Jump to content

Photo

The Evolutionary Biology Behind Acne


81 replies to this topic

#41 Quetzlcoatl

Quetzlcoatl

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 531
    Likes: 66
About Me
  • Joined: 04-March 13

Posted 09 January 2014 - 09:55 PM


try and spend some time reading up on food sensitivities and cancer. The amount of research done on this is mind blowing.

Gluten does not cause cancer. Chemicals do not cause cancer. They are not living, breathing, or moving. So how do you suppose they have direct links to cancer? If you or anybody else did any hands on research on what I'm claiming, you will come to the same conclusion everyone else like me came to.

Everyone here that disputes me is very knowledgeable in the functionality of diseases. Much more than I am. This is in part because I turned my focus to the root cause/origin. I have done hands on research on what I claim. I have reversed diseases that Americans spend millions on, live with, and die from. I read tons of research on this but I also didn't believe it until I did it for myself. I know it's hard to believe but this is what comes up every time researchers focus on food.

Ps... T. Colin Campbell got the chance of a lifetime to witness many chronic diseases (including cancer) develop in, for the most part, disease free people. He wrote about it. It's called The China Study.

 

Chemicals do cause cancer. Why does something have to 'breathe' in order to cause cancer, in your mind? Everything just boils down to biochemistry at some point.

 

You can do mutagenesis assays to change DNA in a petri dish of cells without any immune system involvement. Take a bunch of skin cells, add your carcinogen, and voila, the normal epithelial cells transform into cancerous cells. I've worked in a lab that researched breast cancer, epigenetics, and the impact of diet on epigenetics. I have experience with these particular problems. I've done the hands on research you're urging me to do - not just pressing a few keywords into google and then finding what you want to find. There's plenty of misinformation to go around.

 

The China Study is often cited but ultimately proves nothing. It's a bunch of correlations between meat eating and cancer. I find it extremely unconvincing, in part because half of their conclusions simply do not make sense. An excerpt from wikipedia on their findings:

 

"They write that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy."[4] They also recommend adequate amounts of sunshine exposure or supplements to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D, and supplements of vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products.[5]"

 

Supplementation in order to stay healthy? Avoidance of cholesterol? Sure. I wonder what the Masai would think. Regardless, the real problem is that the authors of the China Study draw very strong conclusions from correlations only without any reasonable intervention studies to indicate any causation whatsoever. In fact, it's probably more likely that the correlations they saw between animal products and disease were caused by industrial contamination or food source.

 

Finally, you might have 'cured' any number of diseases through dietary modification, but that doesn't mean that diet was curing the diseases in the way you think it was. I too believe that food is medicine, and diet has helped me greatly. However, suggesting that some things like cancer are caused by food allergies is absurd. Diet is the cause of many cancers; but it does not cause cancer via food allergies except in maybe 1 or 2 cases. Biochemistry is a lot more complicated than that.



#42 kokobear

kokobear

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 32
    Likes: 2
About Me
  • Joined: 31-December 13

Posted 09 January 2014 - 10:10 PM


try and spend some time reading up on food sensitivities and cancer. The amount of research done on this is mind blowing.

Gluten does not cause cancer. Chemicals do not cause cancer. They are not living, breathing, or moving. So how do you suppose they have direct links to cancer? If you or anybody else did any hands on research on what I'm claiming, you will come to the same conclusion everyone else like me came to.

Everyone here that disputes me is very knowledgeable in the functionality of diseases. Much more than I am. This is in part because I turned my focus to the root cause/origin. I have done hands on research on what I claim. I have reversed diseases that Americans spend millions on, live with, and die from. I read tons of research on this but I also didn't believe it until I did it for myself. I know it's hard to believe but this is what comes up every time researchers focus on food.

Ps... T. Colin Campbell got the chance of a lifetime to witness many chronic diseases (including cancer) develop in, for the most part, disease free people. He wrote about it. It's called The China Study.

 

Chemicals do cause cancer. Why does something have to 'breathe' in order to cause cancer, in your mind? Everything just boils down to biochemistry at some point.

 

You can do mutagenesis assays to change DNA in a petri dish of cells without any immune system involvement. Take a bunch of skin cells, add your carcinogen, and voila, the normal epithelial cells transform into cancerous cells. I've worked in a lab that researched breast cancer, epigenetics, and the impact of diet on epigenetics. I have experience with these particular problems. I've done the hands on research you're urging me to do - not just pressing a few keywords into google and then finding what you want to find. There's plenty of misinformation to go around.

 

The China Study is often cited but ultimately proves nothing. It's a bunch of correlations between meat eating and cancer. I find it extremely unconvincing, in part because half of their conclusions simply do not make sense. An excerpt from wikipedia on their findings:

 

"They write that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy."[4] They also recommend adequate amounts of sunshine exposure or supplements to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D, and supplements of vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products.[5]"

 

Supplementation in order to stay healthy? Avoidance of cholesterol? Sure. I wonder what the Masai would think. Regardless, the real problem is that the authors of the China Study draw very strong conclusions from correlations only without any reasonable intervention studies to indicate any causation whatsoever. In fact, it's probably more likely that the correlations they saw between animal products and disease were caused by industrial contamination or food source.

 

Finally, you might have 'cured' any number of diseases through dietary modification, but that doesn't mean that diet was curing the diseases in the way you think it was. I too believe that food is medicine, and diet has helped me greatly. However, suggesting that some things like cancer are caused by food allergies is absurd. Diet is the cause of many cancers; but it does not cause cancer via food allergies except in maybe 1 or 2 cases. Biochemistry is a lot more complicated than that.

 

Diet is not the cause of *many* cancers, only about a handful of cancers are linked to diet and when then the evidence is still modest at best. The majority of cancers are largely unknown or associated with old age. Cancer has been around before man.



#43 Quetzlcoatl

Quetzlcoatl

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 531
    Likes: 66
About Me
  • Joined: 04-March 13

Posted 09 January 2014 - 10:24 PM

Diet is not the cause of *many* cancers, only about a handful of cancers are linked to diet and when then the evidence is still modest at best. The majority of cancers are largely unknown or associated with old age. Cancer has been around before man.

 

90% of cancers are caused by environmental factors, while 10% are genetic (at most; some numbers are as low as 5%).

 

Of the 90% caused by environmental factors, a third are due to diet.

 

Here's a peer-reviewed paper from 2008 (on ncbi) just so you know I'm not pulling these numbers out of the air:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2515569/

 

As an aside, age is often cited as a factor in the cause of cancer, but this isn't true. The effects of diet/smoking/etc add up over time, and so older individuals suffer more from cancer, but just being old - just time - is not sufficient to cause cancer on its own. 

 

Edit: I think wikipedia sums it up nicely: http://en.wikipedia....Diet_and_cancer


Edited by Quetzlcoatl, 09 January 2014 - 10:25 PM.


#44 SDR WellnessCoach

SDR WellnessCoach

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 360
    Likes: 13
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wilkes Barre, Pa
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Achievements

     

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:17 AM


try and spend some time reading up on food sensitivities and cancer. The amount of research done on this is mind blowing.

Gluten does not cause cancer. Chemicals do not cause cancer. They are not living, breathing, or moving. So how do you suppose they have direct links to cancer? If you or anybody else did any hands on research on what I'm claiming, you will come to the same conclusion everyone else like me came to.

Everyone here that disputes me is very knowledgeable in the functionality of diseases. Much more than I am. This is in part because I turned my focus to the root cause/origin. I have done hands on research on what I claim. I have reversed diseases that Americans spend millions on, live with, and die from. I read tons of research on this but I also didn't believe it until I did it for myself. I know it's hard to believe but this is what comes up every time researchers focus on food.

Ps... T. Colin Campbell got the chance of a lifetime to witness many chronic diseases (including cancer) develop in, for the most part, disease free people. He wrote about it. It's called The China Study.

 Chemicals do cause cancer. Why does something have to 'breathe' in order to cause cancer, in your mind? Everything just boils down to biochemistry at some point. You can do mutagenesis assays to change DNA in a petri dish of cells without any immune system involvement. Take a bunch of skin cells, add your carcinogen, and voila, the normal epithelial cells transform into cancerous cells. I've worked in a lab that researched breast cancer, epigenetics, and the impact of diet on epigenetics. I have experience with these particular problems. I've done the hands on research you're urging me to do - not just pressing a few keywords into google and then finding what you want to find. There's plenty of misinformation to go around. The China Study is often cited but ultimately proves nothing. It's a bunch of correlations between meat eating and cancer. I find it extremely unconvincing, in part because half of their conclusions simply do not make sense. An excerpt from wikipedia on their findings: "They write that "eating foods that contain any [/size]cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy."[/size][4] They also recommend adequate amounts of sunshine exposure or [/size]supplements to maintain adequate levels of [/size]vitamin D, and supplements of [/size]vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products.[/size][5]" Supplementation in order to stay healthy? Avoidance of cholesterol? Sure. I wonder what the Masai would think. Regardless, the real problem is that the authors of the China Study draw very strong conclusions from correlations only without any reasonable intervention studies to indicate any causation whatsoever. In fact, it's probably more likely that the correlations they saw between animal products and disease were caused by industrial contamination or food source. Finally, you might have 'cured' any number of diseases through dietary modification, but that doesn't mean that diet was curing the diseases in the way you think it was. I too believe that food is medicine, and diet has helped me greatly. However, suggesting that some things like cancer are caused by food allergies is absurd. Diet is the cause of many cancers; but it does not cause cancer via food allergies except in maybe 1 or 2 cases. Biochemistry is a lot more complicated than that.

What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.

You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

#45 kokobear

kokobear

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 32
    Likes: 2
About Me
  • Joined: 31-December 13

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:44 AM

Diet is not the cause of *many* cancers, only about a handful of cancers are linked to diet and when then the evidence is still modest at best. The majority of cancers are largely unknown or associated with old age. Cancer has been around before man.

 

90% of cancers are caused by environmental factors, while 10% are genetic (at most; some numbers are as low as 5%).

 

Of the 90% caused by environmental factors, a third are due to diet.

 

Here's a peer-reviewed paper from 2008 (on ncbi) just so you know I'm not pulling these numbers out of the air:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2515569/

 

As an aside, age is often cited as a factor in the cause of cancer, but this isn't true. The effects of diet/smoking/etc add up over time, and so older individuals suffer more from cancer, but just being old - just time - is not sufficient to cause cancer on its own. 

 

Edit: I think wikipedia sums it up nicely: http://en.wikipedia....Diet_and_cancer

 

Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.


Edited by kokobear, 10 January 2014 - 09:45 AM.


#46 SDR WellnessCoach

SDR WellnessCoach

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 360
    Likes: 13
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wilkes Barre, Pa
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Achievements

     

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:09 PM


Diet is not the cause of *many* cancers, only about a handful of cancers are linked to diet and when then the evidence is still modest at best. The majority of cancers are largely unknown or associated with old age. Cancer has been around before man.

 
90% of cancers are caused by environmental factors, while 10% are genetic (at most; some numbers are as low as 5%).
 
Of the 90% caused by environmental factors, a third are due to diet.
 
Here's a peer-reviewed paper from 2008 (on ncbi) just so you know I'm not pulling these numbers out of the air:
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2515569/
 
As an aside, age is often cited as a factor in the cause of cancer, but this isn't true. The effects of diet/smoking/etc add up over time, and so older individuals suffer more from cancer, but just being old - just time - is not sufficient to cause cancer on its own. 
 
Edit: I think wikipedia sums it up nicely: http://en.wikipedia....Diet_and_cancer
 
Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.

I'm curious. What are the different types of cancers? Of course anyone can "get" cancer, we all have the same origin unless a spaceship landed and dropped some other kind of human like creatures off.

#47 Quetzlcoatl

Quetzlcoatl

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 531
    Likes: 66
About Me
  • Joined: 04-March 13

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:30 PM

What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.

You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 

Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.

 

I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.



Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.

 

Idiopathic means there is no specific known cause. It does not mean that a cause does not exist. There are only two categories in which a cancer can fall: genetic and environmental. Idiopathic cancers are always environmental in that there is something in the environment (as opposed to the genes) that caused it. We don't know what it is, but it's there.

 

For example; my father died of lung cancer, and never smoked. Idiopathic? Sure, because we can't link it to any one thing in particular. But it was also spontaneous (not genetic), and thus falls under the category of environmentally driven cancers. It could have been a single burger, or a single breath of slightly contaminated air that gave him cancer. We don't know which, and thus it is idiopathic, but it was something not related to his genes, and so it was environmental.

 

You're right that cancer is an umbrella term for a host of diseases, but they all have the same basic qualities, and they all have a cause, whether we know it or not, and whether we can avoid it or not.



#48 SDR WellnessCoach

SDR WellnessCoach

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 360
    Likes: 13
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wilkes Barre, Pa
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Achievements

     

Posted 10 January 2014 - 07:01 PM


What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.
You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 
Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.
 
I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.
I never said cholesterol is connected to heart disease. I know what causes heart disease and high cholesterol is not it. In fact, high cholesterol is not even a disease. If you want to know how to lower cholesterol then hit me up in the private message. I'm not here to help with other illnesses other than skin disorders unless it's private.

As for you testing negative for animal meats, I guarantee your testing is wrong. I have access to testing from the top lab in the country. They are the first to offer Gluten Sensitivity testing.

I knew you were in this field, that's why you think the way you do. No offense. I work in a lab and without the testing I uncovered, I would be thinking the same as you.

I don't guess on anything. What I do talk about is what I actually know. The blood tests don't lie. The ab's are to numerous for error. I know the China Study has flaws. I know every diet has flaws. The only flaw with my diet is the FDA. Other than that, my diet plan is custom fit for each person. That's why it works for everyone.

Ps... When I get a chance I will link a nice little article i found about the immune system. You probably won't read it but others might find it highly interesting.

pss... none of my clients could do the paleo diet, they have to many immune responses to a lot of the foods allowed in it.

Edited by SDR WellnessCoach, 10 January 2014 - 07:08 PM.


#49 SDR WellnessCoach

SDR WellnessCoach

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 360
    Likes: 13
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wilkes Barre, Pa
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Achievements

     

Posted 10 January 2014 - 07:38 PM

Here is a little info on the immune system...http://www.cancer.go...unesystem/page1



#50 kokobear

kokobear

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 32
    Likes: 2
About Me
  • Joined: 31-December 13

Posted 10 January 2014 - 08:28 PM

What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.

You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 

Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.

 

I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.



>>Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.

 

Idiopathic means there is no specific known cause. It does not mean that a cause does not exist. There are only two categories in which a cancer can fall: genetic and environmental. Idiopathic cancers are always environmental in that there is something in the environment (as opposed to the genes) that caused it. We don't know what it is, but it's there.

 

For example; my father died of lung cancer, and never smoked. Idiopathic? Sure, because we can't link it to any one thing in particular. But it was also spontaneous (not genetic), and thus falls under the category of environmentally driven cancers. It could have been a single burger, or a single breath of slightly contaminated air that gave him cancer. We don't know which, and thus it is idiopathic, but it was something not related to his genes, and so it was environmental.

 

You're right that cancer is an umbrella term for a host of diseases, but they all have the same basic qualities, and they all have a cause, whether we know it or not, and whether we can avoid it or not.

 

 

I really have to disagree with you on some of your points. Many Cancers are unknown and spontaneous without being either genetic or environmental. Many forms of childhood cancer are neither genetic (they did not inherit a mutation from their parents) or environmental (they haven't been around enough to acquire a mutation) and just seem to occur suddenly. Cancer can be a lottery and everyone has a ticket. Also it takes a lot more than a "single burger" ect. to set off the complex chain of reaction needed to cause cancer, not to mention continually cumulative exposure or a blast of radiation akin to Hiroshima/Chernobyl.

 

Everything does not add up, the human body is massively confusing and there is no sure fire way to preserve perfect health.


Edited by kokobear, 10 January 2014 - 08:36 PM.


#51 SDR WellnessCoach

SDR WellnessCoach

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 360
    Likes: 13
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wilkes Barre, Pa
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Achievements

     

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:13 PM


What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.
You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 
Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.
 
I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.
>

>>Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.

>
 
Idiopathic means there is no specific known cause. It does not mean that a cause does not exist. There are only two categories in which a cancer can fall: genetic and environmental. Idiopathic cancers are always environmental in that there is something in the environment (as opposed to the genes) that caused it. We don't know what it is, but it's there.
 
For example; my father died of lung cancer, and never smoked. Idiopathic? Sure, because we can't link it to any one thing in particular. But it was also spontaneous (not genetic), and thus falls under the category of environmentally driven cancers. It could have been a single burger, or a single breath of slightly contaminated air that gave him cancer. We don't know which, and thus it is idiopathic, but it was something not related to his genes, and so it was environmental.
 
You're right that cancer is an umbrella term for a host of diseases, but they all have the same basic qualities, and they all have a cause, whether we know it or not, and whether we can avoid it or not.
 
 
I really have to disagree with you on some of your points. Many Cancers are unknown and spontaneous without being either genetic or environmental. Many forms of childhood cancer are neither genetic (they did not inherit a mutation from their parents) or environmental (they haven't been around enough to acquire a mutation) and just seem to occur suddenly. Cancer can be a lottery and everyone has a ticket. Also it takes a lot more than a "single burger" ect. to set off the complex chain of reaction needed to cause cancer, not to mention continually cumulative exposure or a blast of radiation akin to Hiroshima/Chernobyl.
 
Everything does not add up, the human body is massively confusing and there is no sure fire way to preserve perfect health.

Children are developing many chronic diseases at a early age. Diabetes with in their 1st year is one. Juvenile arthritis is another. Age does not protect anybody from diseases. You also don't need long term exposure to cause cancer or any disease. Just a "miss firing" with the immune system.

Doctors claim all chronic diseases have an unknown cause except for one... Celiac Disease. Research says otherwise. They just can't find a way to make a huge profit from it. Therefore to them it's all b.s.

ps... do you know there are a lot of doctors that believe no one needs to be on a Gluten Free diet? And some professors are preaching that in med school.

#52 kokobear

kokobear

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 32
    Likes: 2
About Me
  • Joined: 31-December 13

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:27 PM

 

 


What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.
You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 
Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.
 
I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.
>

>>Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.

>ockquote>  
Idiopathic means there is no specific known cause. It does not mean that a cause does not exist. There are only two categories in which a cancer can fall: genetic and environmental. Idiopathic cancers are always environmental in that there is something in the environment (as opposed to the genes) that caused it. We don't know what it is, but it's there.
 
For example; my father died of lung cancer, and never smoked. Idiopathic? Sure, because we can't link it to any one thing in particular. But it was also spontaneous (not genetic), and thus falls under the category of environmentally driven cancers. It could have been a single burger, or a single breath of slightly contaminated air that gave him cancer. We don't know which, and thus it is idiopathic, but it was something not related to his genes, and so it was environmental.
 
You're right that cancer is an umbrella term for a host of diseases, but they all have the same basic qualities, and they all have a cause, whether we know it or not, and whether we can avoid it or not.
 
 
I really have to disagree with you on some of your points. Many Cancers are unknown and spontaneous without being either genetic or environmental. Many forms of childhood cancer are neither genetic (they did not inherit a mutation from their parents) or environmental (they haven't been around enough to acquire a mutation) and just seem to occur suddenly. Cancer can be a lottery and everyone has a ticket. Also it takes a lot more than a "single burger" ect. to set off the complex chain of reaction needed to cause cancer, not to mention continually cumulative exposure or a blast of radiation akin to Hiroshima/Chernobyl.
 
Everything does not add up, the human body is massively confusing and there is no sure fire way to preserve perfect health.

Children are developing many chronic diseases at a early age. Diabetes with in their 1st year is one. Juvenile arthritis is another. Age does not protect anybody from diseases. You also don't need long term exposure to cause cancer or any disease. Just a "miss firing" with the immune system.

Doctors claim all chronic diseases have an unknown cause except for one... Celiac Disease. Research says otherwise. They just can't find a way to make a huge profit from it. Therefore to them it's all b.s.

ps... do you know there are a lot of doctors that believe no one needs to be on a Gluten Free diet? And some professors are preaching that in med school.

 

 

Can I ask where you're from? no offense but you seem like a paranoid American.



#53 SDR WellnessCoach

SDR WellnessCoach

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 360
    Likes: 13
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wilkes Barre, Pa
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Achievements

     

Posted 11 January 2014 - 07:20 AM



 



 




What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.
You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 
Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.
 
I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.

>>>Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.
>ockquote>
 
Idiopathic means there is no specific known cause. It does not mean that a cause does not exist. There are only two categories in which a cancer can fall: genetic and environmental. Idiopathic cancers are always environmental in that there is something in the environment (as opposed to the genes) that caused it. We don't know what it is, but it's there.
 
For example; my father died of lung cancer, and never smoked. Idiopathic? Sure, because we can't link it to any one thing in particular. But it was also spontaneous (not genetic), and thus falls under the category of environmentally driven cancers. It could have been a single burger, or a single breath of slightly contaminated air that gave him cancer. We don't know which, and thus it is idiopathic, but it was something not related to his genes, and so it was environmental.
 
You're right that cancer is an umbrella term for a host of diseases, but they all have the same basic qualities, and they all have a cause, whether we know it or not, and whether we can avoid it or not.
 

 
I really have to disagree with you on some of your points. Many Cancers are unknown and spontaneous without being either genetic or environmental. Many forms of childhood cancer are neither genetic (they did not inherit a mutation from their parents) or environmental (they haven't been around enough to acquire a mutation) and just seem to occur suddenly. Cancer can be a lottery and everyone has a ticket. Also it takes a lot more than a "single burger" ect. to set off the complex chain of reaction needed to cause cancer, not to mention continually cumulative exposure or a blast of radiation akin to Hiroshima/Chernobyl.
 
Everything does not add up, the human body is massively confusing and there is no sure fire way to preserve perfect health.
Children are developing many chronic diseases at a early age. Diabetes with in their 1st year is one. Juvenile arthritis is another. Age does not protect anybody from diseases. You also don't need long term exposure to cause cancer or any disease. Just a "miss firing" with the immune system.
Doctors claim all chronic diseases have an unknown cause except for one... Celiac Disease. Research says otherwise. They just can't find a way to make a huge profit from it. Therefore to them it's all b.s.
ps... do you know there are a lot of doctors that believe no one needs to be on a Gluten Free diet? And some professors are preaching that in med school.
 
 
Can I ask where you're from? no offense but you seem like a paranoid American.
I work in the medical field. I have a little more insight to the goings on than the average person. This means I talk to doctors, PA's, CRNP's, Med Students, and so on. Is this the type of people that you associate with on a daily basis?

Ps... I'm waiting to hear the different types of cancers. And don't give me the different locations, I want the different types.

pss... if you knew what I know you would be "paranoid" to ;)

Edited by SDR WellnessCoach, 11 January 2014 - 07:29 AM.


#54 kokobear

kokobear

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 32
    Likes: 2
About Me
  • Joined: 31-December 13

Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:30 AM

 

 



 



 




What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.
You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 
Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.
 
I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.

>>>>Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.
>ockquote>
 
Idiopathic means there is no specific known cause. It does not mean that a cause does not exist. There are only two categories in which a cancer can fall: genetic and environmental. Idiopathic cancers are always environmental in that there is something in the environment (as opposed to the genes) that caused it. We don't know what it is, but it's there.
 
For example; my father died of lung cancer, and never smoked. Idiopathic? Sure, because we can't link it to any one thing in particular. But it was also spontaneous (not genetic), and thus falls under the category of environmentally driven cancers. It could have been a single burger, or a single breath of slightly contaminated air that gave him cancer. We don't know which, and thus it is idiopathic, but it was something not related to his genes, and so it was environmental.
 
You're right that cancer is an umbrella term for a host of diseases, but they all have the same basic qualities, and they all have a cause, whether we know it or not, and whether we can avoid it or not.
 

lockquote>  
I really have to disagree with you on some of your points. Many Cancers are unknown and spontaneous without being either genetic or environmental. Many forms of childhood cancer are neither genetic (they did not inherit a mutation from their parents) or environmental (they haven't been around enough to acquire a mutation) and just seem to occur suddenly. Cancer can be a lottery and everyone has a ticket. Also it takes a lot more than a "single burger" ect. to set off the complex chain of reaction needed to cause cancer, not to mention continually cumulative exposure or a blast of radiation akin to Hiroshima/Chernobyl.
 
Everything does not add up, the human body is massively confusing and there is no sure fire way to preserve perfect health.
Children are developing many chronic diseases at a early age. Diabetes with in their 1st year is one. Juvenile arthritis is another. Age does not protect anybody from diseases. You also don't need long term exposure to cause cancer or any disease. Just a "miss firing" with the immune system.
Doctors claim all chronic diseases have an unknown cause except for one... Celiac Disease. Research says otherwise. They just can't find a way to make a huge profit from it. Therefore to them it's all b.s.
ps... do you know there are a lot of doctors that believe no one needs to be on a Gluten Free diet? And some professors are preaching that in med school.
 
 
Can I ask where you're from? no offense but you seem like a paranoid American.
I work in the medical field. I have a little more insight to the goings on than the average person. This means I talk to doctors, PA's, CRNP's, Med Students, and so on. Is this the type of people that you associate with on a daily basis?

Ps... I'm waiting to hear the different types of cancers. And don't give me the different locations, I want the different types.

pss... if you knew what I know you would be "paranoid" to wink.png

 

 

 

- Carcinoma

 

- Sarcoma

 

- Lymphoma

 

- Germ Cell

 

- Melanoma

 

- Glioma

 

- Leukemia



#55 SDR WellnessCoach

SDR WellnessCoach

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 360
    Likes: 13
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wilkes Barre, Pa
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Achievements

     

Posted 11 January 2014 - 12:18 PM


 


 



 



 



What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.
You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 
Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.
 
I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.

>>>>Wrong. Many cancers are unknown (idiopathic) this is not the same as genetic and environmental either. Only one third of cancers is associated with lifestyle abuse and environment, fewer than that is inherited (2%-5%) and the rest are generally unknown. Anyone can get cancer, even the healthiest eaters and those that abstain from poor lifestyle choices. The disease knows no discrimination. There are so many diseases under the umbrella term "cancer: it's impossible to protect yourself from all of them as many do not need a cause to occur.
>ockquote>
 
Idiopathic means there is no specific known cause. It does not mean that a cause does not exist. There are only two categories in which a cancer can fall: genetic and environmental. Idiopathic cancers are always environmental in that there is something in the environment (as opposed to the genes) that caused it. We don't know what it is, but it's there.
 
For example; my father died of lung cancer, and never smoked. Idiopathic? Sure, because we can't link it to any one thing in particular. But it was also spontaneous (not genetic), and thus falls under the category of environmentally driven cancers. It could have been a single burger, or a single breath of slightly contaminated air that gave him cancer. We don't know which, and thus it is idiopathic, but it was something not related to his genes, and so it was environmental.
 
You're right that cancer is an umbrella term for a host of diseases, but they all have the same basic qualities, and they all have a cause, whether we know it or not, and whether we can avoid it or not.
 
lockquote>
 
I really have to disagree with you on some of your points. Many Cancers are unknown and spontaneous without being either genetic or environmental. Many forms of childhood cancer are neither genetic (they did not inherit a mutation from their parents) or environmental (they haven't been around enough to acquire a mutation) and just seem to occur suddenly. Cancer can be a lottery and everyone has a ticket. Also it takes a lot more than a "single burger" ect. to set off the complex chain of reaction needed to cause cancer, not to mention continually cumulative exposure or a blast of radiation akin to Hiroshima/Chernobyl.
 
Everything does not add up, the human body is massively confusing and there is no sure fire way to preserve perfect health.

Children are developing many chronic diseases at a early age. Diabetes with in their 1st year is one. Juvenile arthritis is another. Age does not protect anybody from diseases. You also don't need long term exposure to cause cancer or any disease. Just a "miss firing" with the immune system.
Doctors claim all chronic diseases have an unknown cause except for one... Celiac Disease. Research says otherwise. They just can't find a way to make a huge profit from it. Therefore to them it's all b.s.
ps... do you know there are a lot of doctors that believe no one needs to be on a Gluten Free diet? And some professors are preaching that in med school.
 
 
Can I ask where you're from? no offense but you seem like a paranoid American.
I work in the medical field. I have a little more insight to the goings on than the average person. This means I talk to doctors, PA's, CRNP's, Med Students, and so on. Is this the type of people that you associate with on a daily basis?
Ps... I'm waiting to hear the different types of cancers. And don't give me the different locations, I want the different types.
pss... if you knew what I know you would be "paranoid" to ;) 
 
 
- Carcinoma
 
- Sarcoma
 
- Lymphoma
 
- Germ Cell
 
- Melanoma
 
- Glioma
 
- Leukemia

I'll give you an idea of what they mean to me.

Arthritis, Lupus, Sjorgrens, Celiac Disease, Thyroid Disease, Diabetes, Ect.. these are all autoimmune diseases yet are treated with different medications. All these autoimmune diseases are linked to cancer. Is it becoming any clearer to you yet? If not then I don't know what to tell you other than keep believing what you want.

Ps. If you didn't read the link I posted about the immune system then you should. Our immune system can get as nasty (and as toxic) as it needs to. Just needs the right toxin to piss it off.

#56 Quetzlcoatl

Quetzlcoatl

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 531
    Likes: 66
About Me
  • Joined: 04-March 13

Posted 12 January 2014 - 02:54 PM

Well I've given you guys all the information I can. You can keep denying it but until I see evidence I won't be convinced. I, as a scientist, have embraced many aspects of holistic medicine. However, we should also aim to keep a certain level of scientific integrity. Some of the things that have been said in this thread are way off base; there's literally no evidence for more than one or two cancers being caused by allergies, and to say otherwise is a truly ridiculous assertion.

 

People should be more careful of assuming that correlation is equivalent to causation. For example; there are some cancers that are correlated with autoimmune diseases. Do they both have the same cause? Maybe, but it's more likely that an improperly functioning immune system is simply unable to destroy cancer cells that arise as an outcome of normal functions, and indeed there is ample evidence for this. As in, the cancer is not an outcome of 'allergy', but rather of autoimmunity, which itself can be the outcome of 'allergy'. But even then, these are a minority of cases. Lung cancer in smokers is not caused by soybean 'allergy'. That simply isn't logical; not only is there no evidence in favor of this claim, but there is also an abundance of evidence against it.

 

Finally, I want to say that I support using diet as medicine, and I think it's clear that most modern ailments are outcomes of our diets (although novel chemical exposure probably also has a hand in it). I just want to make sure that we're addressing the problems in the correct way and for the correct reasons, as not to give anyone hope where there is none (I wouldn't dare say that avoiding XYZ foods will prevent you from getting cancer; it would likely reduce the risk of getting cancer, and that's all that can be said).



#57 CelloIsLove

CelloIsLove

    Pedo-stache <3

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 835
    Gallery Images: 9
    Blog Entries: 2
    Likes: 65
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Chicago, IL
  • Joined: 29-December 08

Achievements

     

Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:06 PM


don't you also think food is different today, than what our grandparents ate?   some of us are prone to acne of course, but GMO and chemically processed foods don't help
 
allergies are on the rise too...food is very different today, and not a good different....

even more than this actually, pesticides are super-estrogens, so are soft plastics, chicken injected with hormones, cows/fish given hormone inducers.. these were not present by my grandparents times.
 
so what? this would never equal: acne = bad diet.  unhealthy diet. (but rather hormone contaminated diet <a different story)
making such a theory is as dangerously as going to the "gypsy" (white magic/witch/fortune tellers) for a disease, instead of going to the doctor.
 
PLUS:
the majority of foods incriminated in the acne domain are actually healthy like:
-soy
-flaxseeds
-wheat
-yeast
-nuts
-yogurt
-etc etc
 
also, eating healthy does not equal good health. humans are highly social beigns. that is way more important.
also, many times in unspiritual societies (like today) matter is extremely important, thus:
it is a social requierement to get through tests:
-drinking coffe with colleags
-drinking as much alcohol as you can
-smoking
-wearing short skirts/thin clothes in the freezing cold
-drinking sodas without causing oral bacterial imbalance (bad breath)
-etc, natural selection tests
 
 
 
-soy
-flaxseeds
-wheat
-yeast
-nuts
-yogurt
-etc etc
 
Ok, "healthy" is a subjective term. The conventional idea of healthy and what is actually nourishing and good for the human body are two totally different things. Just because the food pyramid is a certain way, or because some doctor on TV says something is "healthy" doesn't necessarily make it so. Also, I don't do any of the "social requirements" you listed and I'm definitely quite social. Unhealthy habits don't lead to better relationships. For me, improving my health led to better mental health, which helped me be a better, more compassionate friend and wife.

Edited by CelloIsLove, 18 January 2014 - 01:09 PM.


#58 alternativista

alternativista

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,449
    Likes: 1,063
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 18 January 2014 - 06:41 PM

 


don't you also think food is different today, than what our grandparents ate?   some of us are prone to acne of course, but GMO and chemically processed foods don't help
 
allergies are on the rise too...food is very different today, and not a good different....

even more than this actually, pesticides are super-estrogens, so are soft plastics, chicken injected with hormones, cows/fish given hormone inducers.. these were not present by my grandparents times.
 
so what? this would never equal: acne = bad diet.  unhealthy diet. (but rather hormone contaminated diet <a different story)
making such a theory is as dangerously as going to the "gypsy" (white magic/witch/fortune tellers) for a disease, instead of going to the doctor.
 
PLUS:
the majority of foods incriminated in the acne domain are actually healthy like:
-soy
-flaxseeds
-wheat
-yeast
-nuts
-yogurt
-etc etc
 
also, eating healthy does not equal good health. humans are highly social beigns. that is way more important.
also, many times in unspiritual societies (like today) matter is extremely important, thus:
it is a social requierement to get through tests:
-drinking coffe with colleags
-drinking as much alcohol as you can
-smoking
-wearing short skirts/thin clothes in the freezing cold
-drinking sodas without causing oral bacterial imbalance (bad breath)
-etc, natural selection tests
 
 
 
-soy
-flaxseeds
-wheat
-yeast
-nuts
-yogurt
-etc etc
 
Ok, "healthy" is a subjective term. The conventional idea of healthy and what is actually nourishing and good for the human body are two totally different things. Just because the food pyramid is a certain way, or because some doctor on TV says something is "healthy" doesn't necessarily make it so. Also, I don't do any of the "social requirements" you listed and I'm definitely quite social. Unhealthy habits don't lead to better relationships. For me, improving my health led to better mental health, which helped me be a better, more compassionate friend and wife.

 

Yep.  I do none of those things as well. And I'm extremely busy socially.  And much of it evolves around the organic farm and food coops where I volunteer.  I have parties, potlucks, film nights and other gatherings just about every night of the week. 

 

I'd get more interesting friends if I were you.



#59 dscully

dscully

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 153
    Likes: 47
About Me
  • Joined: 24-December 13

Achievements

     

Posted 19 January 2014 - 09:51 AM

Does anyone have any theories? we all know acne has a strong genetic component but the question is why would it be selected. I've heard the theory that acne is meant to keep the opposite sex away through youth in order to prevent pregnancy until the person is an adult but I've always found that ridiculous as many, many people carry acne into adulthood and beyond so the theory doesn't add up. Why do you think this trait exists?

There is no purpose for acne. Acne is a disease caused by insulin spikes and possibly environmental factors as well. People without acne carry epigenetic weath that is allowing them to eat whatever they want and not show outward signs of problems. Epigenetic weath is like a bank balance that can be either added to or spent down between generations depending on environment, diet and exercise. Children don't just inherit genes from their parents, but also genetic markers. Certain genes are turned off or on depending on the health of their parents. Due to my dad's not so great epigenetic inheritance, I was born with a predisposition to acne that responds to a restrictive diet that avoids all high glycemic index foods, yes... including some fruits.

 

Acne is not a curse. It is a disease caused by modern foods... particularly refined sugars and factory farmed dairy. The reason that certain people are less predisposed to acne is likely because their recent ancestors ate an excellent diet that did not include many of the triggers that cause acne in a modern acne sufferer, and they might just have gotten very lucky and avoided the gene for it entirely. However, a generation or two of less than optimal health and high stress and the epigenetic weath can and will be eventually destroyed, leading not just to acne but to a host of other inflammatory conditions like heart disease, cancer, and arthritis. Everyone reacts to a less-than-optimal environment differently due to genes. Acne sufferers react in a very obvious, socially-painful way, but people with perfect skin that go their lives eating hydrogenated oils, sugars, and factory-farmed dairy will suffer from something... eventually. The piper must be paid.

I have done the most research on the impact that excellent diet has on genetic expression, but have also read that emotional wellbeing and stress levels also have a good deal to do with health of subsequent generations. I have read that children concieved when the mother is highly stressed (as in cases of extreme poverty or war) are born with symptoms of something that looks a lot like PTSD.


Edited by dscully, 19 January 2014 - 10:03 AM.


#60 dylonspythotfyre

dylonspythotfyre

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 30
    Likes: 4
About Me
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 20 January 2014 - 11:14 AM

What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.

You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 

Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.

 

Did your allergy testing look for IgG or IgE sensitivity?

 

 

 

 


What's funny is what The China Study proposes is what I am finding through blood tests. The amount of people that test positive with a allergy to animal proteins is staggering. Also, you must not know the cause of high cholesterol or how to lower it without meds.
You act like you know more than the researchers that spent a lot of their lives studying this while knowing that there is no big payday except for saving lives in the future. Besides, there being no known cause is just laughable. Things don't just happen for know reason.

 
Meh, I took the allergy tests and I was only sensitive to grains and legumes. Every kind of meat was fine. I know n=1, but I find your findings dubious. And please do enlighten me about the causes of high cholesterol; also let me know how you think cholesterol leads to heart disease, because cholesterol itself is not dangerous, something must happen to it first. Someone I am related to who is doing the paleo diet recently got their blood tested, and their total cholesterol levels were high - with lower than average LDL and much higher than average HDL. The doctor was quite surprised. He commented that these are the kinds of blood tests doctors usually see in people who will live to ninety or a hundred.
 
I'm a scientist. I'm not acting like I know more than those who studied this, I'm simply critiquing their work. It's easy to become wrapped up in your own work and not notice a host of flaws in your own data if you don't have people on the outside looking in and telling you where you're going wrong.
I never said cholesterol is connected to heart disease. I know what causes heart disease and high cholesterol is not it. In fact, high cholesterol is not even a disease. If you want to know how to lower cholesterol then hit me up in the private message. I'm not here to help with other illnesses other than skin disorders unless it's private.

As for you testing negative for animal meats, I guarantee your testing is wrong. I have access to testing from the top lab in the country. They are the first to offer Gluten Sensitivity testing.

 

This is a pretty strong claim to make without knowing his history, diet, or the lab he used. What types of antibodies does your top lab use in testing for food sensitivities?


Edited by dylonspythotfyre, 20 January 2014 - 11:14 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users