[Cog]

It is a fact that adopting a Keto diet can dramatically lower your blood glucose numbers. Also a Keto diet moderates spikes in glucose levels, unlike a heavy carb diet.

We have been lied to for decades by nutritionists about the health of the standard food pyramid.

But regardless of how you do it, dropping weight has the benefit of lowering blood glucose levels, lowering high blood pressure, cholesterol levels, reducing risk of stroke, heart attacks, and cancer.

[onlooker]

It is a fact that adopting a Keto diet can dramatically lower your blood glucose numbers. Also a Keto diet moderates spikes in glucose levels, unlike a heavy carb diet.

We have been lied to for decades by nutritionists about the health of the standard food pyramid.

But regardless of how you do it, dropping weight has the benefit of lowering blood glucose levels, lowering high blood pressure, cholesterol levels, reducing risk of stroke, heart attacks, and cancer.

Fully agree

[careinke]

It is a fact that adopting a Keto diet can dramatically lower your blood glucose numbers. Also a Keto diet moderates spikes in glucose levels, unlike a heavy carb diet.

We have been lied to for decades by nutritionists about the health of the standard food pyramid.

But regardless of how you do it, dropping weight has the benefit of lowering blood glucose levels, lowering high blood pressure, cholesterol levels, reducing risk of stroke, heart attacks, and cancer.

Fully agree

I also agree, but I wonder why most on this forum think grain production is so necessary to sustain the current population, especially if it is so bad for you?

[Pops]

I also agree, but I wonder why most on this forum think grain production is so necessary to sustain the current population, especially if it is so bad for you?

Carb-free fat & protein is expensive. Still they depend on grain production at the current scale. Half of grain goes to animal feed.
Avocados, salmon, cheese ain't cheap.

[careinke]

I also agree, but I wonder why most on this forum think grain production is so necessary to sustain the current population, especially if it is so bad for you?

Carb-free fat & protein is expensive. Still they depend on grain production at the current scale. Half of grain goes to animal feed.
Avocados, salmon, cheese ain't cheap.

That's a very good point. Unfortunately, it doesn't make grains any healthier. Nuts make a good substitute, and much more environmentally friendly. It would take a few years to scale up. I just had the most delicious walnut zucchini bread, using almond flour. No grains needed.

[Pops]

My wife made me an almond flour cake one year, it was pretty good. Almond flour is around $10/lb
Almonds like dry feet, hot weather, not sure how well they would do up here, maybe in eastern WA? Maybe depends on the rootstock, they are Prunus so probably something available.

Bye the way I was going to mention Azure Standard, a food company in oregon that sells organic and delivers to drop-off locations all over, good prices on bulk food. You might check it out
https://www.azurestandard.com/

[Tanada]

Smoker-survivor genes may have long ancestral history of fighting toxins

Longevity genes that helped humans survive ancient airborne toxins may be the same genes that make humans resilient to pollution from fossil fuels and cigarette smoke today, according to a study published in the December 2019 issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology. In "The Exposome in Human Evolution: From Dust to Diesel," Ben Trumble (Arizona State University) and Caleb Finch (University of Southern California) examine the myriad toxins that humans have encountered through our evolutionary history and the immunity-related genes that have countered their harmful effects. "We hypothesize that adaptation to ancient pathogens and airborne toxins may, in some cases, be protecting us today from novel airborne pollutants such as cigarettes and diesel smoke," Trumble and Finch write. "Further inquiry into these unexplored domains of genetic processes may inform the future of human health and longevity during global warming."

Trumble and Finch's paper is a detailed examination of the human exposome -- the interactions between human genes and the various environmental hazards we encountered through our evolutionary history. Each new environmental hazard posed a unique threat to humans and was addressed with various genes related to immunity. The authors focused in particular on genes of host defense and brain development during the evolution of the long human lifespan.

As human ancestors diverged from great apes, they encountered an array of new environmental hazards. First, as sub-Saharan Africa shifted from forest to savanna, humans breathed mineral dust and fecal aerosols from roaming herd animals and ingested pathogens from rotting meat. With the discovery of fire, humans were exposed to toxins from smoke and the charred meat that they cooked. Later, as hunting and gathering gave way to an agricultural life, humans were exposed to new toxins from domesticated animals and limited sanitation in dense living quarters. Although an understanding of infectious disease and hygiene emerged, the industrial revolution ushered in the modern-day hazards airborne pollutants and cigarettes.

