I have two new stories nearly finished, but I've decided to see if I can sell first publication rights to a magazine. If everyone rejects them, I'll post them then. If one is accepted, it will likely be quite a while before I can post.
Walking through the City Plaza park, which is right across the street from the police department, one will always smell pot. Always.
There is a park that is supposedly a "drug free zone" with "enhanced penalties" (super law) where you can find people smoking pot throughout the day.
Laws typically do not deter people from anything. There are plenty of laws against smoking Pot, it hasn't stopped any of it
The problem with our legal system are the things that often start with "There ought to be a law".
No, there shouldn't be a law, because laws that can be abused, will be abused, and the law will not actually stop anyone from anything.
vast majority of lung cancer is people who smoked
But also true is not everyone that smokes get lung cancer. Some, die of a ripe old age of other "natural" causes (not normally associated with smoking).
The language being used in the arguments against diet having any relation to health is typically "all or nothing" logic, where neither extreme is accurate. Which is my whole point. Smoking increases the risk of cancer (causes), while eating well decreases the risk (prevents).
Herd Immunity doesn't apply to Vaccines.
Disease-conferred immunity usually lasted a lifetime. As each new generation of children contracted the infection, the immunity of those previously infected was renewed due to their continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease; except for newly-infected children and the few individuals who’d never had the disease or been exposed to it, the ‘herd immunity’ of the entire population was maintained at all times.
Since Vaccines actually break "herd immunity", by not allowing natural cyclical re-exposure that is needed to maintain immunity. This is the lie of the Vaccine Big Pharma machine. This is why they are pushing vaccinations to protect against previously vaccinated people from getting the disease.
The problem is, as we found in the Disneyland case, was the vaccine didn't protect against out of zone (aisian in this case) version of Measles. Go figure, the herd immunity was gone.
So, you make my case that Measles vaccine doesn't prevent measles. I've been called uninformed because I know this fact.
Measles is miserable. Never said otherwise. But it also usually doesn't have long term adverse effects, that Vitamin A can't take care of. But Injecting poison into your body does have long term effects, and is actually harmful to about the same percentage of people who get adverse reactions to measles.
I am informed, you just don't like the information.
unless it's outright rotten, it hasn't lost its nutritional value.
Even rotting food is nutritious
Well, "eating right" meaning balanced menu.
As opposed to bacon wrapped pork chops in a butter cream sauce.
Eating fresh fruits and vegetables is proven to contribute to good health. Eating poorly contributes to all sorts of health problems. I know people who get sick regularly, who eat crappy food (if you can even call it "food"). They refuse to believe diet affects health. You're not one of those are you?
Would you say that smoking causes cancer?
Plenty of people live long lives and don't have adverse effects from smoking, dying of old age. Using your "all or none" approach, then smoking cannot be said to "cause cancer" because some people don't get cancer when they smoke for years.
Do Vaccines Prevent Measles? Then why do people with Measles vaccines get Measles (rare, but it happens)? So, using your logic, you cannot say Measles Vaccine prevents measles, because it isn't 100%.
Unfortunately eating right isn't as easy as not smoking. And that is the difference. It is easy to eat nothing but McDonalds and KFC, but that isn't eating well. Eating well is a choice, just like smoking is a choice.
To eat right, one must search for fresh and natural foods. Trust me, it isn't as simple as "not smoking".
Eating right means your immune system is able to fend off everyday environmental hazards. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative (Starbucks n Krispie Kreame for every meal)
And unfortunately for some, once the Cancer has arrived, eating right won't help, as the immune system is already compromised. Eating right helps keep the immune system optimized (helps, not perfect).
Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong.
You are absolutely wrong. Eating right does prevent some cancers, because eating right reduces the risk of cancer, thus can be said to prevent. This is not "all or nothing" claim, which you are making it. Reducing the risk, means you prevent some.
Just as the opposite is true, increasing risk means "causes at least some" as in Smoking. Does smoking cause cancer if someone smokes their whole life and dies at age 100 of old age? Why yes, yes it does. It doesn't cause it in everyone. Increasing risk means helps cause
If eating better reduces the risk of cancer, then by definition it prevents SOME cancer. Remove the "SOME" and the statement still implies "SOME". If you assume "ALL" instead of "SOME", it does break, because "ALL" and "NONE" are rarely true absolutes.
reduce the chances of getting cancer, but it has no hope of actually preventing it
If you reduce the chance, you do prevent it in at least some cases. So, your statement is in fact not accurate, as there is HOPE. I will repeat it, EATING well does prevent cancer in at least some people. Further, eating well does can reduce the severity of cancer, and that gives you a much better chance of beating it (at least certain forms). But if you insist on eating Bacon Wrapped Pork Chops thinking it doesn't matter to your health by all means keep eating it.