Good. With 'I doubt' you actually indicate that you don't know, but that you reject what was stated anyway. If you don't know, then on what is your rejection based?
You didn't quite answer the question. :)
You really don't get it, do you? It's not about what's _in_ the food, it's about what is _not_ in your food. Already in the 60's the USDA wrote a report stating that with modern agriculture (read: abuse) the soil would become devoid of many of the necessary (micro-)nutrients that are needed to maintain health. In other words, we are eating food now that, even if it were pure plants, would not contain the necessary nutrients to maintain your body healthy. Let alone replacing that food by junk food which is totally void of any health promoting materials.
That 'nobody I've read' is especially telling...
Maybe surprising, but I totally agree with you on this.
"I doubt" means that I can't lay my hands on a statistical study that I tru st that addresses the question. The common sense evidence is that the nutte rs who spend their money on organic food don't look all that healthy.
o
d
In fact I did, but you were too dumb to notice.
.
t
But you can't specify the "health promoting" materials. I took selenium sup plements when I lived in Europe, because European wheat is selenium deficie nt, while Australian and American wheat isn't.
There's an area in South Australia that's cobalt deficient, and cattle and sheep grazed there used to died of cobalt deficiency, until the graziers pu t in cobalt-loaded salt licks. What the USDA might have been worried about in the 1960's escapes me, and you haven't named a single micro-nutrient.
.
I'm picky about what I read - I read a lot, and I read fast, but there's a lot of stuff out there that isn't worth reading.
and nowhere near enough to justify the higher prices
and I may even try to set you right, though I may not be able to dumb the story down enough to make it accessible to you.
get cancer because their DNA copying system makes mistakes without any help from the environment. Skin cancers are an exception, and they are popular in Australia, but that's from the sun, not from any farm.
bonnet on the subject. He is a professor of medicine, but medical training isn't aimed at producing scientists, but rather at producing medical practitioners, and the skill sets required are different. Medical professors have espoused some very silly ideas, and while evidence-based medicine is devoted to weaning the profession off its more expensive and extravagant delusions, vitamin D is cheap, and has few reported side effects.
Hi,
Getting vitamin D from the sun is far healthier than from a bottle Bill, your incorrect assumption about unnatural substitutions being superior to highly evolved natural solutions is the unhealthy and unfortunately common detrimental viewpoint.
Vitamin D3 is chemical - cholecalciferol - with a well-defined chemical structure and formula. Once it's in your body it doesn't matter how it was made or where it came from.
formatting link
Getting your vitamin D by exposure to UVb radiation incidentally increases your risk of skin cancer - which can be real - I've had two removed so far.
Getting the same chemical as pill out of bottle doesn't carry the same risk.
It does seem to carry the risk of being harangued by a health food nutter, but that's less of a trial than having a basal cell carcinoma cut out.
It's a bit too much 'reductionist reasoning' to bluntly state that ingesting the cholecalciferol as a pure chemical is 'the same' as the whole process of generating it in your skin while being outside, in the fresh air, receiving UVA & UVB, having the 7-dehydrocholesterol converted into previtamin D3 by UV on the skin and then having it converted into cholecalciferol (vit D3) itself. I wonder if you have any references to back up your statement.
Further it has been found that Vit D plays a role in the protection of DNA against damage (
formatting link
), so maybe your skin troubles could have another cause? Maybe some deficiency or so?
You alone constitute a far too small sample size in order to be a reliable proof of the danger of sunshine.
And also, your way of reasoning reminds me of those 'vaccine-nutters' who state that injecting a 'vaccine' (in fact a mixture of virus particles, monkey-DNA, SV40 virii, mercury and what not) straight into the bloodstream of a newborn baby is 'the same' as getting invaded at the age of, say, 18 years, by a pure, 'clean', virus through the nasal or oral route or by way of sexually transmitted 'bodily fluids'.
