User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 157

  1. #111
    Senior Member Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    3,403

    Default

    I like this too

    Health problems

    2. Symptoms warn you there is a problem. If you simply mask the symptoms with a drug, it does not eliminate the root cause. It makes as much sense as dealing with a warning light on your cars dashboard by unplugging it.

    3. We get a virus when our Immune system is not healthy. A healthy Immune System stops a virus from infecting the body. What makes an unhealthy Immune System healthy? Enzymes, vitamins, protein (amino acids), protective Lactobacillus (mercury kills Lactobacillus), minerals, fiber, essential oils (anti-oxidants).

    21. Fat does not make you fat - sugar does. The body needs good fat (Omega 3 & 6 essential oils) as they transport toxins from body. Without essential oils the myelin sheath is broken down, it can't transport toxins, and the body is low in anti-oxidants. Bad fat = Animal fat, margarine, Hydrogenated oils.

    29. Food cravings are due to a lack of true nutrients in the diet. Chocolate cravings are only your body's way of crying out for magnesium.

    32. Chronic illness, digestive problems, acid reflux, etc., are caused by a lack of enzymes in the body. The liver puts out hundreds of enzymes alone. If the liver is not functioning properly, enzymes are inhibited. Drugs inhibit liver function.

    33. Your body has three salt lakes: the lymphatic system, the blood system, and the interstitial cell system. Salt is necessary for the optimal functioning of these systems.

    34. Commercial salts are processed at extremely high temperatures that eliminate the magnesium. It contains undissolved silicate that tends to deposit itself on the interior walls of the arteries causing clogged arteries, and it contains aluminum silicate introduced to make the salt pour easily during humid weather. Aluminum is a toxic metal to the body. Sea salt is the healthiest salt to use.

    35. Antacids contain aluminum which blocks the system necessary to detoxify our body. The result is increased allergies and weight gain. Continual use of antacids destroy the body's ability to digest food.

    42. Vitamin B-3, Niacin, and B-12 are necessary for energy. Zinc helps make progesterone. When Zinc is blocked or not bio-available the result is PMS.

    48. Fluoride comes from Fluorine, a bi-product of fertilizer. It's a carcinogenic and blocks calcium absorption. Note the warning about Fluoride on the back of every toothpaste box. (I’d like to add it blocks iodine ions too and is in the water supply.)

    49. Mercury fillings, combined with saliva in the mouth, act like a battery and conduct electrical energy. This eventually burns out the nervous system. Mercury also causes potassium deficiency in the body. It is now illegal to put mercury in batteries due to toxicity but still ok to put in the mouth. (and in vaccines in the form of thimerosil)

    50. Toxic heavy metals, chemicals and radioactive wastes are being recycled as fertilizer and spread over farmers' fields nationwide -- and there is no federal law requiring that they be listed as ingredients. Manufacturers can get rid of low-level radioactive waste by licensing it as liquid fertilizer and spraying it over crops. Substances considered hazardous in the plant are not considered hazardous when included in fertilizer.

  2. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    you can try to connect all of these things if you wish, but the fact of the matter is simply that there isn't scientific evidence to support it. The ramblings of a few questionable researchers does not constitute a body of evidence. Therefore your claims are not scientifically sound especially in relation to the chemistry. If you look hard enough you can find an article relating almost anything to whatever disease you want, but in many cases the articles are not published in respectable peer reviewed journals or widely accepted by the scientific community - since science must be repeatable and most of the time these claims are not.

  3. #113
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    I'm a deeper better person because of it.

    To see the darkness, to feel it.

    To want death so much, to be on the brink, makes you appreciate life when you actually *choose* to *live* it.

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  4. #114
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    ^ says the enneagram 4... while the enneagram 7 doesn't buy it
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  5. #115
    Symbolic Herald Vasilisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    But sometimes sad feelings do lead to depression. I reject the notion that it is only depression if you need to implement heroic efforts to overcome it, or it really wasn't depression at all. Depression, just like any other human emotion, carries with it many expressions and manifestations, perhaps even stages. Where someone needs intervention depends on their individual brain chemistry, mindful ability, and social circumstances. A 'sad' person might elect to take daily zoloft, whereas a truly depressed person might elect to ride it out and see what they can glean on the other side of the psyche.
    Oh, OK, I see what you mean. I was actually referring to clinical depression in that passage, tho.
    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I think this is lovely. But it's not unusual or unique to feel this way in life. She expresses a lot of questioning during her depression, and crying. I see this as grieving of the soul for events that transpired that she did not share here. Depression is part of the grief process. That's why I said to Morgan earlier that depression usually always occurs when something has happened to us; when Life happens. The grief process is: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

    When the author goes on to say the she "broke free" and it felt like relief, even though she describes it as "desperate unhappiness," I see this as her ending the loop of mental thought that goes nowhere (or rumination of the problem that has caused her depression) if you will. And an acceptance that some things cannot be understood, only given up. It felt like relief because her mind accepted that it would never understand some things; those things that were foremost in her mind, or her history.

    Unlike her family, I see this as a sign of progress, of moving forward into acceptance of something hard which has happened; the beginning of the final stage of the grief process, acceptance. If she hadn't turned to drugs the very next day, she could have gone on to feel better and better. Or she could have kept cycling through the whole thing over and over again. Giving up and letting go is a hard place to get to, and those who try to end their grieving before getting to this place, are missing out on one of the great growing opportunities life gives us; an experience that can help us tap into greater depth and wisdom than we knew before; a happiness heretofore unknown.
    By reading the excerpts I understand why you came to that conclusion, but actually she is describing a period over many months. She refused medication for a time longer than a day. I could try to post up a pdf (size limit is so small) of the entire essay if you would like. The version here leaves out pages. But I think we still my differ in our interpretations. And thats okay.

    I want a world with emotional depth, I dislike shallowness. And I understand what people mean when they say that their depression (clinical and otherwise) grew them. I'm like that, too, I think crushing heartbreak also grows people like nothing else. I don't like the thought of people using drugs to keep them out of touch with painful realities. But I guess thats what makes it a mental illness, when it is not reality. What body dysmorphic disorder does to a sufferers view of their body, clinical depression does to the depressed view of themselves and life's circumstances.

    But my main point is that rumination on life when in the midst of clinical depression is like visually analyzing a painting with sunglasses on. The full spectrum of color is inaccessible. The impression is corrupted. That is all I am trying to say.
    the formless thing which gives things form!
    Found Forum Haiku Project


    Positive Spin | your feedback welcomed | Darker Criticism

  6. #116
    Senior Member Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    3,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    you can try to connect all of these things if you wish, but the fact of the matter is simply that there isn't scientific evidence to support it. The ramblings of a few questionable researchers does not constitute a body of evidence. Therefore your claims are not scientifically sound especially in relation to the chemistry. If you look hard enough you can find an article relating almost anything to whatever disease you want, but in many cases the articles are not published in respectable peer reviewed journals or widely accepted by the scientific community - since science must be repeatable and most of the time these claims are not.
    You are right in that respect that the current research into the chemistry is solid for the reactions that happen. People can try to connect as much as they like but it isn't going to be an established scientific and pharmaceutical fact. I am but a questioning patient of the system.

    But sometimes evidence and statistics can be manipulated to be persuasive and factual. you can do that with science and law given enough money. one view that is found unacceptable, questionable, not deemed scientific worthy and the peers retract their support, vilify the person making the claim, retract funding, isolate and rubbish them, discredit their credentials and do everything in their power to bring them down and make their proven scientific testing unproven scientific testing that goes against the peer review and then isn't considered as scientific fact...just like politics.

    You can bury the right facts in so much paper work that it won't see the light of day. When its not in someones vested interest, when there is a lack of financial reward or incentive, removing the ability to have credibility against statistical success can be easily arranged. This happens throughout history, the ones that are right tend to be proven so decades later but that's a big if, for i am aware there are a lot of opportunistic frauds in the industry and out of the industry but its harder to find the frauds in the industry then out of the industry.

    Science is rigid in fact that the very same science that is supposed to be scientific tends to be biased in the approach to scientific inquiry, kind of like law. When there are a lot of skeletons in the closet, it is going to be hard to look into it, red tape does it. Like in law, you can contest something, go to the highest extreme and go bankrupt. Money and funding are key, when trying to accomplish something that is deemed unacceptable is going to have a leper effect, to touch it again is like scientific disrepute, to lose face, the peer public image of credibility. Even though they can prove it, nobody would listen, turn a blind eye to wanting to replicate it or been instructed not to unless independent from influence.

    Just saying, not to say what I've said is definite, hardly, there are many issues in the body that science is yet to explore. across the board though traditional thinking is hard to change even with facts, people still cling to traditions that have long been abandoned. certainly this mayn't be as applicable in science because the testing is sound and accurate, assuming the statistics and motivations are as well.

  7. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    Science is rigid in fact that the very same science that is supposed to be scientific tends to be biased in the approach to scientific inquiry, kind of like law. When there are a lot of skeletons in the closet, it is going to be hard to look into it, red tape does it. Like in law, you can contest something, go to the highest extreme and go bankrupt. Money and funding are key, when trying to accomplish something that is deemed unacceptable is going to have a leper effect, to touch it again is like scientific disrepute, to lose face, the peer public image of credibility. Even though they can prove it, nobody would listen, turn a blind eye to wanting to replicate it or been instructed not to unless independent from influence.

    Just saying, not to say what I've said is definite, hardly, there are many issues in the body that science is yet to explore. across the board though traditional thinking is hard to change even with facts, people still cling to traditions that have long been abandoned. certainly this mayn't be as applicable in science because the testing is sound and accurate, assuming the statistics and motivations are as well.
    well obviously nothing is perfect including science. There are definitely politics and problems with science but I believe that you're over generalizing here.

    Not all data in science is "supported/proved" by statistics. In my research I very rarely rely on statistics to support my data, and if I do it has to be independently analyzed in order to be publishable. The majority of my published data (99.9%) is nearly impossible to skew, my only option would be to fake it. Faking it would involve hacking into the software used to analyze and verify my (code/structures/reactions/molecular computations, etc) and literally changing the parameters so that the instrument tells me what I want to see. This would take an ungodly amount of time. Assuming I worked in complete isolation with all of the time in the world to fake my data or even assuming that my entire department/university was in support of the fraud, any success obtained from the fudged data would be very short lived. Once my work is submitted to a journal a reviewer will attempt to repeat my data if what I'm proposing seems too fantastic to be true, and when they do they will get wildly different results than mine and refuse to publish my work. Assuming I was able to pay off the journal and all 20 or 30 of the reviewers and the editor, once published there are still rival research groups working on very similar if not the exact same projects that my advisor is working on. If we publish some overly fantastic results they WILL most definitely attempt to repeat it. When they can't and it becomes obvious that all of the data was fudged the rival advisors will have a collective orgasm and start demanding my advisor's head on a stick.

    Biomedical research in the past relied heavily on statistics that were more easily skewed and the honesty/objectivity of the researcher involved was more important. Currently biomedical research (or at least the projects that I have collaborated on) is shifting more and more towards work on the cellular level and sub cellular level, which is more difficult to skew because it is independently verifiable and repeatable directly. This article for examples states that there is a link between alcohol and cancer, premature aging, and early onset of disease. - "Researchers say they've gained new insight into a link at the cellular level between alcohol consumption, aging and cancer." - Heavy Alcohol Use Linked to Cancer - US News and World Report

    since this research was done at the cellular level if another researcher finds it too fantastic to be true they can simply repeat the data and see if they observe the same findings. It's no longer about collecting a statistically relevant sample of people who drink heavily and seeing if most of them are developing cancer or aging prematurely. Moreover when inconsistencies are discovered at the cellular level it leads to a better understanding of how and why certain things are occurring.

    Therefore in the case of depression the reason I do not believe that the endocrine system or hormones alone are responsible for depression is simply the fact that there is no objective proof to support this. Most of the studies on patients being given T3 to treat depression were done without a placebo and on extremely small sample sizes. This is why T3 is typically used as an augment to current anti-depressant medication not a substitute - if it is used at all. Research being done on the cellular and subcellular levels continues to support the idea of there being many different genetic, environmental, and biochemical causes of depression. This research also continues to support the idea that the chemistry of the brain is the critical player.

  8. #118
    Senior Member Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    3,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Therefore in the case of depression the reason I do not believe that the endocrine system or hormones alone are responsible for depression is simply the fact that there is no objective proof to support this. Most of the studies on patients being given T3 to treat depression were done without a placebo and on extremely small sample sizes. This is why T3 is typically used as an augment to current anti-depressant medication not a substitute - if it is used at all. Research being done on the cellular and subcellular levels continues to support the idea of there being many different genetic, environmental, and biochemical causes of depression. This research also continues to support the idea that the chemistry of the brain is the critical player.
    Yeah okay maybe, I still have my doubts, especially in regards to the kind of drugs that continue to be on the market for anti depressants. It does concern me greatly, where is the sound science in using fluorine in Paxil and Prozac. When fluorine is a know thyroid suppressant...i'm sure its in others, and in the water too, does seem strange.

    Suppose its like with industry pressure, if plastic is found toxic they just make stories that its cancer causing don't put it in the microwave. Too hard to remove from society. The same with teeth fillings that had amalgams, mercury one of the most toxic elements put in peoples mouth no doubt. And does the debate close, it should, its still not illegal, at least the good sense of options are available.

    Either way I am happier that nowadays the science is more responsible.

  9. #119
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vasilisa View Post
    Oh, OK, I see what you mean. I was actually referring to clinical depression in that passage, tho.

    By reading the excerpts I understand why you came to that conclusion, but actually she is describing a period over many months. She refused medication for a time longer than a day. I could try to post up a pdf (size limit is so small) of the entire essay if you would like. The version here leaves out pages. But I think we still my differ in our interpretations. And thats okay.

    I want a world with emotional depth, I dislike shallowness. And I understand what people mean when they say that their depression (clinical and otherwise) grew them. I'm like that, too, I think crushing heartbreak also grows people like nothing else. I don't like the thought of people using drugs to keep them out of touch with painful realities. But I guess thats what makes it a mental illness, when it is not reality. What body dysmorphic disorder does to a sufferers view of their body, clinical depression does to the depressed view of themselves and life's circumstances.

    But my main point is that rumination on life when in the midst of clinical depression is like visually analyzing a painting with sunglasses on. The full spectrum of color is inaccessible. The impression is corrupted. That is all I am trying to say.
    Oh, thanks for explaining a bit more.....Yes, I agree with you and like your analogies toward the end.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    Yeah okay maybe, I still have my doubts, especially in regards to the kind of drugs that continue to be on the market for anti depressants. It does concern me greatly, where is the sound science in using fluorine in Paxil and Prozac. When fluorine is a know thyroid suppressant...i'm sure its in others, and in the water too, does seem strange.
    The fluorine in the prozac molecule is on a CF3 group which means that it is not breaking up into F- anions in your body. The C-F bond is extremely strong - Carbon–fluorine bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There are many reasons why the CF3 group is used in lieu of a CH3 and the major ones are listed below:

    a. increase in lipophilicity
    b. prevention of unwanted metabolism of the drug

    In your body a benzyllic CH3 can be oxidized to the benzoic acid, which is then processed by your body greatly shortening the in vivo half-life of the drug (which lowers it's effectiveness and requires a higher dose). Since fluorine can hydrogen bond and has an atomic radii smaller than hydrogen it is a good substitute for CH3 groups especially those on aromatic rings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    Suppose its like with industry pressure, if plastic is found toxic they just make stories that its cancer causing don't put it in the microwave. Too hard to remove from society. The same with teeth fillings that had amalgams, mercury one of the most toxic elements put in peoples mouth no doubt. And does the debate close, it should, its still not illegal, at least the good sense of options are available
    In the case of plastics it isn't the polymers themselves that cause the cancer but rather the plasticizers that are being blending with them to promote flexibility. In many cases, even the evidence in support of the plasticizer causing cancer is highly debated amongst researchers and certainly does not apply to all plasticizers. Not putting a certain plastic in the microwave is definitely a good idea because many of these plasticizers are VOCs and are not chemically bound to the polymer, therefore heating up the plastic will promote the escape of these compounds and even if they are not carcinogenic you will loose the flexibility of your plastic over time and end up with brittle tupperware.

    There are always safety risks related to the use of chemicals of any kind in every day life, there is no way to avoid that at this time. Anti-depressants are nowhere near perfect and there definitely needs to be a lot more advancement in this area, but doing away with something that works some of the time and replacing it with nothing is not much of a viable option. The fact of the matter is that we just don't have better options yet.

    In the case of plastics, most consumer products are safe. Without the plastics industry we would have far greater problems. Our life expectancy would drop dramatically, and the average human wouldn't even live long enough to develop cancer. All of our modern medical technology is highly dependent on the availability of plastics. This is also very true for almost every other industry out there. Yes occasionally there are dangers associated with the development of new polymers and new plasticizers to promote the desired properties but the alternative of never having any of this technology would lead to far more suffering. All we can do is continue to strive to improve safety and quality but without having the powers of god we are left with the tools that mere men create and can only utilize them to the best of our abilities.

Similar Threads

  1. Passive voice is to be abused in this thread
    By ygolo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 01:31 AM
  2. Is Elfboy an S in disguise?
    By Elfboy in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 09:11 PM
  3. [ENFJ] What is depression like for ENFJs?
    By Harlow_Jem in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-31-2012, 03:40 PM
  4. [ENTP] What is an ENTP intrest in women
    By Cool in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 08:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO