Slashdot Mirror

If you are dealing with cancer recovery, some ideas:

"Ketogenic Diet May Be Key to Cancer Recovery"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/10/ketogenic-diet.aspx
"The premise is that since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body, then cutting out carbs literally starves the cancer cells."

People who live in traditional societies eating a traditional vegetable heavy diet and getting lots of sunlight and exercise also seem to have less lung cancer even when they smoke.
"Eat For Health - The Anti-Cancer Diet"
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx

Also look into vitamin D:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036597_vitamin_D_anti-cancer_drug.html
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

And iodine:
http://theiodineproject.webs.com/cancerandiodine.htm

Making these sorts of changes is not quite the same as an Android body btw, mentioned in Star Trek episode "I, Mudd" as something Uhura wants), but at least it might help get to the point where you could have one if you wanted -- related to out other conversation:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3892785&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=44082521

I can see you project an optimistic sense of humor about it all, which can be a healthful thing:
http://www.humorproject.com/bookstore/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10116744
"Laughter has many clinical benefits, promoting beneficial physiological changes and an overall sense of well-being. Humor even has long-term effects that strengthen the effectiveness of the immune system."

So, laughing is probably better healthwise than a buzz from a "droud"? :-)
http://laughteryoga.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEfjVnYkqM

For nerve damage, vitamin B12 and omegas 3s. See also my comments here on mercury and herbs:
http://aaronwinborn.com/blogs/aaron/monday-was-my-46th-birthday-and-likely-my-last-anything-awesome-i-should-try-after-i-die

Yeah, stairs can be a real life-saver for many -- to get some regular exercise, which moves the lymph around, which boosts the immune system and the body's natural self-cleaning mechanisms. Walking outside in the sunshine helps, too (although of course how you need to manage your DVT and clot risks however competent doctors recommend):
http://www.bluezones.com/

For some inspiration, a movie that is up for free on YouTube for a while for the two year anniversary (again, adjusted for DVT):
http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/
http://www.rebootwithjoe.com/

And also, here is a movie (and book) on how clogged arteries can limit blood flow to the body's cells, creating a huge variety of health issues from that common cause (perhaps the root cause of most chronic illnesses in the US today as "diseases of affluence" such as you may be experiencing):
http://www.ravediet.com/

Also ask, "What Color is Your Diet?"
http://www.amazon.com/W

... which meat of any sort does not have: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

Phytonutrients act in part as dailyanti-cancer chemotherapy for your cells, and are vital building blocks like for the pigments in your eyes, and are essential for the immune system to work well, and on and on. When you eat a lot of meat, which generally has a lot of fat these days, or eat a lot of other animal products, you crowd essential phytonutrients out of your diet. Still, it is true that animal products can concentrate other vital nutrients, like iodine, that may otherwise be hard to come by in vegetables grown on depleted soils (unless you eat sea vegetables with a lot of iodine).

Here is how to recalibrate your taste buds for healthy eating:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

That said, perhaps this in vitro meat can be engineered to have a large amount of phytonutrients as well as things like omega-3s (also originally from plants ingested by animals)?

But we don't need many animal products of any sort to be healthy or happy, as above. But we do need to learn a lot about nutrition. Starch-focused vegan diets, for example, tend to be very unhealthy, compared to vegetable-focused vegan diets.

But at least in vitro meat would be an improvement over the current situation:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/links.html

And another innovation in this area would include producing oranges without the tree, or orange juice without the orange, perhaps in indoor farms (with LED lights maybe powered by hot or cold fusion energy someday).

Even for in vitro meat, in vitro meat broth might be easier, an idea I can thank Bryan Bishop for suggesting.

It's true that people take up space and use up resources. But they also create spaces worth being in and produce resources. Also, the more people we have, the more innovation we have. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource

Most of the USA's land and about half its water goes to livestock agriculture. The livestock runoff then pollutes most of the other half. See:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/

While a small amount of clean organic naturally-fed unprocessed meat (especially fish before mercury and dioxin polluted them) may be healthy in a diet, the quantities and types of animal product most US Americans are eating are part of why US health is so poor.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

On Earth, we could reduce water consumption by growing vegetables indoors. But in any case, we can always condense fresh water out of the air or distill it from the oceans if we have cheap energy, which we will get soon from cheap solar panels (and maybe cheap hot or cold fusion soon). The more people, the sooner we will get those innovation breakthroughs.

Since the Solar System could support quadrillions of people living in style in space habitats, even if one was to argue the Earth was overpopulated, even limited agricultural land is no reason to limit human population growth any time soon, even if one might suggest an aesthetic limit on the Earth perhaps, like putting an occupancy limit on a restaurant in a city.

The repentant anti-GMO activist is wrong on the need for GMOs, because GMOs (even if safe) are solving the wrong problem. To begin with, people starve or are malnourished for economic reasons that could be solved with a global "basic income". The market does not hear the needs of people without money, so the simplest solution to malnutrition is to give people money so the market will listen to their needs. Yes, this requires some level of social consensus leading to enforced redistribution of resources. Frances Moore Lappe and others explains why less people does not mean less starvation.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it
http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/dagrossa-p/articles/WhyCantPeopleFeedThemselves.pdf
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html

Although a semi-rebuttal to Lappe that ignores distribution issues:
http://www.hoodrivernews.com/news/2002/sep/18/lappe-response-think-locally-starve-globally/

Agricultural robotics (including for the home gardener) and solar panels are going to change the face of agriculture over the next twenty years to produce lots of food for all, if we want that future:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

We do not need GMO crops to feed the planet. What we need is to do things like grind up rocks to make cheap organic fertilizer:
http://remineralize.org/

And then we need a space program. And we need to be better stewards of the oceans (rather than overfish because our economic systems are broken in that sense).

The current focus on plant breeding, whether GMO or conventional, has produced monocultures of crops that are dependent on s

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
"Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock. The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres. ... Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3 states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are forested lands that are grazed. ... The real message here is that we can afford to restore hundreds of millions of acres in the U.S. if we simply shift our diets away from meat. ..."

See also:
http://www.ravediet.com/links.html

And how to grown lots of vegetables on little land, which could be roboticized no doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_foot_gardening

"Without technology providing additional food, or transport from farms to tables, I believe the balance point for hunter-gatherers or subsistence agriculture has already been exceeded."

I agree that human population now likely exceeds the capacity for traditional hunter/gatherer lifestyles (maybe by several times). Increasing population density leading to more structured bureaucratic militarized societies is probably a big reason most hunter/gatherer societies were lost (attacked or assimilated or pushed away onto marginal lands to fade away). But that does not invalidate the truths that according to Marshall Sahlins hunter/gatherers had *more* free time than most of us today, and what work they did was very self-directed, often more like professional work of today.

Most (95%?) of the labor hours expended today in the USA tend to be about guarding, engaging in non-productive make-work, or is just destructive or competitively wasteful, or is trying to compensate for the other ills of the society from the previous problems. For example, most heart surgery is apparently worse than useless according to Dr. Joel Fuhrman:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
Most schooling is harming kids according to John Taylor Gatto:
http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
Most farming (mainly for animal product production) is killing us and destroying our land:
http://www.ravediet.com/reviews.html
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
Much policing related to drug laws is destroying our communities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Most of US military use is making us less safe:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/law-and-security/torture-on-tv/less-safe/
http://www.cato.org/store/books/power-problem-how-american-military-dominance-makes-us-less-safe-less-prosperous-less-free-har
Most computer software development is unneeded; for example IBM had a perfectly good in-house Forth they could have used as a command line interpreter rather than pay Bill Gated for MS-DOS which he bought from someone else. Most Wall Street computerized trading is of little-to-negative social value (just high stakes zero-sum horse racing and putting the whole unregulated derivatives system at risk of systemic collapse).
Most college degrees are not worth it either economically or educationally:
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/why-college-may-not-worth-133900551.html
I could go on... And on.. And on...
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/AchievingAStarTrekSociety.html

So, figure out a way that we can stop doing all that 95%+ of excess wasteful labor, and we then would indeed have free time, and our collective standard of living would go up. But then how would people be able to afford to buy food and pay rent? (Thus a basic income or other alternatives become needed...)

My point is not that hunter/gather low-tech is better than high-tech. It is that both our current high-tech existence and our historical low-tech existence have different good and bad points. There are many forms of technology, too, (e.e.g the "appropriate technology" idea) so even high-tech and low-tech is a crude distinction when we are talking about com

http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?"

