From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V17 #205 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, July 28 2009 Volume 17 : Number 205 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Shatner reciting Palin's farewell speech [2fs ] Re: Palin's farewell [Jeremy Osner ] Re: Shatner reciting Palin's farewell speech [FSThomas ] Re: hot synths! [Michael Sweeney ] like you're dying to know what i got to-day... (US division, most likely) [lep ] Re: "Follow The Money" [Christopher Gross ] Re: "Follow The Money" [Marc ] Re: "Follow The Money" ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: "Follow The Money" ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: "Follow The Money" [Marc ] Re: "Follow The Money" [2fs ] Re: "Follow The Money" ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:07:30 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Shatner reciting Palin's farewell speech FUCK FUCKITY FUCK "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NBC Universal" Did anyone happen to save a local copy? On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM, m swedene wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCdqRbWYWbU > > think rocketman or lucy in the sky with diamonds. > > Mike > - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:18:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: Palin's farewell Boohoo! The William Shatner does SP farewell has been taken down from youtube. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:54:51 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: Palin's farewell Can still be watched here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/william-shatner-makes-pal_n_246034.htmlusing NBC's embedding rather than YouTube. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > Boohoo! The William Shatner does SP farewell has been taken down from > youtube. > > Jill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:31:51 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Shatner reciting Palin's farewell speech 2fs wrote: > FUCK FUCKITY FUCK "This video is no longer available due to a copyright > claim by NBC Universal" > > Did anyone happen to save a local copy? > http://www.tonightshowwithconanobrien.com/video/clips/shatner-does-palin-072709/1139665/ It really (really) could have benefited from at least one rehearsal. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:11:50 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Shatner reciting Palin's farewell speech well, at least it gives me a chance to come up with a crude and not really that funny joke which starts "Why was Sarah Palin?" ... Stewart ps: SIGNAL MORNING! SIGNAL effin' MORNING! It's SIGNAL MORNING in America ... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:17:19 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Shatner reciting Palin's farewell speech http://www.tonightshowwithconanobrien.com/video/clips/shatner-does-palin-072709/1139665/ On Jul 28, 2009, at 1:07 PM, 2fs wrote: > FUCK FUCKITY FUCK "This video is no longer available due to a > copyright > claim by NBC Universal" > > Did anyone happen to save a local copy? > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM, m swedene > wrote: > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCdqRbWYWbU >> >> think rocketman or lucy in the sky with diamonds. >> >> Mike >> > > > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:22:27 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: hot synths! Tom Clark wrote: > People these days do tend to look at you funny if you admit to liking Duran Duran. I get especially weird looks when I confess that "Save A Prayer" is my favorite of their songs.< ...I still treasure "The Reflex" as one of the undeniable great pop songs of the 1980s... Michael "I ssld the Renoir and the TV set" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail.: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL _QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:37:05 -0400 From: lep Subject: like you're dying to know what i got to-day... (US division, most likely) hi fegList, so whichFegs will be watching "epitaph one" this evening? (needless to mention, i'm sure) to be followed by the audio commentary for "daybreak"... as ever, lauren - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:36:05 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" < can't explain all of them, but diphtheria, whooping cough and polio seem to take drastic dives after vaccination was introduced.> um, no: they all took drastic dives *decades* before the introduction of the vaccines; and were in the midst of new dives *before* the vaccinations were introduced. took a major dive thirty years before that, another one ten years before. that's generally true. in other words, vaccination, besides being ineffective, is not necessary. <> couldn't prove what? that the germ theory doesn't satisfy the postulates? is that what marc was asking? as i said, i didn't *know* what he was asking. apologies for that. but, frankly, i should have thought that it would be self-evident. if you're arguing that the germ theory *does* satisfy the postulates, then i don't know what to say except that you're so mistaken that ten seconds' time spent looking into the issue will bear this out. hell, the medical industry itself acknowledges that not all cases of exposure produce symptoms. it dances around this by saying that the subject must be "susceptible" -- which is just another way of saying that the germs didn't cause the disease. even if we accept this "straw that broke the camel's" back explanation, the fact remains that those who live healthfully will not suffer ill health when exposed (not to mention that those who live unhealthfully will suffer ill health even if not exposed). just as they're neither reasonable nor un-reasonable, they're neither safe nor un-safe: they're just logic. it's not the *postulates* that are in question, it's the *theory*. <<>> <<.