I dont understand why ted is allowed to post this stuff. He is posting it as fact and some of the stuff in his posts is risky to say the least. I dont see why I should have to avoid reading his stuff if I dont like it, surely a better policy would be for stuff like this not to be allowed to be posted at all? Some desperate, vulnerable people may take it as fact.
Because it is the TRUTH. It's all backed by recent peer reviewed published research. It isn't myth based rubbish.Originally Posted by froglegs
DON'T make claims you cannot prove. If you think anything I post is risky then FIND THE EVIDENCE and then post links to the SCIENCE that shows I am wrong.He is posting it as fact and some of the stuff in his posts is risky to say the least.
If you want to keep hurting your brain than that's your choice but the fact remains I always provide links to support what I am saying and if you want more links to more of the science that's absolutely no trouble at all I can supply more evidence than the examples I've already provided there is masses of research to support everything I write I only limit the number of examples as otherwise the posts become so detailed and dense with links it's hard work understanding the main points.I dont see why I should have to avoid reading his stuff if I dont like it
Not at all. we should never suppress the truth. We shouldn't let ignorant stupid people who are too lazy to read or make the effort to understand the latest science prevent other people improving their health.surely a better policy would be for stuff like this not to be allowed to be posted at all?
But it is precisely those people who have been failed by orthodox consensus medical opinion who need to understand the truth.Some desperate, vulnerable people may take it as fact.
If we look at vitamin D we can see where things start to go wrong with health professionals approach.
We can all follow the graph here and see the difference between using the NATURAL human form of vitamin D3 and the PATENTED OFFICIAL form of Vitamin D2 ERGOCALCIFEROL that doctors use.
Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans
One raises vitamin d status and keeps it raised the other speeds up the rate at which vitamin D is consumed and removed from the system.
If you want to keep a high and stable vitamin D status is it better to have one your body naturally makes and which stays in your system or is it better to use a synthetic form that makes lots of money for the drug companies, produces lots of side effects, is less safe , shorter lasting and often totally ineffective?
Which is the safest option, the natural route or the health professionals route?
If you want to dispute anything I write then you should look for the evidence showing I may be wrong and I'll then produce a lot more links to research to show why what I say is, in fact, the most sensible choice you can make.
I've been banned from enough forums not to care what people think of me. I always post in my own name because I've done my research, I know the scientific evidence supports what I say. I think doctors should only practice evidence based medicine that means we have to look at their current practice and point out where they have gone wrong.
The longer we fail to challenge bad, unsafe, practices the longer we will go on being ill as a result.
Indeed but the skin must NEVER BURN.
If your skin burns then damage occurs. If you have a pale skin then you need to remember your DNA evolved to thrive at a particular latitude and if you have a BLACK or DARK BROWN skin then people with those skin pigments evolved to thrive best at different latitudes.
This will govern the safe exposure time for people with different skin colours at midday whereever they live. But whatever your skin colour it's the iron in your blood that does the damage and controlling that iron enables you to lay naked as I do in the midday sun without burning or even going pink.
If your skin burns it is a sign you have become maladapted to your natural environment.
You need more omega 3 and less of the pro inflammatory omega 6,
You need to consume less of the pro inflammatory foods like refined carbohydrates and sugar/fructose/HFCS because these drive the inflammatory process.
You may need to lose weight as adipose tissue (fat cells) produce pro inflammatory cytokines that add to your inflammatory burden.
If any of you want to come and lay naked on my decking at midday to know that I practice what I preach that's absolutely fine be me and I'll bet I don't burn and you will, unless you've taken the trouble to find out how to improve your skins natural ability to protect itself from UV radiation as it evolved to function.
We wouldn't have survived the evolutionary process if human skin couldn't naturally protect it'self from sunshine.
Instead of using cancer promoting chemicals we need to understand the natural process and apply that knowledge.
but surely you can see it's precisely the fact that people have been following doctors orders that has resulted in the current situation.
the increases in skin cancer incidence are directly related to the changes in sunscreen formulations
The increased sales rates of sunscreens directly related to the increased incidence of skin cancers.
Who said anything about half naked. The point I was making was the more skin you exposed particularly that skin that is NORMALLY COVERED. the shorter time you need to expose your skin and the sooner you can cover up to protect that newly made vitamin D from further degradation by UVA.especially where something as dangerous as sitting in the mid-day sun half naked is suggested as 'the best time'.
The best time for vitamin D naturally from sunshine is the time when the RATIO of UVB to UVA is at it's highest. That means around noon.
Far better to have a shorter exposure (to UVA) than a prolonged exposure when there is little or no UVB present to make vitamin D. This isn't about getting a tan it's about making the natural human form of the vitamin D3.
It also helps that bright light exposure ALSO controls the circadian rhythm and that improves your NIGHT time secretion of the other main human IRON CHELATOR MELATONIN. If you have a good melatonin secretion, from being outside in the bright sunlight during the day and use subdued light during the evening and you sleep in a darkened bedroom at night, then you increase (this goes for all ages but is particularly important for elderly people especially those with Alzheimer's.) melatonin secretion and because it's a natural iron chelator it reduces the potential for damage from oxidation.
But what if the warnings about skin cancer are increasing it's incidence in exactly the same way the current health advice about eating less and moving more are the root cause of the obesity epidemic.It's not only idioic but irresponsible, given the warnings about skin cancer!
If you are proposing a strategy for improved health and when you see people who apply that strategy simply increase their incidence of skin cancer or obesity the smart health professional will reconsider the evidence and change their advice so that rather than increasing skin cancer or obesity we see a reduction in incidence.
This is the reason we should not shrink from pointing out when and where health professionals are making disease incidence worse.
The evidence is there and however uncomfortable it is we have to be brave enough to state the facts as they are reported in the scientific literature and no prevent people explaining the truth behind those uncomfortable facts.
Last edited by TedHutchinson; 04-24-2011 at 12:09 PM.
There is already a heading to that effect!
A forum for everything health-related and a guide to healthy living as supplied by our members. Please contact your doctor/consultant if you are seeking medical advice.
Thank you MrB, I should have said maybe that should be highlighted and underlined? Just a thought.
Maybe most people are sufficiently intelligent to realise that a medical opinion has to be based on a medical examination and a medical diagnosis. You can't get a medical examination online nor can you get a medical diagnosis online therefore no one should ever regard the information they read online as specific medical opinion relevant to their own health circumstances.Thank you MrB, I should have said maybe that should be highlighted and underlined? Just a thought.
That said common things commonly occur.
We know that the AVERAGE UK adult has a 25(OH)D level below that human bodies naturally attain and maintain living mainly outdoor lives wearing minimal clothing, so, it's a fair bet MOST of the readers of this forum fit into that category.
Hence the information that leads to how to get 25(OH)D tested and how to correct deficiency status is appropriate for most of the readers here.
For those who still haven't got it, the key to understanding why we need to improve our control of iron to prevent damage from sunburn the answers here.
Ultraviolet a radiation-induced immediate iron release is a key modulator of the activation of NF-kappaB in human skin fibroblasts.
In case anyone thinks I've ever suggested anyone gets sunburnt I'll restate the facts. Sunburn is dangerous and should always be avoided. But the use of sunscreens that enable long term exposure to UVA is promoting skin cancer incidence and mortality because it prevents people getting the beneficial rise in Vitamin D status that natural sun exposure creates while increasing the exposure to UVA that damages the skin and degrades the vitamin D that's near the surface of the skin.
If you spend time in the sun behind glass getting only UVA exposure your vitamin D status will be declining. So working by your office window, lazing in the conservatory, potting up plants in a sunny greenhouse, and a long sunny drive in a car that isn't an open top but with normal windscreen/car windows all will decrease your vitamin D levels.
Over the last 20yrs incidence of vitamin D deficiency status has doubled and that is driving the chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, dementia, cancer) that are also increasing.
So you do need sun exposure that raises vitamin D status (therefore it MUST contain UVB) BUT you must never allow the skin to burn (or even go pink it's not necessary to make vitamin D3)
Last edited by TedHutchinson; 04-24-2011 at 02:02 PM.
Precisely Ted. No two peoples lack of iron or ViitD fit your 'cure all' posts so can be very misleading. What works well for some will not work well for others, for many differing reasons. I personally am allergic to the sun. I come out in blisters just pegging the washing out if I don't put on my sun factor 50+ on and wear long sleeves and cover my legs. If I were to follow your advice that sitting in the sun with very little on at one of the hotest times of the day I would be in intensive care with severe burns!Maybe most people are sufficiently intelligent to realise that a medical opinion has to be based on a medical examination and a medical diagnosis. You can't get a medical examination online nor can you get a medical diagnosis online therefore no one should ever regard the information they read online as specific medical opinion relevant to their own health circumstances.
You should re-phrase 'most people' as that is a generalisation that you are using to push your beliefs onto people, which is probably why you get such negative responses.
Over the last 20yrs incidence of vitamin D deficiency status has doubled and that is driving the chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, dementia, cancer) that are also increasing.
Two of my sisters are in the final stages of lung cancer, one with secondary cancer in the brain. One has lived in Western Australia for over 45 years, is an out-door type running two farms, who regularly has temps well in the high 100's in summer time.
The other sister lives here in the UK - east anglia - and is also an outdoor person and 'sun worshiopper'. How can you possibly pinpoint the trigger that caused it, given that both have healthy lifestyles and get more sun than most of us??
I don't much care for your 'scientific "facts" that you have been plugging for years. You leave no room for discussion, giving a 'prove me wrong' attitude at all times, and resorting to insulting our intelligence because we have a differing opinion to yourself.
I am truly happy that you have found something that is right for you but I every faith in knowing my body and have complete faith in my GP, and various consultants. They haven't let me down yet.
I would not waste your time the bloke is working for the group that flogs the stuff, he is a sales man
Ted, I don't know you at all but it appears that you're the regular boffin who enjoys research, gathering information, statistics etc. In fact I can visulise you sitting at the computer wearing your lab coat.
Have you ever stepped back to analyze your own posts? Who is the target audience on this forum and what do you think are their interests and priorities.
Would you say that your academic recommendations and theories are more suited in forums like the online New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...come-from.html
I do think you put a lot of energy into your posts. I expect you were a good lecturer at University and you must miss having an audience. You're good at delivering lectures but you aren't good at listening to feedback.
The feedback is generally telling you that it's too much information that people aren't passionate about and don't care either.
With due respect I think your talents could be better used in an environment where people appreciate your scientific hypothesis.
Posting Permissions
