tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50934061001359467832024-03-13T10:56:41.929-07:00Internet Myths, Lies and MisinformationMy rebuttals to all the weird things I find inaccurate or questionable across the Web.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-62412835289589787072016-09-09T12:15:00.000-07:002016-09-09T12:15:02.829-07:00Fact Check - Hillary Acid Washed Her Emails<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7dEOOacXRhk/V9L5wXvR6NI/AAAAAAAAB-k/mXqzSSdL3KgkZDrejFfp5vguNVL7x3ZAwCLcB/s1600/hillary-email-politico.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7dEOOacXRhk/V9L5wXvR6NI/AAAAAAAAB-k/mXqzSSdL3KgkZDrejFfp5vguNVL7x3ZAwCLcB/s400/hillary-email-politico.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo credit: <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-deleted-not-gone-116526">POLITICO</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: large;">Initial concerns over the usage of a private server and emails by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes back to 2009. The scandal began to grow in 2012 and has become a major issue during the 2016 presidential campaign. Not a day goes by where the major networks don't at least mention it.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">As the story unfolded, we learned that Hillary deleted tens of thousands of emails and the release of thousands of others have been slow-walked. Multiple congressional hearings have taken place, she was investigated by the FBI, and today only <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/">35% of Americans</a> see her as trustworthy. Many questions remain unanswered and it is highly likely that new controversies will arise related to the email scandal before the November election. But this post isn't about rehashing what everyone knows. A fairly recent and new attack line has been showing up in conversations and in the media - the idea that not only did Hillary (and her aides) <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3772563/Clinton-aide-destroyed-two-Hillary-s-phones-breaking-half-hitting-hammer-FBI-documents-reveal.html">destroy</a> 'evidence' but that she "<i>acid washed</i>" her email servers in an attempt to get away with breaking the law.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">From what I can tell, the first use of the term "acid wash" (in relation to this topic) came in Sept. 2016. Both Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/donald-trump-wants-you-to-know-he-never-chokes/">used the phrase</a> repeatedly, and even Trump's vice presidential pick Gov. Mike Pence has</span><span style="font-size: large;"> employed it to attack Hillary.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LXSfTiznkTs/V9MEpF-1rrI/AAAAAAAAB-0/ItI2xbyt3ygCXTXONlE_j6kN3wXTbFy3QCLcB/s1600/BreakingBad%2Bscreenshot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LXSfTiznkTs/V9MEpF-1rrI/AAAAAAAAB-0/ItI2xbyt3ygCXTXONlE_j6kN3wXTbFy3QCLcB/s400/BreakingBad%2Bscreenshot.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The idea of acid washing servers, to me at least, conjures</span><span style="font-size: large;"> up images of "Walt" from the TV serie</span><span style="font-size: large;">s <i>Breaking Bad</i> </span><span style="font-size: large;">using acid to dissolve a body. And while destroying electronics is no where near as gruesome</span><span style="font-size: large;">, the impression is unmistakable: Hillary will do anything to avoid being held accountable. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/donald-trump-wants-you-to-know-he-never-chokes/">told ABC</a> on Sept. 6, "she had her emails -- 33,000 emails -- acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and that’s to really get rid of them."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The catch is, there is <b>no such thing as acid washing emails</b>. That's why his "sophisticated person" never heard of the practice. The reality is that Hillary used a free, widely available computer application called <i><a href="https://www.bleachbit.org/">BleachBit</a></i> to clean her devices. BleachBit is so proud of their product's ability to "stifle" officials investigating, that they <a href="https://www.bleachbit.org/news/bleachbit-stifles-investigation-hillary-clinton">boast about it</a> on their website.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Now, Donald Trump is known for <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-9-11-muslims/">exaggerating things</a>. So much so that <i>Art of the Deal</i> ghostwriter Tony Schwartz coined the term "<i><b><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all">truthful hyperbole</a></b></i>" to describe many of the things Trump says. The problem is, there's no such thing. You're either telling the truth or you're not. And as I <a href="http://internettheories.blogspot.com/2014/02/jesus-is-english-bachmann.html">have said</a> many times before, there's no reason to invent lies and spread misinformation about people with whom you disagree. If the truth of their ill deeds isn't enough to sway people and your ideas (and the strength of those ideas) aren't enough to persuade people to support you, then resorting to 3rd grade tactics only serves to denigrate you and your supporters.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I am staunchly anti-Hillary, but Trump's penchant for twisting the facts while refusing to directly acknowledge any wrong doing, while claiming to be the best and greatest (with zero evidence), really turns me off. Hillary may be a liar, but so is Trump. The fact Trump clearly had no clue what he was talking about, but kept forging on ahead should be deeply disturbing. Simply attacking someone because you fear or hate them, or lashing out wildly, should be beneath any self-respecting American.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">--Jacob Bogle, 9/9/2016</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.jacobbogle.com/">www.JacobBogle.com</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://facebook.com/JacobBogle">Facebook.com/JacobBogle</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://twitter.com/JacobBogle">Twitter.com/JacobBogle</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-73548109494710087772016-05-18T14:41:00.000-07:002016-05-18T14:41:34.523-07:00America Funds 73% of NATO: Fact or Fiction?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hEBt8jlInR8/VzzJBY4z88I/AAAAAAAABzs/dbpoMkDusdALukYJGJQJauUqFsHMnUEoQCLcB/s1600/NATO-meeting.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hEBt8jlInR8/VzzJBY4z88I/AAAAAAAABzs/dbpoMkDusdALukYJGJQJauUqFsHMnUEoQCLcB/s320/NATO-meeting.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The claim that the United States funds 70% (or more) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been around for years, however, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been using that figure in defense of his foreign policy ideas - specifically that we get nothing from NATO while paying the "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/30/trumps-claim-that-the-u-s-pays-the-lions-share-for-nato/">lion's share</a>" of funding. In short: we're subsidizing Europe's defense and thus it's a "bad deal" for America.<br />
<br />
NATO was formed out of the chaos of World War II and not only helped to keep western Europe stable after so much disaster, more importantly, it served as a bulwark against a highly aggressive Soviet Union. And, the organization has always been dominated by America, after all we were the only democratic superpower in the world during the post-war era. Today, NATO still serves as a military deterrent to Russia and is involved in <a href="http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77646.htm">fighting terrorism</a>, but it also enables an overarching sense of security that the trillion-dollar European marketplace needs.<br />
<br />
Not only does NATO provide military security, but military security and a peaceful and stable region contributes to economic well being. As I <a href="http://www.jacobboglewrites.com/2016/04/trump-nato-and-nuclear-proliferation.html">discussed</a> in another article, trade between the US and European Union amounts to $700 billion a year. I think that's a pretty good bang for the buck.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>So, let's take a look at the reality of American funding.</b><br />
<br />
NATO is funded based on a cost sharing arrangement that allows each of its 28 members to pay a percentage based on their respective GDPs and other factors.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7J6s1ejvRv4/VzzPIbRP-VI/AAAAAAAABz8/nfydiPJ4tUw_tuvTLqzuFSS7lLSoTcZWQCLcB/s1600/NATO%2BFunding%2BPercents.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7J6s1ejvRv4/VzzPIbRP-VI/AAAAAAAABz8/nfydiPJ4tUw_tuvTLqzuFSS7lLSoTcZWQCLcB/s640/NATO%2BFunding%2BPercents.PNG" width="446" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<a href="http://www.asmconline.org/wp-content/uploads/chapters/eruopeanpdi2011/D1_W3_Liska_ASMC_NATO_Resources_Apr%2011.pdf">For 2011</a>, NATO's entire common budget - both military and civilian - amounted to $3.5 billion (3.1 billion euro). Meaning the US paid approx. $775 million. That's less than 40% of the current <a href="http://www.nashville.gov/Finance/Management-and-Budget/Citizens-Guide-to-the-Budget.aspx">city budget</a> of Nashville, TN.<br />
<br />
<b>Then where does the 73% figure come from?</b><br />
<br />
NATO is a joint-security & coordinating organization that is based on the NATO treaty agreement. It has no standing army of its own. The military of NATO is similar to the military of the European Union, or even NAFTA (though the latter two aren't military organizations). In other words, the military capacity is whatever the <b>combined domestic</b> militaries and military spending of all of 28 member states equal.<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO">combined forces</a> of NATO amounts to 7.3 million active and reserve personnel and costs $920 billion. Now, Spain spends $12.7 billion a year on their military. Does that somehow mean Spain funds 1.38% of "NATO"? No. In fact, Spain funds 5.78% of NATO's "common budget", which is <i><b>the</b></i> budget of NATO. Likewise, of the $920 billion in combined, domestic military spending, the US spends around $610 billion. That equals 66% of the combined expenditures of those 28 countries.<br />
<br />
Thus, the 73% figure is actually an older number based on what the US spent as a <i>percentage</i> of the <i>combined</i> military spending of <i>all</i> NATO states. Another way to look at it would be: annual global military spending equals $1.2 trillion. Since America's spending is $610 billion, is it fair to say America "funds" 50.8% of the world's military? Not at all. The "world" doesn't have a military, it has ~190 different militaries, all of which are funded by the respective ~190 sovereign countries.<br />
<br />
So if Trump really wants things to be fair and logically consistent, since America's military spending represents 66% of the combined spending of those 28 states, we should be paying for 66% of NATO's common budget, not the 22.1% we actually pay. But even that 66% would only equal $2.3 billion - or 18% of the cost of a <a href="http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/new-gerald-r-ford-carrier-class-as-predicted-called-13-billion-debacle-1.371389">single</a> new Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the end, Donald Trump either really doesn't understand the distinctions between NATO's actual budget and the domestic budgets of its members combined or he is willfully spreading misinformation to achieve his goals. Either way, it's a bad thing.<br />
<br />
<br />
--Jacob Bogle, 5/18/16<br />
<a href="http://www.jacobbogle.com/">www.JacobBogle.com</a><br />
<a href="http://facebook.com/JacobBogle">Facebook.com/JacobBogle</a><br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/JacobBogle">Twitter.com/JacobBogle</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-36771289129263342412015-02-10T15:50:00.002-08:002015-02-11T08:58:59.205-08:00Nuclear Explosion over Donetsk Ukraine? On Feb 8, 2015, several reports came out of the city of Donetsk, Ukraine about a large explosion. Video of the bombing showed what appeared to be a small mushroom cloud. This was quickly conjoined with an alleged image from space showing a massive "fireball", which then fueled reports about a tactical nuclear device being detonated by Ukrainian forces against the separatists.<br />
<br />
Sites <i><a href="http://www.infowars.com/video-nuke-reportedly-detonates-in-ukraine/">Inforwars</a></i>, <i><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-08/meanwhile-donetsk">ZeroHedge</a></i>, <i>Russia Today</i>, and even the UK's <i><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945650/Giant-explosion-sparked-fears-tactical-nuke-Ukraine-caught-camera-diplomats-warn-Russia-target-Baltic-states-next.html">Daily Mail</a></i> all posted about the explosion and related worries about a potential nuclear disaster.<br />
<br />
The video, which has been viewed over 2.6 million times can be seen here:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/ZuQ5EPnSE_4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZuQ5EPnSE_4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
From Youtube user <a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink spf-link g-hovercard" data-name="" data-sessionlink="ei=cpDaVPGYAsKB-AWMxIHADw" data-ytid="UCv4b-OYHJdGTNoxpKLHanog" href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv4b-OYHJdGTNoxpKLHanog" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; height: 22px; line-height: 13px; margin: 0px; max-width: 315px; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; text-overflow: ellipsis; vertical-align: top; white-space: nowrap;">Самооборона Горловки</a></div>
<br />
ZeroHedge reported that the explosion could be seen from space and posted this picture as "proof".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-axt3D303T90/VNqRP2oCpFI/AAAAAAAABS0/NQ6EFlz3fIc/s1600/20150208_erdogan2_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-axt3D303T90/VNqRP2oCpFI/AAAAAAAABS0/NQ6EFlz3fIc/s1600/20150208_erdogan2_0.jpg" height="267" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>The truth is somewhat less cataclysmic. </b></div>
<br />
The video is of a real explosion, a normal non-nuclear bomb fell on a chemical factory. The image promoted by <i>ZeroHedge</i> author Tyler Durden was actually taken by astronaut Terry Virts from the International Space Station, and is nothing more than a sunrise. You can see Terry Virts' Twitter posting of the image <a href="https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/564413336272388096">here</a>.<br />
<br />
While the <i>Daily Mail</i> mentions that some were concerned about it being a nuclear explosion, the article clearly states, <i>"A giant explosion which rocked the Ukrainian city of Donetsk sparked fears of a 'tactical nuke' after pro-government forces shelled a rebel-held chemical plant."</i><br />
<br />
Not to mention that if it was a legitimate nuclear detonation, radiation detectors all over eastern Europe would have picked up on the very telltale signature of a nuclear explosion and news organizations the world over would have been reporting on it. Let's not forget that this is Ukraine, home of Chernobyl.<br />
<br />
Neither the size, nor brightness of the explosion were indicative of it being a nuclear detonation - tactical or not. This was just another example of pro-Russian propaganda. Conspiracy theorists tried to spin it as 'the poor ethnic minorities seeking freedom have been nuked by the evil pro-Western Ukrainians'. In reality, they've successfully shown they have succumbed to "nuclear foot-in-mouth disease".<br />
