Engineering 'disease'

[patrix]

Have a nice day and good luck with your health pursuit.

Thank you agraposo, and I wish you the same. Many thanks again for the info. It seems researchers today and hundred years ago, has more or less independently reached the same conclusions, which serves to validate the theories, and also the hypothesis of this thread that medical science has deliberately been led astray for a very long time with the objective to induce sickness.

[agraposo]

Thank you agraposo, and I wish you the same. Many thanks again for the info. It seems researchers today and hundred years ago, has more or less independently reached the same conclusions, which serves to validate the theories, and also the hypothesis of this thread that medical science has deliberately been led astray for a very long time with the objective to induce sickness.

Thank you too. My objective is not to find the best diet in the world, or understand all the details of how our body works at the molecular level, but to stay away from doctors and their treatments as much as possible! I think we can all agree on that.

Doctors on doctors:

- Prof. Alonzo Clark, of the New York College of Physicians and Surgeons, says:
"In their zeal to do good, physicians have done much harm. They have hurried thousands to the grave who would have recovered if left to Nature."

- Sir John Forbes, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and Physician to the Queen's household, says:
"Some patients get well with the aid of our medicines, some without, and still more in spite of them."

- John Mason Good, M.D., F.R.S., says:
"The effects of medicine on the human system are in the highest degree uncertain, except indeed, that they have destroyed more lives than war, pestilence, and famine combined."

- Sir John Forbes is thus quoted in the British and Foreign Medical Review, 1846:
"In a large proportion of cases treated by allopathic physicians, the disease is cured by nature and not by them. For a less, but not a small proportion the disease is cured by nature in spite of them. In other words, their interference opposes instead of assists the case. Consequently, in a considerable proportion of diseases it would fare as well or better with patients, in the actual condition of the medical art as now generally practiced, if all remedies, at least active remedies, especially drugs, were abandoned."

- The celebrated Majendie, lecturing to his class, said:
"Gentlemen, medicine is a great humbug. I know it is called science. Science indeed! It is nothing like science. Doctors are merely empirics when they are not charlatans. We are as ignorant as men can be. Who knows anything in the world about medicine?"

- Professor Gregory, of Edinburgh, author of a work on The Theory and Practice of Physic, said:
"Ninety-nine out of every hundred medical truths are medical lies; and medical doctrines, are for the most part, stark, staring nonsense."

- Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the well-known author, and a professor of anatomy in the Harvard University, in his " Border Lines of Knowledge " says:
"If all drugs were cast into the sea, it would be so much the better for man, and so much the worse for the fishes."

Sources:
Emmet Densmore - How Nature Cures (1892)
Hereward Carrington - Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition (1908)

[patrix]

My objective is not to find the best diet in the world, or understand all the details of how our body works at the molecular level.

Sounds great! Please share your findings when you're done

Doctors on doctors:

Well the doctors are mostly doing the best they can with what they're taught. They're a bit like carpenters that have been taught to use a screwdriver to drive down nails and that there's absolutely no better way of doing it. And if anyone figures out how to use a hammer, they lose their carpenter license and get sued for carpentering malpractice

I think the fungus theory around cancer has merit, but I've not been able to find much about it. It rimes well with Seyfried since fungus often produce aflatoxins that could destroy the mitochondria of our cells making them carcinogenic. I think cancer can been seen as a last line defense against invasive fungus growth when cell damage, toxic buildup, high blood sugar and weakened immune system has created a favorable environment for fungus.
Dough Kaufmann seems interesting

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmhHyq_Fv3s

[HonestlyNow]

I think the fungus theory around cancer has merit, but I've not been able to find much about it.

Study the lymphatic system, my dear one. That's where you'll find your answers. The backed up and stagnant lymph fluids are bathing cells in acid wastes. Cancer, anyone?

[agraposo]

My objective is not to find the best diet in the world, or understand all the details of how our body works at the molecular level.

Sounds great! Please share your findings when you're done

Sorry, I meant I'm not interested in studying molecular biology.

[patrix]

Sorry, I meant I'm not interested in studying molecular biology.

And that you wrote. Apologies for my sloppy reading. Then we're pretty much on the same page. I had health problems some years ago before I was awake. Was not interested in nutrition or medicine, but I had a problem I needed to fix and doctors and general advice did not help of course. And after studying a while I realized that most was upside down in medicine. And when I woke up I finally could frame the cause. Now I think I know enough to keep myself and my family healthy. But I'm not that interested in the finer details of cell metabolism or the latin names for bones either.

[agraposo]

I think the fungus theory around cancer has merit, but I've not been able to find much about it. It rimes well with Seyfried since fungus often produce aflatoxins that could destroy the mitochondria of our cells making them carcinogenic. I think cancer can been seen as a last line defense against invasive fungus growth when cell damage, toxic buildup, high blood sugar and weakened immune system has created a favorable environment for fungus.
Dough Kaufmann seems interesting

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmhHyq_Fv3s

Interesting, but having a look at Kaufmann's web site, it seems to me he is another charlatan and salesman: "hey, buy me some books, supplements"

And his diet advices add even more confusion to the subject. Please, Mr. Kaufmann, let the people eat what they want. And we don't need more theories about cancer and its causes.

[patrix]

Interesting, but having a look at Kaufmann's web site, it seems to me he is another charlatan and salesman: "hey, buy me some books, supplements"
And his diet advices add even more confusion to the subject. Please, Mr. Kaufmann, let the people eat what they want. And we don't need more theories about cancer and its causes.

Yes I know and totally agree. And he’s a pretty bad “TV-host” as well to honest. But that does not mean that the Fungus-Cancer theory cannot have merit. But as I said, I’ve found very little about it. There is Tullio Simoncini and Erik Enby that are also connecting Cancer and Fungus infection. And in my view it is possible to link this to Seyfrieds research (that has the benefit of being university quality). Seyfried proves very convincingly that cells become cancerous because of damaged mitochondria and toxins being the most common cause for that. Aflatoxin is a carcinogenic that is a by product of fungus growth. In fact it is what is commonly used to induce cancer in test animals. So could it be that cancer is the body’s way to protect itself from invasive fungus growth? The cancer cells fuse with the fungus and tries to limit its growth and contain the toxins produced, thus protecting surrounding healthy cells.

I'd settle for a cancer theory that is correct. I'm not sure about these, but I'm pretty sure the conventional theory is wrong.

[HonestlyNow]

I'd settle for a cancer theory that is correct. I'm not sure about these, but I'm pretty sure the conventional theory is wrong.

What people call cancer is the result of a backed-up lymph system. The key to opening up the lymph system is to get your kidneys filtering. Would you like more information? Or is the light too bright in this direction and you'll just stay in the shadows . . .

[agraposo]

So could it be that cancer is the body’s way to protect itself from invasive fungus growth? The cancer cells fuse with the fungus and tries to limit its growth and contain the toxins produced, thus protecting surrounding healthy cells.

I'd settle for a cancer theory that is correct. I'm not sure about these, but I'm pretty sure the conventional theory is wrong.

That theory looks like the immune system theory: the fungus, virus or bacteria is the enemy to be killed, the cells of the immune system are our saviors, they kill all the enemies, because they are designed to do so and are very intelligent to work that way.

If you believe that, perfect. For me, the immune system, the germ theory of disease, the virus infections, the drug therapy system and the vaccines are all medical lies.

Maybe the fungus or bacteria is doing its work, to clean the debris and eat all the toxic material.

If the cell is sick, it must be destroyed and disposed of. The cell is sick because it can't perform its functions properly, because it lacks proper nourishment. But to be eliminated, the cleaning system must be also working perfectly, yes, the lymphatic system, the intestines, the skin and the lungs.

The cells get sick because the system is clogged with toxic material. Clean the system and the health will be recovered. The drug therapy does nothing to cure, only adds more substances to the toxic material. How can the drug know if the sickness is in the liver, or the eye, or the foot? Is the drug intelligent? The drug doesn't act on the body, but the body reacts against the drug, a poison.

All these are not just hypotheses. It's the basis for the health movements (hygienic system, naturopathy, hydrotherapy) that were once suppressed many time ago, and that were very successful curing the sick without drugs. These therapies worked well in its times, now we have the modern medical system, killing people every day, while investigating a cure for cancer, never to be found.

[aa5]

Have you read about senolytics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senolytic

Basically there is cells that stop functioning in our bodies, but the cells don't die on their own. As people age these senescent cells are piling up. With some drugs it has been found that cellular switches are hit that our internal systems, immune system I guess goes in and eats these non-functioning cells. Which is called autophagy. Auto = self, phagy = eating. The experimental drugs which induce autophagy are called 'senolytics.' The non-functioning senescent cells tend to create all sorts of problems like inflammation to surrounding cells. Early in life when those senescent cells are few in number its not a big deal, but as they pile up it becomes a bigger and bigger problem.

The impetus for research down this type of thinking is from the nascent anti-aging community. Their thinking is that instead of fighting illnesses one by one, until aging eventually kills the person anyway, to focus on aging itself. With ideally reverting the person into a youthful state(where the body can maintain its own health). 20 something's just don't get arthritis, heart disease & other illnesses that often.

The point of health care is or should be to improve the quality of life and the duration of life. Aka providing value for what other people are willing to pay for.

The results in mice of these experimental drugs has been profound. The maximum lifespan was not increased, but a dramatic increase in the median lifespan of the mice, and the older mice becoming healthier on a barrage of tests.

In the here and now those drugs are not available yet, and likely won't be available for 20 years. So I was reading how do you turn on that autophagy, and it seems there is a reason why next to no one's body is doing it today is it takes going into a fasted state before our bodies go into autophagy. One of the lead researchers suggested it takes 4 days in fasting before the body goes in and starts eating these cells.

Animals in the wild, including ancient man would have gone through periods of real hunger. In fact, 4 days without eating was probably not such a rare thing for ancient man(or something that he was not used to). I was reading about a guy studying a tribe in the Amazon rainforest who lives a primordial life. And at most these people eat once a day, and often they don't eat everyday, even though this tribe happens to have an abundance of food around it.

In our modern world, few people go more than 8 hours without food. So our systems like the lymphatic system are never getting a real chance to clean up. Its always overwhelmed trying to digest and deal with the food coming in. (which that food is a foreign body going into our body).

Long story short, I am now working on fasting. So far I'm noticing that at about 22 hours without eating it gets hard to not eat and continue my usual activities. But then at 28 hours it gets easy to keep going without food, and actually I started feeling great in mental state.

[agraposo]

Have you read about senolytics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senolytic

More drug therapies? No, thank you.

Long story short, I am now working on fasting. So far I'm noticing that at about 22 hours without eating it gets hard to not eat and continue my usual activities. But then at 28 hours it gets easy to keep going without food, and actually I started feeling great in mental state.

Very true, that's how fasting works at the beginning.

[agraposo]

So I was reading how do you turn on that autophagy, and it seems there is a reason why next to no one's body is doing it today is it takes going into a fasted state before our bodies go into autophagy. One of the lead researchers suggested it takes 4 days in fasting before the body goes in and starts eating these cells.

Brilliant. Our bodies are mainly digesting/assimilating during the day and not digesting/eliminating (i.e. fasting) during the night and between meals. You don't need to be a Nobel prizewinner to understand that the more you eat and digest, the less your body cleans/repairs the system. And if the food is of the kind that constipates and poisons the blood, it is even worse.

When there is no food ingestion, as long as the body has enough vitality, it can start the curing process (as observed by the symptoms). If no symptoms arise during a fast, it is because the body is healthy enough, or because the disease is hidden, but can arise later on.

Only the people that have tried a fast know these truths, but people in general won't even consider fasting or eating less meals, as they are conditioned to eat a lot to be healthy and strong, and then go for drugs and surgery when they are ill.

[aa5]

Fasting is a subversive idea. Our economy cannot work if people are doing something that does not involve spending money. Even more subversive when the plan involves reducing spending that you otherwise would have made.

If there is money to be made selling something, there is money to promote it. There are taxpaying employees working in producing, distributing and selling it. There is unions and industry associations who are involved politically. There will be jurisdictions whose economy becomes dependent on the industry. There are blocks of voters whose livelihoods involve the continued selling of the product.

Fasting is just the opposite, it threatens the livelihoods of many people.

[Peter]

Maybe the occasional small fast is good. But we do have very powerful natural urges to eat every day. Must be for a reason. Maybe fasts do give an opportunity for cells to clean or heal, but during fasts the digestive system itself gets clogged up with decomposing indigestible matter ie waste which would normally be moved on with daily eating.

Certainly many could do with a big reduction in daily intake. That would be the best first step in my opinion. No good for someone with normally a large intake, especially if including trans fats, to go straight to fast.