Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Yeah, I'm done with Jill Stein…
- This topic has 42 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm #49938nittany ramModerator
Add this to her kowtowing to the anti-vaccination crowd and I’ve had enough of her anti-science baffoonery.
- This topic was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by nittany ram.
August 2, 2016 at 4:44 pm #49941znModeratorSo…you’re saying…she’s against vaccinating computers?
Well…should I vaccinate my computer or not?
August 2, 2016 at 4:56 pm #49942nittany ramModeratorWell…should I vaccinate my computer or not?
Well, yeah if you don’t wanna computer virus…
August 3, 2016 at 8:17 am #49993wvParticipantI’m still with Jill. My interpretation is similar to some of the folks that commented after the article. I think basically she’s saying “lets take these questions/concerns seriously, and not just blow them off, and lets do more research on these issues.” And i agree with that approach. I also dont have a problem with her view of computers/corporations/profit/schools.
w
vAugust 3, 2016 at 9:39 am #49999nittany ramModeratorI’m still with Jill. My interpretation is similar to some of the folks that commented after the article. I think basically she’s saying “lets take these questions/concerns seriously, and not just blow them off, and lets do more research on these issues.” And i agree with that approach. I also dont have a problem with her view of computers/corporations/profit/schools.
w
vThat’s fine. There are still more issues in which I agree with Jill than disagree.
But this fear of wifi stuff is ridiculous. The incidence rate of brain cancer is no higher now than prior to the incidence of wifi. And it hasn’t been ‘blown off’. Countless studies have shown there is no link. As pervasive as wifi is today, if it caused cancer, there would be a huge increase in cases. But that hasn’t happened. This is not a question that should be continue to be taken seriously because it simply isn’t supported by data.
Should we continue to spend time and resources determining whether the Earth is round because some people continue to take that question seriously?
August 3, 2016 at 10:28 am #50002wvParticipantI’m still with Jill. My interpretation is similar to some of the folks that commented after the article. I think basically she’s saying “lets take these questions/concerns seriously, and not just blow them off, and lets do more research on these issues.” And i agree with that approach. I also dont have a problem with her view of computers/corporations/profit/schools.
w
vThat’s fine. There are still more issues in which I agree with Jill than disagree.
But this fear of wifi stuff is ridiculous. The incidence rate of brain cancer is no higher now than prior to the incidence of wifi. And it hasn’t been ‘blown off’. Countless studies have shown there is no link. As pervasive as wifi is today, if it caused cancer, there would be a huge increase in cases. But that hasn’t happened. This is not a question that should be continue to be taken seriously because it simply isn’t supported by data.
Should we continue to spend time and resources determining whether the Earth is round because some people continue to take that question seriously?
—————-
I dont think we should spend time/money on determining whether the Earth is round. I have no problem with spending time/money on checking out aspects of Wi-Fi and its possible effects on life-forms. I know nothing about the wi-fi issue btw. This is the first I’ve heard of it.
If i have to choose between a Green-Partier who is a bit overly cautious or a bit wary of vaccines/wi-fi/whatever, but who will stop the deadly War On the Poor and the Corporate War on the Biosphere — and Hillary/Trump — I’ll take the Green-Partier every time.
Blah blah blah, politics, blah. Not trying to convince/persuade. Just a post here and there, sharing my ‘own’ small, personal, subjective view.
btw, when i was camping i saw a swarm of yellow swallow-tail butterflies
have a little conference on a patch of sand near a river. Must have been
about fifty of them. Just sitting there, all together in a circle. I think
they were talking about the election.w
vAugust 3, 2016 at 11:38 am #50019bnwBlockedI’m still with Jill. My interpretation is similar to some of the folks that commented after the article. I think basically she’s saying “lets take these questions/concerns seriously, and not just blow them off, and lets do more research on these issues.” And i agree with that approach. I also dont have a problem with her view of computers/corporations/profit/schools.
w
vThat’s fine. There are still more issues in which I agree with Jill than disagree.
But this fear of wifi stuff is ridiculous. The incidence rate of brain cancer is no higher now than prior to the incidence of wifi. And it hasn’t been ‘blown off’. Countless studies have shown there is no link. As pervasive as wifi is today, if it caused cancer, there would be a huge increase in cases. But that hasn’t happened. This is not a question that should be continue to be taken seriously because it simply isn’t supported by data.
Should we continue to spend time and resources determining whether the Earth is round because some people continue to take that question seriously?
So you don’t believe the increasing electromagnetic burden is a cause for concern?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
August 3, 2016 at 12:18 pm #50024ZooeyModeratorSo you don’t believe the increasing electromagnetic burden is a cause for concern?
He has a special hat he wears for protection.
August 3, 2016 at 12:29 pm #50026waterfieldParticipantSome people simply could care less about “science” and so her wacky comments mean little to them. Furthermore, I would never vote for someone ONLY because he or she has the same views as I do. There is so much more that goes into whether or not an individual is qualified to be President of this country. My dry cleaner thinks like I do but I’m not voting for him should he run for the office-something he has threatened to do.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by waterfield.
August 3, 2016 at 12:40 pm #50028nittany ramModeratorI’m still with Jill. My interpretation is similar to some of the folks that commented after the article. I think basically she’s saying “lets take these questions/concerns seriously, and not just blow them off, and lets do more research on these issues.” And i agree with that approach. I also dont have a problem with her view of computers/corporations/profit/schools.
w
vThat’s fine. There are still more issues in which I agree with Jill than disagree.
But this fear of wifi stuff is ridiculous. The incidence rate of brain cancer is no higher now than prior to the incidence of wifi. And it hasn’t been ‘blown off’. Countless studies have shown there is no link. As pervasive as wifi is today, if it caused cancer, there would be a huge increase in cases. But that hasn’t happened. This is not a question that should be continue to be taken seriously because it simply isn’t supported by data.
Should we continue to spend time and resources determining whether the Earth is round because some people continue to take that question seriously?
—————-
I dont think we should spend time/money on determining whether the Earth is round. I have no problem with spending time/money on checking out aspects of Wi-Fi and its possible effects on life-forms. I know nothing about the wi-fi issue btw. This is the first I’ve heard of it.
If i have to choose between a Green-Partier who is a bit overly cautious or a bit wary of vaccines/wi-fi/whatever, but who will stop the deadly War On the Poor and the Corporate War on the Biosphere — and Hillary/Trump — I’ll take the Green-Partier every time.
Blah blah blah, politics, blah. Not trying to convince/persuade. Just a post here and there, sharing my ‘own’ small, personal, subjective view.
btw, when i was camping i saw a swarm of yellow swallow-tail butterflies
have a little conference on a patch of sand near a river. Must have been
about fifty of them. Just sitting there, all together in a circle. I think
they were talking about the election.w
vAbout 70000 people or so in the US die of vaccine preventable diseases each year. Many of them are poor. Stein’s stance fans the flames of anti-vaccination propaganda that contributes to that number. In this sense she is hurting the poor by not being a proponent of vaccinations. She’s hurting the very people she means to help. Sort of a friendly fire event in defence the poor.
August 3, 2016 at 12:51 pm #50031bnwBlockedMany people are harmed by vaccines. Giving babies so many vaccines at the same time or over such a short period of time doesn’t seem safe to me. So much trouble with it there has to be a “Vaccine Court”.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
August 3, 2016 at 1:08 pm #50034nittany ramModeratorMany people are harmed by vaccines. Giving babies so many vaccines at the same time or over such a short period of time doesn’t seem safe to me. So much trouble with it there has to be a “Vaccine Court”.
Actually the number of people harmed by vaccines is incredibly low especially when you consider the millions of people vaccinated each year.
August 3, 2016 at 1:31 pm #50035bnwBlockedMany people are harmed by vaccines. Giving babies so many vaccines at the same time or over such a short period of time doesn’t seem safe to me. So much trouble with it there has to be a “Vaccine Court”.
Actually the number of people harmed by vaccines is incredibly low especially when you consider the millions of people vaccinated each year.
