Is natural medicine being suppressed?

samson09

What are your views on this matter? I believe that natural medicine is actively being suppressed in this country (and most other first world countries) through a campaign of misinformation and scare mongering. For example, in the case of cancer prevention, we are offered "screening" which of course does absolutely nothing to prevent cancer. Real prevention can only be achieved via excercise, proper nutrition and sunlight yet this is often ignored. We are treated by doctors with pharmaceuticals for conditions such as diabetes and depression even though they will never cure the condition, nor will the doctor ever really attempt to address the underlying causes. As these are conditions that can be reversed using natural means relatively easily, what are we waiting for?

In my opinion, we need to follow in the footsteps of countries such as Switzerland who have recently enshrined natural medicine into their constitution. This allows any citizen of the country to access a wide range of natural healing modalities as they will now be re-instated into their basic health insurance scheme.

What do ye think?

bonkey

Alternate medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry, worldwide.

How, exactly, does that qualify as being "suppressed"?

6th

I'd also like to add that I dont want to see any medical advice been given out here. Its against Boards.ie rules and will result in an instant ban. No question.

topper75

I don't think you are being totally fair to Irish doctors there. I mean I wouldn't say that they are actively suppressing exercise, proper nutrition and sunlight or trying to hide the fact that these things are good for you.

You sort of have a point altogether though. The pharma companies are powerful and would love it if people started to think 'pill' as their first resort for any old complaint. Many already do, sadly. I think some alternative practices are not much more than quackery though so the real enemy for it might be within. I did some work with pharma companies and wouldn't trust them as far as I'd throw them mind. Nature provides us with way more free cures than we care to learn about.

Don't some insurers here eg Quinn allow for alternative medicine expenditure?

humanji

I wouldnt' say it's being suppressed at all. Hell, my doctor always insists on me living healthily before prescribing any pharmacuticals.

I'd say it's more a case that people want an easy answer. They can take a pill, or cut out eating all the junk and do a bit of exercise. Most would take the pill. It's more a case of bad education in healthy living and laziness than a hidden agenda.

samson09

bonkey wrote: »

Alternate medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry, worldwide.

How, exactly, does that qualify as being "suppressed"?

Please show me where you are getting the figures from. Who exactly is reeling in the big profits. Homeopathists? Acupuncturists? Naturopaths?

samson09

topper75 wrote: »

I don't think you are being totally fair to Irish doctors there. I mean I wouldn't say that they are actively suppressing exercise, proper nutrition and sunlight or trying to hide the fact that these things are good for you.

Doctors havent got a clue about proper nutrition. A few doctors have openly agreed with me on this, stating they were given a few lectures on diet and nutrition while in college and that was that. One doctor even told me he hadnt a clue what a balanced diet is, but didnt feel the need to look into it further although he felt his patients should be able to access such information.

Wrt sunlight, we are constantly told that the sun is dangerous. We're told to cover up, stay clear of it and embalm ourselves in suncream. All this does is prevent people from having adequate supplies of Vit D, a vitamin which is currently being shown to be one of the most important for our health. As long as you dont burn yourself, the sun is quite good for you. Yet people in this country almost fear the sun. They think it will give them skin cancer while the truth is that they are more likely to get skin cancer from avoiding healthy exposure to the sun while applying copious amounts of chemical laden sun cream.

I suppose they do encourage exercise but people dont need to be told that anyway.

humanji

People are told to be careful when out in the sun, not to avoid it. Look around on a sunny day and you'll find loads of people who'll lay in the sun for hours, slowly roasting. That's not good for you and that's what people are warned against.

And those doctors just sound incompetent.

samson09

humanji wrote: »

People are told to be careful when out in the sun, not to avoid it. Look around on a sunny day and you'll find loads of people who'll lay in the sun for hours, slowly roasting. That's not good for you and that's what people are warned against.

And those doctors just sound incompetent.

Obviously people arent ordered to behave like vampires, but the general advice given about the sun is very negative. None of the benfits are usually discussed. As I said, as long as you dont burn yourself, the sun is quite good for you.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Obviously people arent ordered to behave like vampires, but the general advice given about the sun is very negative. None of the benfits are usually discussed. As I said, as long as you dont burn yourself, the sun is quite good for you.

What are you talking about?

The benefits of sunlight are well known.

As are the dangers.

You realise stuff can be healthy for you in proper doses and unhealthy in very high doses right?

bonkey

samson09 wrote: »

Please show me where you are getting the figures from.

As I've commented on another thread, I'm abit tight on time at the moment.

