Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed

Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed

This has been gathering dust in my Drafts.  Posting it now.  Can't even remember what it was about...

Fox News and Flu outbreak: Why are so many not getting vaccinated?

Fox News seems to struggle to maintain the line between news reporting and propaganda, and this article is no exception:

Flu outbreak: Why are so many not getting vaccinated?

Or, "Why are so many people so stupid to not trust in the power of drugs?"  What caught my attention right away is that nowhere in the article is "mercury" mentioned at all (of course, I've heard the arguments that it's no different than eating a can of tuna, but I STOPPED eating tuna because of the mercury!)

I also found this peculiar word repetition in the article.  Do they even use editors?

However, just because a person does get the flu vaccine doesn’t mean he or she won’t still get sick.  However, many people can mistake flu-like symptoms for the flu virus.  Esper noted there are many different viruses capable of causing disease, so people shouldn’t necessarily assume that if they are sneezing and coughing, they caught the flu virus.


I didn't do the greatest in English class, but don't you generally use "however" following a previous statement that you want to respond to with the contrary?  So how could you however a however?  Wouldn't that be arguing both sides of an argument?  Goofy.

I've debated getting the shot, but only because I'm curious if I had an adverse reaction if I could get some money filing a vaccine damage complaint.  But the fact is, I'll take my chances.  If people want to soup up their bodies, more power to 'em.  Not me.

"Super Earths" - and why aren't we there yet?

Stories like this one about the potential of other earth-like planets really has me wondering why we aren't there already.  This is the type of thing that scientists should be concentrating, not with nonsensical speculations about apes turning into men and other valueless recreations.  If anyone believes that "science has all the answers" (which it doesn't....  It has some good answers, and a lot of BAD one's too, like asbestos, chemical warfare, killer pharma, nuclear waste and fallout, etc) should realize that space exploration is THE thing to be focusing on.  Not stupidity about fish turning into lizards, but rather, how the heck do we get working warp engines.

If you go to a bookstore, instead of seeing shelves filled with goofballs speculating about stupid things like evolution, there should be TOMES of books about space travel, star ships, and warp engines (the stuff of Star Trek should be the stuff of reality by now.)  There's nothing I hate more than going to a science website or magazine and reading pages about neanderthal nonsense.  For crying out loud, get us into space first, and then speculate your silly caveman ideas!

If I was a scientist, that would be my focus and path.  As it stands, I nearly failed every science class I took because, while I like the ideas, I hate the actual study.  Go figure.

Space exploration should be THE prime focus of all science, followed closely by the science of making the environment safer, followed then by the science of making food and water safer and cleaner.  But I don't hear nearly enough about these subjects, and instead it's just scientific monkey business.

Pharmaceutical Discrimination

A pediatrician near us refuses to take new patients who refuse to vaccinate their children, and on considering this policy, I couldn't help but think of how Nazi that policy sounded. "We don't care what you think or what you've read or what research you've done: if you refuse the drugs that we mandate, we will not treat you." So in other words, it's an acceptable form of discrimination based on one's personal views about the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Good thing the government will step in to investigate inhuman medical practices like this...

It is the choice of these doctors, I suppose, but it reflects very poorly on their practice. I've long wondered if pharma-crazy doctors like this get a big bonus check for the volume of mercury-laden drugs they push into kids each year? I think of friends of ours who have a severely mentally-disabled child, who was (wrongly) administered an overdose of vaccines (the medical records were lost, so the shots were given again.) And of course, the vicious mental damage that the child received from these drugs, disabling him mentally for life, making him incapable of working or accomplishing things with his life, all just happened for no reason - just out of the blue. No connection to the shots (even though the symptoms started to manifest shortly thereafter.) I mean, historically, this happened to people all through history, right? Even back before vaccines - children just suddenly, for no reason, would just manifest autism symptoms, right, doctor?

And you know, if there was ever a solid, definitive study to be released, conclusively linking vaccines to autism and mental disorders, it would be completely marginalized and buried. Doctors would never be allowed to read it, and even if they did, they would ignore it in favor of the pro-drug propaganda in glossy color.  This is just a part of why I would never be a medical doctor. Your primary purpose is to sell drugs. Sellouts with no genuine concern about the health of their patients.