Then why the need for a “Vaccine Court”?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
August 3, 2016 at 5:28 pm #50067nittany ramModeratorMany people are harmed by vaccines. Giving babies so many vaccines at the same time or over such a short period of time doesn’t seem safe to me. So much trouble with it there has to be a “Vaccine Court”.
Actually the number of people harmed by vaccines is incredibly low especially when you consider the millions of people vaccinated each year.
Then why the need for a “Vaccine Court”?
I wasn’t aware it existed before you mentioned it. From what I’ve read it was established in response to a scare over the DPT vaccine in the mid eighties although medical professionals at the time believed the scare to be unfounded. It is a civil court. Some big awards were handed out to plaintiffs and many vaccine manufacturers stopped making the DPT vaccine in response. You only need to have a preponderance of evidence that whatever harm you experienced was caused by the vaccine. And you’re convincing a judge, not a panel of scientists, doctors or vaccine experts. Most cases they get are dismissed anyway.
If someone is truly injured by a vaccine I have no problem with them being financially compensated although that can be hard to prove one way or the other.
August 4, 2016 at 2:39 am #50120Eternal RamnationParticipantThe problem is she’s an MD. and is not an anti-vac. She is anti corporate control over drug safety which is a good thing. Science ? The science on mercury is undeniable , it is not healthy and there is no reason beside big Pharma’s profit margin to be dosing children with the shit. Why do you think Monsanto fights so hard against labeling GMOs ? Those who want to eat Glyphosate can eat all they want but the fact is if they labeled it nobody would buy it on
purpose. The yield bs Golden rice was going to save the world for the last 15 years , talk about junk science. Capitalism is not good science. It doesn’t boost yield it pollutes heirloom seed stock, that’s what it was designed for to monopolize the world’s food source for profit.
If you doubt this I have a challenge for you try to find some non GMO Glyphosate free corn. It is in every fucking thing including indigenous peoples breast milk.August 4, 2016 at 7:05 am #50124nittany ramModeratorThe problem is she’s an MD. and is not an anti-vac. She is anti corporate control over drug safety which is a good thing. Science ? The science on mercury is undeniable , it is not healthy and there is no reason beside big Pharma’s profit margin to be dosing children with the shit. Why do you think Monsanto fights so hard against labeling GMOs ? Those who want to eat Glyphosate can eat all they want but the fact is if they labeled it nobody would buy it on
purpose. The yield bs Golden rice was going to save the world for the last 15 years , talk about junk science. Capitalism is not good science. It doesn’t boost yield it pollutes heirloom seed stock, that’s what it was designed for to monopolize the world’s food source for profit.
If you doubt this I have a challenge for you try to find some non GMO Glyphosate free corn. It is in every fucking thing including indigenous peoples breast milk.Mercury is used in medicines to prevent bacterial contamination. Mercury is dangerous because it remains in your body and can build to toxic levels. Not all mercury is the same though. Mercury in the form of thimersol is/was used in vaccines (it’s no longer used in children’s vaccines). Thimersol does not remain in the body so there’s no buildup and therefore it does no harm as studies have shown.
I’m not going to get into yet another discussion about GMO vs Organics. I’ll just leave this here. Read it if you want.
August 4, 2016 at 12:27 pm #50140bnwBlockedThe rest of the world is refusing our GMO agri products. It is a major non MSM reported cause of the US-Russia rift over the Ukraine. Hildabeast on the take for that too?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
August 4, 2016 at 12:31 pm #50141bnwBlockedThimersol does not remain in the body so there’s no buildup and therefore it does no harm as studies have shown.
How can you be certain harm is from “buildup” and not simple systemic exposure?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
August 5, 2016 at 4:24 am #50179Eternal RamnationParticipantThe problem is she’s an MD. and is not an anti-vac. She is anti corporate control over drug safety which is a good thing. Science ? The science on mercury is undeniable , it is not healthy and there is no reason beside big Pharma’s profit margin to be dosing children with the shit. Why do you think Monsanto fights so hard against labeling GMOs ? Those who want to eat Glyphosate can eat all they want but the fact is if they labeled it nobody would buy it on
purpose. The yield bs Golden rice was going to save the world for the last 15 years , talk about junk science. Capitalism is not good science. It doesn’t boost yield it pollutes heirloom seed stock, that’s what it was designed for to monopolize the world’s food source for profit.
If you doubt this I have a challenge for you try to find some non GMO Glyphosate free corn. It is in every fucking thing including indigenous peoples breast milk.Mercury is used in medicines to prevent bacterial contamination. Mercury is dangerous because it remains in your body and can build to toxic levels. Not all mercury is the same though. Mercury in the form of thimersol is/was used in vaccines (it’s no longer used in children’s vaccines). Thimersol does not remain in the body so there’s no buildup and therefore it does no harm as studies have shown.
I’m not going to get into yet another discussion about GMO vs Organics. I’ll just leave this here. Read it if you want.
That’s not my debate Nittany, My question is why does Monsanto fight so hard against labeling GMO’s ?
August 5, 2016 at 6:41 am #50195nittany ramModeratorThimersol does not remain in the body so there’s no buildup and therefore it does no harm as studies have shown.
How can you be certain harm is from “buildup” and not simple systemic exposure?
Because all this stuff has been studied and studied in animal trials and clinical trials with humans. Years and years of research is conducted on a medication before it’s cleared for use. Each vaccine delivers only 25 micrograms of mercury per dose. That dose is too small to do harm but because it’s bound up in thimersol it is excreted and doesn’t stay in the body anyway. And again, children’s vaccines no longer have even this. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible for some people to have a bad reaction to a vaccine. That does happen but it happens very infrequently. The WHO’s (World Health Organization, not the band) numbers show the chances of having a bad reaction to MMR vaccine is less than 1 in a million.
Vaccines are the single biggest medical breakthrough in the history of mankind and its not even close. The measles vaccine alone has saved over 18 million kids. People have to ask themselves what would they rather do – deal with the minute risk associated with vaccines or deal with polio.
August 5, 2016 at 7:00 am #50196nittany ramModeratorThe problem is she’s an MD. and is not an anti-vac. She is anti corporate control over drug safety which is a good thing. Science ? The science on mercury is undeniable , it is not healthy and there is no reason beside big Pharma’s profit margin to be dosing children with the shit. Why do you think Monsanto fights so hard against labeling GMOs ? Those who want to eat Glyphosate can eat all they want but the fact is if they labeled it nobody would buy it on
purpose. The yield bs Golden rice was going to save the world for the last 15 years , talk about junk science. Capitalism is not good science. It doesn’t boost yield it pollutes heirloom seed stock, that’s what it was designed for to monopolize the world’s food source for profit.
If you doubt this I have a challenge for you try to find some non GMO Glyphosate free corn. It is in every fucking thing including indigenous peoples breast milk.Mercury is used in medicines to prevent bacterial contamination. Mercury is dangerous because it remains in your body and can build to toxic levels. Not all mercury is the same though. Mercury in the form of thimersol is/was used in vaccines (it’s no longer used in children’s vaccines). Thimersol does not remain in the body so there’s no buildup and therefore it does no harm as studies have shown.
I’m not going to get into yet another discussion about GMO vs Organics. I’ll just leave this here. Read it if you want.
That’s not my debate Nittany, My question is why does Monsanto fight so hard against labeling GMO’s ?
I’m sure it’s because they are afraid it will hurt sales. Anything with a warning label has a stigma attached to it, right? But the thing is, if we are going by the “people have a right to know what’s in their food” arguement then it’s hypocritical to force GMOs to be labeled and not so called “organic” foods. Big Organic uses chemical mutagens and hybridization to alter the DNA of their crops to get desired characteristics. They also use pesticides. Shouldn’t people have a right to know that as well? I mean, when people are willing to pay three times as much for organic food I’m assuming they think they are getting food that’s free of ‘chemicals’ and pesticides. But they’re not. Now, I know there isn’t a single thing harmful about the mutagens Big Organic uses so it shouldn’t be labeled. But the same is true for GMOs. GMOs are the most studied food out there and every reputable study has shown them to be safe. This isn’t about Monsanto for me. I don’t care about Monsanto. I think they should be heavily regulated like I think all big corps should but I do care about GMOs because I think they will be necessary to feed the 10 billion people we will have by 2050 without plowing under the last remaining wild areas and forests of the earth for farm land.
August 5, 2016 at 8:35 am #50202PA RamParticipantInteresting, Nittany. But what about patenting seeds? What about terminator seed technology? That seems to be messing with nature in a bad way.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
August 5, 2016 at 9:46 am #50205nittany ramModeratorInteresting, Nittany. But what about patenting seeds? What about terminator seed technology? That seems to be messing with nature in a bad way.
Many plants are patented, GMO and non-GMO alike. The terminator seed is a name given to the sterile seed technology by anti-biotech activists. They are actually not being used anywhere.
August 5, 2016 at 10:44 am #50216PA RamParticipantMany plants are patented, GMO and non-GMO alike. The terminator seed is a name given to the sterile seed technology by anti-biotech activists. They are actually not being used anywhere.
Well, that is interesting and something I didn’t know. I think that’s a good thing because I’m all for using technology in positive ways–as long as we don’t create a “Frankenstein” along the way.
The growing population is something we will certainly have to deal with and no one ever seems to talk about that problem.
One thing I think regarding that is that I will not spend thousands of dollars to freeze my head so that in the future they will be able to unfreeze it and then clone me a body because–let’s face it–the future population will be worried about feeding itself. They ain’t bringing back PA Ram to feed. Unless they DO bring me back and then turn me into Soylent Green by cloning me a plump 600 pound body.
Doctor: “Welcome back, PA Ram! Glad to have you with us again.”
Me: “Doctor? Why am I so fat?”
Doctor: “Let me ask you–are you a fan of old Charlton Heston movies?”
Me: “AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!”
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
August 5, 2016 at 12:29 pm #50225nittany ramModeratorMany plants are patented, GMO and non-GMO alike. The terminator seed is a name given to the sterile seed technology by anti-biotech activists. They are actually not being used anywhere.
Well, that is interesting and something I didn’t know. I think that’s a good thing because I’m all for using technology in positive ways–as long as we don’t create a “Frankenstein” along the way.
The growing population is something we will certainly have to deal with and no one ever seems to talk about that problem.
One thing I think regarding that is that I will not spend thousands of dollars to freeze my head so that in the future they will be able to unfreeze it and then clone me a body because–let’s face it–the future population will be worried about feeding itself. They ain’t bringing back PA Ram to feed. Unless they DO bring me back and then turn me into Soylent Green by cloning me a plump 600 pound body.
Doctor: “Welcome back, PA Ram! Glad to have you with us again.”
Me: “Doctor? Why am I so fat?”
Doctor: “Let me ask you–are you a fan of old Charlton Heston movies?”
Me: “AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!”
Maybe we could kill two birds with one stone? We could feed the masses and be environmentally friendly by killing and eating invasive species…you know, species that aren’t native to a location but were introduced and now are proliferating out of control. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of that in the US from the European Starling that displaces native hole nesting birds to Japanese Knotweed which is choking our river banks. “I’ll have the baked starling and a knotweed salad with balsamic vinaigrette…”
Actually I’m only half kidding about that.
August 5, 2016 at 1:04 pm #50233bnwBlockedMonsanto is suiciding farmers by forcing their seeds on them. Farmers are prevented from saving their own seed simply to bolster profit for Monsanto. However the worst of all is when the GMO pollen contaminates other non GMO crops the resulting crops are considered GMO by theft and Monsanto sues the farmers! Monsanto is the definition of evil fucking over the food supply while buying the courts and government to get away with it.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
August 5, 2016 at 1:17 pm #50238nittany ramModeratorMonsanto has sued many farmers that they claimed stole their seeds but they have never sued anyone whose fields have been accidentally pollinated by their products.
