When I was a Itty Bitty Little Boy I loved nothing more than my Great Grandma Sarvis...She was blind and I was the only kid who would let the old lady run her hands all over me , she would rub my face forever and say how sweet I was.
-=-=-=-=
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
When I was a little boy
When I was a Itty Bitty Little Boy I loved nothing more than my Great Grandma Sarvis...She was blind and I was the only kid who would let the old lady run her hands all over me , she would rub my face forever and say how sweet I was.
-=-=-=-=
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Cough Hack Dribble
The Passive Smoking Myth
The general public has been told for years, that 2nd hand smoke (SHS) is
harmful, causes cancer, is a great concern for society, etc... It's propaganda.
Nazi Germany's Paul Joseph Goebbles said it best...
"If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
The problem we see with this lie, is that it has affected the legal system. It's
absurd, based on lies and horrible research, and the general public is
none-the-wiser. That SHS is harmful to warrant such attention and legal action, is
the result of lies, misinformation, propaganda, and junk science.
"Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it's the dose that makes the poison." -
Basic principle of toxicology
"If you were to be strapped down on a surgical table while four guys exhaled
smoke directly into your mouth and nostrils for thirty years, you might get lung
cancer forty years after they stopped--but it's not likely. - from article linked below
Let's get started with the facts, shall we?
In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand
smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it
as a class A carcinogen.
Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully.
Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco
Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.
Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms
are interchangeable.
Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.
Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.
Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to
fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a
few important studies can skew the results considerably.
The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word
"study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS
study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer
to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.
Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The
EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.
Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their
chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.
Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine
measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of
about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."
Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear
monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for
people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per
year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)
Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of
the EPA report. The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and
conclusions.
Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the
case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and
other information pertinent to the studies." In other words, some of the
information was unverified hearsay.
Fact: The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies, six found a
statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect
and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected
relationship."
Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The
EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored
the other two, Brownson and Kabat.
Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report
referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25)
Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed
"no risk at all." (p.25)
Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their
raw data for years. Philip Morris recently won a lawsuit to gain access to it.
Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been
published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more
credible, or less credible?
Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The
analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.
Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with
3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they doubled their
margin of error. Let me repeat that, because it may seem hard to believe: After
failing to achieve their pre-announced results by ignoring half of the data, they
doubled their margin of error!
Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling
their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?
Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of
ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:
* Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by
19%.
* Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most
likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.
Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then
doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all
this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically
significant
Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of
1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0
insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void
after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision
was 92 pages long.
Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected
their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that
EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta-
analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to
disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's
excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's
purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with
EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."
Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his
judgment he stated: "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it
clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically
significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05
significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1.
Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis.
In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level
but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its
hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's
conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible
evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if
even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology
is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and
lung cancer."
Sources:
PASSIVE SMOKE - Junk Science
Second-Hand Smokescreens
The EPA Report - The Facts
Health Canada, Breast Cancer and Second-Hand Smoke
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
Junkscience.com - Second-Hand Science
Skepticism.net - Second Hand Smoke
NCPA - Up In Smoke
Washington Times: Second-hand science
Second-hand Smoke Screen
The WHO Scandal: WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative
The Facts
The general public has been told for years, that 2nd hand smoke (SHS) is
harmful, causes cancer, is a great concern for society, etc... It's propaganda.
Nazi Germany's Paul Joseph Goebbles said it best...
"If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
The problem we see with this lie, is that it has affected the legal system. It's
absurd, based on lies and horrible research, and the general public is
none-the-wiser. That SHS is harmful to warrant such attention and legal action, is
the result of lies, misinformation, propaganda, and junk science.
"Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it's the dose that makes the poison." -
Basic principle of toxicology
"If you were to be strapped down on a surgical table while four guys exhaled
smoke directly into your mouth and nostrils for thirty years, you might get lung
cancer forty years after they stopped--but it's not likely. - from article linked below
Let's get started with the facts, shall we?
In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand
smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it
as a class A carcinogen.
Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully.
Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco
Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.
Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms
are interchangeable.
Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.
Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.
Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to
fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a
few important studies can skew the results considerably.
The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word
"study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS
study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer
to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.
Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The
EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.
Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their
chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.
Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine
measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of
about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."
Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear
monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for
people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per
year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)
Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of
the EPA report. The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and
conclusions.
Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the
case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and
other information pertinent to the studies." In other words, some of the
information was unverified hearsay.
Fact: The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies, six found a
statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect
and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected
relationship."
Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The
EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored
the other two, Brownson and Kabat.
Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report
referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25)
Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed
"no risk at all." (p.25)
Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their
raw data for years. Philip Morris recently won a lawsuit to gain access to it.
Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been
published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more
credible, or less credible?
Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The
analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.
Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with
3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they doubled their
margin of error. Let me repeat that, because it may seem hard to believe: After
failing to achieve their pre-announced results by ignoring half of the data, they
doubled their margin of error!
Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling
their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?
Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of
ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:
* Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by
19%.
* Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most
likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.
Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then
doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all
this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically
significant
Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of
1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0
insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void
after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision
was 92 pages long.
Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected
their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that
EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta-
analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to
disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's
excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's
purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with
EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."
Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his
judgment he stated: "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it
clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically
significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05
significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1.
Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis.
In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level
but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its
hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's
conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible
evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if
even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology
is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and
lung cancer."
Sources:
PASSIVE SMOKE - Junk Science
Second-Hand Smokescreens
The EPA Report - The Facts
Health Canada, Breast Cancer and Second-Hand Smoke
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
Junkscience.com - Second-Hand Science
Skepticism.net - Second Hand Smoke
NCPA - Up In Smoke
Washington Times: Second-hand science
Second-hand Smoke Screen
The WHO Scandal: WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative
The Facts
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Secret coke
COCA-COLA RECiPE
----------------------------------X-treme!----------------------------------
A couple of years ago the information shown below could have been worth
millions to certain mineral water manufacturers. You could still save
yourself a few quid by following the procedures below. Although i doubt
it would be very cost-effective.
At last, after over 100 years of total secrecy, the recipe for Coca-
Cola has been revealed in a book by Mark Prendergast who claims to
have found it on a piece of paper titled "X" in a company archive.
Anyway. Here is the method in full :
Take
Coriander Oil (a trace)
Orange Blossom Oil (a trace)
Orange Oil (0.94g)
Lemon Oil (1.79g)
Nutmeg Oil (0.14g)
Cinnamon Oil (0.41g)
Mix them in alcohol (9.97g)
and water (5.50g)
Shake well and let stand for 24hrs. The mixture will separate. At the
top will be a clear yellow liquid, this is the cokes secret "7X"
flavouring.
Dissolve Sugar (4.88kg)
in a tiny amount of boiling water and allow to cool.
Add Caramel (73g)
Caffeine (6.3g)
Phosphoric Acid (22.4g)
A sprinkling of powered nut from the Kola tree. And purists may add
Coca Leaf (2.24g)
After first removing the cocaine!
You should now have a thick syrup.
Add Lime juice (61g)
Glycerin (38.7g)
Vanilla Extract (3.05g)
and "7X"
Stir hard and dilute with 5.5 parts chilled carbonated water.
You should now have 50 litres of Coca-Cola! Easy Really!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----------------------------------X-treme!----------------------------------
A couple of years ago the information shown below could have been worth
millions to certain mineral water manufacturers. You could still save
yourself a few quid by following the procedures below. Although i doubt
it would be very cost-effective.
At last, after over 100 years of total secrecy, the recipe for Coca-
Cola has been revealed in a book by Mark Prendergast who claims to
have found it on a piece of paper titled "X" in a company archive.
Anyway. Here is the method in full :
Take
Coriander Oil (a trace)
Orange Blossom Oil (a trace)
Orange Oil (0.94g)
Lemon Oil (1.79g)
Nutmeg Oil (0.14g)
Cinnamon Oil (0.41g)
Mix them in alcohol (9.97g)
and water (5.50g)
Shake well and let stand for 24hrs. The mixture will separate. At the
top will be a clear yellow liquid, this is the cokes secret "7X"
flavouring.
Dissolve Sugar (4.88kg)
in a tiny amount of boiling water and allow to cool.
Add Caramel (73g)
Caffeine (6.3g)
Phosphoric Acid (22.4g)
A sprinkling of powered nut from the Kola tree. And purists may add
Coca Leaf (2.24g)
After first removing the cocaine!
You should now have a thick syrup.
Add Lime juice (61g)
Glycerin (38.7g)
Vanilla Extract (3.05g)
and "7X"
Stir hard and dilute with 5.5 parts chilled carbonated water.
You should now have 50 litres of Coca-Cola! Easy Really!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)