Slashdot Mirror

Already happened... According to Harvard researchers, children who live in high-fluoride areas have significantly lower IQ than those in low fluoride areas. And yet, our glorious governments have been purposely adding fluoride to the tap water! We are being systematically dumbed down, for years now. No wonder today's people are dumber than generations gone past.

Basically, what you are suggesting is that vaccinations cause autoimmune. Yet, logically, that makes little sense.

No, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. Current vaccines do not (or at least are not known to) cause autoimmune disorders, although vaccinations can trigger preexisting autoimmune conditions.

As far as I'm aware, nobody knows exactly what actually causes autoimmune conditions to begin with, beyond that the immune system somehow gets confused about what it should attack. My best guess is that viruses, because they often end up getting their DNA mixed up with DNA from the host, can sometimes end up causing a few cells to produce substances (e.g. proteins) that contain a mixture of the viral coat and some aspect of the host's cells, and that in some rare cases, this causes the immune system to recognize those two things as being related, and starts attacking the host organism inadvertently.

This is, incidentally, exactly how many bacterial vaccines work; they combine some portion of the bacterium's structure with something that the immune system already knows how to attack. I could easily imagine a scenario where a batch of the bacteria genetically engineered to produce those substances gets inadvertently contaminated via viral DNA transfer, resulting in batches of the vaccine that trigger autoimmune conditions, either in a few unlucky individuals, or worse, en masse.

But the bigger risk, IMO, is the possibility that the vaccine itself could make a superbug more likely. Researchers in Canada and Hong Kong during the 2009–2010 flu season (H1N1) discovered that people who got the 2008 flu shot (with H1N1 coverage) had twice the risk of getting the strain of H1N1 that circulated in the 2009–2010 season as unvaccinated people. Of course, another study in 2017 showed the exact opposite effect, so there are a lot of giant question marks here.

But at least at a conceptual level, vaccines train your immune system to attack certain things, and as your immune system learns what to attack, its reactions to new threats does decrease somewhat. That's why kids who are exposed to more germs by age 1 are less likely to develop allergies later in life. It is unclear to what extent this effect could result in something that you might otherwise have fought off from becoming deadly, but at the very least, it is sufficient reason to approach expansion of vaccination in new areas with some degree of caution, as over-vaccination might turn out to be just as harmful as prophylactic antibiotic use in the long run.

And no, I'm not an epidemiologist, but I've read a lot on the subject over the years.

But over 50% of the population carries the Helicobacter Pylori bacterium in their gastrointestinal tracts, and peptic ulcers don't occur with that percentage. It was discovered that people that were already stressed were the ones that developed ulcers from the bacterium. https://articles.mercola.com/s...

Its caused by environmental factors that the American Cancer Society ignores. I cannot be all that supportive of the American Cancer Society. They are in bed with some of the largest companies that profit from the "treatment" of cancer. Instead of promoting healthy life styles (like nutrition), and working to reduce avoiding toxins (such as polluted air) they continually support drug and surgery options. For example, writes Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, "Zeneca Pharmaceuticals--a spin-off of Imperial Chemical Industries is one of the world's largest manufacturers of chlorinated and other industrial chemicals, including those incriminated as causes of breast cancer. Zeneca has also been the sole multimillion-dollar funder of the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month since its inception in 1984, besides the sole manufacturer of Tamoxifen, the world's top-selling anticancer and breast cancer "prevention" drug, with $400 million in annual sales. For more information, check out: https://articles.mercola.com/s...

That may not be entirely accurate.

There is a genetic mutation that gives you that. Can't remember the name, but they did identify the gene(s) responsible for it. You are fine.
Article about it

However it seems to me it's a bit of a logical leap to do something which transiently increases inflammatory markers and then assume that means the subject's chances of getting a specific inflammatory disease are increased. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.

You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

Niacin (Nicotinic Acid). A/K/A VITAMIN B3.

https://articles.mercola.com/s...

You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

Nitric Oxide. A/K/A "Molecule of the Year" in 1992, and responsible for a Nobel Prize in 1998, for its discovery as an essential ingredient in dozens of life-processes in the body.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/co...

You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

Orgams.

'Nuff said!

Why do you continue to give bad dieting advice to fat people? I'm on a low-egg diet (two brown eggs per week). I can't eat 15 eggs per week.

Did you even READ the link you just shared? Choice quotes: "High-Egg Diet Has No Effect on Cholesterol Levels, Even for People With Type 2 Diabetes"; "Eating Cholesterol Doesn’t Make Your Cholesterol High"; "Eggs Are a Good Source of Vitamins and Antioxidants". Your link does nothing to explain why you're on a "low-egg" diet, and in fact, your link suggests that eating "up to a dozen" eggs per week is perfectly fine, safe, and indeed, a good source of protein & other nutrients. My point in calculating for you the cost of eating 3 eggs a day was not to say, "You should, by all means, stuff your fat fucking face with as many eggs as you can choke down" - it was to point out that even eating THREE eggs a day - a large number, which should satisfy even a fat fuck - is cheaper than your garbage power bar habit.

If you can't eat 15 eggs per week, your link suggests that you can EASILY eat 12 eggs per week - so have 2 per day, and get even FEWER calories, and spend even LESS money. None of your arguments disprove the fundamentally better nutrition and lower cost of eating eggs.

Furthermore, you completely ignored the oatmeal option, which is just as healthy, and also far less expensive than Powerbar / Clif bar garbage.

STOP BEFORE YOU GET SOMEONE KILLED WITH YOUR BAD ADVICE!

Your link largely supports my assertions. Furthermore, since you like linking Dr. Mercola for advice, he also suggests that to have a "low-carb" diet, you should probably be eating 40 or less grams of carbs per day:

"Some people can be in a full fat-burning state with full ketosis at a level of non-fiber carbs that's higher than 50 grams; maybe 70 or 80 grams. Others, especially if you're insulin resistant or have type 2 diabetes, may require less than 40 grams or even 30 grams per day." (source: http://articles.mercola.com/si...)

Given your weight, your age, and your health claims, it's likely that you're struggling with Type 2 Diabetes, so your claim that your "150 grams per day" constitutes "low carb" is cherry-picking facts to suit your idiotic preconceptions.

Here's the thing: I'm not a doctor, but I *AM* giving you good nutritional advice. If you choose not to heed it, that's your choice - you won't live to see 60, but you're free to make bad decisions.

Let's assume you eat 3 eggs every morning - that's 48 cents each day.

Why do you continue to give bad dieting advice to fat people? I'm on a low-egg diet (two brown eggs per week). I can't eat 15 eggs per week.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/01/eggs-cholesterol-levels.aspx

You're welcome, creimer.

STOP BEFORE YOU GET SOMEONE KILLED WITH YOUR BAD ADVICE!

>> Cancer is NOT among the issues here...

I don't think thats even slightly as clear as you sem to believe.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Class B Carcinogen, meaning a âoepossible cancer-causing agent,â based on the available research.
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Also the potential for brain damage such as:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
http://www.everydayhealth.com/...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

>> Cancer is NOT among the issues here...

I don't think thats even slightly as clear as you sem to believe.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Class B Carcinogen, meaning a âoepossible cancer-causing agent,â based on the available research.
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Also the potential for brain damage such as:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
http://www.everydayhealth.com/...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

There are also some fat soluble vitamins that are toxic if you take too much (like D).

Yes, in general fat soluble vitamins have a higher potential of toxic accumulation. But how toxic is it?

You can use about 50 000 IU per day for a long time with out symptoms.

Taking 50,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600 IU of vitamin D a day. http://www.mayoclinic.org/heal...

And even this information is old and the 600 IU RDA seams to be lacking. http://articles.mercola.com/si...

New recommendations are at about 7 000 to 10 000 IU per Day with no access to sunlight at a UV-Index above 2.

That's not making any pharmaceutical companies rich.

In 2012 it was making them $29 billion per year.

By 2014 it was $100 billion.

If that's not making anyone rich, they need better accountants.

Please tell me how come things spark in a microwave oven.

"Research shows that your microwave oven .. in fact will threaten your health by violently ripping the molecules in your food apart, rendering some nutrients inert, at best, and carcinogenic at its worst."

Don't even worry about the sparks.

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Now go by some reading glasses, millenials, you're getting old. Stop pretending you're young.

Millenials are probably* going to have poorer eyesight, earlier in life, than prior generations did for two reasons... the wavelength of standard LED lighting (mostly blue ~ 400nm) and the fact that myopia will set in earlier from not exercising the iris enough. *Probably –because they might discover the errors of the previous generations, earlier, and not go down that path!

LED lighting:

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Myopia:

http://www.npr.org/sections/13...

