So it's no secret I'm a big fan of the Dutch. Being of Dutch heritage myself, I take every opportunity I have to enjoy all things Dutch. Gouda, pickled herring, ridiculously bright orange soccer jerseys, olliebollen, and the little wooden shoe I wear around my neck given to me by a charming old Dutchman who wears real wooden shoes, every day of the year, even in the dead of a Canadian winter. It was with little surprise then when I read in Discover magazine of Oostvaardersplassen, a most incredible idea dreamed up by none other than the Dutch.
A little background: in traditional ecology-think, there is a theory known as succession. That is, that if you leave any given northern habitat alone, it will eventually become a closed canopy forest, like the great Boreal forest covering large swaths of North America. But a Dutch scientist saw a hole in this theory and questioned how, if this were in fact true, why did prehuman Europe have so many large grazing animals? Grazers cannot survive in a closed canopy forest. Nor can oak trees, which require ample light and for which there is substantial evidence of existence throughout Europe in prehistoric times. In order to test his theory, he needed a massive tract of undisturbed land. Coming by that in the most densely populated nation in Europe could not be easy. But as luck would have it, a large land area that had been reclaimed from the sea by the Dutch to build factories on had been abandoned when the economy tanked in the 80s. And so you have Oostvaardersplassen.
This Dutch scientist set about implementing something called rewilding. Essentially what he has done is turned the theory of succession on its head. Instead of saying that the forest is the default ecosystem and animal behavior follows this trajectory, his thought is that if humans would just keep their hands off, animals themselves shape the land and it will become what the animals make of it. He has introduced species into Oostvaardersplassen that closely mimic large grazers that would have existed in prehistoric times: red deer, wild horses, and wild cattle. The genius is that he just lets them be. If they have a tough winter, they die. Unfortunately (in my eyes), special interest animal protection groups got involved and he had to compromise by having wildlife officers watch out for animals that were clearly to weak to continue living and kill them, which is apparently the compassionate thing to do. The amazing thing is that these processes have allowed a vibrant grassland/wetland ecosystem to take hold and no signs of a forest taking over have emerged. The other amazing thing is that it has brought strength back to an eagle species that hasn't been seen in significant numbers in Europe for a century. The most amazing thing? This is happening only 20 minutes outside of Amsterdam.
It's an incredible story and again exposes for me the folly of human thinking that we always know best. One thing that was interesting in the story was that in North America, there is very little evidence of forest fires before woolly mammoths went extinct. The thinking is that they foraged all the combustible detritus. When they died off, BOOM, forest fires. Yet now we selectively cull certain animal populations that are "getting out of hand", do controlled forest fires, relocate wolves, and on and on. Of course, the problem is that if we just let nature do its thing, we think we wouldn't be able to continue doing our thing: building houses wherever we feel like and filling them with lots of stuff we don't need that were produced from the very ecosystems we are trying to save in some lame attempt at repentance for our sin of living grossly beyond our means.
Check out the pics at http://oostvaardersplassen.biofaan.nl/
For this and many other fascinating stories, pick up a copy of Discover magazine some time. I've been a subscriber for 10+ years and have never been disappointed!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Liars
I haven't blogged in a while, but I just had to intervene on this infuriating commercial Chevrolet keeps running about how their Malibu is so much better than the Toyota Camry or Honda Accord in fuel mileage ratings. They also run equally annoying ads about how their cars and trucks have better fuel economy than Toyota and Honda and that they are first in class. Now, I didn't get the chance to read the miniscule writing that clarifies their statements but allow me to challenge this since I'm of the mind, correctly or not, that non-American cars are superior in every way, not the least of which is fuel economy.
First, the Malibu claim.
I don't bother looking at manufacturer's claims of fuel economy because they're notoriously unreliable. So I look at two references: the Government of Canada's Energuide ratings and Globe Auto's ratings. According to Globe Auto, on Highway Fuel Economy, which Chevrolet claims is the best on Malibu, Malibu equals Accord and is bested by the Camry. It is better than Accord on combined fuel economy but is slaughtered by the Camry. Energuide looks like maybe Malibu slightly edges out both in their tests on highway.
Next, the "best-in-class" claim. For this I will use Energuide because they rank by class. The ONLY Chevrolet vehicle that has best-in-class fuel economy is the Chevrolet Express Cargo Van. Top seller for sure. The Impala has a decent showing at 4th in its class. So if Chevy doesn't top the classes in combined fuel economy, who does? (For this I have looked only at 2010 models with automatic transmissions and gasoline engines just to avoid bias toward the diesels and manual transmissions)
Two-seater: Smart Fortwo
Subcompact: Toyota Yaris; Chevy Aveo comes in behind Yaris and Honda Civic
Compact: Top 4 cars are hybrids; top non-hybrid is VW Golf GTI Clean Diesel; Kia Rio (my car!) is #1 of compact regular gasoline cars; Chevy falls at 14th behind Hyundai Accent, Toyota Corolla, and Kia Rio.
Mid-Size: Again, top 4 are hybrid, including Prius (our car!); top gasoline car is Nissan Versa
The illustrious Chevy Malibu is beaten by the following foreign cars: Nissan Sentra, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, Hyundai Elantra. In fairness to American car makers, Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid make respectable showings.
Full-size: Chevy's best showing, with a 5th place Impala behind the superior Hyundai Sonata and Honda Accords with 2 different trims. Toyota Avalon is left in the dust in this case.
Station-wagon (if you're so inclined): Audi A3 TDI wins if you can afford one; VW TDI Clean Diesel for real people; Chevy has no cars in this lineup but the Pontiac Vibe gets creamed by the Honda Fit, Nissan Cube, and Kia Soul. Toyota again makes a poor showing. Wondering if bad brakes and stuck accelerators are all they need to worry about?
Pickup Trucks: For the smaller engines, Chevy Colorado got beat by Toyota Tacoma, Mazda B2300, and Ford Ranger.
Minivans: Mazda5 leaves everyone else so far behind it's hard to compare. But Chevrolet Uplander is way behind even their domestic competition.
Too bad some people believe what they see in commercials.
First, the Malibu claim.
I don't bother looking at manufacturer's claims of fuel economy because they're notoriously unreliable. So I look at two references: the Government of Canada's Energuide ratings and Globe Auto's ratings. According to Globe Auto, on Highway Fuel Economy, which Chevrolet claims is the best on Malibu, Malibu equals Accord and is bested by the Camry. It is better than Accord on combined fuel economy but is slaughtered by the Camry. Energuide looks like maybe Malibu slightly edges out both in their tests on highway.
Next, the "best-in-class" claim. For this I will use Energuide because they rank by class. The ONLY Chevrolet vehicle that has best-in-class fuel economy is the Chevrolet Express Cargo Van. Top seller for sure. The Impala has a decent showing at 4th in its class. So if Chevy doesn't top the classes in combined fuel economy, who does? (For this I have looked only at 2010 models with automatic transmissions and gasoline engines just to avoid bias toward the diesels and manual transmissions)
Two-seater: Smart Fortwo
Subcompact: Toyota Yaris; Chevy Aveo comes in behind Yaris and Honda Civic
Compact: Top 4 cars are hybrids; top non-hybrid is VW Golf GTI Clean Diesel; Kia Rio (my car!) is #1 of compact regular gasoline cars; Chevy falls at 14th behind Hyundai Accent, Toyota Corolla, and Kia Rio.
Mid-Size: Again, top 4 are hybrid, including Prius (our car!); top gasoline car is Nissan Versa
The illustrious Chevy Malibu is beaten by the following foreign cars: Nissan Sentra, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, Hyundai Elantra. In fairness to American car makers, Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid make respectable showings.
Full-size: Chevy's best showing, with a 5th place Impala behind the superior Hyundai Sonata and Honda Accords with 2 different trims. Toyota Avalon is left in the dust in this case.
Station-wagon (if you're so inclined): Audi A3 TDI wins if you can afford one; VW TDI Clean Diesel for real people; Chevy has no cars in this lineup but the Pontiac Vibe gets creamed by the Honda Fit, Nissan Cube, and Kia Soul. Toyota again makes a poor showing. Wondering if bad brakes and stuck accelerators are all they need to worry about?
