Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Replies
-
I agree with you that PT is not alternative medicine. That's a prime example, though, of what I'm saying about changing times. Quackwatch (a site often supported by Sciencebasedmedicine.org) once called all of Chiropractic quackery. I certainly don't agree with that. Until people question what's being put out there (and what's their vested interest in things), no real progress will be made.
Physiotherapy is not an offshoot of Chiropracty. I once had my shoulders done by a highly competent Chiropractor and his body knowledge was impressive. Unfortunately, I still have problems with the accreditation process. It's too loose, and practitioners can hold a wide variety of practices.0 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
As I understand it, the medical community was against people getting DNA information about heightened risk for certain scary diseases (or less risk) on your own, without medical advice explaining what it means and, in many cases, that it is not a death sentence (slightly higher risk of Alzheimers does not mean "I might as well stop bothering, as I am getting Alzheimers"). I think this makes sense.
I also believe (as janejellyroll pointed out) that DNA screens are used for various things. In other cases, they may not be necessary -- I am at heightened risk of hemochromatosis, as my mother has it, but rather than testing for it they can just test for iron, which they do.
Most things DNA doesn't help much with yet, although it is interesting. I've had a DNA test (for family history) and did some of the medical type screens because I was curious, and it told me some things I already knew (not lactose intolerant) but mostly just somewhat different risk levels or "this gene is thought to be one of various related to this."
Amusingly, one of the things you can do with DNA tests is have it predict your eye color. The prediction for mine was a light-ish blue that looked like my dad's eyes. But mine are green. ;-) It's all quite complex, and that's without getting into something that has a variety of other inputs too (as with things like tendency to gain weight, addiction, etc).7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
As I understand it, the medical community was against people getting DNA information about heightened risk for certain scary diseases (or less risk) on your own, without medical advice explaining what it means and, in many cases, that it is not a death sentence (slightly higher risk of Alzheimers does not mean "I might as well stop bothering, as I am getting Alzheimers"). I think this makes sense.
I also believe (as janejellyroll pointed out) that DNA screens are used for various things. In other cases, they may not be necessary -- I am at heightened risk of hemochromatosis, as my mother has it, but rather than testing for it they can just test for iron, which they do.
Most things DNA doesn't help much with yet, although it is interesting. I've had a DNA test (for family history) and did some of the medical type screens because I was curious, and it told me some things I already knew (not lactose intolerant) but mostly just somewhat different risk levels or "this gene is thought to be one of various related to this."
Amusingly, one of the things you can do with DNA tests is have it predict your eye color. The prediction for mine was a light-ish blue that looked like my dad's eyes. But mine are green. ;-) It's all quite complex, and that's without getting into something that has a variety of other inputs too (as with things like tendency to gain weight, addiction, etc).
Even before our more recent DNA testing was available, the medical community had already embraced types of genetic screening/counseling when it was relevant (like for Tay-Sachs disease). I've never read about the medical community being resistant to this type of information, just recommending caution when it comes to being overly reductionist or using results without placing them in an appropriate context (like in your example about Alzheimers).3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568997215000245
This is on the proof, other studies on Leaky Gut.
Thanks for attempting to answer the question. This is what I get from the article:
"The incidence of autoimmune diseases (AD) is increasing world-wide, mainly in western countries and the role of the environment in AD development is gradually becoming clear."
My note: is this certain, or is it just diagnosed more? Some of the alleged culprits, of course, such as gluten, have been in the human diet for a very long time and were a much more significant portion of the diet in the past, at least for some places and groups. The article focuses just on the past 30 years, which seems inconsistent with many of the proposed causes of this supposed leaking problem. Anyway...
"... The recent increased knowledge on the functions, mechanisms and abnormalities of intestinal permeability and the specific relationship between some common food additives and their deleterious effects on the tight-junction, prompted us to review these observations and put forward the hypothesis that increased intestinal permeability induced by the industrial food additives explains the observed surge in autoimmune disease."
So it's a hypothesis. I would agree it's worth studying and testing. Teaching it as if it's proven and blaming everything on it when there's no evidence in many cases of a so-called "leaky gut" is a problem.
It's also worth noting that the hypothesis looks at foods that are in the diet in greater than prior amounts over the past 30 years, and as such is really general. You'd have to see which of these contributed to so called leaky gut even if it proved to be real (which again this does not support). The foods (and additives or substances one might be exposed to) focused on are: sugar, salts, emulsifiers, organic solvents, gluten (again, I am skeptical of this one for the reasons set forth above), and various other things.
The article then goes through how these items might operate to increase intestinal permeability -- not the same thing as saying autoimmune diseases are caused by "leaky gut" or even that there IS increased intestinal permeability in a particular case. I'd have more respect if the claim was limited to situations where that being a problem was actually diagnosed, which would be a question for a real doctor.
But does it make sense to formulate and test a hypothesis? Sure. The problem is claiming that that means it has been proven or even is particularly likely to be the answer. It's a maybe something worth looking into, which is great for scientists, not great for "holistic practitioners" who pretend to diagnose it and who prescribe a diet based on false pretenses (many different diets, indeed).
And again I think saying "sometimes this helps" is also great, and I'd try an elimination diet if suffering. But asserting false pretenses/more than is known, and teaching things as fact that are not is exactly the problem with what OP is being taught and some such practioners do (often with false tests that find all kinds of things that no real tests would, like parasites and adrenal fatigue and so on, as mentioned above).Some Holistic stuff I see is garbage. Dr Axe was telling people that everything can be cured through Bone Broth. If bone broth isn't organic, from the research I've seen, it contains massive amounts of Round-Up (there's a glycine, glyphosate displacement that occurs and glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-Up actually becomes part of the structure according to the theory by Anthony Samsel, which is strongly supported by science studies -- yes, actual studies in very reputable science journals). Dr Axe didn't mention he was pushing non-organic bone broth for around a year. That can do more harm than good.
Organic or no, bone broth doesn't CURE anything. It's tasty as an addition to foods. That's precisely the kind of issue I see. Trying dietary changes I think makes sense if you have an illness that might be helped by it, but claiming "cutting out gluten" or "eating only organic" or "cutting out meat" cures whatever long list of diseases (just like the similar "carbs cause illness, so going low carb fixes all diseases" that you get from a different list of practioners -- and not sure which group OP was following -- IS a problem. Diet changes absolutely help some people. I mentioned above that weight loss is often helpful, that my dad (and others) improved his cholesterol from a dietary change, diet changes help with IR/T2D, high blood pressure, so on. Can they help with some autoimmune diseases? I'm sure. I don't even consider this something separate from real medicine, as I'd hope doctors would suggest looking for allergies and other food issues and how diet contributes to health.
My problem with so called holistic practioners is using fake tests to "diagnose" fake illnesses (that the tests do not diagnose) and then pretending like there's a clear cut solution based on a specific diet or supplement or whatever. Often it probably does a little something -- hope helps, placebo effect is real, etc., and maybe you sometimes do end up eating better or eliminating a food that was bad for you specifically, and that's a nice side effect, but it doesn't make what is essentially misleading people okay. Nor spreading woo and contributing to people mistrusting medicine, refusing vaccinations, etc.
I would NOT consider physical therapy "alternative medicine," and no PT I've met would either. (I was prescribed PT by my doctor, and know many others who were.)
It sounds like you are not, what I term, an "absolutist". That's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy half the stuff I read on Holistic sites. I suppose I'm different (not by choice) in not believing everything I read in Conventional Journals either.
I was more in your camp until my wife got sick. I'm more open minded now simply because we didn't have any solutions from conventional meds/conventional docs. We tried that for over a year and I ran out of patience.
I also believe in vaccines. I'm certainly not an anti-vaccine person. But I've seen enough with vaccines, too, to think there's some element of truth to what some anti-vaccine people are saying. Believe it or not, not all are crazy whackos. No one seems to want to get the full truth anymore. I personally believe that some people (probably those with MTHFR genetic defects) react more negatively than others to vaccines. What (I think) we'll find out is if they just made sure that those with that defect took methyl b vitamins prior to vaccination, it would be more safe for all taking vaccines.
I don't think they know nearly enough about gut permeability (yet) to come to a conclusive way to treat it. More than gut permeability (or leaky gut), I think that they'll find more solutions with changing the gut microbiome (a completely separate issue) for changing modern medicine. That's where what most would have considered Holistic medicine 10 years ago is meeting Traditional medicine. Large drug makers are addressing the underlying causes instead of just the symptoms. Progress will be slow until projects like the Human Microbiome study are more complete.
I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
Both Holistic MDs that have treated my wife's Fibromyalgia, as kids or young adults, had unexplainable Chronic Pain. They were both told it was "all in your head". Until five or six years ago, Fibro patients were considered my most conventional docs to be psychiatric patients. Perhaps this is where some of the anger I have comes from for the establishment. The arrogance of conventional doctors is at a crazy level. A company has produced a test for Fibromyalgia called the FM/a test. It was a test that was created by a researcher that was actually trying to prove that the biomarkers for Fibromyalgia weren't unique. He was shocked and found a very distinct pattern that proves that Fibro patients have a very unique pattern of Cytokines (I'm not a scientist so I hope I'm accurate on that, though I'm sure I'll be personally attacked on this). Now, nearly every doctor recognizes Fibro as a legit diagnosis but just doesn't know how to treat it. It took a decade to reach this point. That's too long for some. Yes, I'll take some hypothesis as hope and run with it. Guilty! But it beats the alternative watching a loved one die in front of you. So far, the hypotheses that I've ran with have worked. That's proof enough for me and allows me to brush off any criticism I might hear on a weight loss board.
I agree with you that PT is not alternative medicine. That's a prime example, though, of what I'm saying about changing times. Quackwatch (a site often supported by Sciencebasedmedicine.org) once called all of Chiropractic quackery. I certainly don't agree with that. Until people question what's being put out there (and what's their vested interest in things), no real progress will be made.
Traditional medicine has already implemented treatments/screening based on DNA results, so I'm not sure how you have reached the conclusion that the medical community is "dead set against it." Look at breast cancer screening and treatment, for example (I'm sure there are other areas as well -- this is just one that I've read about recently).
Yes, I'm confused by this assertion. My son got DNA screening for celiac disease (since I have it) when he had his IBS diagnosed. We found out then that apparently either my husband or I carries the gene for Crohn's disease since my son has the gene but it's not active.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568997215000245
This is on the proof, other studies on Leaky Gut.
Thanks for attempting to answer the question. This is what I get from the article:
"The incidence of autoimmune diseases (AD) is increasing world-wide, mainly in western countries and the role of the environment in AD development is gradually becoming clear."
