Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

Wendy wrote:
> Most studies on anything should be ignored.  I think they should be
> required to name who funded the study to be published.

That would make too much sense and provide too much transparency, now
wouldn't it?  Perhaps we should all start a letter writing campaign to
the new administration and be sure to use the word transparency.  Now
THAT would definitely lead to a visible CHANGE in everything, wouldn't it?

 I took a class in college
> that required us to take a survey topic and prove it regardless of
> whether the outcome was actually what could be predicted or not.  It
> was a class in statistical methodology.  We used the phrasing of our
> questions and the selection of our sample.  What I learned was that
> ANYTHING can be proven if it is presented and sampled correctly.  At
> the time, I thought the class was a waste of my time.  But I have
> relied on what I learned from that class so many times throughout my
> life to spot the BS that I wish I had taken it more seriously at the
> time.

I see those results in practice almost every day.  Look at the CNN
quickvote for a week or so and you can see the presentation issue
clearly.  Since CNN is liberal they present liberally minded stories,
and often the quickvote doesn't even have a conservative answer as a
choice.  It's definitely not scientific, and I think most polls are like
that.



> I don't believe that statins can cause cancer.  I believe that cancer
> is an anaerobic virus we get by consuming other cancer infested
> flesh, similar to how cattle contracts BSE.  Our bodies can control
> cancers until we have a situation where tissue is weakened or is
> unable to heal (statins).

That is a really interesting disease concept, Wen. I like it, but I'd
bet that others here don't...that concept seemingly has the potential to
remove some personal responsibility, doesn't it?
Intuitively, I believe that some cancers are caused by viri, too. A
virus is just a weird 'life' form...it behaves like a life form in some
ways, like a non-life form in other ways.  Many are extremophiles, and
the way they 'reproduce' is totally alien to the rest of life on the
planet.  It is too cool.  I do believe that environmental toxins are
also a big culprit for causing cancer.  Whether we eat them or breathe
them or absorb them through our skin, I believe that at a minimum they
damage our organs to the point that it makes us more susceptible to
cancer, and worse, possibly switches on genes to make future generations
more susceptible.  That is my personal belief, however.  Did you ever
notice that there can be as much variation in scientific 'belief'
(acceptance of theories) as in religious beliefs?



 That is
> the link.  The cancer was already present when the statins were 
> administered, but it didn't cause it, just allowed it to express.
> Severe liver problems would be just a natural outcome of long term
> use of statins. How statins work is to inhibit liver function.  That
> is their purpose.  The problem with any drug that artificially
> inhibits any metabolic function in the body is that many, many
> functions are linked and use the by-products of one function in
> another.  Inhibiting one function can greatly impact another.


Exactly.  I am working on another health post about taking statins...I
got my bloodwork back..not great news, but workable.


Bev


--
"The world is my country, all mankind are my
 brethren, and to do good is my religion."
 Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)