Being In It for the Species The Kolbrin Bible Complete Danjeon Breathing System 
Surviving the Planet X Tribulation

Author Topic: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas  (Read 24801 times)

ilinda

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3090
  • Karma: +32/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #75 on: June 14, 2018, 05:39:07 PM »
Bumper sticker:

R.R. Book

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6102
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #76 on: June 14, 2018, 06:59:58 PM »
 :D

ilinda

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3090
  • Karma: +32/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #77 on: June 23, 2018, 05:42:11 PM »
This is definitely food for thought, deep thought.  The articles I find on greenmedinfo.com are of excellent quality and this one is no exception:

 Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com
Subscribe to our informative Newsletter & get two FREE E-Books
Our newsletter serves 250,000 with essential news, research & healthy tips, daily.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/evidence-based-medicine-coins-flip-worth-certainty
'Evidence-Based' Medicine: A Coin's Flip Worth of Certainty

Posted on:
Friday, November 9th 2012 at 5:00 am
Written By:   Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2014


What if 90% of the peer-reviewed clinical research, the holy grail of the conventional medical system, is exaggerated, or worse, completely false?
A seismic shift is occurring in the field of evidence-based medicine that a rare few are aware of, but which will (and likely already does) affect everyone, as the standard of medical care today largely follows from this model.
The very life's blood of 'evidence-based' medicine -- peer-reviewed and published clinical research results – which legitimizes the entire infrastructure and superstructure upon which conventional medical knowledge and practice is erected, has been revealed as mostly and patently false.
Case in point: in a 2005 essay, "Why Most Published Research Findings are False," and which is the most downloaded document of all time on PLoS, the Public Library of Medicine's peer-reviewed, open access journal, John P. A Ioannidis explains in detail how "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false." And that "for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."  
The Atlantic published a piece on Ioannidis' work, back in 2010, titled "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science," well worth reading, and which opened with "Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors - to a striking extent - still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice?"
Ioannidis' work revealed that about half of the most highly regarded research findings within "evidence-based" medicine are either wrong, or significantly exaggerated:
[Ioannidis] zoomed in on 49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years, as judged by the science community's two standard measures: the papers had appeared in the journals most widely cited in research articles, and the 49 articles themselves were the most widely cited articles in these journals.
...Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable. That article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Time magazine wrote about Ioannidis' findings the same year with a piece titled "A Researcher's Claim: 90% of Medical Research is Wrong" -- the title of which speaks resoundingly for itself.
Keep in mind that the 'gold standard' of the multi-trillion dollar conventional, 'evidence-based' medical model is the very research that Ioannidis now says is mostly false.  This model, which apparently thrives despite, or even because of, its falsity, largely determines what drugs are used, what surgical procedures employed, or conversely, what treatments can not be used, e.g. vitamins, spices, etc in disease prevention or treatment.  It also shields those who practice this dominant and only truly legally-sanctioned form of medicine against the potential calamity of moral, criminal, and financial liabilities it is responsible for– that is, as long as the truth continues to remain buried.  
How many folks, for instance, are aware that the Cochrane Database Review on preventing influenza in healthy children with flu vaccines shows that the evidence proving their safety and effectiveness in children under two (the population most susceptible to vaccine-induced injuries) is conspicuously lacking? Why would anyone question the rationality of vaccinating infants and young children against influenza when the CDC and FDA presents it as unequivocally safe and effective? As the review states:
It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunization in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.
Or, among the the tens of millions of Americans taking statin drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, who among them realize that there are well over 300 adverse health effects documented in the scientific literature itself associated with the use of this chemical class of medications, including the weakening and damaging of the heart muscle?
Sadly, examples like these may be the rule and not the exception.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM), of course, is founded upon an epistemological power structure arranged hierarchally like a pyramid. The 'quality of evidence' determines whether or not something can be said to be true. On the lowest tier, the 'base' of this pyramid, is the Anecdote, considered worthless, encompassing many folk medical systems employing food and plant medicines and still used by the majority of the word as their primary care system, followed by: Cell Studies > Animal Studies > Human Studies > Clinical Trials > Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Clinical Trials.

This model assumes, in the characteristically Napoleonic style, that what it does not officially confirm as being true, is not true. Herbs and vitamins, for instance, are almost never considered to be "evidence-based" and credible because they have not run the gauntlet of prerequisite clinical trials required for them to be verified as therapeutic within this model. The fact that our bodies, for instance, require vitamin C in order to be alive, is not evidence enough to support the concept that it may be valuable to take it supplementally at doses beyond the recommended daily value (which may keep you only a few milligrams above starvation/deficiency values).

The fact is that human clinical trials can cost millions of dollars, and that in order to prove the value of a potential FDA-approved medicine, it must be taken through phase 0, phase I, phase II and phase III clinical trials (which, taken together, cost on average $804 million). The 'gold standard' of evidence-based medicine therefore betrays the aphorism: "those who own the gold make the standard."  By principle, therefore, all natural substances, which do not lend themselves to being patented because they do not grant the manufacturer exclusivity, will never attain FDA approval as legitimate medicines.
While the conventional medical system can claim this is because they lack "evidence" for safety and effectiveness (despite the fact that Turmeric, for instance, has thousands of years of use by millions of folks as a food and medicine), the reality is that they only lack "evidence" because they cannot be effectively monetized and controlled as proprietary instruments of medical power.  
Ultimately, Ioannadis' findings reflect an inborn and potentially fatal error at the very heart of modern science itself: namely, a tendency towards scientism.
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. Furthermore, scientism accepts as real and valid only those things which it can confirm empirically; those things it does not or cannot confirm it is skeptical about, e.g. homeopathy, the existence of the soul, an innate intelligence in the body, or worse, outright denies as unscientific, or "quackery."
For instance, a fundamental assumption of all scientific inquiry is that things are made of "real, hard objects," i.e., the computer I am typing at is a conglomeration of atoms. But wait, quantum mechanics, which peers deeper into the illusion of materiality, revealed that what subtends the illusion of macroscopic things is a subatomic realm better described as comprised of fields of possibility, where particles can be at two places at once, or communicate faster than the speed of light (non-locality), etc, basically violating all the fundamental laws considered inviolable on our everyday level of macroscopic perception. So, in many ways, the deeper you take the scientific investigation, the less firm a footing you have on what really is real, and what you think you know.
Also, scientism – this false sense of certainty in knowing - leads inevitably to medical monotheism: the belief that there is only one true and right way to prevent and treat disease, and that all disbelievers are intrinsically inferior and treated as either uneducated, insane, or as heretics, to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  
This is how we arrived at our present day pseudo-scientific medical dictatorship.  I say pseudo- because insofar as science means an attempt to discern the truth without bias, it is a human faculty, a yearning of the soul, a constant challenge we must meet each and every moment we try to figure something out.  Science is not a "brand," a "possession," an exclusive faculty of a caste of scientific elite, dispensed solely through monolithic institutions.  It can not claim to deny anything and everything it does not explicitly confirm without being an organ and instrument of fascism, control, divisiveness and institutionalized and compulsory ignorance and myopia.
Natural medicine, by principle, will never attain legitimacy within the present power structure. The money simply will not flow in the direction of uncovering, or simply confirming its time-tested, multi-culturally confirmed and often obvious power to heal with food and otherwise natural substances and interventions -- that is, beyond the sizable body of preclinical research which we have gone to great lengths to collect and index for you on Greenmedinfo.com.
These limitations, however, are being overcome as we speak. The revelation that the 'evidence-based' monopoly on the truthTM is itself not based on evidence, in perhaps a majority of cases, has world historical implications. Perhaps we would do equally well for ourselves if we went back to our intuition, drawing from ancient dietary and natural medical practices to take back control of our health. For example, asking ourselves "how do I feel?" is no less vital a question than "what is my LDL cholesterol number?" Certainly, in the first case the answer is immediate, and not up to debate. After all, is the evidence of our first-hand experience any less valid than a Merck funded, multi-million dollar drug trial? It is simply a matter of whether we choose to stand firmly in, or loosely give away our power in exchange for the narcotic of blind faith in a conventional medical system, whose credibility as a system designed to discover and apply empirically-confirmed truths (assuming the work of Ioannidis is accurate) already departed long ago.