Solutions:

https://iristech.co/

Got the following from here: http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Your body has a system to efficiently remove mercury and other heavy metals, as long as your detoxification system is working properly. The problem is, many have one that's broken, and one of the principal causes is inflammation. Your genetic makeup is another factor.

The glutathione system is your body's main detoxification system. Glutathione binds to heavy metals, but it doesn't do it alone, it requires the assistance of enzymes, antioxidants, and transport proteins.

Old age, impaired genetics, poor diet, and toxic exposures of all kinds â" aflatoxin, chloroform, DDT, organic nitrates, radiation, and others â" impair your glutathione system. Some people try to supplement with glutathione or its precursors and expect the system to jump up to speed but for the most part this doesn't work very well as typically this is done orally with non-liposomal forms or done with IV glutathione, which is very expensive, inconvenient, and only marginally more effective. A far more effective strategy is to upregulate the expression of the genes that produce the enzymes and transport proteins that assist glutathione in doing its job.

Efficient detoxification depends on a series of seamless reactions that bind toxins to shuttle molecules and "escort" them out through a series of doors. Specifically, in order for your glutathione detoxification system to operate well, it requires the following three elements. If you have a shortage of any one of these three key elements, your cells lose their resistance to mercury, so it can accumulate and make you sick:

1. Glutathione in your cells: Your body has to manufacture most of its own glutathione (biosynthesis), so it needs adequate building blocks

2. Glutathione s-transferase (GST): An enzyme responsible for prying the mercury OFF the cellular proteins, then linking it TO the glutathione in the cell

3. Transport proteins: A series of transport proteins (multi drug resistant proteins, or MRPs) are responsible for getting the conjugated mercury out of your cells and into your blood, as well as from your blood into your liver and small intestine, and into other places so it can be eliminated

http://www.naturalnews.com/052...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...!
"For decades, Zika transmission was extremely rare. The virus didn't start spreading until after 2012 -- right after the biotech company Oxitec released genetically modified mosquitoes en masse in Brazil. Zika outbreaks quickly exploded from sites where genetically modified mosquitoes were released to combat dengue. Zika has now spread to 21 other countries and territories.
    What's appalling is that Zika virus (ATCC VR-84) can be purchased from ATCC labs. It was deposited by Dr. Jordi Casals-Ariet of the Rockefeller Foundation and sourced from the blood of an experimental forest sentinel rhesus monkey from Uganda in 1947.
    The question remains: Is Zika virus a bio-weapon, intentionally released via genetically modified mosquito? Perhaps it wasn't intentionally released but instead was an unintended consequence of releasing GM mosquitoes into the environment to eradicate dengue. Maybe this Zika strain is a resistant, mutant viral strain -- the evolution of a mosquito-borne virus caused by a biotech experiment gone bad?"

Those articles suggest that spraying pesticides and pushing vaccines on pregnant women may also have contributed to brain development issues in babies.

From the second article: "Children exposed to the aerial pesticide spraying were about 25 percent more likely to be diagnosed with autism or have a documented developmental delay than those living in areas that used other methods of pesticide application (such as manual spreading of granules). If authorities use the supposed threat of Zika to increase aerial spraying, it could increase children's risk of brain disorders, which is the opposite of what anti-Zika campaigns are supposed to achieve. ...
    It's possible Zika-carrying mosquitoes could be involved in suspected cases of microcephaly, but there are other factors that should be considered as well. For starters, the outbreak occurred in a largely poverty-stricken agricultural area of Brazil that uses large amounts of banned pesticides. Between these factors and the lack of sanitation and widespread vitamin A and zinc deficiency, you already have the basic framework for an increase in poor health outcomes among newborn infants in that area. Environmental pollution and toxic pesticide exposure have been positively linked to a wide array of adverse health effects, including birth defects. ..."

So, another reading of things is that previous expensive interventions (GM mosquitoes, vaccinations, pesticides) caused the problem that is now being used to justify more of the same expensive interventions with more profits to the same pushers... Meanwhile, the root cause of poverty, ignorance, poor nutrition are not being addressed.

Eh, not so sure about the cholesterol..

http://articles.mercola.com/si...
http://chriskresser.com/the-di...
https://health.clevelandclinic...

I know these sites are not the leading authority on such matters - but my own anecdotal evidence suggests that the common idea of "healthy" eating is ... wrong.

Real food is good and healthy.

Real Food = (unprocessed): fruit, veg, meat, dairy, nuts, etc

Processed sugars (or any processed carbohydrates) = the bad guy

Eat natural food, you'll feel more full, for longer, and be healthier.

Nearly every other country in the world prohibits or limits advertising of prescription medicine.

These countries still have a healthy pharmaceutical industry and obviously turn a profit for private companies. Remember, that sick people do need medicine and the pharmaceutical industry meets that need nicely and does a good job of it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so sure of yourself. Glyphosate may not be lethal immediately as used, but it does appear to have unexpected detrimental effects. And then there's the really bad "inert" ingredient effect to consider.

It's not all about LD50 numbers. O2 or H2O can both kill you, yet, like salt, you must have them. Glyphosate has no beneficial health properties, it merely makes farming "easier" apparently. We grew crops successfully long before glyphosate, maybe we should review that effort. Considering one of the linked stories, in western societies incidences of various chronic diseases has increased markedly since Glyphosate entered wide-spread use.

You simply cannot do everything right, because what's good for you seems to be an evolving position. Not surprisingly, what is healthy for you is not necessarily longevity promoting in everyone else.

Centagenarians most often report happiness as the common thread, so don't deny yourself a pleasurable treat once in a while.

I distill my tap water before drinking it, using one of these.

That doesn't solve this problem, of course, but it does give me an extra layer of protection against failings of the water treatment process.

Contrary to strangely-popular belief, distilled water is only barely acidic (thousands of times less acidic than soda pop, slightly less acidic than a banana), and does not leech minerals from your body. It's water. It is perfectly healthy, and it tastes good.

God dammit, not this again. No people, distilled water is not safe to drink. It will try to balance out that PH, it will sap minerals and electrolyres from your water, and it will shorten your lifespan.

Here's a link

And here's another.

Distilled water was a health trend in the 70's, right along with the "don't vaccinate because of autism" trend in the 2000's. It's a clever troll if you want to give someone serious health problems or so, if you really find that funny, but as soon as you crack open a high school chemistry textbook it becomes pretty obvious why it's a bad idea. Did you, sir, ever take Chemistry?

There is a limited amount of scientific evidence to support not using electronic blankets, not enough to say they're harmless and not enough to ban them. You can start learning about it from here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/24/is-your-electric-blanket-safe.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

http://healthypets.mercola.com...

The common wisdom is twice a year. If you don't care if the cat suddenly drops dead from preventable illness, then you don't have to take them unless they have issues.

Indeed, the effort to blacklist homeopathy is entirely thanks to Marsh and the rest of the Good Thinking Society. Please consider donating to them so they can continue their fight against wasteful and dangerous pseudoscience. Homeopathic owl isn't cheap you know.

Maybe they can join the fight to stop wasting money for unnecessary mammography and prostate exams while they are at it. And of course the bogus annual physical too...

Unfortunately, that might be too non-PC?

I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.

There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:

1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!) 2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it! 3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals! 4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!

I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!

Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.

At least he recycles his bottle though, that's a step in the right direction. Don't use disposable plastic bottles, it's not only ridiculously expensive for you in the long run but is also absolutly horrid for the environment.

I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.

There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:

1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!) 2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it! 3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals! 4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!

I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!

Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.

Here's a more detailed article about the dangers of microwave radiation, including cell phones:

Despite not being able to break atoms apart, non-ionizing radiation (such as microwaves) CAN cause physical alterations. For example, sunlight can damage your skin and eyes. Overexposure to radiation can affect tissues by causing molecular damage, DNA mutations, and other changes that can lead to cancer. The serious concern is, with all of this radiation surrounding us from cell and cordless phones, radio towers, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar, home electronic devices, computers and Internet, we are all part of an involuntary mass epidemiological experiment, on a scale never before seen in the history of the human race. And the truth is that we don't really KNOW what long term, low-level (but persistent) radiation does to usâ"even the non-ionizing type.

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Show me someone from the open source community who has helped and donated more towards charities than Bill Gates. Uh huh, that's what I thought.

Bill - is that you? Don't forget to lodge your claims for charitable donations - we filed it under "the spit shield fund".

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (foundation) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust. Both entities are tax-exempt private foundations that are structured as a charitable.

One good thing Bill Gates has done. Though not everyone agrees.

I didn't just cite one source, half wit.

I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.

Choke on it.

Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)

So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.

In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.

As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...

You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:

"To be honest, I

And yet it happened:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:
http://www.nature.com/news/pub...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

http://arstechnica.com/science...

http://www.the-scientist.com/?...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04...

As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.

These studies are getting busted all the time for making things up or using really sloppy methodology that could be "interpreted" to mean anything... often transparently the author had a conclusion they wanted before even starting the study.

That isn't real science. That's what creationists do. You have to do your study with an open mind and accept whatever the study might say. No forming your theory before the data comes in and no shaping the data to fit your theory. It is FINE to have a hypothesis before you start the study. But it can't go beyond that until you've actually got the data in... and then you base the theory on the data... you do not shape the data to equal your hypothesis.

And that is frequently what is going on.

Citation required. I want to see these "studies." They don't exist. Many of these ingredients have been grandfathered in. The assumption being that since no one has provably dropped dead from having eaten them that they do not cause harm. The term is GRAS, Generally Recognized As Safe. An increasing body of these GRAS ingredients have come under suspicion as of late, some provably show to cause harm.

Regarding GMOs, Monsanto and co. prevent ANYONE from testing their seeds. Farmers are contractually obligated put them into the dirt or destroy/return them. Researches are not allowed access. Government bodies do not require independent testing. They are allowed to vouch that their products are safe and we're just supposed to trust them. A common genetic modification is to cause the plant to produce its own pesticide. Specifically Bt-toxin a neat little compound that works by eating holes in the digestive track. Even if we're not immediately dropping dead by this stuff, we're ingesting some pretty f'ed up stuff. GI inflammation continues to receive interest as a contributor to a significant number of health problems. Are these GMO plants contributing? Difficult to tell since there's no mandate for independent safety studies.

It is strangely coincidental that we are experiencing unprecedented health problems, unheard of allergies, whose timeline track rather closely with the inclusion of these so-called GRAS ingredients and GMO crops. I am far too cynical to believe that the calorie companies have my best interest at heart over their own profit. I also seem to recall the tobacco industry telling us similar tales. I will not take their word for it. These ingredients and plant modifications should be subject to same rigor as medications have to prove their safety.

some unsubstantiated health claims

Absolutely false. The claims were substantiated, the problem with it was, the claims that Omega-3 Fatty Acids cross over into claims ONLY drugs can make. Therein lies the rub.

omega-3 fatty acids, using claims such as “fatty acids your body needs for promoting heart health.”

If you look at the research on Omega-3 Fatty Acids, the claims are true, the problem is no drug company can make a profit selling something that occurs in nature, without modification.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nu...

The problem wasn't the claims, the problem was that the claims are only allowed by the FDA for "Drugs" See the following link for details the FDA is lying about ...

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Please make sure you follow all the references at the bottom of this article.

Here is the quote, From the FDA, which makes clear that it is the CLAIMS they have a problem with, not the science behind the claims ..

We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

If eating healthy "prevents, mitigates and treats" disease, then any claims that eating healthy would classify it as a drug. THAT is the problem.

Are you kidding me? Did you read where that came from? It's reposted from Mercola.com. The guy is a anti-vaxx quack with a minor history of battling with the fda. Not only that, but those extra regulations on supplements threaten his livelihood.

Does any of that mean that the FDA is perfect? No. The structure of the FDA is retarded. They require a whole series of clinical trials, have the evidence presented to their advisory team (composed of actual scientist and medical professionals) who make a recommendation, then a group of people (who have no legal requirement to know ANYTHING about medicine) vote on whether to approve the drug or not. That's how you end up with stupid garbage like Aricept 23mg getting regulatory approval (Over 2x the side effects with almost negligible gain on Mini Metal Status Exam compared to the 10mg dose? Yay! Put Grandpa on it today!)

The FDA is also only allowed to look at safety and efficacy data. They can't deny something on the basis of utility. Companies like this one make a killing on it. I'm not aware of a single novel medication that company makes. All they do is take stuff that has been on the market for decades, make it a gel instead of a cream or combine two products (so convenient), sell it for 10 or 20 times the generic price, and send an army of sales reps to convince gullible dermatologists to prescribe their products.

It would be crazy if it weren't true. There are some serious problems with the FDA that need to resolved. The ability to assess whether something is safe/effective or not is not one of them. The testing process is sound. The requirement to listen to the people who CAN assess the results, however, needs to be changed. Just for crying out loud, don't use Mercola as a source. His scientific reasoning ability is clearly questionable.

A lot of people think he's a quack...but I followed his advice from my death bed in 2010 and am fully recovered without having been remotely sick since: http://fitness.mercola.com/sit...

You may well be right in this case. Probably you are. I don't know much about this specific issue. But I have heard or read from history similar reassurances saying about other things (cocaine in Coca Cola, lead in gasoline, trans fats, smoking, PCBs, MTBE, mercury, etc.) which we have now reconsidered as human health risks. Fracking was supposedly harmless; now it turns out it can cause earthquakes and pollute the groundwater...

At the end of the excellent 1980s video series "The World of Chemisty" (in the last or second to last episode) Nobel-prize winner Roald Hoffman talks in passing about the wonders and great value of a new plastic called BPA (bisphenol A).
http://www.learner.org/resourc...

We now know that BPA can affect developing human brains:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/heal...
"Some research has shown that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA. Exposure to BPA is a concern because of possible health effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. "

See also:
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
"The number of chemicals known to be toxic to children's developing brains has doubled over the last seven years, researchers said. Dr. Philip Landrigan at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and Dr. Philippe Grandjean from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, authors of the review published Friday in The Lancet Neurology journal say the news is so troubling they are calling for a worldwide overhaul of the regulatory process in order to protect children's brains. 'We know from clinical information on poisoned adult patients that these chemicals can enter the brain through the blood brain barrier and cause neurological symptoms,' said Grandjean. 'When this happens in children or during pregnancy, those chemicals are extremely toxic, because we now know that the developing brain is a uniquely vulnerable organ. Also, the effects are permanent.'"

Unless people actually look for these materials in human brains directly, it is hard to be 100% sure there is no way they could get into the brain somehow. Although even if they get there, to be fair, then "the dose makes the poison" and what is the effect relative to the benefits? While Roald Hoffman was not more cautious about BPA, nonetheless, modern chemistry has produced all sorts of modern wonders, and it is hard to imagine modern life without it (including safe food storage against insects and bacteria).

Even (life saving) antibiotics are now seen as having a down side that suggests they be used more precisely and also in the context of pro-biotics and/or fermented bacteria-rich foods etc. For example:
"How Your Gut Flora Influences Your Health"
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

A link from a comment there:
"The microbiome-gut-brain axis during early life regulates the hippocampal serotonergic system in a sex-dependent manner."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"Bacterial colonisation of the intestine has a major role in the post-natal development and maturation of the immune and endocrine systems. These processes are key factors underpinning central nervous system (CNS) signalling. Regulation of the microbiome-gut-brain axis is essential for maintaining homeostasis, including that of the CNS. However, there is a paucity of data pertaining to the influence of microbiome on the serotonergic system. Germ-free (GF) animals represent an effective preclinical tool to investigate such phenomena. Here we show that male GF animals have a significant elevation

89% agree that DHMO should be banned

If you breathe it you'll DIE!

Everyone will die. In fact, if there's not enough DHMO in the air you breathe, you'll die sooner. It's not about avoiding DHMO but about having the amount that the human body expects.

Gee, lets do the same with everything. No government regulation for anything. After all, you can choose what is an acceptable risk. So what if you didn't know that Uber drivers aren't properly insured? Why not unregulated food manufacturers who can sell you bacteria-laced meat? Why not unregulated cars that are unsafe at any speed?

Yes, food & automobile manufacturers have a strong incentive to kill their customers. It's good for long-term profits.

Why not unregulated medicines that are as likely to kill as to cure?

Vioxx was FDA approved, and killed 60,000 people. Meanwhile, effective drugs are unnecessarily kept off of the market by the FDA, like Provenge. And those are only 2 examples.

And unregulated banks that can take your money and run?

Or the regulated banks that can do that legally.

Hey, go all the way - allow the issuing of unregulated currencies

Why not? The Fed has done such a bang-up job.

the use of non-credentialed teachers from the local state pen, and everything else?

Yes, credentialed pedophiles that the teachers' union support are much better.

The fact is that regulations are supposed to ensure that the consumer doesn't have to spend hours investigation who is and who isn't competent themselves, as well as provide a feedback mechanism when the regulations are broken.

There are a boatload of ways to find out about what products are good and which businesses provide competent employees, such as the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratory, as well as review web sites, etc. I'm not saying unregulated markets would be perfect, but I believe that they would by and large be a better solution than the current regulatory morass we have in this country.

How am I supposed to believe the cdc after this?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/23/tamiflu-side-effects.aspx

My first thought is this is just scaremongering to sell more tamilflu

Want a good morning? protein load for breakfast, and you will not want more food. Seems that eating carbs (and not burning them off) leads to bad stuff in your blood. Not news: http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Of course, other articles and studies are telling me that my diet pop is messing with my brain and making me crave more sweets anyway.

Oh, it's much worse than that!

A few choice quotes from the article:

"Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death."

"Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate or glutamate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells."

"The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g. as part of a "food" product such as Jello). Methanol breaks down into formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin."

"DKP is a byproduct of aspartame metabolism. DKP has been implicated in the occurrence of brain tumors."

Then there's the phosphoric acid content in diet soda that erodes tooth enamel and promotes kidney stones.

Needless to say, I don't drink diet sodas.

Less of some types of carbs, yes, but more other stuff too: https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
"Excess weight interferes with insulin's functions, and is the primary risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes. Therefore the most effective treatment for type 2 diabetes is significant weight loss. However, the primary mode of treatment by physicians today is glucose-lowering medication. These medications give a false sense of security, providing implicit permission to continue the same disease-causing diet and lifestyle that allowed diabetes to develop in the first place. Many of these medications promote weight gain -- making the patient more diabetic; most importantly, these medications do not prevent diabetes from progressing and causing complications. ...
The key to diabetes reversal is superior nutrition and exercise. It may take a little extra effort, but avoiding the tragic complications of diabetes and a premature death is well worth it. My diabetes-reversal diet is vegetable-based with a high nutrient to calorie ratio, containing lots of greens and beans, other non-starchy vegetables, (such as mushrooms, eggplant, tomatoes and onions), raw nuts and seeds, and limited fresh fruit with no sweeteners or white flour products. When diabetics eat in this style, they lose their excess weight -- the cause of their diabetes -- quickly and easily, reducing or eliminating their need for medications and they also flood the body with disease-protective and healing micronutrients and phytochemicals that aid the body's recovery and self-repair mechanism."

For Type II diabetics, such a diet with weight loss brings the body's ability to respond to glucose in line with the remaining capacity to make it as needed. Exercise that builds more muscles and that is done when sugar is spiking can also help in managing glucose levels.

For Type I diabetics however, where the body can't produce much glucose at all if any, this improved diet/exercise is not enough, even if it can improve the situation some what as far as reducing complications. For Type I diabetics, this sort of breakthrough with stem cells, if it works, would be truly amazing.

Sometimes type I diabetics are really misdiagnosed type II, and vice versa, so there is a small level of confusion here where sometimes diet works when you would not expect etc..

BTW, vitamin D deficiency (from lack of natural sunlight) may be involved with the autoimmune response that could cause type I diabetes or perhaps make type II worse.

More from Furhman:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-...

More from others:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/
http://www.fatsickandnearlydea...
https://www.drmcdougall.com/he...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/0...

The deeper issue is that our brains and microbiomes are adapted for a scarcity of refined carbs, and we struggle with the abundance of cheap ones:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
"Scientific evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means

That's what vaccines are for. All the assholes get injected/infected, attrition results, get set for the next round of jabs. And Merck/GSK/Roche/et al clean up, financially speaking.
 
Might be these phony pandemics are created and advertised to make money, no? And no, there never was a swine flu pandemic. And no, it wasn't because of all those fantastic billions of $$$ spent on vaccines that were never used.

The same can be said of cholesterol, statin drugs and heart disease but they're still a good idea.

No, they are not. Cholesterol has been labeled a boogeyman, along with saturated fats, but it's all based on erroneous or over-hyped information. That has given us margarine (plastic for your body), high carbohydrate diets loaded with wheat gluten, and the result is massive obesity - and all the concomitant health issues.

You NEED a good amount of cholesterol for a healthy nervous system, and avoiding eggs and cholesterol containing foods in general is thought to be responsible for the increase in Alzheimer's disease, among other issues.

Interesting DIY! Do the bulbs you use just put out UV-B and minimize UV-A? Something on the difference regarding vitamin D production vs. skin damage:
General: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

One point made by Mercola is that it could take 48 hours for the body to absorb vitamin D produced in skin oils from sun exposure, so bathing with soap become problematical if you want maximum Vitamin D? People in other times and cultures both generally got lots more sunlight and did not bathe very often.

Here is a comment suggesting looking into special UV-B enhanced bulbs available for reptile care, but I wonder if they are enhanced enough to be the best choice for humans, given it seems many reptiles need UV-A to see colors correctly?
http://www.dailypaul.com/24584...

Some interesting SAD-and-light-color related comment here:
http://www.instructables.com/i...

My wife found vitamin D supplements are more effective than a blue LED SAD light...

Anyway, I've been learning some new stuff while re-exploring this topic. I usually take a vitamin D supplement. I get some sunshine when I can, but since I take a shower every day, I wonder if the sunlight is really that effective for vitamin D production? Still, as above, like Dr. John Cannell talks about, I wonder if there is still something missing that my skin might produce from real sun exposure.

Still, there remain many unknowns about human health, so would getting only UV-B (which makes vitamin D) and no UV-A (which tans the skin) be health promoting for humans? The human body is adapted to a certain environment which includes exercise in the sunlight. When we change our environment to one that seems better but is less natural, it is hard to know what we may lose out on. The same is true when we eat foods that may seem more enjoyable like with lots of sugar, fat, and salt via refined grains, but may leave us missing out on micronutrients and fiber that we need to stay healthy.
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...

Interesting DIY! Do the bulbs you use just put out UV-B and minimize UV-A? Something on the difference regarding vitamin D production vs. skin damage:
General: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

One point made by Mercola is that it could take 48 hours for the body to absorb vitamin D produced in skin oils from sun exposure, so bathing with soap become problematical if you want maximum Vitamin D? People in other times and cultures both generally got lots more sunlight and did not bathe very often.

Here is a comment suggesting looking into special UV-B enhanced bulbs available for reptile care, but I wonder if they are enhanced enough to be the best choice for humans, given it seems many reptiles need UV-A to see colors correctly?
http://www.dailypaul.com/24584...

Some interesting SAD-and-light-color related comment here:
http://www.instructables.com/i...

My wife found vitamin D supplements are more effective than a blue LED SAD light...

Anyway, I've been learning some new stuff while re-exploring this topic. I usually take a vitamin D supplement. I get some sunshine when I can, but since I take a shower every day, I wonder if the sunlight is really that effective for vitamin D production? Still, as above, like Dr. John Cannell talks about, I wonder if there is still something missing that my skin might produce from real sun exposure.

Still, there remain many unknowns about human health, so would getting only UV-B (which makes vitamin D) and no UV-A (which tans the skin) be health promoting for humans? The human body is adapted to a certain environment which includes exercise in the sunlight. When we change our environment to one that seems better but is less natural, it is hard to know what we may lose out on. The same is true when we eat foods that may seem more enjoyable like with lots of sugar, fat, and salt via refined grains, but may leave us missing out on micronutrients and fiber that we need to stay healthy.
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...

Assange may well not be around for much longer without access to sunlight or at least supplementing with vitamin D. The article says: "Asked about his health, Assange said anyone would be affected by spending two years in a building with no outside areas or direct sunlight, a complaint he has made several times before."

According to these, he probably needs on the order of 2000-5000 IU Vitamin D3 daily as supplements:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...

He might need more for a while to catch up if he is already severely vitamin D deficient. The US RDA for vitamin D for most adults is about 5X-10X too low, so generally you don't get enough from food. Many indoor workers are vitamin D deficient these days, given we usually work, play, and commute inside something with windows that block UV-B radiation. Our carpets maybe won't fade from filtered sunlight, but our health will.

However, we don't know all the compounds that the human skin makes in response to sunlight. He might want to look into using special purpose UV-B lamps as well. Mercola talks about that:
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

There are some rare health conditions like sarcoidosis that make vitamin D supplements problematical, so if he has any special health issues like that, he should talk to a knowledgeable doctor before supplementing.

Mind you, I'm not defending Osteopathy (barely even know what it is, anyway), but rather pointing out that inability/unwillingness to base conclusions on evidence isn't exclusive to that field, as I've experienced many, many medical doctors who basically guess at your symptoms and start throwing different pills at you until something works.

TL;DR version - Bullshit prognosis based on faulty reasoning is a valid issue regardless of which particular medical field we're discussing. Not-So-Fun fact, MD's kill somewhere between 1/4 to 1/2 million people every year through preventable medical errors.