or pro-Bimp, you’ll get more stories about them (or against the other), so that colors your news sources to a rather limited worldview. Our guys good! Their guys bad!
Hell, the feds are trying to break up those companies in the interest of “fairness”.
And now because some paper is put out by people who go and do Chinese yoga or meditate or whatever, you get poopooed for even looking at their newspapers.
Oh, but increasingly politicised “science” mags are unbiased. Uh-huh.
I get the feeling that people not only don’t know what they want, but are of the mindset that they’ll demand one scrambled egg and one fried egg for breakfast. Then when they get it, you’ll get a dirty look.
… there is one more healthy building tool that we can use this winter: maintaining relative humidity in the 40-to-60-percent range.
Relative humidity is the term for how much water vapor is actually in the air compared to how much it can hold. Think of it like a sponge: At 100 percent, the sponge is totally soaked; at 50 percent, it holds half as much water. Warmer air can hold more water vapor; it’s like a bigger sponge. As fall turns to winter and we start heating the air, our indoor environments become more dry, often hitting 20 percent relative humidity, well below the ideal 40 to 60 percent.
I don’t believe anyone in this thread has criticized anyone else for looking at a newspaper, or criticized the newspaper itself, because the newspaper is put out by people who do yoga, or meditate.
This is what we’ve really said: in response to members posting links to articles from specific news sources, some of us have pointed out that some news sources are more biased than others, and we’ve recently given examples to demonstrate why we are skeptical of the information published by one particular newspaper. Above, I gave numerous examples showing that one particular newspaper is very biased and has published a relatively large amount of false information compared to other newspapers.
Companies in the USA don’t get broken up because they are “unfair.” They get broken up very rarely in the USA in the last several decades, but when they get broken up it is because the market power controlled by the company at issue creates a situation in which the market can’t work right – resulting in a loss for society due to problems like prices that are too high, and output that is too low to clear the markets efficiently. That kind of market power also creates barriers to entry into the market, which can also result in a loss for consumers and the society as a whole.
I was stunned by the fact that in certain areas of the country, even though the devastation of the outbreak is clear, some people are still saying it’s fake news. That is a very difficult thing to get over. Why people still insist that something that’s staring you right in the face is not real.
This pandemic has confirmed my belief that Homo sapiens is the craziest and most irrational life form on planet Earth.
Think of the human brain as being two people.
The most powerful is the sub-conscience. If it’s needs are all met, the conscience is allowed to take control. But the sub-conscience never stops monitoring everything.
Example? Imagine you are researcher, alone at an arctic outpost when your find yourself needing surgery. You take some pain killers and prepare for surgery. But as you prepare to cut into yourself, you sub-conscience sees your intentions and fights back hard. You try to convince your sub-conscience it is necessary for your survival, but he just doesn’t have the capacity to see past the immediate here and now. Will he understand? Depends on the person. But most likely not.
If you apply this to politics, you can see how the sub-conscience craves identifying dangers. It’s your sub-conscience that is watching the nightly news, not your conscience. Your conscience is just along for the ride. Maybe helping translate for the master.
Good find. Yea, I read about him in high school. I based the example on him. You have to admit, not many people would have successfully removed their own appendix.
Also up for Google grabs, there is a religion that believes a human is an animal possessed by an alien conscience, or something like that.
True, it will Help, but it`s still really an excersize in damage limitation at best.
You're missing the point. Take care of your body now and it will return the favour 100 fold. Build up the proper vitamins and nutrients in your body and it will reward you immensely. It was mentioned in this thread a few times how to stop viruses from replicating in the body, especially when it is under severe attack.. Some of you guys should take note when everything else fails. It's simple and cheap and works every time. Anyway I promised way back that I would stop posting in this thread, but I actually do care for my fellow human beings and would love to see some basic common sense instead of the same old fake fact checkers day in day out promoting the same fake peer reviewed skewed studies sponsored by big pharma as the ultimate truth, but this time I'm done. If I ever come back here I'll have to open an X80 giveaway thread, that will make sure I don't!
@Thunderay Please avoid this thread from now on.
Budget Light Forum ...where Frugal meets with Flashlight!
Peer reviewed is the gold standard in research……until these 3 jokers showed up and made a whole farce of peer review.
They literally copied and pasted from My Kamf, and shuffled it around and got rave peer reviews. They did it 7 times in a similar funny way until they got caught by WSJ.
