Comment Archives: stories: Life + Outdoors: Field Notes

Re: “Cancer, Part 1: The Unwinnable War

Dr. William Nelson, director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins said it best, "The war on cancer will not be won in one dramatic battle, it will be a series of skirmishes."

Posted by j_luh on 01/19/2019 at 6:23 PM

Re: “Correlation ≠ Causation

I agree with a lot of this, you correctly note the serious limitations of research that depends upon 'correlations' but you do not go far enough. To clarify, I have to comment on your comparison of what you term;

"Solid Correlation-causation: Smoking and lung cancer." and "Shaky Correlation-causation: Breakfast and obesity."

To put it lightly, BOTH are 'shaky'! The problems associated with the 'shaky' are EXACTLY the same with the 'solid' - and those problems are many.

The only difference between your 'solid' and 'shaky' is that your 'solid' was effectively the first use of that methodology - it was novel, and several $billions have been spent over several years to disseminate propaganda to reinforce it and promote the 'everyone knows' slogan that many have internalised as (wrongly) definitive. The 'shaky' is a mere a copy of the 'solid'.

"Evidence for the increased-risk causation is solid, starting with statistical studies in the 1950s."

In the 1950s there were very few NON smokers - how many of that cohort were NON smokers? 1950s epidemiological 'evidence', and repetitions of the same, is the ONLY evidence suggesting harm. No other research using alternative methodologies have corroborated those early correlations and as smoking prevalence has declined, there are now far more NON smokers who die from lung cancer (over 80% are never and ex-smokers)). ie the correlation is now an inverse one - smoking has NEVER been proven to have caused any harm!

Correlations can never prove causation, they can only ever 'suggest' a 'possible' link. It does however provide the propagandist with any number of possibilities to manipulate the publics consciousness, as you point out with "If I was a doctor..." comment.

Posted by Kin Free on 01/18/2019 at 2:49 AM

Re: “Cancer, Part 1: The Unwinnable War

Thanks for saying what needs to be said.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Audrey Silk on 01/17/2019 at 2:32 AM

Re: “Physics' Beautiful Crisis

...essentially at a standstill for four decades.
I should have allowed that the discovery that neutrinos have mass was an unexpected and important breakthrough.

Posted by barryevans on 01/16/2019 at 11:21 AM

Re: “The Voynich Manuscript

There is a key to cipher the Voynich manuscript.
The key to the cipher manuscript placed in the manuscript. It is placed throughout the text. Part of the key hints is placed on the sheet 14. With her help was able to translate a few dozen words that are completely relevant to the theme sections.
The Voynich manuscript is not written with letters. It is written in signs. Characters replace the letters of the alphabet one of the ancient language. Moreover, in the text there are 2 levels of encryption. I figured out the key by which the first section could read the following words: hemp, wearing hemp; food, food (sheet 20 at the numbering on the Internet); to clean (gut), knowledge, perhaps the desire, to drink, sweet beverage (nectar), maturation (maturity), to consider, to believe (sheet 107); to drink; six; flourishing; increasing; intense; peas; sweet drink, nectar, etc. Is just the short words, 2-3 sign. To translate words with more than 2-3 characters requires knowledge of this ancient language. The fact that some symbols represent two letters. In the end, the word consisting of three characters can fit up to six letters. Three letters are superfluous. In the end, you need six characters to define the semantic word of three letters. Of course, without knowledge of this language make it very difficult even with a dictionary.
If you are interested, I am ready to send more detailed information, including scans of pages showing the translated words.
And most important. In the manuscript there is information about "the Holy Grail".

Posted by Николай Аничкин on 09/16/2018 at 9:32 AM

Re: “Early Routes Out of Humboldt

Hi John, thanks for this. Apologies for the belated response.

The original Harris is sometimes referred to as Old Harrissee this obit, for instance:…
The junction is, as you say, at (Old) Harris, not New Harris.

I did check again with Jerry Rohde re the Dyerville Loop. He is of the opinion that it runs from the Avenue of the Giants at the Founders Grove south to Alderpoint Road, east of Garberville. Jerry writes, This is what Google Earth shows and it also conforms to my recollection of the road signs. Almost all of Dyerville Loop Road approximates the Mail Ridge trail, except in the north where the trail would have crossed the river at Camp Grant and continued north over the ridges to the Van Duzen. The road between Camp Grant and the Founders Grove replaced the West Side Road (built c. 1877) that ran near the river and connected Camp Grant with Dyerville and point north. In the south, the Mail Ridge trail picks up Alderpoint Road briefly, heading east, and then branches south on Bell Springs Road. The "paved loop" Rose refers to, between Myer Flat and Miranda is not a loop, and it is part of the Avenue of the Giants. New Harris is several miles south of the original Harris, which is where the route coming down from Spruce Grove (now called the Bell Springs Road) met the Overland Road coming south from Aldrpoint (now called Harris Road). Spruce Grove, on the Mail Ridge trail, was about 2 miles NW of Harris.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by barryevans on 09/03/2018 at 7:36 AM

Re: “Early Routes Out of Humboldt

Should have run this by Jerry one more time. Dyerville Loop Road refers to the paved loop between Miranda and Myers Flat. The Dyerville Road does head in the direction of New Harris if you continue south, but by no means meets the Mail Ridge/BellSprings road at New Harris. There are no road junctions at New Harris. Also, there is no Old Harris, only Harris and New Harris.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by John Rose on 08/26/2018 at 5:32 PM

Re: “Early Routes Out of Humboldt

Thanks Jerry Rohde for all your help with this one!