>> no, it says, over and over again, that his practices were *opposite* to his teachings. uh, you did read the article, right? or, at least far enough into it to glean its thesis? so you're arguing that there's no conflict of interest? and, more generally, you're endorsing the corporate/state "revolving door"? that's your right, of course. but, sheeyit, stewart. i explicitly stated that the phenomenon is *not* unique to the pharmaceutical industry (and even used an explanation point). what's the "plausible logic", at any rate? that the "revolving door" (mustn't forget the lobbyists, though!) cannot affect policy? because, what, that'd be anti- to human nature, or something? but that sets up a paradox. to wit, that if lobbyists couldn't affect policy, they wouldn't be used. while natural hygienists certainly *do* explain the logic behind the recommendations, they have, in fact, proven, in the real world, in tens of thousands of cases (maybe hundreds of thousands...not sure), that the body heals itself. and that drugs cannot heal (obvious anyway: if they did, one wouldn't need to keep taking of them every 24 hours). and that certain practices bring about health, while others bring about ill-health. that's the very essence of science, is it not? but if you wanna keep paying out of your cornhole to imbibe of the industry's elixirs, be my guest. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:00:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > < can't explain all of them, but diphtheria, whooping cough and polio seem > to take drastic dives after vaccination was introduced.> > > um, no: they all took drastic dives *decades* before the introduction of > the vaccines; and were in the midst of new dives *before* the vaccinations > were introduced. As I understand it that's true of some diseases, such as cholera, but NOT diptheria, whooping cough or polio. The relationship is clearest, and most dramatic, in the case of polio. Cases skyrocketed in the late 19th century, continued at a high level throughout the first half of the 20th century, and then plummeted within a few years of a vaccine first coming into use. > couldn't prove what? that the germ theory doesn't satisfy the postulates? > is that what marc was asking? as i said, i didn't *know* what he was > asking. apologies for that. but, frankly, i should have thought that it > would be self-evident. > > if you're arguing that the germ theory *does* satisfy the postulates, then > i don't know what to say except that you're so mistaken that ten seconds' > time spent looking into the issue will bear this out. hell, the medical > industry itself acknowledges that not all cases of exposure produce > symptoms. it dances around this by saying that the subject must be > "susceptible" -- which is just another way of saying that the germs didn't > cause the disease. So what exactly are these postulates that germ theory fails to satisfy? Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I can't help picturing some serious straw-man argumentation going on here (probably at one remove rather than Eddie's own fault). - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:15:02 -0400 From: Marc Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > < can't explain all of them, but diphtheria, whooping cough and polio seem > to take drastic dives after vaccination was introduced.> > > um, no: they all took drastic dives *decades* before the introduction of > the vaccines; and were in the midst of new dives *before* the vaccinations > were introduced. In the case of polio you're dead wrong. In 1952, there were 58,000 polio cases in the US, and in 1953 there were 35,000. In 1954, field trials of the Salk vaccine were deployed, and by 1957 there were less than 5,000 cases. By 1961, there were only a reported 161 cases in the US. That's not something you can attribute to normal decline. This pattern was repeated in 1988 when UNICEF, the WHO and the Rotary Foundation began a global effort to eliminate polio by making the vaccine available at no cost in virtually every country around the world. Worldwide cases of polio were reduced from 350,000 in 1988 to 1652 cases by 2007. If you want to believe that the polio vaccine wasn't responsible for this, that's fine, but you were the one who brought logic into this, and the logic shows that Koch's postulates were followed in the case of polio and the real-world results that were expected by following the logic were as expected. It would have to be an incredible coincidence that you would see declines that rapid and that complete immediately after the introduction and widespread distribution of the vaccine respectively and have it not be related to the vaccine. What makes this sort of anti-vaccine nonsense so downright evil (I use the term judiciously) is not only that it is illogical but that so many people believe it that herd immunities are disappearing in parts of the developed world since vaccines have only a finite level of effectiveness in any one individual so the key to stopping the spread is to have everyone with a high probability of being individually immune. > if you're arguing that the germ theory *does* satisfy the postulates, then > i don't know what to say except that you're so mistaken that ten seconds' > time spent looking into the issue will bear this out. hell, the medical > industry itself acknowledges that not all cases of exposure