THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread postby patrix on Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:25 am

ICfreely wrote:Now I’m no “Einstein” but that sounds like a bunch of weird zionce to me. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the body's use of glucose (in areas of inflammations, tumors, etc.) is indicative of the importance of glucose in the healing process? It's a wonder how people managed to live long healthy lives prior to this “marvelous” medical technology.


Fascinating thought Dear ICreely. That glucose could be important in the healing process. So your hypothesis is then that it should be beneficial to consume glucose? This clarification is important to me because as you know since you claim to be knowledgeable in medicine, the body can make glucose in a process called glycogenesis. Carbohydrates (including glucose) are in fact non essential to the body since it can produce the glucose that it needs out of fat and protein.

I find this hypothesis of yours very unlikely however (if it suggests consuming glucose) and it completely goes against the now growing understanding within medicine that it is in fact excessive carbohydrate intake (including glucose) that drives inflammation and many diseases including cancer.

Apologies for bringing up medicine in this thread, but I couldn't help myself commenting the radical idea ICFreely put forward here.

And I'm no Einstein either which I'm proud of. :)
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread postby ICfreely on Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:20 pm

And I'm no Einstein either which I'm proud of. :)


Well I’m glad we can finally agree on something.

Fascinating thought Dear ICreely. That glucose could be important in the healing process.


Why thank you, my dear partix. It’s just a thought though.



Your Honor, may I have permission to treat Mr. Patrix as a hostile witness?



So your hypothesis is then that it should be beneficial to consume glucose?


I never said that, so please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

…since you claim to be knowledgeable in medicine…


Nice try, patrix, but I believe I’ve already addressed your straw man fallacy.

… while you avoid to say anything on the actual research even though you claim authority on medical knowledge.


If I gave you the impression that I’m an authority on medical knowledge, then I apologize. Rest assured I’m not an authority on any form of knowledge.


Speaking of St. Seyfried’s actual research:

Dr. Gonzalez Dismantles the Ketogenic Diet For Cancer
...
So, what evidence does Dr. Seyfried himself provide to prove his point that the best diet for all cancer patients, whatever the type, is the ketogenic, high fat, no carb diet? Well, very little. Certainly the 400 plus pages of elaborate biochemistry and theory are impressive and informative. But in terms of practicalities, that is, results with actual human patients diagnosed with cancer, there is next to no evidence.

Dr. Seyfried does include a chapter toward the book’s end entitled “Case Studies and Personal Experiences in using the Ketogenic Diet for Cancer Management.” Here, Dr. Seyfried provides a description of a pilot study, written by the investigators themselves, discussing the use of the ketogenic diet in children with inoperable brain cancer. However, the authors admit the study was intended only to evaluate the diet’s tolerability and effect on glucose metabolism as determined by PET scanning, not treatment benefit or survival.

As the authors write, “the protocol was not designed to reverse tumor growth or treat specific types of cancer.” The researchers also acknowledge the patient numbers were too small to allow for meaningful statistical evaluation, even for the avowed purposes. Overall, the discussion centers on the practicalities of implementing the diet and the results of the PET scans.
...
-Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, MD

This article originally appeared on Natural Health 365.

https://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/dr-gonzalez-dismantles-ketogenic-diet-for-cancer/


In my previous post, I pointed out the limitations, if not uselessness, of PET scans vis-à-vis “cancer.” As usual, in your zealous attempt to defend your guru, you jump to false (positive) conclusions. Moreover, the late Nicholas Gonzalez provided plenty of detailed criticism of St. Seyfried’s research in the above article that you’ve obviously decided to ignore.

So if a researcher comes along with evidence that glucose, the main energy we can get from plants, is promoting or rather feeding cancer, this will be disregarded.


If you understood the machinations behind PET scans, you’d realize that his so called evidence falls in line with oncological orthodoxy. That there’s nothing “groundbreaking” about it.

I find this hypothesis of yours very unlikely however (if it suggests consuming glucose) and it completely goes against the now growing understanding within medicine that it is in fact excessive carbohydrate intake (including glucose) that drives inflammation and many diseases including cancer.


I for one, refuse to avoid consuming, in moderation, sugar (glucose) especially fruits (fructose) because of the now growing (like a malignant tumor) [mis]understanding within allopathic medicine.

I’m afraid my diagnosis (Terminal Seyfriedosis) still stands. Under the informed consent principle you have every right to refuse my recommended course of treatment (Thomasectomy).

Apologies for bringing up medicine in this thread, but I couldn't help myself commenting the radical idea ICFreely put forward here.


Apology accepted, dear parix. But seeing as your disease is contagious I’m going to have to kindly ask you to refrain from infecting this thread with Seyfriedosis. Diet dogma debates should be addressed at a future space-time in the “Engineering Nutrition” thread and quarantined therein. If not, then the bailiff will be forced to remove us from (and lock) this thread as well.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:32 pm

My final thought (on how to deal with this) before I move this post (and the two previous ones) to the Derailing Room.

Image

I’m officially declaring you guys (vital and invaluable Members- both of you) at an impasse.*

Edit: * Never mind. Keep going. You’re obviously going to anyway.
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby ICfreely on Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:20 am

Alright my dear friends. I edited the post above (to remove the comment about glucose, which apparently restarted the whole thing. . . again) that I myself approved and posted upon the request of ICfreely.


I plead no contest to entrapment (of patrix) with that glucose sentence. But the fact of the matter is that FDG uptake is detected:

1- In areas of active inflammation or infection
2- In multiple nonspecific infectious/ inflammatory processes
3- In areas of post surgical changes (prior biopsies, sites of catheter insertions, and sites of other drainage tube insertions)
4- In lesions, post radiation therapy and insulin injections

In other words, anywhere in the body where there’s healing going on higher levels of glucose metabolism is detected.

It’s true that patrix and I have reached an impasse. However, I have in good faith answered all of his questions to the best of my ability and in turn he hasn’t answered mine (which I believe is misguided at best and intellectually dishonest at worst). How/why he gets away with it is beyond me. This is analogous to letting CF's collective 9/11 research grind to a halt for the sake of keeping the peace with one solitary contributor who constantly promotes Judy Wood.

Patrix has thwarted my "Engineering Disease" efforts in a similar fashion that Selene was thwarting my "Dinosaur" efforts. Except that Selene didn't direct plethora of ad hominems and straw mans at me like he has (and continues to) every time I post on a medical related issue.

I know what I've contributed and what he's contributed and at the risk of coming off arrogant; sorry but there's no comparison. I'm out of his league!

I respect your decision but refuse to self-censor for the sake of not hurting someone’s feelings that are rooted in false pre-determined beliefs. There are other aspects of my findings that will inevitably conflict with St. Seyfried. But I’ll refrain from elaborating any further for the sake of “keeping the peace.” Feel free to remove my last Einstein post altogether. No skin off my nose.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby patrix on Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:32 am

ICfreely » January 21st, 2019, 4:20 am wrote:
I plead no contest to entrapment (of patrix) with that glucose sentence. But the fact of the matter is that FDG uptake is detected:

“FDG” for the uninitiated is a type of sugar that can be injected and it’s uptake detected in areas of the body. And with this method is has been concluded as ICfreely points out that cancer tumors and areas of inflammation has a high sugar uptake. This phenomenon is known since the early 20th century and is called the Warburg effect.

But let’s not confuse correlation with causation shall we? This error has already been made when it comes to heart disease and because of it millions of heart patients are avoiding fat and consuming drugs - Statins that chemically inhibits one of our body’s essential functions – The cholesterol synthesis. It was hypothesized that because cholesterol is abundant in the plaques that can be observed in heart disease, it is reasonable to assume high cholesterol levels in the blood contributes to the disease and that it’s therefore a good idea to avoid saturated fats (that increases blood cholesterol) and in some cases chemically inhibit the cholesterol synthesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis

In later years it has been established through independent research that high blood cholesterol does not have any cause in heart disease http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol/

If you had read any of the research you seem to so passionately despise ICfreely, you would have seen that your “discovery” is a well known phenomena and that it is more likely that excessive sugar fuels infections, instead of helping with them. A correlation mistaken as an causation in other words.

I think it’s safe to say we have different viewpoints on medicine ICfreely. You paint modern medicine in black and I agree with that view. Vaccines, AIDS and Cancer for example are horrible hoaxes that are used to create disease. BUT, and here lies our difference, I don’t think any conventional doctors or researchers are “in on it” except a very few initiated. This is mostly controlled by the invisible hand that is our monetary system. If you get a “bad” idea for example that cholesterol has anything to do with heart disease, you get grants and media and perhaps even a Nobel Prize. If you get a “good” idea and somehow get your research funded anyway, you get no more grants and no attention. It also seems to me that you have a “mystical” view on medicine. Nothing can be clearly understood but some clay from the river Ganges might help… It don’t share that view. Medicine and the processes in our body can be understood and with that knowledge the “Engineering of disease” can be undone. At least on a personal level. And as I have come back to many times, my research and personal experience points to that excessive intake of carbohydrates and processed vegetable oils contributes to disease, among them cancer. And because of that we should limit our intake of those and increase our intake of animal fats and protein.

And I don’t think I damage the “Engineering disease” subject by sharing that insight or pointing out pseudoscience, flawed conclusions and good conventional research that's been tucked away. No more than a “No planer” hurts the 911truth movement…

All the best /Patrik
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: SacredCowPieSlinger

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:56 pm

I have relegated my own utterly naive and pointless (previous, but now rescinded) request (about the “Engineering Disease” topic) to the Garbage Bin.

What a waste of time on my part.


Boy do I feel stupid. Like this: (just when I thought I found a good balance.)


Image

By all means, please carry on with this- if you must.

Image

Maybe I’ll open a mini-forum here called Foodsforum.

It would probably be a smashing “success.” In fact, what a perfect opportunity to drop all the painstaking work of vetting new members.


Silly me. . . I think I’ll shove a pie in my own face.


First topic: “Engineering a Looped Food Fight”

Image

Image

The sign below may be read as “SCS kindly asks our members to blablabla,” and then:

Image

Repeat liberally as desired. Just remember, a good ol’ fashioned food fight sounds pretty fun until you realize you’ve had it in your own living room.
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:23 pm

*

:lol: :lol: :lol: Love that custard / creampie-fight analogy, dear SCS !

Reminds of that final scene which, we're told, was (infamously) cut out of Stanley Kubrick's DOCTOR STRANGELOVE movie.

Image

Image

At one point in the scene, a custard pie strikes the American President smack in the face - and a General cries out:

“Gentlemen, our beloved president has been infamously struck down by a pie in the prime of his life!"

As the story goes, the scene was eventually scrapped by Kubrick - due to the "unfortunate & coincidental timing" of the movie's originally-planned release date (November, 22 1963)...

"But after test screening the film on or around the 22 November 1963 – the day of John F. Kennedy’s assassination – the scene was taken out, Kubrick having decided “it was too farcical and not consistent with the satiric tone of the rest of the film.” That line of dialogue about the president being struck down in the prime of his life was a little too close to the bone, too."
https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/new ... -pie-fight


You may thus hopefully forgive me for suspecting that the "JFK assassination" was nothing more than a pre-planned psyop (or, if you will, a gigantic custard pie thrown in the faces of all this world's inhabitants) and that Kubrick was in on it.

Here's an old post of mine - with further (creamy) details about this DOCTOR STRANGELOVE affair :
viewtopic.php?p=2382583#p2382583
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6667
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE DERAILING/ Food Fight ROOM

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:26 pm

LOL Simon! That’s hysterical!

Thank you for the co(s)mic relief. :lol:
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Previous

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests