Traveler

Which is Worse? How bad is sugar?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Where did you get your MD from? 

My mother was a cancer nurse for over 30 years. I'm hardly an expert. But she did lecture me quite often in pseudo-science. Given the amount of doctors I have as friends, I do feel a need to defend the overall medical community.  

I just do a lot of research using the studies out there the contradict the main stream spin on a huge (and appalling) number of drugs and treatments.

Statins: My cardiologist told me that statins were so effective that he takes them prophylacticly even though he has no heart condition. I have read more than a dozen studies that say that statins are dangerous, and do not affect cardiovascular outcomes because they treat a condition that has no effect on cardiovascular health. They reduce cholesterol, as advertised, but cholesterol does not cause heart disease. They also reduce Co-enzyme Q10. Both cholesterol and Co-Q10 are necessary for good cellular health, so statins make you sick.

The only thing shown, scientifically, to improve cardiovascular health is intermittent fasting. Alternate-day, Modified Fasting (ADMF), where you eat "normally" for three or four days a week and skip breakfast the other days increases the diameter of the LDL cholesterol particles. No one is sure why this works, but two studies show it to be true.

The cholesterol scam is based on dubious (at best) "science" that was made up to push a political agenda.

Similarly, the low-salt (or low sodium) craze is equally false. I was on a low- (or no-) salt diet for about six months. It ended up nearly killing me. I now suffer from POTS (no, not "Plain Old Telephone Service", but "Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome"). Fifteen years later, I still have frequent bouts of light-headedness because I get extremely low blood pressure when I stand up abruptly.

Glyphosate (Roundup™) is a poison, and it doesn't work unless the seeds are GMOed so it has no effect on them. It doesn't even kill the weeds as it did thirty years ago.

There are dozens of similar drugs and dozens of "traditional" treatments that end up in the same way: the patient is worse off than before the treatment.

I'd go into them in more detail, but it seems you don't want to hear it.

The fact is, as my sister-in-law (the drug dealer, she's a "detail man") relates it, is that there is a lot of money, a LOT of money, in drugs and medical devices. Getting doctors to toe the line is critical to the profitability of the drug companies.

I don't care about what drugs the doctors push (to get all those freebies the detail men offer them), but I do care that we do not get all the pertinent information we need to make intelligent decisions.

Lehi

I go to doctors. I follow their advice, but only after I research the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Virtually all those who disagree with him have a financial vested interest in keeping the status quo. He rarely publishes anything without reams of medical research to back it up.

I don't understand, LeSellers. You're the one railing against sucralose, whose enemies are all funded by -- the sugar lobby. How is it your "financial vested interest" argument works only toward those causes you don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

I'd go into them in more detail, but it seems you don't want to hear it.

 

Well, you are right about that. The fact that you even went to your cardiologist in the first place sort of proves the point though. When people have chest pains or vomit up blood they usually don't go to local homeopathic "expert". 90% correctly go to an MD. 

 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't understand, LeSellers. You're the one railing against sucralose, whose enemies are all funded by -- the sugar lobby. How is it your "financial vested interest" argument works only toward those causes you don't like?

Those I rely on to understand sucralose have no vested interest in either sugar (which they don't like, either) or Splenda™.

Have you read the primary research? I have.

Lehi

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Well, you are right about that. The fact that you even went to your cardiologist in the first place sort of proves the point though. When people have chest pains or vomit up blood they usually don't go to local homeopathic "expert". 90% correctly go to an MD.

It shows that I am not prejudiced.

I take their advice when the research supports it. I reject it when the research undermines their claims.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Those I rely on to understand sucralose have no vested interest in either sugar (which they don't like, either) or Splenda™.

Have you read the primary research? I have.

Lehi

No, I have not. By all means, please reference and link to the primary research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, I have not. By all means, please reference and link to the primary research.

I don't have time to link to hundreds of articles.

I gave the mercola link several posts ago, He has links to a lot of that research. It's enough to keep you going for months on end.

Lehi

 

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

It shows that I am not prejudiced.

I take their advice when the research supports it. I reject it when the research undermines their claims.

Lehi

What I find troubling is when people who know nothing about the LDS church make incorrect claims based on "research" . IE-Oh, Smith stole the Book of Mormon from "View of the Hebrews" (We've all heard this, it's total rubbish of course)

But in fairness, if people make the same claims about the medical community, that's wrong too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

It shows that I am not prejudiced.

I take their advice when the research supports it. I reject it when the research undermines their claims.

Lehi

What I find troubling is when people who know nothing about the LDS church make incorrect claims based on "research" . IE-Oh, Smith stole the Book of Mormon from "View of the Hebrews" (We've all heard this, it's total rubbish of course)

But in fairness, if people make the same claims about the medical community, that's wrong too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What I find troubling is when people who know nothing about the LDS church make incorrect claims based on "research" . IE-Oh, Smith stole the Book of Mormon from "View of the Hebrews" (We've all heard this, it's total rubbish of course)

But in fairness, if people make the same claims about the medical community, that's wrong too. 

The two are not even comparable. One can be objectively measured: either statins (for example) cut hear attack rates or they do not. They don't.

The other cannot be objectively measured. Only God can provide definitive proof that the Church is true. It is.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The two are not even comparable.

The mindsets are actually quite comparable. If you don't know about the mainstream LDS church (and let's face it, there are so many myths, lies, and rubbish out there about us) you shouldn't make claims about us.

If you don't know anything about the legit, mainstream medical community, you shouldn't make claims about them either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you don't know anything about the legit, mainstream medical community, you shouldn't make claims about them either. 

But you assume I know nothing about the "legit", mainstream medical community. That is false.

Have you read Confessions of a Medical Heretic, and MalePractice? Please do so, then come back and tell us they are bunk. Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., wrote them to show that they are not based on science, but economics and false religion.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you don't know anything about the legit, mainstream medical community, you shouldn't make claims about them either. 

But you assume I know nothing about the "legit", mainstream medical community. That is false.

Have you read Confessions of a Medical Heretic, and MalePractice? Please do so, then come back and tell us they are bunk. Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., wrote them to show that they are not based on science, but economics and false religion.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

But you assume I know nothing about the "legit", mainstream medical community. That is false.

 

Sadly, you can find Patch Adams-like doctors. However they are the small minority. There are also LDS who believe that women should be priests, and they are in the small minority as well. Both are incorrect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

But you assume I know nothing about the "legit", mainstream medical community. That is false.

 

Sadly, you can find Patch Adams-like doctors. However they are the small minority. There are also LDS who believe that women should be priests, and they are in the small minority as well. Both are incorrect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Sadly, you can find Patch Adams-like doctors. However they are the small minority. There are also LDS who believe that women should be priests, and they are in the small minority as well. Both are incorrect. 

Your argument is a logical fallacy: special pleading.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I don't have time to link to hundreds of articles.

I gave the mercola link several posts ago, He has links to a lot of that research. It's enough to keep you going for months on end.

Lehi

LeSellers, Mercola is nothing approaching an unbiased or believable source. It is not reasonable to expect me to wade through his garbage looking for pearls. If you have references, please just give them.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Your argument is a logical fallacy: special pleading.

Lehi

It's a discussion, not an argument. Not everything is an argument.  Sometimes it's two people discussing something. Even something they disagree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
22 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Your argument is a logical fallacy: special pleading.

Lehi

It's a discussion, not an argument. Not everything is an argument.  Sometimes it's two people discussing something. Even something they disagree with. 

And you referenced a book by a doctor. That would be a logical fallacy too. Appeal to authority. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vort said:

LeSellers, Mercola is nothing approaching an unbiased or believable source. It is not reasonable to expect me to wade through his garbage looking for pearls. If you have references, please just give them.

There are hundreds of them. I don't have the time to find the m all again.

Whatever you think you know about Mercola, his sources are the medical studies that get ignored because they don't support the big money in medicine.

Further, why do you think he's a biased or unbelievable source? Because he doesn't push Florine and mercury like the rest of the mainstream medical world?

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
  • Compare an alcoholic to a sugar junkie.  Which will cause more problems to the consumer of each?  Which will cause more problems for those around the consumer?
  • Compare a guy who has a bug of beer or glass of wine a day to the person who just has the sugar that is in the store bought prepared foods.  What are the problems?

(Assume standard diet and hygiene measures apart from the alcohol or sugar intake.  This would include proper dental care.)

I'd think that in the first comparison that there is no question that the alcoholic would cause more problems all around.  In the second comparison I'd say the alcohol causes more problems to those around the consumer, but the sugar "may" cause more problems to the consumer himself.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2016 at 11:08 AM, MormonGator said:

The "blind faith" is based in science. Those nasty pharmaceutical companies make medicine that keep many us healthy. Curse them. 

Yea, like pantaprazole that I took for many year being mis-diagnosed as having Barrett’s Esophagus!

Recently I read The Plant Paradox by Dr. Gundry, and guess what?

Laying off the Lectins did the trick. :D

The pantaprazole killed my stomach acid which reduced my absorption of B vitamins, killing my energy.

Other inflammatory symptoms have also greatly subsided. Niagen is also awesome, but few doctors have even heard of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
10 hours ago, BeNotDeceived said:

Yea, like pantaprazole that I took for many year being mis-diagnosed as having Barrett’s Esophagus!

Recently I read The Plant Paradox by Dr. Gundry, and guess what?

Laying off the Lectins did the trick. :D

The pantaprazole killed my stomach acid which reduced my absorption of B vitamins, killing my energy.

Other inflammatory symptoms have also greatly subsided. Niagen is also awesome, but few doctors have even heard of it. 

Well, like I mentioned before many times the war on science is over, and science has lost in a crushing defeat. Glad it works for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2016 at 7:20 AM, Carborendum said:
  • Compare an alcoholic to a sugar junkie.  Which will cause more problems to the consumer of each?  Which will cause more problems for those around the consumer?

Hardcore alcoholics, aside from driving and whatever they do to finance their addiction, tend to keep it to places where they can drink heavily; bars, liquor stores and home.  The beyond morbidly obese, OTOH, insist on being accommodated everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now