Also, eating factory farmed meat in general is killing us and destroying our environment:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

So, maybe we'd be better off if the predators got rid of the cows instead of the rustlers?

Right now about 50% of US land goes to produce animal products which are overall killing us with bad fats:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/05/may-9-the-great-fat-debate-does-the-total-fat-in-your-diet-matter.html
http://nutsci.org/2011/05/04/the-great-fat-debate/
http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(11)00291-4/fulltext
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/

And we can always grow food indoors using cheap energy and rock dust:
http://www.remineralize.org/
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR06.txt
"Why is the Food Outlook Made to Seem Gloomy?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/surface-area-required-to-power-the-whole-world-with-solar-power-wind.php

In general, people living longer is not going to have as much effect on the population as how many kids people have -- and that amount is falling with industrialization; in Italy, every woman has about 1.2 kids but would need to have 2.1 kids to keep the population from declining. The entire industrialized world has this problem (but not as bad as Italy in most places).

Just think of all the people around to pass on wisdom to the next generation.

Steve Jobs has lived with cancer for a long time. Suzanne Somers also has lived with cancer for a long time. It would seem like these are people with ideas worth exploring (even if neither may have all of the story).

See also my other comment here which has supporting links:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2424522&cid=37382624
"Actually, vitamin D (the sunshine vitamin), Iodine, and eating more vegetables, fruits, and beans are a better bet to prevent (or in some cases cure) cancer."

Another item is the work done by the author of the Rave Diet:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

I agree with you Google is awesome for health issues -- eventually.
http://www.ginside.com/2007/830/comics-dilbert-to-provide-google-health-plan/

And you are right to suggest people be active (or even pro-active) about understanding their own health issues. Much of our medical care system, as far as chronic disease, is broken.

It took me years of searching (and reading several books) and several false starts to find out my own health issues (including joint pain) and family health issues were caused mainly by vitamin D deficiency and vegetable deficiency disease (plus food additives etc.).

I'd suggest you keep Googling. Cancer has causes. What are the causes?
A. Challenges to your body (food additives like from processed meat but also other sources, acrylamides from typically burned or browned meat, other stuff in your environment).
B. You body's immune system's inability to cope with cancer cells that are continually popping up (as a result of challenges or randomness); that inability comes from an immune system weakened by nutritional problems like vitamin D deficiency or iodine deficiency or phytonutrient deficiency, bad stress, or other factors including lack of exercise (exercise increases lymph circulation). People are always getting cancer cells -- the issue is, does the body dispose of them?

Cancer risk can be reduced by reducing challenges (A) as well as boosting your immune system (B).

Once you have cancer, resolving it is more problematical and iffy by nutritional means, but see Dr. Fuhrman for some insights on that (he writes of successes and failures by brave people).
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx
"The most recent scientific advancement in the anti-cancer research is the identification of specific foods and food elements that offer powerful protection against cancer. These foods are essential for both prevention of cancer and also increased odds of survival after diagnosis. Harmful foods and supplements have also been identified, and avoiding or minimizing these is equally as important.
Though most people would prefer to take a pill and continue their eating habits, this will not provide the desired protection. Unrefined plant foods, with their plentiful anti-cancer compounds, must be eaten in abundance to flood the body's tissues with protective substances. Vegetables and fruits protect against all types of cancers if consumed in large enough quantities. Hundreds of scientific studies document this. The most prevalent cancers in our societies are plant-food-deficiency diseases. The benefits of lifestyle changes are proportional to the changes made. As we add more vegetable servings, we increase our phytochemical intake and leave less room in our diets for harmful foods, enhancing cancer protection even further. Let's review some of these research findings and then review what a powerful, anti-cancer diet will look like. "

That is based on science.

Of course, science itself has problems as it has been corrupted by financial interests:

"Not true. Most are pathogenic infectious diseases and accidental injuries. Most in the west are chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer. These both have links in genetics, and yes, even diet (in the case of heart disease)."

As Dr. Fuhrman says is the meticulously researched book "Eat to Live", which links to studies to back up what I wrote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CX8huSU0n8AC
everyone has weak links "genetically". But, in most cases, how you eat and live your life determines whether those weak links are ever stressed and become a problem. Heart disease is a direct result of inflammation and fatty build up, which is directly related primarily to what we eat. Cancer is the failure of the body to police itself as the body is continually getting cancerous cells which it destroys if it is healthy, but it won't be able to do that if you eat junk that promotes cancer while crippling your immune system (and also lack vitamin D).

