Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
No I’m not.You are asserting that the Earth was once imbalanced which is a logical fantasy because nature wouldn't allow such a state to exist. Note - This is a low IQ interpretation of my last statement for slow learners. lol
But, if I were I would not assert that the earth was once imbalanced. It’s still unbalanced. The North Pole, wanders and wobbles cyclically for the very reason that the earth isn’t fully balanced. It can’t be.
What I was doing, is pointing out three fundamental problems with the claim you just made:
1.) Planets have gravity, a force that pulls mass towards the Center - something your rather silly analogy omits.
2.) Change in spin does not add or remove energy from the planet, so cannot change orbital distance - despite your nonsense claims otherwise.
3.) Even If one continent stuck out by 20km, that’s such a minor amount compared to the diameter of the earth, it would still be close to perfectly balanced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
That’s nice.Nature doesn't understand imbalance. Everything in nature is perfectly balanced. Nature doesn't understand pulling. This is a human concept and has nothing to do with nature. Nature only pushes. Thus, your understanding if incorrect and influenced by centuries of previous nonsense and stupidity.
Nothing you said showed anything I said was wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Oh my good lord, are you for real?
No. Thats the most absurd nonsense you have used so far and demonstrates you don’t understand basic physics:
1.) Planets have gravity pulling oceans and continents to the Center of mass. There is no such equivalent force on a potters wheel. The lack of pulling force is what flings objects on a potters wheel.
2.) To change orbit the planet has to lose energy or gain energy. To move further from the sun, it must gain potential energy, or lose it by moving close to the sun. Nothing about the way planets can spin does that, meaning that it doesn’t matter how earth spins, it’s not going to move it’s orbit.
3.) A planet with one continent sticking out even 20km and a single ocean, compared to a planet with a radius of 12000 km would make the planet unbalanced by about 0.17%, which is close to being perfectly balanced.
You seem not to understand anything you’re talking about. It’s hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
This is how pseudoscience works, you have failed to address any of the major errors in your asserted claims, you have just continually changed the subject, and asked new questions each time. If I answer this one, you’re going to ignore the answer - as you have each time so far.
You demanded I give you evidence, I gave you evidence, you demanded I explain how viruses “find” their hosts, I did, and you ignored it, then asked something else. How about you start providing some details other than your vague hand waving?
I will be happy to address your post #89, once you have addressed the key information in - literally - every single one of my posts so far. Why not start with post #87, #84, #81.
These all contain key evidence that complete refutes your nonsense, and you keep failing to address them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
As you should be able to understand, spinning objects are subjects to similar types of forces and laws that relate to spinning.
as you should also know, we were talking about Saturn’s rings, not the universe as a whole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
I’m not attacking your theory. I’m attacking your unsupported conjecture you appear to throw together without any thought to logic or science. I was attacking your ridiculously sloppy thinking, and failure to check your own maths - which you have gotten wrong twice in a row and completely undermines your entire argument.
You don’t appear to have a theory at all.
Given this, for the rock at the edge of continents being older than by the ridges to support your theory of an expanding earth, you have to provide an explanation of why that is, rather than what you did, which is simply assert that it does.
However, it’s important to note that this fact was also predicted by the actual theory of continental drift. Which requires this to be true too. So you’re basically validating a key premise of the theory you irrationally oppose.
Created:
Posted in:
Why do you keep changing the subject when I point out that you’re making things up, and when provide specific details of why the germ theory fully explains the evidence and, your dietary claims fail in all ways.
You asked how viruses can find hosts. You made a big deal out of there being no explanation - despite the explanation being one of the most basic premises of germ theory.
When it was explained, you changed the subject.
Now, details of multiple diseases have been provided, with specific patterns that cannot be explained by diet in any way. You ignore it all you focus on some irrational and incoherent nonsense.
So, please refer back: I have provided substantial details about all the fundamental ways your unsupported conjecture fails entirely to explain any major viral out breaks - where as the germ theory of disease, and epidemiology explains it completely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Its not a small mathematical error, it’s 3 orders of magnitude.
The amount of expansion is tiny, it is practically explained by post glacial retreat - where land rebounds after being covered by a glacier. There is no evidence (and in fact evidence to suggest otherwise), to suggest this is a longer term trend over earth’s history. Even if it was, when you use the maths correctly, you end up getting 400km, which is about 3% of diameter of the earth, not exactly a large amount.