Raw Milk Sleepwalk Dream Post

I have no memory of writing this, but found these inane rantings saved on a random Notepad doc. I think I was sleep-walking one night and wrote this:

- The dairy industry wants raw milk stories buried because they want all people drinking only homogenized, pasteurized milk, of which they hold the monopoly. Raw milk is a far-healthier competitor, and the raw milk farms bring a lot of attention to the dangers, and nutritional worthlessness, or pasteurized milk. Lactose intolerant people, from what I've read, can consume raw milk. But this is something the big dairy industry wouldn't want getting into the mainstream, so bury bury bury...

- the big pharmeseutical industries would like this story buried as well, because they are often the ones responsible for adding drugs like rBGH into milk, a drug that makes the cows produce much more milk - while at the same time putting this drug into the milk for public consumption (and often causing difficulties like mastitis in cows.) Raw milk farmers don't use rBGH, so it's more money lost.

- The food industries that buy up all of the big milk industry milk wouldn't approve of this story as well, seeing how they need these big, mass-produced pasteurized farms for their milk. If a raw milk farm made headlines and got more attention as people's health started to improve from raw milk, that could mean more trouble with the public wanting them to use raw milk instead (for foods involving dairy: ice cream and what not, or even other food companies that incorporate creams into dinner entrees and what not.) Raw milk could make their operating costs more expensive.

- And of course, the Big Government would disaprove of raw milk news stories, since it could mean more cost for dairy for government workers, public school lunches, military meals, etc, etc...

I'm sure all of these industries are pals, and their big-wigs have council meetings to decide what to tell the AP to include in the news. Visualize a big round table with the following:

- Big Dairy industry executives
- Big pharmaseutical executives
- Big Food industry executives
- Government agents from the FDA
- AP agent that decides what stories to run

"Gentlemen, let us make sure that this raw milk story is buried. Someone contact Lindsay Lohan's agent and give him $50,000 in return for encouraging Lindsay to doing something stupid, dangerous and news-worthy! Oh, and be sure that the LAPD somehow connect this raw milk farmer with the fringe 'sovereignty' movement, so that law enforcement will crack down on him hard!"

For what it's worth, I'm not a raw milk drinker - but simply for the reason that I can't find it anywhere local. It's nearly impossible to come by. There's a farm a couple hours from here, but - and another reason I don't drink it - it runs like $10 a gallon. Which is a shame: I've tried it, and it's delicious. It's a shame that the government won't lessen the restrictions on the availability of raw milk, but then again, I don't expect things to change any time soon. The Powers that Be have seen to that.

From The Tribulation Times Herald-Exhorter

Responding to an Anti-Anti-Vasectomy Site

Here's a letter I wrote to an anti-anti-vasectomy site, responding to this site, that I doubt will see print, so posting it here instead.

Hey, I doubt my email will see print, but I'll write and send it anyway just for the therapeutic effect it gives me.

Bottom line: seriously, the entirety of your 'response' site sounds like pharmaceutical propaganda, but in this case, Big Urology propaganda. My unfounded-yet-likely suspicion: enough prominent urologists are talking together one day over beers, lamenting their profits affected by Kevin Hauber's site (or perhaps doctors find themselves getting far too many pestering questions thanks to his site) so -- enough is enough! -- break out the propaganda machine! Pool funds and get a professional, "medical sounding"-response site together, and get it out there, with the same efficiency of the vaccine industry getting the counter-autism propaganda online (only the top pro-vax articles seem to get the top search engine hits!) Urologists scramble, assemble funds, perhaps a call made to an ivy-league buddy or two, and the big money comes rolling in for a professional-looking, objective-sounding website ("be sure to include text like 'no book to sell' so that no one will suspect any ulterior motives to this site...")

But seriously, the polish used to refute Kevin's documentation seemed strained: using tactics such as marginalize the studies that support chronic issues and dismiss everything else in a cheerful ad homonym wave, and do what you can to steer around and away from the chronic page issue. Make his site as fringy and anecdotal-sounding as possible. Let's stamp out his documentation and research with our impressive-sounding, big-budget research. Chronic pain.... let's make this sound minor, dismissive, something to elicit the collective shrugging of shoulders, and let's watch the business come flooding back in again. Besides, EVERYONE takes a pain-killer when they first wake up, right, so why not someone damaged by a vasectomy?