I'll dig up some sources and provide them, if - in return - you'll provisionally agree that if alternate medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry, then this would show that its not being suppressed.

If you're not going to accept that argument even if I provide the information, then I'm not sure I can see any point in me doing so.

Who exactly is reeling in the big profits. Homeopathists? Acupuncturists? Naturopaths?

If there is a multi-billion dollar industry, then it doesn't matter whether its running a profit or not. It matters that the collective populace are spending billions of dollars. This would be an indication that not only have they access to such products and services, but they choose to spend significant amounts of money on them.


ETA: Your example of Switzerland, incidentally, is a good indication of there being no coverup. The public initiated a referendum on the issue by collecting sufficient signatures. The referendum was held, and the public supported the initiative in large numbers, resulting in the referendum being passed, and the law altered so that bsaic health care was required to cover certain types of alternative medicine. How, exactly, does massive public support for an issue gel with the notion that the information is somehow being kept from the public?

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

If there is a multi-billion dollar industry, then it doesn't matter whether its running a profit or not. It matters that the collective populace are spending billions of dollars. This would be an indication that not only have they access to such products and services, but they choose to spend significant amounts of money on them.

Well if this is any to go by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine#Public_use_in_the_US

Its a fair amount of people that have access to and use Alt Med.

Not exactly suppressed.

In Ireland AFAIK you don't need a license to practice some Alt Med like reiki but I could be mistaken on that.

King Mob

Also I don't think screening for cancer is a preventative measure and is not claimed as such.
Doesn't it just check people who are at a higher risk of cancer so as to catch the cancer earlier than you would when symptoms appear?
And AFAIK early detection is a huge advantage in the treatment of any cancer.

samson09

Suppression can have many forms. What we see today is suppression of proper information by those in the medical community. In my opinion, doctors really dont know the truth, I'm sure if they did know they wouldnt keep the info. from people. It goes a lot higher than doctors so dont think I'm having a go at them.

E.g. Type 2 diabetes is a condition that can easiily be reversed without the use of any pharmaceuticals. If you happen to have type 2 diabetes, a doctor will not tell you this. You will be led to believe that this is a condition you will have for life and nothing can be done about it. Yet many people who take the alternative approach are able to wean themselves off insulin and can manage their blood sugar levels through diet alone.

If this isn't suppression of information I don't know what is. And its happening in this country now and until something is done about it nothing will change.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Suppression can have many forms. What we see today is suppression of proper information by those in the medical community. In my opinion, doctors really dont know the truth, I'm sure if they did know they wouldnt keep the info. from people. It goes a lot higher than doctors so dont think I'm having a go at them.

E.g. Type 2 diabetes is a condition that can easiily be reversed without the use of any pharmaceuticals. If you happen to have type 2 diabetes, a doctor will not tell you this. You will be led to believe that this is a condition you will have for life and nothing can be done about it. Yet many people who take the alternative approach are able to wean themselves off insulin and can manage their blood sugar levels through diet alone.

If this isn't suppression of information I don't know what is. And its happening in this country now and until something is done about it nothing will change.

There's a difference between not needing insulin and the disease being completely cured.
It is a condition you will have for life.
Have you good evidence to show otherwise?

And anyone I've talked to with diabetes monitors their food intake as well as take insulin.

And what's wrong with taking insulin exactly?
The body produces it naturally. Diabetes is a deficiency in it production.
Why not take insulin if your body can't produce the amount you need?

samson09

King Mob wrote: »

There's a difference between not needing insulin and the disease being completely cured.
It is a condition you will have for life.
Have you good evidence to show otherwise?

And anyone I've talked to with diabetes monitors their food intake as well as take insulin.

And what's wrong with taking insulin exactly?
The body produces it naturally. Diabetes is a deficiency in it production.
Why not take insulin if your body can't produce the amount you need?

There's nothing wrong with taking insulin, as you say its a natural substance produced by the body. However, even though people take insulin they are still not dealing with the root cause of their condition. People who take insulin may still die,go blind, have to have an amputation, etc.

Type-2 diabetes is reversible. Since the condition is defined by measurable symptoms, once a person restores normal sugar metabolism and the symptoms disappear, that person is by definition no longer diabetic. Diabetes is not genetic in origin, nor is it an inevitable condition for individuals whose parents expressed symptoms of diabetes. It can be reversed by eliminating the causes of poor blood sugar metabolism and insulin insensitivity – namely, poor nutritional choices and a lack of regular physical excercise.