Trumble and Finch found that some genes appear to have provided benefits through long stretches of evolutionary time and in very different environments. The gene AHR appears to have made archaic humans more resistant to toxins in domestic cooking fires than their Neandertal counterparts. "AHR is important in detoxifying response to modern domestic smoke, including responses to cigarette smoke," they write. "We hypothesize that genetic adaptations to ancient airborne toxins may play important roles in ameliorating the effects of exposures today, including the survival of some elderly lifetime cigarette smokers."

Many other genes grew to lose their benefits over time, or, in the case of ApoE, became dependent on the environment in determining which version is the most beneficial. The ancestral version of ApoE was highly beneficial for survival in environments with high levels of infection. However, it also negatively impacts artery and brain aging, and is associated with shorter life spans. A newer version of the gene appears to have more beneficial effects, including lower cholesterol in meat-eating populations. The fact that the ancestral version of ApoE is still prevalent in the population is an important example of the human environment changing faster than our gene pools can keep up, Trumble and Finch write. It may regain its adaptive value, however, as global warming promotes the recurrence of global infections through the expansion of insect populations, such as malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Understanding the extent of these historical gene-environment interactions is key to meeting future global health challenges. "Understanding the full breadth and history of the human exposome will inform the future of human health and longevity during the emerging ecological shifts from dust to diesel and beyond."

Linky

[onlooker]

Speaking of Cancer
Landmark Study Shows Half of Cancer Patients are Killed by Chemo — NOT Cancer



https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chemo ... -patients/

[dissident]

Speaking of Cancer
Landmark Study Shows Half of Cancer Patients are Killed by Chemo — NOT Cancer



https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chemo ... -patients/

Modern medicine is still showing the same primitive impulses as the variants centuries ago. Draining bad blood, etc. Chemo is a shotgun "solution" to hitting the flea cancer problem. Still no custom engineered antibodies or other molecules to take out cancer cells. Just do enough damage and hope the body wins in the end. Totally blind and basically ineffective on a general basis.

This same BS philosophy is behind the use of statins for heart disease. Statins are coenzyme Q10 blockers that suppress cholesterol production and a slew of other effects not pertinent to the fight against heart disease. Coenzyme Q10 is critical for a slew of metabological reactions. We already had the FDA approved Baycol (Bayer's product) killing people taking the drug after a few months. Supposedly it was a dosage problem. So much for the FDA and its oversight, more like rubber stamp.

For heart disease there are solutions that bypass Big Pharma and work. For cancer the same cannot be said. Even though all sorts of non-pharmaceutical treatments are claimed, all of them smell of snake oil. Cancer is a pandemic resulting from a combination of our lifestyles (higher average blood glucose levels compared to our ancestors that were more physically active) and the pollution of the environment with never before seen chemicals that are mostly carcinogenic. There is no dilution "solution" since chemicals get regionally recycled. That is why you are drinking Prozac in your tap water. There is nowhere to run.

One potential alternative anti-cancer treatment is mushroom extract. This liquid is full of extremely potent anti-oxidants. So it can neutralize some of the radical chemicals in the body. But it is not a cure for cancer since rampant cells are not going to be selectively killed by anti-oxidants. Also, a ketogenic diet may be a way of suppressing cancer by lower blood sugar levels and increasing ketones in the blood stream. It has been observed that there is no cancer of the heart. Heart tissue cells operate exclusively on a ketogenic metabolism and do not consume glucose. Cancer cells will die without glucose. They probably do not like high levels of ketones either. If we are going to use chemo, at least try these other approaches. They boost the body's chances of winning the war.

The immune system is involved in fighting cancer. So taking immunity boosters to offset the immunity suppression by chemo is vital. One effective source is real shark liver oil. It does work and is not a placebo. I have seen it increase the white blood cell count of a close relative undergoing chemo. But has to be real and not some processed product.

[Tanada]

Modern medicine is still showing the same primitive impulses as the variants centuries ago. Draining bad blood, etc. Chemo is a shotgun "solution" to hitting the flea cancer problem. Still no custom engineered antibodies or other molecules to take out cancer cells. Just do enough damage and hope the body wins in the end. Totally blind and basically ineffective on a general basis.

Cancer is a pandemic resulting from a combination of our lifestyles (higher average blood glucose levels compared to our ancestors that were more physically active) and the pollution of the environment with never before seen chemicals that are mostly carcinogenic.

One potential alternative anti-cancer treatment is mushroom extract. This liquid is full of extremely potent anti-oxidants. So it can neutralize some of the radical chemicals in the body. But it is not a cure for cancer since rampant cells are not going to be selectively killed by anti-oxidants. Also, a ketogenic diet may be a way of suppressing cancer by lower blood sugar levels and increasing ketones in the blood stream. It has been observed that there is no cancer of the heart. Heart tissue cells operate exclusively on a ketogenic metabolism and do not consume glucose. Cancer cells will die without glucose. They probably do not like high levels of ketones either. If we are going to use chemo, at least try these other approaches. They boost the body's chances of winning the war.

The immune system is involved in fighting cancer. So taking immunity boosters to offset the immunity suppression by chemo is vital. One effective source is real shark liver oil. It does work and is not a placebo. I have seen it increase the white blood cell count of a close relative undergoing chemo. But has to be real and not some processed product.

Not entirely true, there is a new immunity boosting treatment but it is being suppressed in many places. See this post I made last week. POST-1434409

[dissident]

Modern medicine is still showing the same primitive impulses as the variants centuries ago. Draining bad blood, etc. Chemo is a shotgun "solution" to hitting the flea cancer problem. Still no custom engineered antibodies or other molecules to take out cancer cells. Just do enough damage and hope the body wins in the end. Totally blind and basically ineffective on a general basis.

Cancer is a pandemic resulting from a combination of our lifestyles (higher average blood glucose levels compared to our ancestors that were more physically active) and the pollution of the environment with never before seen chemicals that are mostly carcinogenic.

One potential alternative anti-cancer treatment is mushroom extract. This liquid is full of extremely potent anti-oxidants. So it can neutralize some of the radical chemicals in the body. But it is not a cure for cancer since rampant cells are not going to be selectively killed by anti-oxidants. Also, a ketogenic diet may be a way of suppressing cancer by lower blood sugar levels and increasing ketones in the blood stream. It has been observed that there is no cancer of the heart. Heart tissue cells operate exclusively on a ketogenic metabolism and do not consume glucose. Cancer cells will die without glucose. They probably do not like high levels of ketones either. If we are going to use chemo, at least try these other approaches. They boost the body's chances of winning the war.

The immune system is involved in fighting cancer. So taking immunity boosters to offset the immunity suppression by chemo is vital. One effective source is real shark liver oil. It does work and is not a placebo. I have seen it increase the white blood cell count of a close relative undergoing chemo. But has to be real and not some processed product.

Not entirely true, there is a new immunity boosting treatment but it is being suppressed in many places. See this post I made last week. POST-1434409

Why does your information contradict anything I said? You are point to some experimental treatment and not the routine chemo. So my points stand. Not all the Big Pharma alternatives are due to amateurs. Looks like we are seeing one of the epic structural fails in action in respect to this new potentially worthwhile treatment. At least it is possible to buy shark lover oil capsules. Where can one get access to this "promising treatment"?

[Tanada]

Why does your information contradict anything I said? You are point to some experimental treatment and not the routine chemo. So my points stand. Not all the Big Pharma alternatives are due to amateurs. Looks like we are seeing one of the epic structural fails in action in respect to this new potentially worthwhile treatment. At least it is possible to buy shark lover oil capsules. Where can one get access to this "promising treatment"?

A careful reading of what I posted gives this bit of info.

To be clear: It's not a question of patient safety. In 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two CAR T-cell therapies for children suffering from leukemia and for adults with advanced lymphoma. Although the technology is still being developed and other uses of T-cell therapies are yet to be approved by the FDA, the Michigan CON Commission does not do medical testing. Like similar agencies in other states, the extent of its mandate is purely economic, not medical.

Anna Parsons, a policy coordinator with the American Legislative Exchange Council, points out that the safe administration of CAR T-cell therapy does not require hospitals to make new capital investments—which is the only time CON laws should apply. Literally any FDA-certified hospital should be capable of offering these treatments, since all the high-tech bioengineering is done at other locations. The only thing that happens at the hospital is a simple blood transfusion.

IOW this is not some random new experimental treatment, it already has FDA approval for broad scale implementation. It took many years of effort and incremental trials on groups of patients to get FDA approval for broad scale use. Now that the treatment has gone through extensive testing and trials on real live human patients it is being blocked in many states because it is simple and cheap and competes directly with the billion dollar chemotherapy treatment undercutting the profit margin of the regional hospitals that specialize in chemotherapy.

[Subjectivist]

Why does your information contradict anything I said? You are point to some experimental treatment and not the routine chemo. So my points stand. Not all the Big Pharma alternatives are due to amateurs. Looks like we are seeing one of the epic structural fails in action in respect to this new potentially worthwhile treatment. At least it is possible to buy shark lover oil capsules. Where can one get access to this "promising treatment"?

A careful reading of what I posted gives this bit of info.

