Paul Harrell is dead.
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
What makes you say that?
Falsified medical and nutrition information of the western world. They are not mistaken, they lied. He followed it and like many others developed cancer (cells changing because the cell wall is damage and cannot aspirate). I'm guessing you are well read on the subject. He was a work out machine which keeps it at bay for a long time. Meaning the grossly elevated glucose and insulin. I think ( which is not I know) he might have had a chance if he fasted upon diagnosis.
(The length of this post is directly proportional to how bored I am today! Sheesh! It almost glazes my own eyes over!
)It's interesting to me how the global Covid-19 delusion has altered my attitude about conspiracies. In 2019 I would have blown off such talk as an unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, where I was being asked to believe that basically the entire medical and food industries are conspiring together to kill their customers.
I still tend to not believe it but I do not flatly dismiss it any longer either.
It does, however, seem more plausible that people tend to believe what they are taught to believe. Scientists and doctors like anyone else who is a professional in a particular field, tend to stay inside the boundaries that emerge from the overall group because being a stand out is just exactly what you don't want to do if you know that you aren't a super-genius or a great leader of men in your field and your goal is to make a living in that field. In other words, ideas have a kind of momentum and inertia that builds upon itself. It doesn't require anyone intentionally "lying" for false information to become what almost everyone believes to be the truth.
Examples of this are literally everywhere you look....
Billions of Catholics actually do believe that the Pope is THE Vicar of Christ. They aren't lying and the people that taught them that weren't lying either. They were wrong but that isn't the same thing.
Billions of non-Catholics believe that Catholics are sort of crazy for believing that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.
Democrats today are almost all intentional liars and the more famous they are, the more that is true, but that wasn't always the case. John F Kennedy, for example, almost certainly believed that his ideas about how to run the country were genuinely superior to those of Richard Nixon. He was, in fact, wrong, but that doesn't mean he was lying about it.
Mass transit, where people get from point A to point B via trains and busses, is, in fact, superior to a system where nearly everyone takes their own private vehicles for distances longer than twenty miles or so, but here we all are sitting in stop and go traffic nearly every day of our lives. This didn't require a conspiracy. It is the consequence of some unfortunately foolish government regulations and some excellent marketing strategies but that isn't the same thing.
I bet that you and your wife wear (or at least own) wedding rings and there is a very high likelihood that your wife has both an engagement ring and a wedding band and that one or both has a diamond in it. Why? It is entirely because of a single marketing campaign done by De Beer's in 1947, "A Diamond is Forever!". That's become just the way things are done, especially here in the United States. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I'm just saying that whole populations of people can do stuff without the need for the powers that be to form a conspiracy to make it happen.
Americans are practically obsessed with the American flag, especially in comparison to the attitudes that most everyone else in the world feels about their respective national flag. This is almost entirely because of our national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner" and the story behind that song. If a different song had been picked as the national anthem, we'd still like our flag but it wouldn't be the near national obsession that it is today. This isn't because of any sort of conspiracy. It just happened in a very organic way that I happen to think is very cool and indicative of how humanity works.
So, the point I'm making here is that isn't at least as plausible to think that our societal attitudes and practices concerning diet and exercise are a product of just the collective and aggregate meanderings of the masses and not some smoke filled, Star Chamber type committee meeting where the powers that be decided to spread lies to everyone for generations so that food companies would make a fortune selling corn based products and so that doctors and pharmaceutical companies can get rich selling drugs to treat the diseases that this giant lie is fixing to create?
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Superiority is in the eye of the beholder.
If you mean "more fuel efficient", perhaps you might be right.
If you mean "more convenient", perhaps you might be wrong.
I live in an area with lots of Mexicans. I can tell you that they love their previous homeland's flag plenty.
Many areas in Chicago also show lots of love for their ancestors national flags as well.
Watch the World Cup some time if you want to see love of national flags.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Our national flag appears to have been replaced by a rainbow flag
Not really. By pretty nearly any objective standard, mass transit is superior. It's faster, more efficient, cheaper per traveler, etc. and that doesn't even touch what it does to the nature of the infrastructure. Talk about cheaper and more efficient!
Mass transit was actually the way things were headed until Ford successfully lobbied the legislature to enact certain laws and policies that favored automobiles and highways over railroads.
Convenience is indeed in the eye of the beholder. However, there isn't any way for you to actually know that it would be less convenient. Less convenient by what standard? Less convenient than sitting in traffic for an hour to go 25 miles? Would driving your own car to the train station and then taking the rest of your long trip on a train be less convenient that what you do now at an airport? It's basically the same idea except that the distances are even longer on planes that they'd typically be on trains.
More importantly, the nature of our entire infrastructure would be significantly different than it is today. You have to drive to nearly everywhere from anywhere to do anything today. That would not be the case if mass transit was more prevalent. Housing would be different, shops would be situated differently, etc.
It is their country that they love and their display of their flag is very much a response to Americans doing so. If you go to Mexico, you won't see Mexican flags hanging all over the place like you see the American flag displayed here.
I'm telling ya, American's show off their colors more than any other country by far. I'm not suggesting that no one else likes or displays their national flag, of course they do but the U.S.'s flag culture is truly unique in its everyday prominence and visibility. While some countries, like Canada for example, also have a strong flag culture, the frequency and variety of flag displays in the U.S. stand out globally and not by a little bit.
Right Divider
Body part
Again, superiority is not always "objective".
By each persons opinions and choices.
I live in a distant suburb of Chicago and used to work in downtown Chicago... so I know quite well the tradeoffs. Commuting by train during peak hours is not so fast as you might think. Though I generally preferred the train due to its lower stress factor. It's a balance of many factors.
Mass transit can be somewhat convenient in dense metropolitan areas. Not so much in other areas that are more spread out. Even in dense metro areas, you need to have a destination that's near a certain point (i.e., a station).
No doubt that things could be different.
When it comes to public transportation, you can't go without mentioning Japan's infrastructure.
I wish we had infrastructure even half as good as theirs, but because we are a much larger country, it's many times more expensive to develop for (in part because of what you mentioned, Clete, but even just in general). Japan is relatively small compared to the US, so the train/metro infrastructure that they have reaches further proportionally to their land area, but there are still many places that you have to take a car to go visit.
I reckon we would have to have infrastructure orders of magnitude more embedded into our nation in order to get the sort of returns on efficiency comparable to Japan.
And for a nation physically the size of the US, there's more freedom in using cars than there ever would be if trains were involved.
I wish we had infrastructure even half as good as theirs, but because we are a much larger country, it's many times more expensive to develop for (in part because of what you mentioned, Clete, but even just in general). Japan is relatively small compared to the US, so the train/metro infrastructure that they have reaches further proportionally to their land area, but there are still many places that you have to take a car to go visit.
I reckon we would have to have infrastructure orders of magnitude more embedded into our nation in order to get the sort of returns on efficiency comparable to Japan.
And for a nation physically the size of the US, there's more freedom in using cars than there ever would be if trains were involved.
Again, this is basically arguing against a different paradigm from within the current paradigm. The mass transit that exists today is not at all comparable to what would exist if a true mass transit infrastructure had been allowed to develop in the country with a complex system of rail roads instead of the highway system that we have today. Indeed, the fact that current mass transit isn't that great isn't due to the fact that its mass transit but because two main things. First, mass transit today is very nearly always run by the government and so it can't be expected to run nearly as efficiently as a public utility as it would if it were a for profit business. Second, what mass transit exists today has been built within an infrastructure that didn't have mass transit in mind and so there are inherent inefficiencies that cannot be overcome.
This is true. There has always been a need for personal transportation across relatively short distances or to destinations where there is no population center. Thus, even if the rail road system had been allowed to develop naturally, there would still have been a market for cars and motorcycles and other modes of individual transportation.
Understatement of the week!