Everyone carries the "acne gene" , most people, however, do not encounter their trigger.
Maybe. Because the issue isn't necessarily the genes. Turns out after all the mapping was done, we don't have that many genes. It's the enzymes. And they are switched on and off by what you do to yourself or by what your parents did and then are passed down to you. In the study involving epigenetics & diabetes prone people, they found it took a few generations for the switch back to 'normal.'
Here's the thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/298123-genes-involved-in-acne/
What about those with the Huntington's gene or other dreaded genetic disorders? That can't really be switched off or can it? I'm curious.
You can turn off Genes by removing the allergen that turned it on. The popular name for it is "reversing" , as in reversing chronic disease. It's no myth. That's what I do.
There's not always an allergen. People develop things spontaneously for reasons unknown.
That is according to our current healthcare system (which ranks 46th in the world by the way) to use as their excuse to push more meds so Doctors can keep that paycheck coming in from pharmaceutical companies.
When you break down what chronic diseases really are, you see what they really are. 2 main types... Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Doctors unwittingly gave us the cause of Autoimmune with what causes Celiac Disease and inflammation is an allergic reaction. It's really that simple.
There are many inflammation sources/responses that have nothing to do with allergic response.
Everyone carries the "acne gene" , most people, however, do not encounter their trigger.
Maybe. Because the issue isn't necessarily the genes. Turns out after all the mapping was done, we don't have that many genes. It's the enzymes. And they are switched on and off by what you do to yourself or by what your parents did and then are passed down to you. In the study involving epigenetics & diabetes prone people, they found it took a few generations for the switch back to 'normal.'
Here's the thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/298123-genes-involved-in-acne/
What about those with the Huntington's gene or other dreaded genetic disorders? That can't really be switched off or can it? I'm curious.
You can turn off Genes by removing the allergen that turned it on. The popular name for it is "reversing" , as in reversing chronic disease. It's no myth. That's what I do.
There's not always an allergen. People develop things spontaneously for reasons unknown.
That is according to our current healthcare system (which ranks 46th in the world by the way) to use as their excuse to push more meds so Doctors can keep that paycheck coming in from pharmaceutical companies.
When you break down what chronic diseases really are, you see what they really are. 2 main types... Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Doctors unwittingly gave us the cause of Autoimmune with what causes Celiac Disease and inflammation is an allergic reaction. It's really that simple.
Who's "our" healthcare system? not everyone here is from the United States, you have to think beyond your country. Other European health systems are functioning much better than the U.S in terms of healthcare, patient satisfaction, longevity ect. not every system is broken and corrupt like you may perceive it to be.
And autoimmune issues are highly complex in their pathogenesis, neither is it all chalked up to an allergic reaction.
Everyone carries the "acne gene" , most people, however, do not encounter their trigger.
Maybe. Because the issue isn't necessarily the genes. Turns out after all the mapping was done, we don't have that many genes. It's the enzymes. And they are switched on and off by what you do to yourself or by what your parents did and then are passed down to you. In the study involving epigenetics & diabetes prone people, they found it took a few generations for the switch back to 'normal.'
Here's the thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/298123-genes-involved-in-acne/
What about those with the Huntington's gene or other dreaded genetic disorders? That can't really be switched off or can it? I'm curious.
You can turn off Genes by removing the allergen that turned it on. The popular name for it is "reversing" , as in reversing chronic disease. It's no myth. That's what I do.
There's not always an allergen. People develop things spontaneously for reasons unknown.
That is according to our current healthcare system (which ranks 46th in the world by the way) to use as their excuse to push more meds so Doctors can keep that paycheck coming in from pharmaceutical companies.
When you break down what chronic diseases really are, you see what they really are. 2 main types... Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Doctors unwittingly gave us the cause of Autoimmune with what causes Celiac Disease and inflammation is an allergic reaction. It's really that simple.
Who's "our" healthcare system? not everyone here is from the United States, you have to think beyond your country. Other European health systems are functioning much better than the U.S in terms of healthcare, patient satisfaction, longevity ect. not every system is broken and corrupt like you may perceive it to be.
And autoimmune issues are highly complex in their pathogenesis, neither is it all chalked up to an allergic reaction.
so far I have reversed arthritis/joint pain, acid reflux, Celiac Disease, acne, psoriasis, dermatitis herpetiformis, rosacea, and vision loss. I also lowered cholesterol way below 200 and get people into their BMI range. Dr Peter Osborne has reversed thyroid disease and stage 3 kidney disease among others. We both use the same method. What diseases are more complex than those?
Everyone carries the "acne gene" , most people, however, do not encounter their trigger.
Maybe. Because the issue isn't necessarily the genes. Turns out after all the mapping was done, we don't have that many genes. It's the enzymes. And they are switched on and off by what you do to yourself or by what your parents did and then are passed down to you. In the study involving epigenetics & diabetes prone people, they found it took a few generations for the switch back to 'normal.'
Here's the thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/298123-genes-involved-in-acne/
What about those with the Huntington's gene or other dreaded genetic disorders? That can't really be switched off or can it? I'm curious.
You can turn off Genes by removing the allergen that turned it on. The popular name for it is "reversing" , as in reversing chronic disease. It's no myth. That's what I do.
There's not always an allergen. People develop things spontaneously for reasons unknown.
That is according to our current healthcare system (which ranks 46th in the world by the way) to use as their excuse to push more meds so Doctors can keep that paycheck coming in from pharmaceutical companies.
When you break down what chronic diseases really are, you see what they really are. 2 main types... Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Doctors unwittingly gave us the cause of Autoimmune with what causes Celiac Disease and inflammation is an allergic reaction. It's really that simple.
Who's "our" healthcare system? not everyone here is from the United States, you have to think beyond your country. Other European health systems are functioning much better than the U.S in terms of healthcare, patient satisfaction, longevity ect. not every system is broken and corrupt like you may perceive it to be.
And autoimmune issues are highly complex in their pathogenesis, neither is it all chalked up to an allergic reaction.
so far I have reversed arthritis/joint pain, acid reflux, Celiac Disease, acne, psoriasis, dermatitis herpetiformis, rosacea, and vision loss. I also lowered cholesterol way below 200 and get people into their BMI range. Dr Peter Osborne has reversed thyroid disease and stage 3 kidney disease among others. We both use the same method. What diseases are more complex than those?
Cystic fibrosis? many types of Cancers? Nervous system disorders ect.
Everyone carries the "acne gene" , most people, however, do not encounter their trigger.
Maybe. Because the issue isn't necessarily the genes. Turns out after all the mapping was done, we don't have that many genes. It's the enzymes. And they are switched on and off by what you do to yourself or by what your parents did and then are passed down to you. In the study involving epigenetics & diabetes prone people, they found it took a few generations for the switch back to 'normal.'
Here's the thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/298123-genes-involved-in-acne/
What about those with the Huntington's gene or other dreaded genetic disorders? That can't really be switched off or can it? I'm curious.
You can turn off Genes by removing the allergen that turned it on. The popular name for it is "reversing" , as in reversing chronic disease. It's no myth. That's what I do.
There's not always an allergen. People develop things spontaneously for reasons unknown.
That is according to our current healthcare system (which ranks 46th in the world by the way) to use as their excuse to push more meds so Doctors can keep that paycheck coming in from pharmaceutical companies.
When you break down what chronic diseases really are, you see what they really are. 2 main types... Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Doctors unwittingly gave us the cause of Autoimmune with what causes Celiac Disease and inflammation is an allergic reaction. It's really that simple.
Who's "our" healthcare system? not everyone here is from the United States, you have to think beyond your country. Other European health systems are functioning much better than the U.S in terms of healthcare, patient satisfaction, longevity ect. not every system is broken and corrupt like you may perceive it to be.
And autoimmune issues are highly complex in their pathogenesis, neither is it all chalked up to an allergic reaction.
so far I have reversed arthritis/joint pain, acid reflux, Celiac Disease, acne, psoriasis, dermatitis herpetiformis, rosacea, and vision loss. I also lowered cholesterol way below 200 and get people into their BMI range. Dr Peter Osborne has reversed thyroid disease and stage 3 kidney disease among others. We both use the same method. What diseases are more complex than those?
Cystic fibrosis? many types of Cancers? Nervous system disorders ect.
Haha, don't even bring up cancer...SDR WellnessCoach called that a severe allergic reaction in another post in which we argued the same thing that's being argued in this post.
Everyone carries the "acne gene" , most people, however, do not encounter their trigger.
Maybe. Because the issue isn't necessarily the genes. Turns out after all the mapping was done, we don't have that many genes. It's the enzymes. And they are switched on and off by what you do to yourself or by what your parents did and then are passed down to you. In the study involving epigenetics & diabetes prone people, they found it took a few generations for the switch back to 'normal.'
Here's the thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/298123-genes-involved-in-acne/
What about those with the Huntington's gene or other dreaded genetic disorders? That can't really be switched off or can it? I'm curious.
You can turn off Genes by removing the allergen that turned it on. The popular name for it is "reversing" , as in reversing chronic disease. It's no myth. That's what I do.
There's not always an allergen. People develop things spontaneously for reasons unknown.
That is according to our current healthcare system (which ranks 46th in the world by the way) to use as their excuse to push more meds so Doctors can keep that paycheck coming in from pharmaceutical companies.
When you break down what chronic diseases really are, you see what they really are. 2 main types... Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Doctors unwittingly gave us the cause of Autoimmune with what causes Celiac Disease and inflammation is an allergic reaction. It's really that simple.
Who's "our" healthcare system? not everyone here is from the United States, you have to think beyond your country. Other European health systems are functioning much better than the U.S in terms of healthcare, patient satisfaction, longevity ect. not every system is broken and corrupt like you may perceive it to be.
And autoimmune issues are highly complex in their pathogenesis, neither is it all chalked up to an allergic reaction.
so far I have reversed arthritis/joint pain, acid reflux, Celiac Disease, acne, psoriasis, dermatitis herpetiformis, rosacea, and vision loss. I also lowered cholesterol way below 200 and get people into their BMI range. Dr Peter Osborne has reversed thyroid disease and stage 3 kidney disease among others. We both use the same method. What diseases are more complex than those?
osteoporosis please. for my mum 
is that a reversible allergic reaction also? lol
Everyone carries the "acne gene" , most people, however, do not encounter their trigger.
Maybe. Because the issue isn't necessarily the genes. Turns out after all the mapping was done, we don't have that many genes. It's the enzymes. And they are switched on and off by what you do to yourself or by what your parents did and then are passed down to you. In the study involving epigenetics & diabetes prone people, they found it took a few generations for the switch back to 'normal.'
Here's the thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/298123-genes-involved-in-acne/
What about those with the Huntington's gene or other dreaded genetic disorders? That can't really be switched off or can it? I'm curious.
You can turn off Genes by removing the allergen that turned it on. The popular name for it is "reversing" , as in reversing chronic disease. It's no myth. That's what I do.
There's not always an allergen. People develop things spontaneously for reasons unknown.
That is according to our current healthcare system (which ranks 46th in the world by the way) to use as their excuse to push more meds so Doctors can keep that paycheck coming in from pharmaceutical companies.
When you break down what chronic diseases really are, you see what they really are. 2 main types... Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Doctors unwittingly gave us the cause of Autoimmune with what causes Celiac Disease and inflammation is an allergic reaction. It's really that simple.
Who's "our" healthcare system? not everyone here is from the United States, you have to think beyond your country. Other European health systems are functioning much better than the U.S in terms of healthcare, patient satisfaction, longevity ect. not every system is broken and corrupt like you may perceive it to be.
And autoimmune issues are highly complex in their pathogenesis, neither is it all chalked up to an allergic reaction.
so far I have reversed arthritis/joint pain, acid reflux, Celiac Disease, acne, psoriasis, dermatitis herpetiformis, rosacea, and vision loss. I also lowered cholesterol way below 200 and get people into their BMI range. Dr Peter Osborne has reversed thyroid disease and stage 3 kidney disease among others. We both use the same method. What diseases are more complex than those?
Cystic fibrosis? many types of Cancers? Nervous system disorders ect.
Haha, don't even bring up cancer...SDR WellnessCoach called that a severe allergic reaction in another post in which we argued the same thing that's being argued in this post.
You do know that the link between acid reflux and esophageal cancer is crystal clear? Now they linked acid reflux to throat and voice box cancers. Just like the link between thyroid disease and thyroid cancer.
People are reversing cancer by diet change alone. Why does that work? Because they are eliminating the allergen that is triggering the Gene that signals the immune response.
You can google that they say obese children are more likely to develop cancer than their non obese counter part. I reversed 2 out of 3 of those chronic diseases and Dr Osborne did the other by eliminating food allergies only.
Watch "Forks Over Knives" and you will here this from a biochemist and a few other Doctors. Or sit there and assume you are right and I'm wrong even though you have done nothing even close to what I have as well as others. You sound like the Dr's that said Celiac Disease was a European disease. Lol
You do know that the link between acid reflux and esophageal cancer is crystal clear? Now they linked acid reflux to throat and voice box cancers. Just like the link between thyroid disease and thyroid cancer.
People are reversing cancer by diet change alone. Why does that work? Because they are eliminating the allergen that is triggering the Gene that signals the immune response.
You can google that they say obese children are more likely to develop cancer than their non obese counter part. I reversed 2 out of 3 of those chronic diseases and Dr Osborne did the other by eliminating food allergies only.
Watch "Forks Over Knives" and you will here this from a biochemist and a few other Doctors. Or sit there and assume you are right and I'm wrong even though you have done nothing even close to what I have as well as others. You sound like the Dr's that said Celiac Disease was a European disease. Lol
You're right up to the point where you claim that diet works because you're eliminating an allergen. Cancer is not an autoimmune disease and it does not result from food allergy, rather it results from lack of nutrition combined with an imbalance of macromolecular nutrients (too many carbohydrates). Yes, diet can fix it and/or prevent it. But this isn't the result of removing allergens, rather a result of obtaining the correct nutrition and removing agents that screw with metabolism or suppress the immune system.
gahhhhhh....cancer is a result of a mutation in your DNA that causes your cells to grow and divide at rapid rates.
For example, certain types of skin cancer happen when UV rays change three nucleotides to three thymines in a row. This causes a break in the "ladder" of your DNA, and you can't create the proteins needed for normal cell growth. This is not an allergic reaction, and is also not caused by the unhealthy consumption of macromolecules. In fact, bacteria can get this mutation from UV rays...but I don't see them getting obese-- excessive nutrients are NOT the reason behind cancer.
Anyway...I believe we are getting WAAAY off topic from the original post.
gahhhhhh....cancer is a result of a mutation in your DNA that causes your cells to grow and divide at rapid rates.
For example, certain types of skin cancer happen when UV rays change three nucleotides to three thymines in a row. This causes a break in the "ladder" of your DNA, and you can't create the proteins needed for normal cell growth. This is not an allergic reaction, and is also not caused by the unhealthy consumption of macromolecules. In fact, bacteria can get this mutation from UV rays...but I don't see them getting obese-- excessive nutrients are NOT the reason behind cancer.
Anyway...I believe we are getting WAAAY off topic from the original post.
There are more ways than UV radiation to cause mutations in DNA. In fact, radiation is one of the less common causes of cancer, and is primarily restricted to skin cancer. Many more cancers arise from free radical reactions (a chain reaction in which an atom with a single unpaired electron can replace an atom with a full set of electrons, thus generating another radical). Free radicals are generated in a number of ways including smoking, radiation, and pollution, but they are primarily generated by our own metabolism (a side effect of the last step of the electron transport chain in which O2 becomes H2O). This is why our body makes a number of antioxidants, and why antioxidants are said to have cancer-preventative activities.
Even in conventional medicine, it has been clear for some time now that obesity and diabetes are correlated with increased cancer risk, as are smoking and excessive alcohol consumption.
You do know that the link between acid reflux and esophageal cancer is crystal clear? Now they linked acid reflux to throat and voice box cancers. Just like the link between thyroid disease and thyroid cancer.
People are reversing cancer by diet change alone. Why does that work? Because they are eliminating the allergen that is triggering the Gene that signals the immune response.
You can google that they say obese children are more likely to develop cancer than their non obese counter part. I reversed 2 out of 3 of those chronic diseases and Dr Osborne did the other by eliminating food allergies only.
Watch "Forks Over Knives" and you will here this from a biochemist and a few other Doctors. Or sit there and assume you are right and I'm wrong even though you have done nothing even close to what I have as well as others. You sound like the Dr's that said Celiac Disease was a European disease. Lol
You're right up to the point where you claim that diet works because you're eliminating an allergen. Cancer is not an autoimmune disease and it does not result from food allergy, rather it results from lack of nutrition combined with an imbalance of macromolecular nutrients (too many carbohydrates). Yes, diet can fix it and/or prevent it. But this isn't the result of removing allergens, rather a result of obtaining the correct nutrition and removing agents that screw with metabolism or suppress the immune system.
umm... you did know Celiac Disease is also linked to cancer right? You also knew Celiac Disease is caused by an immune response to gluten I'm sure?
Allergens are what sets everything in motion.
Ps... the biochemist in "Forks Over Knives" grew up on a dairy farm and set out to show how good milk was for us. He learned just the opposite. Hence "Forks Over Knives".
pss... pay attention to some medication commercials, some tell you cancer can be an allergic reaction to the medication.
umm... you did know Celiac Disease is also linked to cancer right? You also knew Celiac Disease is caused by an immune response to gluten I'm sure?
Allergens are what sets everything in motion.
Ps... the biochemist in "Forks Over Knives" grew up on a dairy farm and set out to show how good milk was for us. He learned just the opposite. Hence "Forks Over Knives".
pss... pay attention to some medication commercials, some tell you cancer can be an allergic reaction to the medication.
There are cases where immune reactions *can* lead to cancer, but this is in the extreme minority of cancers. Celiac being correlated with cancer is one case. The types of cancers celiacs are disposed to get are also extremely limited, I think to some lymphomas (probably because most of your immune system is situated around the digestive tract). Most cancers are not caused by immune reactions to an antigen.
In regards to medication, side effects can sometimes include cancer, but this is pretty much never due to allergic reaction; it's due to immune suppression.
But come on now, unless you want to deny that UV radiation causes mutations via T dimers which can lead to cancer, you can't make the claim that all cancers originate from an immune response, nevermind allergy.
umm... you did know Celiac Disease is also linked to cancer right? You also knew Celiac Disease is caused by an immune response to gluten I'm sure?
Allergens are what sets everything in motion.
Ps... the biochemist in "Forks Over Knives" grew up on a dairy farm and set out to show how good milk was for us. He learned just the opposite. Hence "Forks Over Knives".
pss... pay attention to some medication commercials, some tell you cancer can be an allergic reaction to the medication.
There are cases where immune reactions *can* lead to cancer, but this is in the extreme minority of cancers. Celiac being correlated with cancer is one case. The types of cancers celiacs are disposed to get are also extremely limited, I think to some lymphomas (probably because most of your immune system is situated around the digestive tract). Most cancers are not caused by immune reactions to an antigen.
In regards to medication, side effects can sometimes include cancer, but this is pretty much never due to allergic reaction; it's due to immune suppression.
But come on now, unless you want to deny that UV radiation causes mutations via T dimers which can lead to cancer, you can't make the claim that all cancers originate from an immune response, nevermind allergy.
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.
gahhhhhh....cancer is a result of a mutation in your DNA that causes your cells to grow and divide at rapid rates.
For example, certain types of skin cancer happen when UV rays change three nucleotides to three thymines in a row. This causes a break in the "ladder" of your DNA, and you can't create the proteins needed for normal cell growth. This is not an allergic reaction, and is also not caused by the unhealthy consumption of macromolecules. In fact, bacteria can get this mutation from UV rays...but I don't see them getting obese-- excessive nutrients are NOT the reason behind cancer.
Anyway...I believe we are getting WAAAY off topic from the original post.
There are more ways than UV radiation to cause mutations in DNA. In fact, radiation is one of the less common causes of cancer, and is primarily restricted to skin cancer. Many more cancers arise from free radical reactions (a chain reaction in which an atom with a single unpaired electron can replace an atom with a full set of electrons, thus generating another radical). Free radicals are generated in a number of ways including smoking, radiation, and pollution, but they are primarily generated by our own metabolism (a side effect of the last step of the electron transport chain in which O2 becomes H2O). This is why our body makes a number of antioxidants, and why antioxidants are said to have cancer-preventative activities.
Even in conventional medicine, it has been clear for some time now that obesity and diabetes are correlated with increased cancer risk, as are smoking and excessive alcohol consumption.
For one reason, cancer cells are full of insulin receptors to divert sugar to cancer cells for rapid growth. Low glycemic diet would slow growth and let your body defeat the cancer the way it would have done in the first place without you even being aware if only you hadn't been consuming massive amounts of sugar & high glycemic meals.
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.
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.
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.nih.gov/pmc/articles/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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_and_cancer
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.
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.nih.gov/pmc/articles/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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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.nih.gov/pmc/articles/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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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.
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.
Here is a little info on the immune system... http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/immunesystem/page1
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.
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.