<br />
<u>A bit of advice</u>: sites like InfoWars have absolutely no credibility so ignore them and use some common sense.<br />
<br />
For the record, mushroom cloud explosions are not the sole domain of nuclear annihilation. In fact, any adequately large explosion will result in a mushroom could.<br />
<br />
Here's a video of a fertilizer plant explosion in Waco, Texas. You can see the main explosion from time index 1:22.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/c5orJHRHbX0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c5orJHRHbX0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jacob Bogle, 2/10/15<br />
<a href="http://facebook.com/JacobBogle">Facebook.com/JacobBogle</a><br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/jacobbogle">Twitter.com/jacobbogle</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>H/T to Laura Bohling and Tom Puschak for bringing this Internet rumor to my attention.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-34013292763810228492014-07-28T16:20:00.003-07:002015-02-11T08:47:08.297-08:00Is the Yellowstone Volcano Overdue? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y0ul7UNi0SY/U9Gn_nEvw5I/AAAAAAAAA_E/IPN8k1xVVvY/s1600/Castle_geyser_with_spray.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y0ul7UNi0SY/U9Gn_nEvw5I/AAAAAAAAA_E/IPN8k1xVVvY/s1600/Castle_geyser_with_spray.jpg" height="320" width="204" /></a></div>
<br />
For a while people have been saying that the Yellowstone volcano is overdue for an eruption. The figures thrown around have been between 40,000 and 60,000 years overdue.<br />
<br />
Wait, Yellowstone is a volcano? Yup.<br />
<br />
In fact, Yellowstone National Park is primarily a part of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera">Yellowstone Caldera</a>, a massive volcano which measures 34 by 45 miles (1,530 sq. mi.) in size. Because it is so large, it lacks the commonly recognizable features of a volcano and it took geologists a long time to really figure out the scope of what Yellowstone was. Yellowstone is of course famous for its geysers, hot springs, and mud pots. All of those incredible sights, which have amazed onlookers for centuries and attracts well over 3 million visitors a year, belies the fact that this natural wonder is a very special type of volcano (a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano">super volcano</a>) with the potential for a very special and destructive type of eruption: a super eruption.<br />
<br />
The visible features of the caldera, like geysers, boiling springs, and the countless small earthquakes are all evidence to the reality that Yellowstone sits atop a magma chamber <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131218-yellowstone-supervolcano-eruption-magma-reservoir/">6,600 cubic miles</a> in volume! For some perspective, that's enough to stuff to build a wall 1 mile high and a mile wide that stretches from New York to Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OMUw5biOSXk/U9K-j9JEwKI/AAAAAAAAA_U/Qh10XvdhV6Q/s1600/yellowstone+chamber.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OMUw5biOSXk/U9K-j9JEwKI/AAAAAAAAA_U/Qh10XvdhV6Q/s1600/yellowstone+chamber.jpg" height="296" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
As we all know, the Earth's crust moves over an ocean of liquid rock thousands of miles deep. Because the crust is relatively thin, it can break and fracture which creates the various tectonic plates and fault lines, and causes earthquakes, and volcanoes. There are certain places where magma (the molten rock making up the mantle) concentrates in the upper reaches of the mantle and remains for millions of years, like a giant boiling pillar of fiery death. As the crust moves over these "hotspots", long chains of volcanoes form. The best known hotspot lies under Hawai'i and it's why there are a series of volcanic islands. Yellowstone is another such hotspot, and over the past 16 million years there have been seven major calderas which formed as the crust moved (right to left) over the relatively stagnant hotspot. This has actually left the region with an arch of extinct volcanoes and the current active caldera which formed 2.1 million years ago.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-71o-jTrHnZ4/U9LB3izMUfI/AAAAAAAAA_g/-UHNWSfWY5Q/s1600/yellowstone+hotspots.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-71o-jTrHnZ4/U9LB3izMUfI/AAAAAAAAA_g/-UHNWSfWY5Q/s1600/yellowstone+hotspots.JPG" height="273" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(Location of the Yellowstone hotspot over time. Number indicates millions of years before present.)</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As I said, the current active Yellowstone caldera formed 2.1 million years ago as the product of the last three super eruptions which were, 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago respectively. The last super eruption which occurred created the Lava Creek Tuff formation, a layer of volcanic debris and ash which covered an area some 1,500 miles wide at its greatest extent. Such super eruptions can cause total chaos, alter global climate, and if one were to happen today, millions could die in the US within a few months and many more across world as "the world's breadbasket" (America's plains) became inhospitable to plant life. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/LavaCreekTuff.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/LavaCreekTuff.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Doing some quick figuring - 3 eruptions over 2.1 million years - one see that these eruptions happen about once every 700,000 years, and since the last one was 640,000 years ago, we find that Yellowstone is not "overdue". In fact, the differences between the first and second eruptions and the second and third eruptions are 800,000 and 660,000 years respectively. <b>This makes the average interval more like 730,000 years.</b> The "40,000 years overdue" myth comes from a common misconception that the eruptions occur every 600,000 years. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Humans love stability and predictability, but the world in which we live is neither stable nor precisely predictable. While there have only been 3 super eruptions in the last 2.1 million years, Yellowstone has had smaller eruptions as early as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapi_Lava_Field">2,270 years ago</a> and others as far back as 16.1 million years ago. Although hotspots may last for millions of years, they do dissipate, and just like volcanoes, none last forever. There is no guarantee that any volcano will erupt again, and certainly there is nothing saying it "must" erupt. Indeed there is no such thing as an overdue eruption, earthquake, or asteroid hit. We assign odds and averages just to help us contextualize things which are far out of our control and that rarely have any real predictability.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In Yellowstone, things like earthquake swarms and ground swells could signal an impending eruption, but more often than not, when these events happen they tend not to be connected to one another. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Only time will tell if Yellowstone will blow its top and send us all to our doom. The reality is, it could happen tomorrow, <i>or</i> 90,000 years from now, <i>or never</i>. The odds of it happening in any given year are 1 in 730,000 and the odds that we could actually do something about it are something like 1 in 2,948,321,110,479.5</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>So no, it is not overdue.</b> Sit back and relax, or better yet, take a vacation to Yellowstone and see the awesome natural beauty that 6,600 cubic miles of magma can produce. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Further Reading</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_sub_page_50.html">Future Activity at Yellowstone</a>, U.S. Geological Survey</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-54199593552399012442014-06-21T16:32:00.000-07:002015-02-11T08:53:40.862-08:00Gardasil Kills 1 out of 912. True or False?GARDASIL® is a vaccine manufactured by MERCK which is used to prevent certain strains of HPV (human paploma virus), a virus which has infected <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm">79 million Americans</a>, with 14 million new cases per year, and is a major cause of cervical cancer (70%), as well as several other cancers. Gardasil was approved in the U.S. in 2008 and has been approved for use in 120 other countries.<br />
<br />
As with all vaccines, there seems to be an ever increasing fear of them and people love to spread dramatic and scary memes across the interworlds to "prove" the evils of the anti-vax flavor of the month. The fight against Gardasil began immediately, but I'd like to take the time to address a specific claim.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DZppSbbtMR0/U6YLf6gSg_I/AAAAAAAAA9s/h039gzOE5jw/s1600/Gardasil+murdering.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DZppSbbtMR0/U6YLf6gSg_I/AAAAAAAAA9s/h039gzOE5jw/s1600/Gardasil+murdering.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The "<a href="http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/09/17/the-murdering-of-our-daughters/">Common Sense Show</a>" and "<a href="http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/07/22/gardasil-destroys-girls-ovaries-research-on-ovaries-never-considered-10497/">Liberty Beacon</a>" websites have "fact" laden articles about the dangers of Gardasil and attack the evil pharmaceutical industry for making money off the corpses of your slaughtered daughters. Most of the outrage seems to stem from page 8 of the Gardasil <a href="http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf">product information pamphlet</a>. And their conclusion is that the vaccine kills 1 out of every 912 patients.<br />
<br />
<b>So, let's look at page 8.</b><br />
<br />
The results of clinical trials reported looked at 29,323 patients. Of those, 15,706 were actually given the vaccine, 13,023 were given a control, and 594 were given a saline (salt water) placebo. The control was amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS), which is a commonly given drug to <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17581283">enhance immune activity</a>.<br />
<br />
Of the 258 "adverse effects" listed, 128 (0.8%) were from those given the vaccine and 130 (1%) came from those given the control. Now, the definition of "adverse effects" is anything from a simple rash or headache, all the way up to infection and death. During clinical trials the entire health of the patients are looked at and they do not make the distinction between specifically proven connection and non-proven, because these particular studies aren't for that determination. They only allow you to see if there is a statistical likelihood of connection. <br />
<br />
The most common adverse effect for those given the vaccine was appendicitis, with 5 cases or 0.03% of the total trial population.<br />
<br />
For the deaths, there were 40 reported. Out of 15,706 people given the actual vaccine, 21 died or 0.1%. However, <u>38% of those deaths were NOT caused by the vaccine.</u> As I said, they must report all injuries & deaths during these studies including: 5 from car crashes, 2 from suicide, and 1 from somebody getting shot. So really, the death rate that conceivably could be related to Gardasil (but not proven to be) was 0.08% - or 1 out of every 1,208. For context, the overall death rate for the United States is <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm">8 per 1,000</a>! Cancer death rates tend to be far higher.<br />
<br />
Plus, of the remaining 13 non-accident/self-inflicted deaths, five were from other types of cancers, 1 occurred after a surgery, and 1 died from some kind of chemical poisoning.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Conclusion</span></b><br />
<br />
I cannot stress this enough, based on this report alone you can't make a determination that the vaccine caused the deaths. Which, makes the 1 in 912 figure completely out of context and false for the purposes of the claim that Gardasil <i>caused</i> these deaths. I'm also not sure where the 1 in 912 figure comes from: as noted, the death rate for those given the vaccine (21 out of 15,706) is 1 out of 1,208, and the death rate for the whole trial (40 out of 29,323) equals 1 in 1,396.<br />
<br />
As I discussed in my <a href="http://internettheories.blogspot.com/2012/11/flu-vaccines-and-mercury.html">flu vaccine entry</a>, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe drug, be it man-made or naturally growing herbs. By definition, a drug/medication is any substance which alters the internal chemistry of the body to elicit a healthy outcome. There is no way to ensure a healthy outcome. It all boils down to risk vs. benefit. Each year, 225,000 women die from cervical cancer and a further 470,000 will develop the disease. Even in the United States, the fiver-year survivability rate is 68%, meaning you still have a 32% chance of dying.<br />
<br />
You tell me which is the greater risk?<br />
<br />
Regardless, I'm not here to debate anything other than the specific claim that Gardasil kills 1 out of every 912 people. <b>The judgement is a resounding FALSE. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
Jacob Bogle, 6/21/14<br />
<a href="http://facebook.com/JacobBogle">Facebook.com/JacobBogle</a><br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/jacobbogle">Twitter.com/jacobbogle</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-44060630843864847412014-02-07T21:33:00.000-08:002015-02-11T09:01:48.867-08:00"Jesus is English!" - BachmannThere are several memes going around, primarily on Facebook, which claim Rep. Michele Bachmann said during a Fox News show, "if English was good enough for Jesus when he wrote the Bible, it should be good enough for Coke." The alleged quote is in response to the controversy over Coca Cola's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443Vy3I0gJs">Superbowl commercial</a> in which the song "America the Beautiful" is sung by various people in their native languages.<br />
<br />
There is also a related meme purporting to quote Rep. Bachmann defending herself in making the original statement, also on Fox News - of course.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HgCQ11lwIWQ/UvW7apIk7VI/AAAAAAAAAzc/Nkzv5o5_15k/s1600/Bachmann1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HgCQ11lwIWQ/UvW7apIk7VI/AAAAAAAAAzc/Nkzv5o5_15k/s1600/Bachmann1.jpg" height="208" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The source of this image is the Facebook group "<a href="https://www.facebook.com/C4MB9.0">Christians for Michele Bachmann</a>". However, after looking through the posts made by the group it becomes very obvious, or perhaps not so obvious, that the group is about nothing more than satire - at worst they're deliberately trying to spread lies and misinformation. What I find more disturbing is that the image has been shared nearly 30,000 times directly (and who knows how many indirect shares, reposts etc.) and that people are using it as "evidence" of Rep. Bachmann's "stupidity" and the dangers of organized religion. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
No matter where you stand on Rep. Bachmann or religion, I find it disgusting that people are using something with no verification to support & promote a certain position. Spreading lies, rumors, misinformation, etc. all leads to the further degradation of available information, entrenching division, hatred, and causes undue to harm to the reputation of very real human beings. If you think someone or something is stupid or wrong, use real evidence to back it up. There is no need to create lies. Doing so is beyond childish.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As for the statement itself, the phrase "if English was good enough for Jesus...." has actually been floating around the <a href="http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=000448;p=1">Internet for years</a> and has been attributed to dozens of other people, each time with a different ending. The phrase itself however goes back even further. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_A._Ferguson">Miriam Ferguson</a> (1875-1964) is alleged to have said, sometime in the 1920s, "if English was good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas" speaking in reference to bilingual schools. Although variations of the phrase might actually go back to the 1880s and used derogatorily against Christians, and could make it very unlikely that Ferguson was actually the originator of the phrase. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I know people can't help themselves but to spread funny or shocking memes, especially if it re-enforces their own prejudices. But as a rule of thumb, if it sounds too idiotic or shocking - fact check it! Try to find a <b>real</b> news article, or a video showing the person actually saying it. If a politician, or anyone in the public light, truly said something completely insane you can be sure that the news media will pick it up and their detractors would run with it. So do us all a favor, take 30 bloody seconds and make sure what you're about to post is true.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
--Jacob Bogle, 2/7/14<br />
<a href="http://facebook.com/jacobbogle">Facebook.com/JacobBogle</a><br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/jacobbogle">Twitter.com/jacobbogle</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-91074397014686039842013-05-21T17:12:00.000-07:002016-01-16T18:01:57.058-08:00United States Inc.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jk0IVG4V8xk/UZwHQn0ZJWI/AAAAAAAAAhc/0awU5LwtGtA/s1600/seal-a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jk0IVG4V8xk/UZwHQn0ZJWI/AAAAAAAAAhc/0awU5LwtGtA/s200/seal-a.jpg" width="181" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<br />
<b>Is the United States of America a Corporation?</b><br />
<br />
One of the more understandable misunderstandings on the Internet is the notion that the United States' federal government (and by extension the country as a whole) is in reality a corporation with its own set of rules, CEO's etc. This theory is held by many and is parroted across hundreds of websites and online forums, some with seemingly strong arguments. To complicate matters they point to a series of laws which, on the surface, may appear to validate their claims. I hope to be able to explain where the misunderstandings come from and to clear up the whole issue.<br />
<br />
These are the two laws which are the most quoted:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002">28 USC § 3002 - Definitions</a><br />
(15) “United States” means—<br />
(A) a Federal corporation;<br />
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or<br />
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.<br />
<br />
And the <i>District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871</i> which creates a city government for the District of Columbia. You can find the <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=0454">full text of the Act here</a>.<br />
<br />
An example of the most common claims and arguments can be <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm">found here</a>. Aside from claiming the US government is a for-profit corporation, it naturally asserts that we are and have been under the control of the evil Rothschild international bankers and that since some people think our "current" government is unlawful, that their minority opinion holds with the full force of law and is actionable i.e they do not have to follow any laws set forth after 1871 (a fantasy of the highest order).<br />
<br />
<b>The "Definitions" controversy</b> rests in the meaning of "a Federal corporation." The rest of the issues arising from 28 USC<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 16px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 16px;">§ </span>3002 are really rather basic. This section is saying that for the purpose of identifying what is or is not a part of the United States federal government, the "United States" may refer to EITHER; a Federal corporation; an agency, department, commission, board of other entity of the United States; or an instrumentality of the United States.<br />
<br />
As of 2011 there are 17 federal corporations. According to <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf">a report</a> on federal corporations by the Congressional Research Service "The federal government does not possess a general incorporation statute as states do. Each government corporation is chartered through an act of Congress." Federal government corporations include the Postal Service, the Federal Reserve and the TVA. The definition does NOT say that the federal government *is* a corporation but rather, federal corporations (like the TVA) are part of the federal government of the United States.<br />
<br />
English is a tricky language and words take on new popular meanings and tones, especially words that have a modern negative connotation, like "corporation." A person with only a cursory understanding of the law or only focusing on the "definitions" section could easily come to the wrong conclusion. This section has been used to great effect and unfortunately most people never step outside of themselves and their distrust of all things government to actually research the issue themselves. A meme showing evil bankers with "the United States is a corporation" will be passed along the Internet simply because people do not trust government and the meme reinforces pre-held biases; it reinforces a negative image and people are all too eager to indulge themselves. <br />
<br />
The <i><b>District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871</b></i> was an act to formally give a government to the District of Columbia which, up to that point, had been governed as a mixture of municipalities and counties within District boundaries. Let me give you some more background.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.constitution.org/usconsti.htm#art1sec8">Article 1, Section 8</a> of the Constitution gives Congress (with the approval of the affected States) the power to create a district in which to hold the seat of government. This district, 10 miles squared (not 10 square miles, but 10 miles on <i>each</i> side), was formally placed under the direct control of the Congress.<br />
<br />
The <i>District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801</i> allowed Congress to retain control over the city itself, known as the City of Washington, however the remaining territories were divided into Washington County and the County of Alexandria. The cities of Georgetown and Alexandria, which had existed prior to 1801 and which existed within the 100 square mile federal territory, were allowed to keep their city charters. In 1802, the City of Washington was granted its own charter. The mayor of the City of Washington was to be appointed by the President.<br />
<br />
The citizens within the District were no longer citizens of Maryland or Virginia and were thus disenfranchised. This disenfranchisement is what led Virginia, in 1846, to ultimately <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession">reclaim the territory</a> it had ceded to the District.<br />
<br />
Next, comes the Act of 1871. This act repealed the individual charters of Georgetown and Alexandria, brought them in <span style="font-family: inherit;">with Washington County (since the County of Alexandria now belonged to Virginia), and brought the whole area under one single government, the District of Columbia. Nowhere in the law's text does it say anything about the government of the United States being a corporation. Additionally, Congress <u>repealed</u> the Act in 1874 and replaced the system of direct Congressional governance for the <i>local</i> government of the District in favor of a more direct rule system. The District of Columbia would then be ruled by a <span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.1875px;">three-member Board of Commissioners until 1967 when it was replaced with a mayor and city council who would be appointed by the President. This was changed once again by the <i><a href="http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/pages/dc-home-rule">1973 Home Rule Act.</a> </i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.1875px;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.1875px;"><b>What is a corporation?</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.1875px;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">The word "corporation" has several meanings, however it is </span></span><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">generally</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"> understood as a legal entity that has been </span></span><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">incorporated (in one way or another) by a legislative act. A fair amount of confusion arises because the modern American understanding of the term is somewhat different than the original English definitions.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"> In the US, the term tends to mean a business, but the term really means that it is now an entity which can be sued, do business (activity), etc. without respect to the individuals who made it or control it. Basically, an incorporated entity can act and be brought to court. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">The notion that the term "corporation" is solely an entity with its own separate laws and whose only purpose is to make money is an utter misconception. Cities, states, colonies, nations, and yes, businesses have been incorporating themselves for centuries. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">In the American system of government, States hold the power to grant or refuse the incorporation (or home rule) of a city, county or other body. However, since the federal district was explicitly authorized by the Constitution and Congress was given direct control over the district, it took an Act (or Acts) of Congress to set it up. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"><b>Final words</b></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">Under federal law, for an entity to become a federal corporation </span><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation. And as we have seen, Congress has created multiple federal corporations. There are no acts incorporating the United States, only the District of Columbia; which is not the same thing as the government of the United States, no more so than the City of Nashville is the government of the State of Tennessee.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">In the Supreme Court case, <i>United States v. Cooper Corporation</i> (1941), <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html">the Court said</a>:<i> "</i></span><i>We may say in passing that the argument that the United States may be treated as a corporation organized under its own laws, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained as not to merit serious consideration."</i><br />
<br />
This view is additionally supported by the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," which states that the <b>government</b> of the United States, or of the individual States, or of certain tribal entities, may not be sued unless the government first allows it. A business/company/corporation can be sued.<br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">The government of the United States and the entity of the District of Columbia are not one and the same. The District of Columbia is no different than the incorporated cities of Nashville, Sacramento or Atlanta when compared to the Constitutional governing bodies (the governments of the States) that reside within their limits. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources & additional reading:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf">Federal Corporations</a> - by the Congressional Research Service (PDF)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140">District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801</a> - text of the Act<br />
<br />
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=0454">District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871</a> - text of the Act<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-60366648708625870702013-05-02T16:30:00.000-07:002013-07-10T00:42:39.954-07:00Water Fluoridation <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pQY4KFPXqAk/UW4bXwZqCOI/AAAAAAAAAbk/B1O0RJwv3P4/s1600/fluoride+revised_FINAL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pQY4KFPXqAk/UW4bXwZqCOI/AAAAAAAAAbk/B1O0RJwv3P4/s200/fluoride+revised_FINAL.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I usually use this blog to debunk myths, clear up misunderstandings, and generally oppose a certain idea or view. This post is going to be different. Instead of opposing the theory that water fluoridation is bad for you I intend to show, with clear evidence, that it is indeed harmful. I'm not going to use conspiracy sites or "anti-fluoride" sources. I am however, going to use well established science and research reports from very credible sources. I'm writing this to give those interested in the topic easily accessible information and a clear understanding of the issue without all of the baggage that usually accompanies many groups who discuss this topic.<br />
<br />
The purpose of adding fluoride to water supplies is to reduce tooth decay. In 1945 the city of Grand Rapids became the first US city to add fluoride to the water supply to prevent tooth decay and by 1951 water fluoridation became an official policy of the US Public Health Service. As of 2006 over 61% of the national population is in reach of fluoridated water via public water supplies. In 1994 the World Health Organization recommended that fluoride levels be between 0.5-1 mg/liter of water.[1]<br />
<br />
The three main forms of fluoride added to water are: sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid (also known as hexafluorosilicic), and sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are released into public drinking water at a steady rate and, for the average person, fluoride levels can be somewhat controlled. However, if a person drinks more or less water from public water supplies than assumed by the government it is impossible to determine the efficacy of the program. Some will drink less and receive little to no benefit and others will drink more, raising the risk of health problems.<br />
<br />
<b>How it works</b><br />
<br />
Fluoride primarily works topically, that is to say it works when it is contact with a person's teeth. Fluoride interacts with the tooth enamel to help harden it and slow down the demineralization process which causes cavities. Fluoride itself does not prevent cavities from forming but rather slows down their rate of growth.[2] Additionally, <u>once swallowed fluoride has almost no effect on a person's teeth</u>.[3]<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Health Risks</span></b></div>
<br />
<b>Dental fluorosis </b><br />
<br />
The most well-known negative health effect of water fluoridation is called dental fluorosis which is caused by an excessive amount of fluoride exposure during tooth development. In most people the condition is mild and only causes minor cosmetic problems. In severe cases, the damage can be very noticeable and require extensive dental work. Around 40% of all dental fluorosis cases can be traced back to water fluoridation. The <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm">CDC even reports</a> an increase in cases as the fluoridation program expands.<br />
<br />
<b>Skeletal fluorosis</b><br />
<br />
Simply put, skeletal fluorosis is a bone disease caused by fluoride accumulating in the bones (and teeth) of a person. Skeletal fluorosis develops more slowly than dental fluorosis and can lead to severe join damage and bone pain. According to the <a href="http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/fluorosis/en/">World Health Organization</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>"Ingestion of excess fluoride, most commonly in drinking-water, can cause fluorosis which affects the teeth and bones... I</i><i>t is believed that fluorosis affects millions of people around the world."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
While the percentage of people affected is low relative to the number of people ingesting fluoridated water, it is nonetheless a very real risk. There are also no effective treatments known and even simple bone fractures will take much longer to heal in those affected.[4]<br />
<br />
<b>Mental development problems</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Water fluoridation affects children far more than adults. This fact (among others) has been generally ignored by governments and many medical establishments for decades. One of the more disturbing health problems associated with water fluoridation is that of developmental delays. Recently, Harvard University in conjunction with China Medical University conducted a meta-analysis of <u>27 studies</u> relating to fluoride and child brain development. According to their study they <i><b>"found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children."</b></i> The report also stated that <i>"researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where <b>risks from fluoride are well-established</b>"</i> and <i>"virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S."</i> which begs the question, Why?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/">Here is</a> the study itself and the report on the study can be <a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/">found here</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Fluoride toxicity</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Like all chemicals, fluoride is potentially toxic when ingested in large amounts. Fluoride naturally exists in large quantities (greater than recommended levels) within the ground water of certain regions all over the world. Areas include the American southwest, large parts of China, Libya, Ethiopia, and India where 60 million people are estimated to have had some level of fluoride poisoning.[5] Fluoride poisoning can occur from ingesting contaminated water (naturally or otherwise) or by ingesting fluoride containing products like toothpaste and mouthwash. Children are far more likely to suffer acute poisoning and in the US 80% of toxicity cases over a 5 year period were children under th<span style="font-family: inherit;">e age of 6.[6] Common symptoms include nausea, stomach cramps and diarrhea while chronic (long term) poisoning will lead to skeletal fluorosis and other similar illnesses. Severe poisoning, either acute or chronic, can lead to death.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In 2006 the US National Research Council conducted a review of water fluoridation and recommended, in part because of naturally occurring fluoride levels, that the CDC and EPA lower its maximum contaminant level goal (the maximum recommended amount in public water supplies which is 4mg/liter this is 4 times the level suggested by the WHO).[7a/b] To-date, the EPA has not lowered their recommended maximum levels. However, in 2011 the US Human and Health Services Dept ad CDC did lower its recommended level to 0.7mg/liter which was the lowest level in their original </span>safety<span style="font-family: inherit;"> range of 0.7-1.2mg/L.[8][13]</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Ethics and Costs</span></b></div>
<b><br /></b>
The universally recognized gold-standard to cavity prevention is regularly brushing your teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste. In fact the single common factor among nations in the decline in tooth decay is the usage of fluoridated toothpaste, and questions have been raised as to the needfulness of continuing mass water fluoridation in light of modern oral hygiene practices.[9] Water fluoridation has also been aimed at poorer communities and countries where dental problems occur at a higher rate than the rest of the world. One problem with this is that these third-world countries lack the proper infrastructure and technical know-how to implement wide-spread water fluoridation and according to a study published by the journal <i>Clinical Oral Investigations</i> toothpaste remains the only viable option (and it is the best option for oral heath in general). A person's health is a matter of personal responsibility and effective toothpaste can be purchased for as little as $1. Water fluoridation removes individual choices out of the equation and forces potentially serious side effects on entire populations. <br />
<br />
Then there are the financial costs. Water fluoridation costs around $0.99 per person per year on average (although in some places it's as low as $0.15 or as high as $15.50).[10] And while the cost of water fluoridation when weighed against the costs of dental bills is very low we have seen that fluoridation gives no benefit to the person once they swallow the water yet gives them all the associated risks. Brushing ones teeth is more effective than solely relying on water fluoridation; furthermore, when proper brushing is combined with water fluoridation there is almost no added benefit. There are also other alternatives (although more expensive) which have a greater ability to prevent tooth decay such as dental sealants. Sealants can prevent 33-86% of cavities and last for 5-10 years, compared to 40% for water fluoridation which you must ingest day-after-day.[11] <br />
<br />
On top of the human ethics and costs there are also environmental considerations. Water fluoridation causes massive amounts of fluoride to be dumped into the environment which can lead to great harm. The Sierra Club has been vocal about their opposition to mandatory water fluoridation.[12]<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Solutions</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Thankfully there are solutions. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The most immediate solution is simply buying a quality water filter for your home. This will remove the fluoride from your water but they do cost money. It will also require you to actually brush your teeth properly! (which you should be doing anyways)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the US, water fluoridation is not mandated on a federal level. The federal government regulates the maximum amount allowable, but cities and states can determine how much they wish to put into their water supplies -up to the maximum- or decide not use fluoridation at all. There is a growing movement to have cities opt-out of state mandates for water fluoridation and the reason(s) each community has to refuse the program varies. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the end it is about principle. The principle to allow each individual to decide whether or not to ingest a certain substance; the freedom of choice. The freedom to not pour millions of gallons worth of fluoridated water into the environment, the freedom to not risk the health and mental capacity of their children or themselves. The freedom of taking responsibility for their own health and well-being, to make an educated choice and take the benefits (or harm) that may come with it. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Germany, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Finland, India, South Korea, Vietnam, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Norway, and Scotland have all either had fluoridation programs and ended them or have rejected fluoridation all together. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the US, New Hampshire now has a law (HB-1416) which requires water departments to warn customers of the risks posed to infants. There have also been large numbers of US cities which have rejected fluoridation including: Tyrone, PA, Wichita, KS, Crescent City, CA, Albuquerque, NM, College Station, TX and many others. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I'd like to ask you to please think on all of the information I've provided you and to consider joining the campaign against water fluoridation. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
For more information please visit:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.fluoridealert.org/">Fluoride Action Network</a> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/communities/">List of communities which have rejected fluoridation</a> (FAN)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And a shout out to a local group: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/496083283781915/">Tennesseans Against Water Fluoridation</a> (Facebook page)</div>
<br />
<b>Sources:</b><br />
<br />
1. <a href="http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf">Fluorides and Oral Health</a>, WHO (PDF)<br />
2. <a href="http://cro.sagepub.com/content/13/2/155.full">Dental Fluorosis</a>, Clinical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine (Sage Journals)<br />
3. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10086924">Prevention and reversal of dental caries</a>, J. D. Featherstone, University of California<br />
4. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009220/">Reversibility of skeletal fluorosis</a>, British Journal of Industrial Medicine<br />
5. <a href="http://www.technologyreview.in/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=27089">Water</a>, Technology Review India (published by MIT)<br />
6. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1997.tb02966.x/abstract">Acute fluoride toxicity</a>, Journal of Public Health Dentistry<br />
7a. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571">Fluoride in Drinking Water</a>, US National Research Council (530 pages)<br />
7b. <a href="http://sboh.wa.gov/Meetings/2010/06-09/docs/Tab16i-Fluoridation_CDC_Statement.pdf">CDC statement letter on USNRC report</a>, (PDF)<br />
8. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/08/us-usa-fluoride-idUSTRE7064CM20110108">US lowers limits for fluoride in water</a>, Reuters<br />
9. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17333303?dopt=Abstract">Community water fluoridation</a>, Clinical Oral Investigations<br />
10. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm">Recommendations for using fluoride</a>, CDC<br />
11. <a href="http://www.jdentaled.org/content/69/5/538.full">Present and future approaches for the control of caries</a>, Journal of Dental Education<br />
12. <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/water_fluoridation.aspx">Policy on fluoride in drinking water</a>, Sierra Club<br />
13. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cwf_qa.htm">CDC Fluoride Fact Sheet</a>, CDC<br />
<br />
Author's note: I will occasionally update this article by adding diseases whenever I can find substantial evidence for other fluoride related illnesses from credible sources and any additional new information. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-63103771389234936592013-03-12T19:11:00.000-07:002014-09-13T13:14:56.326-07:00Morgellons<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5-jir0Ldiho/UTFrEIJ3thI/AAAAAAAAARo/kwzuZGBb_cA/s1600/morgellons-fibers-live-carnicom1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5-jir0Ldiho/UTFrEIJ3thI/AAAAAAAAARo/kwzuZGBb_cA/s320/morgellons-fibers-live-carnicom1.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(Alleged fibers "growing" in dish)</span></div>
<br />
Morgellons (Morgellons Disease) is a syndrome characterized by crawling and stinging skin sensations, persistent skin rashes/lesions, and the appearance of "unknown" fibers on and beneath the skin. The cause(s) of Morgellons are unknown but many believe it to be caused by a conspiracy involving chemtrails, population control efforts, HAARP, nano-bioweapons etc.<br />
<br />
Modern Morgellons first came to light in 2001 when a woman, Mary Leitao, claimed her two-year old son developed sores on his lips and complained of "bugs". Leitao has a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and had worked in a local hospital. She said she examined the sores with her son's toy microscope and found fibers of different colors.[1] She took her son to 8 different doctors who were unable to find any cause or known illness. Dr. Fred Heldrich, from John Hopkins, examined her son and found nothing. He further stated that Mrs. Leitao should seek psychological help.[1] In 2002 Leitao founded the "Morgellons Research Foundation" (MRF) and since that time the Foundation claims that it has received 12,000 case reports from people around the world.<br />
<br />
Fast forward a few years and Leitao's story makes national news. This mysterious condition was discussed on several TV shows, including ABC's <i>Medical Mysteries</i>. But, despite the coverage and outpouring of purported sufferers, numerous medical studies have repeatedly failed to find any cause. This has led to a vast number of theories ranging from the targeted infection of the population by governments to aliens.[2] Some have even suggested that these fibers act as tiny antennas connecting us to mind-control programs.<br />
<br />
<b>Now, let us look at the facts:</b><br />
<br />
The CDC began actively investigating Morgellons in 2007 after an extensive letter-writing campaign. In 2012 the CDC released their findings after studying 115 patients. They found no infective agents or environmental causes. In conclusion, they noted that this syndrome closely resembles delusional infestation (also known as delusional parasitosis) more than a new condition.[3][4]<br />
<br />
There was also a study done by the Mayo Clinic which looked at 108 patients. The study was conducted from 2001-2007 and the results released in 2011. The study included examining skin biopsies and they found no evidence of a skin infection. The Mayo Clinic likewise raised the point that the sufferers are exhibiting the same signs and symptoms of delusional infestation.[5]<br />
<br />
After studying the fibers they concluded they were bits of clothing and other everyday fibers (cotton, nylon etc) as well as things like gravel and oil that the sufferers had scratched into themselves.[5]<br />
<br />
<b>What about the wine test?</b><br />
<br />
There is a Morgellons "test" that you can find online.[6] Basically, by washing your mouth with red wine for 5 minutes and then spitting into a cup you can determine if you have been infected. If you see stringy bits in the cup you are a victim. Aside from the odd issue of only using red wine (and not beer, vodka, etc) it is somewhat curious that this would be such an easy test and yet so many doctors have failed to detect these "nano-pathogens" in skin and blood samples.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps there is something more mundane at work?<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Wine tasters have always noticed "stuff" in the wine they spit out. They have known about this since before airplanes even existed. The mechanism at work is referred to as astringency. </span><span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Astringency is the drying, roughing and sometimes puckering sensation that is experienced after tasting most red wines. Red wines also contain </span>tannin's<span style="font-family: inherit;"> which can interact with your saliva (and the </span>proteins<span style="font-family: inherit;"> therein) and cause a gritty sensation as well as bind together and form "super structures" which you can see.[7][8] So, fairly obviously, if you swish wine or other tannin containing substances in your mouth for an extended period of time you are likely to find bits of stuff in it once you spit it out. </span></span></div>
<br />
<b>What about the people/groups involved in scientifically proving Morgellons?</b><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><u>Raphael Stricker</u> is the author<span style="font-family: inherit;"> of "</span></span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology"</span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"> published by </span></span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit; line-height: 22px;">Dove Medical Press. </i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit; line-height: 22px;">However, he is also</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"> a disgrac<span style="font-family: inherit;">ed doctor</span></span></span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> w</span>ho was found guilty of falsifying data and excluding information which did not support his </span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">hypothesis</span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">.[9] And while the fact that he lied in the past is not 100% evidence that his data is currently untrustworthy it is </span></span><span style="line-height: 22px;">nonetheless</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"> an important factor to keep in mind. Stricker is also associated with the Morgellons Research Foundation. The misconduct findings list him as an M.D however; I'm not sure what kind of doctor he actually is. I've found </span></span><span style="line-height: 22px;">veterinary</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"> </span></span><span style="line-height: 22px;">microbiologist,</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"> intern, scientist and others associated with his name. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><u>Dove Medical Press</u> is an open access (free) journal. Further </span></span><span style="line-height: 22px;">investigation</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"> </span></span><span style="line-height: 22px;">reveals that DMP has a number of somewhat disturbing problems which, in my mind, makes them a non-credible source.[10][11][12] </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><u>Randy Wymore</u> is an associate professor of Pharmacology at the University of Oklahoma. He has been very active in studying Morgellons, in particular the fiber<span style="font-family: inherit;">s. Supporters often cite his work as evidence of Morgellons, specifically Wymore's first test in which he concluded </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">"There's something real going on here. Something we don't understand at all." The problem is that science needs more than one test, more than one study and results MUST be repeatable or else it's just a theory. After additional studying, Wymore's fibers have been identified as: cotton, nylon, human hair, down from a pillow and other known substances. Wymore further admi<span style="font-family: inherit;">ts</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> "We have not yet </span><em style="background-color: white; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">exactly </em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">replicated the </span><em style="background-color: white; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">exact</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> results of the forensics people in Tulsa."[13]</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<u>Clifford Carnicom</u> is a computer consultant and former researcher & manager with various government agencies. According to his site he holds a Bachelors of Science. He founded the Carnicom Institute which claims to do "scientific research" on environm<span style="font-family: inherit;">ental and health issues.[14] Carnicom claims to have done a large amount of research into chemtrails and Morgellons and his "work" has been widely cited online in support of Morgellons being caused by some government chemtrail conspiracy. Interestingly, on his site there is a disclaimer which reads in part <i>"</i><span style="font-style: italic; text-align: -webkit-center;">The Institute does not perform any medical diagnosis. </span><span style="font-style: italic; text-align: -webkit-center;">Any presentation, opinion or expression [by an Institute representative] </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><i>in no way implies or denotes endorsement by the Institute."</i> The Institute has two board members, Carnicom and a former music teacher. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><br /></span></i></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A man named Jay Reynolds has taken </span>considerable<span style="font-family: inherit;"> pain to research the claims made by Mr. Carnicom. <span style="font-family: inherit;">Reynolds concludes:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"No medical reports, material analysis, or documentable and confirmable evidence </span></i><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">has been presented which supports the hypothesis that chemical or </span></i><i style="text-align: -webkit-center;"></i><br />
<div style="display: inline !important; text-align: left;">
<i style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">biological agents are currently being delivered or can be associated with </span></i></i></div>
<i style="text-align: -webkit-center;">
</i><i style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></i>
<br />
<div style="display: inline !important; text-align: left;">
<i style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">jet contrails."</span></i></span></i></div>
<i style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></i></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The relevant page</span>s and information can be found here:[<a href="http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/FOIA.html">15</a>][<a href="http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/silk.html">16</a>][<a href="http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/bariumreport.html">17</a>]</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Institute's Morgellons research page also discusses the red wine test and lists a number of symptoms including: eye "floaters", joint pain and stomach problems.[18] The symptom list is not intended to be inclusive implying that there are many more symptoms. When just about anything can be associated with Morgellons (just do a Google search) it makes it very difficult to actually determine what is or is not a direct symptom and opens the door for anyone to claim they're sufferers and no one would dare doubt them. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Carnicom claims to have a new "improved" method for researching "webs" that fall out of the sky. They look </span>suspiciously<span style="font-family: inherit;"> like a cotton or nylon net which has been cut up and wrapped over a stick.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jw0zdRbkHj0/UT_Ibzy-4AI/AAAAAAAAAUw/A8Y8lw-vrKQ/s1600/carnicom1-1024x768.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jw0zdRbkHj0/UT_Ibzy-4AI/AAAAAAAAAUw/A8Y8lw-vrKQ/s320/carnicom1-1024x768.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(Image from Carnicom)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Others claim that heavy metals like gold and silver are being dumped into the air along with the pathogens that cause Morgellons. Gold especially is practically harmless to humans. They also claim that 12,000 families in the US have been infected with Morgellons (which differs greatly from the MRF's claim of 12,000 *individual* cases - the world over). So after the countless chemtrails, the millions exposed, only 12,000 are infected?[19] Sounds more like a failure than any well-oiled conspiracy to doom us all. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Morgellons from the 1600s?</b> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
An interesting note of history is a letter by Sir Thomas Browne which was first published in 1690.[20] In it he writes:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>"Hairs which have most amused me have not been in the Face or Head, but on the Back, and not in Men but Children, as I long ago observed in that Endemial Distemper of little Children in Languedock, called the Morgellons, wherein they critically break out with harsh Hairs on their Backs, which takes off the Unquiet Symptomes of the Disease, and delivers them from Coughs and Convulsions."</i> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And there are a number of other similar descriptions throughout the last 500 years. Could it be that a small minority suffer from this long forgotten rare illness while others suffer from delusion? Only further research will give us the end truth but there is little doubt that the modern and common claim of Morgellons is more legend than reality.</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Bottom Line:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There is no credible evidence for this syndrome of being anything but a psyc</span>hological illness and mass hysteria which has fed off lies, misinformation, ignorance and simple fear. Morgellons has no clear diagnosis criteria, no clear set of symptoms and is nearly identical to delusional parasitosis.[21][22] No one likes to admit they've either been the victim of a hoax/myth or that they have a psychological disorder.<br />
<br />
<br />
Doubt, ignorance and fear can cause otherwise reasonable people to see, feel or think just about anything. Does this alone mean that people aren't experiencing itching or crawling sensations? No. Get a group of friends together and start talking about lice. Before you know it there will be people scratching and running off to a mirror to see if they have bugs in their hair. Just because you "feel" something doesn't mean your body is responding to an external physical stimuli.<br />
<br />
We are surrounded by fibers from our clothes, blankets, napkins, paper, home and car upholstery, from each other, pets and even spider webs. The hairs on our body have wildly varying thicknesses, colors and shapes. Contrails (the trail of "smoke" behind a plane) have been observed since at least the 1940's, just because people confuse them or misidentify them doesn't mean much.<br />
<br />
<br />
Instead of admitting the possibility that people like Mr. Carnicom have been taking advantage of the fear and ignorance surrounding this issue for their own benefit proponents will resort to the last stand of all conspiracy theorists: That the government and the millions of independent, private scientists the world over are all part of some vast plan. That "they" have been so blinded by formal education (even though the theorists claim to use the very same information and methods as academia) that they simply cannot discover what is clearly before their eyes. A perfect trump card, you either "see the light" or you're a part of it. <br />
<br />
So tell me, which is more realistic?<br />
<br />
<b>Sources:</b><br />
1. <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/health/mom-fights-for-answers-on-whats-wrong-with-her-son-443228/">Mom fights for answers on what's wrong with son</a>, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette<br />
2. <a href="http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/radiation-chemtrails-assaults-additional-support-for-your-immune-system-part-2/">Radiation & Chemtrail Assault</a>, Food Freedom (blog)<br />
3. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029908">CDC Study</a><br />
4. <a href="http://cmr.asm.org/content/22/4/690.full">Delusional Infestation</a>, Clinical Microbiology Reviews (an introduction to the illness)<br />
5. <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Dermatology/GeneralDermatology/26503">Morgellons</a>, Medpage Today<br />
6. <a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2012/05/do-you-have-morgellons-red-wine-spit-test-2156200.html">Red Wine Spit Test</a>, Beforeitsnews.com<br />
7. <a href="http://www.aromadictionary.com/articles/wineastringency_article.html">Red wine astringency</a>, Wine Aroma Dictionary<br />
8. <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30695470/Food-Chemistry-1997-Fennema">Food Chemistry 3rd Edition</a>, pg 657. By Owen Fennema (hosted on Scribd)<br />
9. <a href="http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177.html">Final findings of scientific misconduct</a>, National Institutes of Health<br />
10. <a href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/11/richard-poynder-interviews-publisher-of.html">Richard Poynder interviews Dove Press publisher</a>, Open Access News<br />
11. <a href="http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~jbeall/Beall's%20List%20of%20Predatory,%20Open-Access%20Publishers%202012.pdf">Predatory Open-Access Publishers</a>, Jeffery Beall, University of Colorado-Denver (PDF)<br />
12. <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/02/16/837462/-Alabama-shooter-an-academic-fraud-with-evidence">DMP and academic fraud</a>, DailyKos<br />
13. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/07/morgellons-mysterious-illness">Morgellons: A hidden epidemic or mass hysteria?</a> The Guardian<br />
14. <a href="http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/mission.html">The Carnicom Institute: Mission</a><br />
15. <a href="http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/FOIA.html">Reynolds 1</a>, his FOIA requests<br />
16. <a href="http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/silk.html">Reynolds 2</a>, chemtrail "web" info<br />
17. <a href="http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/bariumreport.html">Reynolds 3</a>, an example of a claim by Carnicom being found false<br />
18. <a href="http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/status_report.html">Carnicom's Morgellons page</a><br />
19. <a href="http://chemtrailsplanet.net/tag/cliff-carnicom/">GeoEngineering Exposed</a>, a blog roll with posts tagged "Cliff Carnicom"<br />
20. <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/letter/letter.html">A Letter to a Friend</a>, Sir Thomas Browne (University of Chicago)<br />
21. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8019.2008.00164.x/abstract">Morgellons Disease?</a> A study published in Dermatologic Therapy (Wiley)<br />
22. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01227.x/pdf">Morgellons: contested illness</a>, a study published in Sociology of Health & Illness (Wiley) (PDF)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Additional Reading:</b><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons">Morgellons' Wikipedia article</a><br />
<a href="http://morgellonswatch.com/">Morgellons Watch</a>, a skeptic site<br />
<a href="http://metabunk.org/threads/912-Debunk-this-tripple-dare-(impossible)">Morgellons related thread</a> (suppor<span style="font-family: inherit;">ters and opponents) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair">Hair</a>, Wikipedia</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail">Contrail</a>, Wikipedia </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Moregellons-like descriptions:</span></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/letter/kellett.html">Sir Thomas Browne and the Disease Called the Morgellons</a>, by C.E. Kellett MD 1935</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-15201270286874703942013-03-08T12:58:00.001-08:002013-03-08T12:58:11.413-08:00Thanks and SuggestionsWhen I started this blog I had little expectation that it would become as popular as it has. In its first 4 months it had been read less than 1,000 times, it's now read 500 times a day! So I would like to thank everyone who has visited, commented and shared the posts you've enjoyed.<br />
<br />
The entries I make tend to be about issues I come across via my Facebook feed so there isn't much regularity. It would be difficult to post a new entry every day, even every few days, given my other obligations. However, I would like to start making posts on a somewhat regular basis. With that said, I'd like to ask your input.<br />
<br />
What myths, lies or misunderstandings would you like me to research and clear up? I am currently working on an article about "Morgellons Syndrome" but other than that I don't have anything definite in the works. So please, if you have any suggestions (or criticisms, likes, dislikes, etc) leave them in this post's comment section.<br />
<br />
Again, thank you all very much!<br />
<br />
--Jacob<br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/jacobbogle"> My Facebook page</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-12359910114576264952013-02-27T17:12:00.000-08:002013-04-12T15:37:31.816-07:00Chemtrails Part 1: Barium & Alunimum<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XMaLHTGWNug/UO39h71QchI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/0eDsHrEzj1k/s1600/sky-chem.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" height="284" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XMaLHTGWNug/UO39h71QchI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/0eDsHrEzj1k/s320/sky-chem.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<b>Chemtrails</b>: chemical<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> or biological agents </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for covert purposes by a government entity. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">The idea of chemtrails has been around for about 2 decades and it is one of those issues that can deeply polarize people. It has taken on a whole new life online and many people genuinely believe that there is a vast conspiracy aimed at global depopulation, the dumbing down of the people and weather modification which uses chemtrails (chemical trails) as a means to bring about this new world order.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">What makes the issue so divisive is all the information that is out there, usually promoted by people with only a cursory understanding of the sciences involved and a confusion of history. Supporters usually point to an ever growing number of websites whose purpose is to "expose" the conspiracy and provide supporting science; however anyone trying to have an open conversation about it will tend to find supporters veering off the science and going into further conspiracies and pointing to ill-deeds done by the government decades ago as proof that the events of today are likewise caused by the global cabal.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">I have heard people on both sides of the issue for years. Some become very animated at even the simplest questions while others are more respectful and earnestly try to help you see their point of view. I have tried very hard to listen to both sides and even today I still don't have a firm opinion on the subject matter, but I must admit I am not very fond of those who support it. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">So I will now attempt to take a number of claims made about chemtrails and give you my assessment of them with supporting evidence as usual. This is not necessarily intended to be absolute proof chemtrails are completely false but rather to provide evidence against certain specific claims made about chemtrails. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><b>News report found dangerously high levels of barium in ground water after spraying:</b></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">One of the sources for this comes from KLSA News 12 (Louisiana) when a reporter tested some water after seeing what he claimed were chemtrails. According to KLSA they found barium levels at 6.8 parts per million, which is 3 times the EPA's safety level. However, further investigations found that KLSA had misread the report and that the real level was 68 parts per <b>billion</b>, which is well within limits. There was no evidence submitted at all that directly linked the barium with the trails in the sky.[1] Spurred on by this allegation CBS-5 (Arizona) did an interview with the founder of the site "TheTruthDenied", the interview concluded that chemtrails didn't exist at all and that there was no support for high levels of barium.[2]</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span>
<b style="background-color: white; color: red; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></b>
<b style="background-color: white; color: red; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Chemtrails give off aluminum oxide which can cause cancer and other illnesses:</b></span><br />
<div>
<b style="background-color: white; color: red; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>Aluminum oxide</b> is a very common form of aluminum, in fact it is the most common oxide of aluminum found in nature. For those of you who don't know, an oxide is simply an element (like aluminum) that is bound to oxygen. Rust is technically iron oxide.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Aluminum is used in many dangerous sounding applications such as abrasives, paints, certain electrical insulators and then of course as pure aluminum metal in everything from bicycles to beer cans. Aluminum itself is the most common metal in the Earth's crust [3] and is actually the primary component of rubies and sapphires.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">People claim that the government is using aluminum oxide to modify the weather and as a result people are getting sick from it. The problem is, aluminum is not used by the body and since it is not radioactive, it actually does nothing to the body at a cellular level. Like <u>anything</u> in particulate (dust) form, aluminum oxide can cause respiratory irritation but it is easily cleared from the body and there has never been an example of aluminum being purposely released into the atmosphere at a concentration that would cause harm.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Now, chronic (long-term) exposure of nearly anything can cause negative health effects but again, it is nearly impossible for the average person to have chronic exposure to high levels (1.5mg/m3 hour after hour, day after day) of aluminum oxide.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">It is not a carcinogen, does not exhibit mutagenic effects, does not harm human fetuses and has no known lethal dosage within the limits of regular exposure (i.e. unless you swallow massive amounts it won't hurt you ).[4] Furthermore, should you be exposed to it less than 1% of it (>0.015mg of a 1.5mg dose) would be absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract and only a very small amount would be absorbed as a result of inhalation. [5] The amount that would have to be sprayed from the air (over large areas and multiple times as claimed) to cause negative health effects on a large segment of the population would be of such high quantity that no single plane could carry it and any sample of soil would be saturated with it. To my knowledge, there is no example of that being found in non-industrial soil samples.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>Patent 7,645,326</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This patent, dated 2010, deals with releasing aluminum oxide into a warehouse environment in order to reduce the ambient radio noise (clutter) associated with all electronic items, like lightbulbs, and to reduce problems associated with ionosphere disruption during sunset to allow better communication between items which use an RFID system.[6] It has nothing to do with chemtrails. The process seeks to reduce noise and boost the signals of the intended radio sources. These radio sources work at very specific frequencies, which raises an issue relating to open environment use of aluminum.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: -webkit-right;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: start;">
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: -webkit-right;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">If aluminum can be used to reduce the amount specific radio frequencies, could it not also interfere with the enormous number of different frequencies we use everyday? Cell phones, TV, wireless Internet, medical devices, ad nauseam all rely on radio communications. The private sector controls literally billions of frequencies along the electromagnetic spectrum and there is a lot of engineering involved to keep, say your television, from disrupting your iPhone. Placing any electrically conductive material in the atmosphere can have a positive effect on one group of technologies while unintentionally harming another. </span></span></span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 15.59375px;"><br /></span></span><b>Basic logistics:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Many so-called chemtrails are at an </span><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;">altitude</span><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> of thousands of feet. At this height the average wind speed can be anywhere between 50 and 100 miles per hour and then there is the potential for turbulence, cross-direction winds and so forth. This means that even if they were spraying something the people directly below wouldn't be exposed to it. Unless they sprayed at a low height (like crop-dusters) or on days with very little wind it would be difficult to gauge where the trail would go or what dilution it would reach - it may become so diluted that it would have no effect at all. Of course the argument is that it's all about weather modification and any negative heath risks associated are just a "bonus" to the NWO elite but as we've seen, at least with aluminum, there really aren't any health issues. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 19.1875px;"><b>Logical fallacies:</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Many conspiracy supporters are either unaware of committing logical fallacies or intentionally use them in hopes that they will confuse or convert others to their cause. Usually they are: </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-size: large;">False-cause - presuming that there is a connection between two events (e.g Obama was inaugurated as president, a month later a meteor hit the Earth) </span></span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Appeal to authority/Bandwagon - "So-and-so group/person/nation/website has investigated chemtrails thus they must be real. Plus, just look at all the websites about it!"</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Burden of proof - Basically</span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"> claim that because you don't believe them it us up to you to prove their assertions wrong while they won't offer substantive evidence that they are right. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Anecdotal - using a personal or limited number of examples as full evidence</span></span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-size: large;">And what I call the "synthesis" fallacy - pulling small bits of information from different sources and then meshing them together to support a claim that is not included in any of the original sources. </span></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Although committing a logical fallacy doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, when much of your evidence is built around fallacies, incorrect assumptions or flawed science it makes it very hard to defend the position with any credibility. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">I'll tackle additional claims (like weather modification) in future posts. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> </span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><b>Sources:</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1. <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/curious_contrails_death_from_the_sky/" target="_blank">Curious Contrails</a>, Skeptical Inquirer</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2. <a href="http://www.kpho.com/story/14816315/do-toxic-chemtrails-really-exist-2-23-2011" target="_blank">Do toxic chemtrails really exist?</a>, CBS-5, Arizona</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3. <a href="http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele013.html" target="_blank">Aluminum</a>, JLab.org </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">4. <a href="http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922858" target="_blank">MSDS-Aluminum oxide</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">5. <a href="http://www.alueurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Al-Fact-Sheet_-20110728-final.pdf" target="_blank">Aluminum oxide: Health effects</a>, EU-REACH/WHO(pdf)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">6. <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7645326.PN.&OS=PN/7645326&RS=PN/7645326">Patent 7,645,326</a>, US Patent Office</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">
<b style="line-height: 19.1875px;">Additional:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 19.1875px;"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/pdf/nihms33559.pdf" target="_blank">Aluminum Heath Risk Assesment</a>, National Institutes of Health (pdf) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><a href="http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf" target="_blank">Aircraft Contrails Fact-sheet</a>, FAA (pdf)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><a href="http://reboot.fcc.gov/spectrumdashboard/searchSpectrum.seam">FCC Spectrum Search</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-35622385692418472942012-11-26T19:44:00.001-08:002014-09-13T13:17:26.634-07:00Flu Vaccines and Mercury<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J8-oMsiabPg/ULQWTpJMX8I/AAAAAAAAAJE/6_qXKeFBsz0/s1600/flu+vaccine+25mcg+mercury+claim.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J8-oMsiabPg/ULQWTpJMX8I/AAAAAAAAAJE/6_qXKeFBsz0/s320/flu+vaccine+25mcg+mercury+claim.png" height="241" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This is flu season and once again we are all beset by groups screaming at you to get a vaccine and other groups screaming at you to not. Unfortunately there is so much information and misinformation out there that even the mighty Google can't give the full picture without confusing you further.<br />
<br />
I do not presume to have the "answer" to the vaccination question and I am not going to offer my voice in support or opposition of getting a vaccine. What I am going to try to do however is bring you the story, offer up facts and sources in a single place (here) and hopefully this will help you to make up your own mind.<br />
<br />
As is often the case my Facebook page was the inspiration for this post. A friend posted the above picture and after looking at it I started to ask questions. I wondered if the facts presented were correct, if the conclusion they led you to was correct (after all you can have a false conclusion even with correct data), and started debating if I should wade in to this wildly emotional debate.<br />
<br />
The picture claims that flu vaccines contain 25 micrograms of mercury and that a vaccine is more dangerous than toxic waste. From a purely logical perspective the image is grossly skewed and misleading, lacking in context and using fear as a tactic. However, that doesn't mean the numbers are necessarily false.<br />
<br />
There are several kinds of flu vaccine and SOME contain a preservative called Thiomersal (also thimersol). Thiomersal is an organomercury compound that has been used as a preservative in many vaccine acorss the globe for decades. However, since it does contain mercury it has been phased out and replaced with a non-mercury containing compounds in most vaccines, except a few flu vaccines (vaccines for infants lack mercury). <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(1)</span><br />
<br />
Pure mercury has been a know toxic agent for many years, however that fact in and of itself is not really a reason to avoid it, after all oxygen is an explosive and it promotes damaging free radicals in the body. But, mercury in high doses is flat out bad for you. While there is no known biological role for mercury in the human body in low doses it can help prevent the growth of bacteria in things like vaccines. <br />
<br />
Prior to thiomersal being used as a preservative there were accounts of people developing illnesses from the vaccines they received. The most famous case involved the death of 12 (out of 21) children in 1928 who were vaccinated for Diphtheria. The non-preserved multi-dose vaccine contained a deadly bacteria which the children contracted. <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(2)</span><br />
<br />
Mercury toxicity hinges on two factors, dosage and exposure time. In other words a lot of mercury at once is toxic and being exposed to smaller amounts day after day (or other intervals) can all cause a wide range of ill effects, the most damaging occurring in children. And what people fail to understand is that its chronic (long term) exposure that would cause lasting harm with respect to vaccines.<br />
<br />
Here are some facts: Of the 4 flu vaccine types listed on the FDA's site, only 2 contain 24-25 micrograms of mercury. The other 2 have less than 13. The 2 types with "high" levels are Fluzone and Afluria. <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(3)</span><br />
<br />
Mercury concentrations in the blood are typically less than 6 mcg per liter, or about 31-33.6 mcg for the whole body. Of course a diet rich in fish can increase that level to 200 mcg/liter.<br />
<br />
A vaccine with 25 mcg of mercury in it would be a single time exposure and is usually eliminated from the body within 7-10 days. The mercury found in fish, methyl mercury, can remain in the body for over a month. <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(4)</span><br />
<br />
Since mercury exposure tends to involve small amounts it is the chronic exposure we must keep in mind. Long term exposure at levels of 1 mcg/day has been shown to cause tremors and other problems. However, again, the flu vaccine is a single time exposure. Short time (acute) exposure to mercury involve amounts far greater than the levels found in vaccines. A study on the trends of acute and chronic mercury exposure found concentrations ranging from 301 mcg to 1,918 mcg total blood levels or at least 12 times the amount found in a vaccine. <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(5)</span><br />
<br />
Thiomersal has been claimed to cause autism and other neurological and developmental illnesses by a wide array of groups, including some scientists and doctors. However, there is no scientific consensus on the matter and the FDA, CDC, Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(6)</span> have all rejected any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(7)</span> There is even a study that concludes the allegation of a connection is the "most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years." <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(8)</span> Of course that does not mean that beyond any shadow of doubt there are no connections or other negative side effects but rather the research they did simply didn't show any. <br />
<br />
While mercury at large acute levels or small chronic levels can be dangerous we must look at the risks in the scope of a wider context, that of the illness itself. <br />
<br />
The common flu kills, on average, 27,000 people each year in the United States<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(9)</span><span style="font-size: small;"> while major flu strains can kill millions. In 2009 between 151,700 and 575,400 died worldwide as a result of the H1N1 virus.</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">(10)</span><span style="font-size: small;"> And of course everyone knows about the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918 which killed at least 20 million people. </span><br />
<br />
With a few exceptions vaccines do not claim to protect you from a disease 100% of the time. However the do provide a strong defense, especially for those with weakened immune systems. Flue vaccines do not protect you from the "flu", rather from 1-5 of the most common strains (the influenza virus mutates rapidly and comes in many strains). No drug is free from side effects, even drinking too much water can kill you, but when weighed against the risks, for many, getting a vaccine is the best thing to do. From a simple numbers perspective, Americans have around a 1 in 11,600 chance of dying from the flu this year without a vaccine. As a side effect risk you have about a 1 in 1 million chance of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome from a flu vaccine.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(11)</span> Having the right knowledge, proper expectations and realizing medicine is an ever growing, ever improving "practice" and not a flawless monolith of perfection will take you far. <br />
<br />
In the end what is right for you and your body is your business. I just hope that when making any decision you look at all the facts, keep them in proper context and have a good relationship with your personal doctor and talk out your worries. <br />
<br />
Sources: <br />
1. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning#Thiomersal" target="_blank">Mercury Poisoning -Thiomersal</a>, Wikipedia (only for general information)<br />
2, 3.<a href="http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228" target="_blank">Vaccine Safety</a>, FDA <br />
4. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11181111" target="_blank">Methyl mercury Exposure</a>, (requires paid subscription)<br />
5. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014464.htm" target="_blank">1989-1990 Acute and Chronic Mercury Poisoning Trends</a>, CDC<br />
6. <a href="http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/thiomersal/questions/en/" target="_blank">Thiomersal and vaccines</a>, WHO<br />
7. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10997" target="_blank">Immunization Safety Review Committee</a> (PDF requires free subscription)<br />
8. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21917556" target="_blank">The Vaccine-Autism Connection</a>, University of Charleston School of Pharmacy<br />
9. <a href="http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/163/2/181.full" target="_blank">Mortality due to Influenza in the United States</a>, Princeton University<br />
10. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/pandemic-global-estimates.htm" target="_blank">Global Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Pandemic</a>, CDC<br />
11. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm" target="_blank">Flu Shot FAQ</a>, CDC<br />
<br />
Additional:<br />
<a href="http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0031395507000338" target="_blank">Mercury Exposure and Public Health</a> (requires paid subscription)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-41309673742158551892012-10-26T14:59:00.001-07:002016-10-26T07:54:06.251-07:00United Nations to Observe American Elections<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nLGmjtA4MXc/UIsARITjnfI/AAAAAAAAAIE/gWpHhsiUWPA/s1600/UN-LOGO.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nLGmjtA4MXc/UIsARITjnfI/AAAAAAAAAIE/gWpHhsiUWPA/s200/UN-LOGO.bmp" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
There are generally two views of the United Nations. One is that of an insidious, oppressive organization hell bent on world wide government, and the other is that of a flawed, but indispensable organization that helps resolve conflict and has given us a better world.<br />
<br />
The UN has many obligations and branches, all given authority by its member countries. One of their functions is to help ensure a fair, peaceful, and democratic election process. <br />
<br />
Ever since 2002 the UN (via the Department of Political Affairs/Electoral Assistance Division and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) has sent observers to monitor US elections, both local and national. This has given a measure of assurance to some and dread to others. And while I personally do not treasure the prospect of seeing the "blue shirts" looking over my shoulder (which they can't literally do) and understand that it could raise questions for some, I also don't see them as a military force that has been placed here to ensure the election of a New World Order approved candidate.<br />
<br />
When you look at the issues raised by many anti-UN/NWO groups, one of their key messages is that the US election system is rigged and that it's little more than a distraction aimed at keeping the unwitting masses thinking they still have some real freedom. And that the UN, our government, and others have worked to destroy our constitution and liberty worldwide. While there have been instances of voter fraud and intimidation from both the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case">left</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0SkAGlVHf8">right</a>, that isn't conclusive evidence that the system itself is rigged. And while it's easy to disrupt a local election where literally a single vote can change the outcome, altering a presidential election would require many thousands of invalid votes across multiple states - something that has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/">been studied</a> and and largely debunked.<br />
<br />
Since 2005, the US based think tank <i>Fund for Peace</i> has issued a yearly index titled the "Failed States Index". This index grades every nation on a 120 point scale from "sustainable" to "alert" (or failed). This index looks at many different factors including political corruption, social pressures and economic issues. According to the index the United States is actually in the <a href="http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/rankings-2015">"more stable" category</a>, number 158 out of 178 countries.<br />
<br />
One of the biggest misconceptions is that these observers are either UN troops or that they can actually interfere in the election, e.g closing a polling station or preventing a person from voting. In fact these observers have <u>zero power to interfere</u>. The UN <a href="http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/publication/Chapter7.htm">article</a> on their observer missions states <em>"In extraordinary circumstances international observers or supervisors in
post-conflict countries may even be given the authority to certify or invalidate
election results. Generally, however, <strong>observers have no power to interfere in
the election process, but may only observe, assess and report</strong>."</em><br />
<br />
The US is not a "post-conflict" country and in reality the observer missions are often more about training their people to see what a relatively open voting process looks like as much as it is to report any problems they may see. The UN sends observers to dozens of countries, and while the US does have some issues, the fact remains our election process is an ideal that many countries strive for and so it makes sense that the UN would send people here.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PTmLtctlVqQ/WBDAH2IJ18I/AAAAAAAAB_0/75uxToToKIM8mOIC8159-h2KxJP3MQ7owCLcB/s1600/electionposts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PTmLtctlVqQ/WBDAH2IJ18I/AAAAAAAAB_0/75uxToToKIM8mOIC8159-h2KxJP3MQ7owCLcB/s320/electionposts.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Another misconception is that the UN has forced themselves onto our territory to "observe and report". The truth is that over the years they have been invited by federal and state governments, as well as US based organizations, to come and watch. What seems to be left out of all this is the fact that just about anyone in the US can monitor an election, and that localities can invite international organizations to observe too.<br />
<br />
While their reason for coming in 2012 was a bit of a farce (due to the erroneous allegations of a voter disenfranchisement scheme aimed at keeping millions of voters home), it is a sad fact that our system is not 100% fair, just not in the same way the folks at the NAACP and <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/263141-international-monitors-at-polling-places-draw-criticism-from-voter-fraud-group">others think</a>. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/09/the-power-of-third-party-campaigns/americas-political-duopoly-stifles-the-competition-of-ideas">two-party duopoly</a> we have in America is a real threat to democracy and our basic freedoms, and I would think many would be glad to see people keeping an eye out for any fraudulent activity. However, that isn't the same as saying the actual electoral process on election day is rigged.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump likes to point out the Democratic National Committee's behavior <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/">toward Bernie Sanders</a> as proof of a "rigged system". Well, the <i>primary system</i> is rigged. Primaries are the exclusive domain of two private clubs: the Democratic and Republican parties. That's a world away from how the actual election works. And claiming the media is "rigged" against him is likewise silly. The American media has been left leaning for generations, yet somehow the Republican Party has managed to win election after election. Indeed, over the last 8 years the only real defeats the Republicans have had are the two presidential races. The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government">GOP controls</a> the Senate, House, the majority of state houses, and the governorships. Simply being an <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html">unpopular</a> candidate with some <a href="http://www.jacobboglewrites.com/2016/03/donald-trumps-policy-on-terrorism-video.html">questionable positions</a>, doesn't mean the universe is arrayed against you.<br />
<br />
I do not relish the thought of having UN personnel in US cities, but they are not here in any policing fashion, and since we do have some problems, perhaps they could help bring them to light.<br />
<br />
Jacob Bogle<br />
<a href="http://www.jacobbogle.com/">www.JacobBogle.com</a><br />
<a href="http://facebook.com/JacobBogle">Facebook.com/JacobBogle</a><br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/JacobBogle">Twitter.com/JacobBogle</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Additional Reading:</b><br />
1. <a href="http://www.jacobboglewrites.com/2016/04/trump-nato-and-nuclear-proliferation.html">Trump, NATO, and Nuclear Proliferation</a>, JacobBogleWrites.com<br />
2. <a href="http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections" target="_blank">UN Dept of Political Affairs</a>, UN<br />
3. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/election-monitors-free-countries-headed-us-election-day/story?id=17555988" target="_blank">UN Group Will Monitor US Elections</a>, ABC News <br />
4. <a href="http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/resolutions" target="_blank">UN Electoral Assistance General Assembly Resolutions</a>, UN (1991-2012)<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Originally published on October 26, 2012. Updated on October 26, 2016)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-63150601671956455482012-10-18T20:36:00.002-07:002012-10-18T20:36:36.338-07:00Clint Eastwood & Bohemian GroveThis picture has been making the Internet circuit lately.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EMyAn2rtnuQ/UIDEIjaxzPI/AAAAAAAAAH0/yHocGhm7FT0/s1600/clint+eastwood+bohemian+grove.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EMyAn2rtnuQ/UIDEIjaxzPI/AAAAAAAAAH0/yHocGhm7FT0/s320/clint+eastwood+bohemian+grove.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It purportedly shows Clint Eastwood at the secretive Californian club "Bohemian Grove" in 1987.<br />
<br />
The Bohemian Grove is a secret all-male group of people that meet at a large wooded compound in California. And while the location and club actually exist their purpose and what goes on there is subject to widespread conspiracies, many with little substantive facts.<br />
<br />
This picture began showing up after Eastwood spoke at the 2012 Republican National Convention. <br />
<br />
After a fairly extensive online search I have zero evidence that Eastwood is a member despite finding multiple lists of probable and real members. All I have found are a few "off-the-path" sites saying he is a "confirmed member", all the while giving no supporting evidence.<br />
<br />
One key factor to pay attention to is the watermark on the image. It says "memcreator.org". The site allows you to take any picture and add whatever text you want to it and then pass it along as an Internet meme.<br />
<br />
Now, while I can find no verifiable evidence that Eastwood is a member that doesn't mean he is not and there have been rumors that he is for a few years.<br />
<br />
What I find amazing is that so many people are using this image as some sort of proof. It proves nothing. You would think that such an old photo would have been online, however, a Google image search for "Clint Eastwood Bohemian Grove" (and several other terms) yielded nothing, not even his name associated with the hundreds of Grove photos out there.<br />
<br />
True or false, for anyone who loves truth over misinformation, you should always do your homework and verify things before posting them as fact.<br />
<br />
Personally, the fact that this picture has only shown up since his RNC "speech" and was created via memecreator.org looks as though this is just a hoax...even if he is a member, this picture doesn't prove anything. <br />
<br />
--Jacob BogleUnknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-75630171260996422522012-09-28T17:24:00.000-07:002014-09-13T13:18:32.898-07:00Soursop and Cancer Cures<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">Claim:</span></strong> Soursop can cure 12 different cancers and is 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy. <br />
<br />
This is Soursop, otherwise known as Graviola fruit (<em>Annona muricata</em>), or guyabano.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ody0eBECMPM/UGYLdcqIyuI/AAAAAAAAAHc/gHxde0fC3C8/s1600/soursopcancerfruit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ody0eBECMPM/UGYLdcqIyuI/AAAAAAAAAHc/gHxde0fC3C8/s320/soursopcancerfruit.jpg" height="267" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It has been used for many years as an herbal medicine. It is native to Central and South America as well as the Caribbean and is also grown in parts of Asia. <br />
<br />
A number of sites have articles all detailing the same information with slight variances.<br />
<br />
For example: <a href="http://aoand.com/profiles/blogs/graviola-tree-10-000-times-stronger-killer-of-cancer-than-chemo">http://aoand.com/profiles/blogs/graviola-tree-10-000-times-stronger-killer-of-cancer-than-chemo</a> and <a href="http://www.jamaicans.com/blog/?p=347">http://www.jamaicans.com/blog/?p=347</a><br />
<br />
The claims commonly ascribed to this fruit are (copied from claim supporter site):<br />
<br />
*Attacks cancer safely and effectively with an all-natural therapy that does not
cause extreme nausea, weight loss and hair loss<br />
* Protect your immune system
and avoid deadly infections<br />
* Feel stronger and healthier throughout the
course of the treatment<br />
* Boost your energy and improve your outlook on life<br />
* Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including
colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer<br />
* The tree compounds
proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells
than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug!<br />
* What’s more, unlike
chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree
selectively hunts down and kills only cancer cells. It does not harm healthy
cells!<br />
<br />
After a fairly extensive search I only found 1, peer-reviewed, scientific article describing the benefits of Graviola extract (which is not the same as raw fruit). You can read it the abstract here: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21767082">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21767082</a><br />
<br />
In the article it says that the <u>extract</u> "significantly downregulated EGFR gene expression and inhibited the growth of BC cells and xenografts." EGRF is a gene commonly found in breast cancer. The dosage of the extract was 200mg/kg which in an average human female equates to 6.4 grams per day for 5 weeks. However, the study was only done in mice and so the therapeutic equivalent could be much higher.<br />
<br />
Further claims of feeling stronger, energy boosts, improved outlook on life are all things that a simple can of Coke can provide or even being outside in the sunlight. They're also claims that are hard to show definitively came from the fruit since they're all subjective and can be caused by any number of everyday things.<br />
<br />
The dubious claim that it is 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy is one hard to substantiate. Even if it were 10,000 times more effective than Adriamycin (which is actually an anti-biotic used in cancer treatment) it is still only more effective than a single drug which is used in a limited number of cancers. Many people have taken the information to mean that it is more effective than all chemo agents against many cancers. <br />
<br />
It is also purported that since Graviola comes from a natural source it is better for you than chemotherapy which is an evil man-made poison. However, Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and many other chemo agents and other drugs are derived from natural sources. Adriamycin comes from a bacteria, Taxol and Taxotere both come from the bark of the <em>Taxus brevifolia</em> tree, Thiopurine drugs are derived from Purine, an organic compound found in our DNA, the entire Anthracyclines and Camptothecins classes of drug come from natural sources like plants and fungi. <br />
<br />
Another problem with the "Soursop cure" is that there are no verifiable third-party sources to be found in any of the pro-Soursop articles I have read. While they list groups like the Catholic University of South Korea and the Journal of Natural Products, other than the single article I mentioned above, none of these sources can be found. Even Wikipedia requires that facts or claims be backed up with 3rd-party sources. <br />
<br />
One thing we do know is that while Soursop may have some benefits against breast cancer in mice it is also dangerous. The fruit contains high levels of annonacin, which in large doses (3-8mg/day) can lead to Parkinson's Disease. It can also cause general cell death by blocking the cell's ability to produce ATP which is basically the bodies source of cellular energy.<br />
<br />
Proponents claim that there is some vast conspiracy to keep the "truth" about Soursop away from the public eye because, since it is a natural product, it cannot be patented and so profits are low. However, there is nothing to prevent you, a doctor, chemist, hospital, university or other group from conducting their own scientific studies of this fruit and publishing their findings. The theory that profits can't be made by selling healthy and natural products is absurd. GNC brings in over $2 billion a year and a study by the Natural Products Foundation showed that the dietary supplement industry alone has an economic impact of $60 billion/year.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">The bottom line:</span></strong> Soursop contains some compounds beneficial to breast cancer, however eating or drinking the raw fruit may not yield any benefits at all. It is also potentially dangerous to do so. I can not find any scientific information to support the claim that it is 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy or is greatly more helpful in other cancers than current treatments. The idea that this is a cure-all or that direct intake will slow or cure cancer is completely false.<br />
<br />
<strong>Sources:</strong><br />
<br />
1. Chemo Natural Sources <a href="http://www.uesc.br/cursos/pos_graduacao/mestrado/animal/bibliografias/roueda/artigo3.pdf">http://www.uesc.br/cursos/pos_graduacao/mestrado/animal/bibliografias/roueda/artigo3.pdf</a> and <a href="http://www.fmh.org/body.cfm?id=900">http://www.fmh.org/body.cfm?id=900</a><br />
<br />
2. Causes Parkinson's <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14675150">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14675150</a><br />
<br />
3. GNC Revenues <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/15/15942.html">http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/15/15942.html</a><br />
<br />
4. NPF Report <a href="http://www.naturalproductsinfo.org/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=DSIB%20Releases&refno=181&view=DSIB_Releases_Detail">http://www.naturalproductsinfo.org/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=DSIB%20Releases&refno=181&view=DSIB_Releases_Detail</a><br />
<br />
Also:<br />
<br />
1. <a href="http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Health/graviola-tree-10000-times-stronger-killer-of-cancer-than-chemo.html">http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Health/graviola-tree-10000-times-stronger-killer-of-cancer-than-chemo.html</a><br />
<br />
2. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soursop">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soursop</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Disclaimer: I used to work as a contractor with the US Veterans Department in one of their pharmacies so I may be a part of the grand scheme to block you (a free individual) from learning about a tree (that can be found world over) or from using the scientific method to discover its uses.</span> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com64tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-20042300577390685982012-09-27T23:19:00.000-07:002014-09-13T13:17:56.820-07:00Obama's Law License RevokedThe hoax that Barack and Michelle Obama had their law license revoked has been around for several years. It usually entails a claim that it was revoked due to disciplinary proceedings and gives a link to some obscure blog as proof, and for good measure a link to the front page of the Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee.<br />
<br />
This has been making the rounds again all over Facebook, Twitter and E-mail. <br />
The truth of the matter is this:<br />
<br />
Neither Obama's have an active license, they were voluntarily retired. Despite the claim that Michelle was forced to surrender her license due to "insurance fraud", neither Michelle nor Barack were ever suspected of any wrongdoing and have not undergone any disciplinary action.<br />
<br />
Obama placed his license on "inactive" status when he decided to run for president and after he won he had it retired. According the ARDC, it is a fairly common practice to retire your licence if you no longer intend to practice law. A 2011 ARDC report shows that 12% of the states registered attorneys were placed on "inactive" status.<br />
<br />
So please, stop spreading this lie. Even if you don't like Obama it is still no reason to propagate such a blatant falsehood.<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
<br />
1. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/">http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/</a><br />
2. <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp">http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp</a><br />
3. <a href="http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Law-License.htm">http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Law-License.htm</a> <br />
4. ARDC Report <a href="http://www.iardc.org/AnnualReport2011.pdf">http://www.iardc.org/AnnualReport2011.pdf</a><br />
5. IARDC Barack Obama Page <a href="https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=368256064">https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=368256064</a><br />
6. IARDC Michelle Obama Page <a href="https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=498531424">https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=498531424</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5093406100135946783.post-78360246142440385332012-09-27T22:56:00.000-07:002014-09-13T13:38:02.019-07:00Who am I and What is This About?My name is Jacob Bogle. I live near Nashville, Tennessee, I'm gay and a libertarian. I am also somewhat educated (pharmacology, architecture and theology) and committed to the truth, even if I don't like it or if it upsets your world view. I have been studying, to varying degrees, astronomy, physics, medicine, government, world military capabilities, history and philosophy for much of my life. <br />
<br />
I am not a singular authority on anything (very few people actually are) and I recognize I do not know everything. However, I do know a lot and I have confidence in my abilities to research and find the reality to just about anything if pushed to do so.<br />
<br />
I have Asperger's Syndrome and like many of my kind I say what I mean and mean what I say. I rarely say things to insult or otherwise injure someone and I place a high value on facts, logic and reason. <br />
<br />
I enjoy dialectics more than debate and I firmly believe that when a disagreement arises there is a fundamental truth that can be found even if that means those involved have to accept new facts and alter their opinions.<br />
<br />
I spend a lot of time online and I come across any number of Internet memes, rumors, hoaxes and otherwise questionable materials. I feel strongly that spreading something which is flawed only serves to further the ignorance of others and causes many problems...as well as hurts your own reputation and credibility.<br />
<br />
So, I have created this blog to tackle some of the more outrageous things I find. I will provide sources to back up my conclusions and hope that the efforts I put in to this will ever so slightly make a dint in the never ending flow of hogwash found and disseminated online.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3