You simply find a source that you can trust or grow your own.
Plenty and different damage that can be done by DHMO. I’m glad you brought this to my attention as the corporate media has mostly been silent on this issue.
Now I know you’re trolling. lol
2 Likes
Again I’ll answer you agter you answer me. I asked you first.
Yes or no. And then why.
DHMO is one of the most solvent chemicals on the planet.
If we were smart, we’d forget about global warming and focus more on DHMO.
4 Likes
Try reading what you link:
3 Likes
Yes, ultimately.
However your situation could never happen. It’s not worth it to get into it though.
Look, end of the day, you’re arguing a strawman. I never mentioned health. I said poor people were fat, which means food is so god damn cheap, they have an abundance of calories.
Are those cheap calories “high quality”? No, not all of them, but it doesn’t make them not cheap and not readily available. For the first time in Human History poor people in Western Civ have TOO MANY calories, rather than too little. This really says a lot about this “evil” capitalism you rail on and on about.
Arguing strawmen about “but de izn’t da healthz” isn’t ever remotely disproving my point, let alone addressing it.
Not a single link in that article to anything but itself, lmao… That isn’t science.
So the corporate media has been reporting on this fairly regularly?
The answer is implied in the statement above.
Forget about global warming?
I must have missed that statement but it’s odd that it contradicts the title of the article. Surge was built on the idea that the type of food has certain desirable effects after a workout. So if one group eats eggs and bacon for breakfast and another has pancakes and syrup as long as the calories are the same and the workouts are the same no group gains more in terms of fat? What are the effects long term?
Basically, ya. I think you’re getting hung up on what is optimal for a given goal, which is different.
If you removed all of the dhmo from the atmosphere global warming wouldn’t be a problem at all.
2 Likes
Congratulations, you found an article on the internet that agrees with you. I’m shocked it wasn’t from David Wolfe… I will state once again, what good does it do to only label that something has GMO’s??? You seemed to ignore the rest of my post.
I don’t give a fuck about implications. I want a solid, direct answer
Nope, you completely missed the point. Not even remotely close. I am 100% giving medicine credit for wiping out epidemics, which is evidence that medicine is helping make us more healthy than we have been historically.
YOU are the one arguing that we are more sick now that we ever have been, which is clearly not true.
However, knowing how you have trolled everybody else here, I acknowledge this tangent has nothing more to accomplish as I believe the point is made (the point that we are NOT more sick than we ever have been) so I don’t feel like we need to explore it further. I do think it would be better to address the DHMO you started discussing:
I’m interested to hear more about how you believe corporate media has failed us in regards to DHMO.
I’m not erecting a strawman, only recognizing that increased weight tends to mean more disease and dysfunction.
And if the example I iterated above is unlikely. It is beside the point. The type of food you eat is critically important ion terms of weight gain and disease.
To discount all the dysfunction and disease that comes along with CHEAP calories and this says a lot about capitalism that you so blindly worship.
One dogma that has contributed to the ever-worsening health of the Western world is the belief that “a calorie is a calorie.” This is one of the first things dieticians learn in school. Unfortunately, this is completely FALSE… Another dogmatic belief that simply isn’t true is the idea that obesity is the end result of eating too much and exercising too little; i.e. consuming more calories than you’re expending. This has led to the view that obese people are simply “lazy.”
According to Dr. Robert Lustig, fructose is “isocaloric but not isometabolic.” This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count. This is largely because different nutrients provoke different hormonal responses, and those hormonal responses determine, among other things, how much fat you accumulate.
My basic argument is that food type matters in terms of weight gain more than calories in vs. calories out. Not to mention all the dysfunction and disease that comes with it.