Harveyg

When I looked up glycemic index it seems to be used for the kind of foods we’ve always considered food, including things like bread and biscuits and cereal. I was wondering if it also includes the kind of products that are relatively newer in all kinds of boxes and plastics. I’m thinking about what’s on all those ingredient labels and was wondering how many names for sugar there were. When I looked it up this is what I found: of Health and Human Services, added sugars show up on food and drink labels under the following names: Anhydrous dextrose, brown sugar, cane crystals, cane sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, crystal dextrose, evaporated cane juice, fructose sweetener, fruit juice concentrates, high-fructose corn ... I guess the list keeps going. Those are Google’s dots not mine. I wonder why organizations like the WHO and CDC and other countries’ health agencies don’t have the kind of interest in people’s health the way they do with Covid. Actually I don’t wonder anymore. I just follow the money.

I think we are sort of there already. Go down the isles of any supermarket and look at each product you see and ask – is this more of a food or more of a science project?

I still have hope. I prefer to remember that we will not see the news here from the other side. We will not see all the people that have begun to grow their own food, create shelters that are more and more off grid, that take less and less pharmaceutical drugs, tha seek financial independence through crypto.

If you don’t mind I’m curious as to how many years you’ve been in Thailand and what location you’re choosing in Colombia. I’ve thought about living there but not that seriously.

What??? No comments? A non-vaccine treatment and no comment?

Where does the 5G go?

You can do more than hope if you’re interested.

I do think those rules should be removed, but I don’t think it’s a question of sensibility. They never should’ve been imposed in the first place for a variety of reasons. As for countries making money, countries is too vague term. We could certainly say that the pharmaceutical companies have made money, incredibly incredible amounts of money. Was it two months ago that Pfizer was quoted as having made $36 billion? If someone takes a cut at the government level well then normal business and I would venture to say, true for every country involved in “vaccines“. But this all may boil down to what our sources of news are and among people reading this post I imagine that there is a degree of variability.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that IT corporate representatives and their allies in government from the US and Thailand met today to discuss mutual financial matters?

How much economic damage has there been? I suspect it is the small business, mom and pop, that has suffered the most. I’m wondering if someone benefits from that. Is there any evidence that larger entities have gabbled up the business from smaller ones?

And provide the early treatment options that are available in other countries and that have shown remarkable success in clinical practice.

When I follow up the pyramid ultimately it leads to the elite.

This is the most important line to me in what you wrote. I would make one correction and omit totally because I don’t know how deep it goes so I would be satisfied with just compromised. ????

There has been some mention of adverse events here. Is the VAERS data accurate? This study out of Harvard concludes that it is not accurate but not in the direction you might think. The study out of Harvard was to find out just how well the VAERS was working. https://healthit.ahrq.gov/…/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-repor… From the results section: ”Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” That means, for vaccines, you could multiply the actual results by 100??? Furthermore Harvard was given a grant to investigate the VAERS and after the initial report the CDC consultants didn’t answer their requests.

First of all it is not necessary to link his statement of long-term effects with VAERS. VAERS is not measuring long-term effects or long-term events. I read it as in addition to the VAERS data as another concern. Actually I think we could add one more thing, namely, that had they called it simply a drug they would have been liable for damages. As a vaccine they are not liable. It’s amazing how some of the most important aspects get lost in the fine print.

I don’t think of the school as tyrannical. How far up the chain would you like to go? Let me know where you stop.

I thought it was mind-boggling that Reuters actually printed such an article and did it with even handed integrity.

I realize that few know. There are many things that are not known, depending on the choice of your new sources. So I try and provide that information. Glad to hear that you do the same.

Is the VAERS data accurate? This study out of Harvard concludes that it is not accurate but not for the reasons given by the lay people here: The study out of Harvard was to find out just how well the VAERS was working. https://healthit.ahrq.gov/…/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-repor… From the results section: ”Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” That means, for vaccines, you could multiply the actual results by 100??? Furthermore Harvard was given a grant to investigate the VAERS and after the initial report the CDC consultants didn’t answer their requests.

You may be correct but I can’t find any substantiation for your claim.

I just saw this report from the daily telegraph in no re: a Pfizer document so I thought I’d pass it on to you: https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/pfizer-document-concedes-that-there-is-a-large-increase-in-types-of-adverse-event-reaction-to-its-vaccine/

You haven’t made clear what Person B uses for his sources. Please clarify.

I have to apologize. I should’ve kept that sarcastic statement to myself. I agree with you. I was merely comparing it to another more viral event I feel the same way about.