Archive for December, 2017

Cumulative Toxic Load

We live in a toxic environment. We go out on the street and there are fumes from cars. Our ecology is damaged by toxicity from factories and cars. In our food there are toxins primarily caused by factory-produced foods which are preserved in order to sell and make a profit, and to grow more food – not quality food – we use pesticides (chemical poisons). Particularly post-second world war we have increasingly ingested foods with toxins especially those people who eat fast foods. All of this could be called our toxic load.

Nature has given us the liver to cope with toxic load, but especially for those who drink the toxic load becomes too much, the liver packs in and dies – a simplistic model!

BigFood has food scientists, and they look at how to preserve the food in order to help with profits. How safe the food then is we don’t know although there are some food regulations. However it is industry standard to accept carcinogens such as MSG and aspartame.

I think it reasonable to say that vaccines add to this toxic environment but before I go on I want to reiterate that with regards to epidemic vaccines this toxic environment is minimal compared to the benefits. Have the people who advocate changes to vaccines limited their own personal toxic load elsewhere first? Do they drive electric cars? As with all things the toxic load must be reduced, and as vaccines are compulsory scientists ought to be more circumspect about the toxic load. But to then suggest that the toxic load in vaccines is enough to warrant a choice not to be vaccinated is in my view preposterous.

However in general it is my view that science does NOT take enough care with toxins in our food and toxins in our medicines; profits in BigFood and BigPharma come first. Because of this I understand the questioning about vaccines but that questioning needs to be kept within the scientific community and not used as a divisive political weapon.

I will not take flu vaccines as in my view the vaccine adds to my toxic load. I have always had doubts about mercury in vaccines – thimerosal. With regards to epidemic vaccines I accept the thimerosal risk but with flu vaccines I don’t. I note this woolly argument in John Oliver’s good piece on vaccines. I have not observed BigPharma as having a policy that they respond to public clamour just to ease those fears, thimerosal in my view has some toxicity. Not enough to refuse to take epidemic vaccines – removed or not.

I have a completely different view about flu and the use of flu vaccines. I don’t take the toxicity of vaccine slightly, and don’t choose to take vaccines unnecessarily. For me the flu is an unnecessary vaccine. Who is concerned about flu? The employer. For many people the only time they have off work is for colds or flu, and the employers begrudge that. I believe some employers insist on flu vaccine for employees – disgraceful, that is a freedom of choice that should be fought. Come on libertarians – attack your paymasters. People have been sacked in the US at TriHealth and Essentia for not taking flu vaccines. If you are in health situations where you are in close contact with vulnerable people, I think the flu shot is reasonable. But in the case of Essentia they did not negotiate with the nurses; that is suspicious. But to be clear the flu virus is not known to be effective – CDC only 40-60% effective. Given the toxic load of the vaccine, I have to question the use of a flu vaccine and its imposition. Hence my proviso about the vulnerable.

I was a teacher and flu was a big problem but it should be noted that such absences were not simply flus but also colds; much time was lost because of these colds and flus. A flu will go round the school downing teachers and students alike. Students come back to school too quickly because parents have issues with care. Teachers are always under pressure to teach at whatever the personal cost, so during the cold and flu season the classroom is a cauldron; I know I always went back too early yet I resisted returning to work more than most teachers I think because I believed I should only be at work if I was capable of doing the job and when I was not a possible source of infection. I wonder whether 40-60% effectiveness would dent this problem.

I have no doubts at all that it is the “cauldron” nature of the classroom that makes the situation far worse. Rather than treating the classroom as child-care provision, if it was seen as a place of education where teachers and students had to be feeling competent to learn, then I suspect flus would be less of a problem.

On a personal level I have always considered colds and flus as a measure of stress, it was not so much the contagion in the cauldron but whether my immune system was strong enough to cope. As a retired person I do not pick up that many flus – this was not true at one stage because of andropause, if it happens I take vit c and sleep it off – watching favourite movies. I don’t see myself in a “CDC-vulnerable” group, and am not willing to fill myself with the additional toxins for a dubious benefit.

But that is me. Dr Mercola is against flu shots – look at this. He is concerned about the toxins present in the vaccines – similar to Vaccines Revealed, but he did not join their team whose integrity is compromised. He goes into more details as why specifically he is against the flu vaccine as opposed to epidemic vaccines. Here, Scientific American describes how they make up the vaccine. Dr Mercola describes the process similarly but he notes that even though it is flu season it is not one (or the most popular three) that we necessarily get for that season, we could get a different flu. His view, the flu vaccine is not very effective. So why take a flu vaccine that is not effective? And because absence might well be colds rather than flu, it would seem to be an ineffective imposition.

I don’t like it but if you are working with vulnerable old people flu might not give you a problem but could well hurt the vulnerable. I understand why nurses want to refuse, and that is why I think it should be discussed with nurses’ organisations. If the research and understanding is good why didn’t Essentia negotiate? That is heavy-handed oppression, and to me indicates something else.

Within this issue of toxic environment there appears to be a weakness in the science – as far as I know. I am prepared to accept that when food scientists investigate the toxicity of their products, the side effects are within acceptable limits. However, how much investigation goes into cumulative toxic load in humans? The problem is not the effect of the individual toxic product but the cumulative effect of all the toxins in all products as well as dealing with environmental toxins.

