05.01.10
Posted in Historical Trivia, Hmmm Moments, humor at 12:42 am by Administrator
Just got a chuckle out of this from the Boston Globe. . .
There are just some facts of life that we conveniently forget.
Along these lines I also found an interesting article on Greg Palast’s blog titled Behind the Arizona Immigration Law: GOP Game to Swipe the November Election. He has an interesting twist to the new Arizona immigration law wherein he claims that,
“. . . The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.
“I don’t buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.
“What’s new here is not the politicians’ fear of a xenophobic “Teabag” uprising.
“What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote — and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.”
Well, I certainly don’t know how true that all is, but the rest of the article explains Palast’s reasoning for that. It certainly makes one go, “hmmmm.”(For now I can say that I’m glad that I don’t live in Arizona since not only am I considered a minority, but I have often been mistaken for other nationalities like American Indian, which some look a lot like Mexicans. I feel much safer here in Los Angeles in the melting pot, which btw there’s supposed to be a large rally tomorrow protesting the Arizona immigration law. Wonder if it’s really going to be as big as they expect). But in reality, this type of thing (differences of opinions) has been going on since after the civil war, no? Way back then there were both those who believed in slavery and those who did not. Does that mean one was more patriotic than the other? Even back during the founding of our government the Federalist and the Republicans exchanged heated debates similar to today–Jefferson was in favor of limited government, and Adams was in favor of expanding government. Same ‘ole same ‘ole argument, but both are considered our founding forefathers. The difference I see today is now if someone wants government assistance, the GOP cry “socialism” or the “constitution is being shredded”, or “unpatriotic”. It gets to be annoying at times. Can’t we focus on the “issues” or “specifics” or even “facts” rather than name calling or raising suspicions as to who the “real” Americans are? Can’t we have differences of opinions without being labeled “unpatriotic?” I can understand being cautious, but somehow I think there’s a fine line to paranoia, too.
Marlakins
Permalink
10.27.09
Posted in Book Reviews, Hmmm Moments at 7:39 pm by Administrator
It’s super windy out today. The perfect day to curl up and read a good book. I haven’t been able to finish any books on my “to read” list as family life has been keeping me pretty busy. However, one of Matty’s required reading for his English class is Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation. I had read that book years ago when it came out, so it was an interesting book and topic to re-examine.
We have been discussing Fast Food Nation because Matty’s had to write about the various chapters in this book. There are actually many aspects/concepts brought up in this book to discuss and write about, and one of the things Matty chose to write about was advertising. I like these discussions because it’s interesting to hear what my son is thinking and how he’s working things out in his mind. Plus it also gives me a different perspective. For instance regarding advertising one of his complaints was that it was a one-way street. That is, companies like McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants can advertise to us, but we can’t advertise back to them. Hmmm. I never thought about that. Plus, Matty pointed out that not only is it a one-way-street, but it comes directly into the home via television. I know, too, that many people would say that you can turn off the TV or change the channel. True. But it also reminded me of a portion of Barack Obama’s book, Audacity of Hope, where he writes about what’s broadcast on TV. This is what he wrote regarding a speech he gave at the Kaiser Family Foundation after they had given statistics that sex on TV had doubled in recent years:
“. . . Now I enjoy HBO as much as the next guy, and I generally don’t care what adults watch in the privacy of their own homes. In the case of children, I think it’s primarily the duty of parents to monitor what they are watching on television, and in my speech I even suggested that everyone would benefit if parents–heaven forbid–simply turned off the TV and tried to strike up a conversation with their kids.
“Having said all that, I indicated that I wasn’t too happy with ads for erectile-dysfunction drugs popping up every fifteen minutes whenever I watched a football game with my daughters in the room. I offered the further observation that a popular show targeted at teens, in which young people with no visible means of support spend several months getting drunk and jumping naked into hot tubs with strangers, was not ‘the real world.’ I ended by suggesting that the broadcast and cable industries should adopt better standards and technology to help parents control what streamed into their homes.
“You would have thought I was Cotton Mather. In response to my speech, one newspaper editorial intoned that the government had no business regulating protected speech, despite the fact that I hadn’t called for regulation. Reporters suggested that I was cynically tacking to the center in preparation for a national race. More than a few supporters wrote our office, complaining that they had voted for me to beat back the Bush agenda, not to act as the town scold.
“And yet every parent I know, liberal or conservative, complains about the coarsening of the culture, the promotion of easy materialism and instant gratification, and the severing of sexuality from intimacy. They may not want government censorship, but they want those corncerns recognized, their experiences validated. When, for fear of appearing censorious, progressive political leaders can’t even acknowledge the problem, those parents start listening to those leaders who will–leaders who may be less sensitive to constittional constraints.
“Of course conservatives have their own blind spots when it comes to addressing problems in the culture. Take executive pay. . . “
We realize that we can’t rely on government and the judgment of TV networks to choose suitable subjects for our family to view. This is the major reason why we take it upon ourselves to “not” watch regular television broadcasts in our home to limit negative influences. It’s not like there are any programs out there that is essential to watch anyway. But even so, what we have found is that we “still” are influenced by outside “advertising.” No we don’t eat fast foods and haven’t for more than 10 years now, but if we are honest with ourselves, we can’t deny that our society has influenced us even without watching television at home. And I think of what my son, Matty, said, “the influence of advertising is a one-way-street.” And I am reminded of another book I read called, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander. I thought that was another excellent book which discussed the problems with television. I highly recommend that book, too. In that book, Mander explains how television skews our perceptions of real life. It’s been years since I read that book, but it was one of the reasons that encouraged us to stop watching regular television programs in our home.