My note: is this certain, or is it just diagnosed more? Some of the alleged culprits, of course, such as gluten, have been in the human diet for a very long time and were a much more significant portion of the diet in the past, at least for some places and groups. The article focuses just on the past 30 years, which seems inconsistent with many of the proposed causes of this supposed leaking problem. Anyway...
"... The recent increased knowledge on the functions, mechanisms and abnormalities of intestinal permeability and the specific relationship between some common food additives and their deleterious effects on the tight-junction, prompted us to review these observations and put forward the hypothesis that increased intestinal permeability induced by the industrial food additives explains the observed surge in autoimmune disease."
So it's a hypothesis. I would agree it's worth studying and testing. Teaching it as if it's proven and blaming everything on it when there's no evidence in many cases of a so-called "leaky gut" is a problem.
It's also worth noting that the hypothesis looks at foods that are in the diet in greater than prior amounts over the past 30 years, and as such is really general. You'd have to see which of these contributed to so called leaky gut even if it proved to be real (which again this does not support). The foods (and additives or substances one might be exposed to) focused on are: sugar, salts, emulsifiers, organic solvents, gluten (again, I am skeptical of this one for the reasons set forth above), and various other things.
The article then goes through how these items might operate to increase intestinal permeability -- not the same thing as saying autoimmune diseases are caused by "leaky gut" or even that there IS increased intestinal permeability in a particular case. I'd have more respect if the claim was limited to situations where that being a problem was actually diagnosed, which would be a question for a real doctor.
But does it make sense to formulate and test a hypothesis? Sure. The problem is claiming that that means it has been proven or even is particularly likely to be the answer. It's a maybe something worth looking into, which is great for scientists, not great for "holistic practitioners" who pretend to diagnose it and who prescribe a diet based on false pretenses (many different diets, indeed).
And again I think saying "sometimes this helps" is also great, and I'd try an elimination diet if suffering. But asserting false pretenses/more than is known, and teaching things as fact that are not is exactly the problem with what OP is being taught and some such practioners do (often with false tests that find all kinds of things that no real tests would, like parasites and adrenal fatigue and so on, as mentioned above).Some Holistic stuff I see is garbage. Dr Axe was telling people that everything can be cured through Bone Broth. If bone broth isn't organic, from the research I've seen, it contains massive amounts of Round-Up (there's a glycine, glyphosate displacement that occurs and glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-Up actually becomes part of the structure according to the theory by Anthony Samsel, which is strongly supported by science studies -- yes, actual studies in very reputable science journals). Dr Axe didn't mention he was pushing non-organic bone broth for around a year. That can do more harm than good.
Organic or no, bone broth doesn't CURE anything. It's tasty as an addition to foods. That's precisely the kind of issue I see. Trying dietary changes I think makes sense if you have an illness that might be helped by it, but claiming "cutting out gluten" or "eating only organic" or "cutting out meat" cures whatever long list of diseases (just like the similar "carbs cause illness, so going low carb fixes all diseases" that you get from a different list of practioners -- and not sure which group OP was following -- IS a problem. Diet changes absolutely help some people. I mentioned above that weight loss is often helpful, that my dad (and others) improved his cholesterol from a dietary change, diet changes help with IR/T2D, high blood pressure, so on. Can they help with some autoimmune diseases? I'm sure. I don't even consider this something separate from real medicine, as I'd hope doctors would suggest looking for allergies and other food issues and how diet contributes to health.
My problem with so called holistic practioners is using fake tests to "diagnose" fake illnesses (that the tests do not diagnose) and then pretending like there's a clear cut solution based on a specific diet or supplement or whatever. Often it probably does a little something -- hope helps, placebo effect is real, etc., and maybe you sometimes do end up eating better or eliminating a food that was bad for you specifically, and that's a nice side effect, but it doesn't make what is essentially misleading people okay. Nor spreading woo and contributing to people mistrusting medicine, refusing vaccinations, etc.
I would NOT consider physical therapy "alternative medicine," and no PT I've met would either. (I was prescribed PT by my doctor, and know many others who were.)
It sounds like you are not, what I term, an "absolutist". That's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy half the stuff I read on Holistic sites. I suppose I'm different (not by choice) in not believing everything I read in Conventional Journals either.
I was more in your camp until my wife got sick. I'm more open minded now simply because we didn't have any solutions from conventional meds/conventional docs. We tried that for over a year and I ran out of patience.
I also believe in vaccines. I'm certainly not an anti-vaccine person. But I've seen enough with vaccines, too, to think there's some element of truth to what some anti-vaccine people are saying. Believe it or not, not all are crazy whackos. No one seems to want to get the full truth anymore. I personally believe that some people (probably those with MTHFR genetic defects) react more negatively than others to vaccines. What (I think) we'll find out is if they just made sure that those with that defect took methyl b vitamins prior to vaccination, it would be more safe for all taking vaccines.
I don't think they know nearly enough about gut permeability (yet) to come to a conclusive way to treat it. More than gut permeability (or leaky gut), I think that they'll find more solutions with changing the gut microbiome (a completely separate issue) for changing modern medicine. That's where what most would have considered Holistic medicine 10 years ago is meeting Traditional medicine. Large drug makers are addressing the underlying causes instead of just the symptoms. Progress will be slow until projects like the Human Microbiome study are more complete.
I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
Both Holistic MDs that have treated my wife's Fibromyalgia, as kids or young adults, had unexplainable Chronic Pain. They were both told it was "all in your head". Until five or six years ago, Fibro patients were considered my most conventional docs to be psychiatric patients. Perhaps this is where some of the anger I have comes from for the establishment. The arrogance of conventional doctors is at a crazy level. A company has produced a test for Fibromyalgia called the FM/a test. It was a test that was created by a researcher that was actually trying to prove that the biomarkers for Fibromyalgia weren't unique. He was shocked and found a very distinct pattern that proves that Fibro patients have a very unique pattern of Cytokines (I'm not a scientist so I hope I'm accurate on that, though I'm sure I'll be personally attacked on this). Now, nearly every doctor recognizes Fibro as a legit diagnosis but just doesn't know how to treat it. It took a decade to reach this point. That's too long for some. Yes, I'll take some hypothesis as hope and run with it. Guilty! But it beats the alternative watching a loved one die in front of you. So far, the hypotheses that I've ran with have worked. That's proof enough for me and allows me to brush off any criticism I might hear on a weight loss board.
I agree with you that PT is not alternative medicine. That's a prime example, though, of what I'm saying about changing times. Quackwatch (a site often supported by Sciencebasedmedicine.org) once called all of Chiropractic quackery. I certainly don't agree with that. Until people question what's being put out there (and what's their vested interest in things), no real progress will be made.
Traditional medicine has already implemented treatments/screening based on DNA results, so I'm not sure how you have reached the conclusion that the medical community is "dead set against it." Look at breast cancer screening and treatment, for example (I'm sure there are other areas as well -- this is just one that I've read about recently).
Yes, I'm confused by this assertion. My son got DNA screening for celiac disease when he had his IBS diagnosed. We found out then that apparently either my husband or I carries the gene for Crohn's disease since my son has the gene but it's not active.
Yep - I knew there had to be other instances that I was familiar with yet.1 -
Maybe the idea that the medical community is "dead set against" genetic testing comes from this:
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/genomics.html
I can think of a few genetic tests that absolutely make a difference. The need for the test however, is determined from family history.
The BRCA 1 and 2 gene. Men don't need this test.
Cystic Fibrosis.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
As I understand it, the medical community was against people getting DNA information about heightened risk for certain scary diseases (or less risk) on your own, without medical advice explaining what it means and, in many cases, that it is not a death sentence (slightly higher risk of Alzheimers does not mean "I might as well stop bothering, as I am getting Alzheimers"). I think this makes sense.
I also believe (as janejellyroll pointed out) that DNA screens are used for various things. In other cases, they may not be necessary -- I am at heightened risk of hemochromatosis, as my mother has it, but rather than testing for it they can just test for iron, which they do.
Most things DNA doesn't help much with yet, although it is interesting. I've had a DNA test (for family history) and did some of the medical type screens because I was curious, and it told me some things I already knew (not lactose intolerant) but mostly just somewhat different risk levels or "this gene is thought to be one of various related to this."
Amusingly, one of the things you can do with DNA tests is have it predict your eye color. The prediction for mine was a light-ish blue that looked like my dad's eyes. But mine are green. ;-) It's all quite complex, and that's without getting into something that has a variety of other inputs too (as with things like tendency to gain weight, addiction, etc).
The DNA analysis told me mostly stuff I already knew - that my mom is in no way lactose intolerant despite her claims (after reading the results she finally admitted that she just hates milk, after 80 years of lying about it!), that we carry genes associated with heart disease and obesity, etc.
It's interesting that I also have green eyes and the prediction also missed them, and thought my eyes looked like my blue eyed mother's. I wish I had gotten my dad's DNA before he died - his were like mine but with enough brown to be more hazel than green. It seems that one of the genes they have yet to identify is the one that makes your eyes and mine green!1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568997215000245
This is on the proof, other studies on Leaky Gut.
Thanks for attempting to answer the question. This is what I get from the article:
"The incidence of autoimmune diseases (AD) is increasing world-wide, mainly in western countries and the role of the environment in AD development is gradually becoming clear."
My note: is this certain, or is it just diagnosed more? Some of the alleged culprits, of course, such as gluten, have been in the human diet for a very long time and were a much more significant portion of the diet in the past, at least for some places and groups. The article focuses just on the past 30 years, which seems inconsistent with many of the proposed causes of this supposed leaking problem. Anyway...
"... The recent increased knowledge on the functions, mechanisms and abnormalities of intestinal permeability and the specific relationship between some common food additives and their deleterious effects on the tight-junction, prompted us to review these observations and put forward the hypothesis that increased intestinal permeability induced by the industrial food additives explains the observed surge in autoimmune disease."
So it's a hypothesis. I would agree it's worth studying and testing. Teaching it as if it's proven and blaming everything on it when there's no evidence in many cases of a so-called "leaky gut" is a problem.
It's also worth noting that the hypothesis looks at foods that are in the diet in greater than prior amounts over the past 30 years, and as such is really general. You'd have to see which of these contributed to so called leaky gut even if it proved to be real (which again this does not support). The foods (and additives or substances one might be exposed to) focused on are: sugar, salts, emulsifiers, organic solvents, gluten (again, I am skeptical of this one for the reasons set forth above), and various other things.
The article then goes through how these items might operate to increase intestinal permeability -- not the same thing as saying autoimmune diseases are caused by "leaky gut" or even that there IS increased intestinal permeability in a particular case. I'd have more respect if the claim was limited to situations where that being a problem was actually diagnosed, which would be a question for a real doctor.
But does it make sense to formulate and test a hypothesis? Sure. The problem is claiming that that means it has been proven or even is particularly likely to be the answer. It's a maybe something worth looking into, which is great for scientists, not great for "holistic practitioners" who pretend to diagnose it and who prescribe a diet based on false pretenses (many different diets, indeed).
And again I think saying "sometimes this helps" is also great, and I'd try an elimination diet if suffering. But asserting false pretenses/more than is known, and teaching things as fact that are not is exactly the problem with what OP is being taught and some such practioners do (often with false tests that find all kinds of things that no real tests would, like parasites and adrenal fatigue and so on, as mentioned above).Some Holistic stuff I see is garbage. Dr Axe was telling people that everything can be cured through Bone Broth. If bone broth isn't organic, from the research I've seen, it contains massive amounts of Round-Up (there's a glycine, glyphosate displacement that occurs and glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-Up actually becomes part of the structure according to the theory by Anthony Samsel, which is strongly supported by science studies -- yes, actual studies in very reputable science journals). Dr Axe didn't mention he was pushing non-organic bone broth for around a year. That can do more harm than good.
Organic or no, bone broth doesn't CURE anything. It's tasty as an addition to foods. That's precisely the kind of issue I see. Trying dietary changes I think makes sense if you have an illness that might be helped by it, but claiming "cutting out gluten" or "eating only organic" or "cutting out meat" cures whatever long list of diseases (just like the similar "carbs cause illness, so going low carb fixes all diseases" that you get from a different list of practioners -- and not sure which group OP was following -- IS a problem. Diet changes absolutely help some people. I mentioned above that weight loss is often helpful, that my dad (and others) improved his cholesterol from a dietary change, diet changes help with IR/T2D, high blood pressure, so on. Can they help with some autoimmune diseases? I'm sure. I don't even consider this something separate from real medicine, as I'd hope doctors would suggest looking for allergies and other food issues and how diet contributes to health.
My problem with so called holistic practioners is using fake tests to "diagnose" fake illnesses (that the tests do not diagnose) and then pretending like there's a clear cut solution based on a specific diet or supplement or whatever. Often it probably does a little something -- hope helps, placebo effect is real, etc., and maybe you sometimes do end up eating better or eliminating a food that was bad for you specifically, and that's a nice side effect, but it doesn't make what is essentially misleading people okay. Nor spreading woo and contributing to people mistrusting medicine, refusing vaccinations, etc.
I would NOT consider physical therapy "alternative medicine," and no PT I've met would either. (I was prescribed PT by my doctor, and know many others who were.)
It sounds like you are not, what I term, an "absolutist". That's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy half the stuff I read on Holistic sites. I suppose I'm different (not by choice) in not believing everything I read in Conventional Journals either.
I was more in your camp until my wife got sick. I'm more open minded now simply because we didn't have any solutions from conventional meds/conventional docs. We tried that for over a year and I ran out of patience.
I also believe in vaccines. I'm certainly not an anti-vaccine person. But I've seen enough with vaccines, too, to think there's some element of truth to what some anti-vaccine people are saying. Believe it or not, not all are crazy whackos. No one seems to want to get the full truth anymore. I personally believe that some people (probably those with MTHFR genetic defects) react more negatively than others to vaccines. What (I think) we'll find out is if they just made sure that those with that defect took methyl b vitamins prior to vaccination, it would be more safe for all taking vaccines.
I don't think they know nearly enough about gut permeability (yet) to come to a conclusive way to treat it. More than gut permeability (or leaky gut), I think that they'll find more solutions with changing the gut microbiome (a completely separate issue) for changing modern medicine. That's where what most would have considered Holistic medicine 10 years ago is meeting Traditional medicine. Large drug makers are addressing the underlying causes instead of just the symptoms. Progress will be slow until projects like the Human Microbiome study are more complete.
I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
Both Holistic MDs that have treated my wife's Fibromyalgia, as kids or young adults, had unexplainable Chronic Pain. They were both told it was "all in your head". Until five or six years ago, Fibro patients were considered my most conventional docs to be psychiatric patients. Perhaps this is where some of the anger I have comes from for the establishment. The arrogance of conventional doctors is at a crazy level. A company has produced a test for Fibromyalgia called the FM/a test. It was a test that was created by a researcher that was actually trying to prove that the biomarkers for Fibromyalgia weren't unique. He was shocked and found a very distinct pattern that proves that Fibro patients have a very unique pattern of Cytokines (I'm not a scientist so I hope I'm accurate on that, though I'm sure I'll be personally attacked on this). Now, nearly every doctor recognizes Fibro as a legit diagnosis but just doesn't know how to treat it. It took a decade to reach this point. That's too long for some. Yes, I'll take some hypothesis as hope and run with it. Guilty! But it beats the alternative watching a loved one die in front of you. So far, the hypotheses that I've ran with have worked. That's proof enough for me and allows me to brush off any criticism I might hear on a weight loss board.
I agree with you that PT is not alternative medicine. That's a prime example, though, of what I'm saying about changing times. Quackwatch (a site often supported by Sciencebasedmedicine.org) once called all of Chiropractic quackery. I certainly don't agree with that. Until people question what's being put out there (and what's their vested interest in things), no real progress will be made.
Traditional medicine has already implemented treatments/screening based on DNA results, so I'm not sure how you have reached the conclusion that the medical community is "dead set against it." Look at breast cancer screening and treatment, for example (I'm sure there are other areas as well -- this is just one that I've read about recently).
Yep, this is what I was talking about earlier in this thread (at least I think it was this thread
) For some reason, people who learn about alternative treatments feel the need to dismiss all of conventional medicine as closed-minded and profit driven. I can only assume they had a bad experience with on e or two crappy doctors and then read something on a FB page and have determined all of conventional medicine is the same. Meanwhile, what they claim is not being taken advantage of in modern medicine is actually happening.
And everyone thinks conventional medicine takes "too long" until some drug gets fast tracked and hurts someone. Then it is rushing for a profit. They can't win.
If someone gets treatment from a doctor, and it doesn't work, they blame the doctor and feel like the healthcare system has let them down.
But if they try some alternative product they bought off someone's website and it doesn't work, it's an "oh well" everyone is different, I guess I just have to try something else.
There are plenty of people out there "questioning". They are in labs and research facilities all over the globe. There are so many new treatments out there for all sorts of things going through patient trials and data studies. The inability of some people to see that for whatever reason is a shame. Reading about all the new trials going on with immunotherapy for cancers and the fascinating work being done toward treating Alzheimers is truly inspiring.11 -
rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
As I understand it, the medical community was against people getting DNA information about heightened risk for certain scary diseases (or less risk) on your own, without medical advice explaining what it means and, in many cases, that it is not a death sentence (slightly higher risk of Alzheimers does not mean "I might as well stop bothering, as I am getting Alzheimers"). I think this makes sense.
I also believe (as janejellyroll pointed out) that DNA screens are used for various things. In other cases, they may not be necessary -- I am at heightened risk of hemochromatosis, as my mother has it, but rather than testing for it they can just test for iron, which they do.
Most things DNA doesn't help much with yet, although it is interesting. I've had a DNA test (for family history) and did some of the medical type screens because I was curious, and it told me some things I already knew (not lactose intolerant) but mostly just somewhat different risk levels or "this gene is thought to be one of various related to this."
Amusingly, one of the things you can do with DNA tests is have it predict your eye color. The prediction for mine was a light-ish blue that looked like my dad's eyes. But mine are green. ;-) It's all quite complex, and that's without getting into something that has a variety of other inputs too (as with things like tendency to gain weight, addiction, etc).
The DNA analysis told me mostly stuff I already knew - that my mom is in no way lactose intolerant despite her claims (after reading the results she finally admitted that she just hates milk, after 80 years of lying about it!), that we carry genes associated with heart disease and obesity, etc.
It's interesting that I also have green eyes and the prediction also missed them, and thought my eyes looked like my blue eyed mother's. I wish I had gotten my dad's DNA before he died - his were like mine but with enough brown to be more hazel than green. It seems that one of the genes they have yet to identify is the one that makes your eyes and mine green!
Fun! Which I think is the point - 23and me and ancestry were not able to show enough good and consistent results to gain approval to get medical info. It's not that it's being kept from us, it's that the results are at this point too sketchy to base anything other than fun personal facts on.
Poor mom, technology ended her charade!
I've been tempted to do one of them for giggles, but I'm hesitant to send something as personal as my DNA to a corporation for no reason. I've seen too many futuristic movies, I guess there's a little tin hat in me as well
5 -
And as someone who lives in a country with nationalised healthcare which, for now at least, is part of the wider EU which also has nationalised healthcare, this notion that all healthcare and big pharma care about is the bottom line is absolute bullpoop. Do you know how much innovation and technological advancement comes out of Europe alone?
More broadly we have Canada, Australia, New Zealand, countless other research leading countries with nationalised healthcare. They are not for profit. It is in fact, in their interests to treat people as swiftly and as effectively as possible in order to keep healthcare costs down and society as healthy as possible (though there are some politics which can get in the way but that's another discussion not relevant to this).
And guess what? Vast majority of conditions are treated in the same way all over the world, insured or nationalised. Go figure. And here in the UK, you cannot access treatment for free that has not proven itself to be of value/effective. And that's most holistic medicine. Again, go figure.
Perhaps when telling others to broaden their horizons it would be helpful if those hell bent on looking inwardly at their own corner of the world and how the healthcare system is used there to denounce western medicine cast their eyes outwards to see what other countries are doing.
Not every system is perfect but if I get cancer I know where I'm going.8 -
@ janejellyroll -- there was massive resistance to 23andme genetic testing when it came out. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to have heard about it. The opposition's argument was that the information was going to be inaccurate (which has proven to be wrong) and that, furthermore, people couldn't handle genetic information without counseling. When in reality it's about control of money. When 23andme started (until Google bought interest in it), was under threat of being shut down. This year, Genentech (a large division of Roche) paid $60M to access the genetic data of 23andme for medical research.
@ GottaBurnEm... -- I agree. But anyone that knows about pharmaceutical testing/safety knows for every study released to the public, four or five are squashed. This is common knowledge. Round-Up was released on the public based on one (I think) 3 month test on rats. That's it. Aspartame was released on the US public for years while some (a small minority of scientists) had concerns. Recent research has shown strong correlation (not direct causation) that those that use Aspartame regularly have more health issues. Should we all wait for what the cause is? Or is it more prudent not to drink diet sodas? Based on the dropping sales of diet sodas and Pepsi/Coke changing business models, the public had decided on this one for corporations. Why do we hold any Holistic leaning finding to a much higher standard of scrutiny?19 -
Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?20
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ janejellyroll -- there was massive resistance to 23andme genetic testing when it came out. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to have heard about it. The opposition's argument was that A) the information was going to be inaccurate (which has proven to be wrong) and
people couldn't handle genetic information without counseling. When in reality it's about control of money.
@ GottaBurnEm... -- I agree. But anyone that knows about pharmaceutical testing/safety knows for every study released to the public, four or five are squashed. This is common knowledge. Round-Up was released on the public based on one (I think) 3 month test on rats. That's it. Aspartame was released on the US public for years while some (a small minority of scientists) had concerns. Recent research has shown strong correlation (not direct causation) that those that use Aspartame regularly have more health issues. Should we all wait for what the cause is? Or is it more prudent not to drink diet sodas? Based on the dropping sales of diet sodas and Pepsi/Coke changing business models, the public had decided on this one for corporations. Why do we hold any Holistic leaning finding to a much higher standard of scrutiny?
I read about medical experts cautioning people against drawing conclusions about one's medical future based on DNA results (especially when specific DNA markers aren't yet validated by clinical results and they may just be associations or related to additional disease drivers), but I haven't seen any "massive resistance" to genetic testing itself. Maybe that means I have my head in the sand, although I find that in debate when someone doesn't know something I'm familiar with I usually find it more useful to share my source of information rather than go straight to insults.
At the same time, we see medicine using certain DNA results for cancer screening/treatment (or other things, as others have noted), so I'm not sure why you would conclude this is resistance to DNA results themselves instead of just prudence about integrating them into diagnosis and treatment. How do you explain why DNA is used in some screening and treatment if medicine is hostile to it?
If someone says they're worried about inaccurate information or that people may benefit from genetic counseling to help them put DNA results in context, how do you determine that isn't what they really think and it's really about money? I'm curious as to how you can get inside an individual's head like that and be so confident that your perception is reality and their stated motivation is false.7 -
I think this is called moving the goalposts. Is it not enough to have shown conclusively that there's hinky justification for all sorts of holistic diagnoses and treatments?6
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
LOL, go for it.
Aspartame is one of, if not the most studied additive in the history of the food industry. There are hundreds (thousands) of unsquashed studies and the "big food/pharma is trying to kill you" squad has been trying to prove it is harmful for over 50 years with no success.
The public has decided, because they don't know how to read, understand, and vet scientific studies and research. I will say, if I was a rat I would avoid having a constant and overwhelming volume of aspartame pumped into my bloodstream, because that is the only time aspartame has been proven dangerous.3 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ janejellyroll -- there was massive resistance to 23andme genetic testing when it came out. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to have heard about it. The opposition's argument was that the information was going to be inaccurate (which has proven to be wrong) and that, furthermore, people couldn't handle genetic information without counseling. When in reality it's about control of money. When 23andme started (until Google bought interest in it), was under threat of being shut down. This year, Genentech (a large division of Roche) paid $60M to access the genetic data of 23andme for medical research.
@ GottaBurnEm... -- I agree. But anyone that knows about pharmaceutical testing/safety knows for every study released to the public, four or five are squashed. This is common knowledge. Round-Up was released on the public based on one (I think) 3 month test on rats. That's it. Aspartame was released on the US public for years while some (a small minority of scientists) had concerns. Recent research has shown strong correlation (not direct causation) that those that use Aspartame regularly have more health issues. Should we all wait for what the cause is? Or is it more prudent not to drink diet sodas? Based on the dropping sales of diet sodas and Pepsi/Coke changing business models, the public had decided on this one for corporations. Why do we hold any Holistic leaning finding to a much higher standard of scrutiny?
Which kinds of people are most likely to opt for artificial sweeteners like aspartame? Overweight people trying to lose weight.
What condition is proven to increase your risk of getting a whole medical book's worth of health issues?
Being overweight.
9 -
rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
As I understand it, the medical community was against people getting DNA information about heightened risk for certain scary diseases (or less risk) on your own, without medical advice explaining what it means and, in many cases, that it is not a death sentence (slightly higher risk of Alzheimers does not mean "I might as well stop bothering, as I am getting Alzheimers"). I think this makes sense.
I also believe (as janejellyroll pointed out) that DNA screens are used for various things. In other cases, they may not be necessary -- I am at heightened risk of hemochromatosis, as my mother has it, but rather than testing for it they can just test for iron, which they do.
Most things DNA doesn't help much with yet, although it is interesting. I've had a DNA test (for family history) and did some of the medical type screens because I was curious, and it told me some things I already knew (not lactose intolerant) but mostly just somewhat different risk levels or "this gene is thought to be one of various related to this."
Amusingly, one of the things you can do with DNA tests is have it predict your eye color. The prediction for mine was a light-ish blue that looked like my dad's eyes. But mine are green. ;-) It's all quite complex, and that's without getting into something that has a variety of other inputs too (as with things like tendency to gain weight, addiction, etc).
The DNA analysis told me mostly stuff I already knew - that my mom is in no way lactose intolerant despite her claims (after reading the results she finally admitted that she just hates milk, after 80 years of lying about it!), that we carry genes associated with heart disease and obesity, etc.
It's interesting that I also have green eyes and the prediction also missed them, and thought my eyes looked like my blue eyed mother's. I wish I had gotten my dad's DNA before he died - his were like mine but with enough brown to be more hazel than green. It seems that one of the genes they have yet to identify is the one that makes your eyes and mine green!
Fun! Which I think is the point - 23and me and ancestry were not able to show enough good and consistent results to gain approval to get medical info. It's not that it's being kept from us, it's that the results are at this point too sketchy to base anything other than fun personal facts on.
Poor mom, technology ended her charade!
I've been tempted to do one of them for giggles, but I'm hesitant to send something as personal as my DNA to a corporation for no reason. I've seen too many futuristic movies, I guess there's a little tin hat in me as well
That's a reasonable worry - there have already been cases where Genealogy sites were used in criminal cases. But on the other hand, the database is also being used to research and develop new treatments.
In my case, I have one of those stories that end up on the commercials - testing my mom's DNA and comparing it to our cousins led to the discovery that the man she had believed to be her father was not, and her biological father was the man she had grown up believing was her stepfather. Since both men are long deceased and she loved her stepfather and thought of him as her "real" father, this discovery caused no embarrassment for anyone and was a pleasant discovery for my mother. But you never know what you might discover, so it's best to be prepared for anything.3 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.13 -
Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.24
-
fionawilliamson wrote: »Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.
Haven't read any of the thread have you?7 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.
Oh my God . . .6 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.
None of this in anyway supports the bilge peddled by the School the OP attends and I have no idea why you keep repeating this bollocks other than the old 'I know more than you do' self promotion schtick that people do on forums8 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.
Weird statement, since literally no one in this thread's 30 pages has said nutrition doesn't impact health.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
@MikePfirrman thanks for the current medical link. It seems some may be posting using dated medical sources perhaps. I know my autoimmune issues started to resolve in just 30 days after I cut out all added sugar and all forms of all grains Oct 2014.
Like me three years ago some still do not want to accept their health issues may be from the way they eat. A leaky gut can lead to premature death I now understand. What I was eating clearly was a cause of my failing health since three years later after stopping sugar and grains cold turkey my health continues to improve.
I still question everything, even if from a Holistic doc. All sometimes we have to go on is how our own bodies react and the information we find on our own. Even Holistic docs will use people with chronic conditions as cash cows.
I was involved years ago with some Algae to biofuel start-ups. One of the companies that I was trying to steal people from was the Algae start-up that created Astaxanthin. Back then, they really didn't know how good of a supplement it was. It's since blown up to be huge. I knew it was a super carotenoid. That's it. I gave it to a dog of mine that was slowly dying from Prednisone he had to take for really bad genetic hip dysplasia. When this dog was 2, I was told we'd be lucky if he lived till 8. He ended up living to be age 12. For the last 3 years of his life, the vet had him on heavy prednisone for pain. I gave him Astaxanthin regulary. The vet could not understand, for the life of him, why his liver enzyme counts were always (until near the end) so good. Just last year, there was a study pointing to Astaxanthin being a really good potential liver therapy for those with bad enzyme counts from too many prescriptions. I have no regrets about giving that dog a supplement I thought might help him. Same with my wife. I'll help myself or those I love anytime when medical science has not caught up yet.
Most Holistic therapies have no money to support their research. There is just simply nuggets you have to pick and choose. It's pathetic that our government can't support more research for the common good and leaves it up to the pharmaceutical companies to pay for all the R&D. When that happens (most of the time), the research we see is cherry picked and favorable to expensive drug intervention.
France's Meterone just declared that France will ban Round-Up within 2 years. I guess their scientists are seeing things that our American scientists aren't seeing. Anthony Samsel / Stephanie Seneff (the two MIT researchers that have put together a lot of information on how potentially bad Round-Up is) are being attacked by Monsanto (and many paid professional writers) as whackos. They never seem to attack the science, but the individuals. There is a ton of money going into discrediting/condemning these two. When you really look at what they've put out (along with Seralini from France, who won a libel suit against Monsanto in Europe), there's a lot of smoke out there. Perhaps why Monsanto is being sold to Bayer?? Only scientists near retirement take on Monsanto. They know if they do, it can kill your career (Monsanto is so powerful in the US).
14 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.
No you are conflating the two. Increased intestimal permeability is a real condition, but it is the result of another condition, such as Crohns. Increased intestinal permeability has not been proven to cause other disease. Whereas "Leaky Gut" and "Leaky Gut Syndrome" are supposedly the cause of numerous human ailments, but both are fake diseases diagnosed by fake doctors which requires useless supplements to "treat."6 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.
No you are conflating the two. Increased intestimal permeability is a real condition, but it is the result of another condition, such as Crohns. Increased intestinal permeability has not been proven to cause other disease. Whereas "Leaky Gut" and "Leaky Gut Syndrome" are supposedly the cause of numerous human ailments, but both are fake diseases diagnosed by fake doctors which requires useless supplements to "treat."
Wow, can't literally argue with that logic. You win!
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
"The results were adjusted for variables such as age, sex, caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking. (For those seeking more detail, the study is downloadable in its entirety.)"
12 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
15
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions