From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V17 #226 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, August 20 2009 Volume 17 : Number 226 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: anyone home? [Marc ] Re: anyone home? ["Laura Golias" ] non-Robyn news that will cause instant Feglist orgasm [Miles Goosens ] Re: URGH! and Carney (Robbie Robertson, Jodie Foster, Gary Busey) on DVD [Tom Clark ] flash-based recorders? ["John B. Jones" ] talking about movie talk [lep ] Re: flash-based recorders? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: talking about movie talk [Jeremy Osner ] Re: anyone home? ["Laura Golias" ] Re: "Follow The Money" ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] Re: "Follow The Money" ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:50:04 -0400 From: Marc Subject: Re: anyone home? 2fs wrote: > everyone off twittering? > This pretty much sums up how I feel about Twitter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN2HAroA12w Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:38:30 -0400 From: "Laura Golias" Subject: Re: anyone home? nope. i do NOT twitter. : D Laura Golias ldgolias1@verizon.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:15:04 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: non-Robyn news that will cause instant Feglist orgasm Specifically, a Buffyverse/BSG WORLDS COLLIDE! Spikegasm: http://www.tvguide.com/News/James-Marsters-Joins-1009082.aspx later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:40:36 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: URGH! and Carney (Robbie Robertson, Jodie Foster, Gary Busey) on DVD http://www.avclub.com/articles/warner-archives-releases-urgh-bad-ronald-mike s-mur,31885/ my blog is "Yer Blog" http://fab4yerblog.blogspot.com/ http://robotsarestealingmyluggage.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:11:02 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: non-Robyn news that will cause instant Feglist orgasm - -- Miles Goosens is rumored to have mumbled on 19. August 2009 23:15:04 -0500 regarding non-Robyn news that will cause instant Feglist orgasm: > Specifically, a Buffyverse/BSG WORLDS COLLIDE! Spikegasm: > > http://www.tvguide.com/News/James-Marsters-Joins-1009082.aspx So far that doesn't gasm me much. I was really disappointed by BSG's last season, especially the finale, and the Caprica pilot didn't do much for me, either. I guess I'll have to give the series a chance, anyway. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:27:53 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: non-Robyn news that will cause instant Feglist orgasm On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > -- Miles Goosens is rumored to have mumbled on 19. > August 2009 23:15:04 -0500 regarding non-Robyn news that will cause instant > Feglist orgasm: > >> Specifically, a Buffyverse/BSG WORLDS COLLIDE! Spikegasm: >> >> http://www.tvguide.com/News/James-Marsters-Joins-1009082.aspx > > So far that doesn't gasm me much. I was really disappointed by BSG's last > season, especially the finale, and the Caprica pilot didn't do much for me, > either. I guess I'll have to give the series a chance, anyway. Dude, way to be a gasmkill! Seriously, I do disagree - mightily about BSG's last season, mostly about the finale (um, how to put this while staying spoiler-free... great through the big climactic moment, only really falters in the bludgeoning of THE POINT in the last scene), and also about CAPRICA, which to me seemed pretty tasty and intriguing. later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:36:38 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: anyone home? On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Laura Golias wrote: > nope. i do NOT twitter. > : D > Laura Golias > ldgolias1@verizon.net > Yeah, I'm too old. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:52:47 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: URGH! and Carney (Robbie Robertson, Jodie Foster, Gary Busey) on DVD On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:40 PM, HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > http://www.avclub.com/articles/warner-archives-releases-urgh-bad-ronald-mike > s-mur,31885/ okay - THAT'S awesome. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:55:17 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: URGH! and Carney (Robbie Robertson, Jodie Foster, Gary Busey) on DVD On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:40 PM, wrote: > http://www.avclub.com/articles/warner-archives-releases-urgh-bad-ronald-mike > s-mur,31885/ > > my blog is "Yer Blog" > http://fab4yerblog.blogspot.com/ > http://robotsarestealingmyluggage.blogspot.com/ Now this is the kind of marketing breakthrough I've been waiting to see! If only they were offering anything I actually cared about. Baby steps, I suppose. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:58:01 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: non-Robyn news that will cause instant Feglist orgasm On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Miles Goosens wrote: > Specifically, a Buffyverse/BSG WORLDS COLLIDE! Spikegasm: > > http://www.tvguide.com/News/James-Marsters-Joins-1009082.aspx > > later, > > Miles Umm, somebody gonna have to check and make sure Lauren hasn't had a stroke or anything... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:08:00 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: URGH! and Carney (Robbie Robertson, Jodie Foster, Gary Busey) on DVD On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tom Clark wrote: > On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:40 PM, HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > >> >> http://www.avclub.com/articles/warner-archives-releases-urgh-bad-ronald-mike >> s-mur,31885/ > > okay - THAT'S awesome. On further examination I am intrigued by the titles "The Devil Is a Sissy" and "Three Sailors And a Girl." The latter title sounds like something I might have seen back in the seventies sometime... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:54:27 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: anyone home? On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Marc wrote: > 2fs wrote: > >> everyone off twittering? >> >> > This pretty much sums up how I feel about Twitter: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN2HAroA12w Pretty much. Although I'm merrily blabbing away on Facebook, which I might have scorned a few years back... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:46:35 -0700 From: "John B. Jones" Subject: flash-based recorders? Hi Fegs - Is the Edirol the way to go for a flash-based recorder? I'd like to hear testimonials from all you taperfegs out there. What do you use to tape with nowadays? I want something pretty versatile, that I can record with a line signal or with built-in mics or with external mics. Changing levels on the fly would be nice, too. Thanks! JBJ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:59:01 -0400 From: lep Subject: talking about movie talk hi List, so i haven't seen "district 9", and probably won't. but, regardless, with the movie just out, i figured it was good time to let friends and loved ones know that, during a zombie attack, i have their back. i'm not really the leader type, but i think i'd be good with the zombie situation (i have no leading-during-a-crisis skills, it's really just a gut feeling.) but apparently "district 9" is devoid of zombies and zombie attacks. it's about *aliens*. and, frankly, i'd be good during an alien attack as well, but now i've lost all credibility because of my zombie/alien "district 9" mix-up. so let the feds deal with it. here's NPR's take on the matter: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/08/five_ways_movie_governments_co.html xo - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:14:59 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: flash-based recorders? John B. Jones wrote: > > Is the Edirol the way to go for a flash-based recorder? I'm all about my Marantz. With a $50 16GB card, it'll record forever. Maxes out at 48/24, but good mics; I'm not convinced that the 96/24 out of the Zoom is really valuable. Only drawbacks are that the mics are truly omnidirectional (some of my AUDs have "Offputting mouthbreathing by Stewart C. Russell") and that fiddling with the controls while recording is very noticeable for the internal mics. Marantz are great with support; released three firmware updates since I got the unit, and all add handy features and fix issues. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:24:51 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: talking about movie talk Lauren sez, > during a zombie attack, i have [your] back. I did not notice if anybody posted this to the feg list: http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2009/08/18/9747 J ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:41:49 -0400 From: "Laura Golias" Subject: Re: anyone home? not too old, just don't care. Laura Golias ldgolias1@verizon.net >> nope. i do NOT twitter. >> : D >> Laura Golias >> ldgolias1@verizon.net >> > > Yeah, I'm too old. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:39:19 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" okay, sorry these responses are taking such a long time in coming. but after two solid weeks of bullshit clouds and cold, summer has returned in force to seattle. and around here, you gots to take advantage of summery days when you gets 'em. <==> How are these 'DDT-like'? They're as different as chalk and cheese.> i don't know nuthin' about chemistry. here's what the page says: >> This graph shows polio in the United States in a context rarely (if ever) portrayed since Biskind, the environmental context. "DDT" and "DDT-like chemicals" are selected for this graph as the least complex way to represent the a broad overview of the evolution of the technology of, and potential for, mass poisoning. Some prominent organochlorines are chlorobenzene, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane). Chlorobenzene is a precursor, a foundational compound used in the production of many industrial organochlorines. In the U.S., high production of chlorobenzene began in 1915, soon after the beginning of World War I. << again, i hain't a chemist. from : >> If you are not familiar with biology, nerve impulse tell the muscles when to contract and relax. Thus, when an organism is poisoned with DDT, it dies by either convulsions (random, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles) or paralysis (complete loss of muscle control). This completes the Dangers of DDT. << , for example, gives the testimonies of some british doctors. but other sites say it's all a myth. don't know whether there's any real way of knowing who's right? that wouldn't be surprising, as the valley was almost inaccessible, and so the people were more less completely isolated. which doesn't prove that they were as long-lived as some have said. but it'd explain why they were but others nearby weren't. well, *that's* not surprising, either! it's my understanding that the "natural" lifespan in mammals is seven times the age of maturity (according to NH, 18 is the age of maturity for humans). after a bit of poking around, it looks like it is the case that lifespan is a function of age of maturity (which in turn we would reasonably expect to be a function of size/position-in-the-food-chain) -- but i wasn't able to find a specific multiplier. but even if we don't know what our natural lifespan is (and at any rate, none of us have lived an optimum lifestyle since birth, so couldn't be expected to reach the "natural" age), we can still live the rest of our days free from acute and chronic disease. one could assume that all of the testimonies of those who have -- since taking up the NH lifestyle -- quickly become healed of the most debilitating chronic diseases and/or have lived free from acute disease (not to mention been relieved of nagging conditions that had been previously attributed to "aging") are lying; or that their days will yet come (that, in other words, it's just a statistical anomaly -- although, as i say, the cases number well into the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands). but it's easy enough to put it to the test for oneself. having proven it to oneself, one can then be free to return to the former lifestyle if one so chooses; yet will be able to sleep well knowing that vaccination is a crock of shit, and that the latest killer-virus-du-jour is not gonna strike you down. well, we know from the graphs that vaccination is a crock of shit... well, i'm certainly willing to be convinced that i'm in error; as, i think, are you. even if neither of us ultimately budges very much, i think it's been a useful, if very time-consuming, endeavour. a good question. in trying to find out what's what, it looks as though *both* positions are in error. "polio" was, it appears, renamed to "viral meningitis" (i.e., beginning in 1956, people with symptoms of the former were diagnosed with the latter). basically, the incidence of polio remained constant or rose. so the vaccine didn't solve any problems -- but neither, apparently, did the decrease in DDT production. of course, *Silent Spring* was published in '62; so it's not as though the chemicals industry had just up and vanished. but, irrespective of the cause, it's pretty clear that vaccination was no kind of solution. <<>> <> and . i had said, looking at the australian graphs, that vaccination didn't change the shapes of the decline curves. in the case of the american graphs, it looks like in most cases there was actually a slight *spike* in mortality rates upon the introduction of vaccines; after which the declines resumed. <> for the long answer, i'll again recommend . a short answer: again, would one argue that flies cause dogshit? if one *would* argue this, we'd want to see some evidence. koch's postulates have never been satisfied. not surprising, given that: - -- germs mutate to suit their environment; so even if we knew how many people had the germs inside of 'em without experiencing symptoms, we'd still have no idea the correlation between actual *exposure* and sickness. - -- anyway, we know that many people do not experience symptoms when the germs are present. in other words, exposure alone is not sufficient cause. and we have no idea how to control for "confounding factors", so we have no idea in which cases exposure will result in symptoms. - -- there are also many people experiencing symptoms in whom the germs are *not* present. so, exposure is not only not sufficient, it's also not necessary. this doesn't, strictly speaking, *disprove* the theory. but, if one could never, say, observe dropped objects falling to the earth rather than flying off into space -- even in the laboratory setting -- would we accept the theory of gravity as