produce > symptoms. it dances around this by saying that the subject must be > "susceptible" -- which is just another way of saying that the germs didn't > cause the disease. The stupid. It burns! Seriously, you really think that the complexity of the human body will not lead to variations in response? Seriously? > even if we accept this "straw that broke the camel's" back explanation, the > fact remains that those who live healthfully will not suffer ill health > when exposed (not to mention that those who live unhealthfully will suffer > ill health even if not exposed). I think you should test this hypothesis by getting yourself injected with every known virus and infectious bacteria you can think of and see if your healthy living protects you. > > > just as they're neither reasonable nor un-reasonable, they're neither safe > nor un-safe: they're just logic. it's not the *postulates* that are in > question, it's the *theory*. The theory isn't in question, except by cranks and quacks. For them, it is an industry to question the theory. You're the one who wanted to follow the money--check out the people who are feeding you this sort of garbage and see how much they're getting paid selling supplements, chelation therapy, colon cleanses, liver flushes and all sorts of other quack "cures." > group.> > > company.> > > so you're arguing that there's no conflict of interest? and, more > generally, you're endorsing the corporate/state "revolving door"? that's > your right, of course. but, sheeyit, stewart. Conflict of interests can occur. That said, the mere speculation that there might be a conflict doesn't mean that there is one. In fact, it does seem fairly logical that those who work for a living in healthcare might be the best folks for sitting on boards about healthcare since they just might be the best experts around. What do you want, a kindergarten teacher to be a lobbyist for healthcare because of her "expertise" in 6 year olds getting colds and because she doesn't have a pre-existing tie to the industry? > plausible logic.> > > i explicitly stated that the phenomenon is *not* unique to the > pharmaceutical industry (and even used an explanation point). what's the > "plausible logic", at any rate? that the "revolving door" (mustn't forget > the lobbyists, though!) cannot affect policy? because, what, that'd be > anti- to human nature, or something? As I said above, the mere appearance of conflict to a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean a real conflict exists. > medical practices to "prove" something logically is illogical.> > > while natural hygienists certainly *do* explain the logic behind the > recommendations, they have, in fact, proven, in the real world, in tens of > thousands of cases (maybe hundreds of thousands...not sure), that the body > heals itself. and that drugs cannot heal (obvious anyway: if they did, one > wouldn't need to keep taking of them every 24 hours). and that certain > practices bring about health, while others bring about ill-health. Really? If they have proved it, show me the proof. Remember--the plural of "anecdotes" is not "data." And remember that the NCCAM was chartered to find proof that alternative healthcare approaches were efficacious, and Tom Harkin, who was the chief senatorial push behind the creation of NCCAM, himself said: "One of the purposes of this center was to investigate and validate alternative approaches. Quite frankly, I must say publicly that it has fallen short. It think quite frankly that in this center and in the office previously before it, most of its focus has been on disproving things rather than seeking out and approving." Turns out he's upset because all the various pet theories that people have that seem to work anecdotally fall down when actually subjected to scientific inquiry. If only the rules of science weren't so cruel to things like natural hygienists. Remember--you have to separate the truly alternative approaches, like advocating against the use of vaccine, and common sense stuff like washing yourself and eating right. The latter two are not "alternative," and in fact there is a strong body of scientific evidence that they work. There is zero scientific evidence to suggest vaccines are not effective across the vast population, regardless of what you think, and simple clean living is not going to prevent outbreaks of polio, scarlet fever and other easily vaccinated diseases. > that's the very essence of science, is it not? Suppositions without proof, which is all you provide, is about as far from the "very essence of science" as one can get. > but if you wanna keep paying out of your cornhole to imbibe of the > industry's elixirs, be my guest. The reason we pay through the cornhole, as you put it, is due to a lot of reasons, but it isn't due to lobbyists working for pharmaceutical companies alone or even predominantly. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:49:26 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > > um, no: they all took drastic dives *decades* before the introduction of > the vaccines; and were in the midst of new dives *before* the vaccinations > were introduced. Better sanitation can account for the start. Vaccination kicked it when it was down. > chlorination.