If you study this, you will see I am more or less right, and that 75% or more of things like infections, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are directly linked to poor nutrition. It is similar to organic gardening -- if your plants are stressed out from lack of nutrients (including micronutrients) in the soil, they are going to be more sickly and susceptible to disease.

So, you're just repeating "conventional wisdom" which is, in this case, wrong and deadly, sorry. I provided plenty of links to back up my statements, you are doing not much but repeating old and deadly misinformation. But if you want to see how heart disease is a symptom of vegetable deficiency disease, you could look at this:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Please, for your own sake, try to look into all this and move beyond the knee jerk reaction. People are making trillions of dollars a year off of ignorance and misinformation like you are reiterating. Another video:
"Nutrient Density is the Key to Good health "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGgeGHU1Bs

And:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html

Anyway, so my post got modded "Troll". Not suprising as I put my point more strongly than usual. It's still overall right. But it shows a bit of what the real disease is... People do not want to hear the truth, and dismiss it as too outlandish. I used to do the same, and thought it strange to think there was any connection between what I at and how I felt.

Just to show how much you might want to learn on this, from a relatively conservative body (the evidence is stronger than they say, but even they admit to evidence):
"Vitamin D and Cancer Prevention: Strengths and Limits of the Evidence"
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/vitamin-D

See also:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/cancerMain.shtml

But you just dismissed that without looking into it. The fact is, for every melanoma (skin cancer) dermatologists have prevented by telling people to stay out of the sun, they may have caused thirty others from vitamin D deficiency.

On the history of medicine, I cited the Flexner Report which was a big place US medicine took a wrong turn a century ago. Sure, the guy who suggested doctors should wash their hands was essentially beaten to death for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

And the guy who wanted to run anti-smoking ads in 1927 was fired for it, and then per

On agriculture using about 50% of the land in the USA (mostly to grow fodder to grow too much factory-farmed animal products that are killing us with health problems especially when combined with too much sugar and refined grains):
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Note also how much land already goes to roads and mining. But agriculture is the biggest user.

Here are pictures of the area needed for off-shore wind and solar:
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequiredWindOnly.jpg
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

Current renewables like well-sited wind and solar PV have energy payback ranging from around three to six months for wind:
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php

Solar estimates seem to range around one to four years:
http://www.pvresources.com/en/economics.php
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24619.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_payback_time#Sustainables

That last one is citing 2 to 4 years for PV, but it is out of date for thin film solar (if it was accurate back then).

Basically, the power to put in more renewables can come from other renewables in a bootstrapping way. Still, I'd agree that in practice a lot of the energy to make a lot of wind and PV systems quickly is coming from fossil fuels and nuclear. In many way, older nuclear power plants represent embodied fossil fuels used in their construction to pour concrete and mine fuel, too.

These pictures shows how little land or ocean surface is required to power the world entirely from wind or solar:
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequiredWindOnly.jpg
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

Something like 1% of the USA's surface area is already devoted to things like power line rights of ways, or areas around fossil fuel mining, or roadways, etc..

Something like about 50% of the land in the USA is devoted to animal product production (meat, dairy, etc.) one way or another (mostly growing fodder for animals), and the animal products are actually mostly harming US Americans, so there is plenty of room for renewables from that angle, too: :-)
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Also, a lot of land can be dual use, like farming under windmills, or PV used on roofs.

So, the amount of land being talked about to be fully renewable is not disproportionate to other activities like the US interstate highway system or especially agriculture.

I'm not saying nuclear does not have interesting applications following the Hyperion approach or similar designs like the Toshiba S4. But to flat out say renewables are not going to work is just not accurate.

http://remineralize.org/

And such fertilizer produces healthier plants that need less pesticides.

"Biodegradable plastic made from plants, not oil, is emerging"
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2008-12-25-biodegradable-plastic_N.htm

"Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en

"More energy goes into making gasoline from electricity and natural gas than it would take to make electric cars go the same distance"
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm

See also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
"Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book argues that U.S. domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy.[1] In the preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still very current. [2]"

Other approaches to all renewables:
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/pb3_table_of_contents
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Given the exponetial growth of renewable energy, and how PV solar panels are about to reach grid parity and the prices will continue to drop, I think we will be all renewables by about 2030 from market forces alone at this point. (Unless cold fusion pans out, or if small scale nuclear like Hyperion gets popular.)

Three quarters of US agricultural production also just goes to produce livestock, and the health consequences of too much animal products are harming people's health, too, so we really don't need most of the fertilizer we produce.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

How to deal with the economic consequences of all this increased efficiency:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=6#comment-20270
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/more-on-the-future-implications-ibm-watson-technology/#comment-534

I'm sorry, but there is a link between nutrition and many chronic diseases. And it's not just about "boosting" the immune system, but also about having a "smarter" immune system that knows better when to turn itself on and off in different situations.

  Other sources on curing type-2 diabetes with diet in a matter of days in most cases:
    http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html
    http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
If you study the science, you will see why. The combination of removal of refined carbohydrates, plus significant eventual weight loss, puts the body back into a range where it can produce enough insulin on its own (with less insulin resistance due to less fat) that the body can manage itself again (in most cases of type-2).

Dr. Fuhrman is not a "questionable source". He is a board certified family practice doctor, author of numerous books, has a published study to show his successes, and has been on numerous media shows, and so on. His work is probably the best scientifically footnoted recommendation of anyone in the field of health and nutrition.

His advice is easier to follow when you also read this:
    http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

As for Lupus or Herpes, I can only point to what he says:
    http://drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
"As long as you are still breathing, it is still possible to improve your health with improvements in lifestyle and nutrition. It is typical for people to see a variety of great changes when they adopt the high, nutrient diet-style which I recommend. Besides reaching an ideal weight and lowering blood pressure and cholesterol, other problems are resolved too. For example, it is common for those with attacks of recurrent herpes to stop experiencing attacks. Those with indigestion and reflux don’t need their acid-suppression therapy anymore. People stop getting hemmorhoids. Their body odor improves. They have better stamina and think more clearly, and their skin tone and color improves."

If you don't want to explore that, well, that's certainly your choice. There is a lot of misinformation and conflict of interest out there and it is hard to wade through it. And no one can guarantee results.

But the logic is there -- immune system health is effected by things like vitamin D status and vegetable and fruit consumption (and probiotics and good sleep and humor and so on). That fact is undeniable based on the overwhelming scientific evidence, even with most scientific money going in to prove magic bullet drugs and ignoring basic nutrition.

Nutrition matters. Other things matter as well, of course.

If you do even the tiniest bit of research yourself, you will see the connection.
http://www.google.com/search?q=immune+system+nutrition

As I've said before, unfortunately, a focus on magic bullets often distracts us from the basics. And the meat, dairy, processed corn, and big pharma companies are in no hurry to tell us any different (even though each can sometimes be part of a healthy life etc.).

Check out Dr. Fuhrman's nutritional approach to boost your immunity (the immune system both deals with infeciton diseases and also kills cancer cells where adults have been said to get one cancer cell a day that the immune system needs to zap):
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
    http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-dr-fuhrmans-anticancer-solution.html

Essentially, his approach entails resensitizing your taste buds (see the book "The Pleasure Trap") to enjoy eating a lot of vegetables, fruits, and beans (and some nuts, seeds, and whole grains, and a few supplements with a multivitamin, vitamin D, and sometimes some others).

Also, make sure you have your vitamin D and iodine levels checked, as both can relate to cancer. (Look up iodine 4 health and the vitamin D council).

Best of look keeping cancer and other illness at bay. If you do a good job at that with good nutrition (and some exercise, getting enough sleep, having good social interactions, and so on), your doctor may not recognize you. :-)

See also:
    http://www.ravediet.com/caResources.html
   

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
"The great bulk of agricultural production goes toward forage production used primarily by livestock. A small shift in our diet away from meat could have a tremendous impact on the ground in terms of freeing up lands for restoration and wildlife habitat. It would also reduce the poisoning of our streams and groundwater with pesticides and other residue of modern agricultural practices. ... The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres. ... About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock. The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres. ... Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3 states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are forested lands that are grazed. ... Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S., yet this small land base is home to 75 percent of the population. ... "

Similar to suggested above, when you include grain production for animal feed to grazing land, literally half the land in the USA is devoted to animal product production, according to the movie this is a preview of:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Note that, overall, people in the USA would be healthier if they ate a lot less animal products and processed foods (including sugar and refined grains) and a lot more vegetables, fruits, and beans (and some nuts, seeds, and whole grains, and a few key supplements like vitamin D, B12, iodine, etc.). But the agricultural subsidies are the opposite of what we need for good health in the USA.

See also:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

Please see my other posts to this article, including these links and others:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html
http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Proof-Your-Child-Feeding-Right/dp/0312338058
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
http://www.iodine4health.com/

The first link suggests that pretty much all autism is related to various issues like you discovered in time (there are just a bunch of them from vitamin D deficiency, to iodine defiency, to lack of omega-3s, to dairy, to toxins of various sorts in processed foods or, presumably, vaccines). From there: "Most neurodevelopmental disorders have common roots. But looking at only one aspect of such conditions will not solve the problem of autism. Current autism research is based on an outdated approach -- one that is something like blind men examining the proverbial elephant. Each researcher works in his or her own silo examining different factors and coming to different conclusions. Research that integrates, synthesizes and examines all the data on causes and potential treatments is practically non-existent. The mitochondrial dysfunction identified in the JAMA study I've been talking about is ultimately only one downstream symptom of many upstream causes. Other researchers have found systemic inflammation,(ix) brain inflammation,(x) gut inflammation,(xi) elevated levels of toxins and metals, gluten and casein antibodies,(xii) nutrient deficiencies including omega-3 fats,(xiii) vitamin D,(xiv) zinc, and magnesium, and collections of metabolic dysfunction related to quirky genes that make it difficult to perform chemical reactions essential for health in the body such as methylation and sulfation.(xv)"

The second and third links show why excessive dairy is pretty harmful for most people (even ignoring how most of the world is lactose intolerant). The fourth is something I'm just learning about at the moment (iodine deficiency, where dairy is often a primary source of iodine, so watch out for it without dairy or eating seaweed or supplementing).

Your son is lucky to have you as his Dad. You might want to still monitor for the other health issues and take pro-active steps to "disease-proof" your family on a diet of mostly vegetables, fruits, and beans (and some nuts, seeds, and whole grains).

As a four year old, my wife had surgeons open up her belly and take her guts out (and put them back) because they refused to listen to her mother who suggested she had a millk allergy (from an article she read) -- and it turned out, after all the trauma, yes it was an allergy to milk and lactose. Doctors (especially surgeons) seem to be trained to sound very confident even when they don't have a clue (especially about nutrition). Part of how it got that way, starting around 1910:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

For down the road:
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
    http://www.holtgws.com/

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932134&cid=34740048
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932134&cid=34740098

Also, from:
    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401
"Merck spokesperson Amy Rose refused say how many trials Merck contracted to CROs or what percentage of the Gardasil subjects these contractors recruited in the Third World. She also refused to specify how, or even if, the company oversees CROs. Many consumers assume that the FDA carefully monitors CROs. But the agency hobbled by under-funding, politicization, and dependence on industry fees has few resources to assess foreign trials and relies on drug companies. "

On the point in your sig, and maybe a way to get better research by less conflict-of-interest in funding:
    http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/robots-jobs-and-our-assumptions/#comment-392

On keeping people healthy for cheap:
    http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Proof-Your-Child-Feeding-Right/dp/0312338058
    http://lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
    http://www.iodine4health.com/
    http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
    http://www.bluezones.com/

But that's the problem -- there are no enormous profits in natural wellness; the only big profits are in palliation and treatment for sickness or random attempts at "magic bullet" wellness through phrama stuff.

If I have a stroke while walking to the store for some milk, I suppose you'll be asking "if you could do it all over, wouldn't you give up milk?"

Three videos on how excess animal product consumption along with eating refined and processed foods is related to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and dementia:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiR9VcuVWw
http://ahealthykitchen.com/nutrition/dr-michael-klaper/

So yes, eating dairy products may indeed lead to strokes... Still, 5% or so of strokes from burst blood vessels (as opposed to blocked ones) might be prevented with arterial plaque from dairy etc., so you want to skip the added salt, too, to help keep blood pressure down into your 90s. See Dr. Joel Fuhrman and "Eat to Live" for more details.

If we had to choose eating well (and other lifestyle issues) vs. the pharmaceutical industry, we'd be better off eating well. See:
    http://www.bluezones.com/

Killer fats with toxins too: http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Alternative: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx