Anti-vax

[paradigm667]

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that the thermiosal content of flu vaccines is toxic.

Thimerosal Induces DNA Breaks, Caspase-3 Activation, Membrane Damage, and Cell Death in Cultured Human Neurons and Fibroblasts
[ http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/2/361 ]

Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds
[ Geier DA, King PG, Geier MR.
Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry 2009, 1-15, iFirst ]

Thimerosal induces DNA breaks, caspase-3 activation, membrane damage, and cell death in cultured human neurons and fibroblasts.
[ Baskin DS, Ngo H, Didenko VV.
Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine
Toxicol Sci. 2003 Aug;74(2):361-8. {free online} ]

IOM's Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes-Meeting Agenda:
-including
The Role of Heavy Metals in Autism
In Vitro Studies of Thimerosal Toxicity
Rising Incidence of Autism: Association with Thimerosal
Wrap-up Commentary on Thimerosal Risk
From the Perspective of a Developmental Toxicologist
[ http://www.iom.edu/?id=7465&redirect=0 ]

Eli Lilly and Thimerosal
http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/Eli_Lilly_Thimerosal.pdf

Thimerosal Neurotoxicity is Associated with Glutathione Depletion: Protection with Glutathione Precursors
[ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W81-4DF44GF-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9c1603059b1f7fc5e200f1b18695bf90 ]

Also, you have no authority to determine who is healthy and who is not healthy.

Authority? Is that what it takes to make a fact a fact? It has to come from a figure of authority? What kind of authority do doctors have, btw to define health. I have asked doctors how they define it and you know what? Most of them don't have a definition. Doctors only know how to define sickness. This is in fact one of my major criticisms of the medical paradigm: the utter inability to be able to define what "healthy" is.

Elaborate statements of your dreams of grandeur just make you look weird. And you wonder why people are skeptical of conspiracy theorists?

Weird? What's the problem with looking weird? Goodness I hope I don't look normal! And what does this have to do with conspiracies. I'm wasn't attacking modern medicine there as a conspiracy, I was attacking it as something that simply doesn't work. Ineffectual. Not conspiracy.

You know what's not fair? People being duped into using things that have absolutely no evidence or basis in reason for their use, in place of things that do work and have been supported by studies.

The way studies are conducted, they are designed to isolate individual compounds and match them up against a placebo. This is a great setup for pills and drugs, but terrible for nutrition and lifestyle, which is multi-dimensional. And if you think nutrition and health aren't INTIMATELY related, you simply haven't read the journals I have. You can start with the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Great information in there.

Our health care system sucks. I agree.

Me too. I call it "sick care" because that's what it cares for and that's what it cares about. Just like going to your mechanic and saying "hey bob, my car needs...absolutely nothing, it's working great!"...mechanic tries to squeeze out a fake grin and reluctantly says "...uhh...great. I guess."
Much the same way the medical system does not care if you are healthy. I can go to a hospital today and say "hey, I am healthy, I feel amazing, and I have not taken a single pill or needed any kind of medicine in 10 years!" and what would happen? Nothing. They are not interested in healthy people. Healthy people, don't buy medicine. Right?


In friendship

 

[Giliell]

Giliell,

I watched your video on abortion, I completely agree with you. 5 stars. Although, it appeared sideways on my screen so I do have you to thank for the crick in my neck, but I suppose that's my own problem. I could have just as easily temporarily turned my monitor on its side. But you know me...I always like a good challenge.

Thanx, as I explained, I'm no good with technical stuff. I'll turn the camera if I ever make another one. As for my discussion style: sorry, I know I have the habbit to become sarcastic. No, I don't have anything against you personally, since I don't know you, but I do think that your position is dangerous and harmful.

But mercury, or fluoride in the water, DO get absorbed in the body. And thus the only argument is that "the body can eliminate it with no problem." However, there IS a problem and we KNOW it. There is much evidence of bio accumulation with both. And other substances including aluminum hydroxide and the list goes on.

If I remember correctly, the thing about fluoride is the dosage, just like with almost everything else, even totally normal herbs. Parsil is a wonderful source of iron and extremely healthy, besides being tasty, but if you manage to eat a pound or so it may induce a miscarriage.

In which case it is not the job of the pills to reverse the problem that was caused by their employment or business endeavors. The solution is to find ways that the employer can structure their work environment such that it does not breed sick people. That, in my book, would be considered increasing human suffering. Find ways around it...natural herbs that are non-toxic (non-toxic would be especially important for jobs, where it would be assumed the conditions would be long term). Even then, an herb is just reversing a symptom. The underlying disease is still going to continue to fester and develop into something even more serious). My solution is not to blame the individual's body for manifesting symptoms, rather to find intelligent ways around the problem such that the way that person's work environment does not breed sickness in them and disease. Isn't that a better, more common sense approach?

Yes, it would be a wonderful world. Only that it's not possible even if we get rid of those stupid night-flights. Working shift is bad for your health, working at night is, but we can't stop nurses, doctors, police officers and firefighters working night shifts. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it. I also appreciate somebody watching ofver nuclear power plants all the time...

I am proposing proper nutrition for each species. Dogs are best fed on raw animal meat, blood, bones and organs. Cows on grasses. Humans on fruits and veggies, nuts and seeds with an optional but not necessary amount of meat. In fact even nuts and seeds are not fully necessary.
If someone can name me one disease that can be cured with meat, that cannot be cured with fruit and veggies then we can talk. In dogs for instance, it is just the opposite.
The only thing meat can cure in humans, is hunger. But so can veggies and fruits. Meat fails in all other respects. So do grains. So do legumes. These are only "acceptable" foods. The true human diet, and the one that reverses disease continuously and conclusively is the raw vegan, fruit based diet. As we evolved on. The same diet we continued to revert back to over the years as the colder climactic periods oscillated through time. We ate meat and grains only as survival foods. Second rate meals that promoted disease and shorter lifespans, as they do today. One of the first cultures to eat grains as a staple were the Summerians and Babylonians, also the Egyptians...those were the first cases of clear evidence of decline in health of our species. I'm not anti meat in fact, as much as I am anti grains.
I have helped people reverse all kinds of diseases by this approach. My uncle had a widowmaker heart attack recently at age 60. He got on my diet, didn't take even one of his medicines, got plenty of sun each day, no more refined carbs, oils, and animal foods or grains...all his vital signs are back to where they were 40 years ago for him. His heart after the attack was at 20% output. They told him, maybe, after years, if could possibly get back to like 50%...within 5 weeks it was at 70%. His cholesterol dropped by 40%. He's no longer at risk of a follow up heart attack.
My grandpa, age 97, recently came down with vaccine-induced pneumonia. With raw foods and raw veggie juices he overcame it, without taking one pill, and in the meantime got off his blood pressure meds, and all his other drugs he was told he "needed."

He was in tears of joy when he left to go back to Romania because his grandson helped him get back his health and feel like he did 30 years ago.

You are aware that most of that "natural food" only is avaible now, for a few hundred years after centuries of breeding and farming?

Hmmm, how to put that gently to you?

No need to be gentle. It's not like anyone else is. Why should you. After all I'm just a narrow minded idiot conspiracy theorist. Not an ACTUAL human being behind here.

I don't see the point in being offensive. And bananas are an incredibly good food to eat. I really don't think you should be so dismissive of them. I can list off just a few things they are of benefit with:
-High potassium, low in sodium - good for heart and vessel health, as well as reverses edema in many cases
-FructoOligoSaccharides, or, "prebiotics" in the bananas normalize digestion and replenish beneficial bacterial colonies in the gut
-Good source of calorie dense, fiber rich, food
-Complete protein (that's right. all the essential amino acids we need, you better believe it. I gained 10 lbs in the last 2 months of weight training which I just started up again now that I'm out of school and I did so mostly on bananas and mangoes.)

Bananas, especially the large-sized ones are abundant in Vitamin A. This vitamin helps in the proper development of eye tissues. Vitamin A is also essential for the growth of skin and soft skeletal tissue. Some of the B vitamins, namely, Thiamine, Riboflavin, Niacin, and Folic acid are also present in banana. These B vitamins help in the proper development of the nervous system. Bananas also house Vitamin C in smaller quantities.
Rich in magnesium (helps protect circulatory system), potassium and slowly-absorbed sugars. Good source of pectin (a soluble fiber). Prevents radical swings in blood sugar.

Oh, I like bananas, and magoes, there's one waiting for me.
But claiming that a fatal bacterial dissease could have been prevented by the mother eating more bananas is gross.
BTW, they're not rich in Vitamin A. Vitamin A is not found "in nature". Vitamin A is synthesised in your body out of retinol. Pure vitamin A in large quantities is dangerous.

So because there is a dependency on meds we assume they are keeping someone alive? If you give psychiatric drugs to a person, and they get dependent on them, when you take them off the drugs abruptly, they can go insane and even suffer from sudden death, that's the powerful effect these things can have on our body. Granted, heart meds may be a bit different, but perhaps not all that different.

Again, there's more than black and white here. There's a difference between making someone dependent of a drug or someone depending on a drug.
My cousin IS depending on a psychiatric drug. And his life (not only his life) was in danger before he got on that drug, because he was unstable. That's a difference.
And my gran was taken to the ER before she ever got on those drugs. And she's one of those old fashioned biddies who actually believe that nothing does you more good than exercise in the open air, best by working in the garden where you can grow your own fruit and veg.

It's never too late to reverse disease. I would try and get your family members to just try out a raw food, no oils, no grains, vegan approach to reverse disease. You would be shocked. But most people have two problems:
-Addicted to animal foods, cooked foods
-Do not "believe" in raw foods

I'm pregnant, if I started that now my doctor would yell at me and my husband would force-feed me and they're right to do so.
I'm allergic against a great deal of raw fruit and veggies. I'd be literally stcuk with bananas and cucumbers. And that has nothing to do with an aversion, watching other people eat a carrot or an apple makes my mouth water and almost brings me to tears.

Huh? I don't get the comment. I didn't say anything about George W or Bin Laden. I have to admit I am a bit confused. Are you trying to bait me into getting into politics or something? Or suggesting that I am a conspiracy theorist? Why would you do that? Lets just stick on topic Giliell, is that fair?

It translates into: Yes, that would be nice and much better, but I don't think it's realistic.

How do you know? If you're sure, how sure are you? What if I really am right, and what I say is indeed true. I would say it's a pity you hadn't learned of it sooner!

Say 95%.

Why are you so mean to me? You seem like such a nice lady in your video.

That's a big missconception: I'm not a lady And I'm addicted to twisting words. I tend to get sarcastic. I'll try not to.

 

[paradigm667]

Thanx, as I explained, I'm no good with technical stuff. I'll turn the camera if I ever make another one. As for my discussion style: sorry, I know I have the habbit to become sarcastic. No, I don't have anything against you personally, since I don't know you, but I do think that your position is dangerous and harmful.

...I understand. I want you to know that I have never given anyone advice that harmed them or that turned out to be disastrous. I may be on a personal level 100% against vaccines, but this doesn't translate into me going around to people and physically obstructing them from getting their shots. My cousin had a child 2 years ago. She works as a nurse in a hospital. She didn't vaccinate. She got a lot of flack about it, but it was because of what I informed her about. She also admitted to me that she did see unvaccinated children on occasion and she said they all appeared very healthy and the children's mom's always told her that their kids never got sick. The only reason they were in the doctor's office was to get physical exams for sports for their schools. My cousin's baby hasn't had one single illness, no sign of asthma, or colic, or any irritation. He is by all accounts a super baby. All I can tell you is that I do not wish to force anyone else's child to be vaccinated, but as for my own..if I had one..the only way someone would be able to vaccinate my child is if they were able to survive the shotgun blast aimed at their head. Twice.