The issue is not even that simple. I give you a case study I know well – me. When I was teaching I did not care about toxicity. When I was young I drank. Once I stopped drinking I did not care about diet too much – although I was mainly vegetarian for health reasons. All my life I had migraines; I retired early at 54 – not for health reasons – with stomach issues – reflux migraines and so on. I had hoped that my health would improve because I was not being stressed by the job, but it did not. After a year I was diagnosed with GERD, detoxed and went on a plant-based diet. Gradually my health improved. I consider stress was an important factor in my poor health in the job when I was older, but after retirement the cause was toxins. I had to remove the cumulative toxic load before I could be healthy.

To me it seems that one individual toxic cause such as vaccines is not the problem, it is the cumulative effect. Baby products tend to have stricter food regulations so there is limited cumulative effect there. But the baby gains its health from the mother, how much toxic accumulation does the mother have? Cigarettes and alcohol are discouraged in mothers, why? Toxic effect. Mothers are encouraged to eat healthy diets. Why? Toxic effects. So if there are toxic effects that can affect babies, can they also not affect adults?

Dr Mercola has his own system for detoxing and building up immunity – as described in the flu-shot article. In my view everyone should examine their own diets and attempt to reduce the cumulative toxic effect. Science also needs to do more about this cumulative effect. But to recommend a reduction with epidemic vaccine shots is completely irresponsible. With regards to flu vaccines I think the situation is different (except when in contact with the vulnerable and their weakened immune systems) as the benefits are nowhere near as clear. But the issue is not an individual toxic source but the cumulative effect, no one source can be blamed so the problem continues. What can we do about the control of the food science by BigFood and BigPharma? Nothing. But we can control the toxins we take in with our foods. One obvious method – a macrobiotic diet. But detoxing and reducing toxic intake can help. It can never be 100% but then Nature gave us livers. Do the best you can but at least try to reduce toxic intake – reduce the cumulative toxic load.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

This is the perfect example of libertarian stupidity. Unlike European libertarian history in the US Libertarians are right-wing, their politics is right-wing although based on principle. What they are is freedom, freedom and more freedom. This sounds good until you look at how they apply it, and then their intelligence is seen as woefully short; it also explains why they get so much right-wing funding. Their freedom means no regulations. Sounds good. Who wants to be bound by regulations? I am a considerate and compassionate person so I don’t need telling what to do.

Are all people this way? If not, educate them. All sounds good.

But then look at reality. We live in a 1%-system. The 1% accumulate huge amounts of money through real and imaginary trading and trade manipulations, and hive the money off into offshore accounts. This is the system we live in. The greed of these people is a sickness because of the global harmful implications of what they do. They are mentally ill, they are in charge, and the only thing that limits them are a few ineffective regulations. When the system is run by mentally ill people, then giving those people greater freedom is blind stupidity. That is libertarianism in the US.

So now we come to freedom of choice in vaccines. Now any sensible person looks at this and says you cannot have freedom of choice with vaccines, everyone has to be vaccinated against epidemic diseases otherwise they could start up again. To argue for freedom of choice is just plain stupid. It is the same blind stupidity shown with regards to regulations. (And government for that matter.) Principle before common sense.

That does not put an end to questioning, there has to be questioning. When science is dominated by the 1%-system of BigPharma and BigFood, there has to be questioning. But if that questioning does not produce a change, then vaccines have to be accepted. Not freedom of choice. Nobody should be promoting freedom of choice with regards to vaccines. It is good there is questioning, there is no problem with doubt, but there can be no freedom of choice with vaccines. One person choosing not to be vaccinated can cause deaths amongst many. There cannot be libertarian principle here. That is just plain stupid.

Yet in this video in general that is exactly what Vaccines Revealed are doing promoting freedom of choice. This is the height of irresponsibility, and again I question the integrity of any scientist who is prepared to add their name to a list who supports an organisation (the film-makers) who are promoting freedom of choice. In my school doctrinaire freedom of choice was intentionally disruptive, in the case of epidemic vaccines it is criminally stupid.

Then we have the ludicrous concept of informed consent (see this clip) that again appeals to intellectual arrogance. How can there be consent with regards to vaccines? If one person refuses to vaccinate then it potentially risks everyone. That is the only consent issue.

The people who make the informed decision about vaccines ought to be the scientific community independent of any business or social pressure of any kind. Vaccines are a scientific decision, if the science says vaccinate then we vaccinate. Most of the questioning within this video belongs within the scientific community, the scientists must decide – there are good questions but science must decide. End of story, no consent – informed or otherwise.

But how informed can people be about such a decision – even if consent were on the table. How much information can a lay person understand about this issue? Science investigated this, that or the other and came to this conclusion. Is that informed? Maybe, but meaninglessly so. The intellect likes to believe it can understand everything, it is arrogant. Informed consent just appeals to this arrogance, it is another aspect of right-wing egotism as is freedom of choice. Informed consent is concerned with individual choice such as “choosing chemo”, vaccines cannot be an individual decision – that decision must be based on scientific evidence. Unlike cancer I don’t believe there is the evidence with regards to vaccines, I think it is just part of the funded, designed confusion strategy.

Basically this video just creates fear. The makers of the movie might believe they are doing a public service but creating fear only adds to the confusion and benefits the 1% only. That’s why they got their funding.

In conclusion I think the makers of this video are irresponsible, and the video casts more doubts on the scientific team who supported the video than they do on the issues of vaccines.

But flu vaccines ….

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.