Libertarian Alliance Health Scare of the Day, no-1: “Doctors” say lots of coca-cola “can” cause paralysis…


David Davis

And……eating 5 pounds of onions a day for a month “may” make you feel ill.

Someone please tell the buggers to f*** off and drink tasteless, low-Potassium drinks. Then, happily, there will be less of those left for the rest of us.

In the late 1960s, “scientists” fed rats 350+ beverages-equivalent-amounts of cyclamates per day, to try to prove that artificial sweeteners were bad for people. They succeeded in making the rats sick….but then rats don’t really weigh that much.

The libertarian issue at stake is the presence of an Enemy Class, which latches onto initially-harmless and boring mountebankianism of this kind, turning it into part of the Green ValitudinariaNazi Human-Restricticon.

About these ads

8 responses to “Libertarian Alliance Health Scare of the Day, no-1: “Doctors” say lots of coca-cola “can” cause paralysis…

  1. Bodwyn Wook

    This is all part of an on-going process to keep people continuously self-absorbed on the miserable level of bodily and animal fear. When porno and footer and extraverted stupidity plays out, then trot out the never-ending (!)medical-anxiety routine. There is a continuous downpour of these ‘stories’. It is the structural rather than ‘conspiratorial’ process by which these meddling agencies vie with one another for funding. Only partly it is peddle the dreadful lie that ‘safe vegetable spread’ and statin drugs, along with ‘the government’, are good for you. Mainly it is terrorism of the clientle, by the state. The only difference between us and the made-for-Tee Vee ‘terrorists’, who hear their frightful stories on the prison grapevine and draw inferences from the sound of strangled yelps down the corridors, is that our cell isn’t so obvious. Behind it all? ‘Tis aught but the career and prestige-needs of cut-throat competing gangs & relays of professionalists and their parliamentary and congressional rent-boys.

  2. Pingback: The Role Of The Health Scare In Wrecking Freedom « Bodwyn Wook

  3. There are three issues here.

    1) Does Carbonated drinking vause any health problems?

    Answer: Yes, particularly damage to tooth enamel, which it dissolves easily if drunk from the bottle.

    2) Are drinkers of these Carbonated drinks aware of this?

    3) If they are NOT aware of this, is their consent informed consent?

    Therefore: whether they should be subjected to toxic harm is a Rights issue, as is fluoride in drinking water. Libertarian minded folk agree with people being able to give informed consent to situationally imposed risks. Libertarian minded folk usually reject the imposition of unsought harm on individuals who have not consented to the eventuation of such imposed harm.

    Does someone have the right to ‘wing’ rifle bullets past your head even if they miss you? If they KNOW that harm may result, have they that “right”?

    I don’t believe that they do.

    RH

    • For the uninitiated, Robert Hedrock is Tony Hollick. He is testing the Robot’s one-time-pad word-list, for “spammy words”!

      I can’t tell the Robot what to do.

  4. Tony,

    You and I can stop wasting time playing this mentalmilitia game, on these terms:-

    (1) I will try and raise a coulomb-bribe to stop the Robot from importuning you from time to time as it thinks fit, and

    (2) You will post shortish comments (your last 34,372,196 have been ok) that refer, at least vaguely tangentially, to the post!

    I and the rest of the readers are not primarily interested in hearing old theories about the following people and organisations:-

    ACPO
    Donald Rumsfeld
    9/11
    Mordorspeak
    Dick Cheney

    I can’t be arsed to go through the spam-queue to pick out the other bones, and I’m being called to do something or other for the boys, but you get the idea. OK?

  5. Sounds OK to me, Dave.

    When I play, I play to win, regardless.

    Losers talk about what they’ll do when (if) they win.

    Winners think of what they have to do so as not to lose. Easy-peasy diagnostic, eh? Smiles…

    WordPress blogs are sooo easy to hack, you should know. I’ve already told you what to do to get a more secure system, if you want one, that is.

    I take full responsibility for everything which I do that you may for any reason (or for none) may dislike.

    Just as you will accept full responsibility for disliking anything I say or do, for any reason (or none).

    So we’re both happy now, right? Smiles

    BTW: Name any six “important people.” Your pick — they don’t have to be here. I’m not exactly big on “Important People”, you should know.

    They’re usually self-important, which I don’t much care for, to be Frank (another cryptonym…) Smiles

    Your friend,

    Tony Hollick

    PS: How far are you from Wigan? I’m collecting a Caterham Super Seven from there, probably.

    PPS: ACPO is N.I.C.E. — “That Hideous Strength.”

    You’re a C.S. Lewis fan, right?

  6. Dave:

    OK!

    *NEW* NEWS STORY (!) by David Brookes (Today’s Washington Post); for the edification of your “important” guests especially!

    Tony Hollick

    ———— * * * * * ————

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and Dick Cheney conspired on Thursday to propagate a myth. The myth is that we lived through an eight-year period of Bush-Cheney anti-terror policy, and now we have entered a very different period called the Obama-Biden anti-terror policy.

    As both Obama and Cheney understand, this is a completely bogus distortion of history.

    The reality is that after Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy. The country was blindsided. Intelligence officials knew next to nothing about the threats arrayed against them. The Bush administration tried just about everything to discover and prevent threats. The Bush people believed they were operating within the law, but they did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive.

    The Bush-Cheney period lasted maybe three years. For Dick Cheney, those might be the golden years. For Democrats, it is surely the period they want to forever hang around the necks of the Republican Party. But that period ended long ago.

    By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period. They didn’t win every fight, and they were prodded by court decisions and public outrage, but the gradual evolution of policy was clear.

    From 2003 onward, people such as Bellinger and Goldsmith were fighting against legal judgments that allowed enhanced interrogation techniques. By 2006, Rice and Hadley brought Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in from a secret foreign prison to regularize detainee procedures. In 2007, Rice refused to support an executive order reviving the interrogation program.

    Throughout the second Bush term, officials were trying to close Guantánamo, pleading with foreign governments to take some prisoners, begging senators to allow the transfer of prisoners onto American soil. (It didn’t occur to them that they could announce the closure of Gitmo first, then figure out what to do with prisoners.)

    Cheney and Obama might pretend otherwise, but it wasn’t the Obama administration that halted the practice of waterboarding. It was a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004.

    When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way.

    The inauguration of Barack Obama has simply not marked a dramatic shift in the substance of American anti-terror policy. It has marked a shift in the public credibility of that policy.

    In the first place, it is absurd to say this administration doesn’t take terrorism seriously. Obama has embraced the Afghan surge, a strategy that was brewing at the end of the Bush years. He has stepped up drone activity in Pakistan. He has promoted aggressive counterinsurgency fighters and racked up domestic anti-terror accomplishments.

    As for the treatment of terror suspects, Jack Goldsmith has a definitive piece called “The Cheney Fallacy” online at The New Republic. He lists a broad range of policies — Guantánamo, habeas corpus, military commissions, rendition, interrogation and so on. He shows how, in most cases, the Obama policy represents a continuation of or a gradual evolution from the final Bush policy.

    What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

    Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.

    Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

    Tags: op-ed columns, david brooks, opinion

    Washington Post

  7. Dave:

    As an admirer of Eamonn Butler, he’s the only Good Guy I can think of who’d be interested. I always think of him as “E-4B”, the flying 747 Warfighting Control Centers the Americans have. I truly do find it difficult to imagine “important people” in Britain. Rachel Stevens? Cheryl Cole? Richard Dawkins (even though his Neo-Darwinism has just been proved wrong by the discovery of human ability to modify DNA so as to pass on desireable new characteristics genetically via alteration of DNA by mind-body interactions.

    As an interactionist dualist, I wasn’t surprised by this. The mind-body problem is one of the most fundamental issues in philosophy and in science.

    Lamarck and Bergson are nearer the truth…

    Best,

    Tony

    PS: You’re important to me, Dave, even if you’re not a ‘sleb.’ Smiles…