It isn't. Only idiots will maintain that 'it is the same'. And then claim that it's a 'scientific statement' without any randomised clinical trial of a statistically significant size with respect to the affected (vaccinated) population to back it up.
your body it doesn't matter how it was made or where it came from.
which can be real - I've had two removed so far.
than having a basal cell carcinoma cut out.
Hi,
A specific molecule (vitamin D) being created by exposure to the sun is only one side effect of sun exposure. There are many more effects, ie the metabolic pathways linked to the original vitamin D formation (requiring cholesterol), as well as the melanin formation, which provides a natural protective UV to heat conversion to protect the body from UV exposure (ie getting sun in moderation over time creates a natural sunscreen with no side effects like artificial sun screens apparent endocrine disruptions etc). Once again Bill it is a basic reductionist mistake to assume that taking vitamin D from a bottle can compare with making vitamin D from sun exposure. There are many more positive health effects from sun exposure as well, and it connects to diet, if you eat poorly your skin will not react as well to the sun, ie. vitamin D requires cholesterol to be made. A diet with healthy saturated fats protects the skin from sun damage. Sorry Bill it is a holistic system, your sunscreen and vitamin D pills are actually a carcinogenic unhealthy cocktail, advocated with the same reductionist philosophy that equates vaccine derived artificial immunity to natural immunity.
I'm not saying it is. What I am saying is that Vitamin D3 you get along wit h an appreciable chance at an eventual skin cancer has exactly same effect in the body as the cholecalciferol the you buy in a bottle.
That's elementary chemistry.
I don't need any. You may be able to distinguish cholecalciferol samples de rived from the two sources on the basis of their isotope content, but that won't be enough to make any perceptible difference to their effect. That's advanced chemistry, but still true.
The average Australian gets at least one skin cancer during their lives, us ually later rather than earlier, so my "skin troubles" do seem to be perfec tly routine.
The Australian population is now 22 million and provides a rather convincin g statistical sample.
It's certainly not the same. The newborns that get it - though most get inn oculated rather later - rarely show any significant reaction. The pure, "cl ean" - potent - virus that they may get later usually makes them decidedly sick, if they haven't been innoculated against it.
Small-pox left them scarred for life - if they survived. Quite a few didn't .
This rather ignores the current clinical experience, where innoculated kids hardly ever get sick from the diseases that they get innoculated against, and the previous clinical experience, where most kids got decidedly sick (a t similar ages) when those diseases went epidemic.
I'm old enough to have got natural immunity to measles the hard way. It mad e me decidedly sick. Even in prosperous communities it killed some kids and left other permanently damaged.
Double blind randomised clinical trials to test the effectiveness of treatm ents that are known to work, by withholding them from certain participants aren't actually ethically acceptable, so you aren't going to see any - exce pt perhaps in third world countries where the promise of half a chance of i mmunisation is better than no immunisation.
er, > > but that's less of a trial than having a basal cell carcinoma cut o ut.
If what you need is just vitamin D, getting it out of a bottle works exactl y as well as letting it get synthesised in the skin, and has hasn't got the side effect of increasing your chances of getting skin cancer.
Melanin synthesis reduces both your vitamin D production and your chance of skin cancer. I tan easily, and try and avoid getting sun-burnt, but I've s till had to have two basal cell carcinomas removed.
The best predictor of skin cancer in later life is getting seriously sun-bu rnt as kid, so being careful as an adult really doesn't help much.
Name one.
ll
is a
Vitamin D3 pills aren't pure cholecalciferol - the typical pill contains 25 microgram, which isn't much. To get a pill that's big enough pick up and t ake, it's bulked up with Calcium Carbonate, Cellulose Gel, Maltodextrin, Cr oscarmellose Sodium, Stearic Acid, Magnesium Stearate, Gelatin, and Corn St arch.
I just weighed 200 at 28 grams, so each pill weighs about 140 milligams. Th e vitamin D3 contest is less than 0.1%, but none of the bulking agents are in the least carcenogenic - some of them might be a bit fattening, but 140m gm isn't that much extra food.The cellulose gel will go straight through us , so it isn't even fattening.
Vitamin D3 is a vitamin - not a vaccine - and in any event vaccine-derived immunity is clinically indistinguishable from natural immunity, since it de pends on exactly the same antibodies in the blood.
The irrational delusionists who think that there is a difference are the re al menace to society.
To me it sounds more like ignorance. You can not compare the complicated biochemical process of sunbathing with ingesting the chemical vit D3. The former involves a lot more than the latter.
You can not ignore all the effects from sunbathing and then say oral intake of vit D3 is safer, without referring to an article in a peer reviewed journal. Yes, you can, but as such it sounds baseless.
And as Jamie has stated, the cholesterol-less diet inhibits vit D3 from being formed on the skin, where it could protect the DNA. Further the Australians are not a good example, as they are mostly a (white) species foreign to the (very sunny) environment where they live and the (coloured) species that could reduce that bias has been genocidally removed for the greater part.
And evolutionary the wrong population in the wrong place. By the way, maybe this is one of the best examples of how much your reductionist view is preventing you from seeing things in their proper perspective. You can not move a population from an environment where there's almost no sun (England) to an environment with lost and lots of sun (Australia) and then blame sunshine for the skin cancer that this severely under-adapted population will suffer... From being moved to that place, not because sunshine is unhealthy.
Ah, that's why the government program involves about, what is it, more than 50 shots? Because small-pox and polio are so dangerous?
The criminally insane way in which the MMR cocktail has been forced upon the population has caused a very high incidence of autism. As if that's not a permanent damage.
My position is that this program has done more harm than good. In England, when it became apparent that the combined MMR cocktail was probably (to state it friendly) responsible for many cases of autism and parents started asking, not to stop the vaccinations but just separate them in time, the government blocked the importation of the separate vaccines and only allowed the cocktails into the country.
In Japan, as soon as the autism cases went up after introduction of the MMR cocktail, the government at least postponed the measles vaccination with 1/2 - 1 year, which had an immediate effect.
So, there basically is no scientific proof, that's what you just said, no? And everybody knows how those dangerous infectious diseases were already long on the decline due to improving hygienic conditions, it is as well possible that the vaccines have very little to do with the subsequent decline. And there is even no valid proof that they did.
Unbelievable enough your position sounds more like religion than proper science.
Perfectly true. But if you are talking about the effect of vitamin D3 - cho lecalciferol - in the body, then you should be aware that the effects are e xactly the same wherever it came from.
One of the potential side effects of exposing your skin to enough sunlight to synthesise vitamin D is skin cancer. In Australia this is popular enough - and Australians live long enough - that pretty much every gets one skin cancer eventually. I've had two, which has probably more to do with bad luc k and obsessive sun-worship.
s
.
It may sound baseless to you, but that's because you don't know enough to f ollow the reasoning. It's not a complicated chain of logic, but you aren't much of thinker.
,
The Tasmania aborigines had initial population of several thousand, which i sn't high. Truganini was the last full-blooded survivor and she died in 187
6
formatting link
It wasn't genocide that killed them off, but rather very inexpert attempts to sustain the remaining population. Australia's aboriginal population is d oing too well either, but nobody is trying to kill them off - some are doin g quite well, but they don't live much like their less adaptable relatives.
Human beings have covered the whole earth in the last 100,000 years. We see m to have evolved in Africa, but a succession of ice ages and interglacials put a premium on rapid cultural adaption to changing environments, and mod ern humans seem to have thoroughly master that trick.
The claim that European immigrants didn't evolve in Australia is perfectly correct - and perfectly silly. The indigenous aborigines didn't evolve here either, but immigrated here some 50,000 years ago.
Sure you can. They do need to adapt their culture, from grabbing all the su n they could get to avoiding it like the plague, but that's exactly what hu man beings are good at.
Not to mention measles and whooping-cough.
formatting link
IMM52-cnt
listed some fourteen different diseases, not to mention regular flu.
Some diseases need multiple shots, so it might add up to 50, though others get lumped together in a single injection.
Total rubbish. That the sort of nonsense that Jamie spouts. The MMR cocktai l doesn't "cause" autism. "Austism" - or to be more precise - autism-spectr um disorders have been diagnosed more frequently in recent years than they used to be. Hans Asperger first used the term in 1938, and it's taken a whi le for the medical profession to recognise how to make money out if it.
formatting link
The postulated link between MMR innoculation and austism was not sustained by expert analysis of the statistics - medical training doesn't cover stati stical inference in any detail, and the doctors involved seem to have been deceiving themselves. Investigators tend to more interested in the DNA of t he sufferers - it's a heritable condition and seems to be congenital, and v accines are rather unlikely to cause it.
Half-wits like you and Jamie don't seem to follow the relevant literature, and do seem to be willing to believe every bit of alarmist rubbish that com es your way.
More measles.
?
Scarcely. Double-blind testing is the best test mode available, but we've g ot a lot of historical evidence that vaccination works a whole lot better t han non-vaccination, and numbers involved are a lot larger than you could g et out of any clinical trial.
I got measles the old-fashioned way around 1950, when hygienic conditions w ere fine, and it's pretty much gone away since 1963, when we got a vaccine against it. Lunatics like you and Jamie have frightened enough dimwits out of getting their kids vaccinated, so herd immunity isn't what it was - and needs to be.
Pre-vaccination it used to kill some 7 million children a year world-wide. It now kills only about 100,000, mostly in the more primitive areas of the developing world, down from about 500,000 in 1990
formatting link
Sure, and the sun rises in the west.
Then you need to work a bit harder of being able to tell the difference. I' m happy to believe that you are an ill-informed half-wit, and you seem happ y to advertise the fact.
The same reductionist nonsense, again, as what Jamie is arguing against. If you live a healthy life, in the right environment, with the right sun exposure and the right food, air, background radiation, not too much stress and what else not more, *then* you don't need 'chemical vit d3 from a bottle'.
The fact that you think you do need it out of a bottle means that you are already totally out of whack and disease prone. In that case vit d3 out of a bottle doesn't help much. And that's why there is a difference, because that exactly *is* the difference.
I think I just explained the principles of reductionist versus holistic thinking.
If you talk *only* of the separated effect of the chemical vit d3 from a bottle versus coming from your skin, taking all other things equal (which they are not), still then there is the difference that the sunshine generated vit d3 is coming into the body by uptake through the skin, versus the bottled vit d3 by ingestion through oral way.
I suggest you develop a vit d3 skin lotion that will reduce that difference. And even if you would apply such a lotion, then still there is a difference because it simply is acquired in a different way, skipping the whole process of conversion of cholesterol to ultimately the active form of d3.
So whatever way you want to argue, there *is* a difference. You can try to talk it away by introducing all sorts of boundary conditions which do not actually exist in reality, but that is pure scientific blahblah to hide the incorrectness of your position. I will repeat it again: However advanced your 'science', common sense will prevail.
Maybe, and if it's the latter then I can understand your disappointment with the 'healthy lifestyle' that was just a bit overdone as you seem to be put there in that environment with not enough time to adapt in an evolutionary sound way. I.e. it's a miracle that your species even survived in that environment. :)
The sunbathing path is a more complicated chain of processes than simply taking 'from the bottle', nothing wrong with the logic in that.
You are a bit of an overconfident bedwetter, aren't you? I think Tasmania is the worst example to bring up when trying to counter the genocide argument...
If you'd been a little bit more honest you would have cited also the lines saying:
"The Tasmanian genocide (fl. 1826-1829) is where white British settlers wiped out nearly all the native people of Tasmania (then called Van Diemen?s Land) and then sent the few hundred still alive to prison camps where they died of disease and despair."
from the website where you probably quoted Truganini from.:
formatting link
Yeah yeah, a lot of blah blah, but in the end 'you' are evolutionary the wrong people in the wrong place. Simply because you did *not* evolve in Australia but (probably) in England or some other North-Western European country. You just don't want to either see or admit it, and that's why you are responding with more and more blahblah. Just to hide the fact that you're off course.
WTF! What 'perfectly silly'? It's the reason that Australians get skin cancer from the sun. If they *would* have evolved there, they wouldn't.
"Sure you can." Another of your stupid replies. Yeah, of course 'you can'. You can (and actually do) repeat the same stupid nonsense over and over again. And actually, you are doing exactly just that.
Content/IMM52-cnt
Another one of your illogical statements induced by government fear mongering so that the pharmaceutical industry can get their enormous financial gains. Measles, whooping cough etc. _are_ diseases, no question about it. But, a otherwise perfectly healthy person, with the right nutrition and hygiene, will _normally_ survive this.
The pharmaceutical industry *AND* the CDC have noticed that the MMR shots result in a significant increase of autism in at least the African- American inocculated community, and subsequently went out of their way to manipulate the numbers and hide the facts from the public. Documented!
Totally off-topic, this semi-scientific blahblah.
Stupid fools who fall for that 'genetic' argument. We have been here before: where are the autistic ancestors of the massive amounts of people that are autistic right now? Ah no, before autism was documented, it was an undocumented behavioural disorder of sorts, or must have been, because indeed isn't it impossible that autism could be caused by vaccinations?
You seem to be here the reductionist idiot who thinks that one can subject the human body to any kind of medical attack and then get away with it by trying to hide the consequences. Measles, whooping cough, the whole lot of so called serious infectious diseases were already on the decline when vaccines where introduced. There is no proof that vaccines played any role in the subsequent decline which followed as hygienic conditions continued to improve.
And the excuse for not having to do a proper randomised controlled study is: "We *think* vaccines work, so it would be 'unethical' to withhold them from anybody, wouldn't it, you 'menace to society'? Puke that!
And more real immunity.
Your 'historical evidence' sounds eerily similar to 'anecdotical (non)evidence'.
In the past there were 'measles parties' in order for the children to get a chance to acquire immunity before their adulthood. The mothers were immune and the newborn babies were protected by the anti-bodies that they got from the breastmilk from their mothers. Now, the mothers are vaccinated *and do not produce* those anti-bodies anymore (another argument against your reductionist "'immunity' from vaccins is the same as acquired immunity from the disease") giving the pharmaceutical companies to scare the mothers into getting their children vaccinated almost immediately after being born. Never mind the fact that the immune system at that age isn't even able to develop antibodies, as long as the mothers 'get programmed to regularly go to the pediatrician and get their child jabbed, again. PING! Cash!
Pre-hygiene, you mean.
Sure it doesn't, you nitwit.
I think I just did tell you the difference. And your derogatory statements tell me you are on the losing side of the argument.
Only I still can't make up my mind whether you are pity or just hard headed. I tend to the latter...
Bill your belief that the gut and gut flora are not part of the human body, while possibly correct in your reductionist mind, creates problems in reality for everyone else however, ie see this:
formatting link
" the fact that Monsanto has stated that there are enzymes in its product that don?t target humans ? well that?s beyond just misleading. This obvious misjudgment by Monsanto is a well-known secret among many anti-GM scientists. This enzyme is definitely found in humans.
Here is how ?misleading? Monsanto?s statement that, ?Round Up targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals,? truly is:
EPSP synthase, also known as (3-phosphoshikimate
1-carboxyvinyltransferase) is found in the microbiota that reside in our intestinal tracts, and therefore the enzyme is ?found in humans and animals.? It is partly responsible for immunity activation and even helps our gut and our brains communicate with one another.
EPSP synthase is among other beneficial microbes that produce neurometabolites that are either neurotransmitters or modulators of neurotransmission.
?These could act directly on nerve terminals in the gut or via ?transducer? cells such as enterochromaffin cells present throughout the intestinal tract and are accessible to microbes and in contact with afferent and efferent nerve terminals. Some of these cells may also signal and therefore modulate immune cell activity.? "
You can't persuade me that I've lost cause I don't feel like I lost when I feel how good natural food makes me feel compared to all the processed garbage most people eat, however I argue here as a small price to pay for the guilt I feel for enjoying good health while others through no real fault of their own don't know about the simplicity of good diet and its relationship to health.
It's possible to be free of pharmaceuticals too, and most medical intervention, but people are so embedded in the corporate system they don't even remember or believe in traditional wisdom regarding diet and health in general.
It's not "the reductionist mindset" that differentiates between the insides of the human body and the contents of the gut (which is within the body, but not inside it), it's everybody who understands what words mean.
The fact that glycophosphate could influence some of the bacteria that exis t inside some guts doesn't falsify Monsantos's claim that ""Round Up target s an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals,".
People who don't use language precisely might allow themselves to be confus ed - and you are remarkably confused about a lot of subjects - but lawyers won't be.
The practical consequences of exposing gut bacteria to the traces of Roundu p that might remain on some vegetables would be slight shift in gut bacteri al diversity. Some bacteria that weren't resistant to Round Up might evolve resistance - gut bacteria have short life-cycles - and if you had enough s ense to eat GM-food that included the Round_Up-resistant gene there's an ap preciable chance that your gut bacteria might have snaffled the gene and go t resistance the easy way.
Your enthusiasm for declaring this a win for the forces of unreason and a d efeat for Monsanto have more to do with your unbounded enthusiasm for claim ing to have won, than any actual triumph.
If someone chopped your leg off, you'd be hobbling around boasting about ha ving put a nick in the edge of his blade.
So somebody is slipping addictive chemicals into your "natural" food? That would explain a lot.
Traditional wisdom was that you lived for three-score and ten years, if you didn't get sick beforehand.
My father and my uncle both died at 82. My uncle got his coronary before by
-pass operations were widely available, but took good care of himself there after - he was a doctor - and didn't get the second one, that killed him, u ntil he was 82.
My father never had a heart attack as such, but his coronary arteries were definitely blocking up when he had his first by-pass operation, and he need ed a second one about fifteen years later, which kept him going until his c ancer got him.
I had a calcifying aortic valve - completely different - which put me in th e hands of cardiologists relatively early, who put me on a cholesterol inhi bitor - initially Lipitor - fairly early.
When the aortic valve finally needed replacement it coincided with my two-y ear younger brother's encounter with his cardiologist, which led to an emer gency by-pass operation. Granting the family history, my coronary arteries were checked out at the time - and one was 30% blocked, which wasn't worth worrying about.
Traditional wisdom would have left me dead by now - as it did both my grand fathers.
It's better described as a combination of pig-ignorance and medical impoten ce.
If you wan to go back to that you've got to be stupid, but - as you keep re minding us - you are remarkably stupid and an undiscriminating sucker for a ll the pseudo-medical nonsense around.
You just have no idea what you are talking about, oh you pity deluded one.
Before the western lifestyle and diet came into being, dying from heart disease was quite rare.
Reason: people weren't eating carbohydrates and animal fats the whole day.
So, 'going back to that' would, as Jamie already stated, remove the need for so many acute medical interventions, not to mention the chronic ones.
Do yourself a favour and read up to it. There are documented cases in which clogged arteries were unclogged within 6 months of starting a different diet. You can even ask Bill Clinton how he is doing with his heart disease preventing diet. He has given an interview about his heart problems and his approach on the BBC, iirc.
I really wish you the best of health, but before that you really do have to give up your aversion for 'natural stuff' which is not really non- documented, rather than purposely ignored by the main stream media. So you have to go out and look for it yourself, like I did.
And look for glitches from the matrix, they will give you a clue, if you want to know what I mean.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.