Get this book — Toxic: Heal Your Body from Mold Toxicity, Lyme Disease, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, and Chronic Environmental Illness
I didn’t have Lyme but I had mold toxicity, and pretty much every doctor and test came back saying, “everything’s fine” when I clearly knew it was not. If his treatment recommendations for Lyme are half as good as his recommendations for mold, this book is worth 1,000x the price.
It’s amazing that this even needs to be published — no study is needed to prove the laws of supply and demand that have been known and obvious for centuries.
In the neighboring cities of Vancouver, the "known and obvious" laws are false. We have developers building skyscrapers full of condos which are selling for 500k-2M for a 1 bedroom. They're largely vacant because they're bought as investment properties. The ultra-rich can afford these places, but don't need to sleep in them. The demand isn't just people who need a place to stay, and rental prices are absurdly high.
We've got a new tax in Vancouver that's helping: the empty homes tax. But that's only Vancouver and not the outlying area.
They aren't false. There just hasn't been sufficient building allowed to take up the slack. If Vancouver took a page from Wizards of the Coast's tactics, prices would eventually go down. Namely: you have to convince speculators that you are willing to build (issue cards) until the value of speculative assets falls to the livable price for everyone else. If they were willing to allow unlimited building until the prices fell to the desired level, eventually speculators would realize that Vancouver property is a terrible bet.
Actually the presence of these investors is just a reflection of Vancouver's own unwillingness to allow said amount of building. If the speculators thought there was any chance of them building enough to meet demand, they would no longer view housing in Vancouver as a safe investment. So it's really a self-inflicted wound, not a violation of the laws of supply and demand.
That being said, an empty home tax does not seem like a bad supplemental approach. However, even assuming the tax is perfectly effective, if the population inflows outpace building, prices will continue to rise. And I would guess that is likely to be the case. The tax is a band-aid, but the problem needs stitches and cyanoacrylate.
The cities are all extremely friendly to developers (our "affordable housing" is $1700/mo for a 1-bdrm and developers are only required to build a small fraction of "affordable" units). I'm not sure how familiar you are with the area, but it doesn't seem like anybody is holding back on new development except for some weak and failing anti-gentrification efforts. Another significant factor in our local economy is a massive amount of money laundering, perhaps billions of dollars worth. It's been washed in real estate -- and laundry is one place where supply and demand break down: losses are acceptable.
What we're seeing is a huge demand for apartments, at rates that property owners can't afford, given the massively inflated value (hence tax). And homeowners (the upper-middle class), sensibly, don't want to see the market crash. So they don't actually want the government to act: new homeowners fear losing half of their investment. It's a vexatious problem all around
Perhaps in Vancouver the supply constraint is not political, although I somewhat doubt that. My impression from reading about it is that they allow relatively little high density building.
From looking at this, it looks like over the last three years they've added between five and six thousand units a year. But the annual population growth during that time has been around 30k people per year. Given the average household size in Canada is south of three people, that means there have been ten thousand households added, two for each unit built.
So, to the extent that Vancouver's government is preventing the building of mid- and high-density housing, I stand by my statement. If they have done all they can to enable the building of such construction, then we must look elsewhere for our cause.
I don't believe the money-laundering is as large a factor as simple supply and demand. The money-laundering report says that prices may have been inflated at 5% (and maybe more in Vancouver proper) but how could a 5% increase put off so many buyers? Also the problem with the report is it's a lot of guessing. Yes, money launderers may have been buying mansions and expensive condos but the vast majority is bought by not-money-launderers. I'm afraid this money-laundering narrative has gotten out of hand in the media and the politicians where they are blamed for everything. Plus Vancouver is notorious for a slow approval process for construction permits with waits of 1-2 years.
Yes, this. Six story 2x apartments per story + shared community space per 4 blocks = 48 units vs 4 units. The density also supports and drives community resources like shops, pubs, doctors and schools and makes public transport feasible. No need for 20 floor monsters.
I was curious who could write so well with such poor reasoning... unsurprisingly, it's a world-famous mental gymnast:
> Yarvin, attacking the accepted "World War II mythology" in a speech to the 2012 BIL Conference, claimed that Hitler’s invasions were forgivable acts of self-defense, and that this historical fact was suppressed by America’s ruling communists, who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists." "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia."
>
> Yarvin's opinions have been described as racist, with his writings interpreted as supportive of slavery, including the belief that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons. Yarvin himself maintains that he is a racist because he doubts that "all races are equally smart," and supports the notion "that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings". He also describes himself as being an "outspoken advocate for slavery", and has argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others.
It's more that there's been study after study after study showing no link, and the guy saying there is a link was trying to find a market for his vaccine instead of the standard MMR vaccine and has instead shifted his focus to making money off of his books and movies.
The guy is literally profiting over increasing the death rate of children.
Surely you can provide a citation? Though if anyone claims they have proven such a link, then either they are lying, incompetent or mathematicians. Because nothing gets proven in other fields.
The reason I won't post a link about this topic is because I get rabbid responses, threats and accusations, and lots of down votes.
I have posted links to real data, doctors, scientists and papers before and all of it is rejected because of some reason.
It's not a fight I am up for right now.
I recommend doing a search for CDC vaccine doctor witness 2019. I am sure you (or someone else) will come back here to accuse me of something anyways.
Yes, I am jaded, it's disgusting how unscientific people get when you question vaccine safety. (even though billions have been paid out in damages caused by vaccines... sigh, yes billions)
Edit: If you want to hear from a very respected doctor who has studied the science behind vaccines and won't take another vaccine ever again, look up Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Most people won't actually listen to the data she presents, but just attack her out of spite and fear.
Scientists and researchers are constantly saying wrong, untrue things when they are not restrained by the rigor of the peer review process. It is not a scientist's informed opinion that matters, what matters is what they can show.
If you do not understand this, I can see how you might receive criticisms and feel they are unfair. But deploy an actual credible source of information, and not someone's opinion, and see the difference it makes.
None of those studies controlled who was exposed to the disease. This is unethical by modern standards and is stated as a comment in your link.
Notice the results from the study in Asia: (your link)
>"25 (2.5%) of 1017 infants assigned to receive vaccine and 20 (2.0%) of 1018 assigned to receive placebo had a serious adverse event within 14 days of any dose.
The most frequent serious adverse event was pneumonia (vaccine 12 [1.2%]; placebo 15 [1.5%])."
The infants getting the vaccine vs placebo within 14 days had almost identical results.
Regarding the Monsanto story, that's why we have peer review and journals that do not allow you to publish just by paying. If Monsanto managed to get a corrupted study published in a credible journal, that would be quite a scandal. If this is real, I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.
As to your other point, there are studies done for -every- approved vaccine. You aren't just wrong, you could scarcely be more wrong if you tried.
This is a common misunderstanding with all of these tests. _None_ of them test for defense/protection against the disease itself. They only test for indicator of immune response.
I looked at the test in a previous comment above, the results between placebo and vaccine are similar.
There were no controls on _any_ of these tests on who was exposed to the disease.
The second link says they had an "immunogenic response" (the only tests ever done for vaccines) but then ends with this:
>... vaccine was ineffective at reducing the natural infection rate in semi-immune African adults.
Monsanto effects on scientists brought before the courts:
>Wisner, who said the trial would include commentary from 10 current or former Monsanto employees, also read aloud internal corporate documents obtained during the case. In response to one critical study about glyphosate exposure, Donna Farmer, product protection lead, wrote in an email: “How do we combat this?”[0]
Peer reviewed journals do not defend or protect studies that are never published in the first place.
This is an ugly way to argue. When debunked, instead of owning anything you add new arguments, moving on as if it had any bearing on the previous points. I see now why you don't want to "fight" people here.
You do not deserve to complain about not wanting a fight when you behave in such a way.
> Peer reviewed journals do not defend or protect studies that are never published in the first place.
Obviously. That's why studies which are not published in quality journals are not considered credible by the scientific community.
You ever talk to a flat-earther? Or an Obama birther? How about a climate change denier? If you aren't willing to pay much attention all of these positions can be defended. But as soon as you ask for a credible source, you get the same thing you tried earlier "I don't want to fight, I just want to spread BS freely." If they do deploy some sort of source and you show them what's wrong with it, they just move on, exactly like you tried to do multiple times in this thread.
Nobody gets to be right all the time, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't have enough time/interest to educate themselves for falling for these ideas. Where it becomes pitiful however, is when someone is shown over and over again and they do nothing but dig in and move on, instead of accepting when they got it wrong.
If your insistence ever successfully convinces someone not to vaccinate their child, who then goes on to needlessly spread infections in their school, then you can no longer say that your ignorance is harmless.
In my meager experience most people like you will just dig in further and further until the day they die. Not all though. Continue to vigorously defend your ignronace if you want - it's your choice, but you can't say no one ever tried to tell you better. Whatever harm you manage to cause with your position, you fought hard to keep causing it.
Relying on peer reviewed journals as the only source of valid data/information is a logical fallacy, it's an appeal to authority. So I don't think that is a valid debunking to claim "not in a peer reviewed journal, so it's not true".
In the video link below the interviewer asks: "Is there a danger vaccinating populations? As we do today?"
The doctor being interviewed is someone who is medically qualified to study this subject, and has spent significant time studying vaccines. I think she has a scientifically valid point.
Now you've changed your tack to take on the publishing process itself. That was a mistake.
> it's an appeal to authority
You are misusing the phrase "appeal to authority." Citing a published paper is absolutely NOT an appeal to authority, it is the polar opposite, and the distinction between those two things is the fundamental property of the scientific method.
With published papers, you don't have to trust in authority because the methodology and data are right there to be examined by all. The peer review and credibility are valuable and have weight because anyone caught falsifying data would lose their entire career in an instant. This is also why we don't just accept any old journal, as many simply allow anyone to publish as long as they pay.
To see an example of what an appeal to authority actually is, we need look no further then the second half of your comment. Linking to an interview of an expert in her field giving her opinion is what an appeal to authority actually is. Ironic.
You tried to paint an equivalence between our sources, but all you did was reveal that you do not understand how scientific progress is made. This is no longer an argument, at this point I'm educating you on what you should have learned before ever taking a stance on the subject of vaccinations.
If you can't even accept why credible, published papers carry more weight than appeals to authority, and can't understand what an appeal to authority is after it has been explained to you twice, then conversing with you is pointless.
>You are misusing the phrase "appeal to authority." Citing a published paper is absolutely NOT an appeal to authority, it is the polar opposite, and the distinction between those two things is the fundamental property of the scientific method.
It is a perfectly valid argument if you are saying it's _only_ method of scientific proof.
Why are you trying to talk about scientific proof? You don't even know how science works. Cat's out of the bag.
You know what? I'm done getting played. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I and others gave you every opportunity to learn, but all you can do is dig in.
This is my last reply, if you want the last word that badly after this you can have it. If that is enough to let you think you won, then you can enjoy that too. Just remember that this subject is not like other debates in life.
You can let your stubbornness express itself most of the time quite harmlessly, but if you ever convince someone who doesn't know how to verify the science for themselves, the consequences are on you.
No joke, no exaggeration, you really are a bad person.
A retracted paper (a pilot study at that) from a journal is not proof against the paper's results. It's only proof that the paper was retracted.
Also, it looks like (from your link) it was retracted because of a "twitter storm"... not a scientific basis.
3.) Her actual views summarized pretty well:
Consider her scientific perspective in the video below on the topic of vaccines. (only 20 minutes, it's worth 1 viewing, even if you disagree in advance)
Homeopathy is not debatable, it is obvious bullshit. Not noticing that more or less immediately, as a MD at that, is a pretty good sign that someone is really bad at anything science. Taking studies published in a predatory journal seriously is another sign, though perhaps not as strong one.
None of this is proof that her views are wrong, but they are clear signs that she is bad enough at anything science that she is not worth listening to.
I didn’t have Lyme but I had mold toxicity, and pretty much every doctor and test came back saying, “everything’s fine” when I clearly knew it was not. If his treatment recommendations for Lyme are half as good as his recommendations for mold, this book is worth 1,000x the price.
Toxic: Heal Your Body from Mold Toxicity, Lyme Disease, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, and Chronic Environmental Illness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1628603119/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Sv...