On modern diet

[nietzsche]

natty, I'm not gonna continue arguing with you. If you fail to see that the FDA is compromised by economic intereses you are naive.

There are a billion research papers out there, all pointing out to the most contradictory conclusions. Before I was even into this, I knew, that for new meds, the pharmaceuticals conducted the trials themselves, and that they could hide 100000000 results if they didn't like em, but only needed to show a few good ones to be approved by the FDA.

Truth is our body has evolved along with natural foods, we are made to eat certain molecules in certain concentrations, and if you neglect it eventually will get broken.

I bet the information you are using about aspartame is the information those who manufacture want you to have.

I declare this argument with you over, I know you will go looking for the research papers that point exactly what you want and I could do the same, but I don't want to.

[Neoteny]

ITT: Nietzsche explains why he is going to die of botulism.

[natty dread]

natty, I'm not gonna continue arguing with you because I don't have a coherent argument, so I'm just going to parrot soundbites from pseudoscientific health-woo sites that I've started frequenting since developing orthorexia

I'm paraphrasing, but hey.

I bet the information you are using about aspartame is the information those who manufacture want you to have.

No, it's fucking BASIC CHEMISTRY. Are the rules of physics now being controlled by some kind of conspiracy?

It's the best-kept secret in the world! The benzene ring actually has 7 carbons, but the NWO FDA is suppressing this information! Don't trust those damn science books! Wake up sheeple! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

[nietzsche]

natty, I'm not gonna continue arguing with you because I don't have a coherent argument, so I'm just going to parrot soundbites from pseudoscientific health-woo sites that I've started frequenting since developing orthorexia

I'm paraphrasing, but hey.

I bet the information you are using about aspartame is the information those who manufacture want you to have.

No, it's fucking BASIC CHEMISTRY. Are the rules of physics now being controlled by some kind of conspiracy?

It's the best-kept secret in the world! The benzene ring actually has 7 carbons, but the NWO FDA is suppressing this information! Don't trust those damn science books! Wake up sheeple! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

It might be, in fact I know nothing about aspartame. I guess it's up to anyone to use it.. but sweeteners taste horrible. Stevia is a sweetener that it's supposed to be ok because it's natural and has an alkalinizing effect in the body. I've tried myself, it's ok, but I don't use it much.

Also, muriatic acid is only 3 atoms of hidrogen, one of oxigen and other of chlorine (H2O + HCl), does that make it safe to drink?

[nietzsche]

ITT: Nietzsche explains why he is going to die of botulism.

It's not about not wanting to die, I'm half god so I won't die. It's about feeling better. I used to get these headaches all the time, they stopped when I stopped eating breads and sugary deserts and all that. I would have trouble running 10 kms, now I can run 10kms easily, not big deal.

But I guess this is more relevant to fat people like AoG, he would greatly benefit from a sort of paleo diet.

Shit, I said paleo diet, not BBS and natty will look for the research "proving" that paleo diet is bad for everyone.

[natty dread]

Stevia is a sweetener that it's supposed to be ok because it's natural

Um... cyanide is natural. Amatoxins are natural. Tetrodotoxin is natural.

Stevia is probably relatively harmless, but it's not because it's natural. That's the naturalistic fallacy at work - just because something is natural doesn't automatically make it good, and something that is "unnatural" (ie. does not exist in nature) does not automatically make it bad.

and has an alkalinizing effect in the body.

No it hasn't. That doesn't even mean anything.

Also, muriatic acid is only 3 atoms of hidrogen, one of oxigen and other of chlorine (H2O + HCl), does that make it safe to drink?

Firstly, muriatic acid (ie. hydrochloric acid) is HCl, but it exists only in a solution of water, in it's pure form it's a toxic gas known as hydrogen chloride.

Secondly, the answer is it depends on the concentration. If you dilute it enough that it doesn't burn your digestive tract, go nuts - your stomach is already full of the stuff anyway.

Anyway, I don't see how this has anything to do with anything? The number of atoms isn't the point. HCN (cyanide) is only three atoms, but it's pretty lethal. However - vitamin B (cyanocobalamine) contains small amounts of cyanide. However however - as long as you don't take too much of it, it's safe.

Everything is a poison if you take too much of it, even water.

[nietzsche]

Stevia is a sweetener that it's supposed to be ok because it's natural

Um... cyanide is natural. Amatoxins are natural. Tetrodotoxin is natural.

Stevia is probably relatively harmless, but it's not because it's natural. That's the naturalistic fallacy at work - just because something is natural doesn't automatically make it good, and something that is "unnatural" (ie. does not exist in nature) does not automatically make it bad.

and has an alkalinizing effect in the body.

No it hasn't. That doesn't even mean anything.

Also, muriatic acid is only 3 atoms of hidrogen, one of oxigen and other of chlorine (H2O + HCl), does that make it safe to drink?

Firstly, muriatic acid (ie. hydrochloric acid) is HCl, but it exists only in a solution of water, in it's pure form it's a toxic gas known as hydrogen chloride.

Secondly, the answer is it depends on the concentration. If you dilute it enough that it doesn't burn your digestive tract, go nuts - your stomach is already full of the stuff anyway.

Anyway, I don't see how this has anything to do with anything? The number of atoms isn't the point. HCN (cyanide) is only three atoms, but it's pretty lethal. However - vitamin B (cyanocobalamine) contains small amounts of cyanide. However however - as long as you don't take too much of it, it's safe.

Everything is a poison if you take too much of it, even water.

So you can point faulty analogies and understanding people will get your point and move on, but if someone point another faulty analogy you will attack it in order to win the argument??

Are you and BBS related?

My point here is, the modern diet, with all his proccesing and all the shit they add to it, like corn starch and all that shit, is in the long run bad for you.

It's very likely that if there were proof that Aspartame is bad for us, it would be hidden from public. It would only come to the surface when something went very public, like hundreds dying. But it's most likely that it would combine with other stuff to cause chronic illness.

You can be an adult an get what I'm trying to say or refuse it, or you can be a troll and say stuff like "there's no conclusive proof that that is true, even tho most people is dying of cancer or hearth dissease, and if you don't trust the fda then you are a lunatic".

We can construct arguments in the most clever way, and win debates even tho we are wrong to begin with. It depends in the other part to take the effort to refuse yours, well I'm not here practicing my debating skills, personally I think truth is not found rumminating rationalizations, other congnitive abilities are better at finding truth.

[PLAYER57832]

natty, I'm not gonna continue arguing with you. If you fail to see that the FDA is compromised by economic intereses you are naive.

There are a billion research papers out there, all pointing out to the most contradictory conclusions. Before I was even into this, I knew, that for new meds, the pharmaceuticals conducted the trials themselves, and that they could hide 100000000 results if they didn't like em, but only needed to show a few good ones to be approved by the FDA.

Truth is our body has evolved along with natural foods, we are made to eat certain molecules in certain concentrations, and if you neglect it eventually will get broken.

I bet the information you are using about aspartame is the information those who manufacture want you to have.

I declare this argument with you over, I know you will go looking for the research papers that point exactly what you want and I could do the same, but I don't want to.

This is not about the FDA. They are just an agency that yes, often does bow to pharmaceutical companies. However, did you know they have little to do with most natural food products? You don't need research to get corn or greebeans approved. You do for additives, etc.

There is less research about natural products because there is less economic interest in them.

[Neoteny]

Tbh, if Nietzsche wants to spend his money on "natural foods," I say more power to him. It's better than spending it on nonsense like acupuncture and chiropractic. It would just be better if he knew what he was talking about.

Btw, natty, the "alkalinity" bit refers to a quack diet involving avoidance and removal of "acids." These act in the same way as the ever-nebulous toxins. That method is, of course, magic.

[nietzsche]

Tbh, if Nietzsche wants to spend his money on "natural foods," I say more power to him. It's better than spending it on nonsense like acupuncture and chiropractic. It would just be better if he knew what he was talking about.

Do I have to be an erudite on this to take advantage of it? If you ask me to fix your computer I will not make you feel less for not going to computer school.

Btw, natty, the "alkalinity" bit refers to a quack diet involving avoidance and removal of "acids." These act in the same way as the ever-nebulous toxins. That method is, of course, magic.

It is not about removing acids, it's about trying to restore a balance in the ph in the blood by eating stuff that helps in this, for instance, lemon juice is and acid, but it has an alkalinizing effect.

I have some trouble with these kind of arguments because they imply that since there is no research proving it works then it must be quackery. Have you stopped to think, who's gonna fund this research? The state? are you kidding?

I'm currently using an approach that has worked for many for a chronic condition. I, like many, didn't find relief in the meds that I was prescribed, and I tried like 10 different. I had to pay my doctor like 100 usd twice a month, plus I had to get blood tests every 15 days as well to make sure the meds weren't causing me any harm, those costed like 50usd. Plus of course the meds. I was miserable, my pain was almost unbearable.

Until I found this other approach, which, according to those who still see their doctor, it's not accepted by most MDs. The approach is a diet approach. Now my pain is almost gone, gone completely if I'm strict. I'm not the only one, so the placebo effect is not likely. Also, there's been research on this since the 1980s, but somehow doctors don't recommend it still?? why? There's no money in it. And those who have done research have lost reputation because of it.

Call it quackery if you want, but modern diet is making us sick.

[natty dread]

Btw, natty, the "alkalinity" bit refers to a quack diet involving avoidance and removal of "acids." These act in the same way as the ever-nebulous toxins. That method is, of course, magic.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. So it's another variety of acid/base woo? But yeah it could be worse, at least he isn't curing cancer with baking soda...

Btw, if acids=bad, how exactly are they going to remove all that hydrochloric acid from your stomach, I wonder? And if they do succeed, how are they going to digest food? And does the diet require to never eat any vitamin C (ascorbic acid)? No one's worried about scurvy?

So you can point faulty analogies and understanding people will get your point and move on, but if someone point another faulty analogy you will attack it in order to win the argument??

You didn't point out any faulty analogy, you made one of your own. I certainly never claimed that less atoms = gooder. That was all you.

My point here is, the modern diet, with all his proccesing and all the shit they add to it, like corn starch and all that shit, is in the long run bad for you.

Yeah, that stupid modern diet, with all their molecules and shit. Just this morning I bought a pizza and it was full of atoms and things, due to all the processing they did for it, and the quantum fluctuations were ALL WRONG. My bioenergy was erratic all day.

It's very likely that if there were proof that Aspartame is bad for us, it would be hidden from public.

And this assertion is based on what? Like the huge, worldwide aspartame industry is controlling all the world's scientists and somehow preventing them from publishing their studies? In this day and age, when we have the internet, and even classified government files routinely end up on wikileaks? When we have multiple, international, independently ran scientific journals?

So... is everyone in on this conspiracy?

You can be an adult an get what I'm trying to say or refuse it, or you can be a troll and say stuff like "there's no conclusive proof that that is true, even tho most people is dying of cancer or hearth dissease, and if you don't trust the fda then you are a lunatic".

Argument by false dichotomy.

The thing is, I don't give a flying f*ck about the FDA, because the FDA is an entity based in the USA and has no authority over the rest of the world. The FDA is not the sole author of scientific studies pertaining to food.

And yes, there are good studies and there are bad studies. That doesn't mean you should just dismiss all studies because sometimes they contradict each other. So how do you tell them apart? Simple: study the methodology, see if it's peer reviewed and what the peers say, see if anyone has been able to replicate the results. It doesn't matter who conducted the studies, if the methodology is solid and results are consistent (accross multiple studies by different authors), then the results are likely reliable. That's how science works.

And yes, cancer & heart disease are the most common causes of death, but you've made a faulty conclusion about it. It's simply that our medicine is so advanced these days. that things that used to kill us even a 100 years ago, can now be cured, and our life expectancy is higher than ever... thus, more of us even get the chance of getting cancer or heart diseases, because more of us live to an age where those things start to become more common.

Do people have unhealthy lifestyles? Absolutely. But they have more to do with eating too much, not excercising enough, not eating enough vitamins or other essentials.

We can construct arguments in the most clever way, and win debates even tho we are wrong to begin with. It depends in the other part to take the effort to refuse yours, well I'm not here practicing my debating skills, personally I think truth is not found rumminating rationalizations, other congnitive abilities are better at finding truth.

It's not about debating skills. You don't need debating skills when facts are on your side. If you don't have any facts to back up your points, and all you can bring to the table are vague soundbites from pseudoscientific quack sites, all the debate skills in the world won't save you.

And you may think you have some kind of supernatural "cognitive abilities" that allow you to know the truth about everything based on what "feels like" truth to you, but you most likely don't.

[nietzsche]

Also, the diet approach that I use, its based in the fact that for genetic reasons, plus of course diet, the permeability in the gut makes the immune system go nuts. Yet if you look gut permeability online, you will find that a lot of "respected" sites will imply it's quackery, that there's no research to prove it.

Great! Works for many who try it! And it would work for way more if it only was widely known outside the internet.

[nietzsche]

Btw, natty, the "alkalinity" bit refers to a quack diet involving avoidance and removal of "acids." These act in the same way as the ever-nebulous toxins. That method is, of course, magic.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. So it's another variety of acid/base woo? But yeah it could be worse, at least he isn't curing cancer with baking soda...

Btw, if acids=bad, how exactly are they going to remove all that hydrochloric acid from your stomach, I wonder? And if they do succeed, how are they going to digest food? And does the diet require to never eat any vitamin C (ascorbic acid)? No one's worried about scurvy?

So you can point faulty analogies and understanding people will get your point and move on, but if someone point another faulty analogy you will attack it in order to win the argument??

You didn't point out any faulty analogy, you made one of your own. I certainly never claimed that less atoms = gooder. That was all you.

My point here is, the modern diet, with all his proccesing and all the shit they add to it, like corn starch and all that shit, is in the long run bad for you.

Yeah, that stupid modern diet, with all their molecules and shit. Just this morning I bought a pizza and it was full of atoms and things, due to all the processing they did for it, and the quantum fluctuations were ALL WRONG. My bioenergy was erratic all day.

It's very likely that if there were proof that Aspartame is bad for us, it would be hidden from public.

And this assertion is based on what? Like the huge, worldwide aspartame industry is controlling all the world's scientists and somehow preventing them from publishing their studies? In this day and age, when we have the internet, and even classified government files routinely end up on wikileaks? When we have multiple, international, independently ran scientific journals?

So... is everyone in on this conspiracy?

You can be an adult an get what I'm trying to say or refuse it, or you can be a troll and say stuff like "there's no conclusive proof that that is true, even tho most people is dying of cancer or hearth dissease, and if you don't trust the fda then you are a lunatic".

Argument by false dichotomy.

The thing is, I don't give a flying f*ck about the FDA, because the FDA is an entity based in the USA and has no authority over the rest of the world. The FDA is not the sole author of scientific studies pertaining to food.

And yes, there are good studies and there are bad studies. That doesn't mean you should just dismiss all studies because sometimes they contradict each other. So how do you tell them apart? Simple: study the methodology, see if it's peer reviewed and what the peers say, see if anyone has been able to replicate the results. It doesn't matter who conducted the studies, if the methodology is solid and results are consistent (accross multiple studies by different authors), then the results are likely reliable. That's how science works.

And yes, cancer & heart disease are the most common causes of death, but you've made a faulty conclusion about it. It's simply that our medicine is so advanced these days. that things that used to kill us even a 100 years ago, can now be cured, and our life expectancy is higher than ever... thus, more of us even get the chance of getting cancer or heart diseases, because more of us live to an age where those things start to become more common.

Do people have unhealthy lifestyles? Absolutely. But they have more to do with eating too much, not excercising enough, not eating enough vitamins or other essentials.

We can construct arguments in the most clever way, and win debates even tho we are wrong to begin with. It depends in the other part to take the effort to refuse yours, well I'm not here practicing my debating skills, personally I think truth is not found rumminating rationalizations, other congnitive abilities are better at finding truth.

It's not about debating skills. You don't need debating skills when facts are on your side. If you don't have any facts to back up your points, and all you can bring to the table are vague soundbites from pseudoscientific quack sites, all the debate skills in the world won't save you.

And you may think you have some kind of supernatural "cognitive abilities" that allow you to know the truth about everything based on what "feels like" truth to you, but you most likely don't.

How can I say this without being an ass... i can't.. see, all you are saying I can understand perfectly, it's not that I'm not logical enough.. it's more like I will not bother in disprove your points because it's not what I'm trying to accomplish.