> > > that's generally true. in other words, vaccination, besides being > ineffective, is not necessary. Well, I notice that the website conveniently ignores the effective typhoid vaccine that's been widely used since the 1940s. > hell, the medical > industry itself acknowledges that not all cases of exposure produce > symptoms. it dances around this by saying that the subject must be > "susceptible" -- which is just another way of saying that the germs didn't > cause the disease. It's a statistical thing, not a black/white exposure=symptoms. I really really recommend Goldacre's book, as it succinctly describes: a) reversion to the mean: you tend to take something (anything: it could be aspirin, it could be mbogo juice) to make you feel better when you're feeling especially cruddy. Lo and behold, you get better! b) the wonder of the placebo effect, behind which many a crank, quack and mountebank has hidden. > even if we accept this "straw that broke the camel's" back explanation, the > fact remains that those who live healthfully will not suffer ill health Anecdatum: my dad's buddy Andy. Andy was a lifelong sports freak: rowed, ran and cycled. Not an ounce of fat on him. Careful eater. Dead at 62. Bet someone somewhere will say that he didn't eat enough greens/selenium/mbogo juice. Saying that not living healthfully is a bit like religious sin and guilt - - the reason they're dead was that they weren't quite good enough, or they didn't quite do the rite thing ... > no, it says, over and over again, that his practices were *opposite* to his > teachings. uh, you did read the article, right? or, at least far enough > into it to glean its thesis? Yes, I did. I read the article saying that he really should've got treatment instead of going out and hawking his ideas when he was gravely ill, and also that he was extremely naive in believing what would make him get better. > but that sets up a paradox. to wit, that if lobbyists couldn't affect > policy, they wouldn't be used. I'm doing a bit of following the money myself. It seems that Andrew Wakefield, in his now notorious MMR/autism paper, was paid by lawyers representing parents seeking to bring a suit against vaccine manufacturers, and selected some of his candidates from this group. The Lancet has withdrawn the article, and Wakefield was recently up in from of the GMC. Details: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm Measles is now endemic in the UK again thanks to jokers like Wakefield. > certain > practices bring about health, while others bring about ill-health. > > that's the very essence of science, is it not? No, it's not, and how dare you impugn the name of Science with such odious clap-trap. Science is the rigorous discipline of developing theories, testing them, reviewing results and continuously re-testing. > but if you wanna keep paying out of your cornhole to imbibe of the > industry's elixirs, be my guest. That's why I've never lived in a country without socialized medicine, Eddie. You might as well move to Kano, where they believe that vaccinations are western control conspiracies, and now the Kano strain of polio is endemic in many countries religiously connected with Nigeria. (I mean, c'mon: *polio*. We fucken kicked that one in the 1950s: gleaming iron lungs are so passe. I remember my polio immunization: tastiness on a sugar cube. I asked for another. But my BCG scar can still tingle like a bastard on rainy days.) Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:51:56 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" Marc wrote: > > As I said above, the mere appearance of conflict to a conspiracy > theorist doesn't mean a real conflict exists. can I just say, as a wind farm guy, a-fucken-men. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:04:55 -0400 From: Marc Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" Stewart C. Russell wrote: > I'm doing a bit of following the money myself. It seems that Andrew > Wakefield, in his now notorious MMR/autism paper, was paid by lawyers > representing parents seeking to bring a suit against vaccine > manufacturers, and selected some of his candidates from this group. The > Lancet has withdrawn the article, and Wakefield was recently up in from > of the GMC. Details: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm > > Measles is now endemic in the UK again thanks to jokers like Wakefield. That Wakefield case is a peach. What you forgot to mention, however, is that he apparently faked his data, and that was despite having pre-selected his subjects to maximize the potential of the outcome matching what the lawyers were paying him to find. At least, that is the case that is being made against him now, so it isn't just a conflict of interest but a flat out abuse of the scientific process by *the* leading "scientific" advocate for the "proof" that vaccines cause autism. Because of this fear, as Stewart mentioned, enough parents are avoiding vaccination that herd immunity is now lost in big chunks of the UK and in natural medicine-friendly parts of the US such as Mendocino county. In fact, the only places where we see a lot of the diseases that were previously eradicated is in these sorts of non-immunization communities. Previously, only groups like the Amish were affected because they are religiously anti-vaccine, but now the naturalist/alternative medicine communities have drunken from the font of anti-vaccination so now even those who do take the effort to get their kids vaccinated are at risk. If there were justice, jokers like Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy would be sentence to slow and painful death over and over again, once for each child that died because they convinced their parents that vaccination caused autism or unproven in efficacy or whatever other form of claptrap they believe in that keeps them from getting the protection they need. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:43:41 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" Demons! Why is no one mentioning demons! On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > < can't explain all of them, but diphtheria, whooping cough and polio seem > to take drastic dives after vaccination was introduced.