Hollywood in the year 2015

Whenever I think of Hollywood, the song always kicks in:

Hooray for Hollywood
That screwy, ballyhooey Hollywood
Where any office boy or young mechanic
Can be a panic, with just a goodlooking pan
Where any barmaid can be a star maid
If she dances with or without a fan

it ends with

You may be homely in your neighborhood
But if you think that you can an actor
See Mr. Factor, he'd make a monkey look good
With a half an hour, you'll look like Tyrone Power

Who is Mr. Factor? He made custom wigs and make-up in Los Angeles. In the year 1909, he is selling the next best thing to cosmetic surgery called "Max Factor's Antiseptic Hair Store".

Anyways, the gist of the song is, come over to Hollywood, any Joe can be a star. Hollywood puts you right in an area which is both central to all 4 studios scattered in western L.A.

This song was made a long time ago, and a lot has changed. I’m sure you’ve heard stories of famous people getting their big breaks by moving to Hollywood and playing/performing/auditioning until a talent scout gave them their big break in the industry. I had imagined a place where it might not necessarily be glamorous, but was full of life of people trying to enthrall people passing by, with a lot of local music, posters on poles of every street corner, and just generally dressing and acting like they want to be noticed. Throw in some street performers, street preachers, salesmen handing out flyers for shows and tours, and some general mental illness, and I had figured it would be self-sustained around the clock street level entertainment and overcrowding that would wash over me any time I left my hotel room.

What ended up finding was very little of that, with the actual street space divided into major areas, noticeably defined by the walk of fame spanning about a 10 block area as well as some of the intersecting streets in the very core. On the east side it very noticeably ends with car dealerships, and becomes clearly separated as you cross the L.A. Expressway.

Past here is a run-down looking area with plain looking apartment buildings and small houses with plain functional architecture from maybe the 60’s or 70’s with strip malls and chain stores you find anywhere in the US. Hollywood also borders with little Thailand, with more Thai restaurants than you could possibly need, even if you lived there your whole life.

Back in Hollywood proper, entertainment levels are still pretty much at a minimum. At any time of the day the tourists are at ever increasing levels as you walk the glassy cement stars with celebrity names arbitrarily placed, likely some egomaniacal lottery of time, space, good genetics and nepotism. I could write a physics dissertation on what The Walk could tell us about chaos theory, but that isn’t really relevant. What this is supposed to be about, is Hollywood’s cultural relevance, and let me tell you, at least at this point in time it isn’t.

Unless you go a few blocks north of the strip, you won’t see much local life, just tourists. The highest concentration of tourists is at the Chinese Theatre, where people literally clog the streets and entrance with their unflattering, bland and baggy clothed bodies as they take pictures with the biggest named celebrities feet and hand prints in the cement, take pictures of the 10 ‘street performers’ dressed as spider man, take pictures of themselves at the entrance to the Hard Rock Café, and take pictures of themselves in front of the Hollywood sign wallpaper at the entrance of the Hollywood Wax Museum (hey guys the actual Hollywood sign is just over there).

That’s right, if Hollywood has a culture, the summation of the culture is Tourists, give us your money. Not that it’s any better or worse than touring anywhere else, say China, where they have basically the same idea of getting as much out of tourists as possible, while actually providing surprisingly little content – everyone I have heard who has visited China says the same thing - the food is great, but not much else going on.

And well, while we found a few tasty places to eat, Hollywood doesn’t even have that going for them.

What they do have going for them is a hundred years of mythology; fables of glitz, glamour and celebrity; film making; cutting edge music and wealthy lifestyles. Mind you, none of those things are there (at least not anymore), except for the signs and symbols of those things.

Sure, there are still film studios in the area, but they aren’t the film and TV epicenter they once were. Movies are filmed all over the world now, and the industry has dispersed to new pockets internationally, due to globalization and cost cutting by everyone after the big boom finally subsided combined with plummeting costs of electronics.

When I say signs and symbols, I’m talking about the obvious things, such as attractive neon, big, blinking or oscillating in color. But more importantly are the ideas seeded in our culture, ideas of wealth, power, fame and importance, associated with this very specific and relatively small space. The Hollywood Stars are a great example of this. Is it a physical location you can go to, where you can see something unique? Yes! But do you need to go there to experience what this unique thing has to offer? Not at all. 

Walking along the stars, I found myself asking myself: do I look down at the stars, so I don’t miss a particular celebrity I know or admire? But if I look down, I’ll look like an obvious tourist instead of the locals who act like the stars don’t exist, like anyone who lived there long enough would do. When I happened to look down and see Jerry Lewis, I thought Ohhh, this is important! Now what? Do I take a picture? I couldn’t conceive of anything else I could do to commemorate the event. I didn’t end up taking a picture. All I thought of was: who cares? I mean, I think the guy was a talented performer, but did the star change my relationship with him? Nope. I could just write his name on a piece of discarded cardboard, and take my picture with that. There was no real difference. But the important thing is that moment of confusion, where you think it’s significant or important. Meeting or befriending a celebrity would feel like an accomplishment, and taking a picture with a celebrity would commemorate that, where you could point at the picture, the way you would at a graduation ceremony or after running a marathon, and you can point to that picture and say “yeah! I did that!” What is important is that the walk is the smoothest thing I have ever walked on, and so still holds importance for being a skateboarder's dream.

Finding a star on a sidewalk is nothing like an actual event. You didn’t accomplish anything, other than making your way to a famous locale. It’s nothing to look at, just a cookie cutter star with cookie cutter font that is in the arrangement of a name you happen to recognize (trust me, there are plenty of names in stars on the walk and you will have no idea who they are). But instead of stalking and bothering the celebrity, you can go to this star on the sidewalk that has no relation to the celebrity themselves - other than the name – and stand on it, stand beside it, take a picture, natter on with your friends about all the great or shitty things the celebrity did, all the while, the actual famous person is removed from the process. 

From the celebrity perspective, then, I can see it as a great tool in the quest for being left the fuck alone. It can at least deflect the most pedestrian celebrity fans, giving them a sign that they can shower with strange affection, comments, and other dull mechanical aspects any famous person has to struggle with. In that sense it is a brilliant invention, a kind of social technology to deal with the less glamorous aspects of fame.

But, back in Hollywood, yeah, there’s not much going on. Mind you, there are still some legitimate places for entertainment, like The Fonda Theatre, which had a lineup around the block on a Tuesday night to see Mac Miller, or the Pantages Theatre doing yet another run of the blockbuster musical Annie (but was closed when I was there). I’m sure there were smaller places off Hollywood with local music, I just couldn’t find them in the limited time I was there. And there was some more local life if you are willing to walk a few blocks north of Hollywood, such as Franklin, where there is a bit of local city life.

As for the main strip, I can only imagine anything resembling local culture such as artists, musicians and real performers had picked up and moved elsewhere. Music venues shut down, replaced by stores selling bongs, fake emmy’s and California Republic t-shirts. Wherever tourists are in high concentration there is money to be made, but tourists are less interested in real culture, but rather in their after effects or cultural artifacts. Anyone producing real cultural products or experiences would likely go out of business or move to another part of town with more reasonable rent or a more interested audience. Only the kitchy remnants of past glory are what draws people there, and will fill the desires of visitors, because it’s what they have come to expect.

 

TED Talks Are Kinda Creepy

Does The Price of Shame fit into the category of Technology, Entertainment or Design?

I got creeped out at TED talks and stopped watching them a couple of years ago, but only recently after seeing an advertisement for a recent TED conference did I start thinking about why they bother me. Believe it or not, this actually ties in with the fact that I grew up in a religious cult (guess which one) and around this same time I've been remembering some of what my brain had been going to a lot of trouble to erase. TED talks are getting to a point where a strange kind of religious spin is applied to their ideas. Not only direct ideas, but also in the styles of cadence and rhythm religious ceremonies have. Benjamin Bratton called TED "middlebrow megachurch infotainment"[1]. Take a look at this 2015 Vancouver TED conference promotion[2]:

Truth

In our fast-changing world, a reliable grasp on the truth is hard to come by. Take the following widely held beliefs. True or false?

— The news is bad.
— Nature is good.
— Technology is no fun any more.
— Growing inequality is inevitable.
— Privacy matters more than transparency.
— Our kids will be worse off than we are.
— We've lost the battle against Big Brother.
— Physics is becoming incomprehensible.
— We've left it too late to prevent a climate crisis.
— The political right has run out of decent ideas.
— Robots will destroy more jobs than they create.
— The genomics revolution arrived too late to help me.

The religion I grew up with always threw around the word truth with a capital T, as if it were some sort of verbal life preserver. Like you got more points the more religious psychobabble you can spout to your neighbour. But what I consider worse than just putting moral thinking in to what is supposed to be scientific and academic based presentations, they are very blatantly picking and choosing very specific ideas to "challenge", that is, they are essentially creating their own ideology. I can easily say that TED is pushing the agenda related to challenging (that is, replacing) the above beliefs, and answering what they present as "the big questions".

I ask all kinds of questions. But "the big questions" are still there from the beginning of recorded civilization, precisely because they are unanswerable, not for lack of people trying to answer. The fact that so many different people from so many different places and backgrounds have their own answers to all the big questions and don't agree with one another should be good evidence that none of them are right, otherwise the correct one would become apparent. The fact that there is a never ending discourse shows the argument has not settled into agreement, as arguments like the shape of the earth or properties of its movement have eventually become irrefutable.

ANYWAYS, another good question, "why do TED talks cost so much?" was asked and answered on the ted.com web site archive[3].  Tickets to TED conferences cost $8,500, (x1200 seats at the recent convention if you want to do some fun math[4]). Donor membership is $17,000 per year. Patron membership is $150,000 for 5 years. There were 3 upvoted answers attached to this question, none of which actually address the question of why they cost so much. We are talking about a non-profit organization (The Sapling Foundation) that owns TED earning over $45 million dollars in 2013[5].

Another way to ask the question is "What is the money that TED conferences earn used for?" Ninety-seven percent of The Sapling Foundation's expenses are administration expenses [6]. Because Sapling is non-profit, the profits are reinvested back in to the company, and they are also unconditionally tax exempt.

So here is a theory of how a non-profit might work:

1. Start a non-profit, get all your friends that have disposable income to donate to your charity.

2. Contributions are tax deductible by donators, and the non-profit ensures they are tax exempt.

3. Do whatever your donor friends want to do with the money.

4. Throw a party for yourself, make sure to write it off.

I thought I would look around a bit more and maybe I could find some tidbits online about how their money was being spent. I found another answer from Quora:

Building on Kamrin's great answer, TED is owned by a nonprofit, the Sapling Foundation. The conference itself makes money, but we pretty much spend it as soon as we get it -- on video editing and hosting for TED Talks, which is expensive, and on supporting all the other worldwide initiatives Kamrin mentions above. And TED pays fair salaries & benefits to staffers, and pays our interns, which is important to me :) 

You spend all your money on video editing? It is no secret TED pays its' high profile speaker, the Billy Gates' and the Billy Clintons' big fees for showing up and giving a talk. I wonder how much they charge?

