Artificial Additives and Preservatives

[quote]Dandalex wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Dandalex wrote:
Exactly my point, it is PURER.

Extracted in this term means that they have been TAKEN OUT! Taking out natural minerals is bad, mkay?

Dandalex wrote:

Secondly, it has more iodine which is a plus for table salt.

There are lots of foods with iodine in it. Also, too much iodine is bad.

Here is a little article that you might be interested in:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/graves_disease/115556

I’m sure you can Google sea salt and see the many benefits it has over refined salt. Next you’ll tell me that refined sugar is better evaporated cane juice (known as unrefined sugar). Do a google search and see what the benefits of evaporated cane juice are.

Wow…eh no offense but WOW.

At least have the decency to put something up which at least as a modicum authority, I don’t know, emedicine.com, NIH sites, FDA, stuff on PubMed, whatever.

I mean, somthing that opens with:
Excess consumption of refined, iodized salt is one of the major causes of hyperthyroidism and it?s a well-known trigger for Graves? disease.

Its just purely laughable.

This is a reference to the Jod-Basedow Phenomenon, which is not linked to Graves’ disease. Damn, GD is from diffuse goiter with immunological etiologies (as far as we know), JBP has underlying NODULAR goiter and usually happens in response to treatement of hypothyroidism where newly available iodine induces increased secretion of hormone. Generaly this is from iodine supplementation, medication containing iodide or imaging contrasts.

Its good to be aware of some of the bad things in our environement but to blindly believe that everything directly coming out of it as all good is pure idiocy.

Considering all the polluants we dump in our environment, I am not sure that taking out minerals is a bad thing.

As for the evaporated cane juice, maybe you should have used honey in your example because I found no respectable site whatsoever that had any form of evidence showing health benefits over white sugar, which last time I check were both just sucrose.

The only thing I found was on World’s Healthiest Foods which is far from being a reputable source (it was founded by a guy who had one of the first convienient health food company in the 1970s) show a 9.4% B12 content for a 25g intake vs X% for white sugar (I didn’t look it up, considering that we already get far more B12 that we need).

I mean damn, its the same high glycemic sucrose with a pinch of B12, at least honey has some antioxydants that it can boost of with some research behind it.

Next time, choose better example.

Hey, I’m not against natural stuff, just make sure you don’t fall for the same crap everybody else is falling for.

We might think that natural is hetter, but that is not always the case. Just take the artificial sweetners like aspartame, people believe for some reasons that its evil incarnate but with close to 5 decades of research on it in many countries we still can’t find a problem with it if you don’t suffer from phenylketonuria.

On the other hand, free-grazing, ranging animals have better omega-3 to saturated fats ratios. Now here you see benefits of ‘‘natural’’ vs industrial.

Just like everthing else, it is important to seperate the good stuff from the crap.

AlexH.[/quote]

Too much iodine can cause hyperthyroidism?Thats funny.Go to asia,they consume over 10 times the DV of iodoine. Tap water can cause some thyroid problems too…flouride.I believe(and many doctors and holistic doctors) believe thyroid problems are also cuased by toxicity build up.

There is nothing wrong with natural products,but now days the food industry is using the very same word to sell more products.Just because it says “all natural”, doesn’t mean it is natural. I looked on the back of the bread in the store,the “all natural bread” and it says “High fructose corn syrup, and I see this " ( as a preservative)”. They know people are trying to eat more whole foods and stay as close to nature as they can and keep away from slimfast bars because they haven’t worked for them,and they label their products" all natural".

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
There is nothing wrong with natural products,but now days the food industry is using the very same word to sell more products.Just because it says “all natural”, doesn’t mean it is natural. I looked on the back of the bread in the store,the “all natural bread” and it says “High fructose corn syrup, and I see this " ( as a preservative)”. They know people are trying to eat more whole foods and stay as close to nature as they can and keep away from slimfast bars because they haven’t worked for them,and they label their products" all natural".[/quote]

I agree. If something says all natural and doesn’t say organic, I just pass it up. If I have the choice of organic apples or apples that have been sprayed with synthetic, toxic chemicals, I’d go with the organic apples. Even though people say, “Just wash them off”, the chemicals get INSIDE the apple.

Dandalex - How can I compare honey to refined sugar? When you buy organic food, they don’t put honey in their food instead of refined sugar. I’m trying to compare apples to apples. Which is better? Refined sugar or evaporated cane juice? I’m not saying that if you eat 100 cups of evaporated cane juice that it won’t be as bad as refined sugar. All I’m saying is that foods grown organically will have more vitamins and minerals than refined products. Also, natural vitamins and minerals can’t be beat.

Now, tell me this. Which is better? Metabolic Drive (aka Grow!) or another protein. Has the FDA said that Metabolic Drive is better than other proteins? I’m not hatin’ on Metabolic Drive, I’m just trying to compare things and just because the FDA or some government run source doesn’t mention evaporated cane juice as being a better alternative to sugar doesn’t mean it isn’t.

You’re right, Chris.

I should’ve looked for scientific proof before stating what I said. Here is something I came up with in about 2 minutes:

http://www.organicts.com/organic_info/articles/downloads/organic.pdf

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
A company I know have makes an all natural whey protein drink,nothing fake in it.I drink that and feel great.

Got a link??

Also, I agree with what you and Captain Glanton have said.

For an example, Amy’s organic pizza isn’t bad at all. And it actually will satisfy your “craving” for pizza. When I go to Papa John’s or Dominos and get their pizza, I keep eating it, even though I’m full. It’s like there is a chemical in there that is making my body want more (physically addicting).

[/quote]

There IS a chemical in there that makes you keep eating. Its called MSG. Do a google search on it.

Yeah. That’s what it is. I remember reading about Monosodium Glutamate somewhere and how to avoid it.

Thanks for pointing that out :slight_smile:

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Yeah. That’s what it is. I remember reading about Monosodium Glutamate somewhere and how to avoid it.

Thanks for pointing that out :)[/quote]

No problem. MSG should be a banned drug right along with heroin and coke.

Reviewing 41 published studies comparing the nutritional value of organically grown and conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, and grains, certified nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington has concluded there are significantly more of several nutrients in organic crops. These include: 27% more vitamin C, 21.1% more iron, 29.3% more magnesium, and 13.6% more phosphorus. In addition, organic products had 15.1% less nitrates than their conventional counterparts.

She also noted that five servings of organic vegetables (lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes and cabbage) provided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for men and women, while their conventional counterparts did not. Worthington said the results are consistent with known soil dynamics and plant physiology.

Source: “Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains,” by Virginia Worthington, published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001 (pp. 161-173), available at: www.foodisyourbestmedicine.com/organic.pdf. Worthington has her Masters of Science in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Maryland, and Doctor of Science from Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health.

Organic crops appear to be higher in vitamin C, essential minerals and phytonutrients, according to the 87-page report prepared for The Soil Association of the United Kingdom and released during 2001. Reviewing 400 published papers comparing organic and non-organic foods concerning food safety, nutritional content and observed health effects, the report noted the need for further studies.

Source: “Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health: A review of the evidence,” written and researched by Shane Heaton, The Soil Association, United Kingdom, 2001.

A study commissioned by the Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia (ORGAA) found that conventionally grown fruit and vegetables purchased in supermarkets and other commercial retail outlets had ten times less mineral content than fruit and vegetables grown organically. For the study, tomatoes, beans, capsicums and silver beets grown on a certified organic farm using soil regenerative techniques were analyzed for mineral elements.

A similar range of vegetables grown conventionally and purchased from a supermarket was also analyzed by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory. A major flaw of the study, however, is that it compared fresh produce at the farm to produce in a supermarket. Thus, there could have been a difference in freshness, which could have affected the nutrients measured.

Source: Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia, 2000, as cited in Pesticides and You, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2000, News from Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides.

A comparative study conducted by researchers at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in Switzerland found that organically grown apples were of higher quality than conventionally grown apples with respect to parameters that relate to health and taste (taste score, sugar-acidity-firmness index, nutritional fiber content, phenolic compounds content, and “vitality index” according to picture-grading methods for holistic quality assessment).

Source: “Are organically grown apples tastier and healthier? A comparative field study using conventional and alternative methods to measure fruit quality,” F.P. Weibel, R. Bickel, S. Leuthold, and T. Alf?ldi), Acta Hort. 517: 417-427 (2000).

A study has shown that organic soups sold commercially in the United Kingdom contain almost six times as much salicylic acid as non-organic soups. John Paterson, a biochemist at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, and scientists at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland analyzed 11 brands of organic soup and compared their levels of salicylic acid with those in non-organic varieties. Salicylic acid, which is responsible for the anti-inflammatory action of aspirin, has been shown to help prevent hardening of the arteries and bowel cancer.

The average level of salicylic acid in 11 brands of organic vegetable soup was 117 nanograms per gram, compared with 20 nanograms per gram in 24 types of non-organic soup. The highest level (1,040 nanograms per gram) was found in an organic carrot and coriander soup. Four of the conventional soups had no detectable levels of salicylic acid. [Source: New Scientist magazine, March 16, 2002, page 10; European Journal of Nutrition, Vol, 40, page 289].

Research by visiting chemistry professor Theo Clark and undergraduate students at Truman State University in Missouri found organically grown oranges contained up to 30 percent more vitamin C than those grown conventionally. Reporting the findings at the June 2 Great Lakes Regional meeting of the American Chemical Society, Clark said he had expected the conventional oranges, which were much larger than the organic oranges, to have twice as much vitamin C as the organic versions. Instead, chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy revealed the higher level in the organic oranges. [Source: Science Daily Magazine, June 2, 2002.]

Meanwhile:

Reporting on its study examining pesticide residues in foods bought around the country, Consumer Reports, January 1998, noted: “Our side-by-side tests of organic, green-labeled, and conventional unlabeled produce found that organic foods had consistently minimal or nonexistent pesticide residue.”
Source: “Greener Greens? The Truth about Organic Foods,” Consumer Reports, January 1998, page 13.

Analyzing U.S. Department of Agriculture?s Pesticide Data Program data comparing the relative amounts and toxicity of pesticide residues in different foods, a Consumer Union report found that fresh peaches, frozen and fresh winter squash, apples, grapes, spinach, pears, and green beans had some of the highest Toxicity Index ratings. As a result, the Consumers Union recommended purchasing organically grown apples, peaches, pears, grapes, winter squash, spinach and green beans.

Source: “Do you know what you?re eating? An analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide Residues in Foods,” February 1999, Consumers Union of United States Inc., Edward Groth III, project director.

Organic fruits and vegetables have only a third as many pesticide residues as their conventionally grown counterparts, according to a study by Consumers Union (CU) and the Organic Materials Review Institute. Study findings are based on pesticide residue data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, from tests conducted on foods sold in California by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and from tests by Consumers Union. Data covered more than 94,000 food samples from more than 20 crops, with 1,291 of the samples organically grown.

USDA data showed 73 percent of conventionally grown foods sampled had residue from at least one pesticide, while only 23 percent of organically grown samples of the same crops had any residues. When residues of persistent, long-banned organochlorine insecticides such as DDT were excluded from the analysis, organic samples with residues dropped from 23 to 13 percent.

More than 90 percent of USDA?s samples of conventionally grown apples, peaches, pears, strawberries and celery had residues. The California data found residues in 31 percent of the conventional food, and 6.5 percent of the organic products. Tests by the Consumers Union, meanwhile, found residues on 79 percent of conventionally grown samples and 27 percent on the organic products.

Source: Food Additives and Contaminants, May 8, 2002. Also, see www.omri.org.
Data from the Associazione Italiana per l?Agricoltura Biologica and Legambiente show consumers in Italy consume approximately two kilos of chemicals and pesticides from products grown through conventional farming practices. In 2000, 30 percent of vegetables and 40 percent of fruit in more than 5,000 fruit and vegetable samples in Italy showed evidence of pesticide residues.

Source: Associazione Italiana per l?Agricoltura Biologica and Legambiente, Oct. 2, 2001, as cited in

This is what I was hoping to happen. Good arguments, gives me lots of insight.

Sorry to pop up with something else–its quite off the subject…but I was wondering about it for a while.
I saw an article in the news paper the other day with a chart, said cancer rates have began to fall for the first time in about a 100 or so years.

The chart, however reliable it could even be, showed a gigantic spike from the early 1900s all the way to current times, then a small(VERY small) drop at the present.

In theory, or with any possible evidence available, what could possibly cause such a large surge of cancer cases?

Are diseases, such as AIDS/HIV, problably the main causes/factors leading to such cancer problems?

Any help in understanding this would be very nice to settle my mind a bit on the situation.

[quote]gibran wrote:
This is what I was hoping to happen. Good arguments, gives me lots of insight.

Sorry to pop up with something else–its quite off the subject…but I was wondering about it for a while.
I saw an article in the news paper the other day with a chart, said cancer rates have began to fall for the first time in about a 100 or so years.

The chart, however reliable it could even be, showed a gigantic spike from the early 1900s all the way to current times, then a small(VERY small) drop at the present.

In theory, or with any possible evidence available, what could possibly cause such a large surge of cancer cases?

Are diseases, such as AIDS/HIV, problably the main causes/factors leading to such cancer problems?

Any help in understanding this would be very nice to settle my mind a bit on the situation.

[/quote]

Some probably will flame me for this, but I think cancer and other diseases. will just get worse as the years go on unless we start eating better, exercise, and stop taking in so many toxins. The drug companies make drugs to supposedly “help” us, yet they have all these side effects. If a synthetic drug helps “surpress” certain symptoms, they will produce more symptoms of something else.

I’m a believer in God and I believe he created this world. I believe he made a cure for cancer (and every other disease) that is from Mother Nature. I DO NOT believe the Ameican Society of Cancer (and lots of other organizations) help fight cancer or other diseases. You can do a Google search and find this info. Lots of foundations just want money and put very little towards any fund to help “fight” it. If any money is used, its used to go towards a PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG that makes the drug companies (and the bad organizations) richer.

I’ll bet that you will never see a cure for cancer. Also, you will NEVER see the FDA approve a natural substance to help or cure a disease. I believe the more pharmaceutical drugs we use, the worse we are off. They are man-made products that our body wasn’t meant to have. Seems like the people on the most medication are the sickest people. My uncle has been on medication for 25 years and he isn’t better at all. The medicine SURPRESSES the symptoms. They don’t CURE the disease/problem.

Just my opinion…

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
gibran wrote:
This is what I was hoping to happen. Good arguments, gives me lots of insight.

Sorry to pop up with something else–its quite off the subject…but I was wondering about it for a while.
I saw an article in the news paper the other day with a chart, said cancer rates have began to fall for the first time in about a 100 or so years.

The chart, however reliable it could even be, showed a gigantic spike from the early 1900s all the way to current times, then a small(VERY small) drop at the present.

In theory, or with any possible evidence available, what could possibly cause such a large surge of cancer cases?

Are diseases, such as AIDS/HIV, problably the main causes/factors leading to such cancer problems?

Any help in understanding this would be very nice to settle my mind a bit on the situation.

Some probably will flame me for this, but I think cancer and other diseases. will just get worse as the years go on unless we start eating better, exercise, and stop taking in so many toxins. The drug companies make drugs to supposedly “help” us, yet they have all these side effects. If a synthetic drug helps “surpress” certain symptoms, they will produce more symptoms of something else.

I’m a believer in God and I believe he created this world. I believe he made a cure for cancer (and every other disease) that is from Mother Nature. I DO NOT believe the Ameican Society of Cancer (and lots of other organizations) help fight cancer or other diseases. You can do a Google search and find this info. Lots of foundations just want money and put very little towards any fund to help “fight” it. If any money is used, its used to go towards a PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG that makes the drug companies (and the bad organizations) richer.

I’ll bet that you will never see a cure for cancer. Also, you will NEVER see the FDA approve a natural substance to help or cure a disease. I believe the more pharmaceutical drugs we use, the worse we are off. They are man-made products that our body wasn’t meant to have. Seems like the people on the most medication are the sickest people. My uncle has been on medication for 25 years and he isn’t better at all. The medicine SURPRESSES the symptoms. They don’t CURE the disease/problem.

Just my opinion…

[/quote]

Bah…
I wonder how many religious debate threads have been started here… :X
Although its quite tempting, ill stay away from it today.

But yeah, besides the religious BS i agree with you. Alot of drugs have some nasty side effects…but supressing symptoms is better than having them all, is it not? If youre expecting a cure, than make sure you do research. Dont complain after you start taking something without knowing anything about it. Its just like taking a few pills of X one night because your buddy said they were amazing…and hey guess what–you wake up to mommy and daddy standing over you in the hospital. Enjoy life without questions…

[quote]gibran wrote:
Alot of drugs have some nasty side effects…but supressing symptoms is better than having them all, is it not? If youre expecting a cure, than make sure you do research. Dont complain after you start taking something without knowing anything about it. Its just like taking a few pills of X one night because your buddy said they were amazing…and hey guess what–you wake up to mommy and daddy standing over you in the hospital. Enjoy life without questions…[/quote]

Like I said, I believe there is a natural cure for most things. If and when the bird flu comes and if I catch some sort of flu, I’ll be drinking organic vegetable juice, drinking distilled/purified water, and getting lots of rest. That’s it (almost like fasting). Fasting helps get rid of all the toxins in the body. You might say, “What about protein, etc.” Well, I’d rather live a few days (up to a week) without protein than die. I really don’t want my body to be pumped with vaccines that are man-made and some say actually CAUSE diseases. Vaccines surpress ONE type of flu, while letting other viruses form.

If you Google the 1918 influenza epidemic and are able to read about people that didn’t get vaccinated or were treated through natural rememdies, you will see they are the ones that had almost zero mortality rate.

Just something to think about…

By fasting wouldnt you let your body weaken its defenses as well?

I dont know, just seems like in order to firm a good standpoint in what you believe youd really have to do some research and give some >good< scientific evidence to back everything up. You have a point, but no line to draw from it.

[quote]gibran wrote:

In theory, or with any possible evidence available, what could possibly cause such a large surge of cancer cases?

Are diseases, such as AIDS/HIV, problably the main causes/factors leading to such cancer problems?

[/quote]

Main source of cancer is toxins. Main source of toxins is the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. Its alot more detailed than that. Books have been written on each one of these subjects.

HIV has nothing to do with cancer. Its a harmless virus that causes no harm to the body. Once it develops into the AIDS virus, its obviously lethal. How and why it develops into aids is something they don’t really know and understand why.

AIDS can’t cause cancer, however, one could assume that once a person has aids and there immune system is compromised, they may be more suspectible to cancer

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
vaccines that are man-made and some say actually CAUSE diseases. Vaccines surpress ONE type of flu, while letting other viruses form.

If you Google the 1918 influenza epidemic and are able to read about people that didn’t get vaccinated or were treated through natural rememdies, you will see they are the ones that had almost zero mortality rate.

Just something to think about…[/quote]

There are a few Vaccinations in there PURE form are an absolute must and completely necessary. Polio is one that comes to mind. Some are more risky than others.

However, in order to save money(Its always about money) the government/FDA has allowed toxic perservatives, such as mercury and a whole host of others, to be included in the vaccinations. The vaccinations can then be stored and used for longer periods of time. Some theorize these toxic perservatives where the root cause in the rise of autism in the late 90’s to today. There are certainly a whole lot of compelling evidence for the case. Autism is practically nonexistent in Omish communities were vaccinations aren’t performed. Either way, the terrorists at the FDA are trying their best to cover any wrongdoing up.

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
gibran wrote:
This is what I was hoping to happen. Good arguments, gives me lots of insight.

Sorry to pop up with something else–its quite off the subject…but I was wondering about it for a while.
I saw an article in the news paper the other day with a chart, said cancer rates have began to fall for the first time in about a 100 or so years.

The chart, however reliable it could even be, showed a gigantic spike from the early 1900s all the way to current times, then a small(VERY small) drop at the present.

In theory, or with any possible evidence available, what could possibly cause such a large surge of cancer cases?

Are diseases, such as AIDS/HIV, problably the main causes/factors leading to such cancer problems?

Any help in understanding this would be very nice to settle my mind a bit on the situation.

Some probably will flame me for this, but I think cancer and other diseases. will just get worse as the years go on unless we start eating better, exercise, and stop taking in so many toxins. The drug companies make drugs to supposedly “help” us, yet they have all these side effects. If a synthetic drug helps “surpress” certain symptoms, they will produce more symptoms of something else.

I’m a believer in God and I believe he created this world. I believe he made a cure for cancer (and every other disease) that is from Mother Nature. I DO NOT believe the Ameican Society of Cancer (and lots of other organizations) help fight cancer or other diseases. You can do a Google search and find this info. Lots of foundations just want money and put very little towards any fund to help “fight” it. If any money is used, its used to go towards a PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG that makes the drug companies (and the bad organizations) richer.

I’ll bet that you will never see a cure for cancer. Also, you will NEVER see the FDA approve a natural substance to help or cure a disease. I believe the more pharmaceutical drugs we use, the worse we are off. They are man-made products that our body wasn’t meant to have. Seems like the people on the most medication are the sickest people. My uncle has been on medication for 25 years and he isn’t better at all. The medicine SURPRESSES the symptoms. They don’t CURE the disease/problem.

Just my opinion…

[/quote]

I agree with you too.Lets see…nine hundred thousand people die each year because of drugs(legal drugs). Over one hundred thousand have died from vioxx.Over 3 deadly shootings have happened because kids O.d. on zoloft.Mankind can never and will never mimic mother natures creation.They’re already debunking natural methods,now they’re saying crap like omega 3 may not prevent heart disease or vitamin e might be evil.Give me a break.It’s all lies and money.

[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
vaccines that are man-made and some say actually CAUSE diseases. Vaccines surpress ONE type of flu, while letting other viruses form.

If you Google the 1918 influenza epidemic and are able to read about people that didn’t get vaccinated or were treated through natural rememdies, you will see they are the ones that had almost zero mortality rate.

Just something to think about…

There are a few Vaccinations in there PURE form are an absolute must and completely necessary. Polio is one that comes to mind. Some are more risky than others.

However, in order to save money(Its always about money) the government/FDA has allowed toxic perservatives, such as mercury and a whole host of others, to be included in the vaccinations. The vaccinations can then be stored and used for longer periods of time. Some theorize these toxic perservatives where the root cause in the rise of autism in the late 90’s to today. There are certainly a whole lot of compelling evidence for the case. Autism is practically nonexistent in Omish communities were vaccinations aren’t performed. Either way, the terrorists at the FDA are trying their best to cover any wrongdoing up. [/quote]

Lol,terrorists at the FDA. Youre 100% right.It’s great to see people who are their own doctors (not the drug companies).All doctors took the Hippocratic Oath: "Let your food be your medicine.They then turn around and give deadly drugs to young kids and don’t tell them anything about good nutrition.Doctors don’t learn anything about nutrition in medical school.They don’t learn anything about how to cure disease or cancer in medical school.They just learn how to apply drugs and cut people open.

[quote]gibran wrote:
By fasting wouldnt you let your body weaken its defenses as well?

I dont know, just seems like in order to firm a good standpoint in what you believe youd really have to do some research and give some >good< scientific evidence to back everything up. You have a point, but no line to draw from it.[/quote]

Not at all.Your body begins to consume the dead cells floating around and clean up your digestive system when you fast.A good friend of mine ,who had cancer,did a fast where all he consumed was fresh vegetable and fruit jucie made from his juicer and took other natural medacine (like vitamin b-12).Do a search on vitamin b-12 and what our happy government did to that.

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
gibran wrote:
Alot of drugs have some nasty side effects…but supressing symptoms is better than having them all, is it not? If youre expecting a cure, than make sure you do research. Dont complain after you start taking something without knowing anything about it. Its just like taking a few pills of X one night because your buddy said they were amazing…and hey guess what–you wake up to mommy and daddy standing over you in the hospital. Enjoy life without questions…

Like I said, I believe there is a natural cure for most things. If and when the bird flu comes and if I catch some sort of flu, I’ll be drinking organic vegetable juice, drinking distilled/purified water, and getting lots of rest. That’s it (almost like fasting). Fasting helps get rid of all the toxins in the body. You might say, “What about protein, etc.” Well, I’d rather live a few days (up to a week) without protein than die. I really don’t want my body to be pumped with vaccines that are man-made and some say actually CAUSE diseases. Vaccines surpress ONE type of flu, while letting other viruses form.

If you Google the 1918 influenza epidemic and are able to read about people that didn’t get vaccinated or were treated through natural rememdies, you will see they are the ones that had almost zero mortality rate.

Just something to think about…[/quote]

A lot of medication actually weaken your immune system,so they can leave you open to certain diseases.

[quote]gibran wrote:
By fasting wouldnt you let your body weaken its defenses as well?

I dont know, just seems like in order to firm a good standpoint in what you believe youd really have to do some research and give some >good< scientific evidence to back everything up. You have a point, but no line to draw from it.[/quote]

Just because you have a “scientific study” doesn’t mean it’s a fact.One scientific study shows the world has been around for over a million years.Another shows the world has been around for four thousand years.See where I’m getting at? Not to mention a lot of the drug pusher are behind some studies trying to debunk natural methods so people who read these studies believe them.How did they pass Vioxx as" safe and eefective"? The people who pass these drugs are paid by the FDA.The FDA have their own scientists.Did you know that there were two doctors trying to prove that bacteria could live in your stomach?All these doctors where debunking their theory and had a bunch of scientific evidence showing that they were right and the other two doctors where wrong.Turns out these two doctors were right.