Another (potential) strike against red meat

One of the best antibiotics is raw garlic.

what are you smoking?

Cause I wanna get on that too.


Antibiotics will kill normal flora, so you are saying that garlic will kill all the bacteria in my system?
if that happens I wont be able to properly digest things and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

how about this
when you have a kid, dont give him any bacterial vaccines and stick to garlic.


let me know how that works for you

Raw garlic is a good antibiotic because it targets the bad bacteria leaving the good.
It's more a preventative antibiotic than a treatment.

Wow, I wonder how garlic got so smart.

Raw garlic is not an antibiotic.

It actually is, so are ginger, peppermint and lavender.

"Natural spices of garlic and ginger possess effective anti-bacterial activity against multi-drug clinical pathogens and can be used for prevention of drug resistant microbial diseases and further evaluation is necessary."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23569978

Did you read their methods?

They applied garlic extract to bacterial cultures. It's anti-bacterial. This does not mean it has any function or use as an antibiotic in vivo.

The claim "raw garlic is a strong antibiotic" is simply not true.

The researches about the garlic extracts effectiveness against clinical isolates of MDR-TB are of scientific importance. Allium sativum offers a hope for developing alternative drugs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22194081

The crude A. sativum extract was the only one that did not show any antagonism with the antimicrobial drugs. The results thus showed the potential use of these medicinal plants against E. coli strains, although antagonism with antimicrobial drugs is a negative aspect in the combined therapy of infectious diseases caused by E. coli.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22011190

The first one says that a particular substance extracted from garlic - not raw garlic - provides some hope for developing antibiotics in the future.

The second was about certain plant extracts having antimicrobial - not antibiotic - properties.

Once again: "raw garlic is a strong antibiotic" is 100% false. Quit trying to justify the wrong claim. It's wrong.

Antimicrobials encapsulates antibiotics.

You made that claim. I never said it was a strong antibiotic by itself. I'm not sure how strong it is. I said it was a good antibiotic. Quit putting words in my mouth. I could post studies all day, but I don't care if you believe it and you are wasting my life. Raw garlic really is a good antibiotic.

Forget what anybody thinks or what research they choose to believe. I believe raw garlic, collodial silver and echinecia and healthy natural antibiotics.

I swear by collodial silver.

I do 85 pushups on one set and 15 pullups on one set. I can handle my own body weight and i don't have to take all that creatine that makes your arms look like your muscles are all soft full of water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X90wGD2CvZw

I take the Natures Sunshine brand. They pass fda inspection every year and their quality is #1 in the market. There's a very good article on youtube by Dr. Mercola on collodial silver you might want to check out.

I take the Natures Sunshine brand. They pass fda inspection every year and their quality is #1 in the market. There's a very good article on youtube by Dr. Mercola on collodial silver you might want to check out.

Colloidal silver is a 100% scam, end of story. Colloidal silver has zero beneficial effects on the body. It does nothing but collect in your tissues.

Forget what anybody thinks or what research they choose to believe. I believe raw garlic, collodial silver and echinecia and healthy natural antibiotics.

I swear by collodial silver.

Seriously, stop taking it. It accumulates in the body and serves no useful purpose whatsoever, no matter what the jerks trying to sell you bottles of it say.

You really want heavy metal to accumulate in your body? On purpose?

It works every time. When I start having sinus issues or feel a cold coming on, I take some. I don't take it every day. Why anyone would do that is beyond me. But I haven't had a full-blown sinus infection in years. I didn't believe my husband when he told me to try it. But that works. (Garlic works for the symptoms, but it's nasty shiz. Garlic alone has never stopped an infection in its tracks the way silver can.)

I take the Natures Sunshine brand. They pass fda inspection every year and their quality is #1 in the market. There's a very good article on youtube by Dr. Mercola on collodial silver you might want to check out.

Colloidal silver is a 100% scam, end of story. Colloidal silver has zero beneficial effects on the body. It does nothing but collect in your tissues.

Forget what anybody thinks or what research they choose to believe. I believe raw garlic, collodial silver and echinecia and healthy natural antibiotics.

I swear by collodial silver.

Seriously, stop taking it. It accumulates in the body and serves no useful purpose whatsoever, no matter what the jerks trying to sell you bottles of it say.

You really want heavy metal to accumulate in your body? On purpose?

It works every time. When I start having sinus issues or feel a cold coming on, I take some. I don't take it every day. Why anyone would do that is beyond me. But I haven't had a full-blown sinus infection in years. I didn't believe my husband when he told me to try it. But that works. (Garlic works for the symptoms, but it's nasty shiz. Garlic alone has never stopped an infection in its tracks the way silver can.)

The silver you take does nothing. Sorry.

neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.

This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.


(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)

your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.

the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.

if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.

*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.

The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)

Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...

@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.

@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.

but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?

antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?

yes, the number of resistant bacteria is climbing. No, it is mostlz due to improper treatment courses which selects for specific hardier bacteria MRSA is not due to antibiotic use in food husbandry.

and no, antibiotics can lead to other disorders but rarely do. It is not a given. No one is suggesting they be used as a chronic first line treatment for artherosclerosis. Just like no one uses them as the chronic standard of treatment for H. Pylori for ulcers.

edit - But they could be used as a start treatment.

your second statement is absolutely, and unequivocally wrong. it is not at all rare. unfortunately your perspective is horribly biased since you worked in pharmaceuticals. of course you think they can do no wrong.

I take the Natures Sunshine brand. They pass fda inspection every year and their quality is #1 in the market. There's a very good article on youtube by Dr. Mercola on collodial silver you might want to check out.

Colloidal silver is a 100% scam, end of story. Colloidal silver has zero beneficial effects on the body. It does nothing but collect in your tissues.

Maybe silver in your tissues prevents colds and sinus infections. I guess that's a stretch, but I swear to God it works for colds. Instead of 7-10 days of misery, it's just one day of misery, then it's gone.

The silver you take never goes anywhere. It sits in your body.

So, knowing that, why do you need to take more when you're getting sick? Shouldn't the amount that made the last infection go away also prevent this one?

Not if it's months later I wouldn't think. I only take one dose when I start to feel that stuffy head/scratchy throat/headachy-feeling. I don't get sick very often, but I used to get a sinus infection once or twice a year, and maybe one or two colds per year. I haven't been down sick for nearly a decade.

neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.

This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.


(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)

your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.

the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.

if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.

*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.

The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)

Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...

@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.

@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.

but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?

antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?

yes, the number of resistant bacteria is climbing. No, it is mostlz due to improper treatment courses which selects for specific hardier bacteria MRSA is not due to antibiotic use in food husbandry.

and no, antibiotics can lead to other disorders but rarely do. It is not a given. No one is suggesting they be used as a chronic first line treatment for artherosclerosis. Just like no one uses them as the chronic standard of treatment for H. Pylori for ulcers.

edit - But they could be used as a start treatment.

your second statement is absolutely, and unequivocally wrong. it is not at all rare. unfortunately your perspective is horribly biased since you worked in pharmaceuticals. of course you think they can do no wrong.

whats the definition of a disorder.

please enlighten me

Not if it's months later I wouldn't think. I only take one dose when I start to feel that stuffy head/scratchy throat/headachy-feeling. I don't get sick very often, but I used to get a sinus infection once or twice a year, and maybe one or two colds per year. I haven't been down sick for nearly a decade.

Where do you think the silver goes?

I imagine that it goes the same place as other drinks, through my body's systems.

neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.

This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.


(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)

your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.

the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.

if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.

*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.

The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)

Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...

@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.

@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.

but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?

antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?

yes, the number of resistant bacteria is climbing. No, it is mostlz due to improper treatment courses which selects for specific hardier bacteria MRSA is not due to antibiotic use in food husbandry.

and no, antibiotics can lead to other disorders but rarely do. It is not a given. No one is suggesting they be used as a chronic first line treatment for artherosclerosis. Just like no one uses them as the chronic standard of treatment for H. Pylori for ulcers.

edit - But they could be used as a start treatment.

your second statement is absolutely, and unequivocally wrong. it is not at all rare. unfortunately your perspective is horribly biased since you worked in pharmaceuticals. of course you think they can do no wrong.

whats the definition of a disorder.

please enlighten me

Lets say in this case and relevant to the discussion - a severe adverse effect requiring either a secondary treatment and/or hospitalization (eg candidosis, Quinke, anaphalaxis, serum shock, etc.) These are rare events. I would not consider the common adv. events like rash, constipation, upset stomach, etc....