The issue is not the mathematical error, it’s the sloppy thinking that it indicates. The maths is trivial, and it appears you simply found an answer that agreed with you without double checking. You then did the same thing. This failure to check what you’re saying is indicative of a flaw in scientific thinking: Rushing forward when you think data agrees with you and failing to double check anything.
The sams goes for this:
Not to mention that the rock age of the central ocean ridges is much younger than the ocean floor near the continents edge.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but I think you should go back and double check it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Studying this article on vaccination during 1918-1919 I have concluded that most of the deaths in North America can be attributed to medical system meddling and profiteering from vaccines. The article states that vaccines were "distributed without any testing". That's enough for me to see that millions of people were poisoned by these interfering medical numbskulls.
Nothing in your link indicates this. What you’re doing is a typical pseudoscience approach: You take actual facts and actual real scenarios and situations that refute your ideas, then you assert some unproven, unverified and unevidenced explanation to superficially dismiss the contradictory evidence.
No, the death count in North America is not down to hospital interference, it was down to this being a specifically virulent virus. This fact, like many others, completely refutes your idea of diet:
- there were food shortages in 1916,1917, and in multiple other years where there were no pandemics.
- there were pandemics in years with no food shortages.
- North America had no food shortage and a high number of deaths.
- it affected young healthy people more than old and infirm people.
What is also odd, is that people only catch one disease at a time, you’ve told me that Malaria, Smallpox, flu, and all diseases are caused by diet of some kind.
Why in 1917, 1918 and 1919 were there not also smallpox pandemics, and malaria pandemics - or pandemics if any other illness that you claim is caused by poor diet? You keep asserting that all these illnesses are caused by the same thing, yet it seems what people catch seems unrelated to dietary factors - and much more related to what illness are geographical spreading at the time.
Od course, you can’t and won’t explain any of this - it all refutes your position, and you are left with asserting multiple separate explanations in each case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
food scarcity doesn’t spread across a planet as if transferred from person to person. Nor does it explain the other flu pandemics, nor why it killed people in North America where there wasn’t a substantial food shortage, nor why it didn’t kill people in 1916, or 1917 when there was also a pretty significant food shortage. Nor does it explain why there isn’t major flu outbreaks in other examples of food shortages, such as recent African famines, world war 2, or others. Nor does it explain why other major pandemics occur without any food shortages... its almost as if there is no relationship betweem flu outbreaks and diet...
Over generalized hand waving may make you feel better, but is completely insufficient to explain ANY of the evidence when you view it in any detail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
You just went from 400,000km to 4000km - pretending as if you were right both times - both are wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Of course.
1.) Person has flu
2.) Virus multiples in nose and throat.
3.) person coughs and sneezes, projecting the virus in tiny aerosol particles, gets on hands, gets spread to door handles, surfaces, food, etc, and everything anyone touches.
4.) second person nearby inhales aerosol particles, touches somewhere that has particles on it, rubs face, nose, etc. Virus transfers info second host
5.) second person catches flu.
Spanish flu spread widely and fast primarily because it was a novel strain, that humanity had no in built immunity.
This is the basics of epidemiology - if you didn’t know this - you have no ability to be talking about viruses.
Now what is your explanation? That the entire world suddenly had a crappy diet for a year and a half, then magically got better? No your explanation makes no sense.
Diet can’t explain the Spanish flu epidemic because there is no correlation between who died, who caught it, and diet.
Alp you can do is simply assert loudly how it was all down to diet - yet without any facts, or ability to explain any of the relevant facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Like I said, how viruses spread from person to person is literally the foundational cornerstone of modern virology and epidemiology.
The whole concept of how virus’s reach new hosts, even has a term, it’s called a disease vector.
That you appear to be so comprehensively ignorant of such a foundational premise of virology shows everyone that you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
How confident are you in that number?If you multiply 0.1mm x 4 billion years you get an expansion of 400,000 kms
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
So you’ve done your research, and you can tell me there are no explanations, and the ones that exist are made up?
Which is it?
That no explanation exists.
Or explanations exists but they are made up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Thermal expansion is expansion. The interior of the Earth is growing like a sun which emanates heat and matter plus gases. That is why you get volcanoes, fissures and glacier retreat. The video explains all but I guess you didn't see it and are just shooting your mouth off without looking as usual.
I have bolded the parts of your post that are completely unsupported by any evidence of justification and I’m fairly sure you just made up on a whim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Erm no.
