hoyce wrote:you guys who are posting how awesome the fruits and veggies should know that they only taste awesome because they are not genetically modified, you should also know that one of the primary functions of genetic modification is to remove nearly all strains of pesticides to nearly undetectable levels. peruvian farmers abandoned traditional repellent technologies in the 60's and use pesticides to an unregulated degree that would make western farmers blush.
the fruits and vegetables you are eating have much more toxicity than you could legally buy in any 1st world country. potatoes are among the most toxic vegetables (think french fries) and soft fruits (tomatoes - yes they are a fruit) take the cake for fruits.
fresh water fish are traditionally caught with plant poisons that when spread over 2-4 acres of slow/non moving water will cause the fish to float to the surface within an hour. although i don't support fresh water netting, but i would prefer it to toxic methods.
americorps wrote:The original comment makes it sound like GM foods are much healthier than non modified foods, however there are a growing number of reasoned and sustained scientific studies showing an entire range of new health problems from GM foods, plus as it is still new to most diets, longer range problems are surely to appear.
Simply exchanging the health damage from pesticides for the health damage of GM foods is irresponsible. Other, more safe options exist to reduce pest problems, maintain quality and do not endanger our environment with forced un natural mutations.
asgoodasitgets wrote:I'm at the organic markets most weekend in Miraflores. I'm telling you - the cops are hounding that place. They're standing around on the corners watching it, but it's not a friendly "we're watching out for theives" vibe, its' a menacing one. No doubt they will try to shut that little market down, such a "threat" is a free people going to a market and buying from growers directly not through their "chain" (chains are for slaves right?) stores.
asgoodasitgets wrote:Now, if you think that sounds far fetched - then I encourage you to google up "Rawesome Raid" and check out the FDA, CDC and sheriffs raiding a raw food co op. It's *insane* and so absurd - and in America "land of the free" right? Go check it out.
Alan wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:I'm at the organic markets most weekend in Miraflores. I'm telling you - the cops are hounding that place. They're standing around on the corners watching it, but it's not a friendly "we're watching out for theives" vibe, its' a menacing one. No doubt they will try to shut that little market down, such a "threat" is a free people going to a market and buying from growers directly not through their "chain" (chains are for slaves right?) stores.
I have been to the Parque Reducto market a number of times and have never seen a menacing cop or even anything close. Not to say that you didn´t see them... but I disagree that they are "hounding" the place.
Alan
asgoodasitgets wrote:Rama - they are not a public store. They are a private co op. What the cops did was absolutely illegal.
Please read this and come back to the discussion.
http://www.NaturalNews.com/033255_Rawes ... cense.html
sbaustin wrote:I concur with Alan. I've never seen a menacing cop at the organic food fair at parque reducto.
rama0929 wrote:sbaustin wrote: it doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist.
sbaustin wrote:I think the term food quality can be different things. I know in the US thh fruit seems much bigger juicier etc but maybe that's due to pesticides and genetic manipulation or maybe the good stuff is exported (or imported if you live there) to the USA.
I concur with Alan. I've never seen a menacing cop at the organic food fair at parque reducto.
asgoodasitgets wrote: I point to rawesome foods raid as an example that just when you think something so insane could not happen, it does.
asgoodasitgets wrote:I'm just saying what I saw. Understand you haven't. My point is, first they take away the music, now they're harassing people for eating on the sidewalk like there is no real crime in Lima, Peru.
sbaustin wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:I'm just saying what I saw. Understand you haven't. My point is, first they take away the music, now they're harassing people for eating on the sidewalk like there is no real crime in Lima, Peru.
If you want to talk about more effecient use of police force there are plenty of examples but probably another thread. I just don't want someone to read this and be discouraged from going to the fair with the expectation that they will be harassed by the cops because in my experience that's not going to happen.
I agree about people's natural rights (protection, etc) and such but this forum just isn't a good place for me to get into it.
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote: I point to rawesome foods raid as an example that just when you think something so insane could not happen, it does.
It's not insane.
They're enforcing laws on the books. If they enforce the laws people complain about the gov't ("they're doing too much!"). If they don't enforce the laws and there's an outbreak of e.coli/samonella/whatever, people complain about the gov't ("they're not doing enough!").
Damned if they do, damned if they don't, if that's going to be the case they may as well err on the side of caution.
rama0929 wrote:*sigh*
my give up...
asgoodasitgets wrote:Yeah, private property is tough for the government to understand too.
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Yeah, private property is tough for the government to understand too.
You don't seem to understand it either.
I can put up all the "private property" signs I want, it doesn't mean that I can get away with behavior that isn't in compliance to the law.
Obviously, you think different. Nothing wrong with that. Agree to disagree.
asgoodasitgets wrote:rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Yeah, private property is tough for the government to understand too.
You don't seem to understand it either.
I can put up all the "private property" signs I want, it doesn't mean that I can get away with behavior that isn't in compliance to the law.
Obviously, you think different. Nothing wrong with that. Agree to disagree.
How did they break the law by drinking milk from their own cow?
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Yeah, private property is tough for the government to understand too.
You don't seem to understand it either.
I can put up all the "private property" signs I want, it doesn't mean that I can get away with behavior that isn't in compliance to the law.
Obviously, you think different. Nothing wrong with that. Agree to disagree.
How did they break the law by drinking milk from their own cow?
Where were the cows kept? Were they in an open pasture, or were they in a building? If they were in a building, were the proper permits available? How are these cows handled? How is their product handled? If people are "sharing" this cow, how are shares bought and paid for? How is money made? People who "share" their milk, are they redistributing it? Keeping it for themselves? Has anyone gotten sick from consumption of these products? Products under gov't oversight are treated different from products that aren't.
So, based on that last paragraph, we have local govts, we have state govt's, and we may have federal govt's interested in your little co-op.
What you don't realize is that unless you have all your i's dotted and your t's crossed, you're going to run into problems. It's obvious to everyone that this co-op was set up as a work around. People don't like when you do that; they tend to think you're hiding something when you do. That attracts even more attention.
Want to play games, be cute? Make sure you have your stuff together. Rawsome didn't. Too bad for them.
falconagain wrote:Have you even watched the videos in youtube about Rawsome. Actually
they complied with all government law. But the government twisted the
law just to close them down. All the questions that you made were properly
addressed in the video. How can you critizice somebody without evaluating
the available information ?
rama0929 wrote:falconagain wrote:Have you even watched the videos in youtube about Rawsome. Actually
they complied with all government law. But the government twisted the
law just to close them down. All the questions that you made were properly
addressed in the video. How can you critizice somebody without evaluating
the available information ?
The gov't twisted the law? Means Rawesome didn't step up their game. Sucks to be them. I mean it's pretty common knowledge that there has been a focus on raw milk distributors.
Evaluating available information? Like people who've gotten sick from raw milk? Or does that not count? Keep posting heavily slanted, rhetoric-y stuff, and I'll throw it back at ya in the other direction
asgoodasitgets wrote:Sorry but I hate: HATE pharmaceutical companies, they were instrumental in killing my father.
there are people that pharma companies have helped. Shocking, I know.
There have people that have died using either method of care.
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Sorry but I hate: HATE pharmaceutical companies, they were instrumental in killing my father.
And there you have it.
Sorry about your father, but you know what, there are people that pharma companies have helped. Shocking, I know.
There have people that have died using either method of care.
renodante: sounds like what you needed was a big dose of vitamin d3, magnesium citrate and probiotics (like the kind raw milk provides).
You simply didn't have the right medicine. Just because it was natural or not makes no difference. In other words, sounds like you got a false negative on natural medicine.
Take simple antibiotics - they kill all intestinal flora in the body including the good stuff, this then paves the way for new bad ones to take root -
and it also promotes superbugs if you've ever studied how that works through accelerated selection due to using antibiotics. So then you need MORE antibiotics, and you are more likely to get sick again later
asgoodasitgets wrote:Look, I don't have the energy to go into big pharma right now, it's a big debate...
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Look, I don't have the energy to go into big pharma right now, it's a big debate...
Save bandwith and electrons; I'll give you the cliffnotes of how the "debate" will go
asgoodasitgets: posts slanted articles to prove his point
rama0929: posts slanted articles to prove his point
Round and round we go, with some anecdotes to bolster either stance with nary an end in sight. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
Polaron wrote:The problem with big pharma is not the worthwhile medicines they produce but instead the ones that are overpriced and designed to treat conditions that some people consider to be non-existent. An even bigger problem is their unmitigated greed.
renodante wrote:renodante: sounds like what you needed was a big dose of vitamin d3, magnesium citrate and probiotics (like the kind raw milk provides).
You simply didn't have the right medicine. Just because it was natural or not makes no difference. In other words, sounds like you got a false negative on natural medicine.
no dude, i was given 2 of the things you listed. what i needed was antibiotics, and when i took them, i got better. when i took d3 in megadoses (he had a vial of it with him "in case he caught something") and probiotics, nothing happened, i just continued to get more and more ill.
"you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? medicine!"-Tim Minchin, Storm
sums it all up perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1yxDWxU ... re=related
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Look, I don't have the energy to go into big pharma right now, it's a big debate...
Save bandwith and electrons; I'll give you the cliffnotes of how the "debate" will go
asgoodasitgets: posts slanted articles to prove his point
rama0929: posts slanted articles to prove his point
Round and round we go, with some anecdotes to bolster either stance with nary an end in sight. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
asgoodasitgets wrote:rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Look, I don't have the energy to go into big pharma right now, it's a big debate...
Save bandwith and electrons; I'll give you the cliffnotes of how the "debate" will go
asgoodasitgets: posts slanted articles to prove his point
rama0929: posts slanted articles to prove his point
Round and round we go, with some anecdotes to bolster either stance with nary an end in sight. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
You guys; the argument isn't won by sitting on the fence.
Name one article I've posted that contained a key piece of information that was untrue, citations proving otherwise please.
rama0929 wrote:Save bandwith and electrons; I'll give you the cliffnotes of how the "debate" will go
asgoodasitgets: posts slanted articles to prove his point
rama0929: posts slanted articles to prove his point
Round and round we go, with some anecdotes to bolster either stance with nary an end in sight. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
renodante wrote: yeah it's a mixed bag. like most things in life.
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote:Look, I don't have the energy to go into big pharma right now, it's a big debate...
Save bandwith and electrons; I'll give you the cliffnotes of how the "debate" will go
asgoodasitgets: posts slanted articles to prove his point
rama0929: posts slanted articles to prove his point
Round and round we go, with some anecdotes to bolster either stance with nary an end in sight. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
You guys; the argument isn't won by sitting on the fence.
Name one article I've posted that contained a key piece of information that was untrue, citations proving otherwise please.
Are you familiar with the Rashomon effect? That's the reason I postedrama0929 wrote:Save bandwith and electrons; I'll give you the cliffnotes of how the "debate" will go
asgoodasitgets: posts slanted articles to prove his point
rama0929: posts slanted articles to prove his point
Round and round we go, with some anecdotes to bolster either stance with nary an end in sight. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
Right in this very thread, we have an instance of a poster who disagrees with your methodology and has an anecdote. I'm sure there are others who feel the same way, as I am sure there are others who feel the same way you do.
This isn't about winning an argument, it's about having a discussion. If you want to argue, well, then go right ahead, because what it boils down to is this;renodante wrote: yeah it's a mixed bag. like most things in life.
asgoodasitgets wrote: I get that you don't want to talk about these things.
rama0929 wrote:asgoodasitgets wrote: I get that you don't want to talk about these things.
Neither do you.
By the way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
You lose the argument
I have seen homeopathics work where multiple antibiotic doses did not, on serious infections
renodante wrote:I have seen homeopathics work where multiple antibiotic doses did not, on serious infections
homeopathic remedies are nothing but water. as someone who is against fraud, you should be against the sale of such snake oil. placebos work sometimes, in certain cases. homeopathics have never been shown to be effective in tests. if you now tell me that's because the scientists are part of a vast conspiracy and they're all beholden to Big Pharma, i shall vomit all over my keyboard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqrEMJ29qVg
It's not just water. Expand your view of the universe beyond the blinkers.
I've seen it work where antibiotics failed.