Um...you're still totally wrong because you didn't list any amounts. One gram of cheese, one pound, one wheel? What? One cube of cheese, no where near 25% RDA, a large bowl of velveta, probably more than 50%.
Just listing numbers is meaningless if you don't include the meaningful ones.

Yes, cheese has salt, quite a bit, and too much is certainly bad for health(not as bad as none, but that's an impossibility today). That doesn't actually confirm your claims, though.

You have one hyper vegan guy you quote constantly, and he's a quack that puts out stats like the one you originally posted...that cheese if 50% salt. Of course I'll assume you're quoting his totally wrong facts again without any evidence to the contrary.
That said, I don't need anything to dismiss this particular claim besides a 2 minute google search.

Quack

If you eat fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, whole grains, and fresh non processed hormone free meats, all in moderation, you'll be healthier.

Hilarious that you start by lambasting him for eating vegan but poorly, then instantly forget what you said in paragraph one and lie that a vegan diet is automatically better...It's simply not that simple.

Eating healthy is healthier than not. That's the best you can honestly say.

Nutritionfacts.org is run by a lying, constantly exaggerating quack that's been repeatedly debunked for making things up and cherrypicking data and studies to fit his preconception and further his movement. He said the WHO said going vegetarian is equivalent to quitting smoking.....it's a lie, they said no such thing or anything close. The science says eating processed meat daily increased cancer risk for colorectal cancer by 18%, and smoking increased cancer risk by 2000%. Not equivalent at all.
Downvote for fibbing about science and for hyping a liar.

I think @transmorpher is either being a little deceitful or has completely confused himself, so I'd just like to make a few points clear:

Dr. Neal Barnard is the person who said "plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking."

I can find no evidence of the WHO referring to Dr. Barnard's study or any other work. They certainly would not condone that statement because it is bullshit science as previously stated.

Dr. Barnard appears on the website Quackwatch which aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Quackwatch is well respected, except amongst quacks.

To summarise, this means that he is quoting a study written by a known quack, and using the WHO statement on carcinogenic effect to support it. There is no scientific basis for using the WHO statement as confirmation of Dr. Barnard's quote about quitting smoking (see previous comment). It is Dr. Barnard who refers to the WHO, not vice versa.

It also means that there is only one person and study saying that it is more healthy to quit meat than smoking, as far as i can tell. Perhaps other studies say the same thing with different wording and I can't find it - but the onus is not on me to find the evidence, it is upon you to supply it.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

While we definitely need tighter restrictions on the marketing of drugs and nutritional supplements in the US, I think such quack medical devices are handled the same way. The device would need to carry a warning "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." And the civil and criminal penalties of claiming your gadget really does treat any disease (not just cancer) are pretty severe.

Yes Samantha, attack (in a humorous way...sure...like that matters) Rand Paul and Ted Cruz for their rightness. See, because they are right here (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) you can't believe these dumb fuck quacks are actually human here....

Hrm, another reason to find rape funny...I guess...

APPLAUD THEM. EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG IN OTHER AREAS.

Isn't it far more truthful to say that the reason lies are allowed to fester like this is because we have a media that cares more about ad revenue and making everything a controversy even when it isn't.

That's the only reason lies have a platform to influence people from. Sure there will always be some quack website spouting BS, but it would be far easier to dismiss as quackery if the media didn't give them a voice and legitimacy.

Technically, the constitution allows the "United States" to own land. It does not name the government as an owner.

The government of the United States is not the United States. Being a republic, the United States is its citizens.

The government is a manager/caretaker of state's (people's) property, not an owner of property in and of itself.

Technically, the government doesn't even have any authority of its own. It's strictly a body that executes the state's (people's) will, and it does so by the state's (people's) authority - not its own authority (hence the Democracy part). (Officially, the government does nothing of its own accord - hence why in court it's 'the state vs whoever', not 'the government vs whoever').

So, technically, there is no 'government property' - there is only state (people's) property.

Actually, the reason that 'eminent domain' is 'eminent' (i.e. obvious - aka 'obvious domain') - is because the land has always belonged to the state - because the state is the only authority. You never actually own your personal land, you're simply entitled to be the sole occupant. You can buy/sell that right, but the land always has, does, and always will, belong to the state. So under eminent domain, the land is not actually taken from you, because it never belonged to you, hence why the state's domain is eminent (obvious).

In any case, land has this weirdness to it, where all land is state land, and everyone is the state, and no land is private, and all that ever happens is people are bestowed an authority to exclusively manage/reside on a given plot that they never really own. In any case, that authority ends up being functionally equivalent to actual ownership. The phrase 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck' comes to mind, because when you have a body of case law that treats property as if private property actually exists, then in a sense, it does exist for all practical purposes - so there is a disconnect between the practical nature of 'land ownership' and the official/ideological nature of 'the state (the people) having authority over all at all times'.

Also, this is why you can't have an allodial land title in the U.S.. So long as it's still U.S. land, it can never truly be privately owned. It's simply incompatible.

Interestingly, way back when before the U.S. was founded, private ownership of land was associated with monarchy - where some royal(s) individual(ly) literally owned the country. The path of events that eroded royal authority and empowered lower levels of society, was the same path that eroded [true] private land ownership, because it introduced the concept of inherent ownership/rights of some other groups (e.g. the people).

-scheherazade

QUACK!!!

...nevermind...all over the internet even hours ago...quacks like a....

*ban

Do better, eh? No problemo.

China: Try reading the actual study (from your first link).

Conclusion:
A timely two-dose MMR vaccination schedule is recommended, with the first dose at 8 months and the second dose at 18–24 months. An MR vaccination speed-up campaign may be necessary for elder adolescents and young adults, particularly young females.

In other words, what's needed is more vaccination.

How Vaccines Harm Child Development: They don't.
First, the article is by Russell Blaylock, who believes "he former Soviet Union tried to spread collectivism by covertly introducing illegal drugs and various sexually transmitted diseases into the United States." He also hangs out with Alex Jones and Pat Robertson.
Second, almost everything in it is bullshit. He even falls back on the "vaccines cause autism" bollocks that was never true and had the idiot shill doctor that made it up stripped of his credentials.

Measles vaccines kill more people than measles, CDC data proves
Holy shit, that's terrible. Oh no, wait, it's a complete misrepresentation. No-one died from Measles, BECAUSE THEY WERE VACCINATED AGAINST IT.

Stop getting your medical information from quacks, liars and homeopaths.

If this purrpatrator was hoping to become a duck-filled-fatty-pus it should have got up at the quack of dawn to avoid such a purrplexing catastrophe

You know what I like the most about these idiots? How, nowadays, to try to come up with some bullshit made-up theory about how homeopathy works throw around words like nano-this and quantum-that, as if the tremendous piece-of-shit quack who invented this entire idiocy 200 years ago, had any idea what nano-particles or quantum physics were.

Yeah, I'd punch someone's lights out if they ever walked past me in a speedo or said "quack quack" at me and immediately turned away.