It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Covd 19 - It's not too late - Let's Stop it Now!

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2020 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

I am neither pro nor anti. If my doctor gives me his medical opinion that a vaccination is the best way to go then it’s likely I follow his advice. Herd immunity only works if you don’t hide out




posted on May, 28 2020 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Its all about "habits," imo. The ones that were created early on, and/or those that have been long term become more deeply embedded.

As we are growing and learning, until about our mid 20s, we are actively forming and shaping the neurological pathways that will essentially serve as a foundation for the processing of stimuli throughout the rest of our life.

Kind of speaks to the wisdom of the whole "ya cant teach an old dog new tricks" saying. Its not entirely true, but it does become more difficult depending on the age the "habit" began, and how long it has persisted.

Places like facebook, twitter, etc. are specifically designed to be habit forming. Basically, it all goes to what you are saying: boredom is "painful," *and* we get a little dopamine hit every time someone likes something we post, or we hear that notification sound indicating interaction. A carrot and a stick.

Its not hard to turn this into a garbage diet.. The least amount of effort yields the same reward. And, if you just subtly push garbage, and subtly suppress "healthy" stuff, you can influence mass percentages of the population just on a single widely used platform. Couple that with multiple platforms, and media, and you can essentially turn into a "drug dealer" that controls the vast majority of information vectors. As we see with this pandemic, regarding everything from masks to lockdowns and fear. Most will either accept or reject those seeds, usually with a strong emotional response, but will rarely try to germinate their own.

"Tending our own garden" is a continuous process, but many have outsourced the job to entities that do not have our best interests at heart. Keeping that microbiome in balance (mentally, physically, societally, culturally, politically...) is something we still have significant ignorance about. But at the same time, I think a lot of it is intuitive simply due to the nature of it. Even so, that intuition is not only disconnected in modern life, it is frequently demonized as outdated and obsolete. Or, the other way 'round: all new "things" are "bad."

Which runs, interestingly, into the possible detriments of something like glyphosate. What I gleaned from that write up, and going through the references, is that the longterm, widespread use of glyphosate may impact the balance of the microbiome of plants & growing medium. If this is coupled with general soil depletion issues, there might be some serious issues coming down the line there. Not necessarily in terms of toxicity vs non-toxicity, or even direct impact on humans, but in a disruption of the balance in certain parts of the chain.

Quite similar to vaccines, really. If long term use yields either growth or reduction in certain bacterium & microbes, lending reliance on a chemical rather than "natural" processes, it might lead to a helluva rough road down the line. Even if the impact seems minimal in short term examination.

Admittedly, Im totally biased towards decentralization of our food supply anyway, but I do believe there are some serious considerations there. Particularly when we start designing the crops themselves with the chemical in mind.

Seems oddly apropos to the overall conversation too.. Many have entirely ceased to pursue means and methods of general health and immune system stability, instead becoming reliant on things like pharmaceuticals and vaccines. Entirely ceased to pursue means and methods of mental and emotional health, instead becoming reliant on social platforms and news for dopamine hits from extreme emotions. Entirely ceased to pursue means and methods of novel agricultural production, instead becoming reliant on a paradigm of chemicals and genetic modification. Corporate marketing and products rule the "day."

Its not all "evil" or "bad," in my opinion, but there does seem to be an overarching theme there that might be prudent to examine.

Else, we get behavior and results like we see with this current time; lockdowns, masks, and vaccines with societal disruption in everything from food supply to general unrest. Replete with media-amplified cries of "its the only way!" All of which may result from us forming habits in the same theme, across the board. All stemming (imo) from being sold corporate products and brands as our personal identity, our very being.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
Toxicity is a sliding scale, but the point I was making is that because something is toxic (harm-inducing) at one level does not indicate it is toxic at all levels.

True enough, but
...

At low enough levels, it is non-toxic; our bodies are able to undo any damage it causes faster than the damage is caused.

Your example actually disproves your statement... the damage that is having to be repaired, is proof of toxicity, regardless of whether or not the body can repair itself fast enough. Some people's body's will be able to - and some won''t, which is why some people 'catch the flu' and some don't regardless of being exposed to carriers.

But I do agree, some things that are toxic in larger doses - like water - are not toxic at lower levels.

And some things don't have aknown toxicity level - aka 'LD-50' - like Vitamin C (sorry, couldn't resist).


I simply point out that some things have been sensationalized beyond their reality. I can think of two examples off the top of my head: one is aspartame. Aspartame is not a "good" thing... it has been shown to cause some issues at high doses. However, my wife has both diabetes and classic migraines. The diabetes prevents her from using too much processed sugar, and sucralose is one of her migraine triggers. Thus, we actually look for aspartame as a sweetener, as it is less dangerous to her than the other two common possibilities.

There are much better options... birch bark is one.

But - you are aware that one of the classic symptoms of aspartame toxicity is - migraine headaches, right???

You should be looking for solutions to your wife's diabetes... and the Keto diet+IF (intermittent fasting) is the best solution there is (only real one that I'm aware of). It will quickly eliminate all signs/symptoms of Type II, and will dramatically improve conditions for Type I's.


The other is soil fertilization. We have, as a society, tended to try and "sterilize" our surroundings. At one time, common knowledge was that planting a garden over a septic system was an easy and efficient way to maintain soil fertilization, but our move toward sterilization has led to some people actually believing this is somehow "unclean" and dangerous. In reality, all soil is made of waste material, from both plants and animals. But try and explain this to some people and they simply will not accept it.

But... human waste is the absolute worst 'fertilizer' you would want to use, at least directly.


Traditional farming methods, as in farming methods used before the advent of large-scale techniques, produced only a very small amount of food compared to today's methods. Compared to then, a farmer can tend many times the amount of land and still receive high yields on the land.

Yes, and this is precisely what has destroyed the fertility of our soil, and destroyed the nutritional value of the food produced.

What good is having 10 times the food if it has 90% less nutritional value?

When I said traditional, I was talking about things like land/crop rotation (letting the land lie fallow every 7 years), the use of cover crops (hemp and alfalfa are both outstanding) the roots of which go very very deep, pulling nutrients up from deep in the earth to replenish what is used from the top soil), the use of natural pest treatments, etc.


Pesticides allow a farmer to spray a crop and move to the next field, instead of spending weeks or months on a single field trying to remove pests on a more manual basis.

Healthy plants are much, much more pest resistant.

Farmers started 'needing' shortcuts because they were ... taking shortcuts by failing to rotate the lands, obviously, trying to maximize profits.

I'd much rather pay more for much healthier and more nutritious food.

That said, I eat very very little in the way of plant foods now, so don't care much...


The idea that farmers are open for visitation is simply not reality.

Interesting... I'll let the farmers that I visit regularly know that they are not real.

edit on 28-5-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Very early on, there was a story about a young kid with cystic fibrosis who had beaten COVID too. I think the elderly lady's story is maybe more amazing since kids tend to have a harder time getting, but I don't know. Any chest infection for a cystic patient is scary, scary stuff because they're already living gunked up.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Do know that your palate gets attuned to certain tastes.

I lost weight by calorie counting, and it was a running theme over and over that sugar skews your tastes. Posters would cry for help beating sweets. They couldn't stop. There is a genetic component I think I've read to sugar addiction, and I think I'm one of the lucky proportion of the population that doesn't have that issue with sugar.

Either I have incredible willpower or I'm not addictive to it.

But that didn't stop it from changing my tastes. When I stopped drinking soda, I noticed how much subtle sweetness in things started to pop out. Foods that I never really thought of as sweet before started taking on new dimensions in taste, and stuff that I used to think needed to be loaded with sugar started to be overly, cloyingly sweet.

So I'm not sure if it's a product of addiction or your brain just gets attuned, but I can see why it's so hard to break kids off the modern sugar/fat/salt processed food diets to eating normal natural foods. You have to build a whole different taste paradigm to get there.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

A habit is really nothing more than learned behavior in response to regular stimuli... sometimes in response to the behavior itself. And habits are hard to break precisely due to the non-linearity of the learning process. Consider the following example:

A new-born infant experiences hunger for the first time (pain). It has only one instinctive response: the repetitive clenching of musculature in the head and upper body, which results in crying. Now, Momma hears the cry and picks up the child, holding it close to it's natural source of food. The child is sensing her appearance (blurry in the early stages of life, but still there), her smell, the sound of her voice, her warmth, etc. In the brain, these inputs are being processed by the neural pathways. As the child's mouth is stimulated, a second instinct, that of suckling, kicks in and the pain (which is really just a negative derivative of the pain/pleasure spectrum) is replaced by pleasure. Now the neural pathways are again stimulated via neurotransmitters released due to the pleasure, and those neural pathways are adjusted to make them more susceptible to future conditions that mimic this one.

Over time, these pathways become well-ingrained and eventually produce their own release of neurotransmitters that reinforce the pathways prematurely... an expectant pleasure that occurs prior to the actual pleasure. The child is hungry; the child cries; the child sees Momma coming; the child feels better because it subconsciously knows food is at hand.

At the same time, these pathways become less and less susceptible to new stimuli. That is the non-linear response I mentioned. They can still be cleared, but only after repeated efforts. Thus, habits, once established, become difficult to change.

I have to stray a bit here to point out that, in this hypothesis, a young child who is given any psychotropic drugs (an external, artificial pleasure source) in response to bad behavior learns that such behavior itself is pleasurable. They will then attempt to repeat that behavior and, if they achieve the same result, will subconsciously associate it with pleasure in anticipation of a result that itself may not be forthcoming. That is one source of societal ills: the amount of Ritalin that was given regularly to unruly children.

Social media has attained a similar result, as you suggest. Boredom is indeed a type of "pain" and social media corrects this pain by providing visual and mental stimulation. It also has the ability to do so very rapidly over a short period of time, accelerating the learning process. Thus, social media becomes a habit, and this habit leads in turn to a continual message that eventually becomes assumed as true in the mind of the reader.

This is how political processes are manipulated. Those manipulating need not know the process via which manipulation takes place; it is enough to know it does. Auto insurance companies knew for years that young male drivers under age 25 were more likely to have accidents, and they thus set their rates substantially higher. We know now that the part of the brain that handles forethought does not complete development until about age 25... but we did not know that when the insurance companies determined the need for a higher rate.

In the case of the virus, the fear has been instilled through repetition which was really only possible to the present degree due to the political bickering of the past several years.

You are spot on about vaccines. All organisms respond to potentially extinction-level events by attempting to adjust. Those who cannot do so become extinct. Humans, in response to a virus of such danger will adjust social activities in order to minimize risks... but so will the virus itself! A vaccine may be effective at preventing 99.9% of all infections, but that 0.1% it does not prevent will by definition be the stronger strain and therefore immune to the vaccine. If enough such virii exist, the potential for a new, more deadly strain will exist as well.

Herd immunity tends to not have this drawback, as natural immunity can generally adapt as fast as a virus can mutate inside the body. Mutations are therefore limited to those which can occur outside a host, and that is a difficult task to achieve. Where vaccines are used in place of reliance on natural immunity, such as hospitals, we have already seen strains of "super viruses" appear.

Yet, again as you point out, we have sacrificed our natural immunity for the artificial immunity of the vaccine. It's one thing to use vaccines to prevent known virus epidemics; it is quite another to continually use vaccines against suspected viruses. A virus which mutates may do so just barely enough for the pre-emptive vaccine to be effective, and that can leave more virii that are resistant to slowly grow and expand in the hosts until a new virus has developed that is now resistant to the vaccines... and with lowered natural immunity, that can be apocalyptic. I consider us lucky that large sections of the planet have not already been wiped out by such an occurrence.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Its really interesting stuff..

Ive noticed that both certain substances as well as intensity play a big impact on palate over time.

Again, oddly relevant to wider societal/cultural issues; A lot of "things" people consume can remove the ability to perceive nuance, much less appreciate it or examine it.

Years back, I got real into sauces (dont you judge me!
). Still am, if Im honest, but cooking is tough for me. Over the months, I started moving from bold, pronounced flavors more to interplay between the flavors. Balancing them so that different qualities would come out.

This started to invade other parts of my food, and I noticed that not only did food taste more complex.. It tasted better.

I could eat stuff with those bold flavors, but the nuances that came through were.. not great in a lot of cases. Different, at least.

Very (I mean very) spicy foods are a good example. I used to love them, but as my palate shifted.. I started to taste very chemically undertones. Some of it still tastes good to me, like Cholula, jalapenos, and habaneros in the right dish. Overall though, the spice from the capsaicin has a chemical bite that I dont like at all. I never actually noticed it before, but I suppose "what has been tasted cannot be untasted."

Its a nuance that I had never noticed before, and it completely changed my outlook of the experience.

Its amazing to me how this same experience of "nuance" can apply to social discourse too. Its "Diet" and based on what we consume and even how we share it with others.

Kind of like how if one doesnt think locking ourselves in our homes "works," then you simply want people to die. Theres obviously no nuance there, but I think the mental & emotional diet actually excludes nuance from some peoples experience entirely. Its not that its overlooked, it simply doesnt exist in their perception.

The parallels are kind of amazing to me.. and more than a little bizarre.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


Your example actually disproves your statement... the damage that is having to be repaired, is proof of toxicity, regardless of whether or not the body can repair itself fast enough.

The body is designed to repair damage at a certain rate. if we assume any possible negative effect, regardless of the outcome, is "toxic" all substances are "toxic." And if all substances are "toxic"... none of them are.

If the body can repair itself faster than a substance can damage it, I do not consider that substance as toxic. Anything more reduces the definition of toxicity to a moot, meaningless term.


There are much better options... birch bark is one.

I'll ask around at the grocery store... I don't think they carry it.

Your next statement is quite assumptive. Migraines have triggers that are specific to individuals. The triggers we have identified have been identified over years of observation of foods and personal products, as well as verified through observation of migraine frequency/severity in the absence of those suspected triggers. To try and diagnose such a complex reaction with such a myriad of potential offenders across a text forum is pretty darn arrogant.

As well, diabetes can be a serious disease leading to loss of circulation and vision and limbs over time. My wife's diabetes is under control for now, and she is experimenting with a few things to assist it, like dandelion tea. I will not, however condone doing more without a doctor's approval. The risk is simply too high.

I do thank you for the recommendation and I will look into it.


human waste is the absolute worst 'fertilizer' you would want to use, at least directly.

Incorrect.

Different species have different types of waste, but none are more or less "best" than any other. Manure contains all the minerals and nutrients not absorbed in the foods eaten (along with wastes created by the organism itself). Chicken waste is quite acidic and therefore needs to sit and age before being used directly; rabbit waste can be used immediately if desired (although some aging makes it easier to absorb into the soil). Cattle waste and human waste fall somewhere in between.

Different plants also tolerate different fertilizers to different degrees.

ALL of it is fertilizer. ALL of it. Don't think we are somehow special; we're not.


What good is having 10 times the food if it has 90% less nutritional value?

It does not have 90% less nutritional value. that is a false dichotomy.


When I said traditional, I was talking about things like land/crop rotation (letting the land lie fallow every 7 years), the use of cover crops (hemp and alfalfa are both outstanding) the roots of which go very very deep, pulling nutrients up from deep in the earth to replenish what is used from the top soil), the use of natural pest treatments, etc.

Pretty much all of these things are still used. Farmers still rotate crops, they allow cover crops during slow growth months, and they do use natural pesticides where possible. You seem to be quite unfamiliar with farming practices.

Have you ever hoed a corn field?


Healthy plants are much, much more pest resistant.

History says different.


Farmers started 'needing' shortcuts because they were ... taking shortcuts by failing to rotate the lands, obviously, trying to maximize profits.

I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about on this. Farmers do maximize profit as much as they can, yes, like everyone else on the planet. But poor farming practices do not do that; they reduce profits by depleting the soil. Modern farming techniques are all geared toward maintaining the soil, because the soil is the single largest asset any farmer has. It is their continued existence.


Interesting... I'll let the farmers that I visit regularly know that they are not real.

Good. Maybe they'll stop you from visiting so they can go back to work.

Farmers work sunup to sundown every day of the year. There is no stop and rest; there is no maybe tomorrow. If the sun is shining, they are working the fields; if the sun is not shining they are getting equipment ready to work the fields. The ones I know are happy to do it; they love working the land and they have done so all their lives. But it is quite probably the hardest occupation I know of, even with modern techniques.

As I said, grow a garden. That way you are not hindering them from their job.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 04:20 PM
link   
A huge hydroxychloroquine eye opener!

twitter.com...



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
The body is designed to repair damage at a certain rate. if we assume any possible negative effect, regardless of the outcome, is "toxic" all substances are "toxic." And if all substances are "toxic"... none of them are.

If the body can repair itself faster than a substance can damage it, I do not consider that substance as toxic. Anything more reduces the definition of toxicity to a moot, meaningless term.

Again ...

There are substances that when ingested, build - add to - support - the bodies own natural systems. Such substances are, by nature, not toxic.

Then there are substances that cause damage. These substances are toxic. The more damage they cause, the more toxic they are considered to be.


I'll ask around at the grocery store... I don't think they carry it.

It is also commonly called Xylitol, although xylitol can be made from different sources - birch bark is the best (imnsho)...

Some people can't tolerate too much without experiencing loose bowels... so be aware of that. But you (we all) should be limiting sweeteners anyway, so...


Your next statement is quite assumptive. Migraines have triggers that are specific to individuals. The triggers we have identified have been identified over years of observation of foods and personal products, as well as verified through observation of migraine frequency/severity in the absence of those suspected triggers. To try and diagnose such a complex reaction with such a myriad of potential offenders across a text forum is pretty darn arrogant.

Not at all. I didn't say that aspartame is the only cause of migraines.

I said one of it's hallmark symptoms is migraines. Cause, meet effect. Maybe it is causing, or contributing to, your wife's migraines.


As well, diabetes can be a serious disease leading to loss of circulation and vision and limbs over time.

Yes, I know... it is very serious.

Is she type I or type II?


My wife's diabetes is under control for now, and she is experimenting with a few things to assist it, like dandelion tea. I will not, however condone doing more without a doctor's approval. The risk is simply too high.

Look, I understand being careful, but... Doctors cannot cure diabetes - just ask them.

If she is type II, then Keto will completely reverse all of her symptoms, fairly quickly, and it is not dangerous in any way shape or form...

Type I is a different story, but it can still help - in many cases, a lot - with symptom management.

Personally, I'd be engaging Stem Cell therapy if I or a loved one had type I.


"What good is having 10 times the food if it has 90% less nutritional value?"

It does not have 90% less nutritional value. that is a false dichotomy.

It wasn't a dichotomy, I was simply making a point - the overuse of chemical fertilizers and the foregoing of land rotation has created a condition of extremely deficient top soil, which means 'food' that is practically devoid of all nutritional value, when compared to food grown 100 years ago.


"When I said traditional, I was talking about things like land/crop rotation (letting the land lie fallow every 7 years), the use of cover crops (hemp and alfalfa are both outstanding) the roots of which go very very deep, pulling nutrients up from deep in the earth to replenish what is used from the top soil), the use of natural pest treatments, etc."

Pretty much all of these things are still used.

Not by the large corporate farmers, they aren't - and they have practically taken over all of the smaller farms. The smaller family farmer is not long for this world.


Farmers started 'needing' shortcuts because they were ... taking shortcuts by failing to rotate the lands, obviously, trying to maximize profits.

I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about on this. Farmers do maximize profit as much as they can, yes, like everyone else on the planet. But poor farming practices do not do that; they reduce profits by depleting the soil.

Really?


"Interesting... I'll let the farmers that I visit regularly know that they are not real."

Good. Maybe they'll stop you from visiting so they can go back to work.

I've never interrupted their work, and they're always happy to see us.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Migraines are a strange animal.

I ought to know. I've only lived with them since 3rd or 4th grade. A person's migraine triggers are pretty personal and vary quite a bit from individual to individual. It makes treating them a bear cat.

I know by now that I have no food related triggers. Mine are all light-related, pressure related, and hormonal. I also get triggered with muscle tension, so I've been having a really good time with shoulder rehab because muscle tension through the shoulder and neck pokes those trigger points.

Oh ... I take that back. Alcohol will do it, but only if I drink too much, and only if I don't match myself drink for drink with water. So there really is some question as to whether it's the alcohol per se or the hangover/dehydration that's doing it.

edit on 28-5-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I started this thread - BUT now I'm back to - Why did 'they' do it ??????????

Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First ThoughtText

"Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.

The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's blood rather than the virus itself.

The tests are finding large numbers of people in the U.S. who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.

"The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security..........."


Quote source:
www.npr.org...


So the questions any reasonable persons would ask is:

1. Why did they not follow the other option presented in the beginning
which was to notify the public of the truth and encourage all older and persons with at risk medical conditions to self isolate and cater to this problem demographic rather than wreck the World's economies when right from the beginning they knew ti was a low kill rate disease for most people ??????

2. Where can you find the actual death rate for those people not in the high-risk
category ????

3. What is the motivation??? - Was it really to save lives ???


So yes, it is too late to stop Covid 19 - But is is not too late to:

"DENY IGNORANCE"

edit on 28-5-2020 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


I was simply making a point - the overuse of chemical fertilizers and the foregoing of land rotation has created a condition of extremely deficient top soil, which means 'food' that is practically devoid of all nutritional value, when compared to food grown 100 years ago.

That's simply not true, at least not of the farmers around here. I'm not sure where it is you're finding these farms that are busily destroying the very thing they depend on, but I certainly haven't seen it.

What I have seen is a small family farm that prospered. As time went on, they incorporated. Two cousins teamed up to run it. Today they own or lease several thousand acres. They own a fleet of tractors that one can drive a pickup under. They have two truck scales on their property for weighing their own grain-hauler fleet. They have a full crew full time to work the farm, and they produce more food per acre of the same or better nutrition than when it was a small farm, and they can farm many times the area. Their fields are just as rich and just as capable of growing crops as they have ever been.

My knowledge is direct on this. One of those two guys? He's my cousin. I grew up with him. I tutored his kids for him. I built him a computer when his wasn't large enough to handle the paperwork for the farm. We see each other regularly. The other? A close family friend. Grew up with him too.


I've never interrupted their work, and they're always happy to see us.

Then they don't farm full time.

Maybe you're talking about some small Mom & Pop mini-farm; we have them around here, too. They don't depend on the farm income; it is extra money to supplement their other jobs. Yeah, some of them grow great food and they pay a lot more attention to it... but they don't grow enough to compete with the large farms. If they were the only source of food, the majority of the world's population would starve. Where a small setup like that might feed 20 people, my cousin can feed thousands.

If you can get food from there, more power to you. I try to hit farmers' markets here... same thing, just a regular booth instead of selling out of their home. They're great. But they can not feed the world.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

My wife uses a cocktail that seems to work for her migraines. It isn't perfect, but it works far better than anything else we have tried. It was developed at UAB's research hospital and we found out about it from an ER doctor (yes, hers can get so bad they put her in the hospital sometimes).

I'm not going to put the ingredients on here, because I am simply not qualified to give medical advice and as you say, migraines are pretty personal. But it is one OTC medication and one prescription, taken together, immediately upon the onset of the headache. A family doctor should be able to research it from that info.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I've been stable on my regimen for a long time now. I take a daily, and my abortive cocktail for an actual attack is one prescription and one OTC taken at prescription levels although I don't always need that if I catch it early enough.

I used to be chronic, but I'm not anymore.

I am about due for my yearly check-in with the neurologist. I am half expecting that she'll recommend botox for the muscle tension and trigger point issues and ask why I didn't go see her as soon as they started.

The only part of control I don't like is that I used to spend a lot of time outdoors fishing and stuff like that, but direct sunlight, especially the glare, is a trigger, so I can't spend a lot of time outside now without both hat and sunglasses. The other drag with control is that I have to severely limit my painkiller intake because that was the trigger for the chronic status in the first place, sort of like an addictive response gone wrong.

And I am familiar with ER visits to stop migraines. I haven't had to go there in a long, long time ... years, but I used to end up there once or twice a year.
edit on 28-5-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If you're stable, stay with what you've got! No sense trying something that could turn out to make things worse.

Sunlight as a trigger? Wow... that's a new one for me.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sunlight, strong light, fluorescent lights that are going bad and flicker just right, certain special effects on TV and movies ...

If I see a flickering light that flashes at the exact right frequency, it will only take about 10 or 15 seconds. It's almost like seizure trigger.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko
Yes, living organisms can actually benefit from exposure to toxins. I have seen several studies where infants, for example, who were raised in a "sterile" environment grew to have more serious issues, including allergies and susceptibility to sickness, than infants who were raised in more natural but also more toxic environments.

It sounds like you are confusing 'toxins' with 'microbes'. They are very different things. Yes, some microbes can be considered toxic (some molds for example), but most toxins are not microbes (lead, mercury, etc).

I absolutely agree with the scientifically valid premise that infants and children need to be exposed to a natural (non sterile) environment, and all of the varying microbes that inhabit their environment. In fact this is absolutely critical to their developing a strong vital, healthy immune system.

But things like aluminum, lead, arsenic, and yes, even highly processed 'foods/food additives' like sugar (especially in the highly processed forms like HFCS), white flour, aspartame, some food colorings, etc - these are not microbes.

Yes, there are some things that I would classify as toxins that can be beneficial in extremely small amounts, but these are almost always in a very specific form found naturally occurring in the environment.


This also gets back to the original issue of the pandemic and the lack of need to cure it... it will e cured the way all diseases are: by herd immunity. The only thing we need do is care for the few who get very sick and protect those at high risk.

But thankfully there is a cure even for those who are susceptible... for those willing to look and listen.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Nicely written satire, if unintentional.

Many blindly feel like you do, but the only thing here that will destroy civilization is our idiotic response, not this virus.

a reply to: AlienView



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't think I am confusing anything. I do think you are somewhat over-categorizing.

Aluminum, for example, is a very toxic metal! However, aluminum oxide is also quite inert and harmless. Since most aluminum we encounter is in the form of the oxide, aluminum metal is also harmless for the most part. Now, when things like antiperspirants that are aluminum based get used, that all changes. The aluminum is in the form of, if memory serves, a chloride. That can be absorbed through the skin and easily breaks down to release elemental aluminum into the body where it can do cumulative damage. Since the damage done by aluminum is cumulative, it follows that aluminum is toxic at all levels... but since people use the antiperspirants I mention above for a lifetime and still manage to function, it is also obvious that aluminum toxicity, while cumulative, is not severe in smaller amounts.

Lead we all know is toxic as well, and is also cumulative. However, it appears to be a more severe toxin than aluminum. Lead is not readily absorbed through the skin like aluminum, though, and generally requires some contact with the inner mucous membranes for appreciable absorption.

Mercury is quite toxic as well, and is easily absorbed. The saving grace of mercury is we don't use much in industry. Even the oft-touted mercury used in fluorescent lighting is of such a minute quantity that it is not as dangerous as has been made out. Just don't lick the shards of glass from a broken bulb; not only could that cause a major increase in mercury absorption, but it will likely cut your tongue to shreds...

The thing is, you and I and everyone reading this has already eaten aluminum, mercury, arsenic, lead... an atom here, an atom there... nature does not deal well with purity. Quite a few foods are apt to contain a few atoms of arsenic here and there. I simply recognize that fact and I don't get too upset over minuscule dosages... in the long run they are pretty much irrelevant. I do avoid aluminum based antiperspirants and think everyone should. Those contain a concentrated toxin. I'm not going to call a HazMat team in if I break a fluorescent light, but I am going to use a little common sense care in cleaning it up.

We're really not very far apart on this subject; I am just providing real data instead of the overhype that typically gets spread around (and to be fair, underhype as well).


But thankfully there is a cure even for those who are susceptible... for those willing to look and listen.

There is; but I would be cautious about placing too much faith in it. This virus is fairly stubborn and someone who is susceptible enough might still be in danger even with the cure available.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join