Pickup Trucks: For the smaller engines, Chevy Colorado got beat by Toyota Tacoma, Mazda B2300, and Ford Ranger.
Minivans: Mazda5 leaves everyone else so far behind it's hard to compare. But Chevrolet Uplander is way behind even their domestic competition.
Too bad some people believe what they see in commercials.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Canada an international disgrace?
A while ago, I read a notion that our minds and our knowledge of world events are very much shaped by the media we are exposed to. I thought this sort of an absurd thing to point out in a day of overwhelming information everywhere you turn. I figured I must be receiving a balanced view of the world through the various channels I follow, be it blogs, Globe and Mail, Google News, etc. etc. Then I found the following articles at the major UK newspaper, the Guardian.
Scientists target Canada over climate change
Canada's image lies in tatters
I knew that Stephen Harper was toying with the notion of not attending the Copenhagen climate talks and that there was some bad blood about this in the international media, but nothing like the above. No calling Canada a "thuggish petro-state" or claiming that the biggest obstacle to a major agreement in Copenhagen is Canada. Any mention of all of this bad press in the Globe and Mail? No. National Post? No.
Not only am I disappointed in the national media I follow, but it just gives me more reason to despise the current group of politicians running this once highly respected nation.
Scientists target Canada over climate change
Canada's image lies in tatters
I knew that Stephen Harper was toying with the notion of not attending the Copenhagen climate talks and that there was some bad blood about this in the international media, but nothing like the above. No calling Canada a "thuggish petro-state" or claiming that the biggest obstacle to a major agreement in Copenhagen is Canada. Any mention of all of this bad press in the Globe and Mail? No. National Post? No.
Not only am I disappointed in the national media I follow, but it just gives me more reason to despise the current group of politicians running this once highly respected nation.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Complete trash
On the tail of my wife's wonderfully concise posting on believing everything you read on the Internet, I've decided to do a nauseatingly verbose case study on the issue. This whole H1N1 paranoia has brought a slew of questions my way. You come to expect this as a pharmacist, and you even get used to dealing with absolutely absurd preconceptions, but nothing on the scale like we're dealing with now.
It didn't surprise me then when I started to receive unsolicited forwards in my e-mail inbox about first the dangers of H1N1 and later the dangers of the vaccine. (It is interesting how the paranoia started out so focused on the disease itself and then quickly morphed into maniacal fear of the vaccine that is the only real way we could fight the disease. How did we do this?)
Friends and family wanted me to evaluate the e-mails and tell me what I thought. Of course, I barely even wanted to give this crap the time of day, so all I said was, "Don't sweat it. It's all crap." But soon that wasn't enough for them. They wanted more. They wanted me to refute the facts (if you can call them that). So here goes. I will now systematically destroy two common e-mails circulating around the world.
1. Keeping cut onions around the house will fend off the flu
Snopes.com has done a wonderful job of this one, so I will just point you there.
2. Dr. Russell Blaylock on Swine Flu
If you haven't seen this e-mail yet, I will post it below as I tear apart each point. However, let us first discuss the purported author. As my astute spouse pointed out, it's highly possible this physician never wrote this article. But reading up on him leads me to believe it is equally likely that he did. Among other things he purports that fluoride is the most dangerous substance known to man, aspartame also causes Gulf War Syndrome (more on that later), sucralose (Splenda) is toxic, and aluminum cookware and dental amalgam can kill you. Fantastic. It doesn't matter of course that none of these positions have any scientific support. Anyways, onto the e-mail.