So, you’re basically telling everyone that virus’s don’t exist - yet haven’t even done the most basic research into either epidemiology or virology - both of which would clearly answer both of these key questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
You don’t think there is an “establishment” explanation of how viruses infect new people? Really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
0.24mm of the solid mass, the rest thermal expansion - which can’t happen forever. There’s no evidence that it’s been expanding at that rate forever. Small amounts of expansion are not that controversial - you have post glacial rebound, and the gradual slowing of earths rotation have an impact that’s probably going to be fairly small.
Of course, I’m sure you don’t care - you will still leap to absurd conclusions I’m sure!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
0.2;mm/year - sorry, I thought you meant substantially.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
My last 15 or so posts cover substantial details of why you’re insane claims make no sense and beat no relation to reality.
You’ce not addresses any of these key outbreak patterns and how diet cannot explain these patterns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Please explain what measurements you have made to indicate the earth is expanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Really?
Yes - really. Are you insane?
So, if viruses can't think, then, maybe you can explain how viruses can organize themselves to attack humans on mass in a pandemic situation like the 1918 flu pandemic?
What about the standard epidemiological explanation of the Spanish flu epidemic do you feel is not sufficient to explain the outbreak?
It’s already explained by the germ theory of disease, and general explanations of the virulence of the particular strain. Which part of this do you feel is insufficient.You need to explain how do they know where to go to find their victims if they have no senses to detect their environment. (Illogical nonsense)
Quite frankly; if you think this is either a logical or reasonable attack on viruses, you are solely mistaken: this is one of the most insane, and incoherent pieces of cretinous nonsense I have heard thus far - and little else you’ve said is much better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
If people eat proper diets, then, the malaria parasite won't bother you. It can only attack you if you are vitamin deficient. Especially if you are vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D or iodine is important in killing any small parasite or germ that infiltrates below the skin layer. People who get sick or die from malaria parasite are deficient in vitamin D. Thus, you don't need a mosquito net to prevent malaria. All you need is vitamin D.
This is wholly and completely untrue. You just made this up.
les start with the basics.
Firstly, the human body produces vitamin D from sunlight. That means I’m areas where there is a lot of sun, there should be less malaria. In locations where there is less sun - there should be more. The exact opposite is true - because mosquitos that carry malaria fair better in warm climates.
Your claims are refuted by the evidence.
You claim multiple illnesses are caused by vitamin D deficiencies. Some, like rickets, are definitely caused by vitamin D deficiency. We can tell the difference by looking at incidence:
2.9/100,000 children incidence rate of rickets in canada. 0 cases of malaria in Canada by people who haven’t travelled to an area where malaria is transmitted.
if they are caused by the same deficiency, why is rickets still found all around the world while malaria is not?
Again, your claims are refuted by the evidence.
Finally, and this is the really stupid part. You claim malaria is down to poor diet. This means that people with good diets who travel to malaria infested regions can’t catch malaria - this is completely untrue. This means that people outside of malaria infested regions but have similarly poor diets would also find themselves with malaria - this is completely untrue. It would also mean that people with bad diets that own mosquito nets, would become sick at the same rate as those who don’t - this is completely untrue.
Your “explanation”, fails to explain any evidence, and is clearly refuted by the patterns of illness we see in reality. You’re just making up your claims, and haven’t supported them with any semblence of coherent or scientific rationale.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
I pointed out why the detailed evidence and analysis of the real world clearly refuted your position. It seems you’re now ignoring all that evidence that disproves your argument, and changing the subject.
a.) Viruses are not humans - they do not think, they do not asses “gain”. Viruses don’t gain anything other than republicatedncopies of themselves
b.) by infecting another host.
both a and b are ridiculous simply to answer. If you didn’t know the answer, then you know nothing about virology, or germ theory.
The remainder if your nonsensical rant has already been comprehensively dealt with in my last 10 replies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
There’s two parts to this. Orbital Debris flattens into a disc due to the conservation of angular momentum. Think of spinning Pizza dough! It’s the same principle. The second part of this is why rings?: this is most likely due to all the gravitational interactions with different moons and Saturn, these perturb some areas of the rings more than others: Shepard moons is a good term to google if you’re interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
This is because all celestial bodies are spherical in shape and you can't see the hidden flow lines of magnetic force or aether flow. Aether flows into all celestial bodies in a circular pathway outside of the solid body. This positive and negative bipolar action which is even on both sides and meets in the middle where matter is condensed from the aether particles. Thus, atoms, planets, solar systems and galaxies all have a flat or disc shape. You can see this more clearly in large galaxies where aether jets shoot out at right angles to the galactic rotation. The aether jets eventually come back round in a circular motion to re-condense and become matter again when they meet in the centre disc area.
i have taken then liberty of bolding the parts of your post that are made up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
So, is there any realistic scenario where you feel a woman would carry a child for 39 weeks, then all-of-sudden change their mind at the last minute, and is able to find a doctor who would be okay with performing a termination of a healthy baby at 9 months - instead of encouraging delivery and adoption?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
So, as I said : and you keep ignoring.
Just throwing out irrational as-hoc non explanations is not evidence. Throwing out unsupported and irrational accusations is not evidence either. It’s not that I’m not responding, it’s that there is really nothing to respond to.
Let me explaince - again.
Ebola, Polio, smallpox, flu, col, SARS, the Plague, malaria - all have specific patterns of outbreaks, that all demonstrably show that illness correlated with exposure via the specific disease vector.
If Ebola was caused by DDT - then you would expect people to get sick based on their exposure to DDT. So, you would expect people who are directly sprayed or villages and farms to ALL get sick. You wouldn’t expect, the people they get in contact with to get as sick, or the people they get in contact with, or the people they get in contact with.
The pattern of outbreak doesnt match your claims.
That is evidence that shows you are wrong. You may want to accuse the government of spraying people in a pattern to mimic a viral outbreak - but you have no evidence that they did that - and it is irrational pseudoscientific clap trap to simply make some nonsense up to explain away inconvenient evidence.
This pattern repeats: Malaria. Malaria is caused by a parasite carried by mosquitos. We know this because it is prevented by mosquito nets. You have no evidence that shows any other correlating factor. Are only people with mosquito nets sprayed? Or have good diets? No: there is no evidence to support that. So we have evidence with another disease to show you the wrong. You may try and create a different ad hoc explanation to explain why the evidence doesn’t support your position, but again: explaining away evidence with unsupported assertions for which you have no evidence is pseudoscience.
And again HIV, you’ve ignored pretty much everything so far to focus on your nonsense. In the case of HIV the correlating factor, it is direct internal exposure of blood or unprotected sex. No matter how bad your diet is, or how many drugs you take, or alcohol you drink: you will not catch HIV unless you have exposure to that.
Snallpox has been eradicated - it doesn’t happen any more. You may claim it’s diet related - but let’s face it - that does not hold up to scrutiny. If it were diet related it would not be eradicated, and the pattern of who caught it wouldn’t be yhensame
as it is.
You may assert - without any evidence - that it was simply caused by vitamin C deficiency, or whatever nonsense you have: but that doesn’t match the data - where people with good diets caught it, and people with bad diets did not. There are still people with bad diets, and none of them currently catch small pox.
All you seem to have, is vague hand waving and generic arguments that assert what causes these diseases. You make no attempt to explain why non of the actual evidence of outbreaks and transmission refute your position completely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
No it’s not. The history of the diseases and patterns of outbreak prove it’s not. Also, if smallpox were dietary in nature - it would still exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
You offered no evidence that Ebola, or any of those diseases are caused by DDT poisoning. You showed evidence that DDT poisoning exists - which is largely irrelevant and quite frankly a nonsensical red herring.
Like everything else you’ve said - these claims appear made up, pulled our of your ass without any evidence or Lodi .
As I explained, if people over a broad area got sick, or people who ate food from a specific area - without any other correlating factor - your asserted claims may not by wholly illogical - but this isn’t what happens.
As I pointed, none of your illnesses fit the pattern you say caused them. They fit the pattern of being caused by being caught from someone or something that also has the disease.
Looking at diseases as a whole - and patterns of outbreaks over human history refutes your position, and while you may feel better simply ignoring the fact your main argument is comprehensively destroyed by just looking at the patterns who has caught one virus illness - the fact remains that your insane, asserted claims presented without evidence are clearly refuted by actual data.
Now, I don’t know if you’re asking seriously how to catch HIV - I’m not sure if you’re simply ignorant, or plain stupid here, because quite frankly if you don’t even understand or know how this basic information about different mechanisms of viral transfer, and a specific form of viral transfer of a virus you’ve been talking about for an entire thread - there’s not much I can do to help you.
I suspect that this argument is because you read this page - and felt there was some way it supported your position, so threw it out here, no matter how incoherent or contradictory it actually is
Like everything else you’ve said - these claims appear made up, pulled our of your ass without any evidence or Lodi .
As I explained, if people over a broad area got sick, or people who ate food from a specific area - without any other correlating factor - your asserted claims may not by wholly illogical - but this isn’t what happens.
As I pointed, none of your illnesses fit the pattern you say caused them. They fit the pattern of being caused by being caught from someone or something that also has the disease.
Looking at diseases as a whole - and patterns of outbreaks over human history refutes your position, and while you may feel better simply ignoring the fact your main argument is comprehensively destroyed by just looking at the patterns who has caught one virus illness - the fact remains that your insane, asserted claims presented without evidence are clearly refuted by actual data.
Now, I don’t know if you’re asking seriously how to catch HIV - I’m not sure if you’re simply ignorant, or plain stupid here, because quite frankly if you don’t even understand or know how this basic information about different mechanisms of viral transfer, and a specific form of viral transfer of a virus you’ve been talking about for an entire thread - there’s not much I can do to help you.
I suspect that this argument is because you read this page - and felt there was some way it supported your position, so threw it out here, no matter how incoherent or contradictory it actually is
Created:
Posted in:
Aomething is wrong, this thread does not have nearly enough curse laden accusations of moderations abusing their power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
No, they would get their arse kicked and spend the rest of their lives as unemployed. Pharmaceutical companies need sick people, its what makes them rich. Thus, you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Thus, they will never let go of germ theory no matter how many billions of people die because of it. Disease is completely avoidable all you need to do is avoid dairy, grain, sugar and alcohol. In pristine nature, animals never get sick. Sickness is purely a result of agricultural products which disrupt the digestive system and cause leaky gut syndrome. I never get sick because I eat a paleo diet. I don't get headaches regardless of the amount of stress or reading I do. Diseases like cancer, AIDS, arthritis, flu, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease are all just blockages, leaky gut and inflammation caused by bad diet and lack of vitamins.
Yeah, yeah: assertion, assertion, assertion - no evidence no evidence / assertion,
Bottom line - get a random HIV test, take someone diagnosed with HIV, and inject their blood into you. Take another HIV test later, confirm you have HIV - then cure it with diet. (Or just don’t catch HIV)
Have a news crew follow you around while you did it.
You would become a billionaire in a few weeks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
I didn’t ask you what you felt the causes of Ebola were - I am explaining that Ebola outbreaks, prevalence and epidemiology is completely incompatible with a diet based explanation.
You may assert Ebola is caused by “poor diet”, or “mercury”, or any number of causative features: but that’s not supported by any facts at all, or even any basic rudimentary science:
Diets are poor around the world, many people have toxins in their system, mercury, and whatever other ingestion of bad food that you claim cause Ebola happens everywhere. You will find people all around the world, in China, the America’s, and other regions of Africa with those same diet issues....
And yet, you don’t see random outbreaks of Ebola all over the world, do you? Like say, type 2 diabetes, or heart disease?
You see Ebola outbreaks only in places where there is already Ebola, and in places where there is already Ebola - you only see it in people who were exposed to other people with Ebola.
Smallpox is another example. People have caught small pox for all of recorded history. Rich people with good diets caught it. Poor people with bad diets caught it. In fact, it seems your chances of catching small pox was related to being exposed to someone else with smallpox - not your diet. The only group of people who NEVER caught it were people who had already caught cow pox.
That seems completely unrelated to diet, no?
I’m sure you’ll pull wild claims you cannot possibly support that all the the people who milked cows had great diets - but that’s just a wild nonsensical assertion based on no evidence.
Do you know who magically stopped catching smallpox over time? Was it the people who improves their diets? Or was it people who were vaccinated?
Yep - you guessed it - it was the vaccinated people.
People still caught dysentery, polio, colds, flu, cancer, Malaria, and many, many others, but they stopped catching small pox - after they were vaccinated.
How was small pox eradicated? Was it because the WHO changed everyone’s diets? Or was it because they went through a well resources vaccination program that aggressively targeted small pox outbreaks.
You guessed it! It wasn’t diet!!
What prevents people catching Malaria most effectively: changing your diet to cut out toxins: or a Mosquito net?
It’s the latter.
This pattern repeats over every bacterial or virus based disease that exists. In fact part of the reason we know they are germ based diseases.
We know scurvy is diet related - because everyone with a diet poor in vitamin C can catches - they don’t have to simply be around people with scurvy - the same is true for any other illness that is diet related.
Sitting behind a keyboard asserting that diseases are caused by diet in no way deals with the combined wealth of empirical data that completely refutes your entire position and spells out exactly why your position makes no logical sense at all in any way.
I don’t think even you believe it - as I guarantee you that you wouldn’t put your money where your mouth is and expose yourself to some deadly viral disease.
You may assert Ebola is caused by “poor diet”, or “mercury”, or any number of causative features: but that’s not supported by any facts at all, or even any basic rudimentary science:
Diets are poor around the world, many people have toxins in their system, mercury, and whatever other ingestion of bad food that you claim cause Ebola happens everywhere. You will find people all around the world, in China, the America’s, and other regions of Africa with those same diet issues....
And yet, you don’t see random outbreaks of Ebola all over the world, do you? Like say, type 2 diabetes, or heart disease?
You see Ebola outbreaks only in places where there is already Ebola, and in places where there is already Ebola - you only see it in people who were exposed to other people with Ebola.
Smallpox is another example. People have caught small pox for all of recorded history. Rich people with good diets caught it. Poor people with bad diets caught it. In fact, it seems your chances of catching small pox was related to being exposed to someone else with smallpox - not your diet. The only group of people who NEVER caught it were people who had already caught cow pox.
That seems completely unrelated to diet, no?
I’m sure you’ll pull wild claims you cannot possibly support that all the the people who milked cows had great diets - but that’s just a wild nonsensical assertion based on no evidence.
Do you know who magically stopped catching smallpox over time? Was it the people who improves their diets? Or was it people who were vaccinated?
Yep - you guessed it - it was the vaccinated people.
People still caught dysentery, polio, colds, flu, cancer, Malaria, and many, many others, but they stopped catching small pox - after they were vaccinated.
How was small pox eradicated? Was it because the WHO changed everyone’s diets? Or was it because they went through a well resources vaccination program that aggressively targeted small pox outbreaks.
You guessed it! It wasn’t diet!!
What prevents people catching Malaria most effectively: changing your diet to cut out toxins: or a Mosquito net?
It’s the latter.
This pattern repeats over every bacterial or virus based disease that exists. In fact part of the reason we know they are germ based diseases.
We know scurvy is diet related - because everyone with a diet poor in vitamin C can catches - they don’t have to simply be around people with scurvy - the same is true for any other illness that is diet related.
Sitting behind a keyboard asserting that diseases are caused by diet in no way deals with the combined wealth of empirical data that completely refutes your entire position and spells out exactly why your position makes no logical sense at all in any way.
I don’t think even you believe it - as I guarantee you that you wouldn’t put your money where your mouth is and expose yourself to some deadly viral disease.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
That in theory a group of women might be able to congregate together to enter into a permanent polyamorous relationship with a rich man, without legal sanction or prohibition, has not yet manifested itself into reality.But for the government to provide such legal sanction to such an arrangement, combined with the thousands upon thousands of media pundits who you and I both know would flock in an instant to show their support for the men and women who were a party to this, would have the effect of making this exponentially more common within a few short years.
So right now, billionaires can entice women into long term or even permanent polygamous relationships that are not legally sanctioned by the government.
If the attraction and benefits of being in a non-legally recognizes polygamous relationship with a billionaire is not sufficiently compelling to make people want to do it with anyone other than Hue Hefner - I can see no benefit or compelling reason why government recognition would tip the balance.
Unless you can give me a good reason why a women would say “I’m not going into a polygamous relationship with this billionaire” today, but would tomorrow I’d it was legally recognized. I see no basis for your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
The fact is that the germ theory of disease is illogical.
Any specific examples you care to share as to where you feel it’s illogical? Or are you just asserting without evidence again? Microscopic organisms that infect through a particular pathway (air, food, fluids, stc) and cause disease when they infect a host is not just logical - it explains almost every facet of diseases caused by organisms - it helps predict and model patterns of outbreaks, has helped guide methods of tracing and reducing outbreaks and is much better at helping predict who will get ill next:
Clue: If you have a perfect diet, and have touched the blood of someone with Ebola, you’re probably going to be more at risk of Ebola than If you have a terrible diet and do not
This is a level of explanatory power your nonsensical assertions cannot even come close to approaching.
Clue: If you have a perfect diet, and have touched the blood of someone with Ebola, you’re probably going to be more at risk of Ebola than If you have a terrible diet and do not
This is a level of explanatory power your nonsensical assertions cannot even come close to approaching.
It doesn't follow any logical pattern and disobeys many laws of common sense and nature.
Care to cite examples? Or are you just asserting things again!
There is absolutely no incentive for any biologist to disprove germ theory. Disproving germ theory of disease would only result in the scientist getting a kick in the arse by the establishment because it will result in great embarrassment and loss of money, jobs and prestige of the pharmaceutical industry. Idiots like Pasteur and Jenner were glorified as heroes because it enabled pharmaceutical companies, governments and food manufactures to get away with mass murder for hundreds of years.
Let’s ignore the flagrant lies and dishonesty that your blurting out with no evidence and no support.
Do you know what makes money?
Cures.
Do you know what makes the most money?
Effectivs cures.
If biologist just so happened to discover viruses doesn’t exist, and tested your theory and managed to - say - create a method to cure aids. They’d be billionaires.
Say what you want, but no amount of nonsense conspiracy theories would be able to cover up, say, claiming you had a cure for aids, and injecting yourself with what doctors call HIV crisis, and demonstrate that you are impervious to aids through your particular cure. Same goes for curing HIV by diet, or any number of your whacky claims.
Any one of these crackpots you cite could do this today. And would be billionaires overnight. So would pharmaceutical companies - it’s much simpler and easier to make billions by curing people - rather than maintain a global conspiracy to pretend to cure some people.
Do you know what makes money?
Cures.
Do you know what makes the most money?
Effectivs cures.
If biologist just so happened to discover viruses doesn’t exist, and tested your theory and managed to - say - create a method to cure aids. They’d be billionaires.
Say what you want, but no amount of nonsense conspiracy theories would be able to cover up, say, claiming you had a cure for aids, and injecting yourself with what doctors call HIV crisis, and demonstrate that you are impervious to aids through your particular cure. Same goes for curing HIV by diet, or any number of your whacky claims.
Any one of these crackpots you cite could do this today. And would be billionaires overnight. So would pharmaceutical companies - it’s much simpler and easier to make billions by curing people - rather than maintain a global conspiracy to pretend to cure some people.
Note - There is only one human disease which is vitamin deficiency disease. If you have any evidence of viruses then send the evidence to me and I will show you how the information was manufactured and made up. I have worked in a science laboratory and know all the dirty tricks.
Nah. That approach is nonsense pseudoscience. This is the way all conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, anti vaxxers, and pseudoscientists approach things: anyone can throw out unsupported assertions against legitimate evidence.
Find me data that shows viral and bacterial diseases correlate better to dietary factors than to exposure to the relevant diseases vector.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
There’s nothing from stopping that happening now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You meant to say “no you misrepresented what I said!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If by Royal we, you mean not the royal we: and specifically talking about you and I: then sure!
But hey? It wouldn’t be the first time in the last ten minutes you’ve deliberately misrepresented reality in order to deflect from the conversation.
Triggered!
3,7,5,10
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Funnily enough the last 5 or 6 responses were essentially:
Me: You need to watch about running out of Republican pretence you use to hide overt racism.
you. CNN tells you to be racist
Me: It’s relatively clear you have no substance to add
you: you have no substancs
Me: your replies could almost be scripted.
you: your replies are scripted.
This isn’t really an issue of nuance, this is an issue of you being a troll. If you had the ability to do that, you could. Almost every other right winger here does so to varying degrees of success. Your strategy isn’t nuanced, or particularly inventive: it’s really just you repeating grotesquely oversimplified and overexhaggerated right wing stereotypes and tropes in order to feel edgy.
Every so often you get dragged kicking and screaming into an actual discussion, and you generally don’t last very long - partly because you don’t seem very capable of actual intelligent discussion, and as we have discovered previously - the majority of your beliefs are based on some relatively visceral emotional position rather than being fact based.
I’ll save you the time: just use my Patented Grey Parrot Troll simulator. Just pick one random number from my each column next time you want to reply, and it will produce a post of equal value and similar sentiment to pretty much any of your posts here, without you having to go to the trouble of thinking of anything:
1.) Marxist
2.) Anti-white
3.) Virtue
4.) Racist
5.) CNN
6.) Pelosi
7.) Fascist
8.) NPC
9.) Anti-Fa
10.) Obama
Column 2
1.) Enabling
2.) Empowering
3.) Signalling
4.) Supporting
5.) Normalizing
6.) Embracing
7.) Loving
8.) Tweeting
9.) agrandizing
10.) following
Column 3
1.) Trump
2.) Security
3.) Equality
4.) Harmony
5.) Rainbow
6.) Black
7.) Reality
8.) Minority
9.) Orange man
10.) Immigrant
Column 4
1.) Hater
2.) Shunner
3.) Despiser
4.) Destroyer
5.) Harmer
6.) Assaulter
7.) Doubter
8.) Exterminator
9.) wrecker
10.) Swindler
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you really using the “I know you are, but what am I?” strategy?
Feel free to troll away, but at least my contribution here is complex enough that it can’t be automated by a ruby script.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait, CNN also point out that you’re an irrelevant troll who doesn’t appear able to engage in anything of substance?
I may have to start watching them.
I may have to start watching them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
It seems that you’re basing your conclusions based on looking at life and the world, and seeing that there some animals have adaptations that seem to allow them to survive better? And maybe a couple of examples where some aspects of the world seem useful to us as humans.
Would that be a fair interpretation of your argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You forgot to mention white male Genocide! This thread is getting close to a dog whistle racism bingo!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
And, unfortunately you appear to have ignored all the major flaws pointed out with your position. I’m assuming that’s because you have no argument, and your now flitting from position to position.
If you were being honest, logical, sensible, and were not irrationally tied to your position - you would note that I have never knce said that peer review is infallible, that data cannot be faked by individuals, or that everything that has ever happened in a study is true.
Thats not how things work. That’s not how any of this works.
Your issue, is that you’re just being plain crackpot crazy. You’re argument is effectively that because peer review has errors and is not perfect - that I should believe your nonsensical drivel that isn’t supported by any data at all, that hasn’t been review at all by anyone, and hasn’t no evidence to support it.
Not every scientific theory or hypothesis that is in a paper that is peer reviewed is true - but I will say that every valid scientific theory or hypothesis in the last hundred years has appeared in some form of peer review.
While the process is not perfect, it is most certainly far more valid, supported and believable than DEFINITELY fraudulent random bloggers paper, and posts and assertions from some random nut job on the internet - which is mostly what your position is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh yeah. I forgot you just pull reasons out of your ass for why you don’t like black and brown people.
If you don’t like Marxist socialist policies, you should probably invade the Soviet Union of the 1960s. That’s the last time anything you just said was relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You should be personally scared: if Republicans enact all the laws, rules and policy based on risiculously transparent pretext, soon they’ll be left with no other option than just coming out and saying they just don’t like black and brown people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
So let’s say everything you just said about studies is true (it’s not - like everything else you’ve said - it’s a grotesque misrepresentation and completely unsupported by what you posted).
Why does that make any of the nonsense you’ve been posting true? That’s not how things work.
Why do you think studies being fraudulent makes the study you cited any more valid? Why does it this make the fact (and it is a fact), that the source you cited is from a fraudulent publisher - not a fact?
You don’t seem to care either about scientific evidence or the validity of your sources. You seem to quote anything, any bogus source from any crackpots, any sources from mainstream science, sources from fraudulent non-science that you claim is science.
Even this 50% claim - comes from the very same scientists you claim are liars and cannot be trusted. All of a sudden you decide that you should trust them?
Some of studies - come from the scientists you claim are liars and cannot be trusted.
Given this, you appear disinterested in what the facts are, and what science is valid, and how you can tell.
You seem solely interested only in what things agree with you.
That’s the approach that is only taken by woo peddling pseudo scientists.
Why does that make any of the nonsense you’ve been posting true? That’s not how things work.
Why do you think studies being fraudulent makes the study you cited any more valid? Why does it this make the fact (and it is a fact), that the source you cited is from a fraudulent publisher - not a fact?
You don’t seem to care either about scientific evidence or the validity of your sources. You seem to quote anything, any bogus source from any crackpots, any sources from mainstream science, sources from fraudulent non-science that you claim is science.
Even this 50% claim - comes from the very same scientists you claim are liars and cannot be trusted. All of a sudden you decide that you should trust them?
Some of studies - come from the scientists you claim are liars and cannot be trusted.
Given this, you appear disinterested in what the facts are, and what science is valid, and how you can tell.
You seem solely interested only in what things agree with you.
That’s the approach that is only taken by woo peddling pseudo scientists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1.) Yes
2.) Yes (if possible using the hunger games tribute death music).
3.) No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Or perhaps, you should try and make an argument to try and address peoples actual points?
Created: