Never See A Fat Doctor (Rant)

[jazzc]

The whole anti-gmo issue is really an anti-science issue.

And you know that because you're a hardcore science guy, right?

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

And you know that because you're a hardcore science guy, right?

I'm not really hardcore, but I'm for anything that modifies and improves upon things for the better which GMO's do. The anti-GMO groups are holding mankind back just like the groups that are against drugs that increase physical and/or mental performance.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/03/15/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/

 

[jazzc]

I'm not really hardcore

You really need to work on that then.

 

[Tiddlywink19]

I really hate that I have to agree with a lot of people, cause I have met a lot of dickhead, moronic, uneducated physicians in my life. (Especially the psychiatrists, I don't know how they practice medicine.)

Anyway, the doctor your going to sounds like a cocksucker, he sounds old, and grumpy, and like a huge asshole.

With that being said. If you are in stage 2 hypertension, that is at least 160/100 on 3 occasions or close to it; I don't give a f*ck who the doctor is, you need to be on BP med's and get on them now. Find one that agrees with you and take it, it's not a joke, you don't mess with your BP.

As for the suboxone stuff, hey, whatever doesn't make you go back to heroin, f*cking take it. Whether that is nothing or taking a low dose of subs, who cares about the stigma, anything is better than heroin. (You know what I mean) The problem is that drug addicting stigma, and like the computer guy says, the doctors office deal with the 90% of addicts looking to get their "meds" vs the 10% like you trying to stay clean.

So just relax, find a new doctor, and take your BP medication. Take Care!!

 

[GentlemanX]

Sorry to be rude but thats the most stupiest i ever read.How can you claim that GMO's increase nutrition value and makes healthy ?
I guess over 90% of european people,russia and even china dont wont GMO's cause they dont want to be healthy.

Maybe you should read some case studies about GMO modified potatos and how fast they cause cancer and changes in your organs.

Search for Arpad Pusztai a known professor and teacher on university who tested the effect of gmo modified potatos and got fired for publishing it

Hello from a trained molecular biologist,

GMO is a very broad term and grouping all GMO food as bad is completely idiotic. The issue with the potatoes in the Arpad Pustai experiment is that the potatoes were designed to include insecticide that is naturally produced in another plant (just the gene was brought into these potatoes). I wouldn't be suprised if rats felt mild effects because they have such small bodies, still larger than a bug (which would die). I'll use this example, if you spray mosquito or fly spray, it will make the pest have a seizure and die but not impact a human at all. Same thing with these potatoes imo.

His report was also looked at in more detail by a number of independent studies and shown to have flaws.

I'd look at Google Scholar if you have access to the proper credentials to read more into it.

GMO is okay normally and what they release to the public is tested extensively so I never fear about that. The benefits for health and overall food production is what matters in the end, and GMO is one viable way to do it.

 

[ShadeDream]

GMO's can't cause cancer, they are just modifying a few genes to resist droughts and grow easier, they aren't injecting cancer causing genes into them. The whole anti-gmo issue is really an anti-science issue.

The whole anti-gmo issue is not anti-science. It's anti experimenting on humans without their permission.

David Suzuki explains it all.

 

[ShadeDream]

GMO is okay normally and what they release to the public is tested extensively so I never fear about that. The benefits for health and overall food production is what matters in the end, and GMO is one viable way to do it.

That's bullshit. Why don't they label it so that people have a choice? It's got nothing to do with health, it's all business.

 

[GentlemanX]

That's bullshit. Why don't they label it so that people have a choice? It's got nothing to do with health, it's all business.

Because in the broadest sense of things, we have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years and it's never been needed. People can have choice, go to a farmers market. You won't see it at stores because it's business, why waste shelf space when the average customer doesn't care. Also it is business first for the large scale farmers who are trying to max profits and efficiency (that is not wrong imo), but the health benefits of having more accessible and larger crops is great for the consumer.

 

[ShadeDream]

If one pharma company found the cure for aids, they aren't going to supress it they are going to put a high price and sell it. If Pharma companies are willing to screw over customers they are willing to screw over other companies to not lose money.

Well the way I see it is slightly different, but that is just my personal opinion based on nothing more than observation. So of course I may be completely wrong but I feel otherwise about my opinion. My opinion is ever changing and it will never be 100% settled unless of course there will be enough hard facts to completely disprove my opinion.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

Unfortunately I do not believe that any hard facts will be available any time soon due to our http://www.spaceship-earth.org/PoS/Enlightened_human_nature.htm. I'm not going to go into this any further.

I am not here to prove anyone wrong or to prove my point, I am just trying to put my opinion forward as someone who cares about the world we live in and someone that is interested in the best for our world and our species.


First of all the pharma industry is a fishy business so I won't get into that but I would like to mention http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx which is about a potential treatment for cancer. The details are interesting but what interests me more is this particular part of the article:

The Method Behind the FDA's Madness

It eventually came to light that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license?despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective.

But WHY?

It's been stated many times that a crime can be solved simply by following the money, and this case is no exception. The FDA and the pharmaceutical industry had realized that if Dr. Burzynski's discovery?which he owned the patent for?received a fair review, chemotherapy and radiation would rapidly dwindle into obscurity, effectively crippling the industry. Not only that, but if antineoplastons were approved, billions of dollars of cancer research funds would get funneled over to one single scientist who had exclusive patent rights...

Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter:

"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances."

It became clear that ever since 1977, when Dr. Burzynski first tried to get antineoplastons approved, the FDA had begun scheming to eliminate the threat he and his discovery posed to the entire cancer industry...

That out of the way, there are many more similar yet different cases that revolve around the pharma industry. I won't be getting into this any further as it can be considered as quackery and it will inevitably lead to pointless arguments based on very limited and subjective information.


Now what I really wanted to talk about is our life styles and the way we eat. What puzzles me the most is the source of all of these so called diseases, where do they come from, how did they come into existence? I mean, things don't just happen out of thin air, you know? I believe a lot of this has to do with the way we live our lives and the way we eat. Human beings in general are very careless. You may think or believe otherwise, but the state the world is in tells me a different story.

Put opinion and belief to the side and think for a moment, how would life change if people truly focused on their health and started exercising regularly and eating a varied balanced diet based on organic products? Like I mentioned in my previous post, "your body isn't a bunch of separate systems, it is a bunch of interdependent systems that work together as a whole." The same applies to everything else in life, you cannot conclude one thing without considering the other. Humans generally speaking have an extraordinary way of adapting to various circumstances, what this means for our bodies is that it is not possible to see immediate change in them, at least not from our appearance. If one system isn't being efficient because it doesn't have the right fuel, then the other will be overworking in order to compensate the problematic one. The problem is it can't be compensating forever and one day it will eventually start to deteriorate due to the lack of balance. This raises a lot of questions when it comes to a healthy lifestyle. If more people truly realized this then maybe, just maybe, they would take a different approach and actually look into their health. Unfortunately due to our ability to adapt and survive without focusing on what we eat, most will never realize or will be too preoccupied with other life distractions (boy oh boy, when I was just a kid the American dream would melt my life away). Just look at media and entertainment.

The moment you start doing your own research and start questioning information for what it is you start to see things slightly differently. Maybe I'm a dreamer? But then again, does that make me faulty? Are dreamers wrong because they don't look at the so called "hard facts"? Or are dreamers slightly different thinkers who look at life from a different perspective? Either way if you start looking into the Eukaryote domain and the various information available you start seeing things different. It's just that there's so much information available that it literally becomes overwhelming to most people due to nothing else but your day to day distractions. You can always start small and look into things bit by bit, start with the food you eat and the food that is available worldwide, look into the details, into the potential uses and or benefits. Then look further into the Plantae Kingdom, and see how things work, how things are structured. This kind of research takes a lot of time, a lot of evaluation, a lot of thinking, for many this kind of knowledge is a "waste of life" because they obviously have more important things to do...

So now tell me, how would truly educating and helping people would benefit the US$300 billion a year pharma industry? That's not everything, now tell me how would this benefit the US$7.6 trillion food & beverage industry? The majority of food is crap and has no value whatsoever towards our health.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28212223
http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/
http://www.plunkettresearch.com/food-beverage-grocery-market-research/industry-and-business-data

Business is business, there are no ethics in business. I used to study business in school, I didn't do very well because I didn't really put the effort in, but whenever they would mention "ethics" my mind would scream "bullshit".

The issue is, not many people are open to learn and do their own research. There are many obstacles that are in the way of our thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior is probably one of our weakest links if not the weakest. It allows for us to be exploited in ways most people cannot even imagine. And no, this is not a conspiracy or quackery, it's just how evolution has progressed, but now that we can rationalize we need to see the world for what it is.


"Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno"

"One for all, all for one"

"One is all, all is one"

"Yin and yang"


I hope this makes sense, took me a while to put it all together, I've probably forgotten a few things too, but that's about it without overcomplicating things.

 

[ShadeDream]

Because in the broadest sense of things, we have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years and it's never been needed. People can have choice, go to a farmers market. You won't see it at stores because it's business, why waste shelf space when the average customer doesn't care. Also it is business first for the large scale farmers who are trying to max profits and efficiency (that is not wrong imo), but the health benefits of having more accessible and larger crops is great for the consumer.

I understand. That is not the point. GMO is different. Watch the video I posted above and you'll see my point. Better yet, I'll post it again.

The average customer doesn't care? That is nonsense. It's not that people don't care, they were brought up in a way where they trust authority where authority should be questioned.

Health benefits? Please...

 

[ShadeDream]

I saw "vegetarians" being mentioned so I thought I'd also add my 2 cents. I do not believe in "vegetarianism" or anything to do with it.

Here is an interesting video on why being a complete "vegan" is a bad long term choice.

And the GAPS diet for the information hungry: http://www.gaps.me/preview/?page_id=20

Obviously don't take everything literally, we are all different, what works for one will not work for the other.

 

[madoctopus]

OP: Doc is allowed to do whatever he wants to do. You're his client and if he doesn't want to treat you that's his choice. And you're a bitter asshole as much or more than he is. It was not him who walked into your office but the other way around. He wants to make money off your back? And what?! Everybody does. Unless you speak to at least 2 other doctors and they tell you this doc's professional advice was wrong, misleading or malicious, you're simply wrong about this. And whether he is fat or ugly or an asshole is irrelevant.

Vaccines work and there is overwhelming real-world evidence that they do.

Just look at Smallpox, one of the most dangerous diseases known to man - eradicated with a vaccination programme.
Or Polio - almost the same thing.
And there are many other diseases which have been massively reduced directly as a result of vaccines. Tetanus and Diphtheria for example.

Yes, there are diseases our bodies are more than capable of fighting off naturally - but when it comes to virulent and deadly diseases, vaccines have saved millions of lives.

Actually, despite assuming the same thing for a long time, one day i bumped into this research paper online. Didn't read it all but i got to look at the pictures (graphs). It was a study done on tens of countries that had or had no mass vaccination for various viruses. The shocking thing was that the drop curve was the same for places without vaccination as it was for those with vaccination. So for example if USA had vaccination for X between 1980 to day, and Bangladesh didn't, the incidence curve was almost identical for both countries - X decreasing consistently by p% every year for both countries.

Another very interesting aspect was vaccines that within a short time span (1-3 years) seemed to completely eradicate the virus from the population. So the graph would show the viral incidence drop from 50% close to zero. However, after about 3 to 5 years it would all of the sudden spike back to the same percentage the unvaccinated countries were having for that year. So would be for example 50%, then zero for 3 years then 30% just like where there was no vaccination where there was no dissapearence (drop to zero) but linear decrease from 50% to 30%.

The graphs covered over 50 diseases and vaccines, some with vaccination campaigns spanning over a few years other with campaigns spanning over tens of years.

About polio, it seems the vaccine-cure link is not causal (vaccines cured Polio) but simply correlated (Polio got cured within the period there was a vaccination). It seems the incidence of polio (IIRC) was higher during summer and came mainly from stuff related to lifestyle and social status (e.g. like not having access to water and soap will increase likelihood of many diseases for example).

On top of that, there's huge difference from vaccine to vaccine and disease to disease. For example while you can vaccinate against flu as a principle, the actual vaccines don't do much because the viruses mutate between the time the vaccine was made and the time you get infected. So you get vaccinated with an X v7.12 when in fact you're infected with an X v7.23. I even have a buddy who was a paramedic and he studied shit like this a bit and he never vaccinates for shit and explained me all this stuff with the strains being different.

I'm really not well documented about all this and even though I tried I can't find that study anymore. So do your own research and shit. Personally, the data in that study was just shocking - showing how something that everybody took for being causal actually being just a correlation.

 

[madoctopus]

Hello from a trained molecular biologist,

GMO is a very broad term and grouping all GMO food as bad is completely idiotic. The issue with the potatoes in the Arpad Pustai experiment is that the potatoes were designed to include insecticide that is naturally produced in another plant (just the gene was brought into these potatoes). I wouldn't be suprised if rats felt mild effects because they have such small bodies, still larger than a bug (which would die). I'll use this example, if you spray mosquito or fly spray, it will make the pest have a seizure and die but not impact a human at all. Same thing with these potatoes imo.

His report was also looked at in more detail by a number of independent studies and shown to have flaws.

I'd look at Google Scholar if you have access to the proper credentials to read more into it.

GMO is okay normally and what they release to the public is tested extensively so I never fear about that. The benefits for health and overall food production is what matters in the end, and GMO is one viable way to do it.

Hi there!

Thanks for your input. I'm not trained in anything along those lines, not even knowledgeable. However, if I eat a natural tomato from my garden I love it and if I eat one from the store, I'm close to puking as a body reflex to it. You know how we have that thing that makes us not swallow bad/expired/poisonous food? I get that with commercial tomatoes. Same stuff but not as bad with cucumbers and peppers. As a matter of fact, every single veggie or fruit from a store - compared to those I grow myself - lacks something both in terms of taste and energy it gives me and very interesting in the state of mind after eating it for a while.

Now, while I certainly agree that scientists (you included) know their science, I think saying that they get the entire picture would be a stretch. So I wouldn't really go as far as saying scientists know wtf they're doing really and understand all ramifications. In other words, you build a GMO and you analyze it as well as you know as a scientist and say "mmm, looks safe, no problems with it". But that's based only on stuff you knew to look at, only on information you already discovered and are basing yourself on, etc.

I'm not saying science is bad, but I am saying most people considering themselves scientists are very dogmatic. Most associate dogma with religions but that's not a real link. Dogma comes in science too and in every area. That's not the big problem though. The big problem is when a person (scientist, priest, teacher, developer) thinks he's got the true, and maybe the whole truth about something. Because that makes that person forget that in fact he has access to a very very thin slice of the whole story (truth).

Now back to tomatoes, what I'd really like to know is your opinion about how it would be possible for a GMO tomato to be healthy, yet last over 1 month at room temperature (not in the fridge even) and when I cut it it is in perfect shape like the day I bought it (no rot, no mold, no nothing), while my organic tomatos go bad in half a day in heat and after 1 week in the fridge they rot. So, if nature with its billion year evolution decided a tomato should rot after a few days, how is it we think we know better and at the same time we think we haven't messed anything in the process of producing the GMO, simple because we can't measure any problem?

And one last thing - maybe the problem isn't just with GMO but with everything else too that has to do with the food production - the soil you use or lack of soil (hydroponic), chems you use, natural sunlight or lack of it, location of where is produces, etc. But, I got to eat tomatoes from GMO seeds grown in my neighbor's garden - they taske better than the ones in the store but still totally crappy compared to my tomatoes. Yet, both were grown in the same medium and in the same place and in the same way.

 

[Trepanated]

Actually, despite assuming the same thing for a long time, one day i bumped into this research paper online. Didn't read it all but i got to look at the pictures (graphs). It was a study done on tens of countries that had or had no mass vaccination for various viruses. The shocking thing was that the drop curve was the same for places without vaccination as it was for those with vaccination. So for example if USA had vaccination for X between 1980 to day, and Bangladesh didn't, the incidence curve was almost identical for both countries - X decreasing consistently by p% every year for both countries.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying all vaccines in all cases are necessary or are the only solution. But vaccinations do work and they do save lives.

But I agree with you for sure - vaccinations are not necessarily the magic button they are professed to be

Clearly there are other factors that influence the spread of diseases and if those factors come into play at the same time as a vaccination programme it would be easy to misinterpret the results.

For example, in Victorian England, if there was a vaccination programme for Cholera at the same time as the sewerage system was upgraded it would have been easy to attribute the reduced incidence of Cholera to vaccination instead of an improved sanitation system. And I guess that would also be the case now for some other diseases. It would be interesting to see the figures for the increased incidence of certain diseases as cities in developing nations grew from the 19th century to now - and also how they perhaps reduced as public sanitation infrastructure improved (because often, sanitation does not keep pace with population growth).

Vaccines also impact in two ways - they prevent the individual from contracting the disease, but more importantly in some cases, they slow the spread of the disease. I think the former is much easier to quantify than the latter.

And then if you factor in the 'super-spreader' effect, it's possible that vaccination programmes in developed countries could have an impact in countries that have no corresponding programme - I'm not saying that's the case, but people in developed countries travel more and so if their 'super-spreaders' are vaccinated, that could impact a disease overseas.

I only mention 'super-spreaders' because I read a new piece of research on the subject recently, which spoke about a new mechanism they have discovered, so it is in my mind.

For me, I would and do choose the vaccination route when I travel.

I've travelled to some very under-developed and poor countries in my time and have had vaccinations for Typhoid, Cholera, Yellow Fever and a few others - better safe than sorry is my motto.

 

[Ozzyzig]

Sounds like you've had a hard time of it BB. From my point of view i.e. a BMS and a Clinical Pharmacologist, taking BP meds that are causing these side effects in you is a complete no go. For him to suggest it's a genetic trait that's causing the elevated BP without actually taking the time to do a gene panel on you is a bloody farce as well. A similar situation was with my mum taking meds for her thyroid that made her vomit (sorry if anyone is eating when they read this) so much that she was left severely dehyrdated. It ended up that the doctor bollocked at both of us to get out of the room when he knew he was in the wrong. A week later she seen another doctor who incidentally I ended up working alongside for over a year and he prescribed her a tweaked formulation. It's very much about who you see, especially in the NHS.

Out of interest, did he try you on any beta blockers like propranolol and bisporolol? There's some evidence to suggest that they may cause a slight increase in the risk of Type 2 Diabetes but they are generally more well tolerated than the ARB's that you've been put on, plus they're pretty cheap as well.

Nifedipine would also be an option, but it can cause some pretty horrendous headaches in people as well.

 

[jazzc]

GMO is okay normally and what they release to the public is tested extensively so I never fear about that.

How did you come to this conclusion? What kind of testing persuaded you? In vitro testing? In mice?

In other words, do you trust any test other than "here is our humans test group, here's our humans control group, here's X years of consumption, here's a huge list of medical conditions we are looking into, here's the statistical results"?

 

[madoctopus]

Ok, I went on and used my search-fu skills and found the study. Woo-hoo! The charts are part of a document prepared by Raymond Obomsawin, PhD. The data comes from various sources including national public health agencies, encyclopedias, Vital Statistics and Historical Statistics of the US, published medical journals, UNICEF reports, and more.

PDF - http://genesgreenbook.com/resources/obamsawin/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf
A post covering it and giving more background on the study and it's author: http://genesgreenbook.com/content/proof-vaccines-didnt-save-us

Go over it and make of it whatever you wish.

Just to finish on a funny note:

Edit/Note: when i found this first time, i remember it had more slides and it also shown cases where after vaccination massive increase in incidence occurred with some vaccines. Also slides where it shown after a drop to close to zero for a few years, an outbreak over the next few years, only to eventually drop to "normal" levels from unvaccinated countries. So from what I can remember there's something missing from this PDF.

Edit/Note2: This is an argument against the study: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nesty-of-the-vacci/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ro
(google cache bc for me website is down)

Also some info on misconceptions from CDC (i'm reading it now) - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

 

[jazzc]

"There's truth, there's lies and there's statistics". A big majority of people who view the above comic strip, don't get it. And a big chunk of those who know what it says, think "yes, but...". Sad but true.

 

[madoctopus]

"There's truth, there's lies and there's statistics". A big majority of people who view the above comic strip, don't get it. And a big chunk of those who know what it says, think "yes, but...". Sad but true.

That's not sad. What is sad is people who will believe something simply because most other people believe it. Even if is wrong. Even if they have blatant proof in their face. And they will listen to your arguments, not really listening but just waiting without even hearing what you say, just so you shut up so they can continue to try to convince you of their deep dumb illogical belief. It took me a while and a good deal of "htf can he still repeat that shit, I just explained to him why he's wrong like 20 seconds ago" until I realized they don't actually take what you say and think, they just keep repeating their shit until you are too tired and you die and they win by over-exhausting your brain. Brilliant!

 

[Trepanated]

Ok, I went on and used my search-fu skills and found the study. Woo-hoo! The charts are part of a document prepared by Raymond Obomsawin

Just to finish on a funny note:

The name Obomsawin rang a bell somewhere and it was only when I looked him up I remembered where from.

He has been previously associated with Andrew Wakefield - if you don't know that name, he was the nutter who used the most ridiculously small and flawed data sample to insinuate that the MMR vaccine caused autism. And then it turned out he had even falsified that flimsy data.

I'm not suggesting that means Obomsawin is automatically not credible, but it does make me cautious. I will read the information you linked to but have a completely stacked day tomorrow so won't get a chance until early evening. And I will try to keep my now slightly tainted opinion of him at bay

Brilliant cartoon too - especially the final paragraph.