August 5, 2016 at 1:36 pm #50239bnwBlockedMonsanto has sued many farmers that they claimed stole their seeds but they have never sued anyone whose fields have been accidentally pollinated by their products.
Don’t buy their lies. Ask Percy Schmeiser
Finally… Solo Farmer Fights Monsanto and Wins
December 25, 2011.
By Dr. Mercola
Monsanto has long been trying to establish control over the seeds of the plants that produce food for the world.
They have already patented a number of genetically altered food crops, which can only be grown with proper license, and the seeds for which must be purchased anew each year.
But genetically engineered crops cannot be contained.
And rather than being found guilty of contaminating farmers’ property, Monsanto has successfully sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement.
Many farmers have subsequently, quite literally, lost their farms.
Percy Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, Canada, was also a victim of Monsanto’s vile ways.
Schmeiser worked on farming and developing his own seeds for 50 years, and when his fields were contaminated, Monsanto threatened him, intimidated him, and tried to take his land away.
But Schmeiser refused to give in, and eventually beat them in court.
David versus Goliath
Percy’s story is a classic case of David versus Goliath, and his victory is no doubt momentous.
It all began in 1998, at which time Schmeiser had grown canola on his farm for 40 years. Like any other traditional farmer, he used his own seeds, saved from the previous harvest. But, like hundreds of other North American farmers, Schmeiser ended up being sued by Monsanto for ‘patent infringement.’
More than 320 hectares were found to be contaminated with Roundup Ready canola—the biotech giant’s patented canola, genetically engineered to tolerate otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate. The company sought damages totaling $400,000.
Most farmers end up settling, but Schmeiser was angry enough to fight back. In a 1999 interview, Schmeiser stated:
“I never put those plants on my land. The question is, where do Monsanto’s rights end and mine begin?”
The case eventually went before the Federal Court of Canada. Schmeiser in turn accused Monsanto of:
Libel, by publicly accusing him of committing illegal acts
Trespassing
Improperly obtaining samples of his seed from a local seed plant
Callous disregard for the environment by introducing genetically modified crops without proper controls and containment
Contamination of his crops with unwanted GM plants
After 10 Years, Monsanto Agrees to Pay for CleanupAfter a decade-long battle, Schmeiser won when, in March 2008, Monsanto settled out of court, agreeing to pay for all cleanup costs. The agreement also specified that Schmeiser would not be under gag-order, and that Monsanto can be sued for recontamination.
This was a much-needed win not just for Schmeiser, but for farmers everywhere. It set the precedence that farmers may be entitled to reimbursement when their fields are contaminated with unwanted GM crops (as indeed they should!). On Schmeiser’s website, http://www.percyschmeiser.com, he states:
“If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots–destroy what they have worked on for 40 years–I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away.”
However, that’s not to say that farmers have nothing to fear anymore… The Federal Court of Canada did uphold the validity of Monsanto’s patent, dismissing Schmeiser’s challenge to the patent based on the fact that Monsanto cannot control its spread. Worse yet, while the judge agreed that a farmer can generally claim ownership of crops growing in his fields when they’re inadvertently carried there by pollen or wind, this does not hold true when it comes to patented, genetically modified seed. Schmeiser was deeply upset about this particular part of the ruling, as the implications are huge.
Still, in this case, while Monsanto’s patent was still deemed valid and enforceable, Schmeiser was not forced to pay for the ‘privilege’ of having his fields contaminated…
This landmark case is now featured in the documentary film “David versus Monsanto.” (See the trailer above.)
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
August 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm #50245wvParticipantI think its important to separate two issues:
Monsanto, being one,
and GMO’s being the other.Monsanto is a typical mega-corporate-predator,
that puts profit over people.Whether GMO’s are harmful or not,
is a separate issue.I dunno whether GMO’s are harmful or not.
w
vAugust 5, 2016 at 2:57 pm #50246bnwBlockedI know that patenting genes is a bitch slap to common sense. Of course GMO isn’t good. It is a racket to OWN the food supply. It is the ultimate power play against mankind.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.