If I remember correctly, the thing about fluoride is the dosage, just like with almost everything else, even totally normal herbs. Parsil is a wonderful source of iron and extremely healthy, besides being tasty, but if you manage to eat a pound or so it may induce a miscarriage.

When its in the water, it's a huge dosage because it accumulates, but only that. Look at the "safe" levels:

WIKI:
"Historically, most cases of fluoride poisoning have been caused by accidental ingestion of insecticides[5] or rodenticides (e.g. sodium fluoroacetate[6]) containing fluoride. Currently most cases are due to the ingestion of fluoridated water or toothpaste.[4]"
"In 1986 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per litre (mg/L), which is the legal limit of natural fluoride allowed in the water. In 2006, a 12-person committee of the US National Research Council (NRC) reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride consumption[12] and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. The EPA has yet to act on the NRC's recommendation.[13][14] The limit was previously 1.4, 2.4 mg/L, but it was raised to 4 mg/L in 1985.[15]"

"Excess fluoride consumption has been studied as a factor in the following:

A weakening of bones, leading to an increase in hip and wrist fracture. At the level used in fluoridated water, decreased fractures are expected,[10] but the U.S. National Research Council found the overall evidence "suggestive but inadequate for drawing firm conclusions about the risk or safety of exposures at [2 mg/L]", but states that fractures do seem to increase as fluoride is increased from 1 mg/L to 4 mg/L, suggesting a "continuous exposure-effect" dose-response relationship at these levels.[12]:170

Adverse effects on the kidney. Within the recommended dose, no effects are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L.[12]:281 Those with impaired kidney function are more susceptible to adverse effects.[12]:292

Little research has been done on possible liver damage, although some studies suggest negative effects at chronic ingestion of 23 mg/day.[12]:292

Chromosomal damage and interference with DNA repair.[12]:304 Overall, the literature from in vitro and rodent studies does not indicate genotoxicity, but the in vivo human studies are inconsistent.[12]:316

Four epidemiological studies have noted a correlation between increased fluoride and low IQ.[12]:205-223 The most rigorous of these compared an area with mean water concentration of 0.36 ,± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L) to an area with 2.47 ,± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]). Most of these studies did not publish important details, making them difficult to evaluate. If these correlations are caused by fluoride, the mechanism is not known, but the National Research Council speculates that effects on the thyroid could lead to poor test results.[12]:208 Two Chinese meta-analyses which included the previously mentioned studies have also noted this correlation.[16][17] The high-fluoride areas studied had fluoride levels above those used in water fluoridation.

The NRC report stated that "many of the untoward effects of fluoride are due to the formation of AlFx [aluminum fluoride] complexes".[12]:219 This topic has been identified previously as cause for concern.[18] The NRC noted that rats administered fluoride had twice as much aluminum in their brains.[12]:212 When water (1 ppm fluoride) is boiled in aluminum cookware more aluminum is leached and more aluminum fluoride complexes are formed. However, an epidemiological study found that a high-fluoride area had one-fifth the Alzheimer's that a low-fluoride area had,[19] and a 2002 study found that fluoride increased the urinary excretion of aluminum.[20]

Fluoride's suppressive effect on the thyroid is more severe when iodine is deficient, and fluoride is associated with lower levels of iodine.[18] Thyroid effects in humans were associated with fluoride levels 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.[12]:263 Its mechanisms and effects on the endocrine system remain unclear.[12]:266"




Maybe it's OK. Maybe fluoride is absolutely fine for the body. But to me it just appears to be more sensible to employ the precautionary principle and eliminate such large concentrations in our water supply. I'm not being a conspiracy theorist, I'm just of the opinion that all we got is one life, and why wait until we finally find out some conclusive info on it before we say "whoa, no more fluoride." I just think any benefit that the fluoride may bring for tooth health is far outweighed by the potential damage if it does have adverse effects. I don't have much against fluoride mouthwash for instance, perhaps we could just allow people who want to use it to get the certain mouthwash with fluoride in it, and use it by their own choice, and those who do not wish to use it, to not have to. When it is in the water it forces everyone in that area to be exposed to it, even if they want to exercise more precaution. I don't think we need to tell people they are being annoying for speaking out against it, rather, trying to find ways of respectfully resolving these concerns. In my mind the solution is to take it out of the water and allow people to simply use mouthwash instead. What do you think?

Yes, it would be a wonderful world. Only that it's not possible even if we get rid of those stupid night-flights. Working shift is bad for your health, working at night is, but we can't stop nurses, doctors, police officers and firefighters working night shifts. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it. I also appreciate somebody watching ofver nuclear power plants all the time...

Yes, I do agree with this. It's a difficult situation to alleviate. In the future, I think there will be far more automated ways of dealing with these issues. But perhaps never 100% solved. I personally can't wait until the days where airplanes become obsolete and we use sophisticated trains sort of like TGV or the super fast trains in parts of Japan. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that these folks must have pharmaceuticals to deal with their sleep/wake issues or lethargy etc. At least, let pharma be the absolute last resort. This is what I would recommend if you were my patient. It's not because I hate big pharma. It's because I hate the effects that these substances would have on my patients. What do you think?

You are aware that most of that "natural food" only is avaible now, for a few hundred years after centuries of breeding and farming?

Sure, which is why I laugh when people tell me that fruit these days is so bad because it's "all hybridized." People that make these comments simply do not understand the fact that ALL plants and ALL fruits are hybrids somewhere down the line. The fact that we selectively bred them is simply analogous to what would happen in nature anyways. The sweeter, more robust, more appealing members of a type of plant would be seeked out more, eaten more, and have their seeds distributed more and so on. That's a relatively natural process. That would occur in nature anyways. Or, at least, it certainly COULD. Something like genetic engineering, would never occur in nature, and indeed there are many questions about allergic reactions to these new organisms, the impact over the long term, etc etc. Those I am more against. But simply plants that were subject to selective breeding? If someone can explain how those are not natural, I'd like to hear it.
Bananas are a great example. Wild bananas are WAY different from the ones we all eat. And yet...there is no known adverse health effect from them. They're natural. No problem.

Oh, I like bananas, and magoes, there's one waiting for me.
But claiming that a fatal bacterial dissease could have been prevented by the mother eating more bananas is gross.
BTW, they're not rich in Vitamin A. Vitamin A is not found "in nature". Vitamin A is synthesised in your body out of retinol. Pure vitamin A in large quantities is dangerous.

I don't think I said it was bananas that could have prevented a mother from transmitting or dying from such a condition. If I did, I grossly misspoke. I don't think I would do something like that though. What I think I may have said was that, nutritional levels of the two parties involved is a critical variable and by elevating this nutritional level it could prevent such diseases from happening and being transmitted.
As far as vitamin A, you are correct. Well, kinda correct. I think you meant beta carotene instead of retinol. Retinol is the active form of VIt A actually. And it is derived from cleaving two b-carotenes in half. Plant foods indeed, do not have retinol in them. They have beta carotene, which is non-toxic and can accumulate in large amounts in the body. This is why we cannot get vitamin A poisoning from eating plants. However, this is another reason eating animal foods is dangerous. It is easy to get too much vitamin A from eating animals because it is NOT in the precursor form in the animals, rather, it is in the active form of retinol and it can, just like heme-iron, be absorbed in too great of quantities.
So I agree with you that bananas are not "rich in vitamin A" if we want to split hairs, but they are rich in the precursors to vitamin A, which are non-toxic and in effect, this translates into proper vitamin A levels for the individual, which is basically the same as saying "rich in vitmain A" which is why I added that. Do you agree with this?

Again, there's more than black and white here. There's a difference between making someone dependent of a drug or someone depending on a drug.
My cousin IS depending on a psychiatric drug. And his life (not only his life) was in danger before he got on that drug, because he was unstable. That's a difference.
And my gran was taken to the ER before she ever got on those drugs. And she's one of those old fashioned biddies who actually believe that nothing does you more good than exercise in the open air, best by working in the garden where you can grow your own fruit and veg.

I think your cousin has some sort of a emotional issue that needs to be resolved with a different type of therapy. Taking a drug will not allow him to mentally progress past his problem and face his/her daemons. In our society these days we do not like to look in the mirror and truly be introspective and face our worries head on. We deflect, or we numb ourselves. This translates into no resolution and an inability to cope in the future. It's like the frightened and sheltered child who, all his life runs back to his daddy in the face of danger or opposition. This effectively cripples the individual.
As far as your grandma, I'm sad to hear that she got talked out of the idea that fresh air and exercise are fairy tales. I'll betcha if I was working with her, she would get back to levels of health she thought had long passed her by. I feel bad when I see people veer away from natural health because of a symptom that they cannot explain and thus they go right to the nice smiling doctor in the clean white coat. A clean coat, needed to cover all the trauma and bloody damage they have caused over the years. Forbid it that they remove their coat, for it should expose years of injustice and filth that lines their bodies.

I'm pregnant, if I started that now my doctor would yell at me and my husband would force-feed me and they're right to do so.
I'm allergic against a great deal of raw fruit and veggies. I'd be literally stcuk with bananas and cucumbers. And that has nothing to do with an aversion, watching other people eat a carrot or an apple makes my mouth water and almost brings me to tears.

Indeed, it sounds like you are one of the many people with intestinal permeability. This leads to many allergies and a propensity toward even having allergic reactions to things that are perfectly healthy for you. I have seen many people who, after slowly weening themselves off their diets and going on raw foods, the right way, lost all their allergies they thought they had. We have an allergy to fruit or veg and we blame it on the fruit or veg.
Let me tell you something about you that I can tell without ever having known you: You were not always allergic to the fruits and vegs you are allergic to now. It was not always this way. You don't even have to tell me I am right. I already know it.
Grains and Dairy are damaging your digestive system and are causing these problems. Your intestinal mucosa is irritated by these foods, becomes inflamed, then the junctions between the cells bulge out, leaving entire proteins and other substances free to come into the blood. This is the beginning of allergies. This is the beginning of food sensitivities. And dare I say...any vaccination you do, which introduces again, more whole, foreign proteins into the bloodstream, is also harming you in this respect.
If you are pregnant, I really hope you are careful and consider the fact that your baby is being nourished by everything you eat right now, and in fact is effected by your previous nutritional levels that you had months prior to even conception. At the very least I would recommend simply increasing the amount of raw food in your diet substantially. I hope everything goes well with your pregnancy regardless of course.

Say 95%.

That's good. But that's only a reflection of your own opinion of how sure you are. Even if it was 100% it wouldn't mean anything necessarily. Anyways, it's good that you do think there is a slight chance that you could be wrong. I in fact, think I could be wrong as well. Or, at least...wrong about certain things. But the big picture? I dunno...I have to say I'm quite confident. I don't wanna say 100% sure, but it certainly doesn't make me feel uncomfortable suggesting it. I just don't wanna sound un-modest.

That's a big missconception: I'm not a lady And I'm addicted to twisting words. I tend to get sarcastic. I'll try not to.