My reviews:
Thorfire C8s , Thorfire VG-10 , Sipik SK68 , Duracell 350 , Big L@rry , Mystery AAA
That’s funny… I think.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The only way I’ve heard the term “peer review” used is to make scientific study reports, and often the data and methodology used in the study, available to other researchers in the relevant fields, so that they can apply rigorous scientific principles and methods proven to minimize bias to an examination of the work. The purpose of this is to determine where the research is weak, where it is strong, and suggest ways to improve the objectivity of the research and/or the reporting of the research. Peer review is about eliminating bias and improving the objective accuracy of research and reporting on that research.
Peer review is therefore the opposite of bullying people to force them to have your beliefs, or to produce particular results desired by the reviewers, which seems to be the subject of the article linked above.
Science is a process that some have chosen to idealize almost to the point of some sort of religion. Although I am one of those that would like to hold that process to a very high standard, in my later years I have come to see that it has often fallen as short of that ideal as the legal system being the pure pursuit of truth and justice
Talk about Jungian… I just came across this op-ed today. An hour or so ago, in fact.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ideology-in-science-is-destroying-trust_35...
They used to have a good puzzle-page, didn’t finish it, so haven’t seen if they still do.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Lymphoma seem to be connected to viral infections.
Smile, you cannot kill them all.
Seems to me that science is a tool that is the best way we’ve found as a species to minimize bias in determining what is true and what is not true. Idealization and bias come from the human beings using the tool, not from the tool itself. That’s one reason why peer review is helpful – it helps correct the bias of individuals.
The Epoch Times has been consistently very biased when it comes to its content related to science, politics, and a number of other matters. Considering the source of the publication, that isn’t terribly surprising.
One thing I learned a looooong time ago is that they’re all biased. Other countries have their leftist newspapers, rightist papers, anarchist papers, etc., and they make their biases known. So you know where they’re coming from, and just like setting the white-balance on a camera, you can filter their stories accordingly and get to the truth.
It’s only here in the USofA that all our “news” sources claim to be unbiased.
As far as the ET column, it’s easy to check. Find the listed articles in Science, Nature, the NEJM, etc., and see if the articles actually exist, or if the author just made it up.
I get the feeling those articles actually do exist. And if so, yeah, what’s it to “science” rags to go politicising things? So in that sense, the author’s spot-on, and makes the point beautifully.
Way back when I was into shortwave, I’d catch The Beeb and listen to their news reports. They just presented the facts, dryly, that it’s as if they were reading the weather report or stock results. No commentary, no tsk-tsking, nothing like that. I’d almost nod off, but then it became kinda refreshing. And I had no idea why.
And when I tuned into the local “my 9” news, and the talking heads would “editorialise” things and make faces and roll their eyes, etc., that’s when I saw the difference. They were quite openly putting their spin on the stories, and I realised I didn’t want that. I just wanted the news, not their opinions.
So if “science” journals turn political, how can I trust them or what they’re reporting?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Exactly!
Science is just a tool to get at the truth. A tool used by people that are not infallible.
Was quite amusing to read the reference article. The cognitive dissonance of someone who works for the Discovery Institute lamenting the damaging effects of Ideology in Science is sublime.
OK, let’s be clear here. I didn’t say that there are any completely un-biased news sources. After all, the decision to try to be un-biased incorporates a value-judgment, just as the decision to be biased also incorporates a value judgment.
But let’s also be accurate in our comparisons. Have the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or the Washington Post created companies under other names that use fake media personalities and fake organizations to promote its content elsewhere? Have any of those newspapers written news stories as if they are opinion op-editorials, heavily praising one particular party’s candidates and promoting false conspiracy stories intended to smear candidates of a competing party? Have any of those newspapers had a regular column promoting pseudo-science as if it was scientifically proven, like using meditation to develop “supernormal abilities,” or cancer detection inventions that are allegedly exponentially faster, less expensive, and more accurate than real methods? Were any of those newspapers’ parent companies banned from Facebook for creating more than 600 fake online personalities posing as USA citizens but in fact based in Asia, for the purpose of spreading false conspiracy theories supporting a particular USA president and discouraging support for a competing politician?
No, they haven’t, and they weren’t. But the Epoch Times did, and it was.
The way I look at it, if Hitler rose from the dead and told me it’s raining out, and I poke my head out the window and sure enough get drenched, then he’s right.
I don’t have to believe other things that he tells me, but if he says one thing, and it’s verifiable, then in that one case he’s spot on.
It might be his “opinion”, too, that it’s raining out, but if it’s news to me, then great, I can use that tidbit of knowledge and scoot out and close my car windows.
The alternative, of course, is to dismiss anything’n‘everything he says, and come out tomorrow to a car with a drenched interior.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
No dog in this fight. Never read the thing but if it is as NH says, why would you be there in the first place? It’s like the old saying about voting, “I don’t vote, it only encourages them”. Or “ a broken clock is right twice a day”.
I certainly agree with the premise that if there is a verifiable fact it doesn’t matter who said it. It is all about the fact. Nothing in that convoluted stretch of an article would rise to the point of fact in support of the premise. The author blasts a science magazine for publishing an editorial. (e.g. Hitler) Attacks opinion while offering nothing of factual evidence as to misplaced science.
He even goes on to argue that doctors should be allowed to practice opinion rather than science! Verifiable fact that guns are a cause of death. Doctors who acknowledge that fact are being politicized anti-second amendment. Insanity.
One of the saddest things I’ve ever read:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/18/health-care-worker-thre...
EXCERPT
It is sad. Everything is fake or fraud. The country has been handicapped by a barrage of lies and conspiracy crap. It is like a cult. We all need debriefing.
I’m rather amused now, because there are diatribes about Goggle and Facebroke and other “news sources” that choose which stories you see based on your preferences/history, letting people feed upon themselves to build a biased and increasingly insular worldview, and that’s “unhealthy”.
Ie, if you’re red or blue, all the stories spoon-fed to you are from similar red/blue biases. If you’re pro-Truden or pro-Bimp, you’ll get more stories about them (or against the other), so that colors your news sources to a rather limited worldview. Our guys good! Their guys bad!
Hell, the feds are trying to break up those companies in the interest of “fairness”.
And now because some paper is put out by people who go and do Chinese yoga or meditate or whatever, you get poopooed for even looking at their newspapers.
Oh, but increasingly politicised “science” mags are unbiased. Uh-huh.
I get the feeling that people not only don’t know what they want, but are of the mindset that they’ll demand one scrambled egg and one fried egg for breakfast. Then when they get it, you’ll get a dirty look.
“What??? They both cooked to perfection!”
“You scrambled the wrong egg…”
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
That last one is funny. I think we know the real truth from the fake truth though. If you don’t believe it, just ask me. I’ve been wrong once.
Just like I think it was Bill Cooper who said, “Read everything, but believe nothing, not until you check it out for yourself.”.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Set your dehumidifier to 60 percent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/18/winter-covid-19-humid...
EXCERPT
common mask protocol violations:
pic is a link
Reminds me of this:
How to Post Images on BLF // Many knives for sale (USA only)
How to move a thread
I don’t believe anyone in this thread has criticized anyone else for looking at a newspaper, or criticized the newspaper itself, because the newspaper is put out by people who do yoga, or meditate.
This is what we’ve really said: in response to members posting links to articles from specific news sources, some of us have pointed out that some news sources are more biased than others, and we’ve recently given examples to demonstrate why we are skeptical of the information published by one particular newspaper. Above, I gave numerous examples showing that one particular newspaper is very biased and has published a relatively large amount of false information compared to other newspapers.
Companies in the USA don’t get broken up because they are “unfair.” They get broken up very rarely in the USA in the last several decades, but when they get broken up it is because the market power controlled by the company at issue creates a situation in which the market can’t work right – resulting in a loss for society due to problems like prices that are too high, and output that is too low to clear the markets efficiently. That kind of market power also creates barriers to entry into the market, which can also result in a loss for consumers and the society as a whole.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/opinion/anthony-fauci-covid-interview...
I Asked Dr. Fauci====
EXCERPT
This pandemic has confirmed my belief that Homo sapiens is the craziest and most irrational life form on planet Earth.
Think of the human brain as being two people.
The most powerful is the sub-conscience. If it’s needs are all met, the conscience is allowed to take control. But the sub-conscience never stops monitoring everything.
Example? Imagine you are researcher, alone at an arctic outpost when your find yourself needing surgery. You take some pain killers and prepare for surgery. But as you prepare to cut into yourself, you sub-conscience sees your intentions and fights back hard. You try to convince your sub-conscience it is necessary for your survival, but he just doesn’t have the capacity to see past the immediate here and now. Will he understand? Depends on the person. But most likely not.
If you apply this to politics, you can see how the sub-conscience craves identifying dangers. It’s your sub-conscience that is watching the nightly news, not your conscience. Your conscience is just along for the ride. Maybe helping translate for the master.
> when you find yourself needing surgery
It’s been done:
On this day in medical history: Self-surgery in Antarctica
https://www.mdlinx.com/article/on-this-day-in-medical-history-self-surge...
Good find. Yea, I read about him in high school. I based the example on him. You have to admit, not many people would have successfully removed their own appendix.
Also up for Google grabs, there is a religion that believes a human is an animal possessed by an alien conscience, or something like that.
Pages