"No one should take this vaccine-it is one of the most dangerous vaccines ever devised. No citation given. I find it ironic that someone who wants everyone to believe him at face value provides no scientific support to back up his arguments. Oh, maybe that's because no such thing exists. Another argument put forth by supporters of all this paranoia is that this vaccine hasn't been sufficiently tested to use on humans. If that's so, how can we legitimately claim it to be dangerous? It contains an immune adjuvant called squalene (MF-59) which has been shown to cause severe autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus. Again, no citation given. There is no medical evidence linking squalene to multiple sclerosis. Not a single citation in the whole universe of medical literature. What about RA? There are a couple of small rat studies show moderate increases in inflammatory mediators after injection with straight squalene (which does not happen with the vaccine; it's heavily diluted). Even then, the studies show that this increase in inflammation does not lead to arthritis. Plus, not a single human study has been done linking this adjuvant and this condition. I challenge anyone out there to find me proof for this claim. Oh, I almost forgot about lupus. 2 rat studies showed that injection with squalene caused development of lupus autoantibodies. Again, 2 problems here. First, only done on rats. No controlled human trials have linked these two things. Second, just because A increases B and B increases C does not mean A will increase C. The scientific literature is littered with such assumptions that later failed to come to fruition. Drug companies love this one. Because Drug A reduces blood pressure and reducing blood pressure reduces heart attacks, Drug A must reduce heart attacks. Then they do the study and find out that, lo and behold, Drug A, despite producing significant reductions in blood pressure, does NOT prevent heart attacks. Sometimes you even find out it INCREASES heart attacks. So you can't make this logical fallacy.
The newsletter for August covers this and it may not be out yet. I'm not sure what this means. This (squalene) is the vaccine adjuvant that is strongly linked to the Gulf War syndrome (1 study came out in 2000 suggesting a link between squalene and GWS. Since then, subsequent studies which were better designed, have not confirmed this finding and found that no such association exists. One study of Gulf War veterans found that even though "The etiology of Gulf War syndrome remains unknown, [it] should not include squalene antibody status." The previous studies used unsupported and untested assays to test for existence of antibodies against squalene. A 2006 study, using validated assays, found no rise in antisqualene antibodies after injection with squalene adjuvant.) which killed over 10 000 soldiers (Since the Gulf War ended, roughly 11 000 of the roughly 700 000 soldiers deployed have died. This does seem high. However, not all of these deaths have been linked to GWS. Furthermore, squalene has been thoroughly discredited from being linked to GWS. In fact, the original theory that the anthrax vaccine given to soldiers in the Gulf War caused GWS has been killed after it was revealed that the version of the vaccine given didn't even contain squalene. Wonderful. Doesn't it seem much more likely that exposure to sarin and other organophosphate nerve gases that are designed to debilitate enemies caused GWS?) and caused a 200% increase in the fatal disease ALS (Lou Gehreg disease). (This may actually be true. Studies done on Gulf War Veterans developing ALS show an excess incidence of up to 3x, which would correlate to a 200% increase. However, this has not been linked to squalene. Again, the old A=B=C fallacy. Two studies (here and here) have concluded that ALS was likely due to something veterans were exposed to in specific regions of deployment and only during a specific time period.)
This virus H1N1 kills by causing a "cytokine storm", which means that it causes the body's immune system to overreact and that is why it is killing young people and is a mild disease in the elderly. (The elderly have weakened immune systems.) Cytokine storms do exist. It's an overblown immune response to a new pathogenic invader. It was thought to be responsible for many of the deaths of otherwise healthy individuals exposed to the 1918 Spanish Flu and possibly even the 2003 SARS epidemic. However, analysis of reactions to this current strain of flu suggest it does not cause a cytokine storm and really just elicits a reaction similar to seasonal flu. Searches of the medical literature show that cytokine storms may occur in H5N1 influenza (avian flu) but not the current H1N1 strain. Oh, and how does his ridiculous reasoning describe the deaths of very young infants with immature immune systems? This vaccine is a very powerful immune stimulator and carries the real possibility of making the lethality of the virus much greater. First off, this virus isn't that lethal. Second, of course this vaccine is an immune stimulator. That's what it's designed to do. "We're going to inject you with this vaccine now, but it won't stimulate your immune system to do anything. So it's going to be a painful poke for nothing. Enjoy." Plus, this also presumes that this will be a bad thing because H1N1 invokes a cytokine storm, which we already discussed.
One's best protection is vitamin D3...One should take 5000 IU a day now and when the disease begins to spread increase the dose to 15 000 IU a day. Vitamin D may be involved in immune function. This is becoming more clear. However, telling otherwise healthy individuals to consume 5000-15000 IU of Vitamin D a day borders on ridiculous. Recommended daily intake is 1000IU with no more than 2000IU recommended unless an individual is deficient, has rickets or other diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency. He provides no data supporting these doses in boosting immunity. I could not find any. Vitamin D3 modulates the immune reaction, reducing the chance of an overreaction and stimulates the body to produce what are called antimicrobial peptides, which are powerful killers of viruses that does not involve immunity. Antimicrobial peptides do kill viruses. That is true. But the only evidence I could find linking Vitamin D and antimicrobial peptides showed that it might actually REDUCE the production of AMPs. A systematic review of all the information with regards to Vitamin D shows that there is very little support for most of its purported effects, except of course in preventing osteoporosis. This is dose related, which means the higher the dose of Vitamin D3 the better the protection. See above.
Fish oils (the best is Carlson's Norwegian lemon flavored fish oil) also reduce immune overreaction. Any bets on Blaylock owning part of that company? It is true that fish oils may moderate the immune system, but the clinical significance of this is debated. One teaspoon a day should be sufficient. For severe symptoms, one teaspoon twice a day. Where does he get these doses? No citations.
Is this post short? No. Should it be? No. When questions of health and wellness are involved, thorough research and consideration is required to make an informed decision. This does not involve forwarded e-mails, or google searches. It involves trusted sources of reliable scientific information like primary medical literature and trusted medical professionals with a reputation for credible advice and evidence-based practice. The above e-mail satisfies NONE of these criteria.
So do yourself a favor. Decide whichever way you like on whether or not to get the vaccine. But don't include such complete trash in your decision. It'll just make you regret it in the end.
PS-It is true that this vaccine contains formaldehyde...in trace residual amounts. You know what else has formaldehyde in it at detectable levels above what would be considered trace residual? Drinking water. Get over it. Other things the vaccine contains:
-thimerosal: a mercury derivative; LEGITIMATE scientific discourse has completely discredited any link between thimerosal and autism. As well, there is less mercury in a dose of the vaccine than in a tuna sandwich.
-sodium chloride: salt
-disodium hydrogen phosphate: used commonly in foods; probably a preservative
-potassium dihydrogen phosphate: food additive; preservative
-potassium chloride: common inorganic compound; preservative
-trace egg proteins: vaccines are sometimes produced in chick fibroblast cell cultures; potential for egg protein exposure and anaphylaxis
-trace deoxycholic acid: lipid emulsifier
It didn't surprise me then when I started to receive unsolicited forwards in my e-mail inbox about first the dangers of H1N1 and later the dangers of the vaccine. (It is interesting how the paranoia started out so focused on the disease itself and then quickly morphed into maniacal fear of the vaccine that is the only real way we could fight the disease. How did we do this?)
Friends and family wanted me to evaluate the e-mails and tell me what I thought. Of course, I barely even wanted to give this crap the time of day, so all I said was, "Don't sweat it. It's all crap." But soon that wasn't enough for them. They wanted more. They wanted me to refute the facts (if you can call them that). So here goes. I will now systematically destroy two common e-mails circulating around the world.
1. Keeping cut onions around the house will fend off the flu
Snopes.com has done a wonderful job of this one, so I will just point you there.
2. Dr. Russell Blaylock on Swine Flu
If you haven't seen this e-mail yet, I will post it below as I tear apart each point. However, let us first discuss the purported author. As my astute spouse pointed out, it's highly possible this physician never wrote this article. But reading up on him leads me to believe it is equally likely that he did. Among other things he purports that fluoride is the most dangerous substance known to man, aspartame also causes Gulf War Syndrome (more on that later), sucralose (Splenda) is toxic, and aluminum cookware and dental amalgam can kill you. Fantastic. It doesn't matter of course that none of these positions have any scientific support. Anyways, onto the e-mail.
"No one should take this vaccine-it is one of the most dangerous vaccines ever devised. No citation given. I find it ironic that someone who wants everyone to believe him at face value provides no scientific support to back up his arguments. Oh, maybe that's because no such thing exists. Another argument put forth by supporters of all this paranoia is that this vaccine hasn't been sufficiently tested to use on humans. If that's so, how can we legitimately claim it to be dangerous? It contains an immune adjuvant called squalene (MF-59) which has been shown to cause severe autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus. Again, no citation given. There is no medical evidence linking squalene to multiple sclerosis. Not a single citation in the whole universe of medical literature. What about RA? There are a couple of small rat studies show moderate increases in inflammatory mediators after injection with straight squalene (which does not happen with the vaccine; it's heavily diluted). Even then, the studies show that this increase in inflammation does not lead to arthritis. Plus, not a single human study has been done linking this adjuvant and this condition. I challenge anyone out there to find me proof for this claim. Oh, I almost forgot about lupus. 2 rat studies showed that injection with squalene caused development of lupus autoantibodies. Again, 2 problems here. First, only done on rats. No controlled human trials have linked these two things. Second, just because A increases B and B increases C does not mean A will increase C. The scientific literature is littered with such assumptions that later failed to come to fruition. Drug companies love this one. Because Drug A reduces blood pressure and reducing blood pressure reduces heart attacks, Drug A must reduce heart attacks. Then they do the study and find out that, lo and behold, Drug A, despite producing significant reductions in blood pressure, does NOT prevent heart attacks. Sometimes you even find out it INCREASES heart attacks. So you can't make this logical fallacy.
The newsletter for August covers this and it may not be out yet. I'm not sure what this means. This (squalene) is the vaccine adjuvant that is strongly linked to the Gulf War syndrome (1 study came out in 2000 suggesting a link between squalene and GWS. Since then, subsequent studies which were better designed, have not confirmed this finding and found that no such association exists. One study of Gulf War veterans found that even though "The etiology of Gulf War syndrome remains unknown, [it] should not include squalene antibody status." The previous studies used unsupported and untested assays to test for existence of antibodies against squalene. A 2006 study, using validated assays, found no rise in antisqualene antibodies after injection with squalene adjuvant.) which killed over 10 000 soldiers (Since the Gulf War ended, roughly 11 000 of the roughly 700 000 soldiers deployed have died. This does seem high. However, not all of these deaths have been linked to GWS. Furthermore, squalene has been thoroughly discredited from being linked to GWS. In fact, the original theory that the anthrax vaccine given to soldiers in the Gulf War caused GWS has been killed after it was revealed that the version of the vaccine given didn't even contain squalene. Wonderful. Doesn't it seem much more likely that exposure to sarin and other organophosphate nerve gases that are designed to debilitate enemies caused GWS?) and caused a 200% increase in the fatal disease ALS (Lou Gehreg disease). (This may actually be true. Studies done on Gulf War Veterans developing ALS show an excess incidence of up to 3x, which would correlate to a 200% increase. However, this has not been linked to squalene. Again, the old A=B=C fallacy. Two studies (here and here) have concluded that ALS was likely due to something veterans were exposed to in specific regions of deployment and only during a specific time period.)
This virus H1N1 kills by causing a "cytokine storm", which means that it causes the body's immune system to overreact and that is why it is killing young people and is a mild disease in the elderly. (The elderly have weakened immune systems.) Cytokine storms do exist. It's an overblown immune response to a new pathogenic invader. It was thought to be responsible for many of the deaths of otherwise healthy individuals exposed to the 1918 Spanish Flu and possibly even the 2003 SARS epidemic. However, analysis of reactions to this current strain of flu suggest it does not cause a cytokine storm and really just elicits a reaction similar to seasonal flu. Searches of the medical literature show that cytokine storms may occur in H5N1 influenza (avian flu) but not the current H1N1 strain. Oh, and how does his ridiculous reasoning describe the deaths of very young infants with immature immune systems? This vaccine is a very powerful immune stimulator and carries the real possibility of making the lethality of the virus much greater. First off, this virus isn't that lethal. Second, of course this vaccine is an immune stimulator. That's what it's designed to do. "We're going to inject you with this vaccine now, but it won't stimulate your immune system to do anything. So it's going to be a painful poke for nothing. Enjoy." Plus, this also presumes that this will be a bad thing because H1N1 invokes a cytokine storm, which we already discussed.
One's best protection is vitamin D3...One should take 5000 IU a day now and when the disease begins to spread increase the dose to 15 000 IU a day. Vitamin D may be involved in immune function. This is becoming more clear. However, telling otherwise healthy individuals to consume 5000-15000 IU of Vitamin D a day borders on ridiculous. Recommended daily intake is 1000IU with no more than 2000IU recommended unless an individual is deficient, has rickets or other diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency. He provides no data supporting these doses in boosting immunity. I could not find any. Vitamin D3 modulates the immune reaction, reducing the chance of an overreaction and stimulates the body to produce what are called antimicrobial peptides, which are powerful killers of viruses that does not involve immunity. Antimicrobial peptides do kill viruses. That is true. But the only evidence I could find linking Vitamin D and antimicrobial peptides showed that it might actually REDUCE the production of AMPs. A systematic review of all the information with regards to Vitamin D shows that there is very little support for most of its purported effects, except of course in preventing osteoporosis. This is dose related, which means the higher the dose of Vitamin D3 the better the protection. See above.
Fish oils (the best is Carlson's Norwegian lemon flavored fish oil) also reduce immune overreaction. Any bets on Blaylock owning part of that company? It is true that fish oils may moderate the immune system, but the clinical significance of this is debated. One teaspoon a day should be sufficient. For severe symptoms, one teaspoon twice a day. Where does he get these doses? No citations.
Is this post short? No. Should it be? No. When questions of health and wellness are involved, thorough research and consideration is required to make an informed decision. This does not involve forwarded e-mails, or google searches. It involves trusted sources of reliable scientific information like primary medical literature and trusted medical professionals with a reputation for credible advice and evidence-based practice. The above e-mail satisfies NONE of these criteria.
So do yourself a favor. Decide whichever way you like on whether or not to get the vaccine. But don't include such complete trash in your decision. It'll just make you regret it in the end.
PS-It is true that this vaccine contains formaldehyde...in trace residual amounts. You know what else has formaldehyde in it at detectable levels above what would be considered trace residual? Drinking water. Get over it. Other things the vaccine contains:
-thimerosal: a mercury derivative; LEGITIMATE scientific discourse has completely discredited any link between thimerosal and autism. As well, there is less mercury in a dose of the vaccine than in a tuna sandwich.
-sodium chloride: salt
-disodium hydrogen phosphate: used commonly in foods; probably a preservative
-potassium dihydrogen phosphate: food additive; preservative
-potassium chloride: common inorganic compound; preservative
-trace egg proteins: vaccines are sometimes produced in chick fibroblast cell cultures; potential for egg protein exposure and anaphylaxis
-trace deoxycholic acid: lipid emulsifier
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
You know I don't speak Spanish
Recent conversation with my three year old.
Sarah (mommy): Je t'aime, Sacha. Bonne nuit. (I love you, Sacha. Good night.)
Sacha: Daddy, "Je t'aime" and "Bonne nuit" is Fwench. Why you not know Fwench?
Me: Well, I just know a little bit.
S: Daddy, you know Spanish? What "Je t'aime" is in Spanish?
D: Te amo.
S: Yeah, tay awmo. Daddy, why you know Spanish?
D: Well, I took a Spanish course when I was in high school.
S: Oh. It was a course fo daddies?
D: No, I was a big kid at the time.
S: Oh. I like speak Spanish. It gweat. Someday, I be a daddy. And when I a daddy, you be a Gedo and mommy be a Memere. Yeah. Dat be cool.
D: Yeah, you're right. Hopefully you will be a daddy someday.
S: Daddy, when I a daddy, who my mommy be?
D: Mommy will be your mommy. Mommy will always be your mommy.
S: Oh. Okay.
.............
This went on and on until I told him it was time to sleep and he said something he'll likely say many times in his life if he inherits my propensity for verbosity: "Daddy, dat too much talking?" "Yes buddy. Time for sleeping."
