The folly of the modern world laid bare

Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2006
Posts
4,312
Yeh, so amazing that a doctor cares about health, or that doctors and scientists in the EU care about safety standards. Anyway, this was a failure, people are too close minded in this world, back to more pleasant circles.

You know, you really don't help your cause by constantly insulting the people that you're trying to convince your so called facts are what we should all believe.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
8,332
The book in the op has 160 pages of references

so the author has managed to fill a small phd thesis worth of paper with references that he has read, understood, and believes back up his point sufficiently if placed under scrutiny?

have any of these references cited the authors work? have they reviewed it?
 

JRS

JRS

Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2004
Posts
19,497
Location
Burton-on-Trent
The book in the op has 160 pages of references, some from Nobel laureates.

Yeah, but you've read some of them, right? I mean, you must have done so if you're going to call the book 'well researched'. Right? :)

So, please pick one of the ones that you read and post up a link.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Posts
4,095
Sorry, busy day. Sure I believe viruses are contagious, I put on and off the correct protective clothing many times a day to prevent myself contracting coronavirus.

OK, so you completely disagree with what you have told us is one of the central tenets of this book. Yet you still call it well researched and consider what it says to be accurate and truthful?

Does the book offer any suggestions at all for a mechanism for how electricity is causing influenza, diabetes and cancer? Or is it's 'well researched science' purely down to correlation and nothing else?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
5,538
The folly is chronic stress, not electricity - perhaps you can correlate the two as since the first use of electric light we have had less and less downtime forced upon us.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
Hippocrates described influenza. I'm pretty sure he was around sometime before 1889...

Yes Hippocrates is slightly before 1889 but I am not sure if he described influenza

Influenza, in its present form, was invented in 1889, along with alternating current. It is with us always, like a familiar guest—so familiar that we have forgotten that it wasn’t always so. Many of the doctors who were flooded with the disease in 1889 had never seen a case before.

He must be referring to the 'Russian flue' of 1889 the epidemics of 1831 and 1833 clearly have slipped his mind along with what is considered to be a true pandemic in 1847 & 1848.

Calculation for influenza pandemics are one every 36 years for the last 500 years.

The year 1889 has been cherry picked presumable as it matches his thesis on its relationship with alternating current.

What the 1889 epidemic established was that person to person transmission was the cause of infection.

This was in large part down to the way Europe had industrialized and the establishment of the railway. Epidemics and pandemics became possible to identify and information on infection could be transmitted and dispersed at speed.

This was not possible before, in a more rural less connected setting influenza was thought to be caused by foul air. Hit the town or village caused illness or death then left. The old theory drawn from Hippocrates fits the circumstances and with no wider data outside of the local community the idea of pandemic illness is not something you can establish from the data.

The way influenza was understood clearly alters 1889 and it alters due to industrialization, greater communication and information flow, but not in the way the writer suggests.

Ahistorical reductionist use of history is a standard feature of modern prophetic works dealing with pandemic.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Dec 2004
Posts
15,762
Sorry, busy day. Sure I believe viruses are contagious, I put on and off the correct protective clothing many times a day to prevent myself contracting coronavirus.

I came across this work from the EU 5g appeal, which is a consortium of scientists and doctors who are lobbying the EU to halt 5g rollout until the health effects can be determined fully.

This is why Brussels has not allowed 5g rollout in the city (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eu...ack-of-proof-mobile-phones-don-t-cause-cancer), or why Switzerland is having ongoing disputes and debates within the country that are attempting to halt 5g rollout (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/848c5b44-4d7a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5)

If this book is on a conspiracy forum and being discussed then that’s irrelevant to me. I read that book, and think he has made an overwhelming case for a link between electricity generally and disease. This isn’t a new thing with 5g this has been going on since electricity was discovered.

That said, it hasn’t decreased life expectancy, we may live with increased disease burden but we still live and we enjoy modern life. I’m not saying we should go back to being caveman I’m just saying we should find a way to insulate the sources of EM radiation. It’s like, calling for seat belts in cars. When this was proposed the industry lobbied for no seat belts and public sided with them. When the safety of cigarettes was questioned the industry lobbied that they were safe and again the public were misled.

I don’t personally understand why people are so angry, just think critically, and if you think there is even a hint of a safety issue then why is it unreasonable to see if that’s true (which it clearly is) and if so, how can we make it safer. What if it’s true? Would you people not like to live in a world with less disease burden?

I suggest everyone just becomes a little less emotional and a little more rational. The response in this thread is comical. I posted this to have a nice discussion in speaker’s corner. The fact that some emotional mod has shunted it to GD is even more telling of the calibre of minds on this board. My colleagues are enjoying it and we are having a good debate.

Anyone who is capable of critical thinking I suggest you ignore the noise in this thread, read the book and make up your own mind.
Sorry, busy day. Sure I believe viruses are contagious, I put on and off the correct protective clothing many times a day to prevent myself contracting coronavirus.

I came across this work from the EU 5g appeal, which is a consortium of scientists and doctors who are lobbying the EU to halt 5g rollout until the health effects can be determined fully.

This is why Brussels has not allowed 5g rollout in the city (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eu...ack-of-proof-mobile-phones-don-t-cause-cancer), or why Switzerland is having ongoing disputes and debates within the country that are attempting to halt 5g rollout (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/848c5b44-4d7a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5)

If this book is on a conspiracy forum and being discussed then that’s irrelevant to me. I read that book, and think he has made an overwhelming case for a link between electricity generally and disease. This isn’t a new thing with 5g this has been going on since electricity was discovered.

That said, it hasn’t decreased life expectancy, we may live with increased disease burden but we still live and we enjoy modern life. I’m not saying we should go back to being caveman I’m just saying we should find a way to insulate the sources of EM radiation. It’s like, calling for seat belts in cars. When this was proposed the industry lobbied for no seat belts and public sided with them. When the safety of cigarettes was questioned the industry lobbied that they were safe and again the public were misled.

I don’t personally understand why people are so angry, just think critically, and if you think there is even a hint of a safety issue then why is it unreasonable to see if that’s true (which it clearly is) and if so, how can we make it safer. What if it’s true? Would you people not like to live in a world with less disease burden?

I suggest everyone just becomes a little less emotional and a little more rational. The response in this thread is comical. I posted this to have a nice discussion in speaker’s corner. The fact that some emotional mod has shunted it to GD is even more telling of the calibre of minds on this board. My colleagues are enjoying it and we are having a good debate.

Anyone who is capable of critical thinking I suggest you ignore the noise in this thread, read the book and make up your own mind.

People are mocking you because you are posting dangerous pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories.

I'll ask you again to tell us who you are, if you stand by the claims made in this book then I sure you won't mind us passing on this information to the GMC. If you really believe people's health is at stake this won't be a problem I'm sure.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2004
Posts
13,059
Location
Nottingham
Some people find part one a bit more technical, you could start with part 2 and then go back that might work, but definitely suspend disbelief until you have read it. 1/3 of the book is bibliography, it doesn’t, in general suffer from a lack of sources!

When you say technical do you actually mean complete ******? As in the book suffers from being complete ******!

And yes I read it whilst sipping bleach and laid in a magnesium bath.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Willing to stand corrected, but I don't believe it ever was. Average life expectancy was skewed by terrible infant mortality statistics until relatively modern medicine. As such, the average life expectancy is now much higher (because most people don't die as babies in 15-child families any more). If you survived childhood you were always likely to live to the same rough old age, plus or minus a few years for the ability of modern medical science to keep you going after things that used to kill you.

To some extent but not completely. There were many things that killed adults in the past that don't today (in countries that have an even halfway decent healthcare system). Some of them killed lots of people in one go with epidemics (we have a pandemic at the moment but it's the first in 100 years and it's killing a far smaller proportion of the population than previous pandemics so it doesn't affect average lifespan as much). Others killed significant numbers of people consistently. Malaria, diabetes, typhus, measles, smallpox, dozens of different fevers. etc, etc. Medical problems that are fixable today killed people in the past. Appenicitis, aneurisms, etc, etc. Injuries that are fixable today were often fatal in the past due to infection. A broken bone that pierced the skin was pretty much a death sentence, but even minor cuts could become infected and kill. Then there's infection from food and water before modern processing. Cholera comes to mind. It still kills people today, but not in countries that have even halfway decent infrastructure and healthcare. In the past, it killed millions of people. There were cholera pandemics that killed hundreds of thousands of people and cholera outbreaks all over the place pretty much all of the time.

On top of that, there's much better preventative medicine that extends health for longer, not just "keep you going after things that used to kill you".
 
Back
Top Bottom