Upvoted. You know, I was thinking the trans thing was just people looking for attention, but maybe the chemical aspect is partly or more to blame.

Homeopathy

No.

Homeopathy cures, not causes illnesses. So if the illness were cause by 1/1000000000 of the substance, the homeopathy would state that 1/1000000000000 of the same substance would cure it.

So a diluted substance of the harming ingredient should cure it - Because that's how Homeopathy works.

Lemme just go and dilute some AIDS to cure AIDS.

Poisons are not the same thing as infectious living pathogens.

Yes, they do, because your immune system sensitizes to surface proteins on viruses and bacteria in a way it doesn't to chemical agents. Remember that even viruses are orders of magnitude larger and more chemically complex than a toxin is, and thus are much easier to "see".

Drug tolerance isn't the immune system's doing. It's generally a reduction in the number of receptors for something to which you are already sensitive in some form (otherwise it wouldn't be an effective drug). It is by no means universal (many drugs do not cause tolerance) and even when it does happen is highly variable drug to drug and person to person.

In a Cellular Biology Journal which is mandatory reading for med students, disease is defined as a lack of oxygen at the cellular level.

Citation hilariously needed.

That's massively oversimplified.

Drug tolerance occurs because the body aims to maintain stability, drugs fuck with stability, so the body adapts in order to preserve it. It compensates.

The immune system aims to identify and quarantine/kill specific things that may be harmful to the system.

These two things are intertwined at times, a powerful stimulant might overwork cells, resulting in inflammation and an immune system response, but the down regulating of drug receptors in the presence of chronic drug use is not an immunological response, just an typical adaptive response.

If the body worked the way its claimed to work and medicine was actually trying to find cures (if humans can even control sickness) there would be none any longer.

That's not true.

Pathogens actively mutate and do so quickly. This is particularly dramatic in areas of high population density (cities). The immune system cant be prepared to kill shit it doesn't know exists.

But when Bacillus Influenzae was first hypothesized to be responsible for the flu it was later contradicted when they found BI[Hib] in healthy patients.

Except that Bacillus Influenzae does actually make people sick and manifests with similar symptoms as viral influenza. So I don't actually see what point you're trying to make?

Just because they identified the wrong cause of a specific strain once, doesn't mean that there's no such thing a pathogens.

If a pathogenic bacteria or virus does not cause symptoms in someone then the "immune system" was somehow prepared to fight it.

Sometimes that's the case. Othertimes the pathogen's method of attack just isn't compatible with the individuals biology.

No worries, the drug establishment still ended up pushing a vaccine for it. Even though there is a broken causal link.

There is no broken causal link though? What are you talking about?

If there was a broken causal link, then vaccines wouldn't work. How many people vaccinated are maimed from polio, killed by tetnus, or whooping cough etc?

If you have a poison to 100 people and only 50 people died at various concentrations [and this was reproducible with 50% mortality rate] you would then conclude that while poisonous it's only poisonous to 50% of people. The poison would then probably be classified as an allergy.

No.

You would classify the poison as have an LD50 of whatever the dosage that killed 50 people was. You wouldn't conclude that it's only poisonous to 50 people. The conclusion is: at X dosage Y kills 50% of people.

For instance the WHO burns the cases which are caused by the Vaccine. They purge thousands of cases of measles every year when its discovered a Vaccine was given 6 weeks prior. There is a directive for this in their manual. They also omit years and have removed data. A few years ago someone put the made up figures they create together and realized it showed a 50% mortality rate which is impossible. This is why you get infection rate for one year, next year none, but they might give the numbers of death, next year maybe something. It's junk science.

This is from NZ. Table 4 shows the numbers of Not Vaccinated, Vaccinated within 14days prior, partially vaccinated, and fully vaccinated cases.

What happened to Scarlet Fever?

Vaccines aren't effective when something has too much strain variety, which apparently was a problem for scarlet fever.

The Typhus vaccine caused Typhus.

Source? I can't find anything on it.

Yet Typhus and Scarlet fever both are unheard of now, coincidentally they aren't marketed in the Vaccine industry.

No they aren't. Typhus is massively reduced due to the widespread usage of pesticides to kill the insects that carry it.

Scarlet fever got stomped by penicilin, kids still catch it all the time.

The mortality rates on all the heavily cited "pathogenic viruses" were dropping long before Vaccines were introduced.

Improvements in hygene and medical advancements will definitely have that effect. Not shocking at all.

The immune system is not a thing.

Which is it's called an immune system .

There is no single element of the "immune system".

Correct.

It's just natural biological function of an organism that is made up of many, many other smaller organisms.

Pretty much.

A poison that hypothetically only kills half of people, at any dose but at high doses doesn't kill those immune from it. Average of 50%. There is another causal factor besides the poison.

If increasing the dose even to high levels wont kill those it doesn't effect, then yes, there's another causal factor involved. In the case of a poison that factor is probably going to be that the 50% which is immune carries a mutation which prevents poisons from entering cells. That's been observed before and (IIRC) is also why some people can be immune to AIDS/HIV.

I think I get what you mean by that though: how do we distinguish allergy from poison. I'd hazard a guess that allergies tend to be kept in check by antihistamines, while poisons aren't. But that's not an area I've studied at all. I suspect though that the distinction is pretty arbitrary, and that there isn't any particular reason to view it ones way or the other.

Wait what? So the disease that has the most strain variety just dropped off the face of the Earth. Does that make any logical sense?

It didn't drop off the face of the earth.

Kids get it, they get sick. In clean warm homes they tend to recover, if not, then we give them penicilin at which point they pretty much all recover.

The development of antibiotics is probably the single most important even in human history.

Showed that chronic illnesses all have a breakdown of cellular structure which interferes with electron transfer.

I'm curious how they showed that all chronic illnesses have a breakdown of cellular structure while only studying mice? Nowhere in that article do they claim that they have discovered the mechanism of all chronic disease.

You cited a seriously heavyweight paper and used to it support a statement that the authors themselves don't make.

Not that there isn't a breakdown of cells, otherwise there isn't damage occuring at all, that's literally what damage is... cells breaking down.

The energy released by electrons flowing through this electron transport chain is used to transport protons across the inner mitochondrial membrane, in a process called electron transport. This generates potential energy in the form of a pH gradient and an electrical potential across this membrane.

... yes.

With the earlier definition provided one could say it's a receptor problem.

Are you just trying to say that cells let things in and out, when people are sick, bad things get into cells and kill them?

Things bind to receptors, this opens channels. Sometimes things bind to channels to close channels. Sometimes channels just don't give a fuck about receptors. There's such an absurd number and variety of receptors that saying 'it's a receptor problem' without specifying which receptors is about the same as shrugging and saying "Eh, life right?". Of course receptors are involved . Maybe I'm missing the point your trying to make here?

Oxidative phosphorylation (or OXPHOS in short) is the metabolic pathway in which cells use enzymes to oxidize nutrients, thereby releasing energy which is used to reform ATP. In most eukaryotes, this takes place inside mitochondria. Almost all aerobic organisms carry out oxidative phosphorylation. This pathway is probably so pervasive because it is a highly efficient way of releasing energy, compared to alternative fermentation processes such as anaerobic glycolysis.

Yes.

But that's not really the point I assume you're trying to get at. Oxidative pathways exist in cells (otherwise why breathe it in?) but problems only happen when you encounter oxidative stress: reactive oxygen species become to prevalent and (as it turns out) reactive oxygen is fucking toxic. Too much reactive oxygen and your DNA comes under attack, cells die etc. Sometimes damage mitachondria start generating reactive oxygen themselves, which just makes the problem worse.

But that doesn't make it all bad. Your body both uses and protects against the effects of reactive oxygen, it's when those mechanisms are overwhelmed, malfunction or fail that you really run into problems (like neurodegenerative diseases).

What does this have to do with the entire medical establishment being wrong?

You missed my point.

If the paper didn't say it, then citing the paper as the source of your claim is something you shouldn't do.

I will watch that video though when I have the time. The US military has used chemicals on people before, so it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Ah that makes more sense, the time scale would be about right.

this post is fucking gaaaaaarbage.

The topic is: If parts per billion/trillion are said have a physically impossible effect on humans, how then are the same concentrations affecting fish populations.

Because homeopathy does not use concentrations anywhere near as high as 1 ppt.

I googled "homeopathic store", clicked on the first link , and clicked a few links at random. They list ingredients at, respectively, 18X/9C (= 10 ^-18 or 1 part per million trillion), 8C (= 10 ^-16 or 1 part per ten-thousand trillion), and 9C (as above).

Some of them do list lower dilutions like 5C (= 10 ^-10 or 100 parts per trillion) that could in principle be large enough to have actual effect for extremely sensitive chemicals. But even then - a lethal ingested dose of botulism toxin is about 1 mcg/kg body weight, or about 70 mcg for a normal adult weight , which (if diluted in, say, a liter of water) would come out to around 70,000 ppt even for the most potent poison known to man. So...yes, in principle a 5C dilution could have physiological effects, but it probably wouldn't and decades of study provide no reasons to think that they do.

Nobody says things can't have effects in the ppb/ppt range, that's you making a strawman. Powerful chemicals can have effects at even lower dosages.

Homeopathy is muuuuch more diluted than that and claims that the more dilute the concentration, the more effect it has, which is just BS.

Uhu, so what's your point. Go look up what concentrations hormones operate at (usually given in molar form though)

If 13.5 Million women taking birth control a dose of 0.3 mg Estradiol and 0.15 mg desogestrel is 4.05 Million mgs or 4050 grams [4kg] and 20.25 Million mgs or 20,250 gram [20kg] - respectively.

I mean, you should be able to look at these numbers for two seconds and see that you've gotten something wrong, since your numbers for the half-as-large dose came out 5x larger.

You're also using too large a figure for the water consumption, since the actual physical water usage in Britain per capita is ~1k L/person-day or about 53 billion L/day. The rest is "consumed" in the sense that it's used in service of Britons for e.g. manufacturing, but it's physically not in Britain. And even then, most of that 1k L/day isn't household use, most of it is e.g. agriculture that doesn't end up directly in rivers (it sinks into groundwater, mostly).

Don't let facts stand in the way of a good narrative tho

These are the same concentrations found in Homeopathy.

Okay, for one, parts per trillion is not even close to homeopathic concentrations.

Homeopathic dilutions are measured on a scale where, say, 10C means you took your original substance, diluted it to 1/100th its original concentration, then repeated that nine more times for a total of 10 times. That means your dilution, for an example 10C dilution, would be (1/100) ¹⁰ = 10 ^-20 = one part per billion trillion.

But a standard homeopathic dilution is 30 C, or a concentration of 10 ^-60 . That's one part per trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or, if you prefer, roughly one molecule in a trillion clones of the Earth's combined oceans . In practice, this concentration is zero, because at 30C the odds of containing even a single molecule of the original substance are so low that in all probability every homeopathic practitioner on Earth has never been so lucky as to get one.

As in my reply there, but additionally: people excrete hormones that aren't just from medications. That's how pregnancy tests work.

No, it isn't, but the point stands.

Also people have been depositing their excretions for a very long time.

Not millions of them via concentrated sewer systems, they haven't. Remember that the human population has grown something like tenfold since the late 1800s.

Fish are suffering from Placebo Effect<

So Fish are being lied to and are given sugar instead. Creating an imaginary positive/negative effect namely being a sexchange?

Poisons are not the same thing as infectious living pathogens.