What bothers me almost as much as the religious overtones is that other feeling of familiarity accompanying TED talks - no, it isn't (just) that all TED talks sound the same, have similar formats, on-cue applause, and the same narrow range of "inspiring" topics - it's that it's the same canned mush that has become staple format all over the TV, internet, books and magazines. Some optimal cookie-cutting device has been created by the endless marketing cycles of capitalism, and have told producers of content that this will make them the most money. While presenting themselves as science, they do not provide the same avenues normally afforded to the audience - critical questions to get to the meat of the matter, and call people out when they aren't being entirely factual. I could dedicate an entire blog to just criticizing a new TED talk every post, and  point out line by line all of the opinions stated as facts, unsubstantiated claims and poorly drawn conclusions that go nowhere. They never suggest any real change, just an tweaking the status quo in some insignificant way because of a pet theory they have. TED talks aren't a journey, they're a predictable walk around the block.

I also don't understand the continuous lack of engagement at the end of the talk. Okay, you have the audience inspired, what kinds of things could they be doing to make the world better? Are you conducting a study where the audience could log in and participate by doing a survey? Could they assist with data analysis or help track down resources to help research and development, or provide other networking connections or collaboration? I'm sure their primary concern is money, but people who may be sincerely interested in furthering a cause might not have extra cash to dole out, but may want to donate time or other resources.

There are lots of videos that are plenty inspiring, if that is what the mass appeal really is. What people could really be trying to get out of videos are a type of friend that has the exact same interests as themselves. It's like attending a dinner party where Malcom Gladwell entertains you with a "facinating" anecdote about mustard. People want the idea of rubbing elbows with famous intellects or genuinely charming and talented individuals, via the internet stream.

Before I conclude, let's think back before TED to the last big group of smart people that wanted to change the world. That would be Mensa...remember them? What have you heard Mensa has been up to lately? Not much of anything, they just seem to like hanging out with other people like them. The TED speakers Mensa-esque clique have just infused their nerd club with some Andy Warhol, because they are smart enough to know that is the thing to do to make money and impress people.

In the end what I have to ask is, can an entity be doing things beneficial to society, while also making immense amounts of money? Or is the profitability coming at some higher cost? I don't know, because IT'S A BIG QUESTION. I am inclined to distrust large corporate entities because making money tends to trump everything else.

References

[1] - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/30/we-need-to-talk-about-ted

[2] - https://conferences.ted.com/TED2015/program/

[3] - http://www.ted.com/conversations/17828/why_do_ted_conferences_cost_so.html

[4] - http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/03/11/TED-Talks-Money-Magnet/

[5] - http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/943235545/

[6] - http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/NY/Sapling-Foundation.html#detailedReports

Mercury (Thimerosal) in Vaccination Shots

Something that really bothers me about the media is the idea that it is considerably difficult to challenge what is stated by news agencies as fact. For example, I don't know if ISIS exists or is a story created by the media - when I read alternate-from-the-mainstream media sources such as Al Jazeera, they never use the term ISIS. Historically, I don't even know for sure if the media have ever had any true balance and thoroughly covered topics I'm interested in. The only way I would understand anything at all about modern geopolitics would be to go to the actual places and talk to people there, but that seems really dangerous and expensive. Something I do feel I have some control over and confidence from a fact based perspective is science. I can look up scientific articles, and find out if results of studies are actually matching up with  what science and health sources are saying.

That said, what the media have been all abuzz about lately are vaccinations - apparently 1 lone unvaccinated woman is to blame for the return of smallpox in North America after visiting Disneyland. I have read and heard a few different slants on the story, but something that comes up again and again is the mantra that vaccines are safe, and the anti-vaccination movement is to blame for children not getting vaccinated, after some people protesting that the vaccines may be inducing autism spectrum disorder. And although we are told scientists keep repeatedly saying vaccines have been found to be safe, no articles by the media give any details, just the subtext of "take our word for it, scientists know what is best for you and have already figured everything out for you, don't worry your pretty head about it." It is always these sorts of "trust us" generalized, unsubstatiated statements that act like a red flag for me. So I wanted to dig a little deeper and see what I can find out in real research.

I remember when the anti-vaccination movement was gaining traction in Canada, I was in University and the elderly lady who ran the health food store I frequented gave me a pamphlet about it. From what I remember most of it was fluff that could be dismissed, but something I always remembered reading on it was that they use mercury as a preservative in vaccines. As a biology major I was learning about the devastating effects of mercury on ocean life, particularly on how it bioaccumulates in fish, so fish higher up on the food chain like tuna hold the most mercury because of all the other fish they are eating all contain smaller amounts of mercury, and are held in the tuna's body until it gets to your dinner plate.

Something I didn't understand at the time until I started doing this research here, is that there are different types of mercury. The type that accumulates in organisms such as fish and humans and is very lethal is called methyl mercury, while the type that is used as a vaccine preservative is ethyl mercury.  Chemistry is certainly not my strong suit, but Wikipedia assures me the major difference is that ethyl mercury has not been found to bioaccumulate. That's good right? Well, I'm not sure, so I decided to start looking for articles on ethyl mercury and see what I could find out. Interestingly, there are not many studies to be found on ethyl mercury, but that being said here are some studies I was able to find relevant study information on.

The first of such studies I found takes place in Iraq, where Iraqi farmers have been given wheat seed preserved with ethyl mercury (again as a preservative). In 1961 starving Iraqi farmers ate seeds laced with ethyl mercury p-toluene sulphonanilide. The seeds were donated to Iraq for planting, but it was too late in the planting season, and farmers were used to making bread out of their leftover seed, and were not fully aware of the consequences of eating the mercury laced seeds, because it is odourless and tasteless. Although it may not bioaccumulate, there were profound health effects on people who ate the seeds, and many required emergency treatment. Most notable problems patients had were disfunction of the kidneys, gastro-intestinal tract, skin, heart, muscles. The most constant problem was nervous system problems including disturbance of speech, cerebellar ataxia (loss of muscle movement and co-ordination) and spasticity (Jalili and Abbasi, 1961). It's important to keep in mind though that they were ingesting much more mercury than the amounts found in vaccines.

Next I found a study on pheasants published in 1972, and they found that concentrations of 12.5 parts of mercury per million was sufficient to kill adult ring-necked pheasants within 2-3 months of feeding (Spann et al., 1972). At smaller doses, 4.2 parts of mercury per million reduced egg production 50-80% and increased embryo mortality. Again, pheasants are much smaller than people, but I think we can say that ethyl mercury is not completely harmless.

An important review of serveral studies by Dorea found studies that showed potential synergies with
exposure to multiple toxic compounds. These toxic compounds could be introduced through combination of breast-feeding, food, or other sources in the local environment, combined with ethyl mercury from vaccinations may influence neurodevelopmental outcomes (Dorea, 2012).  He noted that ethyl mercury has a short half-life and so is unlikely to be measured in blood, and also pointed out the disturbing lack of literature in studies on the specific exposure to small amounts of ethylmercury derived from TCVs(vaccines). When studies with young children are properly adjusted for exposure to mercury in vaccines, subtle neurodevelopmental effects can be demonstrated. Something important to think about is not just the effect of ethyl mercury alone, but combined in the body while being exposed to other toxic chemicals such as lead and cadmium, which in our pro-pollution society can be quite common, especially in poor urban areas and industrial production centres. While one toxin may be seemingly harmless, combined with another can be much more lethal.

Another study looked in particular for links to autism. This is because many signs and symptoms of mercury exposure correspond to autism (McGinnis, 2001). The study also indicated gut disease with inflammation is common in autistic children, and is in nearly 90% of regressed autistic children. Exposure to inorganic mercurial compounds have been shown to cause injuries in animals to intestinal mucosa and the colon, as well as deposits of antibody in the intestine. It would definitely be interesting to look for relationships between gut disorders and autism, gut disorders and vaccination, as well as the prevalence of gut disorders in modern times compared to previous decades.

It is in this study I also learned about Thimerosal, the name for the specific mercury based compound used in vaccines. So I decided to do another round of searching for articles on this term, and see if I could find some more relevant articles.

Thimerosal - What are Known Effects?

In 2012 there was some backlash from the scientific community in response to the movement against vaccinations. The paper mentions that a treaty by the United Nations Environment Programme could have banned thimerosal as part of the effort to restrict human and environmental exposure to mercury (King et. al., 2012). However, the World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group, backed by some of the scientific community recommended thimerosal be exempt to avoid disruption to the global vaccine supply. There was some argument that it would be unjust to allow it to be used, since wealthier nations have phased it out. The counter argument is that "the real threat of injustice comes from considering the removal of this currently necessary and irreplaceable compound from the global vaccine supply, and the avoidable increases in morbidity and mortality that would inevitably result from disruptions to vaccination programs targeting already marginalized populations in LMICs(Lower-Middle Income Countries). " Basically a moral argument that it is for their own good as well as the greater good, and no mention about how to deal with the potential problems that will come from the mercury exposure down the line.

The statement by the scientific community the last paper refers to the commentary article in the very same publication by Orenstein et. al., on Global Vaccination Recommendations and Thimerosal (2012). They say "Overwhelmingly, the evidence collected over the past 15 years has failed to yield any evidence of significant harm, including serious neurodevelopmental disorders, from use of thimerosal in vaccines. ..The Institute of Medicine, and others have concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a link between thimerosal and autism. Careful studies of the risk of other serious neurodevelopmental disorders have failed to support a causal link with thimerosal. " They go on to explain that the main problem with removing the vaccine is costs, increasing manufacturing costs for vaccines from 200%-500%, reduce manufacturing capacity and increase transportation and storage space costs.

The next study I looked at examined 196 infants and their mothers who attended ambulatory prenatal clinics in the 1st and 2nd trimester in Krakow (Mrozek-Budzyn et. al., 2012). Vaccination history and child development were measured in 1 year intervals over 3 years. They reported only observing adverse effects in the 12th and 24th months of life, with no effect found in the 36th month. They do admit that in populations with higher co-exposure to other neurotoxic elements even a subtle negative effect can indicate greater risk of developmental delays, an important point I mentioned in a previous study, and something I'll return to later. The plausibility of the harmful effect of vaccination on child development was a sufficient argument to remove thimerosal from all infant vaccines in the USA and EU years ago (Canada also ended up banning thimerosal). The results of the study showed that TCVs should be replaced by Thimerosal-free formulas in countries that can afford it economically.