You're not a lady? Please forgive me. You DO certainly have the visage and countenance of one. And yeah, about the sarcasm, I am as well. I just think often times it's borderline on whether we're being purposely offensive or cleverly sarcastic. Fine line. I will admit I do get offended at times, but the fault is mine there partly, I do admit, as, it takes two to be offended. One to offend, and one to be offended. Sometimes though, it's just that, it almost feels as if there is little choice in the matter...you know?

Anyways, have a good one.

In friendship

 

[paradigm667]

One more thing, I would like to link you all to a recent web seminar by an MD that was presented on Aug 17...

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/110148203

I believe you have to put in an email address and name, but you can just enter a fake one, because it doesn't require activation or anything...it's free.

I would be interested to hear any thoughts.


In friendship.

 

[Giliell]

One more thing, I would like to link you all to a recent web seminar by an MD that was presented on Aug 17...

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/110148203

I believe you have to put in an email address and name, but you can just enter a fake one, because it doesn't require activation or anything...it's free.

I would be interested to hear any thoughts.


In friendship.

Didn't play on my computer, so no thoughts to offer.

My cousin had a child 2 years ago. She works as a nurse in a hospital. She didn't vaccinate. She got a lot of flack about it, but it was because of what I informed her about. She also admitted to me that she did see unvaccinated children on occasion and she said they all appeared very healthy and the children's mom's always told her that their kids never got sick. The only reason they were in the doctor's office was to get physical exams for sports for their schools. My cousin's baby hasn't had one single illness, no sign of asthma, or colic, or any irritation. He is by all accounts a super baby.

So is my daughter and she's fully vaccinated.
So, no proof for either side.

@Fluoride
Nobody ever said that things couldn't be done better. Never ever said that scientists coud,ldn't make mistakes and be stubborn as everybody else. And especially no-one ever claimed that governments always did what's best and state of the art instead of following the big monney or being simply lazy.

Sure, which is why I laugh when people tell me that fruit these days is so bad because it's "all hybridized." People that make these comments simply do not understand the fact that ALL plants and ALL fruits are hybrids somewhere down the line. The fact that we selectively bred them is simply analogous to what would happen in nature anyways. The sweeter, more robust, more appealing members of a type of plant would be seeked out more, eaten more, and have their seeds distributed more and so on. That's a relatively natural process. That would occur in nature anyways. Or, at least, it certainly COULD. Something like genetic engineering, would never occur in nature, and indeed there are many questions about allergic reactions to these new organisms, the impact over the long term, etc etc. Those I am more against. But simply plants that were subject to selective breeding? If someone can explain how those are not natural, I'd like to hear it.
Bananas are a great example. Wild bananas are WAY different from the ones we all eat. And yet...there is no known adverse health effect from them. They're natural. No problem.

Emphasis added by me.
Ehm, no.
Even though some of the fruits and veggies we're eating now might develop similarly, most of them couldn't, because traits have to be combined that would make such a plant more or less impossible.
Just take fruit trees.
The standard method to get one of our standard fruit trees is to raise two trees. One type is known for a robust stem and good nutrition and roots, the other one has the big red apples, but is a sissi if it comes to stem and root developement. You let both of them grow for a few years, shelter your Sissi, then you transfer the branches of the red-aplle sissi to the trunk of the robust one.
Most veggies are F1 Hybrids. That doesn't mean they couldn't occur in nature, they certainly could, but they would look much different again the next generation.
I don't say they're not natural, but I doubt that they were the basis of "our" food before "we" discovered meant, fire, grains.
BTW, what's the difference between a grain and a seed?

Now, I'm going to roll the three next points into one:
You keep constantly diagnosing people whom you've never met via the internet, doing the exact same thing you accuse traditional MDs off: Go by the symptoms and tell them what to do.
You neither know those women who lost their babies due to strep B, but you said they were malnourished (the bananas was an oversimplification by me.) You can tell what my cousin needs without knowing him, his mediacal or family history. You diagnose my allergies without ever having seen me or my colon.
Regardless of me disagreeing with your whole idea, that would make me highly suspicous of ANYBODY who offered his medical advice this way.

As for the lady, I rather go with Meredith Brooks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuP8VBroyyg

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Now, I'm going to roll the three next points into one:
You keep constantly diagnosing people whom you've never met via the internet, doing the exact same thing you accuse traditional MDs off: Go by the symptoms and tell them what to do.
You neither know those women who lost their babies due to strep B, but you said they were malnourished (the bananas was an oversimplification by me.) You can tell what my cousin needs without knowing him, his mediacal or family history. You diagnose my allergies without ever having seen me or my colon.
Regardless of me disagreeing with your whole idea, that would make me highly suspicous of ANYBODY who offered his medical advice this way.

Hmmmm... it seems that my suspicions were well-founded after all. I knew it! :lol:

That's one of the differences between real medicine and the fake medicine that paradigm667 is planning on practicing, and apparently is already practicing. Real medicine takes work and education, and more work and more education. Fake medicine allows the people pretending to practice medicine to become "experts" without any real work. I guess it is easy to claim that real doctors are fakes, and give bullshit medical advice online, if you are so arrogant that you can reject reality and embrace quackery the way paradigm667 does.

This goes beyond simple foolishness, that paradigm667 has every right to, and goes into disgusting, amoral behavior that no good person could support, let alone engage in. It is arrogance that puts lives at risk.

 

[paradigm667]

Regardless of me disagreeing with your whole idea, that would make me highly suspicous of ANYBODY who offered his medical advice this way.

Well, every case I have ever seen of sensitivity to fruit or veggies has been something that the person developed, but was not born with.

Am I wrong about this? I am willing to bet you are no different. You were not born with these sensitivities. Am I wrong?

Also, everyone who has had this type of problem, has made it go away by simply changing their diet and cleaning their food consumption up. The amount of time is different for everyone, so it's hard to say if it would be a week, a month, maybe even as much as 6 months to a year....but eventually the allergies go away. The three main culprits were the following:
Grains, Dairy, and Vaccines.

I rarely saw a person who had symptoms you describe without having been subjected to damage from one or more of these three things.
The reason most people do not think nutrition can do much, is because most people don't know how to properly eat. Imagine that. We are so detached from reality, that we actually do not know what and how to eat. And I'll tell you another thing...I doubt you can ONLY eat bananas and cucumbers. You might be allergic to some fruits and MAYBE some veggies, but again I'd be willing to bet that your problem with veggies isn' t that they make you allergic, but you simply do not like the taste because you have a propensity to use salt. Salt destroys your taste buds and you temporarily lose your sense of taste, such that natural, raw, healthy food tastes really bland. If you change your diet, this taste will come back. Your tongue's taste buds regenerate. It's never too late.

What I have found is that people have GENERALLY the same problems. The ANSWERS are always relatively the same, the only difference is some minor specifics, and the unique road that each person have to take to get to their destination. You're right about me giving advice long distance like this, because indeed the trick is getting to know the person better to be able to motivate them the right way. However the idea that I need to do a lab test or something to tell you something as obvious as "you have leaky gut syndrome" is untrue. If you are telling the truth, there is only one reason. If you were allergic to only ONE specific fruit, that might have a genetic component. And you would have been that way from birth. No worry...even that can be reversed. But you implied you were allergic to almost every type of fruit and veggie. If that is even REMOTELY true, there is only one reason. And so I gave you the reason. Take it for what you will.

You have no idea how life changing a dietary shift could be for you. If you even tried eating the way I recommend and gave it an honest try, you would see that even in as little as 2 weeks you would feel AMAZING.

Nevertheless, I didn't get confirmation about your allergies. I suggested that you must have developed these allergies/sensitivities and you did not have them from birth. Am I right?



In friendship

 

[paradigm667]

This goes beyond simple foolishness, that paradigm667 has every right to, and goes into disgusting, amoral behavior that no good person could support, let alone engage in. It is arrogance that puts lives at risk.

It's not quackery at all. A quack is someone who is looking to make a quick buck, by trying to sell a product. I will never do this. I don't sell anything. NOTHING. I also don't make claims that are not founded in science. I may not know ALL the science this is very true. But you know what, most doctors are the ones who don't know shit.

Ohh but that's not all. I can give you examples of doctor incompetence and ignorance:

"In 1996 the American Medical Association (AMA) asked the Gallup Oraganization to see if the nation's physicians and the general public knew that symptoms of many common illnesses worsen at predictable times of day or night, and improve at other times. When do heart attacks and asthma attacks occur most often? When are stuffiness, runny nose, sneezing, and other allergy and hay fever symptoms worse? When is blood pressure highest?
* Most physicians got every answer wrong
* The typical adult flunked, too
* Even persons with the target illness lacked the vital facts that could improve their health, and possibly save their lives."

-excerpt from the book "The Body Clock" by Smolensky and Lamberg


"According to a new study published in the British Medical Journal, U.S. doctors regularly give placebo treatments such as vitamins, sedatives or even antibiotics to patients, even though in many cases these doctors don't expect such treatments to help the patient's underlying disease.
In a survey of 679 general internal medicine physicians and rheumatologists, researchers from the National Institutes of Health found that about half of the doctors admitted to prescribing placebo treatments without informing the patient.
Moreover, most of the doctors, 62 percent, believed that the practice of giving a patient a placebo without their knowledge is ethically sound."

"Half of US doctors give placebos"
[ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/24/health/main4542757.shtml ]


Question: Why do doctors use sloppy handwriting on something as important as a prescription?

Answer: Part of the medical profession's bad-penmanship reputation goes back to the 1400s, when prescriptions were written entirely in Latin specifically to be unreadable to laypeople.
Even today, prescriptions employ a weird mixture of Latin and English abbreviations. "Aspirin, Disp. 50, Sig: I tab po qod ac & hs dur.dolor" might look like sloppy scrawl to you. But to a pharmacist, it clearly means issuing 50 aspirins to treat pain, with one tablet to be swallowed every other day before meals and at bedtime.
Nonetheless, many doctors do have lousy handwriting. In a 1979 study reported in the "Journal of the American Medical Association," 16 percent of tested doctors' handwriting was deemed illegible by peers.
Several surveys have found that about 2 percent of prescriptions result in medication errors. A 1987 survey of community pharmacists found them catching an average 4.1 prescription errors a week.
While there's no data on how many errors are specifically due to bad handwriting, it certainly contributes to two main problems: confusion of similarly named drugs, and misreading of dosage figures.
Sloppy handwriting is usually attributed to modern doctors having many patients and little time. All writing must be done very quickly. And many medical schools provide no formal training in prescription-writing.
Until very recent times, there was little chance that scrawled prescriptions would confuse a pharmacist because there were few drugs to choose from. In the early 1900s, there were only about 10 basic drugs. Today, Ohio State University (OSU) Hospitals stock about 1,500.
According to Jerry Siegel, director of the OSU Medical Center pharmacy, the explosion in the number of drugs began only this decade, with 350 new drugs coming out last year alone.
Prescription errors are a growing problem, but doctors are used to letting pharmacists catch their mistakes. Pharmacists spend a lot of time calling back doctors' offices to check unclear parts of prescriptions. That's why you must often wait so long to pick up medicine.
"I can give you the wrong thing so much faster," Siegel says.
The U.S. has no law requiring that prescription handwriting be legible. In one landmark case, admittedly bad handwriting resulted in the cancer medication Tamoxifen being replaced with the heart medicine Tambacor. The pharmacist was held liable; the doctor wasn't.
However, awareness of the problem is growing. The American Medical Association has suggested that doctors improve handwriting and avoid abbreviations.
There's also a major move toward electronic prescription computer systems that, while having their own problems, virtually eliminate handwriting errors.



http://doctorsareidiots.com/



Why Doctors are Idiots: 150 Years of Disatrous Advice on Children's Health (satire)
[ http://www.naturalnews.com/022389.html ]




Incompetent Physicians Are Rarely Reported as Law Requires
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/29/health/29HEAL.html ]



LOL, even in 1985 we had:
Up to 66,000 doctors incompetent! [ http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat=19850325&id=0fQPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mYwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7179,8839158 ]



Physicians Routinely Protect Incompetent Colleagues; 45 Percent Admit Failure to Report
[ http://www.naturalnews.com/023605_doctors_physicians_cardiologists.html ]



Study Finds Gaps Between Doctors' Standards and Actions
[ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301771.html ]




I would never give someone a placebo. If I say a colleague make an error that put someone else's life at risk I would report them. I don't consider being a doctor the same as being part of some big club. It's about the people and their health. Not about secret handshakes and wink-wink friendships where we protect each other's backs and lie for one another.
You wanna go see one of those doctors? Fine by me. I'm not stopping you.