Posted by barryevans on 08/23/2018 at 7:38 AM

Re: “The Roots of Homeopathy

@RosettaJonas, we _are_ all healthier. Especially children. What kind of pre-scientific, unfounded claims are you even making? I am not clear.

Posted by SpankyMcDoogle on 07/27/2018 at 2:25 PM

Re: “The Roots of Homeopathy

It would be such a novelty if those who seek to discredit Homeopathy actually did some research. But I guess knowledge puts paid to prejudice and that can be disconcerting.

You clearly have no understanding of Homeopathy or theories on 'vitalism.' And if materialistic modern medicine was the answer we would all be healthier, not sicker, and even worse for children.

Hahnemann was a hero for challenging the ignorance of allopathic medicine of the times and Homeopaths today are also heroes for continuing in that tradition.

The third biggest killer is conventional medicine, most of it from prescribed medication. And you wonder why Homeopathy thrives?

p.s. BigPharma does fight it.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by RosettaJonas on 07/26/2018 at 8:48 PM

Re: “Alice in Photography Wonderland

This is a wonderful post! So glad to have found it. I've been researching Carroll's photograph of Alice as The Beggar Maid for about a year now, but this post introduced me to a lot of new information. If you're interested, I recently put together a website detailing how the wet collodion process may have influenced the creation of Carroll's Beggar Maid, as well as how the changing modes and methods of photography have influenced our modern perception of the medium. You can find it here: If you get a chance to check it out, I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Posted by Sasha Aleph on 07/14/2018 at 11:54 AM

Re: “Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation

Steven Scott, DDS, would put neurotoxic poison in my body against my will, even despite countless alternatives.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Art Spelling on 06/25/2018 at 7:26 AM

Re: “Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation

Still got somebody putting stuff into your body, Art? Gee, you really should notify the authorities.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Steven Slott on 06/24/2018 at 10:17 AM

Re: “Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation

Beginning to see how lobbyists work in this golden era, Barry? It's all about that top spot. Steven Scott aka "Ramdy Johnson" would put neurotoxic poison in my body against my will, even despite countless alternatives.

Posted by Art Spelling on 06/24/2018 at 8:54 AM

Re: “Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation

Wow, Art, you have people putting stuff into your body against your will? Do they kidnap and tie you down, or what? This is really concerning. You probably should report this to the proper authorities as soon as you can get away. However, this bizarre situation of yours, as upsetting as Im sure it must be for you, is of no relevance to water fluoridation.

I certainly hope you get your problem resolved. In the meantime on this forum, lets stick to that which is relevant to the topic. Okay?

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Steven Slott on 06/23/2018 at 10:33 AM

Re: “Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation

Would you force me to ingest alcohol, Barry? "Randy Johnson" Steven Scott and yourself would put neurotoxic poison in my body against my will, even despite countless alternatives to your same desired end.

Posted by Art Spelling on 06/23/2018 at 9:35 AM

Re: “Correlation ≠ Causation

"Randy Johnson" would put neurotoxic chemicals in my body against my will, even despite countless alternatives.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Art Spelling on 06/21/2018 at 5:58 PM

Re: “Correlation ≠ Causation

Art Spelling --- You sound exactly like base Commander Jack D. Ripper -- with as much credibility: "I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." "Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice."

So, you are claiming that I would assault you and use some form of coercion (physical force or mind control, perhaps) to contaminate your precious body fluids against your will? Wow!!

All I am doing is stating facts that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrates that community water fluoridation is one of the safe and effective methods for reducing dental decay and related health issues. No one is claiming fluoridation is the only method to reduce dental decay, but it is an effective way to help protect the dental health of citizens.

If you are unable to personally avoid drinking water which contains any chemicals you have chosen not to ingest, or if you are unwilling to treat the water you drink to remove those chemicals, you have only yourself to blame. No one is forcing you to drink the water or contaminating your precious bodily fluids except yourself.

However, trying to halt an effective public health measure because of your inability to understand science is absurd.

You have not described how you would respond to someone who demanded drinking water disinfection and all other treatment processes be discontinued because they did not want to put chlorine, disinfection byproducts, or any of the other water treatment "chemicals in [their] body against [their] will." You are not alone in your paranoia. In 1991, Greenpeace activist Christine Houghton said: "Since its creation, chlorine has been a chemical catastrophe. It is either chlorine or us", and Greenpeace's Joe Thornton stated, "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe."

