sleepingmonkey

Natural Remedies & Nature's Reasons For N

37 posts in this topic

No time but just saw the updates. I'm not eliminating it all completely - but to a regular degree. I consume FAR more of both than the average person. So, I'm looking for a baseline, and what (if any) effects I see as a result of not consuming large amounts. If I see negative effects, which is expect to, I will know it's something I should continue to consume at the rate I'm consuming them - however, in supplement form as opposed to sugar free red bull. I want - need - to understand how everything effects my body specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may all well be true but they don't cite any sources. Plus, European Union loves nothing more than to legislate people's bodies. I think it is stupid that we dye our foods though. Who cares what color it has? I realize that there's a certain amount of hardwire programming to associate appearance with past culinary experiences, but it was stupid we started doing this in the first place. If nothing else, it's a waste of money and research developing these dyes. I've come to distrust a lot of food studies though, particularly the human ones because I think they never use proper control methods just because, well, it's nearly impossible to do so. I remember a few years ago, there was a pretty hilarious juxtapostion of two studies released with in the same week: one claiming red meat increased risks of cancer, the other claiming it reduced risks of cancer. Both of them had data to back up it up. That tells me the way a lot of these studies are conducted is crap. Plus, I think many times there's a lot of confirmation bias, in other words, the study proves out what the scientist believed in the first place. The scientific method calls for hypotheses, but they aren't supposed to be tied to personal beliefs or whims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in total agreement. Some studies (perhaps all) are rigged. I personally think the FDA is a patsy to Big Pharma.

However, we're only talking about the ultimate subject and that would be you, the individual. If you eliminate a "potential" problem and you feel better then what have you got to lose?

Something can cause a headache or problem when it's ingested...or it can cause a headache or problem when it's taken away as in withdrawal from caffeine, sugar or drugs.

Does it fix N? NO! But it may eliminate some other problems that are making you feel like crap and compounding your agony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a fun old book out there that I've been wanting to read for a while. My old stats prof mentioned it. It's called "How To Lie with Statistics." Hope I get around to it some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!

I cannot remember the last time I had a headache but, after all these years, I can pinpoint exactly what I ate that will make me feel a certain way. Some foods are worth it...tonight will be a homemade curry...tomorrow I will drag my butt around but tonight I'll have happy tastebuds.

"THEY" are messing with our food and not everybody's body can cope with it. The only soup that Campbell's makes that doesn't have MSG in it is tomato soup. I am also wary of "No MSG ADDED" labels...because MSG does occur naturally in some foods like potatoes.

BTW, that was just one link...there are many available for your perusal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in total agreement. Some studies (perhaps all) are rigged. I personally think the FDA is a patsy to Big Pharma.However, we're only talking about the ultimate subject and that would be you, the individual. If you eliminate a "potential" problem and you feel better then what have you got to lose?Something can cause a headache or problem when it's ingested...or it can cause a headache or problem when it's taken away as in withdrawal from caffeine, sugar or drugs.Does it fix N? NO! But it may eliminate some other problems that are making you feel like crap and compounding your agony.

The gold standard is a peer reviewed double blind randomized placebo controlled study. Questionable studies do not meet this standard.

I am interested to know facts to support your opinion that the FDA is a patsy to Big Pharma. I hold the opinion that this is not the case. That opinion is based on evidence. For example, the FDA removed a rotavirus vaccine from the market because of concern about a rare complication. Although this turned out to be statistically insignificant, they stood by their decision. If they were a patsy to Big Pharma, I would not expect such an outcome.

Food dyes are really not the realm of Big Pharma, but maybe I am missing your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gold standard is a peer reviewed double blind randomized placebo controlled study. Questionable studies do not meet this standard.

I am interested to know facts to support your opinion that the FDA is a patsy to Big Pharma. I hold the opinion that this is not the case. That opinion is based on evidence. For example, the FDA removed a rotavirus vaccine from the market because of concern about a rare complication. Although this turned out to be statistically insignificant, they stood by their decision. If they were a patsy to Big Pharma, I would not expect such an outcome.

Food dyes are really not the realm of Big Pharma, but maybe I am missing your point.

The point I was making wasn't abut big pharma but more about food related studies. Studies concerning this are dubious, no matter how much blinding or peer reviewing. It's virtually impossible to regulate every little thing a person does throughout the day. Plus you have various genetic makeups, metabolic rates, enzyme production levels, etc, etc, etc. The same point could be made about pharma studies as well, but it's easier to control there, since all you are really looking for is the effect of the drug. I think the FDA and pharma's interests do coincide at times, and they will reward some pretty ridiculous patents/extensions on occasion. Plus, they serve as a barrier to, well, riskier or less studied drugs, which while probably good for the overall public health, does give Pharma some business security. I would like to see them exist in a more advisory capacity.,IE: put labels on stuff like, Warning, this sh!t has been known to make people's arms and legs fall off or hasn't been tested by anyone at all or whatever. But depending on the situation, for some drugs, the risk might be worth it. Especially in cases of terminal illness, where death is guaranteed, why the hell not let that patient try what they want. Oh, and they're definitely in bed with Monsanto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

 

Calling them a patsy for big pharma and other corporations might be a bit extreme, but whenever you've got big corporations dealing with government officials, there's always some grab ass here and there. It's how the game is played. However, as you said, the FDA has often brought the pain to pharma companies misrepresenting their products or producing bad juju. So is it good or bad? The answer is both. As is the answer to almost everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost my post with a lot of links 'cuz I had too many windows open. You said it well Rabbit.

FOLLOW THE MONEY. Am I cynic and a skeptic? Oh yeah.

G.D. Searle Company developed Aspartame...bought by Monsanto...bought by Pfizer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._Searle_%26_Company

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080102/98f-0052-her0001-vol5.txt

http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving-door-fda-and-the-monsanto-company/

Everyone is free to eat and drink whatever they want. Life is choices...my choice is to live without chemicals and additives. The chemical Alar used to be sprayed on apple trees 'cuz people wanted their apples red...it's now banned...and DDT...and? It would be really nice if some of this stuff could be subjected to testing that actually showed that it killed people before it happened. There's an impossibility for ya...FDA overwhelmed, underfunded and run by humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not meaning to go off on a tangent. I just get tired of sensationalism, in whichever form it comes.

Jumping from food additives to Big Pharma demonization and FDA being a patsy just rubbed me the wrong way.

Many of us rely on medications to manage our symptoms. I do. These medications are brought to us by Big Pharma. They are thoroughly studied and some of the few options we have. We do not live in an ideal world, but how many lives have been saved, prolonged and improved by the medications that have been developed.

I do not put these medications in the same basket as aspartame and food dyes. Confirmation bias, in "studies" or opinion, is not something I value.

I am a big fan of the "trust but verify" approach which differs from mistrust.

I keep up on medical journal articles, clinical trials and regulatory issues with my work. The conspiracy theory stuff, when it occurs, is the exception rather than the rule. It is not how things are done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course medications help people. I'm on a few myself. I don't think anyone here is alleging that they're all poison or anything. But the world is full of small people with small minds that hide behind regulations and the law in order to benefit themselves. Maybe that's just me being cynical, but, more broadly speaking, I think the overall state of this country supports me there. Getting back to the topic at hand, I know for a fact I, myself, was harmed personally by deception perpetrated by GSK. Because they got caught and had to pay through the nose. The question is, for how many times they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, how many times do they not? Western medicine is not the devil. I think the increased life expectancy and quality of life in our era speaks for itself. Medical science amazes me daily. I was just reading an article earlier about how they have finally got prostheses talking to sensor neurons, so amputees can actually feel things they touch. But just because medical science has done good, doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the bad. I'm not the with the tin foil hat crowd; I tend to think most conspiracy theories are pretty wackadoodle (Although, Alex Jones is hilarious, so I hope doesn't go away soon because he keeps on putting out entertainment gold.) Generally speaking again, I don't believe that corporations are inherently evil or any thing like that. If I did, I'd quit my job, because I work for a decently sized publicly traded company myself. But I'd say I follow the verify, then trust method, instead of the trust but verify in pretty much all facets of life. I've been told bold-faced lies too often to operate otherwise. But I do think I know why you're incensed. There does seem to be a conspiracy theory groupthink going on in the modern day world. Nowadays, it seems like all you have to do is point a finger, make some vague accusations, and you've got yourself a lynch mob ready to take some Marx to the "bourgeosie." But then you have stuff like the whole Snowden scandal, which gives true cause for distrust, further muddying the waters. I guess it's easy to get paranoid. A lie is most convincingly hidden between two truths, and the conspiracy nuts take advantage of that maxim just as much as people of privilege. That's why I tend to apply the same cynicism I have for business/authority to grass roots conspiracy think-tanks as well. I guess that makes me truly cynical; I won't even trust a cynic. I guess that's why my politics make most people mad; I never fully agree with anyone, especially myself. Well, now we have really gone off on a tangent now, haven't we? Sorry, sleeping monkey!

 

EDIT: I forgot to include this link; it's pretty hilarious, and it kinda goes to show how ridiculous conspriacy theorism can get. http://www.brobible.com/entertainment/video/death-star-was-an-inside-job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to just agree to disagree?

I am concerned for my grandchildren's health and well being...back to food dyes ONLY.

http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2011/04/fda-reopens-food-dyes-debate/

Everything that is shown "blue" in the article is a link to further reading.

If your children or grandchildren are among those that are not affected then I'm very happy for you. Bringing documented information to the table does not make me a sensationalist, it makes me a realist. The choice to believe it, or not, or further check it out is entirely up to the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now