The Key to Resolving Health Issues is Not Cannabis

The last line on your post about vaccines really bugs me. We see many diseases making a come back in this country due to immigration and the lack of vaccines!!! If you want to put your children at extreme risk then don't Vaccine!!
  This is my go to clip about vaccines     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhk7-5eBCrs

 

no

If you read around on this sight, there are those who practically diefy the plant.

It actually hurts the legalization processing because it makes us look crazy

-yuri

 

its pretty clear how bad sugar is for you.

Are you seriously denying this?

-yuri

 

No it's not clear, a large majority of nutritional studies are flawed.
 
Here's a good quote from the book The Low Carb Myth.
 
'..to make valid conclusions in the field of nutrition--which is a complex subject with a slippery mess of confounding variables lurking under the surface of almost everything we want to test--actually demands evidence beyond just that!  
 
Why?
 
Because even in the best controlled nutrition studies, there are almost always one or two confounding variables that cause people to draw incorrect conclusions if they try to make broad statements from that study.'
 
It's already being discussed in nutrition circles, give it time and more clear info will come out.  Mark my words, natural sugar is not the devil...in fact our bodies love it.  It's anti-stress and pro thyroid.
 
I'd be more worried about that fish oil ya'll are taking.  

 

Except the effects of sugar are both severe and immediate. Its extremely easy to prove that excess refined sugar is very harmful to your body. And its a proven fact

-yuri

 

 
I wasn't talking about people without common sense...  

 

Do you actually research this yourself or just hear what everyone else says?  Honest question.
 
"There are a couple very important things to point out about the demonization of fructose:
 
1. Most of the research used to demonize fructose is research done with rodents, and rodents process fructose in radically different ways than humans do.  As Scientific American's Ferris Jabr points out, 'Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggests that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats.  In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially the clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.'
 
2. The most critical distinction when it comes to fructose-and the claims of 'toxicity' around it-is the dose.  Countless substances-including those that are essential for health and even survival-become toxic at certain doses.  Virtually all of the studies showing deleterious effects of fructose consumption are from studies where animals an amount of fructose far beyond anything comparable to what the average human consumes."
 
Lustig destroyed here:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
 
Studies that back ^ that up.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19592634
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086073
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/
 
Decent article on Free the Animal:
http://freetheanimal.com/2015/01/hormesis-afraid-unrefined.html
 
Plenty more info out there.  I don't intend on debating this so take it for what is it.  You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can research more yourself if you desire.

 

You seriously think all scientific sources worldwide are bought and paid for by 'big pharma', whatever the hell that little buzz word means? What does it mean? Who does it entail, and who does it not?
 
And the UN is the one behind drug scheduling actually.
 
What makes that paper you posted any more reliable? If there's any actual studies backing up the content of said paper, feel free to produce them. Preferably peer-reviewed, and yes, it matters, because theories that cannot be reproduced to any extent essentially have to be taken with a grain of salt. Vaccines are actually not that profitable, as the paper states, in fact, a lot of pharmaceutical companies have abandoned making them for this reason.
 
The author also makes no effort to produce any publications to back any of the claims she makes. Such as that 'toxins' pass through epithelial barrier of the intestines, into the bloodstream and into breast milk, which is consumed by the baby, entering their bloodstream and eventually crossing the blood-brain barrier, causing neurological symptoms. Except that essentially all bacterial toxins are too large to cross from the intestinal wall into the blood, and even if they should, all known bacteria and parasites are far too large to cross the blood-brain barrier, with the rare exceptions of syphilis and Lyme disease, if I'm correct. If not, a lot of us would probably be dead from encephalitis by now. And if pathogens are penetrating the intestinal barrier in large quantity, either into the abdomen or into the blood, would peritonitis or sepsis not be a more acute issue? Rather than autism, depression, fatigue, etc.? Bacterial translocation from the large intestine has been noted as a cause of further systemic inflammatory response in already severely ill patients, and perhaps can be an origin of sepsis. But in normal circumstances, these bacteria would be eaten by phagocytes prior to causing infection.
 
Oh, and speaking of corruption, the author and her husband are owners of a wealthy online supplement business that claims to cure people of various physical and mental ailments. She claims to have cured her own son of autism, again, with no evidence to back it. In fact, she's never published a single study herself. She's also spoken of the infamous 'alkaline diet'. She advocates liver detoxes via coffee enemas as well. Her dietary advice to limit processed starches and sugars is good, but that seems to pretty much be the end to her credibility.
 
Icing on the cake, her and Mercola are buds too! http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/12/dr-campbell-mcbride-on-gaps.aspx
 
Curious as to why she hasn't published any of that ground-breaking research on multiple sclerosis patients she claims to have done in that interview.
 
Interesting article on bacterial translocation in the gut
http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/1.full

 

 
this is pretty interesting stuff..
 
but the whole point seems to focus on fructose-related studies.  what's more balanced HCFS or natural sucrose? (does it matter?)
further the arguments that rodents were given ~ 300 g / day as a very high dose are not substantial...
many Americans consume over 150 g of sugar per day... over the course of the year this becomes toxic to a human body.
 
the reality is pretty simple...
1. people eat too much sugar.. in such amounts (and over the course of multiple years) it is harmful and it is proven in the very studies you linked to.
2. additionally most people also make poor nutritional choices on top of consuming too much sugar
3. sugar is addictive 
 
is sugar the only cause of increasing obesity? probably not. but it's a nasty contributing part, with a few side-effects to boot.
we cannot blame sugar for everything ... but we cannot downplay the dangers of over-consumption either.
 
overall the problem is not the content of the molecule but what is pushed onto people as "healthy"..  http://www.efooddepot.com/products/okf/30704/okf-aloe-vera-king-(original-flavor)--hy--16-dot-90-fl-oz.html
 
in 16oz of "healthy" water there is 45g of sugar. how is that normal?
would you ever add 10 teaspoons to a large glass of water? 
 
that's the problem with sugars. and if we people need to get fear-mongered into consuming less sugar, then i'm all for it. 
 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm

 

Fructose is what is vilified when it comes to sugar molecules.  HFCS is no worse, it just has a different ratio of glucose/fructose molecules.  The problem with HFCS is it has significantly more calories than what is labeled.  I don't remember the exact numbers but something like 2-3x the calories, and it's not listed as such on nutritional labels.
 
I have an issue with sugar being labeled as toxic.  Anything can be toxic at a certain dosage, even marijuana.   Is o2 toxic? Is h20 toxic?  YES.  Virtually everything has an LD50, so that shit is irrelevant imo.  We need to be consistent when labeling things as such.  Fear mongering is not cool, people take that shit way too serious and then we end up how we are now.  
 
Plenty of people consume large amounts of sugar (fruitarians anyone?), and they are rail thin.  It is NOT a contributing factor to obesity in itself.  The food-reward issue is.  Does sugar contribute to food reward, sure it does.  Just as much as fat does.  The problem with obesity is overeating plain and simple..and this is because we have a very large selection of foods to choose from that taste amazing.  High fat + high sugar (carbs) + chemicals to make it even more appealing = weight gain through excessive calorie consumption.  Solution?  Eat whole foods and skip the processed junk.  I like that much more than saying omg sugar never again bad bad bad toxic death blah blah.
 
If we want to vilify something, lets blast the companies that want to give us overly processed, chemically laden bullshit.  Sugar is an innocent victim here.  FFS our bodies actively create sugar from other things because it utilizes so much.  We have something like 5mg glucose in our blood at all times (no matter if we consume or not).  That in itself should stop all this toxic nonsense.
 
Sorry for the rant, don't have time to clean it up.

 

 
sounds good. except a couple of things:
 
"High fat + high sugar (carbs) + chemicals to make it even more appealing = weight gain through excessive calorie consumption."
 
and then "Sugar is an innocent victim here".
 
Sugar is not an innocent victim. 
And if we speak of toxicity levels then for sugar the threshold is much lower than h2o. consuming too much sugar is very very easy. consuming too much water or even marijuana (to the point where we know that it becomes toxic) is much harder... i mean you'd really have to go out of your way to accomplish either. not so with sugar. 
it's pretty hard to avoid sugar. you actually have to go out of your way to avoid it. 
people keep falling for healthy gimmicks like the aloe drink.
 
and yeah... a refined (table) sugar is much different than that consumed in a plant. you know that it completely lacks natural balance (and that's harmful enough). throwing things off balance just because is always a bad idea.
then there is still an issue of addiction and chemical impurity.
in some ways it is not very different than other addictive white powders.  

 

Speaking of blatant stupidity, that describes a lot of people in this thread...

To be honest I haven't followed much of this thread besides the crazy guy arguing refined sugar isn't bad for you. You personally lost me once you made your vaccines cause autism plug in your original post. In regards to that claim you and your anti-vaccine friends should check out the website:
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com
It has a lot of good info for both sides of the argument and presents it in a very factual and rational way. I don't think anyone can argue with the claims it makes on its website, compared to "self proclaimed" scientists and experts some of you have become because you can google articles that support their cases and ignore the troves of literature and studies that indicate the exact opposite.

High fructose corn syrup and other refined sugars aren't bad for you... Vaccines cause autism... Global warming isn't real... What next? Turn your brains on already and live in the 21st century for for goodness sakes.

 

I think you're confused. If you'd like to dispute anything I've posted feel free.  I highly doubt you will tho, call it a hunch. 

 

this thread awesomely covered all sorts of shit ... i'm surprised we didn't throw obamacare in here and cure for cancer.