Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?

NotEmphatic wrote: »

show previous quotes

Rickster1967 wrote: »

MikePfirrman wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

MikePfirrman wrote: »

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.

Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?

Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?

If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?

And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.

I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...

You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo

met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too

Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya

I could do with a good laugh

Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.

You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.

Please.

mburgess458 wrote: »

show previous quotes

GaleHawkins wrote: »

MikePfirrman wrote: »

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).

Thanks for the Round up update

N=1 results mainly all that matters me when me is the ONE.

Then quit trying to convince others to place any weight on your N=1 result. Why should any of us give a crap about it? You don't care about other people's N=1 results. You don't even care about tons of double blind scientific studies with N>>>>>>>>>>>1 results. We have heard your nonsense. Move on.

You have no idea what caused your change. Perhaps you would have gotten better anyway. There is a reason scientific studies are setup the way they are. You aren't smarter than all of the world's scientists/physicians.