So why then are we still so influenced by the “outside?” Well, because we still “read” the news and other books and articles, AND we are a family heavily into the internet. . . And we realize that even the people we associate with influence us. so if they are influenced by television, we will be, too. So these discussion with Matty has enlightened me a bit and reminded me that we have to be alert and aware that we are not immune to negative influences even though we try to limit what streams into our home via media. And this is why it is extra important that we teach our boys what’s good and what’s bad and to understand that the friends they choose or the people they associate with will influence them. So that they will be able to discern good from bad and right from wrong in a world that seems to be increasingly blurring those lines.
The next book I’m hoping to get my hands on is called Eating Animals by Jonathan Foer. I don’t expect to go vegetarian after reading it as I’ve already been there and done that, so no thank you. But with the reviews it’s been getting, I’ll probably learn some things from Foer. And with my other son, Andrew’s, school subjects, he has rekindled my interested in reading Sven Lindqvist’s book, A History of Bombing, because Andrew had to do a presentation on the ethics of the bombing of Dresden. He was discussing this with me, and we were looking at the death toll statistics of WWII and the polls taken on whether it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know my feelings on it, but I’d like to read what Lindqvist has to say about it. So, I’ve got those two books on library hold. Let’s see if I can manage to get through them.
Okay, so I can smell that dinner is ready, and I’ve rambled long enough, so better leave it here for now. Was there any point to this post? Eh, I think I was just enjoying how I can have interesting discussions with my boys. And to think that once they were so small and our conversations used to be so different!
Marlakins
Permalink
10.09.08
Posted in Church Issues and Bible Interpretations, Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized at 1:17 am by Administrator
Although we like to watch movies and surf the internet a lot, we don’t regularly watch regular TV in my house. Even the recent Presidential debates and VP debate we watched on the computer. Most of the news I get is also from the internet, so I honestly don’t really know what is being broadcast on regular TV. With the recent Presidential debates, including the comment from McCain about the Iranians wanting to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” or some words to that effect, I was surprised to stumble across a YouTube video of an interview with a Rabbi Weiss on Fox News. This was apparently aired around April of 2007. Rabbi Weiss is “defending” Iran and stating that they do not intend to harm Jews. Another YouTube video claims that the comment to wipe Israel off the face of the earth was not translated properly. This video was also dated around April 2007. So I’m surprised that McCain continued to parrot the line that Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Anyway, I thought the video below was interesting, however, one very important piece of info needed to understand this video is to understand that Zionism is “not” the same thing as Judism. Zionists strive to create and uphold a state of Israel, while some Orthodox Jews believe that there should “not” be a state of Israel as it is forbidden for them to have a state as per the Torah.
In one video I watched wherein Harold Channer interviewed several Orthodox Jews, one of rabbis commented that Ahmadinejad was very warm and kind. Now that video did make me curious about Ahmadinejad because on the one hand Ahmadinejad is being portrayed as a monster bent on wiping out the Jews (as per McCain’s comment in the 1st Presidential debate) while on the other hand being described as “warm and kind” by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. Which is it? We all know that media is king of spin, but really, how do we ordinary people really know what’s going on? I was able to find a YouTube video with an interview with Ahmadinejad and NBC News dated around October 2006. Since I don’t watch regular TV, I had never seen this even though it is already about 2 years old, oye. I found this video very interesting, and if Ahmadinejad is a monster, he certainly hid it very well here.
This interview revealed some very interesting things to me. First I understood that the interviewer was trying to make the point that genocide (the explicit attempt to wipe out a people based on their race or ethinicity) is worse than casualties of war. And that does make good sense to me. However, Ahmadinejad brought up a couple good points in response to that 1). there were “60 million” casualties in WWII, only about “2 million” were military, so that means that the other “58 million” casualties were civilians or non-military people. So while it is true that 6 million Jews perished, why is there little to no mention of the other 58 million civilians that also perished? And 2) if the Holocaust did happen to the Jews, “where” did it happen? And what do the Palestinian people have to do with that? He claimed that they have nothing against the Jews having their own state, but “where?” The Palestinians were already occupying Palestine for hundreds of years, so why is it okay to displace the Palestinians because of the Jewish Holocaust of which the Palestinians were not involved? Hmmm. . .
Anyway, the comment that 60 million people lost their lives during WWII made me interested to look up more details. Wiki claims that the death toll during WWII was between 50 million to 70 million. Wiki even has a chart of civilian casualties by country during WWII . Just scroll down a bit for the chart. It is believed to be the highest casualties of war in history. And to think that now with more advanced weapons, if we were to engage in another world war, the death toll would likely surpass 70 million. And this reminded me of a comment I heard someone say about Obama “lying” about villages and civilians being bombed in the Iraq war. Did he really say that? And if so, was he really lying? Civilians are commonly casualties of any war. Even my father’s town in the Philippines was bombed by the Americans during WWII. My dad understood that it was bombed because the area was being heavily infiltrated by the Japanese, but the fact remains that many Filipino civilians died during that bombing. My uncle even told me that as they walked out of the village, he could see some of his classmates lying dead on the street. How is this okay?