> > > um, no: they all took drastic dives *decades* before the introduction of > the vaccines; and were in the midst of new dives *before* the vaccinations > were introduced. > > > drop-off from the late 1930s.> > > took a major dive thirty years before that, another one ten years before. > > > chlorination.> > > that's generally true. in other words, vaccination, besides being > ineffective, is not necessary. > > > < logic. the *germ theory*, in failing to satisfy the postulates, must be > discarded by those who accept logic.>> > > > > couldn't prove what? that the germ theory doesn't satisfy the postulates? > is that what marc was asking? as i said, i didn't *know* what he was > asking. apologies for that. but, frankly, i should have thought that it > would be self-evident. > > if you're arguing that the germ theory *does* satisfy the postulates, then > i don't know what to say except that you're so mistaken that ten seconds' > time spent looking into the issue will bear this out. hell, the medical > industry itself acknowledges that not all cases of exposure produce > symptoms. it dances around this by saying that the subject must be > "susceptible" -- which is just another way of saying that the germs didn't > cause the disease. > > even if we accept this "straw that broke the camel's" back explanation, the > fact remains that those who live healthfully will not suffer ill health > when exposed (not to mention that those who live unhealthfully will suffer > ill health even if not exposed). > > > > > just as they're neither reasonable nor un-reasonable, they're neither safe > nor un-safe: they're just logic. it's not the *postulates* that are in > question, it's the *theory*. > > > << own teachings, died at age 69 of malnourishment and ozone poisoning?>>> > > <<.>> > > > > no, it says, over and over again, that his practices were *opposite* to his > teachings. uh, you did read the article, right? or, at least far enough > into it to glean its thesis? > > > group.> > > company.> > > so you're arguing that there's no conflict of interest? and, more > generally, you're endorsing the corporate/state "revolving door"? that's > your right, of course. but, sheeyit, stewart. > > > plausible logic.> > > i explicitly stated that the phenomenon is *not* unique to the > pharmaceutical industry (and even used an explanation point). what's the > "plausible logic", at any rate? that the "revolving door" (mustn't forget > the lobbyists, though!) cannot affect policy? because, what, that'd be > anti- to human nature, or something? > > but that sets up a paradox. to wit, that if lobbyists couldn't affect > policy, they wouldn't be used. > > > medical practices to "prove" something logically is illogical.> > > while natural hygienists certainly *do* explain the logic behind the > recommendations, they have, in fact, proven, in the real world, in tens of > thousands of cases (maybe hundreds of thousands...not sure), that the body > heals itself. and that drugs cannot heal (obvious anyway: if they did, one > wouldn't need to keep taking of them every 24 hours). and that certain > practices bring about health, while others bring about ill-health. > > that's the very essence of science, is it not? > > but if you wanna keep paying out of your cornhole to imbibe of the > industry's elixirs, be my guest. > - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:56:34 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" just look at the graphs, dude. precipitous declines began before the introductions of the vaccine. *very* precipitous decline decades before. the introduction of the vaccines didn't change the shapes of the curves. nobody said that, least of all the postulates (which, after all, were formulated by a germ theory *proponent*). are you arguing that the postulates *don't* logically follow from the theory? duesberg volunteered to get injected with HIV. don't think anybody ever took him up on it. but, yeah, i'm game. not for injections -- shots give me the mega-creeps. but i'm perfectly willing to let a sick person cough all the fuck over me; and to drink out of their water glass, and cetera. you set up the experiment, and i'm there. again: the premise of natural hygiene is that the body heals itself (not just the human body, obviously). so, no, hygienists don't sell (nor endorse) therapies, supplements, herbs, or what have you. speculation isn't the point. the point is that, even if we assume best intentions, humans are fallible. so even a situation where conflict is *possible* is generally considered un-ethical. if you don't think there's a connection, then, again, this raises a paradox. what is the purpose of the lobbyist? big-pharm CEOs don't "work for a living in healthcare". they work for a living ensuring their companies make profit. i don't want *any* fucking lobbyists! i want policy to be formulated democratically. call me naive. but that's what i want. well, i guess it doesn't matter anyhow. industrial society is collapsing; and as we all know: the bigger they come, the harder they fall. unless, of course, they get bailed out by the taxpayers. but even that's ultimately a dead end. fair enough. not even gravity has been proven. but tens of thousands of cases isn't exactly what i'd call anecdotal. just to repeat: you're confusing two different animals. i only think what the data show. read some of the works i linked to before (soil and health library), and then get back to me. okay, so then what are the reasons? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V17 #205 ********************************