Comment Re:Let's look at the data (Score 1, Troll) 59
Aren't most propellants for food/human use nitrous oxide? Then the answer would be 0.
Could be, but not for asthma inhalers.
Aren't most propellants for food/human use nitrous oxide? Then the answer would be 0.
Could be, but not for asthma inhalers.
How many asthma patients have died as a result of this plan, because they can't use CFC propellants for their medication?
[mercola.com]
According to recent information and studies there seems to something to the Low Carb High Fat diet, not just for weight loss, but for much better serum cholesterol numbers and lower inflammation markers. But citing Joe Mercola probably isn't convincing anybody of the credibility of what you're saying.
Your link is nothing but stuff the FDA complained about Mercola doing. Frankly, in my book, anyone that the big-pharma paid and Monsanto-protecting corporate-controlled bully that the FDA is today wants to discredit must be someone who is doing something right.
Everything about that link screams "quack", as do your claims:
I prefer the term "crackpot". But of course it seems that way to people that have only seen the mainstream nutrition ideas we are bombarded with on a daily basis. I came to my understanding faced with an incurable terminal illness. We were planning for the funeral until I decided to try to do my own research and try nutritional treatments. It was a truly stunning and miraculous transformation. The disease is still there, and death will come, but it's many years off now, not just a few months, the oxygen tanks are gone because they aren't needed any more, and life has real QUALITY now, even though there are a few things I still can't do.
Furthermore you might consider linking to the source material you cite rather than an editorial in a random non-peer reviewed website that refers negatively to statin drugs as "mainstream medicine". That is not what I would consider an unbiased or credible source and it casts your argument in a worse light than it probably deserves.
I've done extensive research in this area for myself and family's health. There is a LOT more to it, but I recommend eliminating wheat to everyone, because candida overgrowth can cause so many issues, and it's fed by wheat and sugar. I'm advocate because of the huge health benefits WE have seen for ourselves. There is not room here to go posting the volumes of research I have, but a good place to start is William Davis' book Wheat Belly.
Its the carbohydrates not the protein in wheat that makes us fat.
Well maybe, but you won't find many foods that have wheat gluten and nothing else from the wheat, plus it all depends on who you ask. I've lost weight since I went gluten free, but I've made other changes too (like avoiding processed sugar and eating more saturated fats), so can't attribute my own success to wheat avoidance alone.
The same can be said of cholesterol, statin drugs and heart disease but they're still a good idea.
No, they are not. Cholesterol has been labeled a boogeyman, along with saturated fats, but it's all based on erroneous or over-hyped information. That has given us margarine (plastic for your body), high carbohydrate diets loaded with wheat gluten, and the result is massive obesity - and all the concomitant health issues.
You NEED a good amount of cholesterol for a healthy nervous system, and avoiding eggs and cholesterol containing foods in general is thought to be responsible for the increase in Alzheimer's disease, among other issues.
Two strategies are working:
...
2.) Embedded ads are beginning to be the norm, where the content consumer is unaware that they are being targeted or, they know, but there isn't anything they can do about it.
I disagree that those are working. Yes, they can target you from cookie data, and that works to show you ads. But what I've notices is I get TONS of "targeted" ads for stuff I just bought. I don't need a hotel room right after I just booked one. I don't need any of this stuff I bought yesterday, or last week. And while I recognize what I did to get certain "targeted" ads, I do nothing based on them, and no one I've ever talked to ever click on them or buy anything based on seeing them. So as far as I can tell they don't really work to improve revenue.
There have actually been studies that have demonstrated that, but for some reason the marketers still spending money on them haven't been clued into it yet. Yet.
All that advertising stuff has given them deep pockets.
Yes, and they are throwing it at all kinds of ideas hoping something pays off big before it dawns on all the marketing folks that "Internet advertising" is practically worthless, and the market collapses. A British study recently estimated that everyone could have ad-free Internet for something like $29 / mo. That would be a bargain, particularly when you realize it would also eliminate all the web poisoning by people trying to game the advertisers.
Good troll. I was really, really tempted to give you a "Funny" mod. Here's some kudos instead.
...and the most likely contender for a Presidential run in 2016.
Pft. Not if we can get Elizabeth Warren to run!
The amount of actual evidence out there that Sarkeesian has been willing to lie about threats is zero
Please present it. I don't think you can.
How is someone supposed to present evidence of no evidence? The OP cannot find any existing evidence that Sarkeesian has lied or is willing to lie about threats. I suppose they could present their search result pages, but that doesn't actually prove anything.
As for evidence of the threats, here's a post she made on twitter highlighting an example of a specific threat
She could have created that account and posts herself. I haven't seen a police report to back up the claim that she "notified authorities". She has previously been caught lifting someone else's art for use in her money-making efforts, as well as trolling 4-chan then claiming she didn't know anything about 4-chan. In short, she is not a credible figure.
I personally have been somewhat critical of Sarkeesian, but hearing this really makes me feel bad.
Well, then it looks like her marketing campaign (because that's what this is) seems to be working. The YouTube comments don't look like anything worse than you can find on many YouTube videos - it has to be the most inane set of commenters anywhere on the Internet. The set of threats from the one Twitter account certainly justifies calling the authorities, but there is no evidence it is a real person and not part of her marketing campaign.
You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one),
A quick glance around the internets suggests that it was promoted by the Romney campaign, including his self, but has a history going back reps calling single-payer health care "Hillarycare". So no, definitely "Obamacare" as well.
No doubt Romney's campaign used the term, but it was in widespread use long before then. Everything that I've read indicates that Hillary's primary campaign actually coined the term, so you might have a point that it was a campaign that promoted, but both of those were presidential campaigns, not "shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns."
Death panels. Obamacare. Birthers. The memes don't have to be jokes.
You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one), or "Birthers", which was certainly an organic meme, to describe people questioning Obama's origins. It's also a form of the "something-ers" form of describing a group (deniers, anti-vacciners, etc.), which as I recall sprang out of calling the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "truthers".
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.