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

R.R. Book

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6102
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #78 on: June 23, 2018, 06:11:07 PM »
Quote
Herbs and vitamins, for instance, are almost never considered to be "evidence-based" and credible because they have not run the gauntlet of prerequisite clinical trials required for them to be verified as therapeutic within this model.

This is slowly changing, thankfully.  One area that stands out is geriatric medicine, which tends to comprise a large proportion of the budgetary liabilities of developed nations.  Born of necessity, studies are being conducted on supplement after supplement which show that the natural remedy is often both the better and the cheaper one.  A number of posts on Barb's Alzheimers thread citing studies published on the National Institutes of Health website demonstrate that.

The problem is waiting for clinical trials to be completed before beginning a course of natural medicine, especially if a patient has a limited window of opportunity to forestall downward progression, as with Parkinson's Disease.  NADH, for example, has not successfully passed its clinical trials yet, though countless PD sufferers know from first-hand experience that daily supplementation eliminates the sense of loss of balance that can be so debilitating. 

PD patients also evidence a conspicuous absence of glutathione in the substantia nigra portion of the brain, particularly male patients who have been exposed to agricultural pesticides, so the question arises: why wait for permission from the establishment to begin replenishing substrates of glutathione, when time is of the essence?

Yowbarb

  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Karma: +26/-0
  • Reaching For Survival
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #79 on: July 02, 2018, 03:30:37 PM »
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/27/canola-oil-health-effects.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20171227Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM174882&et_rid=165211252

Canola Oil Proven to Destroy Your Body and Mind


ilinda, thanks for posting this!
I had heard years ago it was no good... Always avoid it.
it is in so many things, hard to get away from it...
It certainly is, and is even placed by STEALTH in some items.  For example, a vegetarian version of Mayonnaise proudly proclaims on their label, "Made with Olive Oil", and when you read the ingredient list, there is canola oil, in greater amount that the olive oil!

ilinda, wow that is sneaky! I hope it wasn't the vegan may I posted a pic of awhile ago. :) They should not be allowed to misrepresent, like that.
I have been disappointed several times when reading ingredients at health food stores. Especially skin products. propolene glycol or other "prop" ingredients have no place in health food store skin care or vitamin capsules.
That said, (my disclaimer, haha) I wouldn't want to discourage people from going to their local health food stores, especially if organic, non-GMO food is available. Also, there are probably a lot of excellent products there..

Yowbarb

  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Karma: +26/-0
  • Reaching For Survival
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #80 on: July 02, 2018, 03:37:04 PM »
This is definitely food for thought, deep thought.  The articles I find on greenmedinfo.com are of excellent quality and this one is no exception:

 Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com
Subscribe to our informative Newsletter & get two FREE E-Books
Our newsletter serves 250,000 with essential news, research & healthy tips, daily.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/evidence-based-medicine-coins-flip-worth-certainty
'Evidence-Based' Medicine: A Coin's Flip Worth of Certainty

Posted on:
Friday, November 9th 2012 at 5:00 am
Written By:   Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2014


What if 90% of the peer-reviewed clinical research, the holy grail of the conventional medical system, is exaggerated, or worse, completely false?
A seismic shift is occurring in the field of evidence-based medicine that a rare few are aware of, but which will (and likely already does) affect everyone, as the standard of medical care today largely follows from this model.
The very life's blood of 'evidence-based' medicine -- peer-reviewed and published clinical research results – which legitimizes the entire infrastructure and superstructure upon which conventional medical knowledge and practice is erected, has been revealed as mostly and patently false.
Case in point: in a 2005 essay, "Why Most Published Research Findings are False," and which is the most downloaded document of all time on PLoS, the Public Library of Medicine's peer-reviewed, open access journal, John P. A Ioannidis explains in detail how "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false." And that "for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." 
The Atlantic published a piece on Ioannidis' work, back in 2010, titled "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science," well worth reading, and which opened with "Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors - to a striking extent - still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice?"
Ioannidis' work revealed that about half of the most highly regarded research findings within "evidence-based" medicine are either wrong, or significantly exaggerated:
[Ioannidis] zoomed in on 49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years, as judged by the science community's two standard measures: the papers had appeared in the journals most widely cited in research articles, and the 49 articles themselves were the most widely cited articles in these journals.
...Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable. That article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Time magazine wrote about Ioannidis' findings the same year with a piece titled "A Researcher's Claim: 90% of Medical Research is Wrong" -- the title of which speaks resoundingly for itself.
Keep in mind that the 'gold standard' of the multi-trillion dollar conventional, 'evidence-based' medical model is the very research that Ioannidis now says is mostly false.  This model, which apparently thrives despite, or even because of, its falsity, largely determines what drugs are used, what surgical procedures employed, or conversely, what treatments can not be used, e.g. vitamins, spices, etc in disease prevention or treatment.  It also shields those who practice this dominant and only truly legally-sanctioned form of medicine against the potential calamity of moral, criminal, and financial liabilities it is responsible for– that is, as long as the truth continues to remain buried. 
How many folks, for instance, are aware that the Cochrane Database Review on preventing influenza in healthy children with flu vaccines shows that the evidence proving their safety and effectiveness in children under two (the population most susceptible to vaccine-induced injuries) is conspicuously lacking? Why would anyone question the rationality of vaccinating infants and young children against influenza when the CDC and FDA presents it as unequivocally safe and effective? As the review states:
It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunization in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.
Or, among the the tens of millions of Americans taking statin drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, who among them realize that there are well over 300 adverse health effects documented in the scientific literature itself associated with the use of this chemical class of medications, including the weakening and damaging of the heart muscle?
Sadly, examples like these may be the rule and not the exception.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM), of course, is founded upon an epistemological power structure arranged hierarchally like a pyramid. The 'quality of evidence' determines whether or not something can be said to be true. On the lowest tier, the 'base' of this pyramid, is the Anecdote, considered worthless, encompassing many folk medical systems employing food and plant medicines and still used by the majority of the word as their primary care system, followed by: Cell Studies > Animal Studies > Human Studies > Clinical Trials > Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Clinical Trials.

This model assumes, in the characteristically Napoleonic style, that what it does not officially confirm as being true, is not true. Herbs and vitamins, for instance, are almost never considered to be "evidence-based" and credible because they have not run the gauntlet of prerequisite clinical trials required for them to be verified as therapeutic within this model. The fact that our bodies, for instance, require vitamin C in order to be alive, is not evidence enough to support the concept that it may be valuable to take it supplementally at doses beyond the recommended daily value (which may keep you only a few milligrams above starvation/deficiency values).

The fact is that human clinical trials can cost millions of dollars, and that in order to prove the value of a potential FDA-approved medicine, it must be taken through phase 0, phase I, phase II and phase III clinical trials (which, taken together, cost on average $804 million). The 'gold standard' of evidence-based medicine therefore betrays the aphorism: "those who own the gold make the standard."  By principle, therefore, all natural substances, which do not lend themselves to being patented because they do not grant the manufacturer exclusivity, will never attain FDA approval as legitimate medicines.
While the conventional medical system can claim this is because they lack "evidence" for safety and effectiveness (despite the fact that Turmeric, for instance, has thousands of years of use by millions of folks as a food and medicine), the reality is that they only lack "evidence" because they cannot be effectively monetized and controlled as proprietary instruments of medical power. 
Ultimately, Ioannadis' findings reflect an inborn and potentially fatal error at the very heart of modern science itself: namely, a tendency towards scientism.
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. Furthermore, scientism accepts as real and valid only those things which it can confirm empirically; those things it does not or cannot confirm it is skeptical about, e.g. homeopathy, the existence of the soul, an innate intelligence in the body, or worse, outright denies as unscientific, or "quackery."
For instance, a fundamental assumption of all scientific inquiry is that things are made of "real, hard objects," i.e., the computer I am typing at is a conglomeration of atoms. But wait, quantum mechanics, which peers deeper into the illusion of materiality, revealed that what subtends the illusion of macroscopic things is a subatomic realm better described as comprised of fields of possibility, where particles can be at two places at once, or communicate faster than the speed of light (non-locality), etc, basically violating all the fundamental laws considered inviolable on our everyday level of macroscopic perception. So, in many ways, the deeper you take the scientific investigation, the less firm a footing you have on what really is real, and what you think you know.
Also, scientism – this false sense of certainty in knowing - leads inevitably to medical monotheism: the belief that there is only one true and right way to prevent and treat disease, and that all disbelievers are intrinsically inferior and treated as either uneducated, insane, or as heretics, to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 
This is how we arrived at our present day pseudo-scientific medical dictatorship.  I say pseudo- because insofar as science means an attempt to discern the truth without bias, it is a human faculty, a yearning of the soul, a constant challenge we must meet each and every moment we try to figure something out.  Science is not a "brand," a "possession," an exclusive faculty of a caste of scientific elite, dispensed solely through monolithic institutions.  It can not claim to deny anything and everything it does not explicitly confirm without being an organ and instrument of fascism, control, divisiveness and institutionalized and compulsory ignorance and myopia.
Natural medicine, by principle, will never attain legitimacy within the present power structure. The money simply will not flow in the direction of uncovering, or simply confirming its time-tested, multi-culturally confirmed and often obvious power to heal with food and otherwise natural substances and interventions -- that is, beyond the sizable body of preclinical research which we have gone to great lengths to collect and index for you on Greenmedinfo.com.
These limitations, however, are being overcome as we speak. The revelation that the 'evidence-based' monopoly on the truthTM is itself not based on evidence, in perhaps a majority of cases, has world historical implications. Perhaps we would do equally well for ourselves if we went back to our intuition, drawing from ancient dietary and natural medical practices to take back control of our health. For example, asking ourselves "how do I feel?" is no less vital a question than "what is my LDL cholesterol number?" Certainly, in the first case the answer is immediate, and not up to debate. After all, is the evidence of our first-hand experience any less valid than a Merck funded, multi-million dollar drug trial? It is simply a matter of whether we choose to stand firmly in, or loosely give away our power in exchange for the narcotic of blind faith in a conventional medical system, whose credibility as a system designed to discover and apply empirically-confirmed truths (assuming the work of Ioannidis is accurate) already departed long ago.

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

ilinda, thanks for your post. Yes, Greenmedinfo is a good source for a lot of useable info.
All The best,
Barb T.

R.R. Book

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6102
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #81 on: July 02, 2018, 05:30:39 PM »
Quote
..."what is my LDL cholesterol number?"

Not sure how many people realize that their brains are made of cholesterol, and plenty of it!

Also not sure how many people realize that HDL and LDL tests do not measure cholesterol at all.  Those tests measure lipoproteins, or fats connected to proteins.  Cholesterol is a steroid alcohol which sometimes rides around in the blood plasma on the backs of lipoprotein molecules, and allopathic medicine assumes that this relationship is both regular and predictive. 

Cholesterol is not only essential for neurological health, but also for maintaining the flow of bile, which acts as a detergent to break down fats and fatty acids (since oil and water don't mix, it takes a fat to break down another fat). 

Cholesterol is a non-issue for those who take lecithin / choline, which prevents cholesterol from precipitating in the form of fatty deposits and stones.  Taurine also is part of this equation.  Those who supplement lecithin / choline prevent arterial blockages from occurring. 

BTW, those who take lots of antihistimines need to supplement even more lecithin, as the OTC med dries up both bile and acetylcholine, impeding cognition.  At least one study re-published by the National Institutes of Health has noted a strong correlation between allergies and dementia, probably for this reason.

Antihistimines are still an important addition to the medicine cabinet though, as they can save lives by preventing anaphylaxis.  An alternative to them for simple seasonal hayfever is Butterbur.





ilinda

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3090
  • Karma: +32/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #82 on: July 02, 2018, 07:46:31 PM »
Quote
..."what is my LDL cholesterol number?"

Not sure how many people realize that their brains are made of cholesterol, and plenty of it!

Also not sure how many people realize that HDL and LDL tests do not measure cholesterol at all.  Those tests measure lipoproteins, or fats connected to proteins.  Cholesterol is a steroid alcohol which sometimes rides around in the blood plasma on the backs of lipoprotein molecules, and allopathic medicine assumes that this relationship is both regular and predictive. 

Cholesterol is not only essential for neurological health, but also for maintaining the flow of bile, which acts as a detergent to break down fats and fatty acids (since oil and water don't mix, it takes a fat to break down another fat). 

Cholesterol is a non-issue for those who take lecithin / choline, which prevents cholesterol from precipitating in the form of fatty deposits and stones.  Taurine also is part of this equation.  Those who supplement lecithin / choline prevent arterial blockages from occurring. 

BTW, those who take lots of antihistimines need to supplement even more lecithin, as the OTC med dries up both bile and acetylcholine, impeding cognition.  At least one study re-published by the National Institutes of Health has noted a strong correlation between allergies and dementia, probably for this reason.

Antihistimines are still an important addition to the medicine cabinet though, as they can save lives by preventing anaphylaxis.  An alternative to them for simple seasonal hayfever is Butterbur.




Thanks for posting this.  The makers of all the statin drugs would have us believe we're all about to drop dead of clogged arteries if our total serum cholesterol level even approaches 200.  They want all of to be quaking in fear that we'll all soon die a miserable death if we don't start a regimen of daily statin, and remain on it for the rest of our lives.

Fortunately many people are waking up to Big Pharma tactics and these people are using a number of herbs to help improve cardiovascular health, and having better results with dietary changes, plus cardiotonic herbs.

R.R. Book

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6102
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #83 on: July 03, 2018, 06:11:23 AM »
Speaking of statins, lots of well-intentioned health oriented folks are taking red yeast rice in lieu of statins.  This is even worse, because tests show that it contains the same active chemical as the drug Lovastatin, only in unstandardized form, meaning you could be getting even more of the chemical than in the prescription form.  Dangers include muscle cramping and wasting, possibly irreversible.  Remember that the heart is a muscle too.

If one is determined to take red yeast rice, it should always be accompanied by coQ10. :)

ilinda

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3090
  • Karma: +32/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #84 on: July 03, 2018, 10:09:06 AM »
Speaking of statins, lots of well-intentioned health oriented folks are taking red yeast rice in lieu of statins.  This is even worse, because tests show that it contains the same active chemical as the drug Lovastatin, only in unstandardized form, meaning you could be getting even more of the chemical than in the prescription form.  Dangers include muscle cramping and wasting, possibly irreversible.  Remember that the heart is a muscle too.

If one is determined to take red yeast rice, it should always be accompanied by coQ10. :)
Yes, a diabetic neighbor tried the red rice yeast and did have enough problems that he quit that as well.  I have old medical laboratory books from the 60's, 70's, and maybe early  80's, and they list serum cholesterol levels of around 250 as being in the upper end of normal.  Plus elderly people who have so-called elevated cholesterol levels are actually healthier than the elderly with low serum cholesterol.  They don't know why it is, but one day they might discover that in ageing, extra cholesterol may serve some protective function.

(Those few who have seriously elevated cholsterol levels, for example 600 or  1,000, or so, are a rare genetic subset, who do probably need some form of intervention.)

R.R. Book

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6102
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #85 on: July 03, 2018, 11:57:07 AM »
Right, the subset would be separated out of any studies to prevent a confounding variable test design flaw that might skew the data.

Remember when they used to warn us away from eating real eggs, and then suddenly did an about-face and told us to eat eggs?  Methinks that coincided with the first wave of Baby Boomers reaching Medicare age.  PTB aren't entirely stupid... ::)

ilinda

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3090
  • Karma: +32/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #86 on: July 04, 2018, 01:25:39 PM »
Right, the subset would be separated out of any studies to prevent a confounding variable test design flaw that might skew the data.

Remember when they used to warn us away from eating real eggs, and then suddenly did an about-face and told us to eat eggs?  Methinks that coincided with the first wave of Baby Boomers reaching Medicare age.  PTB aren't entirely stupid... ::)
And like fools, both hubby and I fell for the lie.  We didn't eat eggs for probably 20 years.  OMG, it's embarrassing to admit to such ignorance and stupidity.  Live and learn, eh?  But fortunately it has made us question everything we are now told that is "good" for us or "bad" for us.    Maybe believing in the lie that eggs are unhealthful turned out to be a blessing in disguise!

Yowbarb

  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Karma: +26/-0
  • Reaching For Survival
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #87 on: July 15, 2018, 09:50:23 AM »
Right, the subset would be separated out of any studies to prevent a confounding variable test design flaw that might skew the data.

Remember when they used to warn us away from eating real eggs, and then suddenly did an about-face and told us to eat eggs?  Methinks that coincided with the first wave of Baby Boomers reaching Medicare age.  PTB aren't entirely stupid... ::)
And like fools, both hubby and I fell for the lie.  We didn't eat eggs for probably 20 years.  OMG, it's embarrassing to admit to such ignorance and stupidity.  Live and learn, eh?  But fortunately it has made us question everything we are now told that is "good" for us or "bad" for us.    Maybe believing in the lie that eggs are unhealthful turned out to be a blessing in disguise!

ilinda, I can relate to what you said about eggs. I did stop eating them for awhile, years maybe, except what might be in occasional baked goods, then I listened to a nutritional tape which included info on eggs. That was 1982. (I was a Shaklee Distributor briefly... just signed up in a few multilevel nutritional companies, didn't have the funds to get them off the ground. Was up in WA state at the time.)
The point is, I listened to a Shaklee tape and it said, natural eggs are good for you, even the yokes - lecithin and etc. and that we are being lied to about eggs and cholesterol etc. also that the natural eggs don't break so easily.

Oh yeah, just found these quotes:

"...Lecithin derives its name from "lekithos," the ancient Greek word for egg yolk." 

Also, "...Lecithin, otherwise known as phosphatidylcholine, is a phospholipid, or fat molecule, that contains necessary nutrients for bodily functions. Such nutrients include choline, fatty acids and phosphates. The majority of nutrients found in lecithin are stored in the form of choline. The body can produce choline only in small quantities, so we must consume lecithin-rich foods to get adequate amounts, Oregon State University's Linus Pauling Institute explains. One of the best sources of lecithin is eggs..."

https://www.livestrong.com/article/459593-amount-of-lecithin-in-eggs/

Yowbarb

  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Karma: +26/-0
  • Reaching For Survival
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #88 on: July 15, 2018, 09:54:41 AM »
Speaking of statins, lots of well-intentioned health oriented folks are taking red yeast rice in lieu of statins.  This is even worse, because tests show that it contains the same active chemical as the drug Lovastatin, only in unstandardized form, meaning you could be getting even more of the chemical than in the prescription form.  Dangers include muscle cramping and wasting, possibly irreversible.  Remember that the heart is a muscle too.

If one is determined to take red yeast rice, it should always be accompanied by coQ10. :)

R.R. thanks for posting this. I have been avoiding the statin drug my doc prescribed. In fact never have taken it.
Good to know to  (not) take red rice... if do , with Q10. Sounds like the red  rice could be risky for me...

R.R. Book

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6102
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: Survivalists' ideas on Medical and Health ideas
« Reply #89 on: July 15, 2018, 10:56:38 AM »
Quote
"...Lecithin derives its name from "lekithos," the ancient Greek word for egg yolk." 

I did not know the word etymology, but there is a kind of lecithin capsules for sale made from egg yolks. 
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 11:32:55 AM by R.R. Book »

 

Surviving the Planet X Tribulation: A Faith-Based Leadership Guide

Radio Free Earth: Community Preparedness and Two Way Radios

 

BUY SMART AND DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

This book needs to be on your survival checklist because it offers a simple path for visioning, leading, and supervising the creation of an effective survival communications strategy.

Learn more...