fact? for the long answer, i'll again recommend . a short answer: acute disease is initiated *by the body* as an act of extraordinary elimination (of toxic matter, when the normal means of elimination have been overwhelmed, or when the toxins present such a pressing danger to life and limb that the normal means would be too time-consuming). of course, it's not *only* lifestyle choices that might result in a toxic overload. one may be bitten by a snake. or one might live in a "cancer alley". or whatever. that is to say, acute disease is a sign of *health*; of vitality. suppression by drugging diverts the body's attention to ridding itself of the drug; while "suppression" by other means -- a lifestyle too energy-sapping to allow the body to put its attentions into removing the toxins. suppression and "toleration", then, are the calling-cards for the formation of chronic disease. i think there are two different issues here. first, the industry is *as* profitable as it is in large part because of its ties to the state. next, it's not as though it's in question that the eating of certain drugs in certain doses will result in predictable effects -- both wanted and un-wanted. but even the "wanted" effects, while ofttimes palliative, are not curative. if they were the latter, the drugs'd not need to be eaten over and over and over again. any two-year-old can see this. and if a two-year-old can see it, i presume the drug-pushers can as well. if they *can't* see it (i.e., they're incompetents), and the industry's profits are just a happy coincidence; that's no more reason for us to imbibe of their poisons. maybe to pity them for their incompetence; maybe to try to learn them the errrors of their ways. but not to allow them to poison us. (nor, for that matter, to allow the surgery-pushers to extract our organs...) it'd sure be inconsistent for *me* to argue that vaccines should be anywhere near the mix! anyhow, the official position with regards to disease causation is that exposure will only cause symptoms in *susceptible* subjects. in other words, even if vaccination *were* effective, it's wholly unneccessary for those electing to live health-fully. apart from which, often resulting in very nasty side-effects. yet, count how many times you hear that on the teevee over the next few months versus how many times you're told how, where, when, why to get vaccinated against the swine-flu demon. i know you're saying that you don't think this *ought* to be the case. but it *is* the case; and so the question becomes, "why is it the case?" i say, "follow the money..."; i'd be curious to hear what others say. first of all, welcome back rosso! your question is a good one. hopefully this won't be too long-winded... let's start with our most important nutrient: air. we've evolved to be able to take sustenance from a certain composition of gases. if other substances -- gaseous, or particulate, or other -- are admixed into the air, it results in substances the body can't use being taken into the lungs. also, we need a constant *supply* of fresh air. so spending much time in a poorly- or not-ventilated building results in an ever-increasing admixture of toxic elements (i.e., the waste materials we're exhaling with each breath) being re-introduced to the organism with each breath. we can easily see how, in the early decades of the 20th century, the reining in of industrial excesses (not only in terms of air pollution and poorly ventilated housing, but also in workers' rights and child-labour laws) would have had beneficial effects upon public health. moving along to water, the same principle applies. we've evolved to be able to utilise a certain composition of elements. when we drink water with other elements -- chemical, fecal, or other (aahh haah haah...do you now see why i've been hanging on with this thread for so long? it's 'cause i hadn't yet secured the opportunity to drop a scatological reference!) -- toxic elements are introduced into the body. we also don't, of course, want any chemicals or residues on our skins. but neither do we want a lot of dirt, which would prevent the pores from operating as they've evolved to do. so washing and bathing certainly help a lot (though soap is surely not necessary). and we need plenty of sunshine, and plenty of rest and sleep, and plenty of exercise. again, the reining in of industrial excesses would have proved beneficial in these matters. there were also great dietary improvements, and the cessation of some of the more egregious medical practices initiated late in the 19th century, and these probably were still moving through the population as the 20th century dawned. so, it's nothing to do with killing germs. indeed, the germs are there to *help* clean the toxins out of and off of our bodies. it's a symbiotic relationship. maybe "sanitation" isn't the best terminology, i'd certainly acknowledge. people can't live pristine, healthy lifestyles -- at least not city-dwellers. but they can live much healthier lifestyles than they cureently are doing; and their health will be thereby greatly improved. not optimal, sure; but still a far sight better. incidentally, as the collapse proceeds, we'll be (kicking and screaming, to be sure) weaned of our processed foods, and our petrochemicals, and our motor-cars, and our polluting industries, and what have you. we'll presumably be much healthier for it. the kicker, of course, is that without the oil, the earth can (from what i've read) only support about a billion people... well shall we worship sacred bovine, or shall we practice science? which, pray tell, are the diseases that have absoutely nothing to do with lifestyle? you said before that numerous diseases had satisfied koch's postulates; yet you refused to give any citations (and the only example given -- polio -- you knew full well to be a fucking sick joke). i've given links to a fairly enormous body of literature explaining just that. you dismissed it sight-unseen as "crap". that's your right, of course. but to then complain that you don't understand what it's all about seems a tad disingenous. but then, you also claimed to have read a "significant" number of pages at the NH society's site, and dismissed them as "nonsense" -- which adjudgement implies that you understood the principles. so i'm not sure what you're saying, really (although it was clear enough that you didn't comprehend the specific page that you linked to). in any case, i'll again recommend as a superior introduction to the concepts. well, if you wanna get *really* gung-ho, you could tackle t.c. fry's life-science course. hang on, i'll upload a PDF of it. ...here you go. (be warned: it's 30mb strong). the proof is in the pudding. that's what science boils down to, right? well, do some research, and you'll find the principles of NH to have held up to empirical scrutiny time and time again. or, if it makes you happier, don't do some research, and keep eating your drugs. but oughtn't pretend, if the latter, that you're doing so in the name of science. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:39:19 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: Re: "Follow The Money" okay, sorry these responses are taking such a long time in coming. but after two solid weeks of bullshit clouds and cold, summer has returned in force to seattle. and around here, you gots to take advantage of summery days when you gets 'em. <==> How are these 'DDT-like'? They're as different as chalk and cheese.> i don't know nuthin' about chemistry. here's what the page says: >> This graph shows polio in the United States in a context rarely (if ever) portrayed since Biskind, the environmental context. "DDT" and "DDT-like chemicals" are selected for this graph as the least complex way to represent the a broad overview of the evolution of the technology of, and potential for, mass poisoning. Some prominent organochlorines are chlorobenzene, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane). Chlorobenzene is a precursor, a foundational compound used in the production of many industrial organochlorines. In the U.S., high production of chlorobenzene began in 1915, soon after the beginning of World War I. << again, i hain't a chemist. from : >> If you are not familiar with biology, nerve impulse tell the muscles when to contract and relax. Thus, when an organism is poisoned with DDT, it dies by either convulsions (random, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles) or paralysis (complete loss of muscle control). This completes the Dangers of DDT. << , for example, gives the testimonies of some british doctors. but other sites say it's all a myth. don't know whether there's any real way of knowing who's right? that wouldn't be surprising, as the valley was almost inaccessible, and so the people were more less completely isolated. which doesn't prove that they were as long-lived as some have said. but it'd explain why they were but others nearby weren't. well, *that's* not surprising, either! it's my understanding that the "natural" lifespan in mammals is seven times the age of maturity (according to NH, 18 is the age of maturity for humans). after a bit of poking around, it looks like it is the case that lifespan is a function of age of maturity (which in turn we would reasonably expect to be a function of size/position-in-the-food-chain) -- but i wasn't able to find a specific multiplier. but even if we don't know what our natural lifespan is (and at any rate, none of us have lived an optimum lifestyle since birth, so couldn't be expected to reach the "natural" age), we can still live the rest of our days free from acute and chronic disease. one could assume that all of the testimonies of those who have -- since taking up the NH lifestyle -- quickly become healed of the most debilitating chronic diseases and/or have lived free from acute disease (not to mention been relieved of nagging conditions that had been previously attributed to "aging") are lying; or that their days will yet come (that, in other words, it's just a statistical anomaly -- although, as i say, the cases number well into the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands). but it's easy enough to put it to the test for oneself. having proven it to oneself, one can then be free to return to the former lifestyle if one so chooses; yet will be able to sleep well knowing that vaccination is a crock of shit, and that the latest killer-virus-du-jour is not gonna strike you down. well, we know from the graphs that vaccination is a crock of shit... well, i'm certainly willing to be convinced that i'm in error; as, i think, are you. even if neither of us ultimately budges very much, i think it's been a useful, if very time-consuming, endeavour. a good question. in trying to find out what's what, it looks as though *both* positions are in error. "polio" was, it appears, renamed to "viral meningitis" (i.e., beginning in 1956, people with symptoms of the former were diagnosed with the latter). basically, the incidence of polio remained constant or rose. so the vaccine didn't solve any problems -- but neither, apparently, did the decrease in DDT production. of course, *Silent Spring* was published in '62; so it's not as though the chemicals industry had just up and vanished. but, irrespective of the cause, it's pretty clear that vaccination was no kind of solution. <<>> <> and . i had said, looking at the australian graphs, that vaccination didn't change the shapes of the decline curves. in the case of the american graphs, it looks like in most cases there was actually a slight *spike* in mortality rates upon the introduction of vaccines; after which the declines resumed. <> for the long answer, i'll again recommend . a short answer: again, would one argue that flies cause dogshit? if one *would* argue this, we'd want to see some evidence. koch's postulates have never been satisfied. not surprising, given that: - -- germs mutate to suit their environment; so even if we knew how many people had the germs inside of 'em without experiencing symptoms, we'd still have no idea the correlation between actual *exposure* and sickness. - -- anyway, we know that many people do not experience symptoms when the germs are present. in other words, exposure alone is not sufficient cause. and we have no idea how to control for "confounding factors", so we have no idea in which cases exposure will result in symptoms. - -- there are also many people experiencing symptoms in whom the germs are *not* present. so, exposure is not only not sufficient, it's also not necessary. this doesn't, strictly speaking, *disprove* the theory. but, if one could never, say, observe dropped objects falling to the earth rather than flying off into space -- even in the laboratory setting -- would we accept the theory of gravity as fact? for the long answer, i'll again recommend . a short answer: acute disease is initiated *by the body* as an act of extraordinary elimination (of toxic matter, when the normal means of elimination have been overwhelmed, or when the toxins present such a pressing danger to life and limb that the normal means would be too time-consuming). of course, it's not *only* lifestyle choices that might result in a toxic overload. one may be bitten by a snake. or one might live in a "cancer alley". or whatever. that is to say, acute disease is a sign of *health*; of vitality. suppression by drugging diverts the body's attention to ridding itself of the drug; while "suppression" by other means -- a lifestyle too energy-sapping to allow the body to put its attentions into removing the toxins. suppression and "toleration", then, are the calling-cards for the formation of chronic disease. i think there are two different issues here. first, the industry is *as* profitable as it is in large part because of its ties to the state. next, it's not as though it's in question that the eating of certain drugs in certain doses will result in predictable effects -- both wanted and un-wanted. but even the "wanted" effects, while ofttimes palliative, are not curative. if they were the latter, the drugs'd not need to be eaten over and over and over again. any two-year-old can see this. and if a two-year-old can see it, i presume the drug-pushers can as well. if they *can't* see it (i.e., they're incompetents), and the industry's profits are just a happy coincidence; that's no more reason for us to imbibe of their poisons. maybe to pity them for their incompetence; maybe to try to learn them the errrors of their ways. but not to allow them to poison us. (nor, for that matter, to allow the surgery-pushers to extract our organs...) it'd sure be inconsistent for *me* to argue that vaccines should be anywhere near the mix! anyhow, the official position with regards to disease causation is that exposure will only cause symptoms in *susceptible* subjects. in other words, even if vaccination *were* effective, it's wholly unneccessary for those