But don't be angry at me because I'm not like that. Most doctors learn things like biochemistry in school, but as soon as they graduate, they essentially forget all about it. They directly go against their education. They take vows and pledge to "first do no harm" and what's the first thing they often recommend to patients? Surgery. Pills.

So, honestly, the fact that you distinguish me from traditional doctors is in fact an honor. I would be disgusted to be put in the same category.

Most doctors are nothing more than pharmaceutical vending machines.

Think that's a joke? It's the "wave of the future." Check it out:

http://www.magex.org/Products/img/farma24h/pharma24h_closed_g.jpg

http://www.edrugsearch.com/edsblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/prescription-drugs-vending-machine-300x269.jpg



In friendship

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's an antidote to the anti-vax, anti-reality horseshit:

http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/vaccines-and-autism/

Real science, not "alternative" stupidity.

 

[paradigm667]

They often spread misinformation about vaccine, such as the notion that vaccines weaken the immune system,

Uhh...no, they don't. They stimulate ANTIBODY production. We ASSUME this translates into immunity. Even a PRECURSORY understanding of biochemistry will tell you that injecting FOREIGN proteins and POISONS into your blood stream (like formaldehyde, aluminum, mercury, etc) DEPRESSES your immune system. This is why vaccines are PARTICULARLY damaging for people who already have low immune function. For instance if someone is sick, they are often times allowed to get their vaccine LATER, because it can have detrimental effects on the body.

FAIL #1.

However the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows no correlation between vaccines in general, the MMR vaccine specifically, or thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative) in vaccines with ASD or other neurodevelopmental disorders.

http://www.whale.to/a/simpsonwood_meeting.html

FAIL #2.

The primary argument made for an association between thimerosal and ASD is that the rate of diagnosis of ASD has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s. At that time also the routine vaccine schedule was increasing, resulting in an increasing total dose of thimerosal. The antivaccinationists then assume causation from correlation to blame rising ASD rates on thimerosal.

No, there are MECHANISMS proposed for why this increased vaccination would be causing autism. But I'll tell you what IS fishy: assuming that autism is simply being "better diagnosed." I never heard anyone explain to me HOW this could be possible? How is it possible that since 1970 the diagnosis of autism just MAGICALLY got better. Especially considering that Autism Spectrum Disorder, is a diagnosis based on symptoms, not some biological test. So to tell me that humans just barely got better at OBSERVING other humans in the last few decades is, well, a joke.

FAIL #3.

However, by 2002 thimerosal was completely removed from the routine vaccine schedule

LIES. It was simply LESSENED. And while it was lessened, aluminum shot up! Not only that, flu shots, which are not "routine" on the "schedule" jumped up production and guess what they had in them? OHHHHHHH. Thimerosal.

FAIL #4.

The total dose of thimerosal exposure is far below 1990 levels, before ASD diagnoses began to rise. Antivaccinationists predicted that ASD rates would fall dramatically in the years following the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines, but rates have continued to rise without even the slightest change in the rate of increase.

HAHAHAHA!!! So this idiot admits himself "RATES CONTINUE TO RISE" lol...even though its supposed to be "better diagnosis"...is the diagnosis just getting better and better then? LOL!!! LMFAO!!!!
Antivaccinationists do not only look at mercury. It's ANY substance in the vaccine, or in our environment that can cause such conditions. Aluminum is TOXIC as well. And indeed, what most antivaccinationists predict is that:
As you vaccinate LESS, you will see less Autism. And we have been vaccinating MORE, and we are seeing as the idiot author himself just ADMITTED "RATES [that] CONTINUE TO RISE."

FAIL #5.

This is a powerful refutation of the thimerosal-autism hypothesis, and has been replicated in other countries.

No, it's not. And the fact that it's been "replicated" in other countries simply means that other countries who also have INCREASED the amount of vaccine mandates, and INCREASED aluminum and other toxic substances in their vaccines have LIKEWISE, SEEN A CONTINUED RISE IN RATES OF AUTISM. How is that a good thing? "Hey look, people all over the world are getting more and more autism, therefore, vaccines don't cause them."
LMFAO!


FAIL #6.

Further, the best epidemiological evidence suggests that the rise in the diagnosis rate of ASD is an artifact of broadening the definition of autism, diagnostic substitution, and increased surveillance.

Yeah. Even though any teacher that has been teaching for 30 years in grade school will tell you (and I've talked to NUMEROUS ones about this and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAID THE SAME EXACT THING) that autism is OUT OF CONTROL in the last 10 years and rising. And if you tell them "that's because of better diagnosis and broadening of the definition," they will laugh as I am right now.


FAIL #7.

Therefore there isn't really an autism "epidemic" just a change in the definition and efforts to make the diagnosis.

Right. Even though this genius just admitted it CONTINUES TO RISE! LOL!!! What is the definition just getting broader and broader each time? Tell me, what specific aspects of the definition were broadened? See I think that idea is not only bullshit, but CRIMINAL. Telling someone who had a vaccine damaged child that they are just imagining things...well, I wouldn't wanna be in the same room with you and the mom when you try and tell her that she's imagining that her child got sick from the vaccine when she SAW her child get the vaccine, then go into spasms moments later, then regress into autism and never got better....Yeah...try and tell her it's "better diagnosis."
I feel like vomiting.


FAIL #8.

Undaunted, the antivaccinationists have changed their claims to blame any number of "toxins" in vaccines. However, their claims have no scientific validity.

Ohh, they actually do. But it makes it seem like the claims are all just idiocy when you dismiss them in one sentence. Great! Well done. Anyone who is convinced by that article, you are a moron. There is not one single bit of rationale in it. Not ONE. It is PURE...and I mean PURE nonsense.


FAIL #9.


In friendship

 

[Giliell]

Well, every case I have ever seen of sensitivity to fruit or veggies has been something that the person developed, but was not born with.

Am I wrong about this? I am willing to bet you are no different. You were not born with these sensitivities. Am I wrong?

Also, everyone who has had this type of problem, has made it go away by simply changing their diet and cleaning their food consumption up. The amount of time is different for everyone, so it's hard to say if it would be a week, a month, maybe even as much as 6 months to a year....but eventually the allergies go away. The three main culprits were the following:
Grains, Dairy, and Vaccines.

I rarely saw a person who had symptoms you describe without having been subjected to damage from one or more of these three things.
The reason most people do not think nutrition can do much, is because most people don't know how to properly eat. Imagine that. We are so detached from reality, that we actually do not know what and how to eat. And I'll tell you another thing...I doubt you can ONLY eat bananas and cucumbers. You might be allergic to some fruits and MAYBE some veggies, but again I'd be willing to bet that your problem with veggies isn' t that they make you allergic, but you simply do not like the taste because you have a propensity to use salt. Salt destroys your taste buds and you temporarily lose your sense of taste, such that natural, raw, healthy food tastes really bland. If you change your diet, this taste will come back. Your tongue's taste buds regenerate. It's never too late.

What I have found is that people have GENERALLY the same problems. The ANSWERS are always relatively the same, the only difference is some minor specifics, and the unique road that each person have to take to get to their destination. You're right about me giving advice long distance like this, because indeed the trick is getting to know the person better to be able to motivate them the right way. However the idea that I need to do a lab test or something to tell you something as obvious as "you have leaky gut syndrome" is untrue. If you are telling the truth, there is only one reason. If you were allergic to only ONE specific fruit, that might have a genetic component. And you would have been that way from birth. No worry...even that can be reversed. But you implied you were allergic to almost every type of fruit and veggie. If that is even REMOTELY true, there is only one reason. And so I gave you the reason. Take it for what you will.

You have no idea how life changing a dietary shift could be for you. If you even tried eating the way I recommend and gave it an honest try, you would see that even in as little as 2 weeks you would feel AMAZING.

Nevertheless, I didn't get confirmation about your allergies. I suggested that you must have developed these allergies/sensitivities and you did not have them from birth. Am I right?



In friendship

You are, in my case. I started developing them about the age of 4.
Funny thing: I wasn't vaccinated back then because when I was a kid vaccination only started before you went to school and you only got Polio/Diphteria/Tetanus. And I was probably eating more raw fruit and veggies than entire Sub-Saharan countries because I was a plague in the garden.

Yet I know cases where totally unvaccinated babies were born with heavy allergies.
Life changing? I bet. Wanting to jump out of the window would probably change my life.
Because food is much more than the intake of nutritients. Food is pleasure, food is joy. It's lust for life. What use would be 120 years of constantly depriving me of one of the greatest pleasures be? BTW, centering your life around food, any way, is considered a psychological disorder.

This is why vaccines are PARTICULARLY damaging for people who already have low immune function. For instance if someone is sick, they are often times allowed to get their vaccine LATER, because it can have detrimental effects on the body.

Ehm, no. This is because your immune system has to work with the vaccine, with the parts of the virus or the modified virus. If it's already weakened because you're sick it might be too much and recovery would be slower. But if you're healthy and get your shot, then it boosters your imune system because it get's something to do. Just like your body needing constant exercise to stay in shape...

But I'll tell you what IS fishy: assuming that autism is simply being "better diagnosed." I never heard anyone explain to me HOW this could be possible? How is it possible that since 1970 the diagnosis of autism just MAGICALLY got better. Especially considering that Autism Spectrum Disorder, is a diagnosis based on symptoms, not some biological test. So to tell me that humans just barely got better at OBSERVING other humans in the last few decades is, well, a joke.

No, humans became better at accepting that somebody might actually suffer from autism (the spectrum is very, very broad) instead of just being an annoying, antisocial nerd.
And IMO, it's also over-diagnosed.

LIES. It was simply LESSENED. And while it was lessened, aluminum shot up! Not only that, flu shots, which are not "routine" on the "schedule" jumped up production and guess what they had in them? OHHHHHHH. Thimerosal.

FAIL #4.

Wait, kids and healthy adults who are not at a high risk group don't get flu shots here, still autism is on the rise.

HAHAHAHA!!! So this idiot admits himself "RATES CONTINUE TO RISE" lol...even though its supposed to be "better diagnosis"...is the diagnosis just getting better and better then? LOL!!! LMFAO!!!!
Antivaccinationists do not only look at mercury. It's ANY substance in the vaccine, or in our environment that can cause such conditions. Aluminum is TOXIC as well. And indeed, what most antivaccinationists predict is that:
As you vaccinate LESS, you will see less Autism. And we have been vaccinating MORE, and we are seeing as the idiot author himself just ADMITTED "RATES [that] CONTINUE TO RISE."

Wait, you were the one complaining about discussion style. Insulting people will not win you a debate.

 

[paradigm667]

Because food is much more than the intake of nutritients. Food is pleasure, food is joy. It's lust for life. What use would be 120 years of constantly depriving me of one of the greatest pleasures be? BTW, centering your life around food, any way, is considered a psychological disorder.

When you consume foods that are totally unaccustomed to your body's biology, and they stimulate pleasure, that is not evidence that they are good for you. You see, if you were addicted to heroin, you wouldn't try and argue "heroin is pleasure, it is joy, it is lust for life." I would quickly remind you the damage that it causes.
Our tastes are defined by our interactions with the world around us. We do have a natural, innate taste. It's called a sweet tooth. We respond very well to sweet fruits as children. In fact every bit of research I have seen points to kids preferring fruits from the age of weening over anything else, and only preferring other things after they are essentially force-fed them. Lust for life isn't constipation. Lust for life isn't irritable bowel syndrome. It isn't hyper-aging of the skin and calcification of the body. Lust for life isn't switching on cancer promoting genes. Being put on medicines from an early age. Asthma, diabetes, arthritis and autoimmune conditions. Do you know what the leading cause of B12 deficiency is? It's not being a vegan, and it's not eating meat, but eating GRAINS. The same grains that we KNOW damage the parietal cells int he stomach and lead to also increased risk of ulcers (which are blamed on the poor bacteria that happen to be in the area (pyloric region of the stomach) where most ulcers develop). The same cells that produce HCl and Intrinsic Factor. Yea. Without Intrinsic Factor, you absorb no B12. This is why with age, the only group that shows to have decent B12 levels are those who eat the LEAST grains. Has nothing to do with animal foods. B12 deficiency is not "lust for life." That's slow degeneration. Lust for life is being able to go on a hike all the way into your 90's and 100's. Lust for life is not needing glasses, not being bloated, having colds, living in fear of your body, etc.
You can tell me about lust for life, but I'll tell you one thing:
You only have one life. The choices you make you cannot take back. How are you so sure you would be "depriving yourself"? If I hosted you for 2 weeks where I live and I fed you my diet you would never be hungry, you would never feel bad, and your health would improve so much, SO MUCH, in a span of just 2 weeks you wouldn't even care that I don't believe in germs, you would consider me a lifelong friend for helping you out.

You know what they do with rats? They do experiments where they show the rats that if they push a lever, they get a little bit of cocaine. The rats, as soon as they learn this...will push that lever and consume the cocaine until they die. They do not stop for breaks, they simply keep pushing that button until it kills them. This is called the pleasure trap.
A dog will drink antifreeze and die within moments but it tastes good to them. It doesn't make sense! That's not fair! How can our bodies do this to us!?
Well, the short answer is, they don't. We have altered our food supply so much that it no longer interfaces with our biology anymore. We have destroyed our abilities to rely simply on our "gut feeling."
Our body doesn't know how to detect that high fructose corn syrup is bad for it. It tastes sweet, that's all we know. Sweet is good....But...."sweet" in nature, in the entire millions of years of history of our evolution, "sweet" came with fiber, minerals, vitamins, phytochemicals, pectin, etc...all these things that work in synergy with it. No longer.
We have isolated the taste and the calorie component, and thrown out the rest.

If you can name me just one species now alive or one that existed in the past who ate their food by cooking it, I'll shut up.
If you can name one species that drinks milk after the age of weening, I will shut up. Or milk from another species. I will also shut up.

And as far as centering life around food is a "disorder," well, I would like to inform you in this case that the vast majority of life on this planet must be disordered then. I'm afraid most species spend far more time than us humans seeking out food and eating, and enjoying it, but it doesn't kill them. Only us. We're the only ones who eat things that taste good, that also destroy our health.

And then we give excuses like "food is joy." So is health. And guess what, I wouldn't be sitting here screaming at the top of my lungs if I didn't LOVE what I eat. Have you ever had a hawaiian papay, a kent mango, cara cara oranges, persimmons in mid season, ripe figs, medjool dates, sapote, lychee fruit, durian, ripe organic apricots, rainer cherries, canary melons, jazz apples, and young coconuts? These are so delicious that it will make your head spin. But none of them are associated with disease. They do not raise insulin levels. They do not promote cancer. They do not make you gassy, constipated, lethargic, weak, they do not make you anemic, or have skin breakouts. In fact just the opposite. Food IS joy. But the food you speak of and the food I speak of are two entirely different things. You wanna see what a child looks like who is raised on raw foods looks like?

[REMOVED]

Red bell peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers, chermoyas, and avocados. WOW! My mouth is watering now!

Ehm, no. This is because your immune system has to work with the vaccine, with the parts of the virus or the modified virus. If it's already weakened because you're sick it might be too much and recovery would be slower. But if you're healthy and get your shot, then it boosters your imune system because it get's something to do. Just like your body needing constant exercise to stay in shape...

LOL, no offense, but...that sounds like exactly the kind of pseudoscience I get accused of. Interesting. There is not one bit of proof of this claim. I do not buy it unfortunately.

No, humans became better at accepting that somebody might actually suffer from autism (the spectrum is very, very broad) instead of just being an annoying, antisocial nerd.
And IMO, it's also over-diagnosed.

Why did they wait until 1990 to start "accepting" these things all the sudden? LOL. Again, this actually sounds a lot like the pseudoscience I am being accused of.

Wait, kids and healthy adults who are not at a high risk group don't get flu shots here, still autism is on the rise.

So other countries are also, all at the same time, diagnosing autism MORE, diagnosing it BETTER, broadening the DEFINITION, and also, becoming more "ACCEPTING" of people as having Autism rather than just "antisocial nerds"?
Again, I cannot buy this. I think you mean well, and you're a good person, but you're just plain wrong.

Wait, you were the one complaining about discussion style. Insulting people will not win you a debate.

Good point. I shouldn't have snapped at the guy like that. His contradictions are enough to discredit his rhetoric. I just thought it was funny that not only someone would write such a poor article with NO tangible information. And furthermore that someone else would find it useful to link to it, indicating they felt it was a good source of proof or argumentation against the "antivaccinists" (you know, we all have a secret hand shake too, I'll show it you if you guys promise not to tell).


In all seriousness though, yes I am sorry for calling the author names. It doesn't change the fact that it was a very bad journalism piece and that it was full with nothing but conjecture and assumptions which, oddly enough, if are taken as truths, are certainly good for businesses.


In friendship

 

[Giliell]

When you consume foods that are totally unaccustomed to your body's biology, and they stimulate pleasure, that is not evidence that they are good for you. You see, if you were addicted to heroin, you wouldn't try and argue "heroin is pleasure, it is joy, it is lust for life." I would quickly remind you the damage that it causes.

Because, unlike taking heroine, eating is absolutely necessary for survival?
And if I were addicted to heroine I'd probably argue that it's pleasure...

We do have a natural, innate taste. It's called a sweet tooth. We respond very well to sweet fruits as children. In fact every bit of research I have seen points to kids preferring fruits from the age of weening over anything else, and only preferring other things after they are essentially force-fed them.

That's actually half-right. We all have a sweet tooth, because mummy's milk is sweet. So, if you want to argue about the kind of sugar most natural to us, that's lactosis, not fructosis. Yes, most children love fruits. They also love milk, so what does that prove? And force-fed? Sorry, this is 2009, not the 1950's. Trying to force-feed babies something they don't want to eat is something you can do if you want to paint the kitchen anyway.
I'm totally sure no-one ever force-fed my daughter crisps. I know for sure that no-one ever even gave her fried onion before she scavenged my cupboard. Looks like she's got her own taste...

Do you know what the leading cause of B12 deficiency is? It's not being a vegan, and it's not eating meat, but eating GRAINS.

Any source? And what's the difference between a grain and a seed?

You know what they do with rats? They do experiments where they show the rats that if they push a lever, they get a little bit of cocaine. The rats, as soon as they learn this...will push that lever and consume the cocaine until they die. They do not stop for breaks, they simply keep pushing that button until it kills them. This is called the pleasure trap.

Yes, and those trials are very, very good for doing research about addictions. But I'm neither a rat nor a dog.

Well, the short answer is, they don't. We have altered our food supply so much that it no longer interfaces with our biology anymore. We have destroyed our abilities to rely simply on our "gut feeling."
Our body doesn't know how to detect that high fructose corn syrup is bad for it. It tastes sweet, that's all we know. Sweet is good....But...."sweet" in nature, in the entire millions of years of history of our evolution, "sweet" came with fiber, minerals, vitamins, phytochemicals, pectin, etc...all these things that work in synergy with it. No longer.
We have isolated the taste and the calorie component, and thrown out the rest.

If you can name me just one species now alive or one that existed in the past who ate their food by cooking it, I'll shut up.
If you can name one species that drinks milk after the age of weening, I will shut up. Or milk from another species. I will also shut up.

If you can show me any other species to have developed the internet, I'll shut up.
What kind of argument is that supposed to be? The good old "natural"?
Any other species that breeds and cultivates better fruit trees? Any other species that ever constructed weapons of mass destruction? That's a nill-argument

As for all those fruits you mention: Yes, I've had most of them. I love fruits, they are part of my daily diet. So are meat, bread, eggs, milk and so on. You're bringing up the same "tasty" argument I do, if you dismiss it with me, why should it count in your favour?
And what's that picture of a naked girl, something you should never post or distribute on the internet anyways, supposed to do? What kind of argument apart from appeal to overkill of female motherly hormones should that be?

Why did they wait until 1990 to start "accepting" these things all the sudden? LOL. Again, this actually sounds a lot like the pseudoscience I am being accused of.

Ehm, no, it's not on the rise since 1990, but even before.
And why should people start "accepting" it?
Well, more information, not only on part of the doctors but also on part of the parents? Realising that the autistic spectrum is far larger than the "classical" autistic child? Removing the social stigmata so parents are actually more willing to have their children diagnosed? And last but not least a huge bunch of advantages you can get for your kid if it's diagnosed as autistic?
I frankly think it's over-diagnosed in a lot of cases and that our current heathcare policy is heavily flawed because you can get a lot of things like speech therapy and ergotherapy or behavioural therapy both for parents and kids if you got the diagnosis ASD or ADHD, but not if your child simply has some problems.

So other countries are also, all at the same time, diagnosing autism MORE, diagnosing it BETTER, broadening the DEFINITION, and also, becoming more "ACCEPTING" of people as having Autism rather than just "antisocial nerds"?
Again, I cannot buy this. I think you mean well, and you're a good person, but you're just plain wrong.

You do know that the scientific community is pretty international? That research magazines are published and sold all over the world. By now even German (natural) scientists are on the large able to read something in English, most of them even write passable English but I'd still advice not to listen to their English because it makes your ears shed blood.

BTW, the author of that article isn't contradicting himself. He never denied that autism rates were increasing , he only listed numerous studies indicating that it didn't have anything to do with vaccination.
And yes, he's right: Anti-vaccinationists blamed the mercury. It was removed, no change, so they blamed the aluminium. You say they started to vaccinate more, but that's not true either, because nowadays there are kombi-vaccines, so the amount of aluminium or any other substance injected into the body is much, much lower than it was 10 years ago when you'd get 6 times 0.5ml of vaccine with it's component of mercury or aluminium instead of one shot now.
And "naturally" foreign substances are injected into your body all the time. What do you think mosquitos, wasps, bees and all the likes are doing?