Well, in an effort to not end this post on such a negative note, I stumbled across another interesting piece of info while searching for WWII casualties. We’ve all heard about Schindler’s list, right? Well, apparently there was another man who was later called the “Chinese Schindler.” His name was Ho Fengshan, and he issued visas to more than 1,000 Jews so that they could flee the Nazi German regime despite being told by his superiors not to. I love stories like that. I’m gonna look more into that later, but I hope it’s true!
Marlakins
Permalink
10.21.07
Posted in Anything goes, Health-related--Natural Alternative Treatments, Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized at 10:58 am by Administrator
We’re all familiar with cow’s milk. Other more daring people even part take of goat’s milk. I’ve read about other cultures who use yak, horse, and camel milk. There are even sheep cheeses available to us here in the U.S., but how about “moose milk?” Well, check it out. . .
There are more pictures and links here.
Apparently, the Russians have tapped into some very amazing things about the moose. It turns out that moose are not herd animals and don’t do well confined in small places. However, if treated well and the moose gains your trust, it can be very friendly and affectionate. They are actually the more easily domesticated forms of deer. The Kostroma Moose Farm explains how they let the moose roam free and they come back twice a day on their own volition to get milked. It seems that this moose milk is also sought after for healing purposes in some sanitariums in Russia.
One of the reasons moose do not do well in confined spaces is because they need a lot of forage space. Part of their diet includes “twigs” from trees and thus part of their “farm feed” includes “sawdust!” Nature never ceases to amaze me. As a city girl, I knew next to nothing regarding animals and crops. Since developing AA, and searching for ways to improve my health, I have found that there is so much about life that I never knew! In the city so much is packaged and processed before we get it that I had no idea about so much of our foods for most of my life. Although I have to admit as an Asian, I was pretty up on seafoods. . . However, I think the aspect that so much of our foods come pre-packaged in the city is also a reason why so many people are so accepting regarding taking pills and drugs, and bottled supplements because we’re so used to ingesting things we don’t even know where they come from. Sodas are so commonplace that many people don’t even flinch at the ingredients in there. People willing pay for and eat Velvetta cheese, ha. For instance, before AA, I never knew what a soy bean plant looked like. But I have had lots of soy! Once a friend of mine screamed when she saw some shrimp at my house with their heads still on, ha ha! She had never seen that before. (That one did amaze me since I’ve seen lots of “whole” sea foods from childhood). But, how is cheese made? I had an “idea,” but didn’t learn the full process until after AA. What is whey, and how do you get it? How is kraut made? Pastrami? How is ham made? How old is the flours we buy from the store? How long do they store it before they sell it? All those commonly known things for farmers, I was clueless as a city girl. So much in the city comes already pre-made and pre-packaged.
Anyway, looks like my computer time is up for the day, sigh. Will try to get back later and see if I can find out what health issues “moose milk” is used for.
Marlakins
Permalink
10.15.07
Posted in Anything goes, Health-related--Natural Alternative Treatments, Hmmm Moments, Treatment Decisions, Uncategorized at 10:34 am by Administrator
From reading Black Markets, the Supply and Demand of Body Parts, by Michele Goodwin, the topic of corneal transplants came up. Apparently, there was a scandal regarding inappropriate harvesting of corneas from homicide victims. What I was not aware of, and evidently many other people are not aware of, is “presumed consent.” Presumed consent involves those persons who have *not* specified whether they want to donate organs or not. So once a person dies, and for whatever reason his organs (particularly corneas in Goodwin’s chapter, which discusses presumed consent) have not be specifically barred from donation, then it is taken for granted that his organs can be used for donation. The idea being that, “If he were alive, then he would agree to donate because he didn’t specifically say that he didn’t want to donate.” Ack! I had never heard of that, and apparently, many others including many politicians were not aware of presumed consent in regards to organ harvesting when asked about it.
The particular scandal regarding presumed consent and organ harvesting occurred when it was found that the corneas of many homicide victims were harvested without consent of the donor, or the families and without the families knowing that it was done. Evidently, corneas are easy to take without it being obvious, especially since the deceased eyes are usually closed during viewings. These corneas were later sold and resold for profit. Apparently, cornea transplants are a common thing. I didn’t know that. So I looked up cornea transplants and found that it is estimated that in the U.S. (depending upon which source one reads), there are around 20,000 to 40,000 corneal transplants done a year. Wow, where do all those corneas come from? Well, apparently, lots of them came from homicide victims under the presumed consent reasoning. While not all deaths end in autopsy, all homicide victims routinely are sent for autopsy. And it is during that autopsy where these homicide victims end up “donating” their corneas or anything else deemed harvestable.
Goodwin discusses the arguments for and against presumed consent, which does appear to be a bit controversial.
Another thing that came to my attention was “do corneal transplant recipients need to take any immuosuppressant?” It seems not, and reminds me of other “implants” wherein foreign material is placed inside the body seemingly without the body rejecting them–i.e. metal screws, various plastics, etc. Hmmm. While it is obvious that those items are not naturally supposed to be in the body, it does seem that the body will accept some foreign materials to a certain point. BUT, I do know that places like the Gerson Institute does not accept people with any types of implants because the idea is that once the immune system is fully functioning and in pristine condition, then it will recognize foreign materials and cause the body to reject those foreign items–including metal hip screws, pacemakers, breast implants, etc. I have heard from a man who had corneal implants who claimed that he was not feeling well, so he went on a more healthful diet, which did improve his overall feelings, BUT he also started to reject his corneal implants. The idea is that once on a better diet and his immune system was improving, it also started to recognize that his corneas were foreign and proceeded to attack them. And then again, some of those foreign materials are considered in themselves immunosuppressants, like various plastics are believed to cause cancers and other health problems. Consider the debates on silicone breast implants and pthalates that can leech into foods from various food containers and wraps. But the bottom line is if corneal implants don’t require immunosuppressants, it seems to me that they are not in the same league as full organ transplants. Therefore they don’t seem as “wrong” to me. Although some of the “harvesting” practices do seem questionable because it not only involves “non-consent” issues, but also involves lack of screening of the tissue–i.e. it is common to “not” obtain medical history of homicide victim, so the quality of his organs, or in this case, corneas, can be of questionable quality since transmissible diseases can be passed on through contaminated corneas.
Okay, I’m out of time again. Must dash, but hope to get back with a little more on transplants, particularly since this topic brought back my old interest on the history of transplants. I blew off the dust on my old notes and thought it would be interesting to share some transplant history.
But for now, toodles!
Marlakins
Permalink
05.14.07
Posted in Anything goes, God, Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized at 8:49 am by Administrator
This morning I was flipping through a Voice of the Martyrs (VOM) newsletter. Boy, some of the stories in there really have me in awe as to how much strength and determination some people have to stand up for what they believe in. For anyone who isn’t familiar with VOM, they are a non-profit organization who focuses their work on areas where there are persecuted Christian churches. As an example, this particular newsletter features an article titled, “The Hidden World of the Malay Christian.” As a hint to what the article is about, here’s the first paragraph:
“A tourist to Malaysia can walk into church on Sunday morning for worship, but a Malay cannot. Over half of the 5 million population are darker-skinned Malays (not Chinese or Indian) who are forbidden to go into a church because they are required to stay Muslim.”
Stories like these really humble me because like my previous post where I mentioned people starving to death, yet I had never even gone one day without food, I have also never experienced being prohibited to enter a church. Sure I’ve had my faith challenged and my beliefs questioned, but never to the point I was denied my right to believe what I do. It’s hard to imagine wanting to go to some church to listen, but being told that I was not allowed and that it was actually against the law. This makes me realize that although people in general share the same feelings–i.e. joy, sadness, fear, etc., some people are placed in extreme circumstances which seem to tease out those who have more strength and determination to do what is right. And I wonder how some people come to be like that. Why is one person able to stand firm with his beliefs, while another would shrink back and hide his true beliefs? And so it’s with that spirit that I like to read the stories of those who have endured incredible or unusual circumstances and remained faithful to God. The strength of these people who have suffered thousands of miles away, and don’t even know me, have actually inspired me and taught me things I would not have known since I have not been subjected to their circumstances. Theirs is an experience I could not have dreamed of without their sharing it. One example that struck me was the perspective of one Christian who as imprisoned for 3 years. This was actually not from the Malay story, but from a writeup to a book called, “Alone with God,” by Richard Wurmbrand. This is what was written:
“Should I Pray to be Free?
Composed in a cell in solitary confinement, 30 feet underground:
My God,
I know how to say ‘Our Father,’ but do not know what to add. Should I ask you for freedom? If so, why?. . .
It is not necessary to go to holy places in order to be pleasing to You. But neither is it necessary to be at liberty. Which commandment could I keep better in freedom than in a prison cell? Why should I move around? The lily stays in the same place and exhales its perfume.
What does it matter that I am alone? I had this problem when I was a pastor of the church. I had inherited from my predecessor a church with small attendance. In the beginning I was sad about it. But then I quieted my heart and told the brethren, ‘Instead of worrying about those who are absent, let each of us multiply his zeal and fervor and love. It is for these that God looks out. If He finds one man with as much love as only a hundred men would normally have, He is satisfied.’
In my solitary cell, I am undisturbed. I can work on my character to develop the virtue of thousands.
I will not pray to be free. . . ”
Wow, I read that to Brian and asked him what he thought. He said, “I’d ask to be free.” LOLOL He said, the reason he would ask to be free is because he had lots to do! LOLOLOL Does sound like a valid reason, ha! Well, I suppose I’d ask to be free, too! Maybe I should buy Wurmbrand’s book and find out why he was put in prison in the first place. This is what I mean about learning from the lives and experiences of others. From their eyes, I am able to learn more about life and how others experience it. It’s especially helpful since some people go through experiences (like prison and religious persecution) that others may never have. Why do people make the choices they do? Maybe one of the things that draws me to reading other people’s stories is my curiosity of what makes them tick. Some people seem so clever and make interesting choices. Yet, with all our similarities, we are all also quite different, but yet the same! Groups of people have been known to act in a “herd” mentality, but even so, a handful will break free and defy the odds. I wonder how that happens when we all “seem” to start out the same–i.e. we are all born into the world naked.