electing to live health-fully. apart from which, often resulting in very nasty side-effects. yet, count how many times you hear that on the teevee over the next few months versus how many times you're told how, where, when, why to get vaccinated against the swine-flu demon. i know you're saying that you don't think this *ought* to be the case. but it *is* the case; and so the question becomes, "why is it the case?" i say, "follow the money..."; i'd be curious to hear what others say. first of all, welcome back rosso! your question is a good one. hopefully this won't be too long-winded... let's start with our most important nutrient: air. we've evolved to be able to take sustenance from a certain composition of gases. if other substances -- gaseous, or particulate, or other -- are admixed into the air, it results in substances the body can't use being taken into the lungs. also, we need a constant *supply* of fresh air. so spending much time in a poorly- or not-ventilated building results in an ever-increasing admixture of toxic elements (i.e., the waste materials we're exhaling with each breath) being re-introduced to the organism with each breath. we can easily see how, in the early decades of the 20th century, the reining in of industrial excesses (not only in terms of air pollution and poorly ventilated housing, but also in workers' rights and child-labour laws) would have had beneficial effects upon public health. moving along to water, the same principle applies. we've evolved to be able to utilise a certain composition of elements. when we drink water with other elements -- chemical, fecal, or other (aahh haah haah...do you now see why i've been hanging on with this thread for so long? it's 'cause i hadn't yet secured the opportunity to drop a scatological reference!) -- toxic elements are introduced into the body. we also don't, of course, want any chemicals or residues on our skins. but neither do we want a lot of dirt, which would prevent the pores from operating as they've evolved to do. so washing and bathing certainly help a lot (though soap is surely not necessary). and we need plenty of sunshine, and plenty of rest and sleep, and plenty of exercise. again, the reining in of industrial excesses would have proved beneficial in these matters. there were also great dietary improvements, and the cessation of some of the more egregious medical practices initiated late in the 19th century, and these probably were still moving through the population as the 20th century dawned. so, it's nothing to do with killing germs. indeed, the germs are there to *help* clean the toxins out of and off of our bodies. it's a symbiotic relationship. maybe "sanitation" isn't the best terminology, i'd certainly acknowledge. people can't live pristine, healthy lifestyles -- at least not city-dwellers. but they can live much healthier lifestyles than they cureently are doing; and their health will be thereby greatly improved. not optimal, sure; but still a far sight better. incidentally, as the collapse proceeds, we'll be (kicking and screaming, to be sure) weaned of our processed foods, and our petrochemicals, and our motor-cars, and our polluting industries, and what have you. we'll presumably be much healthier for it. the kicker, of course, is that without the oil, the earth can (from what i've read) only support about a billion people... well shall we worship sacred bovine, or shall we practice science? which, pray tell, are the diseases that have absoutely nothing to do with lifestyle? you said before that numerous diseases had satisfied koch's postulates; yet you refused to give any citations (and the only example given -- polio -- you knew full well to be a fucking sick joke). i've given links to a fairly enormous body of literature explaining just that. you dismissed it sight-unseen as "crap". that's your right, of course. but to then complain that you don't understand what it's all about seems a tad disingenous. but then, you also claimed to have read a "significant" number of pages at the NH society's site, and dismissed them as "nonsense" -- which adjudgement implies that you understood the principles. so i'm not sure what you're saying, really (although it was clear enough that you didn't comprehend the specific page that you linked to). in any case, i'll again recommend as a superior introduction to the concepts. well, if you wanna get *really* gung-ho, you could tackle t.c. fry's life-science course. hang on, i'll upload a PDF of it. ...here you go. (be warned: it's 30mb strong). the proof is in the pudding. that's what science boils down to, right? well, do some research, and you'll find the principles of NH to have held up to empirical scrutiny time and time again. or, if it makes you happier, don't do some research, and keep eating your drugs. but oughtn't pretend, if the latter, that you're doing so in the name of science. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V17 #226 ********************************