I am done here... Enjoy living with your quackery...
I sense we we have irreconcilable differences of opinion here.
Yes, I only know what I read, which goes for most of us. There are so many differing opinions out there that it's difficult to know who to believe. Whose advice do we follow when the experts disagree? When I really don't know, I look at the risk I take by following one or the others advice. Just a thought.
I sense you believe those with the highest reputations, who are in general agreement with their colleagues and most noted professional organizations. I, on the other hand, look to both the recognized experts and the mavericks. If there is something worth knowing, I want to know it and don't care where it comes from. So you are right that much of what I believe is unproven. I want the advantage of this knowledge during the 20 years or so it takes the experts to discover it is true. I'll live with the risks, but be cautious about what I accept.
Such differences of opinion are easy for me to accept. You go your way and I'll go mine, and we can still be friendly. 75 percent of my close friends don't believe me and don't want my opinions about health. That's okay, I don't share my knowledge with them unless they ask for it. I might venture a remark like, "Do you want to know what I think?" On a forum like this, no one is forced to read any of this stuff.
The only problem I have with difference of opinions is enforcement, like regulations that prohibit me from buying and eating what I want. If things get bad enough, I may need to investigate the freedom allowed in other nations. New Zealand is one that comes to mind.
Yes, there are those in power who think everyone should do it their way and only their way. Therefore, we who want to follow a different road must fight for this right. If it were not for the many who are willing to take regulatory agencies to court, we would not be free to buy half the supplements on the market today, which includes many of the most important. I understand it is worse elsewhere, and I really feel for those who must live there yet yearn to be different.
Those on one end of the population are happy with a great deal of regulation. Those on the other end want the freedom to buy what they wish. Those in the middle don't care. Almost no one on either end wants either total control or total freedom, but the distinction between the end groups is very clear. I'm in the freedom group obviously.
I'll give one personal example. My wife suffered from debilitating symptoms for over ten years, and has seen about ten different doctors with no help. A year ago she got on an internet health forum, and discovered her diagnosis: adrenal fatigue and hypothyroidism. She searched and found one doctor in Portland who sounded like he could help. He changed her diet, prescribed some new supplements and put her on a natural T3/T4 hormone. I'm glad we found a doctor, considered a Quack by some I'm sure, who knows what to do. The other doctors saw the same lab test results, but did not interpret them correctly. Even the endocrinologists were worthless. She is now slowly recovering, after years or neglect by the 'recognized' medical profession, who all followed 'recognized' medical protocol.
In your opinion I "have demonstrated a shear lack of critical thinking," yet I really do "enjoy living with my quackery." I recommend it.
I don't believe that people with the highest repute are the most correct, but consensus and sound scientific evidence goes much much further when making statements with certainty. There is NO proof that a balanced raw food diets are any better for you than a balanced cooked food diet. But more than that, there isn't even a smidgeon of evidence to suggest it. Citing debunked 'research' or archaic theories to support your diet just makes you look like a fool.
I don't believe that people with the highest repute are the most correct, but consensus and sound scientific evidence goes much much further when making statements with certainty. There is NO proof that a balanced raw food diets are any better for you than a balanced cooked food diet.
All true. Many time I must make up my mind when there is no sound scientific evidence supporting one of the alternatives. Often I just try it and play guinea pig. I'm surprised how often the experiment succeeds, and I begin to feel better. I find this is a good way to adjust natural hormone usage too. I change the level. If I don't improve I go back to the old level. If I begin to feel better, I continue for about 12 weeks, tell the doctor and have my levels checked. So far he has said to keep doing it.
Quote:
But more than that, there isn't even a smidgeon of evidence to suggest it. Citing debunked 'research' or archaic theories to support your diet just makes you look like a fool.
I don't mind looking like a fool if it works. But I'm also not convinced anything was debunked from what I read. I'll have to look into it more in the future, however, just to satisfy myself and to be able to answer questions more intelligently.
I see that Quackwatch debunks all opposition to fluoridating the public water supply. Nice. I wonder what those in the EU think about that. From what I hear, the EU does not even allow public fluoridation of water. Quackwatch also debunks opposition to using mercury amalgam dental fillings. Those writing act like these are not controversial issues, but well proven and safe practices. I don't believe it. If it makes me a fool, so be it. Quack, quack.
And nothing beats a steak at Ruth's Chris served extra rare... melt in the mouth. But that's kind of out of my price range...
Tonton, you have good taste. I love rare steak. The short grilling kills any bacteria on the surface. Don't eat rare ground meat, since the bacteria are thoroughly mix in.
Regarding raw vegetables, the typical salad varieties are fine and we eat lots of salads here. I was speaking of those who try to eat all or most all raw food. Many vegetables should not be eaten raw, like potatoes. Even so, it is a trade off between the taste and texture of things like tomatoes, onions, garlic, broccoli and carrots, and the added nutrients released when these are cooked or steamed. Other vegetables are just better cooked or steamed, like all forms of beans and corn.
By the way, you might like Pinnacle Peaks Patio, outside Phoenix, Arizona, if it is still there. Twenty miles of dirt road and there it is, surrounded by twenty miles of cactus. If you wear a tie, they sneak up and cut it off, but give you an Arizona lariat, or what ever it is called, to go around your collar. They ask, how do you want it? All stakes are the same, and two pounds. You get a prize for eating it all. They have lots of doggy bags however.
I see that Quackwatch debunks all opposition to fluoridating the public water supply. Nice. I wonder what those in the EU think about that. From what I hear, the EU does not even allow public fluoridation of water. Quackwatch also debunks opposition to using mercury amalgam dental fillings. Those writing act like these are not controversial issues, but well proven and safe practices. I don't believe it. If it makes me a fool, so be it. Quack, quack.
The EU states nothing explicitly about fluoridation... however where the member nations lack fluoridation of water they use fluoridated salts so practically nothing is different. The amount of mercury leaking from amalgam fillings is less than the amount you get from eating fish from almost any natural source... You seem to have a fear of chemicals, is there something you would like to ask a chemist (one of my several scientific hats)?
The EU states nothing explicitly about fluoridation. . . The amount of mercury leaking from amalgam fillings is less than the amount you get from eating fish from almost any natural source. . .
Fluoridation and mercury amalgam dental fillings are just two controversial issues supposedly being debunked. The debunkers can give the impression that the opposition consists of uninformed folks who fear anything new or different. Not so. The opponents include a large number of very concerned scientists, many from prestigious universities around the world. So I am not impressed by your simple answers here. Google can yield detailed reasons for wanting to avoid such things, if anybody is interested. Regarding fluoridation, a quick look at Google turned up this page with some references:
One in particular caught my eye. An EPA employee was pressured to write into the drinking water regulation a statement that the EPA considers it okay for children to have discolored teeth because it is only a cosmetic effect, and does not affect health. It seems the EPA was under political pressure to set its standard for fluoride higher. One thing lead to another, and EPA employees union ultimately organize to fight fluoridation completely, as more and more data on fluoridation became available. The article can be found here:
A simple answer exists for many issues, including why cooked foods are just as healthy as raw foods, but when scientists dig deeper I've noticed it gets more complicated. Many times it takes years to discover the truth. What do we do until then? For myself, I act on incomplete knowledge to find the safest and most beneficial route.
Why should I expose myself to potential dangers, which may turn out to be real dangers when we know more? It does not hurt me or my children if there is no fluoride in Portland's drinking water. We visit a good dentist often enough to catch any problems early, which have been very few. Usually it's just cleaning the teeth.
Likewise, why should I deprive myself of most raw foods and many supplements and herbs that haven't been proven, yet, to be beneficial? It's just my personal preference to act this way, and so far no one has come up with a good enough reason for me to change.
BTW, my wife is an RN, and when we got married everything went by the book, like the Merck Manual. Since her episode with adrenal fatigue and low thyroid, however, she has turned against 'recognized' medicine, and is now open to whatever works best.
Another BTW, I would have no objection to fluoridated salt, if non-fluoridated salt is also available. That way there is freedom of choice. I don't want the government forcing just one approach onto everybody. You're a chemist. I understand it is relatively easy to remove chlorine from drinking water, but is very difficult to remove fluoride. Let me know if I'm mistaken.
I grew up in a city that didn't have to add any fluoride because the water was already naturally fluoridated.
That's right.
In the >100,000 person population of my city there was NO increase in any disease people propose as possibly maybe being caused by flouridation... It just doesn't happen. Some overly hydrated kids had brownish teeth, but the rate of carries was far far lower than other nearby cities...
Chlorine isn't chloride as fluorine isn't fluoride. The antimicrobial 'chlorine' agent breaks down to volatile compounds thus allowing it to evaporate naturally from sitting water. Fluoride is a negatively charged atom which like chloride is all but impossible to evaporate...
Regardless, the government doesn't force you to drink city water -- it provides it as a service. Just like public transportation, you can choose not to use it...
well for a so-called scientist to dismiss all the evidence about fluoridation of the water supply and its devastating effects only proves that he has had far too much exposure to fluoridated water and a perfect example of why fluorinated water should be a capital crime.
As for this so called 'choice' to drink it - what a joke - as always its the people who are the least educated and least able to 'chose' (ie afford) an alternative and who are least able to afford the subsequent health care to pay for the problem who are fucked over by this criminal act, just like it is with the 'choice' of safe food vs chemical junk.
FFS, the Nazi's and communists hatched plans to fluorinate the water supplies of countries specifically because it turns the populace into mental mush.
Is there a link? Fluorinated water - mental mush. America - population. Hmmm.
Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride allegedly shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one package.
I dont care whether its specifically labelled as a disease or not.
It is a book chapter page by page... Lots of technical jargon, well cited...
I suspect you would ingest quite a bit if you'd been drinking the fluorinated water for 80 years from birth.
I guess the Nazi's just wanted to keep the polish kids teeth from decaying?
As you know, I love Science - but 'Science' in connection with pharmaceuticals, medicine and military use is ususally perverted beyond recognition. It isn't Science at all - it is PR bollocks masquerading as Science with the intent to make $$$
I'd trust my mothers 'old wives tales' over a pharma company.
You might think this silly - but why are many many deciding not to trust the pharmaceutical companies??? Its definately a growing problem and its IMO because we can see through the real intent of their PR 'Science' - and that intent is not to make us better, it is to get us to buy their drugs - and increasingly become addicted or dependant on their drugs.
Many are not trusting pharma companies because they are corporations; profit is the bottom line. I don't trust them. Hell, I think their business model and procedures for developing drugs are borderline inane, but that doesn't mean I don't trust the science they do (if they actually do any science)...
As you know marc, dosage is critical when talking about well anything consumed... you probably have drunk enough alcohol to kill yourself several times over by now, but remarkably you aren't dead... Fluorine is eliminated from adult humans in a few hours -- kidney impairment aside...
For the sake of full disclosure, while I think people tend to overblow the significance of these and other chemicals on their lives and don't properly consider the balance between our current state and the alternatives, I don't swallow my toothpaste, if I ever need a filling I will ask that it not be a mercury amalgam, and for whatever reason I am not naturally inclined to drinking tap water... Meh. In addition, I don't eat mammals so my intake of growth hormones is far lower than average.
In most cases fluorine in the water is completely safe, this much is scientifically proven. The effects of too much fluorine are being investigated and the jury is still out... Environment and genetics plays obviously a role in this and responses to all chemicals, whether percieved to come from natural sources or man made (there is no difference)...
My most pressing concern about the water supply is the growing number of detectable pharmaceuticals, especially hormone based ones, in the water supply... And this has nothing to do with the government and will blow up in our face more than the fluoride scare...
It's the cyanide content in peanuts which isn't good for your co-enzyme factors struggling to make sense of the peanut. Same thing with almonds. The sulphur compounds (sulfur? for States guys) in overcooked broccoli also poses a liver challenge. Nothing fatal, but not ideal if you're trying to reduce the amount of free-radicals in your body. That's one reason why raw foods (other than nuts) can be helpful - high in antioxidants (e.g. Vitamin C) which mop up the free radicals.
Quote:
My most pressing concern about the water supply is the growing number of detectable pharmaceuticals, especially hormone based ones, in the water supply... And this has nothing to do with the government and will blow up in our face more than the fluoride scare...
And the pharmaceutical companies will counter that some of the high hormone levels are due to women flushing their spent tampons in the toilet, causing a rise of oestrogen (estrogen for you States guys?) in the water. This 'oestrogenisation' in the water is also speculated to contribute to rising rates of male infertility.
PS - why are some of you guys behaving post-menopausal in the attitude of your posts?
And the pharmaceutical companies will counter that some of the high hormone levels are due to women flushing their spent tampons in the toilet, causing a rise of oestrogen (estrogen for you States guys?) in the water. This 'oestrogenisation' in the water is also speculated to contribute to rising rates of male infertility.
Maybe, but I worked in a sewage treatment plant for a bit and the wastewater goes through some serious filtration: mechanical and chemical. I don't know how resilient estrogen hormones are in the presence of chlorine and/or bleach.
I don't believe that people with the highest repute are the most correct, but consensus and sound scientific evidence goes much much further when making statements with certainty. There is NO proof that a balanced raw food diets are any better for you than a balanced cooked food diet. But more than that, there isn't even a smidgeon of evidence to suggest it. Citing debunked 'research' or archaic theories to support your diet just makes you look like a fool.
My word hardeeharhar.. Are we a bit negative in this thread?
I think you are ignorant or refuse to see the truth when it comes to health and what promotes it.
I can tell you it is not hard to see that those who avoid a high sugar and high fat diet are at less risk of the three largest killers in America Heart Disease, Diabetes and Cancer.
Those who consume less sodium chloride and possibly use something like sea salt or Mrs. Dash do better in terms of managing blood pressure etc.
Some foods harm the body some heal the body.
Phytosterols promote healthy cholesterol balance between LDL and HDL.
I would suggest some reading for any and all who have any desire to have better health
Ginger Common Spice and Wonder Drug:
By Paul Schulick
Probiotics: Nature's Internal Healers
By Natasha Trenev
If you read these two books it will spark a new found desire to expand your journey of wellness and health knowledge and action.
Also I personally reject much of the Big Pharma prescriptions given by contemporary medicine. I find that in America we do not have a Health Care System rather a Sick Care System.
If you want health forget "most" doctors as they will only have a surgury or pill to offer you to "hopefully" treat the symptom(s) you are having due to bad choices which have taken your body to a condition of disrepair.
If you want health you have to make some choices and eat right and excercise.
is living proof of what taking care of your body can do for you if you make an effort.
If you like to stay sick and have pills from your doctor just continue to eat processed foods with MSG, High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificial colors, hydrogenated fats and white flour with nutrients stripped out.
I personally avoid high levels of certain foods which produce uric acid in the body which can trigger the cascade of inflamation.
I eat foods with ingredients such as Turmeric which contains Curcumin which is an anti-inflamitory as well as Ginger and Green tea for the same reason.
Anti-Inflamitory.
Thrombosis, sticky blood and blood clots are helped by cox-2 but NOT VIOXX or Celebrex. Green Tea instead.
There are also three other pathways of inflamation which certain foods can help vastly such as ginger.
Digestive enzymes were the main focus of this thread early on. Opponents of enzyme supplements and raw food claimed that enzymes were broken down by stomach acid and were, therefore, useless. Here is some additional information I culled on this topic, from Jon Barron, Baseline of Health. His website is:
What nature intended is that you eat enzyme rich foods and chew your food properly. If you did that, the food would enter the stomach laced with digestive enzymes. These enzymes would then "predigest" your food for about an hour -- actually breaking down as much as 75% of your meal.
Only after this period of "pre-digestion" are hydrochloric acid and pepsin introduced. The acid inactivates all of the food-based enzymes, but begins its own function of breaking down what is left of the meal in combination with the acid energized enzyme pepsin.
In an attempt to overcompensate for lack of enzymes in the food, the stomach produces an inordinate amount of stomach acid to compensate, leading to acid indigestion. Taking antacids or purple pills doesn't actually solve the problem; it merely eliminates one of the symptoms. Ultimately, though, it passes even more quantities of poorly digested food into the intestinal tract where it leads to gas, bloating, bad digestion, chronic digestive disorders, in addition to blowing out your pancreas, which tries to compensate by producing huge amounts of digestive enzymes for use in the small intestine.
The simple solution for most people with excess stomach acid is to supplement with digestive enzymes which can digest up to 70% of the meal in the pre-acid phase, thus eliminating the need for large amounts of stomach acid and also taking tremendous stress off the digestive system and the pancreas.
If you spend years forcing your body to massively overproduce stomach acid to compensate for the lack of enzymes in your diet, what do you think the long-term consequences might be in terms of your ability to produce stomach acid? Eventually, your body's capacity to produce stomach acid begins to fade, with a concomitant loss in your body's ability to sufficiently process food in the stomach.
It's worth noting that symptoms of low acidity include:
\t•\tBloating, belching, and flatulence immediately after meals.
\t•\tIndigestion, diarrhea, or constipation.
\t•\tHeartburn.
This list sound very similar to the symptoms associated with too much stomach acid. In fact, up to 95% of people who think they are suffering from too much stomach acid are actually suffering from the exact opposite condition. The use of antacids and purple pills then become exactly the wrong treatment to use since they exacerbate the underlying condition while temporarily masking the symptoms.
Comments
I am done here... Enjoy living with your quackery...
I sense we we have irreconcilable differences of opinion here.
Yes, I only know what I read, which goes for most of us. There are so many differing opinions out there that it's difficult to know who to believe. Whose advice do we follow when the experts disagree? When I really don't know, I look at the risk I take by following one or the others advice. Just a thought.
I sense you believe those with the highest reputations, who are in general agreement with their colleagues and most noted professional organizations. I, on the other hand, look to both the recognized experts and the mavericks. If there is something worth knowing, I want to know it and don't care where it comes from. So you are right that much of what I believe is unproven. I want the advantage of this knowledge during the 20 years or so it takes the experts to discover it is true. I'll live with the risks, but be cautious about what I accept.
Such differences of opinion are easy for me to accept. You go your way and I'll go mine, and we can still be friendly. 75 percent of my close friends don't believe me and don't want my opinions about health. That's okay, I don't share my knowledge with them unless they ask for it. I might venture a remark like, "Do you want to know what I think?" On a forum like this, no one is forced to read any of this stuff.
The only problem I have with difference of opinions is enforcement, like regulations that prohibit me from buying and eating what I want. If things get bad enough, I may need to investigate the freedom allowed in other nations. New Zealand is one that comes to mind.
Yes, there are those in power who think everyone should do it their way and only their way. Therefore, we who want to follow a different road must fight for this right. If it were not for the many who are willing to take regulatory agencies to court, we would not be free to buy half the supplements on the market today, which includes many of the most important. I understand it is worse elsewhere, and I really feel for those who must live there yet yearn to be different.
Those on one end of the population are happy with a great deal of regulation. Those on the other end want the freedom to buy what they wish. Those in the middle don't care. Almost no one on either end wants either total control or total freedom, but the distinction between the end groups is very clear. I'm in the freedom group obviously.
I'll give one personal example. My wife suffered from debilitating symptoms for over ten years, and has seen about ten different doctors with no help. A year ago she got on an internet health forum, and discovered her diagnosis: adrenal fatigue and hypothyroidism. She searched and found one doctor in Portland who sounded like he could help. He changed her diet, prescribed some new supplements and put her on a natural T3/T4 hormone. I'm glad we found a doctor, considered a Quack by some I'm sure, who knows what to do. The other doctors saw the same lab test results, but did not interpret them correctly. Even the endocrinologists were worthless. She is now slowly recovering, after years or neglect by the 'recognized' medical profession, who all followed 'recognized' medical protocol.
In your opinion I "have demonstrated a shear lack of critical thinking," yet I really do "enjoy living with my quackery." I recommend it.
I don't believe that people with the highest repute are the most correct, but consensus and sound scientific evidence goes much much further when making statements with certainty. There is NO proof that a balanced raw food diets are any better for you than a balanced cooked food diet.
All true. Many time I must make up my mind when there is no sound scientific evidence supporting one of the alternatives. Often I just try it and play guinea pig. I'm surprised how often the experiment succeeds, and I begin to feel better. I find this is a good way to adjust natural hormone usage too. I change the level. If I don't improve I go back to the old level. If I begin to feel better, I continue for about 12 weeks, tell the doctor and have my levels checked. So far he has said to keep doing it.
But more than that, there isn't even a smidgeon of evidence to suggest it. Citing debunked 'research' or archaic theories to support your diet just makes you look like a fool.
I don't mind looking like a fool if it works.
I see that Quackwatch debunks all opposition to fluoridating the public water supply. Nice. I wonder what those in the EU think about that. From what I hear, the EU does not even allow public fluoridation of water. Quackwatch also debunks opposition to using mercury amalgam dental fillings. Those writing act like these are not controversial issues, but well proven and safe practices. I don't believe it. If it makes me a fool, so be it. Quack, quack.
And nothing beats a steak at Ruth's Chris served extra rare... melt in the mouth. But that's kind of out of my price range...
Tonton, you have good taste. I love rare steak. The short grilling kills any bacteria on the surface. Don't eat rare ground meat, since the bacteria are thoroughly mix in.
Regarding raw vegetables, the typical salad varieties are fine and we eat lots of salads here. I was speaking of those who try to eat all or most all raw food. Many vegetables should not be eaten raw, like potatoes. Even so, it is a trade off between the taste and texture of things like tomatoes, onions, garlic, broccoli and carrots, and the added nutrients released when these are cooked or steamed. Other vegetables are just better cooked or steamed, like all forms of beans and corn.
By the way, you might like Pinnacle Peaks Patio, outside Phoenix, Arizona, if it is still there. Twenty miles of dirt road and there it is, surrounded by twenty miles of cactus. If you wear a tie, they sneak up and cut it off, but give you an Arizona lariat, or what ever it is called, to go around your collar. They ask, how do you want it? All stakes are the same, and two pounds. You get a prize for eating it all. They have lots of doggy bags however.
I see that Quackwatch debunks all opposition to fluoridating the public water supply. Nice. I wonder what those in the EU think about that. From what I hear, the EU does not even allow public fluoridation of water. Quackwatch also debunks opposition to using mercury amalgam dental fillings. Those writing act like these are not controversial issues, but well proven and safe practices. I don't believe it. If it makes me a fool, so be it. Quack, quack.
The EU states nothing explicitly about fluoridation... however where the member nations lack fluoridation of water they use fluoridated salts so practically nothing is different. The amount of mercury leaking from amalgam fillings is less than the amount you get from eating fish from almost any natural source... You seem to have a fear of chemicals, is there something you would like to ask a chemist (one of my several scientific hats)?
The EU states nothing explicitly about fluoridation. . . The amount of mercury leaking from amalgam fillings is less than the amount you get from eating fish from almost any natural source. . .
Fluoridation and mercury amalgam dental fillings are just two controversial issues supposedly being debunked. The debunkers can give the impression that the opposition consists of uninformed folks who fear anything new or different. Not so. The opponents include a large number of very concerned scientists, many from prestigious universities around the world. So I am not impressed by your simple answers here. Google can yield detailed reasons for wanting to avoid such things, if anybody is interested. Regarding fluoridation, a quick look at Google turned up this page with some references:
http://www.fluoridation.com/abstract.htm
One in particular caught my eye. An EPA employee was pressured to write into the drinking water regulation a statement that the EPA considers it okay for children to have discolored teeth because it is only a cosmetic effect, and does not affect health. It seems the EPA was under political pressure to set its standard for fluoride higher. One thing lead to another, and EPA employees union ultimately organize to fight fluoridation completely, as more and more data on fluoridation became available. The article can be found here:
http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm
A simple answer exists for many issues, including why cooked foods are just as healthy as raw foods, but when scientists dig deeper I've noticed it gets more complicated. Many times it takes years to discover the truth. What do we do until then? For myself, I act on incomplete knowledge to find the safest and most beneficial route.
Why should I expose myself to potential dangers, which may turn out to be real dangers when we know more? It does not hurt me or my children if there is no fluoride in Portland's drinking water. We visit a good dentist often enough to catch any problems early, which have been very few. Usually it's just cleaning the teeth.
Likewise, why should I deprive myself of most raw foods and many supplements and herbs that haven't been proven, yet, to be beneficial? It's just my personal preference to act this way, and so far no one has come up with a good enough reason for me to change.
BTW, my wife is an RN, and when we got married everything went by the book, like the Merck Manual. Since her episode with adrenal fatigue and low thyroid, however, she has turned against 'recognized' medicine, and is now open to whatever works best.
Another BTW, I would have no objection to fluoridated salt, if non-fluoridated salt is also available. That way there is freedom of choice. I don't want the government forcing just one approach onto everybody. You're a chemist. I understand it is relatively easy to remove chlorine from drinking water, but is very difficult to remove fluoride. Let me know if I'm mistaken.
I grew up in a city that didn't have to add any fluoride because the water was already naturally fluoridated.
That's right.
In the >100,000 person population of my city there was NO increase in any disease people propose as possibly maybe being caused by flouridation... It just doesn't happen. Some overly hydrated kids had brownish teeth, but the rate of carries was far far lower than other nearby cities...
Chlorine isn't chloride as fluorine isn't fluoride. The antimicrobial 'chlorine' agent breaks down to volatile compounds thus allowing it to evaporate naturally from sitting water. Fluoride is a negatively charged atom which like chloride is all but impossible to evaporate...
Regardless, the government doesn't force you to drink city water -- it provides it as a service. Just like public transportation, you can choose not to use it...
As for this so called 'choice' to drink it - what a joke - as always its the people who are the least educated and least able to 'chose' (ie afford) an alternative and who are least able to afford the subsequent health care to pay for the problem who are fucked over by this criminal act, just like it is with the 'choice' of safe food vs chemical junk.
FFS, the Nazi's and communists hatched plans to fluorinate the water supplies of countries specifically because it turns the populace into mental mush.
Is there a link? Fluorinated water - mental mush. America - population. Hmmm.
Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride allegedly shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one package.
I dont care whether its specifically labelled as a disease or not.
Mental diseases...stupidity...docile...subservient...
Thats precisely why some people want us flouridated, thats precisely why the practise should be a crime.
Any proof you care to offer?
Or are you just going to keep using that well copied verse?
Flouride is mildly toxic. You would have to injest quite a bit to suffer adverse effects...
If you really want to read up on the science behind fluoride uptake and loss, here:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11571&page=89
It is a book chapter page by page... Lots of technical jargon, well cited...
Does it now?
Any proof you care to offer?
Or are you just going to keep using that well copied verse?
Flouride is mildly toxic. You would have to injest quite a bit to suffer adverse effects...
If you really want to read up on the science behind fluoride uptake and loss, here:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11571&page=89
It is a book chapter page by page... Lots of technical jargon, well cited...
I suspect you would ingest quite a bit if you'd been drinking the fluorinated water for 80 years from birth.
I guess the Nazi's just wanted to keep the polish kids teeth from decaying?
As you know, I love Science - but 'Science' in connection with pharmaceuticals, medicine and military use is ususally perverted beyond recognition. It isn't Science at all - it is PR bollocks masquerading as Science with the intent to make $$$
I'd trust my mothers 'old wives tales' over a pharma company.
You might think this silly - but why are many many deciding not to trust the pharmaceutical companies??? Its definately a growing problem and its IMO because we can see through the real intent of their PR 'Science' - and that intent is not to make us better, it is to get us to buy their drugs - and increasingly become addicted or dependant on their drugs.
As you know marc, dosage is critical when talking about well anything consumed... you probably have drunk enough alcohol to kill yourself several times over by now, but remarkably you aren't dead... Fluorine is eliminated from adult humans in a few hours -- kidney impairment aside...
For the sake of full disclosure, while I think people tend to overblow the significance of these and other chemicals on their lives and don't properly consider the balance between our current state and the alternatives, I don't swallow my toothpaste, if I ever need a filling I will ask that it not be a mercury amalgam, and for whatever reason I am not naturally inclined to drinking tap water... Meh. In addition, I don't eat mammals so my intake of growth hormones is far lower than average.
In most cases fluorine in the water is completely safe, this much is scientifically proven. The effects of too much fluorine are being investigated and the jury is still out... Environment and genetics plays obviously a role in this and responses to all chemicals, whether percieved to come from natural sources or man made (there is no difference)...
My most pressing concern about the water supply is the growing number of detectable pharmaceuticals, especially hormone based ones, in the water supply... And this has nothing to do with the government and will blow up in our face more than the fluoride scare...
What's wrong with raw peanuts?
It's the cyanide content in peanuts which isn't good for your co-enzyme factors struggling to make sense of the peanut. Same thing with almonds. The sulphur compounds (sulfur? for States guys) in overcooked broccoli also poses a liver challenge. Nothing fatal, but not ideal if you're trying to reduce the amount of free-radicals in your body. That's one reason why raw foods (other than nuts) can be helpful - high in antioxidants (e.g. Vitamin C) which mop up the free radicals.
My most pressing concern about the water supply is the growing number of detectable pharmaceuticals, especially hormone based ones, in the water supply... And this has nothing to do with the government and will blow up in our face more than the fluoride scare...
And the pharmaceutical companies will counter that some of the high hormone levels are due to women flushing their spent tampons in the toilet, causing a rise of oestrogen (estrogen for you States guys?) in the water. This 'oestrogenisation' in the water is also speculated to contribute to rising rates of male infertility.
PS - why are some of you guys behaving post-menopausal in the attitude of your posts?
And the pharmaceutical companies will counter that some of the high hormone levels are due to women flushing their spent tampons in the toilet, causing a rise of oestrogen (estrogen for you States guys?) in the water. This 'oestrogenisation' in the water is also speculated to contribute to rising rates of male infertility.
Maybe, but I worked in a sewage treatment plant for a bit and the wastewater goes through some serious filtration: mechanical and chemical. I don't know how resilient estrogen hormones are in the presence of chlorine and/or bleach.
I don't believe that people with the highest repute are the most correct, but consensus and sound scientific evidence goes much much further when making statements with certainty. There is NO proof that a balanced raw food diets are any better for you than a balanced cooked food diet. But more than that, there isn't even a smidgeon of evidence to suggest it. Citing debunked 'research' or archaic theories to support your diet just makes you look like a fool.
My word hardeeharhar.. Are we a bit negative in this thread?
I think you are ignorant or refuse to see the truth when it comes to health and what promotes it.
I can tell you it is not hard to see that those who avoid a high sugar and high fat diet are at less risk of the three largest killers in America Heart Disease, Diabetes and Cancer.
Those who consume less sodium chloride and possibly use something like sea salt or Mrs. Dash do better in terms of managing blood pressure etc.
Some foods harm the body some heal the body.
Phytosterols promote healthy cholesterol balance between LDL and HDL.
I would suggest some reading for any and all who have any desire to have better health
Ginger Common Spice and Wonder Drug:
By Paul Schulick
Probiotics: Nature's Internal Healers
By Natasha Trenev
If you read these two books it will spark a new found desire to expand your journey of wellness and health knowledge and action.
Also I personally reject much of the Big Pharma prescriptions given by contemporary medicine. I find that in America we do not have a Health Care System rather a Sick Care System.
If you want health forget "most" doctors as they will only have a surgury or pill to offer you to "hopefully" treat the symptom(s) you are having due to bad choices which have taken your body to a condition of disrepair.
If you want health you have to make some choices and eat right and excercise.
I think the 92 year old Jack LaLanne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne
is living proof of what taking care of your body can do for you if you make an effort.
If you like to stay sick and have pills from your doctor just continue to eat processed foods with MSG, High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificial colors, hydrogenated fats and white flour with nutrients stripped out.
I personally avoid high levels of certain foods which produce uric acid in the body which can trigger the cascade of inflamation.
I eat foods with ingredients such as Turmeric which contains Curcumin which is an anti-inflamitory as well as Ginger and Green tea for the same reason.
Anti-Inflamitory.
Thrombosis, sticky blood and blood clots are helped by cox-2 but NOT VIOXX or Celebrex. Green Tea instead.
There are also three other pathways of inflamation which certain foods can help vastly such as ginger.
But I would tell you to look up information on LEF Life Extension Foundation. http://www.lef.org/magazine/
Do some reading and take your health into your own hands.
Also check out News Target http://www.newstarget.com/
Mike Adams is the next Jack LaLanne
All of the above is my personal opinion. If you have any medical concerns talk with your doctor.
I make no medical claims.
Fellows
Digestive enzymes were the main focus of this thread early on. Opponents of enzyme supplements and raw food claimed that enzymes were broken down by stomach acid and were, therefore, useless. Here is some additional information I culled on this topic, from Jon Barron, Baseline of Health. His website is:
http://www.jonbarron.org/
What nature intended is that you eat enzyme rich foods and chew your food properly. If you did that, the food would enter the stomach laced with digestive enzymes. These enzymes would then "predigest" your food for about an hour -- actually breaking down as much as 75% of your meal.
Only after this period of "pre-digestion" are hydrochloric acid and pepsin introduced. The acid inactivates all of the food-based enzymes, but begins its own function of breaking down what is left of the meal in combination with the acid energized enzyme pepsin.
In an attempt to overcompensate for lack of enzymes in the food, the stomach produces an inordinate amount of stomach acid to compensate, leading to acid indigestion. Taking antacids or purple pills doesn't actually solve the problem; it merely eliminates one of the symptoms. Ultimately, though, it passes even more quantities of poorly digested food into the intestinal tract where it leads to gas, bloating, bad digestion, chronic digestive disorders, in addition to blowing out your pancreas, which tries to compensate by producing huge amounts of digestive enzymes for use in the small intestine.
The simple solution for most people with excess stomach acid is to supplement with digestive enzymes which can digest up to 70% of the meal in the pre-acid phase, thus eliminating the need for large amounts of stomach acid and also taking tremendous stress off the digestive system and the pancreas.
If you spend years forcing your body to massively overproduce stomach acid to compensate for the lack of enzymes in your diet, what do you think the long-term consequences might be in terms of your ability to produce stomach acid? Eventually, your body's capacity to produce stomach acid begins to fade, with a concomitant loss in your body's ability to sufficiently process food in the stomach.
It's worth noting that symptoms of low acidity include:
\t•\tBloating, belching, and flatulence immediately after meals.
\t•\tIndigestion, diarrhea, or constipation.
\t•\tHeartburn.
This list sound very similar to the symptoms associated with too much stomach acid. In fact, up to 95% of people who think they are suffering from too much stomach acid are actually suffering from the exact opposite condition. The use of antacids and purple pills then become exactly the wrong treatment to use since they exacerbate the underlying condition while temporarily masking the symptoms.