Marlakins
Permalink
05.02.07
Posted in Anything goes, Health-related--Natural Alternative Treatments, History, Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized at 10:34 am by Administrator
The demonstration I saw last week for the 1915 Armenian Genocide reminded me of something I had come across a while ago regarding the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-33. It made me reflect on several things that astounded me about it. One in particular involved my interest in health and nutrition. Previously, when I thought of wars, the first thing I would think of is all the deaths from the battlefields along with subsequent collateral damage. For instance it has been documented that during the Armenian Genocide in April of 1915, tens of thousands of Armenian men were rounded up and shot. Within 9 months, over 600,000 Armenians were massacred. Similar stories are recounted of events during WWII’s Holocaust.
But there is another aspect to war by which tens of thousands of people die aside from outright bodily injury sustained from weapons in battle or systematic murder inflicted by blunt trauma, and that is by starvation such as what was endured by the Ukrainians in 1932-33. Reading about the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-33 impressed upon me how quickly our health can be negatively impacted through lack of proper food. It is common knowledge that along with malnutrition (and poor sanitation) comes diseases such as tuberculosis, dysentery, etc. With malnutrition, resistence to diseases is lowered. During the years of 1932-33, Ukraine had endured a “government planned” famine (the idea of a “government planned famine” was another thing that astounded me when learning about the Ukrainian Genocide). During that one year, an estimated “10 million” Ukrainians starved to death. In “one” year! This shows me the importance of proper nutrition to our well-being. It doesn’t take long to become malnutritioned. I’m guessing that it didn’t take a full year for people to die of starvation and disease, but I wonder how many months it took. Not to be grim or anything, but when you think of malnutrition, I would venture to say that those on largely junk food diets may very well be slowly starving to death.
In our land of oppulence, are we suffering from malnutrition today? How many people actually pay attention to the nutritional value of the foods they eat every day? What nutritional content is there is that soda can or candy bar? Cheetos? Instant macacroni and cheese? When we fill ourselves up daily with processed snacks and sodas, frozen dinners, and instance mixes, we not only load our bodies with toxins that tax our bodies, but we also displace true nutrition. We can only fit so much in our tummies, and if it’s got two slices of cake in there, then that means there’s two slices less space in the tummy to put something more nutritious and useful for the body. If we continue to displace true nutrition long enough, then in essence, we are starving ourselves, however slowly. It’s like the proverbial frog in a pot of slowly heated water. If the water is very slowly brought up to temperature, the frog will just sit there until it boils to death. Likewise, when we stuff ourselves with junk foods day after day, and year after year, we unknowingly, slowly starve ourselves of good nutrition. We keep eating, but our bodies are slowly using up the good reserves. Perhaps we would do ourselves a favor if we tipped the scale towards more nutritious foods than the junky, empty caloried ones.
Thousands of studies and reports have shown us that vitamins, minerals, enzymes, etc. are essential to our well-being, yet although foods contain those very ingredients, our doctors commonly tell the sick and diseased that nutrition can not, or will not, significantly affect the progress of their disease! I have even seen bowls of hard candy offered to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy right in the doctors’ offices. That astounds me. While it is true that there is a growing number of people who are realizing the link between the lack of quality nutrition and our current rates of disease, there are still many, as evidenced by the posts I have read on internet forums which deal with managing various diseases like MDS and AA, who believe things like striving to eat nutritious foods is “impractical!” That was even one of the very words used to describe eating organic foods. In my eyes, one of the most practical and basic things in managing the health of a diseased person is to seek out proper nutrition. One would think that would be common sense, but evidently, as evidenced by the above example comment, common sense is not so common.
I think history has shown us the value of nutrition time and time again. No need for personal experiments, although I don’t think it would be hard or take very long or be very costly to do a personal experiment. Having lived in a country that has not had a war on its soil during all of my life-time, I have been spared the hardships others have suffered during times of war. Never in my 42 years of life have I gone “one” day without food that I can remember. I have never subjected myself to a planned fast much less have never endured a “forced” fast. I have, however, skipped a meal here and there, and that alone has caused me distress from time to time! Imagine going days or weeks without food? I’ve only felt a tiny fraction of what those who have starved to death have felt.
I know there are many other things that negatively affect our health, but the recent genocide demonstration just reminded me of the nutritional aspect of it.
Marlakins
Permalink
04.20.07
Posted in Anything goes, Health-related--Natural Alternative Treatments, Historical Trivia, Hmmm Moments, Treatment Decisions, Uncategorized at 5:41 pm by Administrator
Anyone who has explored alternative treatments for long will likely have run into the controversy of the value or dangers of vaccines. One of the claims is that the recipient of a vaccine can actually come down with the very disease they are being vaccinated against. As a layperson, I had wondered if that was true. First of all, I had no idea how vaccines were made aside from the basic knowledge that vaccines contain a small amount of the virus for which we want to mount an immune response for protection to prevent a full-blown case of the particular virus. Subsequent reading and searching revealed bits and pieces of how vaccines were/are developed and produced. Basically, there are two types of vaccines–1. the attenuated version (weakened virus), and 2. killed version where the virus used in the vaccination is dead. My first question was, “Why do they use “attenuated” vaccines AND “killed virus” vaccines? What’s the difference aside from one is dead and one is weak? Well, today while reading a book called, The Invisible Enemy, A Natural History of Viruses, I found the answer. “Attenuated” vaccines supposedly offers longer-lasting protection against a full outbreak of the virus than the “killed” version of the vaccine. Hmm. So that seems to imply that we don’t have “life-time” protection if one lasts longer than the other. . . I don’t recall ever being told I need to update my vaccines as an adult unless there were unusual circumstances like a bone marrow transplant. I find that a curiosity, and maybe I’ll find my answer to that one somewhere else since I don’t recall running into the answer in the above mentioned book. However, I did find some other answers to questions I had wondered about regarding viruses and vaccines.
Another question I had wondered about was, “Is it possible to actually come down with the very disease we are being vaccinated against?” Just the mention of that is enough to get some incredulous stares, but some books I’ve read say, “yes,”one can come down with an infection from the virus introduced by vaccination. Since those claims are usually from the “anti-vaccine” party, I had wondered what the “pro-vaccine” party would say. Dorothy H. Crawford, author of “The Invisible Enemy” apparently belongs to the pro-vaccine party. She wrote that those who choose not to vaccinate are like the “parasites” of society. Ack! But even she has admitted in her book that, yes, it is true that a recipient of an attenuated vaccine could actually develop the disease of which one is being vaccinated against. It is on page 210 of her book where I learned of the term, “back mutations.” Crawford explains, for example, how the polio vaccines are attenuated, and each batch is tested in animals to make sure that it has lost its capacity to cause paralytic polio before it is released for human use. She futher states that, “But although it is extremely safe, it does cause paralytic polio in around one in every two million of those vaccinated.” (Not comforting to the parents of the one-in-two-million child who develops paralysis). Continuing on, “Somewhat surprisingly, comparison of genetic material from the paralytic and attenuated vaccine strains of polio virus shows very few differences–in most instances just two mutations. In cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio, further mutations have returned these single changes back to their original form in the virulent virus“. . . There’s our “back mutuation”. . . So it does exist. . . But get a load of the next couple paragraphs she writes.
“In 1983, Philip Minor from the UK’s National Institute for Biological Standards and Controls, set out to see how common back mutations of the vaccine strain of polio virus actually were. He studied his own baby son, David, who was four months old when he had his first dose of oral polio vaccine. Minor collect all his baby’s faeces and detected polio virus in them for the following 73 days. But it was molecular analysis of these viruses which really surprised him. He detected back mutations which increased the virulence of the virus as early as two days after immunization and more followed. To show that this was not just a fluke result, Minor repeated the same experiment two years later on his daughter, Elizabeth, and came up with the same answer. Up until then polio mutants had only been found in rare cases of vaccine-associated paralytic disease, but thankfully the Minor children remained healthy.
“We now know that back mutations occur in almost all those vaccinated, but why these viruses so rarely cause paralysis is not yet clear. However, with this level of reversion to a potential disease-causing virus and circulation of vaccine virus in the community complete eradication of paralytic polio and the virus will probably not be feasible using live attenuated vaccine. For this we may ned to change back to the earlier killed preparation.”
That pretty much confirms it for me that what people like Neil Z. Miller, author of Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?, and Tim O’Shea, author of The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination is Not Immunization claim. That there is risk that those being vaccinated can actually become infected from the vaccination itself and that the true decline in the incidence of infection may not be attributed to vaccinations, but rather to the cyclic nature of the host of viruses to gain natural immunity in general. For instance, Miller writes that the incidences of polio was already on the decline when vaccines were introduced. Thus, the seeming erradication of polio was not due to the vaccinations, but rather the natural course of host resistance to the disease. That idea is not completely out in left field as Crawford confirms that viruses have a tendency to do this in her example of the flu virus epidemics. (Interestingly, she defines an epidemic as any unusual increase of an infection in a community, so the recent 10 cases of AA in the first few months of the year in San Diego could fit that description since, with their population, they should have been allotted only about 6 cases for the entire year; while a pandemic is an unusual world-wide increased incidence of an infection). Crawford writes that “although flu outbreaks occur every winter, full-blown epidemics only happen every 8-10 years. . . and flu “pandemics” occur on average every 10-40 years. Apparently, this has to do with the genetic makeup of the virus and the natural resistence the hosts develop. Thus, it seems plausible that Miller is right that the viruses, such as polio, were just naturally loosing steam on their own before the vaccines came to take the credit for its eradication. Miller includes statistics on not only polio, but measles, pertussis, and smallpox.
When I first checked out Crawford’s book, The Invisible Enemy, I was just interested in reading up more on viruses because of the recent discussion on the AA forum of the possible causes of AA, and if some sort of virus was involved with some cases of AA. What I wanted to know was once we are infected with a particular virus, does the virus ever leave the body, or do we harbor it for the rest of our lives? Apparently, depending upon the virus, one can either eradicate it, or we can harbor it for life. A virus such as the flu apparently is eradicated, but our bodies develop antibodies against it so that if we are ever exposed to that same virus again, we could fight if off and not develop infection. Other viruses manage to lie dormant in our cells until an opportune time to resurface. These particular viruses are known as latent viruses and include strains such as the herpes variety. Other viruses never quite completely go dormant and continue to cause low level infection in the host such as some cases of viral hepatitis.
Overall, I enjoyed reading The Invisible Enemy. Crawford writes about other interesting viral epidemics, gives an easily understood description of viruses as opposed to bacteria, actual case stories, etc. I have a couple other virology books on hold, and look forward to learning more about viruses. They certainly are very interesting little, tiny animals, ha! Plus, I still have other questions for which I hope to find more answers.
Marlakins
Permalink
04.19.07
Posted in Anything goes, Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized at 4:37 pm by Administrator
My son just pointed out a post on Ken Ham’s blog regarding the recent Virginia Tech shooting. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t be interested in blogging about what all the news medias are currently covering because, gee, everyone is likely just rehashing the same thing. But, what I found particularly interesting was that “Orac,” yes the same “troll” I referred to in one of my older posts I titled, “By George, it’s a Real Troll, was referred to in Scientific American where Orac “misunderstands” Ken’s post. Ken was “not” blaming the shootings on secularists and evolution (as Orac claimed he was), but rather on “sin.” Christians, as well as secularists, can commit sin. Maybe Orac’s definition of a sinner is a secularist and/or evolutionist? And Christians think they don’t sin? Absolutely, not! Sigh. Any Christian who has read the Bible “knows” that we have “all” sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Christians do not claim to be sinless! Maybe Orac forgets that “some” unscientific Christians believe in evolution (although, this Christian absolutely does not). And there are some “non” Christians from other religions who also don’t believe in evolution like some Muslims. I’ve even spoken to agnostics who find faults with evolution. “Sin” is the issue in Ken’s post, which Orac apparently missed, “maybe” because when he saw “evolution” mentioned, he ran away with his preconceived ideas of what he “thought” Ken would say. Never mind what Ken was actually trying to convey. As “scientific” as Scientific American “thinks” they are, they apparently don’t even “check” all their resources they use in their publications. Or perhaps they, too, just didn’t understand what Ken was saying, ha! I’ve cut and pasted part of Ken Ham’s post on his blog where he explains the error:
“Many look on Scientific American as a reputable science (though ardently evolutionary) magazine–but one wonders how trustworthy their research is when on their website one of the editors for Scientific American made the following statement from their blog:
The second is the attempt to blame the killings on science education itself. Check out Orac’s post, which points to a ridiculous blog about the shootings by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a pro-Christian advocacy group. In the post, Ham rails against atheism, evolutionary biology and the science classroom…
“He quoted from a website that stated:
Here’s contemptible ghoul #2, Ken Ham over at Answers in Genesis , who blames the evil of the school shooting on atheism (of course!) and–wink, wink, nudge, nudge–evolution, even though he “isn’t saying that,” if you know what I mean…Despicable. Ken Ham couldn’t even wait until tomorrow to start blaming godless secularists and evolution for this crime, just as he blamed the Columbine shootings on evolution and atheism.”
“But the same website actually quoted my article on the Virginia Tech killings where I really stated:
I’m not at all saying that the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution. I don’t know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin. However, when we see such death and violence, it is a reminder to us that without God’s Word (and the literal history in Genesis 1–11), people will not understand why such things happen.
“The main thrust of my article was to point out that unless one understood and believed in a literal Genesis, one won’t have an understanding of why such killings occur. I also pointed out that the more generations of people are educated to believe in evolution/millions of years, and that the Bible’s history is not true—the more these generations will have no basis for morality or purpose and meaning life, etc.
“I guess the problem is that people in the secular world don’t understand (or accept) SIN—therefore they don’t understand what we are saying. But it really is quite poor of Scientific American to twist what I said.”
The full post on Ken Ham’s blog can be viewed here.
Just goes to show us that misunderstandings are rife.
Marlakins
Permalink
03.02.07
Posted in Anything goes, God, Health-related--Natural Alternative Treatments, History, Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized at 6:06 pm by Administrator
This morning I dreamt that I saw a new store that had just openned for business. It looked large, and I wanted to go inside to see what they had. As I entered the shop doors, I saw rows and rows of candies and chips stacked in big heaps like how produce is sold in the markets. Only these candies and chips were larger than life size and all were pre-packaged with big samples to try attached to each bag. I saw tortilla chip bags with tortilla chip samples the size of about 8″x5″ rectangulars attached to each bag. They looked like cheeto flavored. I didn’t feel tempted to eat anything, but was just amused at how much and how big everything was. I continued to browse around when I saw a big glass case like those at fairs where they cook popcorn in movable carts, but a bit bigger. Only this glass cart contained huge, warm, fluffy pretzels. The pretzels were on a carousel that you could turn by a nob from the outside of the glass case. A man and his young son were at the case purchasing a large pretzel for $3.00. I wanted to get a better look, so I got closer and looked inside. The pretzels were vey large and were lying down. The one I saw was shaped like a seahorse. And I thought, “I think I would like to try one of those.” As I was about to turn the nob to get to the seahorse, I heard a phone ringing, and I woke up. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to go back to sleep, so never did get to try that seahorse pretzel!
A couple weeks ago I was out at dinner with family and a friend. The topic of dreams came up and that thought that dreams do have meanings. This perked my interest because every now and then I read how dreams are important to mental health. Carl Pfeiffer, M.D., one of the founders of orthomolecular psychiatry and author of Nutrition and Mental Illness : An Orthomolecular Approach to Balancing Body Chemistry, wrote about his observation that schizophrenics tend not to be able to recall their dreams. Pfeiffer believed that the ability to dream and dream recall were important to good mental health. He found regular supplementation of vit B6 along with some other supplements improved mental health for schizophrenics and also improved their ability to dream and to recall their dreams. So I do believe that dreaming is important, but I had not thought much that the subject or content of our dreams meant anything. During our dinner conversation, our friend asserted that she believed that all dreams have meanings and the things we dream about represent things. Hmmm.
I don’t see myself as an overly superstitious person, and pay no heed to things like palm reading or astrology. But somehow I feel that dreams might be a bit different, primarily because of how dreams were viewed in the Bible. The Bible warns us to stay away from sorcery and things like that, but doesn’t seem to have anything bad to say about interpreting dreams. There are actually quite a few references about dreams in the Bible where God used them to convey messages to people. One very famous story was of the dreams of the Pharoah. He had dreamed that he was standing by the river “when suddenly there came up out of the river seven cows, fine looking and fat; and they fed in the meadow. Then behold, seven other cows came up after them out of the river, ugly and gaunt, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the river. And the ugly and gaunt cows ate up the seven fine looking and fat cows. So the Pharaoh awoke. He slept and dreamed a second time; and suddenly seven heads of grain came up on one stalk, plump and good. Then behold, seven thin heads, blighted by the east wind, sprang up after them. And the seven thin heads devoured the seven plump and full heads. So pharaoh awoke, and indeed, it was a dream.” The Pharaoh wanted his dream interpreted and so Joseph was found to be able to interpret. This was the interpretation of his dream:
“The dreams of Pharaoh are one; God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do: “The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads are seven years; the dreams are one. And the seven thin and ugly cows which came up after them are seven years, and the seven empty heads blighted by the east wind are seven years of famine. This is the thing which I have spoken to Pharaoh. God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do.” Genesis 41:25-28.
Prior to this, Joseph had accurately interpreted the dreams of two of his cell mates.
Another famous Biblical dream was dreamt by Joseph, Mary’s soon-to-be husband. He was considering putting her away secretly because she was pregnant before marriage, when he was told in his dream, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He wil save His people from their sins.”
Young King Solomon also received a message in his dream. Those of you who are familiar with the Bible know that Solomon became king when he was quite young. So the following account is when he had just become king. In 1 Kings 3:5-15 Solomon went to Gibeon and there he had a dream. This is what was documented of that dream:
“At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, ‘Ask! What shall I give you?’ And Solomon said: ‘You have shown great mercy to your servant David my father, because he walked before You in truth, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with You; You have continued this great kindness for him, and You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. Now, O Lord my God, You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. And Your servant is in the midst of Your people whom You hae chosen, a great people, too numerous to be numbered or counted. Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours? And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing. Then God said to him: ‘Because you have asked this thing, and have not asked long life for yourself, nor have asked riches for yourself, nor have asked the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern justice, behold, I have done according to your words; see, I have given you a wise and understanding heart, so that there has not been anyone like you before you, nor shall any like you arise after you. And I have also given you what you have not asked: both riches and honor, so that there shall not be anyone like you among the kings all your days. So if you walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.’ Then Solomon awoke; and indeed it had been a dream. . . ”
There are other fun stories of dreams and their interpretations in the Bible. A look in the concordance will show that dreams were mentioned in Genesis, Numbers, Judges, 1 Kings, Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Joel, Matthew, and Acts.
But does this mean that ALL dreams mean something? I don’t know. Not only that, many of my dreams don’t seem to make any sense at all! I did a quick Google on “dream interpretations,” and found that there are symbols that they think mean something–i.e. color, seasons, body parts, animals, etc. So I looked to see if there was any meaning to “seahorses. . .” Hehehe. No luck. No seahorse on their list, although there were other animals that were considered common like swans, doves, eagles, etc. Other common dreams are of flying, walking or running barefooted, teeth falling out, etc. I found a list of animals and what they think they symbolize at this link. I have no idea how they come up with this stuff. Maybe their interpretations are all a bunch of bunk, although, I don’t think dreams are a bunch of bunk. I just wonder whether I should be paying more attention to them? Do they actually answer some of my questions? I wonder why I dreamt of a large store full of oversized junk foods? Why did I want to eat a huge pretzel shaped like a seahorse? Well, I know there’s tons more about dreams and sleep, so I’d better stop here for now. I don’t recall ever dreaming about something I wanted to dream about, heh. At least I hardly ever get nightmares, now. I wonder what I’ll dream about tonight.
Sweet dreams, everyone.
Marlakins 
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
