Is Hillary Biohacking (On Top Of The Regular 'hacking' She Does)?

2456716

Comments



  • Can't hack your way out of old age. Even with all the 'anti-aging' stuff out there. The more money you have the more you can try to optimize things, buy the best houses, foods, tech, supplements, personal trainers. Yet billionaires still die regularly. What does that tell us? See the first thing I said in this post.


     


    Anyway, people get sick. That's life.




    I agree with your main point.


    But still, I wonder how poorly they do it. They probably buy the "best doctors" that tell them to eat less meat and down a bunch of fish oil and resveratrol, and call it good until a problem comes up. Good personal trainers, I have more faith in. Although, I've seen some poorly designed celebrity workouts. Healthiest houses, pshhh. That's an empty adobe hut with a "bulletproof bed" and an air purifier in a comfortable climate.


    Morbid as it sounds, I want to see how long Dave lives. He's doing it better than people far, far richer than him.

  • The more important point is that somehow we are stuck in a nightmare where we have to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for president. That's an actual conspiracy!


    Yep!
  • #Harambe2020 #dicksout




  • I agree with your main point.


    But still, I wonder how poorly they do it. They probably buy the "best doctors" that tell them to eat less meat and down a bunch of fish oil and resveratrol, and call it good until a problem comes up. Good personal trainers, I have more faith in. Although, I've seen some poorly designed celebrity workouts. Healthiest houses, pshhh. That's an empty adobe hut with a "bulletproof bed" and an air purifier in a comfortable climate.


    Morbid as it sounds, I want to see how long Dave lives. He's doing it better than people far, far richer than him.




     


    That's a good question. There was a thread on here on how some 'famous' people eat. Turned out to be a largely paleo-type of diet. But that's probably just a few. I don't think many get regular blood tests (the BP crowd here probably gets tested much more), and adjust their diet/supplements based on that. For a lot of them it's probably impossible to avoid blue light after sunset, and when they inevitably feel ill they turn to conventional medicine, and don't change much about their lifestyle.


     


    As far as Dave goes, he does have the whole BP lifestyle, but on the other hand he is pushing himself to the limit. So I wouldn't expect anything out of the ordinary in terms of longevity. What I see as healthy aging is to be able to do all you want in life up to a certain normal life up to a certain age, with a fast and steep drop at the end. Or not even any health issues but simply a peaceful, natural death. That's in contrast with the type of aging we see a lot more: chronic disease for decades until the end.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited September 2016


    Scientists don't always agree, and can be wrong. Even climate scientists. No conspiracy needed. On a side-note, global warming and climate change are not the same thing.


    https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change


     


     


    The ice is not coming back, that's why archaeologists are able to find artifacts that were underneath previously permanent layers of ice. There is glacial recession globally.


    https://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/


     


     


    I have no idea what tarmacs you are talking about. Here is one site detailing some of the meteorological procedures used to take annual and monthly temperature readings:


    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/


     


    Here's the link to a global measurement station map:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/


    Wakefield's co-author was exonerated. He was also charged with significantly less fraud. Sorry I didn't address an unnamed CDC whistleblower.


     


     




     


    One thing at a time: CDC Whistleblower was William Thompson. You're going to have to sift through a lot of conflicting arguments to "debunk" his claim. Just like the micromanagement of the work of persecuted Andrew Wakefield. I simply can't think of a reason to question these guys' motives. I'll let people decide for themselves whether they believe Wakefield was just furthering his personal career/status when he did his original studies, and that the CDC and vaccines companies that benefit from controlling the outcomes of studies are more credible.


     


    The same goes for climate change, global warming, and global cooling. It's all the same fearmongering lies. We can't be sure what the reason for the IPCC's deathgrip on the consensus and seemingly limitless scientific funds for its pointless research is, but we do know they've rebranded many times as the article you shared demonstrates (and will most likely continue to do so). But look, we do need to be concerned about the environment. And corporations do need to be regulated, more for their industrial pollution including petrochemicals, pesticides, and now electromagnetic pollution and pollution of the genetic code. It's just this insanity about your own personal impact that needs to be shut down. Specifically re: my "carbon footprint." I have a catalytic converter. I get my inspections. But even if I didn't, and I was just using the products, I don't think that would be my responsibility. The creators of dangerous/harmful technology need to be regulated, not the users—they just need to be made aware so they can vote with their dollar. 


     


    So I could address you on all of these points, all day long, but we would still disagree. Individuals are not the problem. It is corporations and governmental entities that are. So until you start to develop a healthy distrust of the establishment and prove it in your rhetoric (which doesn't involve branding and dismissing those who distrust the authorities as conspiracy theorists), we won't be able to find common ground. 


     




    #Harambe2020 #dicksout




    There should be a new rule: You don't get to use alt-right hashtags and be part of our cooler counter-culture unless you are somewhat aligned with their principles.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    I like how folks who eat up the mainstream media word for word believe that any alternative media sources are just manipulating gullible fringe dwellers' opinions through spin, bias, and lies,  grooming them to be passive consumers with no ambition, silencing any voices that would expose the ridiculousness of their crazy theories, EXCEPT when they make it onto a major news network, because that is the epitome of credibility. The Alternative Media Conspiracy just can't dupe the major networks, they've got fact checkers!


     


    I like how folks who eat up the alt-left social media content word for word believe that the mainstream media is manipulating the public opinion through censorship, spin, bias, and lies,  grooming them to be passive consumers with no ambition, silencing any voices that would dissent or wake people up, EXCEPT for their preferred blog sites and politicians who, with their highly emotional  content expose the Truth. The Conspiracy just can't silence those altruistic social justice warriors! 


     


    I like how folks who eat up the alt-right social media content word for word believe that the mainstream media is manipulating the public opinion through censorship, spin, bias, and lies,  grooming them to be passive consumers with no ambition, silencing any voices that would dissent or wake people up, EXCEPT for good ol' alex jones and paul joseph watson, who, with their action movie-like videos expose the Truth. The Conspiracy just can't silence the loud texan and the smug brit!




     


    So you're suggesting that once something gets enough traction in the mainstream media from its constantly being presented in the alternative media, it should immediately be dismissed by virtue of its prominence. What you're talking about is contrarianism, not pursuit of the Truth. The outlets on the fringe are expected to cover the alternative narrative, and obscure topics first and foremost—but it would discredit them if the things they brought into the limelight would then be covered differently once that point of view became mainstream. It is to their credit that sites like Infowars are presenting the same narrative in light of the rise of what Rachel Maddow calls "the new normal," regardless of the populism and "unfringe" status of the beliefs they're espousing. This is how new political parties are formed and eliminated. Some just go to the wayside, like the Whig party. 


     


    What you're implying as a flaw in the alternative media would be the same as saying your favorite band now sucks if they get popular. Or more broadly your favorite style of music. I didn't stop liking the indie sound when bands like Interpol, the Strokes, and Arcade Fire started cropping up in the mainstream. I celebrated that my counterculture had elevated the state of the art, and enjoyed the new wave of musical enlightenment and influence that great idea had now come to enjoy.


     


    When organic, whole food becomes popular, and genetically modified food becomes fringe, will you start to eat at McDonald's again, drummin'? You'd be foolish if so. 


     


    I really really hope that people reading this have a brain and realize the outrageous logical fallacy suggested in the quoted post.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Can't hack your way out of old age. Even with all the 'anti-aging' stuff out there. The more money you have the more you can try to optimize things, buy the best houses, foods, tech, supplements, personal trainers. Yet billionaires still die regularly. What does that tell us? See the first thing I said in this post.


     


    Anyway, people get sick. That's life.




     


    Are you implying that Hillary is old? Sparefilms, troll this conspiracy theorist!

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    That's a good question. There was a thread on here on how some 'famous' people eat. Turned out to be a largely paleo-type of diet. But that's probably just a few. I don't think many get regular blood tests (the BP crowd here probably gets tested much more), and adjust their diet/supplements based on that. For a lot of them it's probably impossible to avoid blue light after sunset, and when they inevitably feel ill they turn to conventional medicine, and don't change much about their lifestyle.


     


    As far as Dave goes, he does have the whole BP lifestyle, but on the other hand he is pushing himself to the limit. So I wouldn't expect anything out of the ordinary in terms of longevity. What I see as healthy aging is to be able to do all you want in life up to a certain normal life up to a certain age, with a fast and steep drop at the end. Or not even any health issues but simply a peaceful, natural death. That's in contrast with the type of aging we see a lot more: chronic disease for decades until the end.




     


    Thank you for staying on topic of the post! This is a great contribution to the discussion.


     


    I agree Dave kind of biohacks despite himself sometimes, because he does go balls out flying all over the country, sleep-hacking all the way through it, when he'd be much healthier and live longer if he didn't. That's the weight he bears.

  • No. My point is that i think it's ridiculous to put too much faith in any media source, and that the more immersed you are in any one particular bias the smaller your perspective is. The further you go down the infowars rabbit hole the less aware you are of everything they omit or ignore. I think that's how life in general is.
  • The truth cannot be found in the media. The only thing media is good for is distraction and that is only if one wishes to be distracted. The internet in general as a medium and this forum as specific media, is providing refuge from the truth for me, for a lil bit. 


    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • Yeah, distraction is a good word. When people these days talk about being "woke", or even "informed", distracted is what they really mean.
  • WalterWalter ✭✭✭
    edited September 2016


    Are you implying that Hillary is old? Sparefilms, troll this conspiracy theorist!




     


    Both candidates are old yes. Extremely old.




  • Thank you for staying on topic of the post! This is a great contribution to the discussion.


     


    I agree Dave kind of biohacks despite himself sometimes, because he does go balls out flying all over the country, sleep-hacking all the way through it, when he'd be much healthier and live longer if he didn't. That's the weight he bears.




     


    Calorie-restriction is the way to go if you want to live longer. But that's like living life at a slow pace, not something any of the 'type A personalities' ever want. They want to sleep little, go full throttle during every waking hour, and not waste any second doing nothing.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited September 2016


    The same goes for climate change, global warming, and global cooling. It's all the same fearmongering lies.




    The data doesn't lie. The climate is changing. 


     


     




    We can't be sure what the reason for the IPCC's deathgrip on the consensus and seemingly limitless scientific funds for its pointless research is, but we do know they've rebranded many times as the article you shared demonstrates (and will most likely continue to do so). 




    What fantasy world do you live in where the IPCC has limitless funding for climate research?! The IPCC doesn't do research. They operate off of the consensus of the peer-reviewed research.


     


    You do realize that nobody wants to fund climate change because good regulation would cost the elite class insane amounts of money, right? Corporations uproot manufacturing and move it to other countries when their host country decides to implement environmental regulations, just like they do with taxes or even more so.


     


     




    But look, we do need to be concerned about the environment. And corporations do need to be regulated, more for their industrial pollution including petrochemicals, pesticides, and now electromagnetic pollution and pollution of the genetic code. 




    This is the cause of climate change. Corporate pollution is 80% of the problem! Both by direct destruction of the biosphere and by industrial emissions. The fact that they use marketing to get the public to use products that pollute is the other 20% of the issue.


     


     




     It's just this insanity about your own personal impact that needs to be shut down. Specifically re: my "carbon footprint." I have a catalytic converter. I get my inspections. But even if I didn't, and I was just using the products, I don't think that would be my responsibility. The creators of dangerous/harmful technology need to be regulated, not the users—they just need to be made aware so they can vote with their dollar. 




    You're getting way too hung up on the individual-targeting propaganda from the 90s. The issue is not you as an individual, it's when 7+ billion people are using products that pollute the environment. You're not a special snowflake, you're just one of the billions of people on the planet screwing things up by pretending the problem doesn't exist and blissfully contributing to the pollution in your ignorance of the bigger environmental picture.


     


    As for voting with your dollar, you can't vote with your dollar when you think climate change is a myth or a conspiracy! Even if you could, most people on this planet still choose the cheaper option most of the time, which plays into the industrial model of squeezing every cent out of production that you can (e.g. cutting pollution regulation and not paying the extra cost of environmentally safe manufacturing). Manufacturers who comply with regulations pass these extra costs on to their customers, and their corporate competition (the ones that manufacture products in countries without regulation) will take all the customers who don't want to pay that extra cost (which will be most of them). Thus you only move pollution around to the less developed countries which is what is happening now.


     


     




    So until you start to develop a healthy distrust of the establishment and prove it in your rhetoric (which doesn't involve branding and dismissing those who distrust the authorities as conspiracy theorists), we won't be able to find common ground. 




    It's adorable that you want to label me as agreeing with "the establishment" because I prefer actual demonstrable facts. I do not care where the facts come from, and I follow the facts even if I don't like where they lead. Dismissing information because of the source is known as a "genetic fallacy", and I avoid committing this fallacy and critically analyze the information instead. Thus I can even admit when someone like Alex Jones have something right (like he does with most of what he says about the TPP) even if those instances are few and far between. Rhetoric is useless, you shouldn't stoop to using rhetoric when you want to make a point. You should use demonstrable facts, logic, and reason. Your claims need to be testable instead of unfalsifiable speculation, regardless of how much you trust or distrust an "authority". You should also avoid labeling people and instead criticize their arguments. I rip apart and debunk conspiracy theories instead of dismissing people as conspiracy theorists


     


     


     


    My favorite type of people to have discussions with are those who have a knee-jerk distrust of "authorities" because they tend to have their own list of trusted-individuals (that are simply their own personal "authorities") who they get information from. Unless they are a legitimate authority (i.e. the expert in a field that authored the information in question or who wrote the definitive peer-reviewed paper on a subject) then you should assign a confidence percentage to what the person says based on their previously established reliability and accuracy, and still critically analyze what they say. (This approach infuriates some people around here when I'm disagreeing with something Dave does! Especially his marketing tactics!)


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Are you implying that Hillary is old? Sparefilms, troll this conspiracy theorist!




    I do not troll on these forums. Trolling is posting with the sole purpose of inciting feelings of anger and mental anguish in others. Trolls do not back up their claims with data or critically analyze what the others posting in a thread say. I think you are using the term "troll" to whitewash those who do not agree with you.


     


     


    That being said, Hillary Clinton is old. I made that point perfectly clear in one of my earlier posts. She is 68 years old. Shocking that a 68 year old woman was fatigued by a presidential campaign! Wait...

Sign In or Register to comment.