What a kid!
PS-Sarah had the astute observation that when Sacha asked me who his mommy would be when he is a daddy, he was likely trying to determine who his wife would be, not his mother. Right now I am a daddy and my "mommy" is Sarah, my wife. No wonder he sounded a bit bummed out when he found out his mother would be his wife!
Sarah (mommy): Je t'aime, Sacha. Bonne nuit. (I love you, Sacha. Good night.)
Sacha: Daddy, "Je t'aime" and "Bonne nuit" is Fwench. Why you not know Fwench?
Me: Well, I just know a little bit.
S: Daddy, you know Spanish? What "Je t'aime" is in Spanish?
D: Te amo.
S: Yeah, tay awmo. Daddy, why you know Spanish?
D: Well, I took a Spanish course when I was in high school.
S: Oh. It was a course fo daddies?
D: No, I was a big kid at the time.
S: Oh. I like speak Spanish. It gweat. Someday, I be a daddy. And when I a daddy, you be a Gedo and mommy be a Memere. Yeah. Dat be cool.
D: Yeah, you're right. Hopefully you will be a daddy someday.
S: Daddy, when I a daddy, who my mommy be?
D: Mommy will be your mommy. Mommy will always be your mommy.
S: Oh. Okay.
.............
This went on and on until I told him it was time to sleep and he said something he'll likely say many times in his life if he inherits my propensity for verbosity: "Daddy, dat too much talking?" "Yes buddy. Time for sleeping."
What a kid!
PS-Sarah had the astute observation that when Sacha asked me who his mommy would be when he is a daddy, he was likely trying to determine who his wife would be, not his mother. Right now I am a daddy and my "mommy" is Sarah, my wife. No wonder he sounded a bit bummed out when he found out his mother would be his wife!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The way to do it
My parents came to Peace River to celebrate Thanksgiving with us. Mom made a very astute observation about the nature of the supper and how smart it was. I couldn't agree more!
You see, supper included roughly 25 people. Now, for many traditional Thanksgiving dinners, this would be an insurmountable task for any one individual to tackle. As such, we did it like an informal pot-luck. It was a traditional sit down meal but there were about as many chefs are there were dishes!
There are a few things that make this such a great idea. First off, no one person has to shoulder the burden of cooking the whole meal. The worst thing about that is that person usually ends up not enjoying themselves. The second great thing is that with cooking all that food one often ends up doing a lot of things well but no one thing spectacularly. Doing it pot-luck style you get each person bringing their signature dish that they can focus on so the quality of the food goes way up. Finally, because most of the dishes are prepared off site, you don't have to worry so much about timing and what dish is taking up space in the oven! I think it's the only way to go!
(Speaking of the only way to go, next time you have to make a turkey, check out Nigella Lawson's recipe for brining a feast turkey in her book, Feast. It is SO easy and you'll never taste a turkey so good. Oh, and it's almost impossible to dry out!)
You see, supper included roughly 25 people. Now, for many traditional Thanksgiving dinners, this would be an insurmountable task for any one individual to tackle. As such, we did it like an informal pot-luck. It was a traditional sit down meal but there were about as many chefs are there were dishes!
There are a few things that make this such a great idea. First off, no one person has to shoulder the burden of cooking the whole meal. The worst thing about that is that person usually ends up not enjoying themselves. The second great thing is that with cooking all that food one often ends up doing a lot of things well but no one thing spectacularly. Doing it pot-luck style you get each person bringing their signature dish that they can focus on so the quality of the food goes way up. Finally, because most of the dishes are prepared off site, you don't have to worry so much about timing and what dish is taking up space in the oven! I think it's the only way to go!
(Speaking of the only way to go, next time you have to make a turkey, check out Nigella Lawson's recipe for brining a feast turkey in her book, Feast. It is SO easy and you'll never taste a turkey so good. Oh, and it's almost impossible to dry out!)
Over the top
You've got to be kidding me. Some town in the US made Halloween illegal to protect the children? What a bunch of garbage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)