You have not explained why the national and International science and health organizations I referenced continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation or why no such organizations accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate if any of the anti-F evidence was legitimate.

Your so-called "intention of being healthy based on science" is meaningless without any scientific foundation. You have provided nothing.

Posted by Randy Johnson on 06/21/2018 at 1:12 PM

Re: “Correlation ≠ Causation

Smells like a fluoride troll. "Randy Johnson" would put chemicals in my body against my will, even despite countless alternatives.

Posted by Art Spelling on 06/20/2018 at 12:18 PM

Re: “Correlation ≠ Causation

Art Spelling -- So, you continue to advocate for an increased risk of dental decay in communities without providing any proof that drinking optimally fluoridated water is either ineffective or harmful and without explaining how, if your opinions are even remotely true, the overwhelming majority of science and health professionals (and the organizations they represent) continue to accept fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure like other water treatment methods, vaccination, etc.

Are you actually claiming that everyone in the world who supports fluoridation and has science/health training and experience is a fool? Why are there no nationally or internationally recognized science or health organizations that support the anti-F paranoia?

There are, indeed, a number of factors that can increase or decrease the risk of dental decay, and fluoridation of drinking water is one of them. Only a fool would demand that an effective and safe method for lowering the risk of dental decay and related health issues should be abandoned. Do you enjoy the prospect of more children and adults sitting under a dentists drill?

You havent even explained exactly how fluoridation will "put chemicals in [your] body against [your] will" -- or how fluoridation will "encourage a society that forces chemicals on people". As noted in my previous comment, anyone with a severe paranoia against fluoride ions (or those who would like chlorine, disinfection byproducts or other chemicals removed from their water) are completely free to treat their own water or find other sources.

Your comment, "Fluoride is a neurotoxic poison" without adding a critical qualifier, "at excessive levels of exposure", is a common argument of fluoridation opponents, and it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the topic. Any substance you care to name -- even water -- is a toxin at excessive levels of exposure. Provide verifiable proof (specific citations and author quotes) that optimally fluoridated water is a neurotoxin. If there were such evidence the scientific consensus would change -- the consensus of safety and effectiveness has not changed in over 70 years.

The only way fluoridation opponents (FOs) can make their claims denying the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation is because they completely ignore the 70+ years of research that supports the practice. Here are just a few recent studies and reviews the FOs have deliberately missed.
~> The 2018 National Toxicity Program study, An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats:
"At these exposure levels [0, 10, or 20 ppm F], we observed no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance on running wheel, open-field activity, light/dark place preference, elevated plus maze, pre-pulse startle inhibition, passive avoidance, hot-plate latency, Morris water maze acquisition, probe test, reversal learning, and Y-maze. Serum triiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels were not altered as a function of 10 or 20 ppm F in the drinking water. No exposure-related pathology was observed in the heart, liver, kidney, testes, seminal vesicles, or epididymides"

~> Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents, (Slade, et al., Journal of Dental Research, 6/14/2018)
"These findings confirm a substantial caries-preventive benefit of CWF for U.S. children and that the benefit is most pronounced in primary teeth."

~> The 2018 Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England:
> "Five-year-olds in areas with water fluoridation schemes were much less likely to experience tooth decay, and less likely to experience more severe decay than in areas without schemes. "
> "The chances of having a tooth/teeth removed in hospital because of decay were also much lower in areas with water fluoridation schemes."
> "Children from both affluent and deprived areas benefitted from fluoridation, but children from relatively deprived areas benefitted the most."

~> The 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report:
The study concludes that, based on scientific evidence, there is no safety concern for children and adults living in Ireland from exposure to fluoride through intake of foods and beverages.

~> The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health:
> "More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have conrmed that water uoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial."
> "The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to uorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health."

~> The 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water:
"Taking all together, we investigate and confirm the long-established positive relationship between fluoride and dental health. Second, we find precisely estimated zero-effects on cognitive ability, non-cognitive ability and math test scores for fluoride levels in Swedish drinking water."

~> The 2016 Australias National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report:
"The evidence shows that water fluoridation helps to reduce tooth decay in children and adults. There is no reliable evidence that water fluoridation at current Australian levels causes health problems."

~> The 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence:
"A large number of studies and systematic reviews have concluded that water fluoridation is an effective preventive measure against tooth decay that reaches all segments of the population, and is particularly beneficial to those most in need of improved oral health. Extensive analyses of potential adverse effects have not found evidence that the levels of fluoride used for community water fluoridation schemes contribute any increased risk to public health, though there is a narrow range between optimal dental health effectiveness and a risk of mild dental fluorosis."

Posted by Randy Johnson on 06/19/2018 at 6:06 PM

© 2019 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation