Sometime in the future it will become clear that one of the causes of autism is traumatic experiences during labor and within the first few weeks of life. And the reason why boys are 4 times more likely than girls to be autistic is because of the trauma caused by circumcision.
I can't point at any scientific studies. This is purely speculation based on years of research and observation on my end. I don't have autistic children, but I know people who do.
Yeah, so, ideas someone just makes up one day, which directly contradict all existing scientific observations, tend not to become clear in a few years.
Man the shit they come up with. A plant based diet helps and in many cases reverses diabetes, but if it's not laden with chemicals or some freak surgery people don't take it seriously. This is some sad world we live in.
First: this is a treatment for type 1 diabetes. There is no reversing type 1 diabetes.
Second: a _low carb_ diet helps type 1 and 2 diabetes and in many cases reverses type 2 diabetes. It has nothing to do with being "plant based". The greatest improvement in my control of my type 1 diabetes came when I eliminated grains, a type of plant, from my diet.
So, I directly disagree: A meat based, grain free, low carb diet is the single best prescription for anyone with any form of diabetes.
Yup. Paleo has been transformative for me. The reason this diet is so great for diabetics is two-fold:
1) Meat gives my body the correct satiety signals, and so staying away from all of the carby treats that I use to find so addictive is no problem. It's easier for me to eat the right foods AND eat the right amounts of those foods.
2) Meat is not made of sugar like high carbohydrate foods are. The protein of meat needs to undergo a slow metabolic process (gluconeogenisis) in order for my body to turn it into sugar. What this means is that my food is "slow release" energy (sugar) as opposed to an instant sharp spike in sugar. Predictability is key when you need to manually inject the correct amount of sugar consuming hormone after every meal.
This diet is also great for EVERYONE... But that's a different discussion.
I'm glad it works out for you, but that diet is not great for everyone. In fact, much like the standard american diet - it's BAD for everyone, especially if the meat you consume is not grass fed. You're basically consuming the toxic soup of GMO corn, soy, and other grains fed to animals that were never meant to eat that. Plus you're consuming animal protein, which is very bad for humans. Unless you're thinking mainstream, those people don't even take issue with aspartame in their regular diet coke intake.
Meat quality is a huge component of eating Paleo. Grassfed and pastured meats may be more expensive but they pay dividends in health benefits.
Which brings me to your second statement that "consuming animal protein" is "very bad for humans". Do you realize that humans and the ancestors of humans have been consuming animal protein for 2 million years? Our metabolisms EVOLVED for eating animal proteins. Consuming animal proteins is the only way our species has been able to survive and thrive in ALL climates from the north to south poles, many places where vegetation is only available three months out of the year. Animal proteins are the only food available to us which include all 20 amino acids necessary for optimal health. Pound for pound, meats are drastically more nutrient dense than any other form of food. What the hell are you smoking?
My wife is a type 1 diabetic. Type 1 diabetes is a disorder not caused by diet or by any particular moral failing you might imagine, and people with it are the primary target of a device like this.
Your ignorance is insulting to millions of people who suffer due to diabetes. Please educate yourself rather than spouting nonsense.
Hey, do you happen to have any links you would recommend explaining the difference? I have been keeping my mouth shut out of respect for the fact that a closed mouth gathers no feet. I am at high risk for CFRD -- cystic fibrosis related diabetes -- which is neither type 1 nor type 2, or so I understand. I have reversed a lot of my symptoms, something doctors say cannot be done. Trying to better understand the topic.
tl;dr: Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder in which your body kills the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, leaving you with no ability to produce insulin. Type 2 sufferers, on the other hand, can usually produce a normal amount of insulin, but their cells don't respond to it sufficiently.
(Though I think "auto immune disorder" is utter bullshit and generally means the same thing as the phrase "dumb luck" -- basically, that they don't really have a logical explanation.)
But "auto-immune disorder" does describe whats happening. What most doctors can't say is what causes that: so they can't say more than "dumb luck".
One explanation I've heard is leaky gut caused by grain sensitivity, followed by dairy proteins leaking out, causing the immune response, which then mistakes the pancreas which has similar looking proteins. I don't know how much evidence there is for that.
But there are causes for leaky syndrome and they are treatable. And leaky gut at least tells you descriptively what is happening. Auto immune simply assumes the body mysteriously attacks itself, for no apparent reason.
Anyway, thank you for the feedback. It fits with some things I know and is something I can follow up on.
Why do you think "mysteriously" is part of the definition of auto-immune? If we don't know what causes a particular auto-immune response doesn't make it not auto-immune.
My condition gets referred to that way. It doesn't make sense to me as a mental model. Unfortunately, I have had a really long day so probably cannot explain my views in an effective manner.
Generally auto immune disorder means your body is so full of toxins it can't work properly. That's why your first order of business is to cleanse it and stay away from everything your doctor says is fine: genetically modified foods, food dyes, pesticides, vaccines, fluoride, benzine and paragons in everyday products (think shampoo), artificial sweeteners, processed foods, animal protein and load up on vegetables, fruits, legumes, quinoa, super foods and antioxidants, etc. The information is out there, people just would rather listen to their doctor who will be out of a job if you just took better care of your body. There's no Spinach Foundation or Kale lobbyists paying doctor each time you walk in the door.
Me thinks you didn't bother to check my profile or you would know I run an alternative health site. While I generally agree with you, your approach is insulting, unnecessarily provocative and childish. Further, my experience is that while toxin load matters, it isn't everything. It is more complicated than that. Last, given your handle, it seems pretty clear you have an agenda. I would appreciate it if you don't drag me into your agenda. I have been whored out by other people enough in my life.
About the best I could find when it comes to type 1 diabetes was someone saying that a plant based diet had helped reduce the volatility of their blood sugar levels. No mention of no longer needing insulin, or their pancreas magically repairing itself. Nothing that would make the device in the OP substantially less helpful.
This is all hardly a surprise, because plant-based diets tend to be low in refined carbohydrates, large quantities of which make diabetes harder to manage. People have achieved similar effects eating lots of other diets that aren't too high in carb (and this is, indeed, one area where mainstream science on the subject is in the process of updating itself).
Please, tell me of the people with type 1 diabetes who have had their condition reversed by a change in diet. I'd genuinely love it if it were true, but it's not. It's complete BS.
By the way, calling something 'mainstream' when it comes to medicine is not the insult you seem to think it is. It generally means 'credible people have performed studies with a credible methodology, and they have found stuff out'. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find anecdotes on the internet a particularly compelling alternative.
This is not to say that fringe opinions are all bad - occasionally one of those opinions will be right, the mainstream will be wrong, and the mainstream will be updated. Usually, though, we try to have some kind of credible evidence before stating wild leaps as fact - because most of these fringe opinions are wrong.
It's a disorder of glucose regulation, so minimizing carbs and maximizing fat (because protein also leads to glucose), can help a lot. Eat more animals and vegetables, less grains.
Glucose regulation is done by bonding oxygen to glucose with insulin.
When the pancreas does not manufacture insulin, no oxygen gets to the brain. Eating anything at all, no matter it's origin, will cause you to require insulin. Period.
Eat anything YOU want, but people who need this CAN NOT be helped by modifying their diet.
I need this. Maybe I wasn't precise about "glucose regulation", but obviously it doesn't happen if you don't have insulin.
I would agree that eating can't cure it, but it can help. Eating the standard USDA/ADA diet is loaded with carbs. Reducing carbs, and increasing (healthy, grass fed) fat and protein makes the glucose easier to manage. My average BG reduced by 30%, with fewer lows, and it's easier to do.
A nitpick, but it is an important distinction: people who need this can not be CURED by modifying their diet. They can certainly be helped though. Changing my sugar intake pattern was the single best change I've ever made for my long term health as a type 1 diabetic.
Thank you very much for your first sentence. Are there any links you would reommend to better understand the process? I did a paper on "functional hypoglycemia" many years ago, so I am not starting at square one. However, I find good info (like your first sentence) tends to be in short supply.
Thank you. I will keep your remarks in mind. Though my first thought is to wonder how that relates to the inflammation component, which is a known factor in both my condition and diabetes generally. I need to think on it.
In a 2030 version of Hackernews someone will point out that a lot of people must have known about coordinated efforts to dump fluoride into our water and everyday products, pasteurize cow's milk to produce a liquid substance that does not exist in nature and then push it as healthy and essential. That thousands of people sprayed produce with toxic chemicals. That thousands of people stood behind a counter and sold people a product that kills half a million of them every year along with 50,000 of their acquaintances (cigarettes) and that America's greatest investor pushed Coke and its evil twin Diet Coke to millions of people who later abused it as part of their path to obesity and heart attack.
The micro-organisms usually present in stagnant fresh water are much more harmful than low levels of chlorine or fluoride that are added to kill them. Diet Coke does not promote obesity. Pasteurized cow's milk is fairly nutritious and is much less likely to harm you than unpasteurized milk (although the regulations in the USA are too strict IMHO).
Indeed, it's supposed to protect teeth of people unable to afford toothpaste. Whilst it actually just causes cancer. In a similar way to how X-raying everyone who wants to get on a plane protects us from non-existent terrorists.
Do you have a source for your first statement? Not that I'm implying you are lying. Certainly it's added as a mineral fortifier, but to protect the teeth of people unable to afford toothpaste? That is news to me.
Flouride additions to water was started in the 1960s or 1970s as a public health initiative to fight tooth decay, a significant health problem. It was not added as a "fortifier" in the same way that vitamin D is commonly added to milk.
I don't have a good source* on me but aspartame likely increases appetite and feeling of hunger so I don't know about promoting but it may be contributing.
There's a difference, subtle though it may be to some, between common legal practices in food and drug production and conspiring to criminally poison consumers for profit. Many of the items you mention are likely bad for the long term health of our species--but I would compare them more readily to medical practices in the dark ages than the short sighted and improperly structured health / regulatory environment we have today.
I'm deeply concerned about the world my children will inherit, but it's difficult for educated mainstream individuals to take the issues you point out seriously if they are presented from a paranoid and conspiracy theory embracing perspective. Even taking a giant leap and supposing any of the conspiracies exist to the extent some claim, the presentation still suffers because of a lack of willingness by the populace to embrace such a dark view of a society that they participate in.
I created an account just to respond to this. Vaccines have nothing to do with this article, and rejecting them goes against hundreds of years of medical knowledge. Vaccines and chemical drugs like Vioxx have very little in common. Vaccines come directly from our understanding of viruses and the immune system - we make a weakened or dead version of the virus we've found to cause a given disease, and inject people with it so their own bodies can build up immunity. This is a proven, effective method that has been used to eradicate a lot of really bad diseases (when was the last time someone you knew got smallpox, or polio?). Any claim to the contrary is ignorant of history. Chemical drugs like Vioxx represent a very different case: a small molecule is discovered that seems to be bioactive in a specific way that treats a condition, and tests and drug trials validate its efficacy and look for side effects. The reality is, we know don't know all the effects these chemicals can have on the body, which is why you can get bad side effects like with Vioxx. Maybe it means more rigorous testing should be required for drugs to be approved, but it's certainly no reason to reject huge unrelated swaths of modern medicine that clearly benefit society. So please vaccinate your kids, and stop making posts like this.
I can't speak for the majority of HN users, but I can speak for people who read serious medical research about vaccine safety and effectiveness (as I am one such person), and I can say for the record that there is plenty of evidence that vaccines have consistently resulted in reduced mortality and morbidity from a variety of diseases. Childhood death is now rare (it was once commonplace) largely because of improved sanitation and other public health measures around the globe but also because of vaccines.
- The safety standards for getting new drugs approved are incredibly lax. All you need to show is that it helps the person in some measurable way for the first six weeks. You don't need to show that the drug is safe or effective for longterm use, even if the drug is designed for longterm use. And you don't need to show that the person's overall health and wellbeing is improved, just the one condition the drug is designed to treat. So if an acne drug causes liver failure it will still get approved as long as it's effective at treating acne.
- The government has been caught many times injecting political dissidents and others with fake vaccines, most recently in the case of the Bin Laden family.
- Most academics believe that the US government was responsible for starting the AIDS epidemic by running vaccination programs in Africa. [1] [2]
- The government has repeatedly shown that they don't take evidence of safety and quality problems seriously at best, and actively prosecute whistleblowers at worst.
"The goals of the New Drug Application are to provide enough information to permit FDA reviewer to reach the following key decisions: * Whether the drug is safe and effective in its proposed use(s), and whether the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks."
For one thing, you've cited only one academic (as "the River" is by a journalist, not a scientist), and he attributed it to "well-meaning European doctors and nurses"... so, er, not the US, and not the government.
But, more importantly, there's plenty more academics who think that theory is completely wrong:
Academic is not a synonym for scientist. Historians are academics, but they're not scientists. Journalists may or may not be academics, but I think it's pretty clear that he was acting as an academic in writing that book.
Interesting. I haven't read either of the original books so it's difficult for me to evaluate the quality of these papers. It's worth noting though that these papers are only the beginning of a long back and forth, which you can find on Hooper's website:
Also, while clinical trials usually do take 10 years or so, the actual patients don't necessarily receive the drug for more than a few weeks. The reason it takes so long is because you need to do preclinical research, secure patents, secure funding, get IRB and FDA approval for each study, design the methodology and acquire the resources you need, recruit hundreds or thousands of volunteers, wait for the drugs to get manufactured, run all the studies in each phase, analyze the data, get FDA approval to transition from phase I to phase II and from phase II to phase III, then wait for actual approval, etc.
How exactly do you propose we evaluate new drugs for long term use? Should we just do a 50 year clinical trial of every single drug before approving it?
How about just not putting the drug on the market in the first place? High cholesterol? Stop eating meat and eggs and bacon with every meal. High blood pressure? Move your ass and eat your veggies. Chronic fatigue? Put that diet coke down and drink water. Joint pain? Cut the dairy out - your body is leaking calcium and you have been lied to for 60 years. Dairy is killing you. People are just dumb, that's the hard truth.
>High cholesterol? Stop eating meat and eggs and bacon with every meal. High blood pressure? Move your ass and eat your veggies.
The connection between cholesterol and fat intake is tenuous at best. You're likely to be able to cut your total cholesterol levels by less than 15 points through a low fat diet plus exercise unless it was ridiculous to start with. In my family a healthy diet results in a total cholesterol level of around 250, while a strict low fat diet will bring it down to 235 or so, far above the recommended level.
As far as blood pressure is concerned, nearly everyone develops hypertension eventually.
I often wonder if people such a yourself realize that the people who conduct the so-called serious medical research will be out of a job if their studies turned out against the interests of Big Pharma. People also used to die from hospital acquired infections until doctors realized it may be a good idea to wash their hands between patients.
Oh wait, herd immunity? Right, so I'm supposed to inject my kids with chemicals for the greater good of other people? How about those people first breastfeed their own kids to protect mine from getting flu (we all know breastfed babies are healthier) and stop killing 50,000 people from second-hand smoke every year? People are scared of terrorism yet they kill themselves with the nasty $1 burgers government makes available thanks to subsidies.
People are so scared to lose their kids to Polio and measles but they're more likely to lose them to a drunk 16 year old or a driver busy facebooking. Or their own aunt chain smoking around their kids. Or give them cancer and diabetes by recklessly feeding them food dyes and artificial sweeteners. Fucking retards. Cigarettes, Coke and 80% of the crap you find in your local grocery store kill more people than whooping cough ever will, and they do so legally and with great pride.
Louis C.K. strikes me as a guy with better things to do with his time.
Besides, the people having issues with PayPal have (almost?) always been using terminology implying that they were taking donations without being registered as a non-profit, or were taking money with the promise of a return in the future.
I'm not trying to defend PayPal here; I'm just pointing out that there is specific behaviour that is likely to invoke their wrath, and Louis C.K. does not appear to be doing those sorts of things.
I feel you. I've been procrastinating a project for 3 years already (yes 3 years). I write code maybe half of one day each week. The rest of the time I do as you describe. I'm so ashamed of it I tell no one. Glad to have quite a bit of savings.
I don't mean to come off as a dick, but switch projects. I procrastinated for a month straight on something, as soon as I dropped the project the code flowed.
Talk to a doctor, it seems like you suffer from something along the lines of ADD. I have a friend that drastically improved his condition through medication.
I'm in the same kind of boat, though to a lesser degree. It's going in the wrong direction however. Perhaps we can try to help sort things out together. If you're interested, my email is in my profile.
While the study did consider fruits and veggies, it did not account for factory farmed meat and dairy consumption, genetically modified foods, animal protein intake, food dyes, cell towers, etc. In 20 years from now we might finally realize that genes alone play a very small role in development of cancer cells. Time will tell.
I would rather download the SOPA Hearing video in 720p HD quality than watch a crappy cheap low quality lowres version. Offer next day 720p/1080p HD version of TV shows and movies and piracy will go down. Even iTunes HD versions are crap, not to mention Netflix 2002-era stream quality.
I can't point at any scientific studies. This is purely speculation based on years of research and observation on my end. I don't have autistic children, but I know people who do.