If you think about it, vasectomies probably mark the singular reason a man would go to a urologist in the first place. So if there is skepticism of the safety of this procedure, you take away from that business, and what else would there be to give urologists business? A periodic, rare health issue with the reproductive organ? No, I see the big picture going on here. A well-played counter-move by a not-so-well-meaning group of urologists who need business.

But for what it's worth, frankly, it's not just Kevin Hauber's site that has dissuaded me from ever getting my manhood components mutilated, nor does it have anything specifically to do with philosophical or religious purposes. For me, it's all about cold, clear reason. If there is an elective operation that could potentially cause, no matter how small the likelihood, chronic pain in the region of my manhood, for every day for the rest of my natural life, then there is no way on earth would I get this operation. The other side-effect stuff that Kevin lists, that the anti-anti-vasectomy folks like trashing the research of, is secondary: I'm more concerned about the lingering, ongoing pain. My heart goes out to any guy who got the operation, experienced endless pain as a result, then when questioning the doctor received little more than a pain-killer prescription and a shrug. If there's the prospect of pain, then there's no possibility of getting this operation for me. At least with a barrier, I don't have to fear living each day with pain for the rest of my life.

Rational Neo

Extended Breastfeeding, the Duggars, and Taboos

The recent Time magazine article on extended breast-feeding (along with the over-hyped cover that I won't bother posting the image of here - like it's much different than any ridiculous Jennifer Lopez would wear to an award show) was an interesting read. Time magazine is usually just a bastion of liberal bias nonsense, but I'll give them credit for this story (albeit done in with a deliberately-sensational cover image.) This is an important topic, and it it reminded me of my other blog thoughts on the Duggars that I'm going to repost here, slightly abridged:

I've been thinking more about the Duggar phenomenon and, in particular, Michelle Duggar and her comments and practices regarding breastfeeding. I read once her remarks regarding what she considered the "myth" of breastfeeding infertility, and how it was something she didn't believe in (regardless of the fact that I've known quite a few people: nurses, doctors, midwives, LaLeche League consultants, etc, who would completely disagree with her information.) The fact is, breastfeeding, when done regularly and consistently following birth, delays the return of menstuation. It is a wonderful design that God put into place to naturally allow for the spacing of children. And let's be honest: had Michelle Duggar been correctly informed about breastfeeding and infertility, there would likely be no Duggar television show or Discovery channel royalties, etc. A natural pattern of infertility and spacing would have left the Duggars with a much "smaller" family of, likely, 9 kids or so, as opposed to the 20 they have.

I do admire this family (although I think it's crazy that they let their privacy be invaded by cameras, and allow themselves to so openly receive the spite and venom of the anti-family folks of the mainstream) and I think there are many things about them that I really admire. But at the same time, I think Michelle is mistaken about breastfeeding and infertility, and while she is very blessed to have been able to have so many healthy deliveries, the fact is, breastfeeding is not only the means to offset fertility, its also the way that a woman's body physically RECOVERS following the physical ordeal of pregnancy, labor and birth. God designed the woman's body to nurse her young AND to heal itself, as well as to give the newborn an unrivalled healthy diet (that cannot be matched by anything out of a can of formula.)

Which leads to the point I'm trying to get to: I think that breastfeeding is something of a taboo subject (or a sensational topic to be exploited as done by Time magazine's cover), and while I think that most women COULD nurse their children, I think that many don't, either because they don't want to, or they've been misinformed by BAD doctors and bad advice to think that they don't need to.

Speaking as an informed Dad here, I know it can be an exhausting experience physicially for the woman and requires commitments of time. It's also difficult, and I'm led to think that many women find it hard to do, thus it becomes less a matter of "I can't" and rather one of "I don't want to." I belive that its the rare woman who has a legitimate medical reason why they can't. But rather, far more likely, they've just received bad advice from "lactation consultants" at a hospital, or bad advice from a doctor or a nurse, or bad advice from a family member or friend, or a quacky woman's magazine, or television show, or infant formula propaganda. Or worse, the woman gave into the drug-pushers at the hospital during labor and, sadly, the drugs (such as epidural) complicated the initial breastfeeding experience, or brought about a drowsy baby unable to nurse, or required an extensive hospital stay comlicating th initial nursing timeframe, causing the baby to not be able to start nursing initially, etc, etc.

As far as Michelle Duggar goes, I do respect this family, but I just wish she had been better informed about nursing. I have a suspicion she was just misled by a quacky, drug-pushing meidcal provider (in the show, the Duggars are quick to go along with whatever their doctor's say without question. "Time for tubes in the ears? Sure, doctor". And just for argument sake, I'll grant that, maybe she couldn't nurse the first one. But same thing for the second? And the third? .... And the nineteenth? At some point over this time, someone who cared should have gone to Michelle and said, "Look, you're not giving your body the time that it needs, the time that God designed it to have, in order to HEAL between pregnancies. Have you considered going to a LaLeche League meeting, to speak to one of the leaders there to get some advice on how to adequately breastfeed? Maybe they can give you the help and support that you need to do it this time? Maybe they can help answer your questions and uncertainties? Maybe they can help show you the proof that, yes, breastfeeding does indeed offset fertility." In a way, I think this is somewhat selfish of Jim Bob to not at least use some sort of non-abortifacient barrier following childbirth, if only for a short amount of time, to give his wife's body time to heal. Yes,I know, birth control isn't natural, but neither is infant formula.

And yes, mastitis happens, and can happen bad, but LaLeche League women know all about assisting and supporting with that as well (often without liver-damaging drugs, but with herbal cures and natural options). And I'm not just speaking hypothetically here - I've actually been to LaLeche League meetings (Dad's go to them too. Dad's SHOULD go to them to support their wives, actually. To miss out on this opportunity to support your wife - then you're a loser, Dad.) These groups are a wealth of information that you don't get from most western medical doctors. The experience and knowledge of the women leading these groups is so rich, that any woman having a child should consult with them to know how to get started with nursing. Michelle and Jim Bob should go to one of these on their show, but instead they waste their time at... Weight Watcher meetings?

Or... is this all just a big taboo subject that no one wants to hear? Breastfeeding is too much trouble, it's too painful, and it takes too much time, so just get a bottle and don't bother with that LaLeche League stuff, right? Besides, in the movies and on television, EVERY woman, immediately following birth, sticks a bottle in the baby's mouth, so if Hollywood says that's how it should be, then maybe that's how it should be? Even in churches today, breastfeeding is often frowned upon in the church. Who wants a fussy baby there in the sanctuary with the mother? They can both go back to the "cry room" and separate from the rest of their family. Of course, how often in the church today are nursing mothers segregated, yet women can wear tops as low-cut and exposing as they like, and no problem there at all. Wear what you like to church and no one minds but, erm, don't feed your baby in public, if you please...

Animosity towards breastfeeding what I expect from Hollywood, or pharma-pushing medical doctors and hospitals, but sadly, it's not what I like to see being reflected in a Christian family like the Duggars. They are setting a excellent example of what a Godly family should be like, and I respect much about them (plus I respect that Jim Bob hasn't been surgically mutilated like every other vasectomied man in the world), but in terms of the example of large family size at the cost of foregoing breastfeeding (and not allowing the mother's body to recover between births), I think they're ultimately setting a bad example.

Antivasectometarianism.... or.... a new home

A new home, but the same erratic nonsense...

I'm grateful to Fishhawk over at The Trib-Times for humoring a lot of my diabolical and often nonsensical posts for so long, but I think I pushed the envelope just a few too many times with my comments about Calvinism, cosmetic surgery, perverted tanning salons, sterilizations, Big Pharma, The Duggars, and far too much chillwave music to do any good. So after repeated warnings to clean up my act and be more responsible, I thought it was the best to move on, and dedicate one site specifically to my nonsensical ruminations. For the record, Fish was a good sport, and he's a great guy, and his blogs are definitely worth checking out.

But as for my nonsense, it will start showing up here. Don't expect much to change - if anything, there is no longer the sane voice of Fish to hold me in restraint, so things might get odd...