onewheeldave

It was found several decades ago that where the mentally ill are concerned 'locking them up in an asylum' was morally wrong and, harmfull to both the inmates and society in general. You're clearly quite disturbed yourself. If you continue to have your shopping disrupted, can I suggest Meadowhall, there's no homeless people there, and, you'd probably find yourself amongst like-'minded' people?

So you've got a job- most of the homeless didn't have that option, due to things like mental illness, autism etc. Why not reflect on your good fortune, instead of picking on those who didn't get any? Maybe consider as well, that many of the homeless are ex-service personnel who couldn't deal with modern society when they left the military. If you could bring yourself to speak to them, you'd find many are decent people doing their best to cope with the miserable hand they've been dealt, who are unable to progress because of the prejudice and bigotry of those who've been a lot luckier, and, who make the error of attributing that good fortune to their own 'abilities'. The reason they are addicted to alcohol, is, pure and simple- it's the only way of coping with the extreme cold they encounter when sleeping outdoors. ---------- Post added 04-07-2016 at 11:37 ---------- Anyone who wants to help the homeless without risking funding substance purchases, can offer to buy them some food instead.

In a similar vein, when it's hot and sunny and my tattoos are visible for all to see, I have the assurance that they act as a usefull kind of repellant towards all the bigoted/small-minded/unintelligent/prejudiced individuals who might otherwise have tried to interact with me

It matters in relation to the claim my post was addressing, yes. ---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 15:22 ---------- Well, now you do. Though my main objections are the scale of it (150,000,000 slaughtered today, and every day, in the US alone), and, the horrific conditions they have to endure every day of their lives, before being killed. I'd like Mcdonalds, and all other purveyors 'food' proven to be responsible for our epidemics of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, as well as animal torture on a gross scale, to not exist. And I'd like the animal food industry to be, in the first instance, scaled back to the point where the animals can, at least, be kept in genuinely humane conditions, rather than the current death-camp style ones. A rough estimate would be, scaled back to around 1/20th the numbers it currently is. That would also greatly reduce the impact of animal agriculture on human health, and, our environment. ---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 15:27 ---------- Never said it was. There isn't a 'the problem. But, it's one of the main ones. And yes, when it comes to 'food' that's deliberately designed to be addictive/habit forming, there's going to be an issue with 'self-restraint'. Duh!! How about we don't routinely encourage 'food' businesses to target our children with food known to be addictive/habit forming in the first place, to tackle the rather obvious fact that humans fed addictive substances will have issues with restraint. After all, we did the same where alcohol/tobacco and children are concerned, and that seems to actually work quite well, doesn't it?

America alone slaughters 150,000,000 animals every day. I think, in terms of understanding, we're well past the point where the killing of living beings, regardless of the methods, can be associated with the term 'humane'? Obesity, diabetes and heart disease are called 'lifestyle diseases' by our medical profession- the reason being that bad diet choices are proven to be a prime cause of them- the eating of the 'food' sold by Mcdonalds being one of those bad diet choices. When it comes to the potential total destruction of the environment as a result of the animal industry, lets hope I'm completely deluded and that you and alchresearch are correct. My bit of 'positive outlook' on that issue is that, at least I don't have children, so, if the atmosphere does switch to something less oxygen based, I don't have to worry about my children dying horrible deaths. Do you two have children? If so, you might want to consider dropping the blinkers and facing up to the reality you're setting them up for.

I know they're not planning objections- never said they were. They are, nevertheless, facts. It's a fact that these places sell toxic 'food' which cause the chronic conditions currently rife in our society (heart disease, diabetes and obesity), that they cause immeasurable suffering to billions of animals and are a prime factor in environmental destruction which, as far as we can tell, could well destroy human life on our planet. But, as you point out, they are not valid planning objections, though, in a sane world, clearly they would be (assuming that people cared about human health, animal welfare and keeping Earth habitable).

Will it? Generally job adverts are open to applicants wherever they live, in which case, statistically, it's likely most of those jobs will be taken by people outside of the community. ---------- Post added 28-06-2016 at 22:20 ---------- Also, there's a couple of actual problems as well i.e. the 'food' sold there is known toxic rubbish of the kind that is proven to greatly increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, as well as being intentionally addictive. Plus, the fact that outlets of this type are directly responsible for unimaginable levels of animal cruelty, along with all the destructive environmental consequences of the meat and dairy industry.

One of the reasons some people go for folding bikes is that you can avoid the need to have them locked up outside for long periods. There's so many good quality folder options available these days, that maybe it's worth checking some out, just because it cuts the risk of theft to virtually nothing, compared to non-folders?

You seem to be their biggest supporter! The facts are in- maintaining the illegality of drugs is proven to lead to far more crime than if the drugs were regulated. And, the drugs being 'poison' is again due to them being illegal and, therefore, distributed by criminals who 'cut' them with toxic substances to increase profit. Unintentional overdoses would be cut to zero if users had access to regulated substances (much as it's possible to use alcohol in a restrained and responsible fashion as long as it's regulated, whereas the same is not true of 'moonshine' (unregulated substance)). The crime and the misery of drugs is due almost entirely to the 'war on drugs'.

Justice and truth don't require years of training, but, the courts aren't much concerned with justice and truth. It's worth reflecting on the fact that many who go the way of self representation simply cannot afford the outrageous fees- they have no choice.

Signed. Currently @ 10,446 signatures.

Yes, there are many, many things that aren't my strong points: I think that applies to everyone, yes? However, while cars and red diesel aren't strong points for me, health, nutrition and corruption in healthcare systems, very much are.

I did say car stuff wasn't my strong point How about the garage selling red diesel without being registered with HRMC? Then they'd be guilty of a crime, yes?

Sorry- cars aren't my strong point. I should have said supplying red diesel to a non-agricultural vehicle or whatever other vehicles are the only ones allowed to use it.

I'd say, if you're going to want a car-based analogy, that it's more akin to a garage supplying red diesel to a driver- then, of course, the garage would be guilty of supplying red diesel.

No. It was Peter Gotzsche who mentioned pharma buying professors and consultants- he didn't claim it was every consultant, and, didn't specifically mention Sheffield at all. Look, I know you've got a bit of a bone in your teeth at the moment trying to 'win' the argument, but, does it not bother you that the head of the Danish Cochrane foundation, who knows more about the medical research industry than you ever will, is saying, quite bluntly, that the pharmas are buying professors and causing thousands of unecessary deaths?

The reason the training of doctors is incorrect is, as Dr Gotzsche mentions in his video, that pharmas are 'involved' in the design/implementation of it. Or, in his own words "“Much of what the drug industry does fulfills the criteria for organized crime in US law......And they behave in many ways like the mafia does, they corrupt everyone they can corrupt, they have bought every type of person, even including ministers of health in some countries…The drug industry buys the professors first, then chiefs of departments, then other chief physicians and so on, they don’t buy junior doctors." "Dr Peter Gøtzsche exposes big pharma as organized crime" (1:10 onwards)

No. He seems fully occupied with his research into criminal corruption in the pharma industry and everyone they deal with, at the moment. He's written a lot about SSRIs (not positive stuff), prescribed drugs being the 3rd leading cause of death in the civilised west and the fact that doctors are inadequately trained to understand drug interactions and people are dying because the inadequately trained doctors then prescribe drugs which cause harm. So no, it's me whose kind of extrapolating from the facts that corrupt pharmas=corrupt data, to the possibility that any decisions made, about drug safety or vaccine safety, could be false due to said corrupt data, or, even if that batch of data was solid, by the compromised integrity of any system which is either unaware of, or, unwilling to address, the reality of pharma corruption.

OK. Their name, where they get their funding from etc? ---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 14:30 ---------- Depends where it's entering the system, doesn't it? If it's corrupted prior to data entry then you can't blame the data enterers. But, if you're interested in that, you're far better off watching some of Peter Gotzschers videos, he's not only director of the Danish Cochrane foundation, but he's a lot more access to the relevant facts than me. I'll post some more links if you want? So you're aware of board room level corruption? Your use of the conditional really weakens your stance if you are- surely everyone reading this, regardless of their intelligence, is aware of the fact that there's boardroom corruption in pharma? ---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 14:31 ---------- Wrong again ---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 14:33 ---------- Does no-one else find this kind of thing a bit childish?

No. Yet again I've suggested nothing of the kind But, as you bring it up yourself, and, because Cyclone seems to be getting bored- then, just out of interest, can you name a single individual or organisation who is And then, if you can identify such a individual.organisation, could you explain just how double-blind studies can expose pharma corruption? Generally, criminal investigations are the appropriate tool when it comes to uncovering corruption or finding an organisation innocent of it.

I'm not. The issue with the medical industry is that it passes on the corrupted data from the pharma industry and it ends up as the official guidance passed on from the healthcare system to the public. While I wouldn't say I 'blamed' the medical industry for that (it's just doing it's job, as with any data processing system, the old saying "garbage in, garbage out" holds) I do think it would be a really good idea, if the corruption issues with the pharmas was sorted out- cut the problem off at the root, as it where. Then the medical industry and healthcare system could be passing on advice based on reliable data. That way, people like me, and probably many of the anti-vaxxers, would trust the healthcare system.

I don't. If you go back and look at the context of the quote that should be become clear. It was in response to the claim that our modern medical system is a 'revolution'. I blame the pharma industry for the corruption they cause to our medical data.

Allow me to rephrase your quote so it bears some reality to.... erm... reality See? Contradiction gone, as long as you realise that (like I said not too long ago)-

Could one of the other pro-vaxxers here explain to your seemingly Intellectualy impaired associate, that the Cochrane foundation and Dr Peter Gotzsche are not identical please? ---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 19:15 ---------- Including data that's corrupted by pharma companies behaving criminally, apparently. Perhaps you should knock the prefix off your username, you seem quite gullible

READ WHAT YOU'RE QUOTING! Maybe you're unable to distinguish between the Cochrane institute, and, someone who works there, but I can. ---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 17:13 ---------- Neither, I'll go with my actual beliefs if that's' OK. which are, that the alleged evidence from data churned out by demonstrably corrupt pharma companies, some of which has been used to 'prove' vaccines safe, is compromised. I never said the BMA was 'good', as I'm not a 3 year old child What I said was it had credibility. For your future strawmanning, I'll point out I didn't say it had credibility in my eyes either. But, the BMA most certainly has credibility. Perhaps mistaken here, but I assumned it would have credibility in your eyes, and, the eyes of most pro-vaxxers here? That being the case, deal with the fact that they've given top book prize, despite the rather sensationalist title "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare " in which Dr Peter Gotzsche doesn't pussyfoot around saying 'pharma has some issues', but states the reality, which is that pharma is criminally corrupt. ---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 17:21 ---------- I didn't say it 'had an effect'. I was pointing out that a highly credible organisation (in the eyes of most pro-vaxxers, amongst others) voted "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime " first prize. I'm assuming BMA book reviewers actually read the books they review, with a eye of keen medical expertise, and, therefore, think Dr Gotzsches claims therein (including the criminal nature of pharma company corruption, has some basis in fact. In which case, in their eyes, it's feasible that much of modern trails 'evidence' is potentially flawed. How do you feel about people of the expertise and experience of Dr Gotzsche casting doubt on the modern evidence system? He's far from the only one. The reason I'm pushing him is that, of all the experts I know of who are saying thousands of people are dying unnecessarily as a result of pharma corruption, is that, as director of the Cochrane Foundation, he should have credibility amongst the pro-vaxxers? From the introduction of Dr Peter gotzsches book "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare "