You made a statement that a body which reacted to something in an allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) was a "smart" thing. I don't see that, and believe that the reaction can be a defect.
I do agree that sometimes it's a protective mechanism though, but not always.
Last edited by navy-vet; 02-06-2016 at 06:53 PM.
The immune system is a mechanism that is sometimes damaged because of a parents over protectiveness and isolation from a child's exposure to antigens.
Too many well meaning imbeciles are raising their offspring in a sterile environment, maybe.
In other words, the immune system fails to develop and becomes a liability.
Anaphylaxis commonly kills people, rather quickly. And the antigen can be a tiny sliver off a peanut.
Now you're getting it. The allergy is a genetic defect. The allergic reaction is your body telling you that you're doing something that harms your body and knock that $#@! off NAO.Originally Posted by navy-vet
Though "mind over matter"" often works (I've seen people massively improve their compound lifts using these sort of techniques), sometimes the body just can't handle the load and tells you to knock that $#@! off with pain signals in the nervous system.
I have never met someone in the medical field who thought they were smarter than the human body. Some people are given statins with cortisol in mind, as bad diet can cause the body to produce to much, and prolonged heavy cortisol leads nerve cell death, and can also severely weaken the immune system. So, for the author of that article to make the assertion he did, when he was knocking a drug that is designed to address such an issue, and given specifically to some people with inflammation in mind, drives home he might need to have the bio-chemistry of the drug he was knocking actually explained to him.
This is why I keep going back to the point of speaking in regards to medicine in such absolute terms is wrong. Keep in mind, I'm pointing out positive things statins do provide, having made it clear I refused them. But to use the cancer analogy this thread started with.....I would take statins for a year or to to combat cancer. Statin effects (negative) are based on long term, whereas cancer is a more pressing problem. Refusing a treatment to combat something that may kill you in an extremely short time frame because you're worried about possible side effects a decade or more away is just being silly.
The entire argument some people use as basis that doctors are evil and stupid to use medicines because there is a .001% negative reaction rate is, quite frankly, just idiotic. That is nothing more than a disconnect from reality.
Edit: Not saying you are idiotic. I'm speaking the extreme views I see here from time to time where there is a conspiracy among the entire medical profession to kill us all, or just lie to make money.
Last edited by Intoxiklown; 02-06-2016 at 08:49 PM.
"Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato
Of course they are. If the body didnt make people fat and give them diabetes theyd be dead.lol
smh
I guess obesity and diabetes are smart body reactions as well then?
I cant believe you actually said that as a sarcastic comment. In sincerity, you are correct.
Theres definitely a time and place for drugs but most of the time people use meds as crutches to continue the behavior thats the real cause of damage to their body. People cant smoke cigarettes and eat mcdonalds and dunkin donuts 24/7 and expect some pills to fix their problems....its never worked and can never work.
As far as sincerity goes, I am as sincere as I can be most of the time, I do enjoy playing the devils advocate though, to get a thought or concept out there. I love teaching and sharing. And I am forever questioning what I think I know.
I agree completely, and if you see my previous posts, that has been the major theme of what I have been trying to get across speaking to short term versus long term health care.
"Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...rol-heart.aspxNo Such Thing as Good and Bad Cholesterol
Because the correlation of total cholesterol with heart disease is so weak, many years ago a stronger correlation was sought. It was found that there is so-called "good cholesterol" called HDL, and that the so-called "bad cholesterol" was LDL. HDL stands for high-density lipoprotein, and LDL stands for low-density lipoprotein. Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins -- fats combined with proteins. There is only one cholesterol. There is no such thing as a good or a bad cholesterol. Cholesterol is just cholesterol. It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.
Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins. LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol. In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles. LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem. Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation. Thus, you might say that there is "good LDL" and "bad LDL." Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little. Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels do not tell you very much.
A mistake that is rarely made in the hard-core sciences such as physics seems to be frequently made in medicine. This is confusing correlation with cause. There may be a weak correlation of elevated cholesterol with heart attacks, however this does not mean it is the cholesterol that caused the heart attack. Certainly gray hair is correlated with getting older; however one could hardly say that the gray hair caused one to get old. Using hair dye to reduce the gray hair would not really make you any younger. Neither it appears would just lowering your cholesterol.
Perhaps something else is causing both the gray hair and aging. Even if elevated cholesterol were significant and heart disease (which I question) perhaps something else is causing the elevated cholesterol and also causing the heart disease.
Let's look little more at cholesterol or, as Paul Harvey was fond of saying, "the rest of the story." First and foremost, cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth. In other words, there is no life on Earth they can live without cholesterol. They will automatically tell you that, in of itself, it cannot be evil. In fact it is one of our best friends. We would not be here without it. No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one's risk of dying. Cholesterol also is a precursor to all of the steroid hormones. You cannot make estrogen, testosterone, cortisone, and a host of other vital hormones without cholesterol.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/10/02/t...not-a-paradox/You’ll sometimes hear about the ‘French paradox’, which describes the phenomenon of low heart disease rates in France ‘despite’ a diet rich in saturated fat. Well, it seems that this ‘paradox’ is not limited to France, but is alive and well in several other countries too including the UK, Germany, Austria, Finland, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands and Switzerland. In other words, it’s not a paradox at all. It’s only a paradox if one believes saturated fat causes heart disease. The thing is, there’s really no good evidence that it does.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/045...BWSKMX5Z3ETXTUThe 9 Benefits of Cholesterol in the Diet
Source: Eat Fat, Lose Fat by Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon Morell
Cholesterol is vital for balanced hormones and the manufacture of those that deal with the stress of everyday living. These hormones also are protective against heart disease and cancer.
Cholesterol is needed by the body to make all the sex hormones including andogen, testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, and DHEA.
Cholesterol is necessary for the body to properly use Vitamin D, which is critical for all body systems including the bones, nerves, proper growth, mineral metabolism, muscle tone, insulin production, fertility, and strong immunity.
Bile salts made by the liver require cholesterol. Bile is critical to the digestive process and absorption of dietary fats.
Cholesterol functions as a powerful antioxidant in the body and is protective of free radical damage to tissues.
Cholesterol is vital for proper functioning of the brain. Cholesterol is used by serotonin receptors .. serotonin is the body’s natural “feel good” chemical. No wonder low cholesterol levels have been associated with aggressive and violent tendencies, depression and suicide.
Breastmilk is ideally rich in cholesterol and contains a special enzyme for the baby to properly utilize it. Babies and children need cholesterol for proper growth and development of the brain, nervous system, and immune function.
Cholesterol is necessary for proper functioning of the intestines and maintaining the integrity of the intestinal wall. Low cholesterol diets can lead to leaky gut syndrome and other digestive problems.
Cholesterol is critical to repair of damaged cells. This is why cholesterol levels naturally rise as we age and are beneficial to the elderly. Women with the highest cholesterol actually live the longest! Dr. Meyer Texon MD, a respected pathologist practicing at New York University Medical Center, observes that accusing saturated fat and cholesterol for hardening of the arteries is like accusing white blood cells of causing infection, rather than helping the immune system address it.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
I like seeing your posts Donnay.. I know I can always count on something common sensible that Im sure to agree with! Unlike some of the poopy heads here who shall remain nameless!!
lol
No one has said cholesterol is bad. To much of it is. Are you saying that there is no such thing as to much? Don't copy and paste what someone else says. What do you think? You seem hell bent on attacking a medication (remember your original post) to such an extent that you are all over the place trying to justify any condition it might be used to treat.
These "earth shattering" articles you keep pasting are incredibly rudimentary, to the point of while kind of being true, they are wrong. Remember I said HDL, VLDL, and LDL to keep it basic? Do you have any idea of how many subsets of those there are? Apparently your sources don't, or are purposely not saying it to prevent from discrediting their own titles. And anyone that says only the small particle LDL cholesterol is bad is either stupid or lying. Period. Larger particle LDL is simply not as prone to cause issues.
Using your logic, any chemical imbalance in the body is ok, since if the body makes it...it is perfectly ok. Are you really saying that is how you see it?
"Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato
Hey Intoxiklown where is the proof that too much is bad? My logic is that cholesterol, period, is a good thing and good for your overall health. I say that saturated fats had gotten a bad rap for over 40 years and the statistics of people getting sicker and sicker does say something about the so-called science that tells people that cholesterol is a bad thing and too much will kill you---nonsense! In my own experience with people on cholesterol lowing meds, I watched them slowly die because they believed what they were told. Two of heart attacks and one from a stroke. Within 6 mos. of my father taking cholesterol-lowering drugs he started losing his memory. The doctor told my mother it appeared he was in the early stages of dementia. Yes, medically induced dementia!
When you watch a love one slowly die, you want answers---I WANTED ANSWERS.
The brainwashing techniques used by the medical community seems to work on people like you. Take the time to research things outside of the box. You may not like what you fine, but it doesn't mean that the articles I posted aren't telling the truth. The truth will set you free.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
I'm brainwashed? I've made clear my understanding of both the bad and good effects from medicines you are determined to demonize, stating that the issue with your sources and your belief is speaking in absolutes. This is a seemingly logical thing one would think, but you cling tighter and tighter when pressed by that medicine is a conspiracy for money when all we need is some hot tea and a spoon of honey.
Speaking generally, not counting the processed junk we eat, people are getting sicker because we live longer. And if you go back 100 years, when people cooked everything with lard, you see much younger age groups dying from heart attacks and strokes. Saying someone on meds to lower cholesterol trying to prevent heart attack or stroke wound up dying from a heart attack or stroke.....and then saying it's the meds? Alzheimers or dementia is definitely a risk with some of those drugs, which due to my family history I avoid the meds myself. But the short term effects are reversible. Long term permanent effects takes years, and to be frank, if someone can't put down the junk food after such a long period of time, the only thing responsible for the death is them.
And I've walked by more caskets than I care to get into. I'm sure we all have. But some of us don't let that steer our reasoning. You keep talking about research, when all you've shown me is at best a simplistic understanding of the things you both advocate, and denounce.
"Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato
We need fats. We need sugars. We need proteins. We need salts. We need water. But too much of any of these things can be harmful. "Good for you" is not necessarily good for you in all amounts. A little being good does not necessarily mean that a lot is even better. It can have the opposite of the desired effect.
I do agree on the OP that statins are potentially dangerous drugs though and if you are taking them you should be monitored by a doctor.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-07-2016 at 12:54 PM.
If you say 'statins' are good for lower cholesterol then that is brainwashed statement. Also repeating; HDL, LDL and VLDL... that is exactly what has been spewed (for over 40 years) by the medical community who push these drugs on people who trust their every word.
Sorry...follow the money and you'll see why I am a huge advocate of the alternative approaches.
References:
Cholesterol U-turn as research shows fatty foods might not be bad for us after all
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-10277837.html
Why butter and eggs won't kill us after all: Flawed science triggers U-turn on cholesterol fears
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...rol-fears.html
Last edited by donnay; 02-07-2016 at 12:56 PM.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
How Does Meat Cause Inflammation?
http://nutritionfacts.org/2012/09/20...-inflammation/
these studies are always pointless to me... they never use grassfed meat for these studies, or raw milk or natural vitamins etc etc...
If vegetarians ate the same diet these animals eat - namely GMO soybeans and corn im sure theyd have plenty of inflammation and die quickly.
I am amazed that there are so many here who seem to be convinced that the medical community is engaged in some great conspiracy to murder the people who they profess to be caring for...What, for greed or to rid the field of competitors for resources? Or is it the influence of reptilian overlords who want to eradicate humanity that's behind it?
Seems that anyone who claims to have a phd or an MD and claims anything that is contrary to conventional medicine, is suddenly a Guru....
Sounds like fear to me....
Anything tested before being sold and restricted after being sold is somehow more "dangerous" than untested and unregulated "natural supplements" market (which is also run by big corporations- including some Big Pharma companies). If a claim appears on the internet, it is somehow true. If it comes from an official source, it is somehow automatically false.
Except that they live longer.
Want to Live Longer? Eat a Plant-Based Diet
http://www.livescience.com/37102-veg...ve-longer.html
Get yourself and loved ones a proper physician and follow his / her advice. Avoid smoking, excessive drinking, harmful drugs, actually most everything in excess. Listen to your body, study and exercise your brain, participate in an exercise regimen whether it's walking the mall or local Walmart, hiking, swimming, dancing, or jogging. Laugh a lot, comedy is a healer. Get your sleep in a quiet dark safe space. Believe in something greater than yourself and find some way of doing something for someone else when ever you can, without anyone knowing it was you. Find someone or something to love that will love you back. Eat foods that are less man handled and drink real water every day.
No guarantees that this will lengthen your life, but it will most certainly improve it.
Last edited by navy-vet; 02-07-2016 at 02:25 PM.
I think its well known that the less calories one eats the longer one lives... but if you ate GMO soybeans and GMO corn all day you would die way quicker than someone eating nothing but animals fed proper diets.
If all you ate was corn and soy beans you would be nutritionally deficient so yes- you probably would die sooner.
and now extrapolate that so that if you eat meat that was fed nothing but GMO soybeans and GMO corn what would you expect would happen to your health?
It would be compromised.. The animals on these diets are sick.. thats why they have to be pumped up with antibiotics, steroids, growth hormone etc etc.. whatever it takes to keep them alive just until its slaughter time...
Study of 100 billion animals says otherwise. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin.../#262812c9ca93
But we don’t need to depend on anecdotes to address these concerns. Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed.
The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.
What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.
The Van Eenennaam study corresponds to other reviews of animal feeding data, some multi-generational and as long two years.
Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies. Many of these studies are independent. The list included systematic reviews, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe.Several recent comprehensive reviews from various authors summarize the results of food-producing animal feeding studies with the current generation of GE crops (Deb et al., 2013; Flachowsky, 2013; Flachowsky et al., 2012; Tufarelli and Laudadio, 2013; Van Eenennaam, 2013). Studies have been conducted with a variety of food-producing animals including sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, quail, cattle, water buffalo, rabbits and fish fed different GE crop varieties. The results have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals were comparable with those fed near isogenic non-GE lines and commercial varieties.
As Dr. Steven Novella notes on his blog Neurologica:
.[T]his data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us