Some interesting studies were done in Japan and have found some substantial results on rats. They found prenatal exposure to thimerosal caused a significant increase in serotonin and dopamine content in the rat`s brains as adults (Ida-Eto et. al., 2013). This indicates lasting neurochemical impairments to the serotonergic and dopaminergic systems of the brain.

The results of another study on rats found premature rats receiving 65.6, 98.4 and 131.2 ug/kg (micrograms per kilogram) of thimerosal displayed abnormal functioning of spatial learning and memory (Chen et. al., 2013). They concluded that their study was consistent with previous studies demonstrating that exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines in susceptible populations, such as premature infants, may be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders like autism.

Back in the United States, another study evaluated children aged 7-10 and their mothers, and found no significant associations between thimerosal exposure from vaccines early in life and typical measures like intelligence, verbal memory, executive functioning, speech and language, fine motor and behavior regulation (Barile et. al, 2011). However, they did find a significant association between exposure to thimerosal and the presence of motor tics in boys. They admitted the measurement of the tics was limited, but still significant.  A major problem of the study that wasn't mentioned however, was that the study was attempted for 3648 families, of which 1985 refused or were unable to be contacted. At the end 1047 were retained for the final sample. We don`t know why so many refused, but it is always possible that children with the most health or mental problems were refused by the parents, because they had enough to deal with as it was without participating in a scientific study. As a general rule of thumb in statistics, if less than 50% of the original sample do not participate in the study, then the results are considered unreliable, because factors related to the study may be influencing who is and is not interested in participating in the study.

Finally, one paper reported recent studies suggest that children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD)  have abnormal sulfation chemistry, limited thiol availability, and decreased glutathione reserve capacity (Kern et. al., 2013). Limited thiol availability suggests vulnerability to Thimerosal . The associated behavioural and developmental outcomes found in autism are plausible as mercury toxicity, since the brain is a target organ for Thimerosal's toxic effects as well as a target organ for the bioaccumulation of Mercury. They concluded that Thimerosal should be removed from all vaccines.

We can see from this not at all random selection of studies there is still a lot of unclarity about the exact health implications of vaccinations including thimerosal. These studies represent a large bulk of the research done on effects of thimerosal and ethyl mercury, and so for starters it must be said that more research needs to be done in this area. We also need to ask the question, why are there not more studies? It has been known for a very long time the detrimental effects of mercury on human health, so it seems strange that mercury would be used without the thorough research to determine its efficacy and health outcomes.

Related to this are the cries from the "scientific community", whoever this may be comprised of, stating that it is safe, while themselves not stating any research backing this up. There seems to be a purposefulness behind the lack of hard data, again leading to the claims that it is for the greater good, without addressing the problem, that is, how do we reconcile doing these vaccinations knowing the health risks that will come down the line. Whose problem is it? Are there considerations that need to be taken outside the simple need to vaccinate everyone?

That said, the fact is that vaccines do contain less than 1 microgram of thimerosal. All of the studies with doses administered to test animals were much larger amounts, and those animals have considerably less mass than humans. A study using comparable amounts, or at least tests with 1 microgram administered. Studies also need to be done to better understand what synergies are happening between ethyl mercury and other toxic compounds.

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that now, in first world countries at least, there is reason to believe that vaccinations should indeed be safe from health concerns, because thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the United States, Canada, the European Union and possibly other countries. Thimerasol is not required as a preservative if vaccines are stored in single dose vials. However, every opportunity that scientists, doctors, and health experts have to express this is lost - they never talk about this point. Why? Because they would be admitting that previous vaccine doses containing mercury did pose health concerns, and despite this they are still being used in 3rd world countries - because new vaccines that do not contain mercury are much more expensive. Single dose vials require more packaging, shipping and storage. Economic reasons seems to be the only reason now why we use mercury containing vaccines at all, and because our modern world holds economic concerns is our primary concern, the cheaper vaccines will continue being used for the foreseeable future.

References

Barile, J.P., Kuperminc, G.P., Weintraub, E.S., Mink, J.W. and Thompson, W.W. 2012. Thimerosal exposure in early life and neuropsychological outcomes 7-10 years later. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 37(1): 106-118.

Chen, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, J., Li, S., He, L. Shao, D., Du, H. 2013. Effect of thimerosal on the neurodevelopment of premature rats. World Journal of Pediatrics, 9(4): 356-360.

Dorea, Jose G. 2012. Neurotoxic metal coexposures and neurodevelopment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(6): A226.

Ida-Eto, M., Oyabu, A., Ohkawara, T., Tashiro, Y., Narita, N. and Narita, M. 2013. Prenatal exposure to organomercury, thimerosal, persistently impairs the serotonergic and dopaminergic systems in the rat brain: Implications for association with developmental disorders. Brain & Development 35 (2013) 261-264.

Jalili, M.A. and Abbasi, A.H. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene suphonanilide. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 18(4): 303-308.

Kern, J.K., Haley, B.E., Geier, D.A., Sykes, L.K., King, P.G. and Geier, M.R. 2013. Thimerosal exposure and the role of sulfation chemistry and thiol availability in autism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013(10): 3771-3800.

King, K., Paterson, M. and S.K. Green. 2012. Global justice and the proposed ban on thimerosal-containing vaccines. Pediatrics, 2013;131: 154-156.

McGinnis, Woody R. 2001. Mercury and autistic gut disease. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(7): A303-A304.

Mrozek-Budzyn, D., Majewska, R., Kieltyka, A. and Augustyniak, M. 2011. Neonatal exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and child development in the first 3 years of life. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 34(2012): 592-597.

Orenstein, W. A., Paulson, J. A., Brady, M. T., Cooper, L. Z. and Seib, K. 2012. Global vaccination recommendations and thimerosal. Pediatrics, 2013;131: 149-151.

Spann, J.W., Heath, R.G., Kreitzer, J.F. and Locke, L.N. 1972. Ethyl mercury p-toluene sulfonanilide: lethal and repreoductive effects on pheasants. Science, 175(4019): 328-331.

Mary Poppins is Screwed

Imagine it's the year 1910. You are a middle aged white man, a financier rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams, married with two beautiful children. Only, there's a problem: you haven't the time or desire to raise these lecherous offspring. And the last nanny just up and quit for no reason! What is the solution? The sensible course of action is to use your freemason connections and perform a ritual to summon a powerful wind demon who can look after your kids for you!

That is the premise of the epic Disney tale, Mary Poppins.

I didn't read the books, but based on the film, you could argue that Poppins is some sort of unknown mystical creature, or a witch, but let's face it: there is something more sinister to her. She is incredibly vain, unyieldingly demanding, and all too interested in shaping the minds of neglected children. Although the movie is positive and upbeat, awash in everything Disney, I just ask you to consider the possibility that the story is somewhat different than how it was presented, along with unanswered questions. How did this family become so fabulously wealthy? Was it by honest means? Did they have help? Is it possibly to be involved with the highest level of banking and financing without being influenced by powerful organizations such as Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Gnomes of Zurich?

The father/financier, listed in the credits as "Mr. Banks" (what a clever name), never indicates having any connection with Poppins, and doesn't talk to his family about anything related to it, besides the obvious discomfort that comes with trying to hire a nanny. But why would he? He hangs out at the bank and Royal Exchange all day with stuffy old men, I wouldn't put it past him to put on some robes and invoke some dark rituals involving pentacles, silver daggers, silly dancing, that sort of thing. Probably a lot more fun than hanging out with his family, too.

If you are willing to accept, even ever so remotely, this possibility, then please continue reading. I proudly present to you:

Mary Poppins: Demon of the Wind, Harvester of Lost Souls

Mary Poppins flies in on an umbrella and blows all of the competing nannies,  who have been waiting in line patiently all day, away to God only knows where using wind magic, then goes in to the house and beguiles the dad in to the nanny position they have been advertising. The undertext implies she was responding to the ad which was made up by them and quickly torn up and discarded by their father. But what better way to win over their trust than convince them she is on their side? She is no lesser servant of evil, and immediately sees the weakness of the one who summoned her, their father, immediately planning her revenge on those who would dare to demand her services.

The action begins as she shows off her wicked power to the children, and that they too can invoke the harmless seeming magic.

They get on with their day and head down to the park where they meet up with Poppins' friend, a homeless drug addict. Dick Van Dyke steals the show, dancing, singing, cracking jokes; the total package. He is always ridiculously happy about nothing, anything and everything, and he really really likes to dance. He participates gleefully in Poppins' induced hallucinations, right at home with his cartoon animals and animated carnival machines. It is unclear with his drug of choice is, since crack and meth haven't been invented yet, but it could be any mix of laudanum, alcohol or some form of ephedrine. Here he is trying to walk in a straight line.

They pop into the chalk drawing and do all sorts of wacky shit, including driving some horses on the merry go round and having them pop off and ride around. The interesting part here is where Poppins animates merry go round horses. Everyone else's horse has their eyes open, but Mary's horse has its eyes closed, as if sleeping (see picture at the beginning of the article). If anyone has any theories as to what this signifies, I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.

They sing and dance some more with some cartoons, and eventually the magic journey/hallucination ends and they head home. The kids are too excited to sleep, and Mary denies that anything "magical" ever happened. The kids get upset but she easily sings them to sleep with her siren song.

The next day a fucking dog comes to tell Mary her uncle has laughed himself up into his high ceiling loft. As you can expect, hilarity ensues. When they get home Mr. Banks is able to clear the cobwebs of her charming away and attempts to get Poppins under control, but is no match for her dark magicks. She resumes uncoiling her corrupting essence over the children by telling them about a bag lady that feeds pigeons. They fall asleep again, their souls tainted a shade darker.

The next day they head to the Bank, with Mister...Banks to make a deposit, but her influence is still felt - the children rebel against their weak excuse for a father and his masonic pals. The evil power surround them like a dirty, foul blanket to such an extent that they induce panic and confusion in the crowds of patrons nearby, causing everyone to withdraw their savings. The masons sense something is amiss and dispatch policemen to capture the children, but they slip away, eventually finding an obliterated Dick Van Dyke who has been getting high inhaling fumes while cleaning chimneys all day.

He stumbles them to safety and then decides to clean the chimney in their house, which they, reunited with Mary, who rewards their bad behaviour by having them all fly up to the roof, wander around, climb oily smoke stairs, sing and dance with a bunch of dirty men. Finally, the neighbour, an eccentric ex-military man who has clued in to Poppins' shenanigans, shoots fireworks at them, likely blessed by the Bishop of Canterbury.

Meanwhile, Mr. Banks is in deep shit with his buddies over the chaos and confusion caused by his children. He knows he needs to do something, and so tries one final time to fire Mary.

Still no match for her, she has turned his mind to limp, misshapen putty. He heads to the Royal Exchange to meet his fate. I know they have been talking about the bank the entire movie, but you can tell it is the Royal Exchange, not the bank, by comparing these photos.

Symbolically they break his hat and his umbrella. As you probably recall, Mary Poppins also has an umbrella that she uses to fly with. Clearly there is some connection between the Poppins entity and this stuffy, secrative, old organization. They fire Banks and he finally snaps.

This is where the directors' cut ends. Of course it is a Disney movie, so they somehow tack a happy ending on this, for some reason they just forget about it and everyone is happy and still rich. Mary leaves, fully broken from the weak enchantment summoning her in the first place, knowing his children will grow up to be vile minions of darkness.

Happy Days is Screwed: Season 2 Episode 13

In this series, I attempt to demonstrate that the show Happy Days follows the concept of the fantasy world of the 1950's United States, and is full of pro-US ideology and rife with heavy handed statements about morality. Happy days was made from Season 1 starting in 1974. Oh yeah, and so you don't miss anything, the clips are played at 1/3rd speed, and so are screwed, as in the technique used by DJ Screw to acquire a unique style and feel. He was called DJ Screw (RIP 2000) because he used a screw to modify the speed on his turntable. I love his hip hop mixes, and I love things slowed down. What follows is the summary of:

SEASON 2 EPISODE 13: Fonzie's Getting Married

In this episode the Fonz makes a big announcement; he, the teenage Fonz (they are never clear on his age but he is in the same grade as Potsie and Richie and Ralph, who are in high school) is getting married. The gang has a huddle with him in his office:

Yeah, that's right, the Fonz thinks that men should only marry virgins. This becomes a point of contention when, uh-oh, turns out Howard (AKA "Chips" Cunningham) saw her strip at a hardware convention. If this doesn't sound like something a family man like Howard would do, you don't know Howard very well. To find out for sure if it is her, he will recognize her laugh:

Is Howard actually joking, or just explaining what he thinks about bums? Well now Howard's worst fears have been confirmed.  He has to tell Richie:

Eventually they tell Fonzie, who naturally doesn't believe them. They go to the "strippers", 1950's style, to scope out the action:

We never find out what happened to them when he caught up to her. Howard sizes up The Lone Stripper and runs for it:

Fonz drinks in the reality of the situation, man's up and gets over it. Richie has other things on his mind:

And Howard is also busy:

At least Marion knows how to have a good time.

Are Guns N Roses still relevant?

Sometimes, I feel like the last person alive under 40 who likes Guns N Roses. Maybe it's just the nostalgia, good memories hanging out in my friends basement with Use Your Illusions on repeat. Or eleven years old getting on the full school bus awkwardly looking for an available seat while Axl Rose screamingly inquires: Do you know where you are?

Yes Axl, yes I do know where I am.  I'm in the jungle, I'm a small child, I'm going to die.

I grew up in a redneck-y tourist trap of a town, where my peers had aspirations of making good money at local Lumber Yard so they can afford to drive around big trucks and do massive amounts of cocaine. A noble calling, but my stick-in-the-ass type religious upbringing told me that was all kinds of wrong - combined with my dislike of the smallness of the area's mentality (I learned later there are many many places that are exactly the same - this is the world we live in). I left that place and never wanted to go back, but I never stopped liking Guns N Roses. I've been revisting them, as I do periodically, but with so much video footage compiled, I could see lots of different performances of their songs live, and interviews at different points of their career - mostly with Slash, I think Axl pulled permission on a lot of his personal footage, or never allowed it in the first place.

Chinese Democracy has some songs I do quite enjoy, but obviously lacks the visceral feel of the riffs in Appetite and the Use Your Illusions. Obviously the earlier life stuff is great, and much more enjoyable compared to more recent shows (2013), which is too processed and has no viscera, but doesn't sound bad at all. Since the band broke up, and Chinese Democracy took a very long time indeed, most people have forgotten about Guns N Roses.  Even my friend who was a huge fan has not even given Chinese Democracy a test listen. Without Slash, the band is nothing to him. While they left most of their fanbase heartbroken, they are still interesting to check out, and the songs I used to like still sound great to me.

I've been paying special attention, first, to Axl's dance moves - he sings about being super tough through the stories of his life and being on the streets, all the while wearing more ambiguously tough clothing (black wifebeater, leather pants, bandana). With all these signs, symbols, mannerisms of a badass, he still somehow manages to happily bop about the stage, wiggling like the bait bucket at a fishing derby, chirping in a friendly manner to the audience about something that happened to him recently, or someone he dislikes, and sometimes just general words of encouragement and camaraderie - like any good host. His on stage presence doesn't quite match up, but that was a good thing.  He was "your" (the audience's) buddy, at least for the time he was up there. Sure he trash talked people on stage, but he hated on "that guy" who doesn't get down with the likes of us. Then he would wiggle some more and kick a cowboy boot heel at you to let you know he was having a good time.

Something else remarkable, and worth you and I knowing: apparently the scene in Los Angeles was so competitive for bands playing in the area, that the clubs would not hire you - instead you had to raise enough money to buy the entire roll of tickets for your show ($500) and sell as many as you could so you could recoup the money. They had to bust their asses promoting themselves enough to sell out the tickets, by flyering, postering, and probably a whole lot of selling to people they knew.  This is on top of writing songs and playing really tightly, consistently well. Schmoozing and self promoting meant their 24/7 party lifestyle was work of a sort, at least in that critical period before they made it big.  They needed to play those shows to prove what they could do, and their show got big enough with the LA music scene crowd that when the record execs put feet on the ground to find out what was going to be the next thing, they were pretty much already in.

Another key factor to their huge appeal stated over and over was their authenticity. They sang about partying as hard as a human could party, but at the same time completely different from another famous partier Hunter S. Thompson - Never anywhere do interviewers ever verbally make a connection there, but their lifestyle influenced their creative and commercial work in some similar ways. Axl's lyrics on Appetite sounded like they could have been written on a napkin, hiding out at a diner in the early morning to make sure whatever fallout from the night before had blown over. There was, and is, always an introspective aspect to it I like, while not particularly glorifying drugs (but still singing about them because they were such a big part of their lives), and simultaneously celebrating while also hating on women. It has an emotional charge, is all very believable and sound very much like their lives.  This, it has been said, is what lead to their broad appeal and gave them a more fantastic sound than other bands of the time, where they are spilling their heart and guts out to you, not only on the album, but every single time they performed. They are a rags-to-riches rockstar American story tale.

Guns N Roses has a lot in common with Michael Jackson.  Their super fast, super huge rise to fame and massive audiences, with a huge marketing campaign and promotional war machine. While they had a don't ask don't tell policy regarding drugs, and I'm sure they dressed themselves, the promoters controlled all the other aspects of promoting, tours, stage setups and keeping the hype up. The way they were run between the two sets of artists worked pretty much the same way.

Michael Jackson drew on a lot of the style and bad boy imagery, having slash-style guitar solos, taking bits of the scene and aesthetic following Guns N Roses Hollywood strip cultural scene when they got signed. MJ took it in his own direction, incorporating it with other elements he liked as well as the dancing and performance elements, instead taking it to the level of sterile art form. His look and visual style are captivating, but also belong in the "History" museum he created for himself, even as you were hearing it for the first time. Guns n Roses differed in the sense that they seemed to express themselves in a singular sense where they were distinct individuals who seemed to know who they are, while Michael seemed to flow quickly from one fad to the next, dipping in to so many spheres of influence, the constant sense of change seemed to be the only singular defining factor throughout his career.

Still, by the time the Use Your Illusions albums were created, conflict as well as differences emerging between what band members wanted had begun to disrupt their sound. Without the unifying street influence defining themselves and their music, Axl wrote about more abstract concepts about his life that had been caused by fame, wealth and unimaginable influence. The sound was good, but very different, and I think a certain amount of change is reasonable for any band to stay relevant past a few years. However, when you think about what the large part of their fanbase was, it isn't hard to imagine them being disenchanted with something that forced them to think complicated thoughts. Use Your Illusions still had enough talent put in to it by really hard working band members, but according to the history of the time, the differences had fractured the band enough to be irrepairable. Although fans wouldn't learn until years later what had been going on, insiders say you can hear the sounds of the band breaking up in those albums.  There are a lot of melodic, sad, or at least introspective songs, again what they were actually going through. They had put everything in to those albums, and they were not able to follow it up. I think even if they had tried to make another appetite, nobody would have liked it.  Unless they had all forsaken their vast wealth and gone back to living on the streets in L.A. There's no substitute for authenticity.

It's also difficult to measure by today's yardstick, considering how little longevity modern artists have in terms of popularity. Guns N Roses can still draw large crowds (at least internationally) by name recognition alone, but will the next big rock band have such an fascinating rise and blowout? It is the stuff of myths and legends.

Dario Argento vs Hitchcock

You can't read anything about Dario Argento without someone spouting the rhetoric that he is the "Italian Hitchcock".  While both of these directors made an impressive number of films and broke new ground in filming techniques and visual aesthetic, if you really sit down and compare their careers side by side, you'll see it isn't good comparison or even an adequate comparison.  I was prompted to look deeper in to Argento's career when I decided to watch Dracula 3D, an unbearable budgeted badly made scary movie.  Previous to that I had seen Suspiria and Inferno, definitely 2 of his best films.  Bigger than those old films with strong contrasting colors and delicate, luxurious imagery that fills your eyes to the brim with texture and color.  D3D had some of that, but lacked more noticably in aspects where Argento had a previously bad track record in like plot, character development, and the ability to act.

As the movie went on, it became very apparent that Suspiria and Inferno were not an indication of where he had taken his career.  Generally great directors are only given larger and larger budget as even their very name draws ticket sales.  But this movie, Dracula's green screened castle was flat and brightly lit and monster transformations would look scarier if they were a hand puppet.  No money to even afford an aesthetic, his hallmark and what made him famous.  If you sum up his career in a scatter plot based on production budget and box office earnings, you get shapes like this:

The blue line is the quickly cresting and dipping budgets, while the slouching red L is the money his movies took in over the years.  Not at all flattering.  Compare that to hitchcock, who made movie studios ungodly amounts of cash, with the ridiculously peaking Psycho making inflation adjusted earnings of $476,516,129, that's almost half a billion dollars.

The graph for Hitchcock STARTS with one extra zero on the first number of the Y-axis. 

Next take a look at scores based on Rotten Tomatoes scoring.  Again, pay attention to the trend lines that give voice to each man's career.  In both sets of graphs Argento is red & blue and Hitchcock greys.