 

[paradigm667]

Because, unlike taking heroine, eating is absolutely necessary for survival?
And if I were addicted to heroine I'd probably argue that it's pleasure...

Yes but eating what? Eating is definitely for survival. But, you didn't mention survival at all before. You mentioned joy, lust, pleasure, etc...Those are triggers of dopamine and other endorphins in the brain. There is an evolutionary reason why this happens. The two things that release many endorphins in the brain are food and sex. This is our Darwinian mechanism to help us remain alive (so that we can eventually reproduce) and help us find a mate (so that our genes get passed down). But like I said, foods today aren't food. They harm us, but our brain still responds to the tastes as though they might be good. We get mixed messages.
But again, when something feels good, but in reality is BAD for you, we call that an addiction. If you like to have sex, that's not so bad. If you like reading a lot, or playing sports, we don't call you an "addict" because those things don't promote disease. But indeed, if you "love, and enjoy, and get pleasure and lust" from your food, but it HARMS you, and you CAN'T STOP, that, my friend...is ADDICTION. End of story.

That's actually half-right. We all have a sweet tooth, because mummy's milk is sweet. So, if you want to argue about the kind of sugar most natural to us, that's lactosis, not fructosis. Yes, most children love fruits. They also love milk, so what does that prove?

No, actually you're wrong. Children respond more to the fat content of the milk when they are that young. Anyway, I was referring to the age of weening. In nature do you know which party is the one that determines when they stop breastfeeding? It's not the mother. It's the young. The offspring is the one who discontinues to milk, when THEY lose their taste for it. Soon thereafter, they respond to one thing in specific: SWEET FRUITS. This is not even controversial. Even the baby food companies (jesus please don't feed your kids 'baby food' from these people) know this. What do they sell? Mashed BANANAS, puree of MANGOES, etc etc.

And force-fed? Sorry, this is 2009, not the 1950's. Trying to force-feed babies something they don't want to eat is something you can do if you want to paint the kitchen anyway.

Equivocation error. By "forcefeed" I didn't mean physically. I meant, the poor child doesn't know how to talk or give you feedback. It will respond to hunger. If all you offer it is milk, meat, and bread, it will eventually eat it because its HUNGRY. But you are FORCING it to eat that food. Forcing, as in, limiting its ability to get its natural diet. And that, my friends, is criminal.

I'm totally sure no-one ever force-fed my daughter crisps. I know for sure that no-one ever even gave her fried onion before she scavenged my cupboard. Looks like she's got her own taste...

Exactly, and when you produce foods that are totally unfamiliar to nature, totally artificial and deep fried, battered, or laden with stimulating chemicals that make the brain respond to them artificially, what does that tell you about "her own" taste. If you take some antifreeze and your puppy seeks it out to lick up without being told do, do you say "see, there's my dog naturally developing a their own tastes for things?"
No. You say "well, that's not the same. Antifreeze is poison."
Well..so are "crisps" and "fried onions."
You do what you want. But don't pretend like just because your daughter decided to eat some foods that are DESIGNED to stimulate your pleasure center in the brain, that those foods are good. By that token, candy bars, ice cream, dunkin doughnuts, and soda pop are all excellent dietary choices for your daughter.

Any source? And what's the difference between a grain and a seed?

First of all the difference between grains and seeds:
Seeds are the broad category of those components of the plant that have the ability to spawn new plant life from. A coconut is a seed. A walnut is a seed. A sunflower seed is a seed, and a grain of rice is a seed. But these are quite different from one another. When I say grain, I refer to the cereal grains that we are accustomed to. They differ greatly from most other nuts and seeds that we know of for a few reasons and these reasons are important enough to make a CLEAR distinction. But, for the definition, grains are seeds of grasses, or flowering plants, which cannot be eaten raw.
-Grains contain compounds that reduce our ability to absorb minerals such as zinc.
-Grains contain gluten in them which is associated with all kinds of problems
-Grains must be cooked to consume (unlike for instance a pecan, which is a seed too, but is fine raw)
-Grains are mostly consumed in large amounts. They are used as flour, by the pound often times and baked with.
-Grains are often times refined for this reason and not found in their whole state.

Grain consumption is probably one of the worst things that happened to our species. It allowed us to survive in certain areas, and it didn't damage us immediately, so the age of reproduction was able to be reached by our ancestors and thus it couldn't have its Darwinian effect of naturally selecting out those who consumed this substance. And the problem has been ongoing since.

One way that grains cause b12 deficiency is that they have certain proteins in them (the gluten family) which lead to gastric autoantibodies and promote the depletion of our parietal cells in the stomach, which produce intrinsic factor, which allows b12 to be absorbed. I'll let you look it up if you want. If you ask me again for a source, I will be more than happy to browse my sources and link you, I just figured this wasn't even controversial at this point. I don't know any serious scientists who question this.

Yes, and those trials are very, very good for doing research about addictions. But I'm neither a rat nor a dog.

Well, I wasn't trying to offend you and imply that you were. But I think you would agree that this kind of research can shed light on our own interactions. Otherwise, why would they do them? We respond very much the same way as a "mindless" rat or dog sometimes. You would be surprised. I spent much of my undergrad years studying psychology and that's precisely what we found. Human beings often times do things for the most peculiar reasons, and they likewise often times respond best to the least common denominator: sex drive, hunger drive, hedonism etc. It's no wonder that's why most commercials on tv (I'm guessing, because I have not watched tv in over a year at this point) are geared towards this.
The person who thinks they are "immune" to this advertising or doesn't think of themself as "addicted," is probably the one who is most addicted. For instance with me, I KNOW I'm addicted to some things that are bad for me. I prefer the taste of pasta and meatballs to the taste of lets say carrots and lettuce. BUT, I appreciate being healthy more than I appreciate the few moments that I am eating and chewing the pasta and meatballs. So I simply don't eat pasta and meatball. Consequently, my health is awesome, my skin cleared up, I have energy through the roof (for instance I can play 4 hours straight of basketball with no problems and I often get only 7 hours of sleep, not because I force myself to wake up, but because my body tells me it doesn't need anymore sleep at that time and wakes up).

You might not be a rat or a dog, but that's a strawman and you know it. Don't lie. lol...
You are not a rat or dog, but the structures in the rat brain and dog brains that respond to pleasure and show addictive behavior are VERY much applicable and useful in studying to give us insight into our own.
I think you would agree with this. And that's why I mentioned the study. That's all. Was that wrong?

If you can show me any other species to have developed the internet, I'll shut up.

What did the internet do with our biology changing? This is a straw man. I like you Giliell, but you're being unfair here.

What kind of argument is that supposed to be? The good old "natural"?

Simple observation. There are many things we do not do that nature does. Often times though, when we depart from nature, we create an obstacle. Sometimes not at all. For instance listening to music. Unless it is really really loud and blows out the ear drums it is perfectly fine, and yet in nature nothing really similar to human-produced music exists.
But indeed, observing the fact that something we do, ESPECIALLY if it is something biological, doesn't happen in nature, is of interest to us because it could be potentially detrimental, and therefore it is worthwhile to investigate.
Turns out with milk, it IS worthwhile to investigate. I don't refuse milk simply because in nature no other species does what we do with milk. Rather, because of the info I get from researching it. Like the fact that each species has a certain amount of protein and fat comprising their milk, and it is specifically designed for each species and their respective doubling time. Human milk is very very low in protein for instance, which matches up perfectly with our body weight doubling time in development. We lose the lactase enzyme production as we become weened. So just because we may WANT to consume milk, doesn't mean we SHOULD. And there are plenty of other reasons (honestly, don't even get me started I will write you a 10 page essay). Suffice it to say, NO, I'm not making my decision to not drink milk simply because it's "not natural." I am very logical and very rigorous in my research. I assure you I have no "faith" in anything and I don't make decisions based on beliefs, but based on science.

Any other species that breeds and cultivates better fruit trees? Any other species that ever constructed weapons of mass destruction? That's a nill-argument

Again, what does this have to do with our biology? And also those questions you just asked, you take them one at a time and analyze them. Which is what I did with the milk argument. And after analysis, it was clear...it has no purpose in our diet. Only our own mother's milk, and only at the onset of life. Case closed.

As for all those fruits you mention: Yes, I've had most of them. I love fruits, they are part of my daily diet.

That's GREAT! I love fruits too.

So are meat, bread, eggs, milk and so on.

Well, that's...not as great. :-(

ou're bringing up the same "tasty" argument I do, if you dismiss it with me, why should it count in your favour?

Because the foods you consider tasty are tasty because stimulating substances have been added to them. Try and eat plain rice and plain beans everyday. Try and eat bread that has no salt, no sugar, no nothing added to it. Try and eat raw meat without any kind of sauce, any spice etc. It would taste like SHIT. What we respond to is not the meat or the bread, etc. It's the sugars, the spices (herbs) and so on that make these things taste good.
How many fruits do you know that you have to cook to make edible, or that need spices or sugar or ketchup or mustard added to them to make them taste good?
...OK. I think I made my point.

And what's that picture of a naked girl, something you should never post or distribute on the internet anyways, supposed to do? What kind of argument apart from appeal to overkill of female motherly hormones should that be?

Actually both those children are males. Is that acceptable now? Are you of the opinion that the body is something that needs to be covered up? Many places around the world have no issue with nudity. I personally don't either. I am not offended by it, nor do I think much clothing is important. In fact I wish public nudity was encouraged. Most people would then not be able to hide their body behind loose fitting clothing to obscure their physique and instead they would feel compelled to get healthy. Many would probably realize that raw foods are the best and healthiest way of attaining that end.
Nudity. It's great!

Ehm, no, it's not on the rise since 1990, but even before.
And why should people start "accepting" it?
Well, more information, not only on part of the doctors but also on part of the parents? Realising that the autistic spectrum is far larger than the "classical" autistic child? Removing the social stigmata so parents are actually more willing to have their children diagnosed? And last but not least a huge bunch of advantages you can get for your kid if it's diagnosed as autistic?

Now that's Orwellian double speak if I ever heard it. Lol. "Huge bunch of advantages you can get your child if it's diagnosed as autistic."
How about the huge advantage of being 100% certain that your child ISN'T autistic in the first place by:
-Breast feeding them as long as the child needs it
-Not vaccinating
-Not giving them grains and dairy early on
-Not using antibiotics (for instance for ear infections we still give antibiotics to kids here in the states, most countries basically outlaw this)

"Huge advantages" lol....right.
Come on Giliell...that's crap and you know it. There is no "huge advantage" an autistic kid can have. They are autistic. A hug advantage would be....not being autistic. That's the only huge advantage I can really think of.

I frankly think it's over-diagnosed in a lot of cases and that our current heathcare policy is heavily flawed because you can get a lot of things like speech therapy and ergotherapy or behavioural therapy both for parents and kids if you got the diagnosis ASD or ADHD, but not if your child simply has some problems.

Yeah...that's the tip of the iceberg of problems though G.

You do know that the scientific community is pretty international? That research magazines are published and sold all over the world. By now even German (natural) scientists are on the large able to read something in English, most of them even write passable English but I'd still advice not to listen to their English because it makes your ears shed blood.

LOL. Well, good for them for being bilingual. I doubt most researchers here in the states would be as dedicated. But I do believe their spoken english is pretty bad. lol...

BTW, the author of that article isn't contradicting himself. He never denied that autism rates were increasing , he only listed numerous studies indicating that it didn't have anything to do with vaccination.

No, he actually listed articles where he showed it had "nothing to do with mercury." Lets be fair. He never proved vaccines don't cause it. And furthermore, his "proof" that mercury doesn't cause autism is that rates remained high despite mercury being "removed" from many vaccines. But what if autism is a disorder that is multifaceted? For instance it appears aluminum can mimic mercury poisoning often times. And we know aluminum was increased just as thimerosal was "decreased" (even though it wasn't really decreased all the way, and instead it was simply redistributed via other vaccines, ie flu shots). He did contradict himself. It was piss poor journalism.

nd yes, he's right: Anti-vaccinationists blamed the mercury. It was removed, no change, so they blamed the aluminium. You say they started to vaccinate more, but that's not true either, because nowadays there are kombi-vaccines, so the amount of aluminium or any other substance injected into the body is much, much lower than it was 10 years ago when you'd get 6 times 0.5ml of vaccine with it's component of mercury or aluminium instead of one shot now.

...bullshit.

And "naturally" foreign substances are injected into your body all the time. What do you think mosquitos, wasps, bees and all the likes are doing?

yeah...in quantities small enough to not cause severe damage. But not all proteins are created equal are they. Which is why certain spider bites can kill you. And none of those natural exposures are high in volume or contain all kinds of compounds like heavy metal adjuvents, etc.
Giliell...once again G, you are setting up straw men left and right.

It's ok though. I suppose I would make similar points if I was in your position.

Have a good one!

In friendship

 

[Giliell]

No, actually you're wrong. Children respond more to the fat content of the milk when they are that young. Anyway, I was referring to the age of weening. In nature do you know which party is the one that determines when they stop breastfeeding? It's not the mother. It's the young. The offspring is the one who discontinues to milk, when THEY lose their taste for it. Soon thereafter, they respond to one thing in specific: SWEET FRUITS. This is not even controversial.

Says who? And whose "in nature". What nature, species, himans, animals?

Equivocation error. By "forcefeed" I didn't mean physically. I meant, the poor child doesn't know how to talk or give you feedback. It will respond to hunger. If all you offer it is milk, meat, and bread, it will eventually eat it because its HUNGRY. But you are FORCING it to eat that food. Forcing, as in, limiting its ability to get its natural diet. And that, my friends, is criminal.

I'll simply give you the benefit of not having children. Believe me, they can give you a hell lot of feedback. Spitting the whole stuff back into your face and screaming their heads off is quite explicite feedback telling you "I don't like this".

You do what you want. But don't pretend like just because your daughter decided to eat some foods that are DESIGNED to stimulate your pleasure center in the brain, that those foods are good. By that token, candy bars, ice cream, dunkin doughnuts, and soda pop are all excellent dietary choices for your daughter.

They are, indeed. Once in a while.

First of all the difference between grains and seeds:
Seeds are the broad category of those components of the plant that have the ability to spawn new plant life from.

So what do you think they actually grow wheat and barley from?
And since when can't they be eaten raw?
Your difference between seeds and grains seems to be "seeds are what I consider good, grain is what I don't consider good"

What did the internet do with our biology changing? This is a straw man. I like you Giliell, but you're being unfair here.

Nope, it's not. But if you want a totally biological comparisson: Show me any other species that wears clothes. There isn't any. So, should I run naked in winter?

How many fruits do you know that you have to cook to make edible, or that need spices or sugar or ketchup or mustard added to them to make them taste good?

Beans and potatoes are actually poisonous if eaten raw. Egg-plants taste like wet paper. Chirimoya tastes like wet paper with sugar. Rhubarb is poisonous if eaten raw and can be very, very sour. And almost all UNCULTIVATED fruits are extremely sour and hard.

Now that's Orwellian double speak if I ever heard it. Lol. "Huge bunch of advantages you can get your child if it's diagnosed as autistic."
How about the huge advantage of being 100% certain that your child ISN'T autistic in the first place by:

Nope, you're twisting words. I said "diagnosed autistic", not "being autistic". Oh, btw, I know some high-functioning autistic people who actually think that it's an advantage to be autistic because they are more logical and less emotional.

No, he actually listed articles where he showed it had "nothing to do with mercury." Lets be fair. He never proved vaccines don't cause it. And furthermore, his "proof" that mercury doesn't cause autism is that rates remained high despite mercury being "removed" from many vaccines. But what if autism is a disorder that is multifaceted? For instance it appears aluminum can mimic mercury poisoning often times. And we know aluminum was increased just as thimerosal was "decreased" (even though it wasn't really decreased all the way, and instead it was simply redistributed via other vaccines, ie flu shots). He did contradict himself. It was piss poor journalism.

But what if... is simply moving the goalposts. You yourself showed us looooong posts and excerpts about how the mercury caused supposedly the autism, then you were kindly pointed out that it's been removed so you come up with aluminium. Then it's the vaccination itself you claimed on the other hand was totally ineffective.

...bullshit.

Like it or not, simple fact.

Actually both those children are males. Is that acceptable now? Are you of the opinion that the body is something that needs to be covered up? Many places around the world have no issue with nudity. I personally don't either. I am not offended by it, nor do I think much clothing is important. In fact I wish public nudity was encouraged. Most people would then not be able to hide their body behind loose fitting clothing to obscure their physique and instead they would feel compelled to get healthy. Many would probably realize that raw foods are the best and healthiest way of attaining that end.
Nudity. It's great!

No, it's not.
I have no issue with nudity at all, and I even don't feel ashamed of my fat body, so your scheme would totally fail.
But to post pictures of naked kids or linking them on the internet is a gross violation of their privacy. There's such a thing as pedophiles and to serve them "food" on the internet without the consent of the children or parents is a bad thing.

 

[paradigm667]

Says who? And whose "in nature". What nature, species, himans, animals?

Well...science says so.
And whose "in nature"...well...I don't believe I see what you're asking or getting at here. Forgive me for my ignorance. I honestly don't understand what your point is that you are trying to make.

I'll simply give you the benefit of not having children. Believe me, they can give you a hell lot of feedback. Spitting the whole stuff back into your face and screaming their heads off is quite explicite feedback telling you "I don't like this".

They spit out fruits when you gave them to them? If so, was this after you introduced them to refined junk food? If not, were the fruits ripe?

They are, indeed. Once in a while.

You would say they are "excellent" dietary choices? "Once in a while"? How often is that? Like once every couple dozen hours? lol..

So what do you think they actually grow wheat and barley from?

uhh...from seeds. And seeds that are from grasses and flowering plants are called "grains" they are in a different category that ALL other seeds. I thought I just explained this...lol...and they are damaging..for the various reasons I listed off...

And since when can't they be eaten raw?

"A food edible in raw form by a particular species indicates its physiological suitability for that species. Grains of course are inedible and indigestible when raw. Compare this on the other hand with graminivorous creatures like birds. They have a very powerful digestive system called a gizzard that enables them to grind up and digest grains. In the late 1700s, scientists found that a tube of sheet iron that could normally only be dented by a load of 36 kilograms (about 79 lbs.) was flattened and partly rolled up after being in a turkey stomach for 24 hours! A chap named Spallanzani found that a turkey stomach could grind to pieces 12 steel needles in 36 hours and 16 surgical lancets in 16 hours.
No wonder birds can handle grain well while we can't!

Whole meal cereals and other seeds have in their shells phytic acid which strongly binds to minerals like calcium, iron, zinc and magnesium to form insoluble salts, phytates. It is well known that whole meal cereals by this mechanism decrease the absorption of such minerals. There is apparently no adaptation to a habitual high intake of phytic acid which is an important contributing cause of iron deficiency in third world countries and possibly in the western world. It is also an important cause of mineral deficiency in vegetarians. A large percentage of Indian women are deficient in iron and this is probably due to the predominance of grains in our diet. The most commonly studied minerals are bound to phytic acid possibly in the following decreasing order: calcium > iron > zinc > magnesium. Not even rats seem to be fully adapted to graminivorous diets since phytate adversely affects mineral absorption in them as well .

So much for grains in general, lets look at wheat in particular. The gluten in wheat is causes serious problems to several people - celiacs in particular (people who suffer from gluten intolerance) approximately 30% of the population. Even others have serious and multifarous problems with gluten - visit http://www.gluten-free.org/hoggan/ or
http://www.panix.com/~donwiss/reichelt.html to see for yourself the effects of gluten.
Some people even say that wheat is a cause for autism and austistic children do well on a gluten-free diet. Further reading regarding wheat and gluten problems are in the links section alongside."
...

"Birds can handle grains easily we can't. Even after cooking, the complex carbohydrates need to be broken down substantially before they become simple sugars that can be absorbed by the body. Humans unfortunately have only one relatively weak starch splitting enzyme, pytalin or amylase, whereas other herbivores have five to six of them. Grains take upto 4 hours or more in the stomach to be digested. Fruits on the other hand take less than 30 minutes."

"Grains are not efficiently digested
Grains are typically washed down our throats with liquids and sauces. Any liquid with the grain results in the suspension of secretion of salivary amylase. So starch digestion in the mouth is hindered leaving the job entirely to the stomach.

There too there are problems caused by the combinations in which grain is eaten. Chicken curry with rice, rice with dal, bread with cheese etc are commonly consumed foods. These protein /starch combinations present peculiar problems to the digestive system since proteins require an acidic medium to digest and starches and carbohydrates require an alkaline medium. When both are eaten togeth

As a result, less than 50% of the caloric value of the grains is available to the body , after deducting the expenditure of energy required to digest it. On the other hand, fruits for example yield over 90% of their fuel values, net-net.

Grains are Acidic
Since the human body has to maintain it's alkalinity to survive, it thrives best on alkaline foods. Grains (with the exception of millet) are acidic in reaction. On the other hand, fruits and veggies are alkaline

Refined grains are not Vitamin sufficient
Whole grain (whole wheat, unpolished rice) do have a fair complement of vitamins, but very few people eat whole grains. The majority have refined industrially processed grains (white polished rice, white flour or maida). Almost all the vitamins are lost in this process when the grain is stripped of its vitamin-rich coverings/bran.

Whatever vitamins are left are likely to be destroyed/leached away by cooking especially if the cooking water is thrown away. Most vitamins are heat sensitive anyway

All of the above points apply in general to lentils too except for the gluten problems."

Cool?

Your difference between seeds and grains seems to be "seeds are what I consider good, grain is what I don't consider good"

I don't make the rules. Nature/physiology/anatomy/evolution does. I simply find out the rules to the game, and abide.

Nope, it's not. But if you want a totally biological comparisson: Show me any other species that wears clothes. There isn't any. So, should I run naked in winter?

See, that's a valid point. And the answer: I cannot find any species that does also wear clothes.
But lets see what clothe's have done for us:
If they are made out of synthetic materials, often times we can have skin reactions to them, if we wear too many, too often we become deficient in vitamin D, if we wear them too tight it messes up our circulation. Show me animals in nature that need clothes.

We wear clothes in the winter because the use of our intelligent brains allowed us to come up with novel make-shift ways of adapting to other environments than the natural African Savanna that we inhabited for the majority of our evolutionary time here on earth.

You're example, only proves me own point.

Beans and potatoes are actually poisonous if eaten raw. Egg-plants taste like wet paper

Which is why I do not eat either beans or potatoes. Nor eggplants.

Chirimoya tastes like wet paper with sugar.

You've OBVIOUSLY never had a ripe chermoya.

Rhubarb is poisonous if eaten raw and can be very, very sour.

Which is why I do not eat it.

And almost all UNCULTIVATED fruits are extremely sour and hard.

Wrong again, and this just shows that you are not a bad person, but simply uneducated on these matters.

Nope, you're twisting words. I said "diagnosed autistic", not "being autistic". Oh, btw, I know some high-functioning autistic people who actually think that it's an advantage to be autistic because they are more logical and less emotional.

I know people with no legs that claim it gave them inspiration in life. You do what you can. If I was autistic I would try and look at the brightside too. Don't fool yourself for a second and think that people with autism prefer it. And no. I wasn't twisting words. I was showing how ridiculous your comment was in the face of a serious issue.

But what if... is simply moving the goalposts. You yourself showed us looooong posts and excerpts about how the mercury caused supposedly the autism, then you were kindly pointed out that it's been removed so you come up with aluminium. Then it's the vaccination itself you claimed on the other hand was totally ineffective.

I can see your concern here. But you're imagining things. Let me explain something.
In fact, let me just give you an example:
SSRI drugs cause homicidal and suicidal thoughts and actions. Say in one year a specific SSRI floods the market and in one small district, lets say 2000 kids are put on a specific SSRI. School shootings skyrocket with 4 that year whereas in the previous 20 years none occurred. It is concluded that it appears the specific SSRI drug is to blame because all 4 of the kids were on them, and all of them showed the side effects of the drugging.
The following year, in order to prove that the specific SSRI in question is not to blame for the increased madness and school shootings, it is only given in smaller doses and only to 200 of the 2000 who were previously on them. However, at the same time, a new type of SSRI drug is given to the children instead, although it functions a bit differently on different receptors, but has the same overall effect...
School shootings that year are 5 in number. Thus, it is proof that the first SSRI didn't cause or have anything to do with the initial 4 school shootings, right?

I think you see what I'm getting at. Don't accuse me of goal post moving.

Mercury causes autism. Nobody ever said ONLY mercury causes autism. Come on G, don't be cheap like that. You're accusing me of moving goalposts, when its you that is assuming things that simply aren't true. Namely, that mercury is the ONLY thing that causes autism. When they removed mercury, they should have done a few things:
Namely,
-REMOVE IT ENTIRELY, not just pussyfoot and still keep it in some shots, and also most shots didn't have it CONFIRMED to be removed 100%, and some shots even today still have a slight amount of residue in them. That's not "removal" that's partial removal.
-NOT promote the use of MORE vaccines and increase the amount of flu shots each year.
-NOT add in new compounds like aluminum while taking mercury out.

To be scientific you have to have a CONTROL. AND ONLY MESS WITH ONE VARIABLE AT A TIME, if you want to prove causation.

This argument would FAIL an elementary school science fair if you tried to use the official "proof" that autism isn't caused by mercury being peddled by the establishment. Shame on them for being that pathetic, but shame on everyone else for actually believing the official storyline is legit! Shame!

Like it or not, simple fact.

No...actually when I said "bullshit" what I meant was..."BULLSHIT."

No, it's not.
I have no issue with nudity at all, and I even don't feel ashamed of my fat body, so your scheme would totally fail.
But to post pictures of naked kids or linking them on the internet is a gross violation of their privacy. There's such a thing as pedophiles and to serve them "food" on the internet without the consent of the children or parents is a bad thing.

Ohh my god, now you're depressing me. You're honestly going to take offense at a naked baby? PEDOPHILES? Yeah..there may be pedophiles...but I know VERY FEW...actually I DON'T KNOW ANY ... INFANT-O-PHILES. Maybe I just don't get out enough...But...consider this:
-I know the lady whose website it is.
-She made it a PUBLIC website
-Those are HER kids (and they are absolutely beautiful little fellas)
-There is NOTHING wrong with even a sick pedophile looking at that picture. So what if there are pedophiles that would look at the picture. I'm not a pedophile, but let's be honest...what harm would that do? Some sick bastard sits at home and gets off to a picture of a little kid. OK...any harm done to you? If anything that kept them from perhaps being out and about in society doing something worse, or committing a crime.

I say leave the pedophiles alone! If they violate a child or approach an innocent child I will step in if I am aware of the situation, but just having a thought...hell. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't see your obsession with worrying about pedophiles. It's a beautiful child. It's a human being. Relax. LOL.

And yeah, if you are or are not comfortable with your body, is only something you can be sure about. I study psychology and, what I have found is that most people, are quiet conscious of their bodies and for the most part, they either find a way to "deal with" they way their body looks and say they like it, or they really do. But it's hard to tell the difference often times.

But one thing I do notice is that people, in general, again..this is not everyone...but in general, people who are indeed unhappy with their bodies etc, TEND to say things like "I'm not ashamed of my body" or "I am comfortable with my body."

They very rarely say things like "I love my body" or "I actually really like the way my body is, I wouldn't have it any other way."

For instance, I can give you myself for an example.

Not being modest at all I can say that I truly love the way my body looks. I prefer it and I wouldn't change a thing about it. I can assure you, I would be COMPLETELY happy with public nudity. I only don't do it because I know I would get strange stares from others. But if it was viable, I would totally do it.

I don't know if you are just as eager to strip down to your birthday suit. I may be wrong, but I rarely am about these kinds of things...


In friendship

 

[Talono]

Authority? Is that what it takes to make a fact a fact? It has to come from a figure of authority? What kind of authority do doctors have, btw to define health.

Um... an undergraduate degree, 4 years of medical training, hundreds of hours of clinical experience, and sometimes an extra few years of residency?

Weird? What's the problem with looking weird? Goodness I hope I don't look normal!

The problem is you were showing notions of grandeur.I came close to calling that paragraph a manic episode.

And what does this have to do with conspiracies. I'm wasn't attacking modern medicine there as a conspiracy, I was attacking it as something that simply doesn't work. Ineffectual. Not conspiracy.

I was referring to your belief in the HIV/Zeitgiest conspiracy theories.

The way studies are conducted, they are designed to isolate individual compounds and match them up against a placebo. This is a great setup for pills and drugs, but terrible for nutrition and lifestyle, which is multi-dimensional. And if you think nutrition and health aren't INTIMATELY related, you simply haven't read the journals I have. You can start with the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Great information in there.

Then why are you becoming a ND? They do not practice evidence based medicine. They teach you homeopathy for God's sake.

 

[Aught3]

I though this thread was about anti-vax nonsense, not any type of nonsense you feel like.

 

[Talono]

Well...science says so.

More specifically?

And whose "in nature"...well...I don't believe I see what you're asking or getting at here. Forgive me for my ignorance. I honestly don't understand what your point is that you are trying to make.

She is referring to "In nature do you know which party is the one that determines when they stop breastfeeding? It's not the mother." She wants to know what species exactly.

Obviously behavior will vary from species to species and saying that this is "in nature" is a generalization that requires supporting evidence acquired from studies of several species.

Wrong again, and this just shows that you are not a bad person, but simply uneducated on these matters.

You can't just say "You're wrong" and run away without providing any evidence. That's a totally stupid and unproductive way of discussing controversy.

No...actually when I said "bullshit" what I meant was..."BULLSHIT."

Like I said above, "You're wrong" and run away.

 

[paradigm667]

@ Talano

Um... an undergraduate degree, 4 years of medical training, hundreds of hours of clinical experience, and sometimes an extra few years of residency?

Right, and still patients continue to outlive their doctors. I was not asking about how doctors have the right to diagnose disease. They are moderately OK at this. What I asked was were is the authority to diagnose HEALTH. Doctors do not even know what this means. This is a significant problem. We have an entire "health" industry that is really a disease-identifying industry. What do doctors know about health? Very little. This is why their patients don't improve their quality of life and this is also why doctors themselves do not walk the walk. They get heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc, just like the rest of the average joes out there. They just charge you a SHITLOAD of money to tell you that which you already should be able to figure out: "What you're doing, isn't working."

The problem is you were showing notions of grandeur.I came close to calling that paragraph a manic episode.

Well, I appreciate your opinion. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?

I was referring to your belief in the HIV/Zeitgiest conspiracy theories.

I don't have beliefs in any theories. I study facts. I analyze the information I am exposed to and derive conclusions based on sound logic and reasoning. Most people that try and dispute my point of view on HIV end up dropping out of the debate. I barely even posted a few posts on the HIV "denialism" thread on this very forum, after a few attempted refutations of even my most precursory introductory points nobody has responded to my last point.
If you wanna test your understanding of that phenomenon, I invite you to seek out that thread and I look forward to having a discussion on that matter.

Then why are you becoming a ND? They do not practice evidence based medicine. They teach you homeopathy for God's sake.

Ohh my god! Homeopathy: The treatment that kills hundreds of thousands a year! Wait...that's modern medicine...nevermind. And it's over 300,000 per year now that diet due to perfectly "normal" prescriptions and procedures that go awry.
Yeah, lets get angry at homeopathy.
You know what's funny...since we ARE on the topic of vaccination...lets look at homeopathy, which by they way I consider a fringe pseudoscience myself, as you do...but lets look at the homeopathic law of similars. This is the EXACT same concept as vaccination and yet, everyone who is pro vaccine is against homeopathy. Interesting, isn't it.
See, I'm not a fan of homeopathy, but I extend that same skepticism to vaccination as well, as it is one and the same as homeopathy.

But why do I wanna be an ND, uhh...because some people out there actually don't want to live the rest of their life doing nothing more than adding a few extra pills to their little daily medicine plastic trays that they put their meds in bit by bit each year, as they at the same time watch their health deteriorate from some "unknown" causes that the doctors just can't figure out. That's why.
Because the power of nutrition is superior to ALMOST any drug out there, and nutrition doesn't harm anyone. It doesn't cause "side effects." By the way "side effects" is nothing more than Bernaysian PR bullshit. It's not a "SIDE" effect when it happens with regularity and severity. It's an effect. But that sucks to say that, because then it sounds like you're ingesting poisonous substances doesn't it. lol...


@ Aught3

I though this thread was about anti-vax nonsense, not any type of nonsense you feel like.

You just hate me. Admit it. It's OK. I don't mind...

@ Talano again

You can't just say "You're wrong" and run away without providing any evidence. That's a totally stupid and unproductive way of discussing controversy.

LOL. Sure I can. When it's blatantly obvious that the claim is wrong. If someone says "carrots aren't roots." I think it's quite OK for me to simply say something like "you're wrong" and be done with it. It's not my fault a simple fact is not understood. Indeed SOME wild fruits are bitter and sour...
-depending on region
-depending on if you know when to pick them
-depending on type of fruit etc

I can disprove that claim immediately anyways. I just got back from Sedona, AZ 3 weeks ago and I was foraging with a big plastic bin lined with paper towels for ripe delicious blackberries. Totally in their wild state, right alongside the creek that runs through the town. Totally ripe, sweet, amazingly delicious.
Go and find wild coconuts, or wild durian, or wild melons...in the tropics...I think you will be sad to find out how amazingly sweet and good they taste.

Quite frankly, I can't even believe I have to make this point...lol. Unreal.

Like I said above, "You're wrong" and run away.

I don't really know where I am running to though. If you read the original post that I said "bullshit" to...it was a post made based on speculation. In court, one would say "objection your honor, speculation." And the judge very simply would say "sustained."

I rest my case.

In friendship