I understand that this approach it's not researched enough, man I have had to make test for my own, like have to get better, then incorporate a food and evaluate if its good or not for me. It's way too complicated and personal, at least until we know (yes, thanks to science) what's the exact mechanism.

By some logical fallacy that I don't know its name but it's innate in my to understand (see Plato's Republic, the part about the guy knowing innately math) you are concluding that since there's no reseach from a prestigious university then it must be quackery.

The part on the conspiracy, you are too naive. And by other logical fallacy that I dont know its name you are trying to win the argument by making me look like a lunatic.

Lobbies still control the politics even tho the internet exists. I bet you are not in business, if you were you'd knew that you can pass a little bill that for some public servant looks like much, but you can make 100 time that bill if they do what you ask.

As you have mentioned, you don't actually are against my general point, you are only amused by contradicting my arguments.

[Neoteny]

The pH woo is exactly what it is. It's incorporated into a lot of different diets now. I think it's mostly harmless in its current form, since the proponents don't seem to understand how exactly pH works, or how food might affect it, especially since nobody is absurd enough to say "don't eat teh froots." Some preach avoiding milk, though and vinegar. But, yeah, the people trying to incorporate it into medicine are kinda scary.

[nietzsche]

The pH woo is exactly what it is. It's incorporated into a lot of different diets now. I think it's mostly harmless in its current form, since the proponents don't seem to understand how exactly pH works, or how food might affect it, especially since nobody is absurd enough to say "don't eat teh froots." Some preach avoiding milk, though and vinegar. But, yeah, the people trying to incorporate it into medicine are kinda scary.

TBH I don't know. But next to were I've read on stuff that has greatly helped me, it was that theory about our current diet making our pHs too acidic and therefore harming us. I don't know how much certain food can actually affect the pH. But I think it might be possibly that if the body is stressed enough from bad diet its ability to reach homeostasis might be compromised? Not even 10% sure of this, only pointing it out as a possibility among many of how it could be.

[Neoteny]

The pH woo is exactly what it is. It's incorporated into a lot of different diets now. I think it's mostly harmless in its current form, since the proponents don't seem to understand how exactly pH works, or how food might affect it, especially since nobody is absurd enough to say "don't eat teh froots." Some preach avoiding milk, though and vinegar. But, yeah, the people trying to incorporate it into medicine are kinda scary.

TBH I don't know. But next to were I've read on stuff that has greatly helped me, it was that theory about our current diet making our pHs too acidic and therefore harming us. I don't know how much certain food can actually affect the pH. But I think it might be possibly that if the body is stressed enough from bad diet its ability to reach homeostasis might be compromised? Not even 10% sure of this, only pointing it out as a possibility among many of how it could be.

I don't doubt changing your diet has helped you. I went vegetarian for moral reasons and felt phenomenal afterward. I don't know if it was placebo effect or the actual diet change (probably a bit of both). I expect the improvements you've seen are due to your increased awareness of nutrition and an increased awareness of the fact that nutrition is a huge factor in our well-being. The foods these diets exclude are often not super awesome for our bodies, though the reasoning for excluding them can sometimes be weird. I don't want to tell you to stop, particularly if you're happy with it and you are getting a full nutritional intake. But I worry about this sort of thing being a gateway to other woo. Please, if you ever feel really sick, go to a doctor. And vaccinate your damn kids.

As far as diet affecting homeostasis goes, that's probably accurate. But there are some aspects of homeostasis that are not well controlled by diet. Blood alkalinity, or whatever, is one of them. Hydrogen and hydroxide ions come from myriad sources, like water, and is one of the easiest things your body maintains. If your blood is acidic, it's usually a sign that something's wrong, but it's usually a symptom (bacterial infection, say), and not the cause of the malaise.

Like I said, if it's working for you, and you're getting your full nutrition, go for it. But be careful.

Also, humans have been cooking food for almost as long as we've been human. Maybe longer. Some foods taste better, and some might be better nutritionally, uncooked, but cooking your food won't have a negative effect on you. At least from the evolutionary perspective.

Also also, my diet pet peeve is portion control. Americans in particular eat too much food.

[natty dread]

Too... much... stupid... can't... go... on... reading..................... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa

But seriously though....

How can I say this without being an ass... i can't.. see, all you are saying I can understand perfectly, it's not that I'm not logical enough.. it's more like I will not bother in disprove your points because it's not what I'm trying to accomplish.

Yeah, that sounds like a good excuse.

What are you trying to accomplish though?

I understand that this approach it's not researched enough, man I have had to make test for my own, like have to get better, then incorporate a food and evaluate if its good or not for me. It's way too complicated and personal, at least until we know (yes, thanks to science) what's the exact mechanism.

Do you know the reason why scientific tests are done in double blind studies with control groups?

By some logical fallacy that I don't know its name but it's innate in my to understand (see Plato's Republic, the part about the guy knowing innately math) you are concluding that since there's no reseach from a prestigious university then it must be quackery.

No, it's quackery because pseudoscientific quacks are peddling easy answers to people who don't know how science works. They all sounds believable and like they "make sense" on paper, if you don't know the details behind the science. But in fact they are just assumptions with no legitimate scientific research backing them up.

Thus, it's in these quacksters' best interest to convince their customers that all the scientists are lying, that they're all in some big conspiracy to cover up the real cures that they just happen to know about. Makes sense! Except, this conspiracy would require all the scientists in the world to be in on it. And if the conspiracy were that big, surely they could just as easily shut down whatever sites you read, and prevent the "truth" from even being posted on the internet.

Thing is, it's a really attractive idea. Everyone wants cheat codes for life. It's so very appealing to us for some reason, the idea that there's some kind of big secret that if you just know it you can somehow cheat at life. And the thing about "big pharma" or some other kind of conspiracy like NWO or FDA trying to cover it up is even more appealing - everyone loves an underdog. So a lot of people go along with it, because when you really really want to believe something, you're more likely to accept it. That's how the best con artists operate: they tell you a lie you want to believe.

Don't get me wrong: there are lots of legitimate reasons to criticize big pharmaceutical corporations, etc. But this just is not one of them.

The part on the conspiracy, you are too naive. And by other logical fallacy that I dont know its name you are trying to win the argument by making me look like a lunatic.

I don't have to make you look like a lunatic, you do such a good job at it yourself.

Lobbies still control the politics even tho the internet exists. I bet you are not in business, if you were you'd knew that you can pass a little bill that for some public servant looks like much, but you can make 100 time that bill if they do what you ask.

But what you suggest goes beyond regular corporate lobbying. Your scenario would require a global conspiracy with a singular agenda that controls all scientific research everywhere on the world. Do you realize the ramifications of that? It's simply not a feasible idea.

And the internet is very efficient at whistleblowing and pointing fingers at corruption. Look at how SOPA got cockblocked by public outrage. That would have been impossible before the internet - they'd have gotten the legislation they wanted before any of us would even know something was up.

As you have mentioned, you don't actually are against my general point, you are only amused by contradicting my arguments.

Balderdash. I'm only trying to show you the error of your ways.

[nietzsche]

This is my last answer to you.

• Easy answers?? Do you think its an easy answer to change your whole diet? Isn't pharmaceuticals the ones that are on the easy answer biz? One pill for eacch ill??
  
• I'm trying to communicate something I believe has need of being communicated. I would not push a pill because they are known enough. I don't see you trying to prove logical fallacies in other threads while failing to admit yours.. wait! Yes I see you.
  
• Scientist will do what pays the rent. A researcher needs funding, and he will do the research that those with money want him to do. Money for funding research will come, most of the time, from companies for profit.
  
• I repeat, you are too naive, have no idea how the world of money works.

[BigBallinStalin]

Tbh, if Nietzsche wants to spend his money on "natural foods," I say more power to him. It's better than spending it on nonsense like acupuncture and chiropractic. It would just be better if he knew what he was talking about.

Btw, natty, the "alkalinity" bit refers to a quack diet involving avoidance and removal of "acids." These act in the same way as the ever-nebulous toxins. That method is, of course, magic.

Yeah, well what's wrong with magic, ya bigot?

[Neoteny]

I don't hate magic. I just don't think we should be funding it with public money.

[Commander62890]

Thus, it's in these quacksters' best interest to convince their customers that all the scientists are lying, that they're all in some big conspiracy to cover up the real cures that they just happen to know about. Makes sense! Except, this conspiracy would require all the scientists in the world to be in on it. And if the conspiracy were that big, surely they could just as easily shut down whatever sites you read, and prevent the "truth" from even being posted on the internet.

Thing is, it's a really attractive idea. Everyone wants cheat codes for life. It's so very appealing to us for some reason, the idea that there's some kind of big secret that if you just know it you can somehow cheat at life. And the thing about "big pharma" or some other kind of conspiracy like NWO or FDA trying to cover it up is even more appealing - everyone loves an underdog. So a lot of people go along with it, because when you really really want to believe something, you're more likely to accept it. That's how the best con artists operate: they tell you a lie you want to believe.

Absolutely. And that goes for all conspiracy theories; not just this one.

If what you're saying is true, Nietzsche, millions upon millions of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy, including the entire scientific community.
It just isn't realistic.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't hate magic. I just don't think we should be funding it with public money.

I hate you libertarians. Always thinking that you don't know what's best for people.

[nietzsche]

Thus, it's in these quacksters' best interest to convince their customers that all the scientists are lying, that they're all in some big conspiracy to cover up the real cures that they just happen to know about. Makes sense! Except, this conspiracy would require all the scientists in the world to be in on it. And if the conspiracy were that big, surely they could just as easily shut down whatever sites you read, and prevent the "truth" from even being posted on the internet.

Thing is, it's a really attractive idea. Everyone wants cheat codes for life. It's so very appealing to us for some reason, the idea that there's some kind of big secret that if you just know it you can somehow cheat at life. And the thing about "big pharma" or some other kind of conspiracy like NWO or FDA trying to cover it up is even more appealing - everyone loves an underdog. So a lot of people go along with it, because when you really really want to believe something, you're more likely to accept it. That's how the best con artists operate: they tell you a lie you want to believe.

Absolutely. And that goes for all conspiracy theories; not just this one.

If what you're saying is true, Nietzsche, millions upon millions of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy, including the entire scientific community.
It just isn't realistic.

Continuing with the logical fallacies.. conspiracy theories include in themselves the antidote to be proved wrong.. "they are trying to prove it wrong because it's part of the conspiracy. I'm aware of this. But that doesn't disprove what I'm saying.

It doens't have to be a world wide conspiracy, it's more likely that they do what's in their power to help themselves. Does walmart conspire to make other retailers bankrupt? Well, not exactly, but given that they are buying millions of dollars from X provider, they can ask the provider to sell them the product at a big discount, and later being able to sell the product to a price that other retailers cannot match. It's just the power of money.

What happens is that pharmaceuticals fund many tests, and only show to the FDA those who help them get their meds approved. They can play with designs until they get what the results they want. But not all it's bad about big pharma, they only take advantage of the situation. They, as we say, didn't point a gun in our heads to eat what we eat. What is lacking here is the regulation of the state, the state should fund the research that would help us all, but they won't.

You can't make pharmaceuticals fund research that has no monetary advantage to us. But we should make the state fund that research.

Do you really believe that the current prevalence of cancer and heart disease is just normal? that that was the way it was before there was no twinkies? (Question to all)

[Neoteny]

When you consider that we historically haven't lived long enough to get to the age where heart disease and cancer is most prevalent, it's hard to say. The availability of food is certainly a huge factor to our lifetime, but to blame it all on our diet is disingenuous, particularly with regard to cancer.

[nietzsche]

When you consider that we historically haven't lived long enough to get to the age where heart disease and cancer is most prevalent, it's hard to say. The availability of food is certainly a huge factor to our lifetime, but to blame it all on our diet is disingenuous, particularly with regard to cancer.

What about amyloides that form in our body due that the liber cannot process certain substances, creating the possibilities to cells to become cancerous? (I'm seriously asking, not countering your point).

I believe that the data on the average life expectancy of humans in the past it's misunderstood. Many died young but not from chronic illnesses. And those who did die of natural age I believe had a long life. Like 150 years. Kidding, but they didn't die of heart attack.

There are many accounts of cancer healing by only fasting. There are fasting institutes in Europe. What you make of these? (Sincerely, as you appear to know about these stuff, I'm picking your brain).