.dropcap {float:left; color:#4791d2; font-size:75px; line-height:60px; padding-top:4px; padding-right:8px; padding-left:3px; font-family:Georgia}

Google+ Followers

Endless

Monday, May 11, 2015

Merck's Disneyland Vaccine Bonanza │ Want to Effectively Lose Weight? Scrap Exercise!

My younger brother Mark was certainly no company last evening after he brought himself home from the bar around 7:30 p.m.

He passed out around 8:15 p.m. for an hour or more; and then did the same thing around 10:00 p.m. for even longer.

Apart from that, anytime we did communicate, the prick was so infuriatingly condescending that I regretted engaging him in any sort of conversation.

He was an insufferable jerk.

When he drinks, he also has a tendency to launch into the most irritating sneezing fits.  Over a period of five minutes, he will roar out as many as 20 sneezes.

Each is full-blown, as if it's an original ─ not some weakened sequel like most of us have when we manage a couple more after that first explosive climax.

He practically sounds like he's shouting, and doing it deliberately ─ that's one of the reasons it is so irritating.

I was eating when he started ─ this was during his first pass-out.  He'd been choking and gargling as he snored in the chair; and then one of those hacks set off his sneezing.

They seem to entail a rallying of all of his ability to project as voluminously as is possible for a human being.

And then he is silent for 15 - 20 seconds before the next one.

I didn't appreciate sitting in the living room near him knowing that his lungs were undoubtedly creating a circulation of the room's atmosphere, foul with whatever vapours he was projecting.

And naturally, it is impossible to immerse oneself into a T.V. show with this degree of disturbance.


Fred Ott's sneeze above equates more to the gentleness of a kitten than anything like what Mark bursts forth with.

My wife Jack came home from Vancouver while he was passed out the second time ─ she will often show up around 10:30 p.m. or soon after.

He usually goes ─ or has gone ─ to bed by then, and I am at some liberty to socialize a little with her.  But neither of us were inclined to say much with  his unconscious drunken presence.

After she left to return to Vancouver, I caught up on a few things here at my computer, and was in bed by 11:30 p.m.  Mark was still passed out in his chair.

I have no idea when it was that he eventually roused and went to bed.  He generally sets his clock-radio for 4:30 a.m. to get up and begin readying for work.

His antics over the evening had me so upset that it was difficult to relax and finally get to sleep.

I suppose it was just after 7:00 a.m. when I called it a night.

I wasn't feeling as hale as I would have liked ─ how Mark is able to get up as early as he does for work after the condition he is usually in when he goes to bed amazes both me and my wife Jack.

And why does he consistently do this to himself?

Certainly I love my brother...but not the senile sot that so often is here in the evening.

It rained a little overnight, and there were some showers over the early morning.

My eldest step-son Tho never went to work today.  Whether he just was not required due to lack of work for him; or if he never quite got the vast amount of sleep he seems to need, and as a consequence phoned in and claimed to be sick ─ I certainly do not know.

I spent a number of hours working on the Thai-Iceland post I had set up yesterday:  Thailand Udon Thani News.

The work on that post, in conjunction with my somewhat low ebb today, were something of a double whammy. 

Around mid-afternoon ─ with the excuse of giving myself a pleasurable boost ─ I expended valuable time and physical resources in a lascivious perusal of erotic imagery here on my computer.

No matter what I might tell myself, there was the undoubtedly-intended ignominious denouement to the pastime.

I need a purpose filling my life ─ not this cramped, dead-end existence I have.

ﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨ

Remember the Disneyland-generated measles scare awhile back?  It even reached here to Canada.

People are so weak and foolish ─ this report is from about three days ago, published by the Health Sciences Institute (HSI):
Looks like Merck may want to cut Mickey Mouse a royalty check.

The much-hyped measles outbreak that began in Disneyland was declared officially over last month. Now the numbers are starting to trickle in, and it looks like Merck executives were humming "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" all the way to the bank.

Despite dire warnings from health officials and the media, there was no measles apocalypse. Only 147 people were infected and nobody died.

The only real casualty was the adding machine at Merck, which probably had a hard time keeping up with all the cash that was coming in.

A new report by Bloomberg shows that after just the first month of media hysteria, the use of Merck's MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine nearly quadrupled. In fact, Merck's total sales figures for the MMR vaccine and two other inoculations grew 24 percent from the same time a year before, to $348 million.

And that's just for the first quarter.

Leave it to a company like Merck to find a way to help cause the measles outbreak, and then make money off of it. Anywhere from 50 to 86 percent of those who fell ill were reported to already have had their MMR shot.

That's not terribly surprising. Merck is a defendant in a federal whistleblower lawsuit right now that accuses it of overstating the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine (particularly the mumps part) so it could maintain its monopoly and keep the cash coming in.

But however that case turns out, what proved to be a minor rash of measles cases couldn't have come at a more golden opportunity for Merck and its stockholders.

All it took was a little help from a hysterical media, the CDC and, of course, Mickey Mouse.  
NaturalNews.com is equally bold ─ if not even more so ─ in their assessment:  Merck vaccine sales surge after over-hyped Disneyland measles fiasco - Was it all contrived? 

I want to also post a report from Dr. William Campbell Douglass II that encapsulates how best to lose weight:

Looking to lose weight fast? Don't fall for the exercise fairytale
If I've said it once, I've said a thousand times: You can sweat yourself stupid... but you can't sweat yourself thin.

Exercise is a recipe for pain, suffering, misery and -- most of all -- HUNGER. Folks who slave away in a gym or hit the pavement to run as if they're being chased end up so hungry afterward they'll eat anything they can get their sweaty little paws on.

Most exercisers ultimately eat MORE calories than whatever they've burned off, which is why so many folks conned into gym memberships face the ultimate frustration: they work hard... and GAIN weight!

It's one thing for me to say this; you know by now that I'm practically allergic to the gym. But I'm not alone in this anymore, because I've been joined by some of the leading voices in the fitness movement.

A new editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine comes right out and admits that everything you've been told about exercise is wrong -- that it WON'T help you to lose so much as an ounce, much less that spare tire you've been lugging around.

The report says the one and only way to lose weight is to eat better. Not just less, but better, and that's where the editorial REALLY ventures into Douglass territory.

If you eat sugar and carbs, you likely won't lose weight even if you cut your calories -- and if by some miracle you do shed some pounds, you might get thin... but you certainly won't get healthy.

A junky diet is the reason 40 percent of normal-weight folks are actually metabolically unhealthy.

That's why the only way to drop the pounds and get healthy at the same time -- and do it without breaking a sweat -- is to give up the sugars and cut back on the carbs.

Hallelujah! Looks like even the mainstream is starting to see the light. ...
Locating that British Journal of Sports Medicine editorial that he referred to was no easy matter ─ check out these three other reports on that editorial:
Not one of them provided the correct link to the editorial.


ﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨﺨ

I want to close with a couple of complaints I have been wanting to air for a long while.

Does it annoy you when you visit a website, and are immediately hit with a pop-up that obscures the article you wanted to see? ─ the pop-up generally tries to get you to subscribe to the website, or else it alternatively seeks to have you 'like' or share the article on various social media like Facebook.

I have been so annoyed that I have immediately closed my browser and not bothered with the article at all.

If I have not even yet been given a chance to read the article, whyever would I want to subscribe to the website, or 'like' the article to my Facebook account?

Yet all of these websites that use that ploy do so before the visitor has had a chance to peruse the Web page.

Why not just have an invitation at the end of the article asking the visitor to subscribe or 'like' the article?  If the article was worthwhile, the visitor will probably have gotten to the end of the article and then seen that invitation.

The other thing that becomes extremely annoying to me is how often it seems that my browser ─ or maybe it's Google and Yahoo? ─ has undergone an update or something and the aforementioned search engines have stripped away my preferences.

For example, I like my search results to open into a new tab because I know that I am likely going to want to see far more than the one result I click on.  If I  have that result open up in that same tab and thus override Google or Yahoo, the likelihood is that I will just close the Web page when I see that I want to look at other results...and then I will have lost Google or Yahoo.  

Yet lately, almost every second day it seems that I am having to reset my search preferences in those two search engines, just so I can have the results I click on open up into a different tab.

Anyway, those are two gripes I have long nursed.
Post a Comment