Big time stupid move - be lucky if he doesn't suffer some permanent damage. If that is used motor oil, exposure to heavy metals and gasoline residual products is not going to do his liver much good at all... some of that comes right through the skin.

Yep.

Sugar is basically rocket fuel for your body, it's insanely useful for burning large amounts of energy quickly, and since we evolved in a low sugar environment, your body is trained to want it.

But these days we live in a sugar saturated environment where most people don't do anywhere near as much physical work, so the sugar is never burnt off. It's not meant to be a staple food.

Also, your liver basically treats sugar the same as alcohol. Not only does it make you fat, but it also suppresses your bodies natural "I'm full" reaction. Worst of all are high fructose corn syrup soft drinks.

Basically, if you wouldn't give your kid a beer... don't give them coke either. Coke = beer without the drunkenness.

@newtboy
i like the 'failing liver" analogy.
appropriate and easily understood.

and i can understand where milkmandan is coming from,but my perspective is more aligned with yours newt.

what consistently baffles me,is how so many people are willing to simply accept this short term strategy from our politicians.

there is no surprise when corporations push for this,they are just focusing on their own interests and bottom line,which is short term profit.

or the politicians who bow to their neoliberal masters to receive those tasty campaign contributions.

or even the banks,who again focus on their short term gains.

these players are all behaving as they always have:for their own self interest.so there should be no shock or surprise when they act exactly as they have always acted.

but when i see everyday,normal people defend the behavior and actions of oliticians,financial institutions and multi-national corporations.it baffles me as to why they would choose to do such a thing.

we can understand why those players seek to retain a system which benefits them,their shareholders and their bottom line,but that system no longer serves the interests of the people,community and society as a whole.

so why make arguments defending it?

it is,quite frankly,killing us slowly as a species.

look at germany.
that country has slowly been recruiting,educating and now poised to corner the market in:new energy,renewable energy and are leading the world in breakthrough technologies in all energy fields.

germany has long played the long game.
they now dominate the entire EU in finance,and are now focusing on dominating the globe with new energy technology.

and what are we doing here in america?
pushing through more and more neoliberal policies that immiserate the working poor,both here and abroad.desperately continuing our destruction of entire ecosystems to exploit our natural resources for:oil and gas.military conflicts,which only make this country less safe,all to exploit other nations and extract THEIR oil and gas,and the cost in human lives is absolutely indefensible.

all of it.
every single bit of it for short term gains for an extremely small minority.

and here we are,with trump opening the flood gates to further exploit and destroy our natural resources with no thought or plan for the future.no investment in our communities,nor our society as a whole.

and for those who wish to make an argument that hillary would be better.i will only concede that on a domestic level this may have been true,but hillary is a neoliberal corporatist,and she would have pushed for even MORE military intervention in the middle east.MORE sanctions against countries unwilling to play ball,in order to politically squeeze them out,and even MORE of this countries policy of "regime change" to exploit and extract from those countries their precious resources.

i strongly suspect Iran would have been next on her agenda.

so when are some of these people going to step up,and realize that both trump AND clinton are (or would have been) disasterous for us as a community,a nation and as a species?

because they both only offer short term solutions to long term problems.and those short term solutions only benefit a minority of the population.

we could turn this ship around TODAY,right now,if we so choose.
we need more politicians like elizabeth warren and tulsi gabbard.we need more integrity in our media and journalists willing to do their job and criticize power,not bow to it just for access.we need the people to become engaged and confront their representatives,and make them uncomfortable,not treat them as celebrities.

and we need to reject the system where rich people choose who we get to vote for,and begin to dismantle this two party duopoly.

because trump vs hillary?
this election cycle has just revealed that both these candidates are not the disease,but rather the symptom of a very broken,and dysfunctional political system.

we need to begin to invest in the future.
and reject the status quo as no longer being viable for the continued existence of the human species.

and with the newly energized american public,who are growing in numbers daily,and is a direct response to the unmitigated disaster that is trump.there may be hope for us yet.

because if we stay on this trajectory,we are fucking doomed.

It's like the doctors have given you second and third opinions and told you your liver is failing, you have to stop drinking or you'll die. You won't die the next time you have a beer, but every beer takes you farther over the edge. You can say the bartender who knows this is blameless for serving you, because others gave you the alcohol that destroyed your liver and it took longer than one night, or you can work from now and realize that he's intentionally killing you in hopes of a tip before you stumble outside and keel over.
Working from today, our planet's liver is failing, there no transplant, and Trump just reopened the bar and is serving everclear. Chances are he can't accelerate things so much that Florida submerges in the next 3 1/2 years, that doesn't mean he can't make things be far worse, beyond the point of possible mitigation.

You may hold that theory, but climatologists disagree. We are past, but still near the tipping point, and every ton of CO2 takes us farther from a survivable rise. It's ridiculous to think that we're already past holding at 3.5 degrees global rise (edit: the maximum assumed to be survivable by civilization), so we might as well make it 5 degrees.

Island nations, people who live South of New Orleans, and millions of others are already being displaced. It only takes one high tide (edit: or one extended drought) to wipe out low lying farmland permanently, and erosion has become an unstoppable force.

Trump is moving towards raising the level of multiple greenhouse gases we produce, Obama had us lowering those levels. Time can only tell what that actually means in tonnage, but 180 degree turnaround is awful enough. I agree, we also didn't do enough under Obama.

? Reversible means it can be reversed, not that it's easy. I don't know where you get that idea. Irreversible in this context means sending the temperature trend the other way before civilization becomes unsustainable. Eventually the planet should normalize unless we really follow Trump's lead wholeheartedly, then we might go full Venus. There WAS a magic bullet, being responsible with our atmosphere, but we argued over climate change until it was useless.

If, before it reverses (which it may not do at all, btw) the planet becomes inhospitable to humans, then for humans, it's irreversible. In 4 years we can do enough damage to 1) make the effects longer and harsher enough to make long term survivability impossible and or 2) go beyond the next tipping point where feedback loops reinforce each other, leading to a Venus like runaway greenhouse effect. We're damn close to massive methane releases (already happening) and if we don't avoid that, nothing will save civilization.
All that said, Clinton probably wouldn't do enough to avoid disaster either, but at least she accepted the science and agreed we should make efforts to mitigate the coming damages.

I'm definitely a pessimist, mostly because I understand the systems and human nature, and so I think we're totally hosed as a species.

What you've quoted is that's the same thing I said in my OP -JH acknowledges that changing diets helps. They specifically say meat and milk are the prime allergy suspects.

There isn't any disagreement here :-)




But..........I do have a bone to pick with Hopkins. The fish oil study they reference on the Hopkins site, is a bit sus when you dig deeper.
Everyone in the study was also given disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs along with the fish oil..... so Hopkins isn't really giving us the full story here, which is: Fish oil helps remission in people on RA drugs.

Great, now RA sufferers have to buy toxic liver destroying drugs, and also buckets of fish oil supplements too(the doses were 10x the daily recommended amount of fish oil).... I guess they're line of reasoning is that you make more money if you can sell them two pills for the same disease.

They even try to hide the drugs part by calling it "DMARDs" after the references (which people don't usually read). Technically it's not lying I suppose, but it's very unethical. If I didn't go all the way through and find the research it'd have never figured that out. Turns out John Hopkins is largely industry funded, which doesn't surprise me now that they're approach is to push more pills, instead of less.

Sincerely, I have to thank you for bringing that to my attention. I like to keep a list of this misleading stuff.

You weren't wrong when you said there are some scummy misleading people in the medical field.

You mean aside from Hannibal Lecter, your liver, and a nice chianti?

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

Well, according to this video
TLDW:
Pros: Less liver damage, more THC Absorption=more ^high^
Cons: Worse memory, less able to vomit in case of over-consumption (which is not a problem if you drink moderately)

Eh, not a terrible trade-off.

A dog walker once tried to train me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

PSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHP

part 2
Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
OMNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
HUMAN: Simple

Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
HUMAN: Long, sacculated

Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
HUMAN: Flattened nails

whale.to/a/comp.html

Meh. If it's a choice between not being able to pass the salt and liver damage/throat and mouth cancer I know which I'd choose.

#stonerslothslivelonger

You know how the pressures in life can cause people to do crazy things? And if a person does too many crazy things, then that person is crazy. Sometimes you can do things to keep from going crazy, like drinkin', or havin' sex; but, if the craziness goes too far, sometimes the only thing left to do is to cut out that part of the brain that makes you crazy.

That kind of brain surgery is called a frontal lobotomy. Maybe this song will help you understand what I mean.

"Jimmy and I were brothers.
We went down different paths.
Jimmy always listened to my mother,
And me, I never like to take a bath.

"As we grew and tumbled through adulthood
The pressure caused emotional drain.
So now I'm slowly dying in the bottle
And Jimmy has to live with half a brain.

"Yes, me, I've got a bottle in front of me,
And Jimmy has a frontal lobotomy.
Just different ways to kill the pain t"he same.

"But I'd rather have a bottle in front of me,
Than have to have a frontal lobotomy.
I might be drunk, but at least I'm not insane.

"Jimmy let his troubles drive him crazy.
He never tried to drown it in a drink.
I know that drinking makes my thinking hazy,
But at least I still have brains enough to think.

"Jimmy's got a brain that isn't stable.
He doesn't have the sense to say his name.
I'm sorry that his doctor was unable
To remove the proper portion of his brain.

"Yes, me, I've got a bottle in front of me,
And Jimmy has a frontal lobotomy.
Just different ways to kill the pain the same.

"But I'd rather have a bottle in front of me,
Than have to have a frontal lobotomy.
I might be drunk, but at least I'm not insane.

"Funny how the world works.
People can be real jerks.
Some prefer the tension over booze.

"Either way it ends the same.
Hard to beat the living game.
Might as well enjoy it while you lose.

"When I need a drink I start to shiver
And Jimmy always viewed it with concern.
But I'd rather have cirrhosis of the liver
Than an intellect that's second to a fern.

"I wonder if old Jimmy's gonna hear it
When I tell him that his logic wasn't sound.
They'll dose him up on lots of evil spirits
When they take him to the psychiatric grounds.

"Yes, me, I've got a bottle in front of me,
And Jimmy has a frontal lobotomy.
Just different ways to kill the pain the same.

"But I'd rather have a bottle in front of me,
Than have to have a frontal lobotomy.
I might be drunk, but at least I'm not insane.
I might be drunk, but at least I'm not insane!"

(Dr. Rock (from the Dr. Demento show) - I'd Rather Have A Bottle In Front Of Me (Than A Frontal Lobotomy))

The first link is about China. Do they use the same vaccination schedule as we do? Do they use the same vaccine? How good is their record-keeping? Were there 1000 randomly sampled people from all over China, or from one specific place in the province?

They furthermore only mention that that one province has the mandatory vaccinations. Do the others? Are there a lot of unvaccinated people coming through the area that could disrupt the herd immunity effect? Like, say, a few tens of unvaccinated people at Disney?

The second link is someone trying to sell a DVD. There is absolutely no information there, just claims that have been refuted to the end of the universe and back. And some fearmongery correlation/causation conflation. Did you know that the Internet was getting built up at the same time as the skyrocketing Autism rate? I bet the Internet causes autism.

Third link: It is entirely believable that RIGHT NOW the measles vaccine causes more complications than the measles does. Because there are only a couple hundred cases of the measles in the US per year. It is all but eradicated, because of the vaccine, which means that it kills very few people.

If you go back before the vaccine, though, around 500,000 people had the measles a year (and this is probably a low guess, per the link). Around 20% of those had to be hospitalized. About four times more people died from it than now have fatal complications due to the vaccine.

No vaccine: (Possibly much) more than 500,000 people sick. 100,000 people hospitalized. 1,000-10,000 brain damaged. A few hundred dead (not a super fatal disease). Thousands more get liver damage, hearing damage, eye damage, other complications.

Vaccine: Assuming we're at a 90% vaccination rate, around 3,500,000 kids vaccinated a year. ~100 dead, per your link. 1000 with dangerously high fever. Deafness/seizure/brain-damage: So rare that a link to the vaccine can not be established. Autism: Completely fabricated and discredited.

This has a good chart comparing the relative danger, for equal numbers infected/vaccinated. If we stopped vaccinating, it would not take long to get back to where dealing with the measles was a dangerous rite of passage for almost every kid.