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.

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

A lot of the stuff in the diet/holistic medicine threads is hokus pokus mumbjo jumbo. Most of the people base their assertions on a book they read a long time ago, on a blog they found through a google search, or they just base their assertions on the fact that they know a really smart person.

That being said, I would not argue that allergies cause cancers. However, I would argue that chronic exposure to foods which cause allergies will lead to chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation does cause cancer.

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.

There are certain autoimmune conditions where I would agree. There are a number of tumor-suppressing genes expressed as part of the immune system and dis-regulation of these genes or their protein product can in fact lead to an cellular environment where cancer is allowed to develop.

That being said, I would once again argue that autoimmune diseases where the body attacks itself will create an environment of chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation can cause cancer. In a chronic inflammatory reaction, there will be recruitment of cytokines, growth factors, reactive oxygen species, and hydrolytic enzymes. This creates a mutagenic environment which can cause cancer to develop.

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.

A lot of the stuff in the diet/holistic medicine threads is hokus pokus mumbjo jumbo. Most of the people base their assertions on a book they read a long time ago, on a blog they found through a google search, or they just base their assertions on the fact that they know a really smart person.

That being said, I would not argue that allergies cause cancers. However, I would argue that chronic exposure to foods which cause allergies will lead to chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation does cause cancer.

>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.

There are certain autoimmune conditions where I would agree. There are a number of tumor-suppressing genes expressed as part of the immune system and dis-regulation of these genes or their protein product can in fact lead to an cellular environment where cancer is allowed to develop.

That being said, I would once again argue that autoimmune diseases where the body attacks itself will create an environment of chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation can cause cancer. In a chronic inflammatory reaction, there will be recruitment of cytokines, growth factors, reactive oxygen species, and hydrolytic enzymes. This creates a mutagenic environment which can cause cancer to develop.

All that is true. Except the argument going on in this thread is that allergies are the sole cause of the inflammation that causes cancer, most other degenerative health conditions & acne. When in reality there are numerous inflammatory processes going on that have nothing to do with allergic responce.

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.

A lot of the stuff in the diet/holistic medicine threads is hokus pokus mumbjo jumbo. Most of the people base their assertions on a book they read a long time ago, on a blog they found through a google search, or they just base their assertions on the fact that they know a really smart person.

That being said, I would not argue that allergies cause cancers. However, I would argue that chronic exposure to foods which cause allergies will lead to chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation does cause cancer.

>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 again

st it.

There are certain autoimmune conditions where I would agree. There are a number of tumor-suppressing genes expressed as part of the immune system and dis-regulation of these genes or their protein product can in fact lead to an cellular environment where cancer is allowed to develop.

That being said, I would once again argue that autoimmune diseases where the body attacks itself will create an environment of chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation can cause cancer. In a chronic inflammatory reaction, there will be recruitment of cytokines, growth factors, reactive oxygen species, and hydrolytic enzymes. This creates a mutagenic environment which can cause cancer to develop.

All that is true. Except the argument going on in this thread is that allergies are the sole cause of the inflammation that causes cancer, most other degenerative health conditions & acne. When in reality there are numerous inflammatory processes going on that have nothing to do with allergic responce.

Ooooh. Gotchya. Yah I would not go so far as to say that allergies are the sole cause of inflammation in the human. I would agree with you that inflammatory processes are numerous and diverse.

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.

A lot of the stuff in the diet/holistic medicine threads is hokus pokus mumbjo jumbo. Most of the people base their assertions on a book they read a long time ago, on a blog they found through a google search, or they just base their assertions on the fact that they know a really smart person.

That being said, I would not argue that allergies cause cancers. However, I would argue that chronic exposure to foods which cause allergies will lead to chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation does cause cancer.

>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.

There are certain autoimmune conditions where I would agree. There are a number of tumor-suppressing genes expressed as part of the immune system and dis-regulation of these genes or their protein product can in fact lead to an cellular environment where cancer is allowed to develop.

That being said, I would once again argue that autoimmune diseases where the body attacks itself will create an environment of chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation can cause cancer. In a chronic inflammatory reaction, there will be recruitment of cytokines, growth factors, reactive oxygen species, and hydrolytic enzymes. This creates a mutagenic environment which can cause cancer to develop.

Yes, you're exactly right. Food allergies do indeed contribute to the tissue environment required to encourage cancerous cell growth, but they are not the sole contributor, which is what was being argued. What I was trying to get at was really that preventing cancer isn't as simple as avoiding allergenic foods; your metabolism itself is one of the largest contributors to tissue damage (and thus inflammation). People should know that it simply isn't enough to avoid allergens; rather we must also acquire beneficial nutrients from the foods we eat to protect ourselves from...well, ourselves.

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.

A lot of the stuff in the diet/holistic medicine threads is hokus pokus mumbjo jumbo. Most of the people base their assertions on a book they read a long time ago, on a blog they found through a google search, or they just base their assertions on the fact that they know a really smart person.

That being said, I would not argue that allergies cause cancers. However, I would argue that chronic exposure to foods which cause allergies will lead to chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation does cause cancer.

>

>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.

