wonderflpancake

Semi-related, maybe there are some nicotine experts here that can help me:

I smoked ~4 years light/social post high school. Dipped Copenhagen Pouches for ~10 years. I've tried to quite with some success with the longest streak being 2 years. It is incredibly hard and all in the mind.

I found ZYN pouches last year and they have replaced my needs. It "... is a tobacco leaf-free nicotine product. The nicotine salt used in ZYN is derived from tobacco leaves, but once the salt is extracted, no part of the leaf remains." The rest of it is says its food-grade.

Obviously the best would be not to use anything. But would anyone happen to know if this is still leaving a lot of risk exposure? My thought is its probably about as safe as I'll ever find, and really just giving me the nicotine I've become used to without the bad stuff, as nicotine itself is not what causes problems. But if anyone has more informed opinions that would be helpful.

I'm OK with cancelling anyone's student debt, IF they also get their degree CANCELLED as well. As in, when an employer calls to verify their resume, the institution will have to say they DO NOT have what they claimed.

Otherwise, what about the many people like me who didn't do something so stupid? We can't go back in time. They end up with a free degree for being stupid, we end up with nothing for being responsible?

Title on this referenced article is "Bill Gates thinks the 1% should foot the bill for renewable energy, and he's offering the first $2B." It does look to be spinning off the Atlantic 2015 interview.

The 1% headline is just a left-wing dog whistle. Gates said "private sector" and didn't make a divisive statement.

For those that the class-warfare-esque headline speaks to ("Oh yeah! Those 1% need to pay!"), the "1%" are the reason we have nice things - because they want them. Put everyone in equal misery and then lets see how clean the air and water is, how many technology and medical breakthroughs we get, and so on.

re: "What do you have to lose?" - This is simply the very valid argument that many big cities have been Democrat-run for the last 50 or so years, and saying the equivalent of "its not working, stop voting that way".

> I think you have this a little backwards. It's Trump who portrayed black communities like that.

lol no. But as you are pointing to a CNN article it makes sense you would think that, if thats where you were getting your news. They were trying to influence the election just as much anyone (aka the Russians), but apparently that doesn't bother anyone.

I'm not sure how much demonstration you could need. The page I previously linked to is thoroughly sourced to medical journals and the doctor even gives a balanced opinion:

> If I could sum up the aluminum controversy in three sentences, it would be this. There is good evidence that large amounts of aluminum are harmful to humans. There is no solid evidence that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is harmful to infants and children. No one has actually studied vaccine amounts of aluminum in healthy human infants to make sure it is safe. Should we now stop and research this matter? Or should we just go on and continue to hope that it is safe?

Regarding the aluminum in breast milk - I won't say its false because I don't know. But so far I haven't found that sourced anywhere. Just a lot of articles using it as a talking point.

> Maybe "people will literally argue that formaldehyde is naturally occurring and exists in our bodies" because, you know, it's true?

Sure, as a standalone fact. But the context of this topic is as an additive in vaccines given to babies 10-30 lbs.

I'm still amazed people will argue that it's fine to add formaldehyde and aluminum, and then justify it with ancient people. The lengths people will go to to avoid giving an inch to any vaccine concerns is crazy. I'd even take a "Yes, ok you have a point there, BUT still...".

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-concerns/vaccines/va... gives quite a bit of color.

This is exactly what I always see happen. Common sense tells me formaldehyde and aluminum = not good. It's not iron after all. I don't recall every seeing formaldehyde or aluminum nutrition supplement pills. Yet people will literally argue that formaldehyde is naturally occurring and exists in our bodies and that's supposed to fly "scientifically". We need to do better.

I wish we would stop with the vaxxers vs. anti-vaxxers. I think most people (including myself) fall into the middle - we don't believe they are entirely safe, but understand its the lesser of two evils and have to roll the dice.

What I dislike about the "pro-vaxxers" is their unwillingness to acknowledge ANYTHING negative about vaccines.

- There IS "stuff" in most vaccines that we should ALL agree should not be in there (formaldehyde, aluminum, etc). There is no "safe" level of aluminum for a baby. Some vaccines manufacturers make them without these things if you really do the research for each one, but the chance your doctor carries the perfect brand combinations of the ones without all the questionable ingredients is unlikely. For example, if you find out XYZ co makes the MMR vaccine without aluminum, it doesn't really matter because you probably can't get the version from XYZ co.

- The packet insert clinical studies that come in the vaccines are usually absurdly small. We should ALL agree millions of people are getting these vaccinations every year and a sample size of 500, 5000, or 10000 people in 1980 just doesn't cut it. There should be better ways to keep these studies current with much more data.

But no one usually wants to hear these criticisms. "The science proves its safe!" Sure, until it doesn't. Wouldn't it be great if we could just acknowledge the obvious issues instead of opposing everything the other side says?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Trump had RT and Fox News. Clinton had MSNBC, CNN, Politico, NY Times, Washington Post, and most other MSM.

The whole report sounds so whiney and political. It reminds me of the evergoing effort by the left to dismiss Fox News (or flip the tables, its the same thing). Its an admission that the news that got out, justly or unjustly, wasn't the news they wanted to get out.

The media still purposely confuses the story. It was never about voter machine/count hacking. It was about narrative and whether or not the leaks changed hearts and minds.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Trump had RT and Fox News. Clinton had MSNBC, CNN, Politico, NY Times, Washington Post, and most other MSM.

In my opinion, no. Choose who you trust, and if you find out they've deceived you, don't trust them any more.

This is the problem with "fact checkers" on cable news, snopes, etc., and exactly why the new censorship push by Google, Facebook, et al is alarming: They pick and choose how to interpret the story according to their bias. They put a huge TRUE here, when this is false and they even admit its false: "Whether it's true that Lessig has 20 electors on board is impossible to verify unless they make themselves public. So far, only one Republican elector has publicly stated he will not vote for Trump — Chris Suprun of Texas." These fact check organizations take things literally when it suits them, and play loose with the facts when it doesn't. They are saying the CLAIM is true, not the substance. This is fake news designed to change minds by headline.