To be clear: It's not a question of patient safety. In 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two CAR T-cell therapies for children suffering from leukemia and for adults with advanced lymphoma. Although the technology is still being developed and other uses of T-cell therapies are yet to be approved by the FDA, the Michigan CON Commission does not do medical testing. Like similar agencies in other states, the extent of its mandate is purely economic, not medical.

Anna Parsons, a policy coordinator with the American Legislative Exchange Council, points out that the safe administration of CAR T-cell therapy does not require hospitals to make new capital investments—which is the only time CON laws should apply. Literally any FDA-certified hospital should be capable of offering these treatments, since all the high-tech bioengineering is done at other locations. The only thing that happens at the hospital is a simple blood transfusion.

IOW this is not some random new experimental treatment, it already has FDA approval for broad scale implementation. It took many years of effort and incremental trials on groups of patients to get FDA approval for broad scale use. Now that the treatment has gone through extensive testing and trials on real live human patients it is being blocked in many states because it is simple and cheap and competes directly with the billion dollar chemotherapy treatment undercutting the profit margin of the regional hospitals that specialize in chemotherapy.

Does anyone actually find that surprising?

[Tanada]

Cancer came up on another thread along with the discussion about home treatments vs expensive medical care. One of those statistics I discovered a long time ago that might interest people.

In a statistical analysis of population groups in the USA something stuck out. In devout religious communities there is often a lower than average cancer rate compared to their neighboring population even if the other factors remain the same. This was first noticed with devout Mormon persons in Utah and the only significant difference in lifestyle was twofold, abstinence from nicotine, caffeine and alcohol was one set of factors but that was easily compensated for by matching populations of non Mormons who decline to consume tobacco, alcohol and even caffeinated beverages. The other factor they had a much harder time matching which is devout Mormons fast one Sunday each month and use the money saved on food that day to support food for the hungry programs and similar charitable endeavors.

From that small clue the researchers looked at other religions that encourage fasting, including some Christian denominations, Islamic Ramadan and Hindu fasting periods. In every case those persons who routinely fasted for some period annually or monthly ranging from one to three days have a remarkably lower cancer rate than their fully fed friends, neighbors and relatives.

It turns out that the human body has a set biological response to fasting. First the body uses up the Glycogen stores in the liver which takes depending on how well fed the person is from eight to twenty four hours. As the Glycogen depletes the body switches into a second mode and starts breaking down cells its detects to be damaged in any way. These cells are the ones that might develop into cancers and by breaking them down on a routine basis the body stops them from becoming cancer before they ever get started.

This is not 100 percent effective, nothing is, but it does give you a statistical advantage in the game of life. If you look at statistics modern Americans have around a 20 percent chance of developing cancer at some point before they die of old age. Some of these are more easily treated than others so it is not always the cause of death, but nobody wants to get cancer if they can avoid it.

There is even a school of thought that the nausea and lack of appetite caused by chemo-therapy and radiation treatments might actually be the most effective part of the treatment because the induced fast causes your body to attack the cancer cells on an individual basis.

Not all types of cancer are subject to this type of biological self defense, for example the most aggressive types like small cell lung cancer grow so fast they defeat the bodies self correction system by overwhelming its capacity. A week into a water only fast your body breaks down about 20 grams of cellular tissue a day so if the cancer grows at 21 grams a day and your system has non cancer cells that also need recycling it gains ground a little each day.

The types of cancer most effected by fasting are the glucose dependent cancers. As a fast reaches four days and extends your blood glucose level naturally drops and is replaced with ketones which can also feed your brain and major organs. You always need some glucose because red blood cells and a few other types are also completely glucose dependent. Cancers that can be killed by fasting are those that experience the "Warburg Effect" discovered a century ago by Dr. Otto Warburg.

Warburg Effect

So to lower your chances of ever developing cancer routine fasting is a good idea even if you are not interested in the spiritual roots of the discovery.

[Newfie]

Tanada,

Thanks for that.

We have been doing intermittent fasting for a few years with cancer reduction as the first goal and weight loss as the second, for the reasons you explain. Been a lot of cancer in my family but those who evade that can live quite long. As I am enjoying retirement immensely and am still fairly fit I want to stay that way.

My Wife had a brush with breast cancer a couple of years ago. The tumor was very small, 1 mm, so they removed it and gave her radiation treatment. She gets her next mammogram in November or December.

My Aunt is 98 and just moved into a assisted living facility where she does not cook. She is pissed she let the girls (70+) talk her into it. LOL. She and my sister come out here to stay off and on when no other family are around. I use her as my role model.