>

There are certain autoimmune conditions where I would agree. There are a number of tumor-suppressing genes expressed as part of the immune system and dis-regulation of these genes or their protein product can in fact lead to an cellular environment where cancer is allowed to develop.

That being said, I would once again argue that autoimmune diseases where the body attacks itself will create an environment of chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation can cause cancer. In a chronic inflammatory reaction, there will be recruitment of cytokines, growth factors, reactive oxygen species, and hydrolytic enzymes. This creates a mutagenic environment which can cause cancer to develop.

 

Yes, you're exactly right. Food allergies do indeed contribute to the tissue environment required to encourage cancerous cell growth, but they are not the sole contributor, which is what was being argued. What I was trying to get at was really that preventing cancer isn't as simple as avoiding allergenic foods; your metabolism itself is one of the largest contributors to tissue damage (and thus inflammation). People should know that it simply isn't enough to avoid allergens; rather we must also acquire beneficial nutrients from the foods we eat to protect ourselves from...well, ourselves.

I could post a link to a pharmaceutical company proudly talking about the new cancer drug which they just happen to mention the cause of cancer in it which is what I am trying to convey to you. You won't believe me and you would not believe the Ohio State University that published it because you, like everybody else, are waiting for a confession to come out from a business that is making too much money to ever do that.

I will tell you this. They don't hide it from us, they assume we will never put it together. Except for me and a few others that did.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Feel free to elucidate.

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.

A lot of the stuff in the diet/holistic medicine threads is hokus pokus mumbjo jumbo. Most of the people base their assertions on a book they read a long time ago, on a blog they found through a google search, or they just base their assertions on the fact that they know a really smart person.

That being said, I would not argue that allergies cause cancers. However, I would argue that chronic exposure to foods which cause allergies will lead to chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation does cause cancer.

>

>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.

>

There are certain autoimmune conditions where I would agree. There are a number of tumor-suppressing genes expressed as part of the immune system and dis-regulation of these genes or their protein product can in fact lead to an cellular environment where cancer is allowed to develop.

That being said, I would once again argue that autoimmune diseases where the body attacks itself will create an environment of chronic inflammation and chronic inflammation can cause cancer. In a chronic inflammatory reaction, there will be recruitment of cytokines, growth factors, reactive oxygen species, and hydrolytic enzymes. This creates a mutagenic environment which can cause cancer to develop.

 

Yes, you're exactly right. Food allergies do indeed contribute to the tissue environment required to encourage cancerous cell growth, but they are not the sole contributor, which is what was being argued. What I was trying to get at was really that preventing cancer isn't as simple as avoiding allergenic foods; your metabolism itself is one of the largest contributors to tissue damage (and thus inflammation). People should know that it simply isn't enough to avoid allergens; rather we must also acquire beneficial nutrients from the foods we eat to protect ourselves from...well, ourselves.

Such as the post prandial affects of a high glycemic load meal or drink. Which also has a huge impact on acne.

Yes, you're exactly right. Food allergies do indeed contribute to the tissue environment required to encourage cancerous cell growth, but they are not the sole contributor, which is what was being argued. What I was trying to get at was really that preventing cancer isn't as simple as avoiding allergenic foods; your metabolism itself is one of the largest contributors to tissue damage (and thus inflammation). People should know that it simply isn't enough to avoid allergens; rather we must also acquire beneficial nutrients from the foods we eat to protect ourselves from...well, ourselves.

Yah I missed the part about allergies being the sole contributor. By no means are they the sole contributor.

I could post a link to a pharmaceutical company proudly talking about the new cancer drug which they just happen to mention the cause of cancer in it which is what I am trying to convey to you. You won't believe me and you would not believe the Ohio State University that published it because you, like everybody else, are waiting for a confession to come out from a business that is making too much money to ever do that.

I will tell you this. They don't hide it from us, they assume we will never put it together. Except for me and a few others that did.

I don't really want the link, thank you though. But I would love to know whether the "insensitivities" that people talk about are IgG or IgE insensitivities. Quetzlcoatl, I'd be particularly interested to know whether your food "allergy" test was for IgG or IgE. Was it a blood test?

Such as the post prandial affects of a high glycemic load meal or drink. Which also has a huge impact on acne.

I would agree that the postprandial effects of high glycemic foods can induce an environment that encourages cancer development.

However, I am still not 100% convinced that high-glycemic indexed foods have a significant impact on acne. What would you say about a baked russet potato with a glycemic index of 111 whereas pure glucose has a glycemic index of 100?

I could post a link to a pharmaceutical company proudly talking about the new cancer drug which they just happen to mention the cause of cancer in it which is what I am trying to convey to you. You won't believe me and you would not believe the Ohio State University that published it because you, like everybody else, are waiting for a confession to come out from a business that is making too much money to ever do that.

I will tell you this. They don't hide it from us, they assume we will never put it together. Except for me and a few others that did.

I don't really want the link, thank you though. But I would love to know whether the "insensitivities" that people talk about are IgG or IgE insensitivities. Quetzlcoatl, I'd be particularly interested to know whether your food "allergy" test was for IgG or IgE. Was it a blood test?

It was IgE and IgA if I remember correctly...though it was a while ago so I could be wrong. I had a whole bunch of IgA reactions but not a single IgE, which seems to reflect my experiences. It was a blood test.

Edit: Nevermind it was probably IgG and IgE, seeing as how IgA isn't really used. I did get IgA for gliadin, though.

Yes, you're exactly right. Food allergies do indeed contribute to the tissue environment required to encourage cancerous cell growth, but they are not the sole contributor, which is what was being argued. What I was trying to get at was really that preventing cancer isn't as simple as avoiding allergenic foods; your metabolism itself is one of the largest contributors to tissue damage (and thus inflammation). People should know that it simply isn't enough to avoid allergens; rather we must also acquire beneficial nutrients from the foods we eat to protect ourselves from...well, ourselves.

Yah I missed the part about allergies being the sole contributor. By no means are they the sole contributor.

I could post a link to a pharmaceutical company proudly talking about the new cancer drug which they just happen to mention the cause of cancer in it which is what I am trying to convey to you. You won't believe me and you would not believe the Ohio State University that published it because you, like everybody else, are waiting for a confession to come out from a business that is making too much money to ever do that.

I will tell you this. They don't hide it from us, they assume we will never put it together. Except for me and a few others that did.

I don't really want the link, thank you though. But I would love to know whether the "insensitivities" that people talk about are IgG or IgE insensitivities. Quetzlcoatl, I'd be particularly interested to know whether your food "allergy" test was for IgG or IgE. Was it a blood test?

Such as the post prandial affects of a high glycemic load meal or drink. Which also has a huge impact on acne.

I would agree that the postprandial effects of high glycemic foods can induce an environment that encourages cancer development.

However, I am still not 100% convinced that high-glycemic indexed foods have a significant impact on acne. What would you say about a baked russet potato with a glycemic index of 111 whereas pure glucose has a glycemic index of 100?

I would remind you that it's the glycemic load of the meal that is the issue. The glycemic index doesn't effect acne. The glycemic impact of meal habits does.

It was IgE and IgA if I remember correctly...though it was a while ago so I could be wrong. I had a whole bunch of IgA reactions but not a single IgE, which seems to reflect my experiences. It was a blood test.

Edit: Nevermind it was probably IgG and IgE, seeing as how IgA isn't really used. I did get IgA for gliadin, though.

My mother and some of my siblings recently got their blood drawn from a naturopath for this purpose. The labs gave IgG and IgE results, but the labs did not indicate which foods were IgG tested and which were IgE. There was a blanket statement that some of the foods are tested for IgE and most are tested for IgG, but no specifics. Which is strange to me because IgE is the only histamine inducing antibody that promotes an allergic reaction.

I would remind you that it's the glycemic load of the meal that is the issue. The glycemic index doesn't effect acne. The glycemic impact of meal habits does.

Yah I was just reading about glycemic load vs. index last night. I had never been previously aware that there were two types of numbers let alone the difference between the two. And I had always thought that the index value was the one that mattered. I guess I will have to do a little more reading.

I've (relatively) recently discovered the impact that the glycemic load of my food has on my acne. I've noticed that starchy vegetables like potatoes have little impact, particularly if eaten with fat, but that straight dairy (a big glass of milk) and processed sugars have the most impact, triggering a major breakout after only 12 or so hours. I also don't do well when I am eating bread, so I have left bread as only an occasional treat that I am sure to eat with a sort of fat like butter to lower the GI so it doesn't hit me all at once. I cannot eat sugar. Ever. Dessert is not an option, and I also can't eat bananas or drink orange juice unless it is freshly juiced. There is something about storebought juice that sets me off, which is fine because I don't fancy storebought juice anyway.

I also juice, and drink several pints of vegetable juice every day. My usual mix is two beets, 10 carrots, one apple, and four stalks of celery. I drink this throughout the day, and my skin has been really looking fantastic. I know that carrots have a good bit of sugar, and was initially wary of drinking them in juice, but I have found them to have a very anti-inflammatory affect on my skin in general, even being what my fiance calls my "anti-venom" that I consume after eating something I shouldn't, since I can drink a pint of carrot juice before eating a piece of pizza and the pizza has no effect on my skin. I don't do this often, though. I don't want to push my luck, and I'm very superstitious.

For what it's worth I theorize that acne is some sort of evolutionary consequence of humans becoming increasingly hairless. Every single acne spot centres around a hair follicle. You will never get acne where you don't have hair (palms and soles) or where the hair is really thick (scalp, armpits etc). Acne only ever seems to affect semi-haired skin...

You can eat as much crap as you want, rub sebum on your skin all day, grow bacteria cultures on your skin, get the skin as dry, inflamed and hyperkeratinized as you like, but you will never ever get acne vulgaris on the palms of your hands or your scalp...

13yearsofacne, you must be the biggest troll of the year. Scalp acne is VERY COMMON. Acne appears on the areas of body where the sebaceous glands are most dense, like face, chest, back and scalp.

If you can provide evidence to support your assertion that scalp acne is VERY COMMON I would be very grateful.

Just google "scalp acne". I still can't believe that you are not trolling..