If there was ample scientific evidence to prove this then we wouldnt be having this discussion. My "proof" is the many people I know personally or else have heard about (either from friends, family or on the internet) that have reversed their condition. This is why this topic is in the conspiracy theories forum. If you dont believe me thats fine, but as they say "the proof is in the pudding".

This is just one example of how natural methods of healing are being suppressed. I think its best not to get into other conditions/diseases as I'm sure it would only cause distress to people.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with taking insulin, as you say its a natural substance produced by the body. However, even though people take insulin they are still not dealing with the root cause of their condition. People who take insulin may still die,go blind, have to have an amputation, etc.

Isn't that what happens when you don't treat diabetes properly?

samson09 wrote: »

Type-2 diabetes is reversible. Since the condition is defined by measurable symptoms, once a person restores normal sugar metabolism and the symptoms disappear, that person is by definition no longer diabetic. Diabetes is not genetic in origin, nor is it an inevitable condition for individuals whose parents expressed symptoms of diabetes. It can be reversed by eliminating the causes of poor blood sugar metabolism and insulin insensitivity – namely, poor nutritional choices and a lack of regular physical excercise.

And how do you know this without any kind of properly controlled research?

samson09 wrote: »

If there was ample scientific evidence to prove this then we wouldnt be having this discussion. My "proof" is the many people I know personally or else have heard about (either from friends, family or on the internet) that have reversed their condition. This is why this topic is in the conspiracy theories forum. If you dont believe me thats fine, but as they say "the proof is in the pudding".

And as we all know anecdotal evidence is infallible.
As is the stuff you read on the internet.

And it's completely impossible that people untrained in medicine are mistaken about a medical condition. Or are lying.

samson09 wrote: »

This is just one example of how natural methods of healing are being suppressed. I think its best not to get into other conditions/diseases as I'm sure it would only cause distress to people.

Well you haven't shown anything to suggest to suggest that anyone is suppressing anything.
You've just insisted that diabetes can be cured by diet and exercise with no evidence at all to support that. And then you accuse all doctors of suppressing this information again without a shred of evidence.

And why not get into the conditions/diseases?
Do you have any good evidence to support the alternative, natural treatment?
Why would it distress anyone?

And there's a few other points others have brought up that go against the idea that "natural medicine" is in anyway suppressed.

But if it is suppressed how exactly do you know about them and try them?

samson09

King Mob wrote: »

Isn't that what happens when you don't treat diabetes properly?


And how do you know this without any kind of properly controlled research?



And as we all know anecdotal evidence is infallible.
As is the stuff you read on the internet.

And it's completely impossible that people untrained in medicine are mistaken about a medical condition. Or are lying.

Well you haven't shown anything to suggest to suggest that anyone is suppressing anything.
You've just insisted that diabetes can be cured by diet and exercise with no evidence at all to support that. And then you accuse all doctors of suppressing this information again without a shred of evidence.

And why not get into the conditions/diseases?
Do you have any good evidence to support the alternative, natural treatment?
Why would it distress anyone?

And there's a few other points others have brought up that go against the idea that "natural medicine" is in anyway suppressed.

But if it is suppressed how exactly do you know about them and try them?

Read my post again. I'm not accusing doctors of suppressing anything.
Something can be suppressed and still be known about by a minority of people.

I dont want to go into topics such as cancer because it will upset people. The topic can be discussed without mentioning such diseases. If you dont understand this then nothing I write will be good enough for you.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Read my post again. I'm not accusing doctors of suppressing anything.

Really?
Certainly seems that way.

samson09 wrote: »

E.g. Type 2 diabetes is a condition that can easiily be reversed without the use of any pharmaceuticals. If you happen to have type 2 diabetes, a doctor will not tell you this. You will be led to believe that this is a condition you will have for life and nothing can be done about it.

samson09 wrote: »

Something can be suppressed and still be known about by a minority of people.

And how do you know anything is being suppressed?
People can be mistaken about medical conditions. How do you know that this isn't the case here?

samson09 wrote: »

I dont want to go into topics such as cancer because it will upset people. The topic can be discussed without mentioning such diseases.

Translation: you would have to make a lot of completely unfounded claims that will most likely be shown to be false.
That about right?

But why would anyone be upset if you have this information and share it?

samson09 wrote: »

If you dont understand this then nothing I write will be good enough for you.

Well you either have evidence or you don't.
Do you have any verifiable evidence to support you claims about cancer and diabetes?
Do you have any verifiable evidence that show any such information is being suppressed?

And what about the false claims you made about cancer screening and insulin?

megmeg

Please look into Codex Alimentarius. The official site and the not so official sites. It will answer this thread. Look up Ian R Crane and Codex.
It is all about the worldwide suppression of Natural Medicines and the fasing out of Organic Farming.

espinolman

samson09 wrote: »

What are your views on this matter?

I believe natural medicine is being suppressed in this country .

bleg

not at all. it is not up to health professionals to ensure you live a healthy life i.e. proper exercise, diet etc... they're only there to give advice and help when things go wrong.

natural remedies usually consist of a whole plant chopped, dried and packaged. over 50% of pharmaceuticals come from natural sources whereby the plant material is procesed to extract the active ingredient.

I'd also like to know what you mean when you say that diabetes and depression can be successfully treated with so called natural remedies when this could not be further from the truth.

it is true that St. John's Wort can be of use in mild to moderate depression but other pharmacological intervention is more successful in this regard. with regard to diabetes there is no "natural remedy." saying otherwise is misleading and may cause serious damage to some people.

Edit: type 1 is completely genetic and results from an autoimmune reaction killing the B cells of the panceras resulting in a complete lack of insulin in the body. type 2 diabetes is also genetic to a certian degree and 99.9999999% of the time is irreversible, requiring pharmacological intervention for the rest of your life.

gerrycollins

Originally Posted by samson09
Type-2 diabetes is reversible. Since the condition is defined by measurable symptoms, once a person restores normal sugar metabolism and the symptoms disappear, that person is by definition no longer diabetic. Diabetes is not genetic in origin, nor is it an inevitable condition for individuals whose parents expressed symptoms of diabetes. It can be reversed by eliminating the causes of poor blood sugar metabolism and insulin insensitivity – namely, poor nutritional choices and a lack of regular physical excercise

while i cannot give or do not quailify for giving medical advice I can kinda confirm this and contradict it.

Type 2 diabetes is currently been investigated amongst pregnant women. My wife is one of the test subjects.

When we had our first born she was diagnosed late in the pregnancy however she was advised to go on a strict diet and was tested every 4 weeks. Every time she was tested the restults came back within supposed paramamters. This was largely due to diet she took no insulin during that time. afterwards she no longer had type 2

When she was pregnant with our second she was tested almost immediately as it more than likely reoccur in pregnancy with a fear that it may now continue past the pregancy period. This time however she was part of a subject group and apart from the normal GTT test which she passed she had to check daily 6 times as if she did have type 2.

During her testing time and as the pregancy went on she developed type 2 again but this time she had to take insulin. As time wore on her doses had to increase as bad results were becomming more common. however happily afterwards the type 2 dissappeared.

Now pregnant with our third(bTW all this in 4 years) she has gone through a series of GTT tests and has been testing regularly and there has been no reoccurance of type 2. This alone contrdicts the doctors telling us that she will have a reoccurance with every pregancy. This time she is watching her diet ,sort of.

I cannot answer for anyone why this has happened and there is no history in her immediate family.

My own personal opnion on the matter is that on pregnancy 2 when she started taking insulin her body kinda developed a need for it because evey few weeks she had to increase her doses. She only started to take the stuff after the doctors found 1 high reading in her weekly checks but the other 2 times her diet sorted it out.

On the matter of the natural medicines been supressed im not so sure. I think people themselves are responsible because they want a guarenteed result and not a possible result from some herb or remedy.

Personally i believe in natural remedy's and have seen them work where conventional medicine has not but what doctor in ireland in going to stake his practise on a possible outcome of something that has not been medically proven?

bleg

megmeg wrote: »

Please look into Codex Alimentarius. The official site and the not so official sites. It will answer this thread. Look up Ian R Crane and Codex.
It is all about the worldwide suppression of Natural Medicines and the fasing out of Organic Farming.

yup i agree that so-called natural medicines are being phased out. this is because isolated medications ,produced to a sufficient standard of quality and efficacy, are more successful at treating and curing disease than eating a few herbs.

organic farming is also being phased out as newer farming techniques are more effective at producing more food to feed the growing human population. if the whole world went organic in the morning, millions and millions would die of starvation on top of the people who are dying already.

dvpower

samson09 wrote: »

I believe that natural medicine is actively being suppressed in this country (and most other first world countries) through a campaign of misinformation and scare mongering. For example, in the case of cancer prevention, we are offered "screening" which of course does absolutely nothing to prevent cancer. Real prevention can only be achieved via excercise, proper nutrition and sunlight yet this is often ignored.

So are you in favour of suppression of natural medicine?

espinolman

bleg wrote: »

yup i agree that so-called natural medicines are being phased out. this is because isolated medications ,produced to a sufficient standard of quality and efficacy, are more successful at treating and curing disease than eating a few herbs.

organic farming is also being phased out as newer farming techniques are more effective at producing more food to feed the growing human population. if the whole world went organic in the morning, millions and millions would die of starvation on top of the people who are dying already.

I looked into this years ago and how i figured it is that there are certain minerals and trace elements that are present in organisms and it is unknown what their function is , and the thing is if certain trace elements or minerals are at low levels or missing from non- organic food then would that contribute to ill health ! I think it is better to play it safe and eat organic for that reason.

I have heard that natural medicines such as herbs have their own vitamins and minerals , i personnaly would prefer a medicine which does not have a deficiency in nutrients . .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

I looked into this years ago and how i figured it is that there are certain minerals and trace elements that are present in organisms and it is unknown what their function is , and the thing is if certain trace elements or minerals are at low levels or missing from non- organic food then would that contribute to ill health ! I think it is better to play it safe and eat organic for that reason.

That's not how it works I'm afraid.

espinolman wrote: »

I have heard that natural medicines such as herbs have their own vitamins and minerals , i personnaly would prefer a medicine which does not have a deficiency in nutrients . .

That's not how medicine works.
It has nothing to do with nutrients. Medicine isn't mean to supply nutrients at all.
That's what food is for.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

That's not how it works I'm afraid. .

I am not saying that is how it works , i am posing the question - can a deficiency in certain minerals or trace elements contribute to ill health .

2Scoops

samson09 wrote: »

This is just one example of how natural methods of healing are being suppressed.

Exercise and lifestyle intervention are frontline therapies from type 2 diabetes and have been for years. The amount of study on them by the supposed perpetrators of this conspiracy (doctors/Western medicine) is mind boggling. You're wrong on this one.

bleg

espinolman wrote: »

I looked into this years ago and how i figured it is that there are certain minerals and trace elements that are present in organisms and it is unknown what their function is , and the thing is if certain trace elements or minerals are at low levels or missing from non- organic food then would that contribute to ill health ! I think it is better to play it safe and eat organic for that reason.

I have heard that natural medicines such as herbs have their own vitamins and minerals , i personnaly would prefer a medicine which does not have a deficiency in nutrients . .

indeed it has been found that organic produce contains increased amounts of antioxidants. this can only be beneficial for the body but is not essential. i'd prefer to eat non organic food and not starve than to eat organic food only and starve.

you are right when you say that if certain essential components are missing from non organic food then there would be issues. in fact there is no evidence to prove the lack of these compounds, quite to the contrary, it was found that organic and non organic food are equal in nutrition, consumer safety and taste.

with regard to your second point, you should be getting your intake of vitamins and minerals from your diet. there is no need to supplement if you eat a balanced diet. nobody (not even the nuttiest herbalist) will recommend alternative medicines to treat a mineral/vitamin deficiency.

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

I am not saying that is how it works , i am posing the question - can a deficiency in certain minerals or trace elements contribute to ill health .

Yes. But that's not caused by non-organic food.
Organic food and non-organic food are the same except forwhat pesticides are used. That's it.

samson09

2Scoops wrote: »

Exercise and lifestyle intervention are frontline therapies from type 2 diabetes and have been for years. The amount of study on them by the supposed perpetrators of this conspiracy (doctors/Western medicine) is mind boggling. You're wrong on this one.

Since doctors do not tell people that type 2 diabetes can be completely reversed through diet and excercise, I see this as the subject being suppressed.

Just my 2 cents, 2scoops

samson09

King Mob wrote: »

Organic food and non-organic food are the same except forwhat pesticides are used. That's it.

That statement is so far removed from the truth I dont even know where to begin!

You're not serious, are you?

bleg

well it can't really be completely reversed so you're wrong. blood glucose levels can be kept in an optimum level with healthy eating, regular exercise and pharmacological intervention i.e. drugs.

it is true that if you're on the road to type 2 diabetes e.g. obese, genetic disposition, metabolic syndrome etc... you may avoid getting type 2 diabetes without pharmacolgical intervention

bleg

samson09 wrote: »

That statement is so far removed from the truth I dont even know where to begin!

You're not serious, are you?

from wikipedia

Organic foods are made according to certain production standards. The use of conventional non-organic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides is greatly restricted and avoided as a last resort. However, contrary to popular belief, certain non-organic fertilizers are still used. If livestock are involved, they must be reared without the routine use of antibiotics and without the use of growth hormones, and generally fed a healthy diet. In most countries, organic produce may not be genetically modified.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Since doctors do not tell people that type 2 diabetes can be completely reversed through diet and excercise, I see this as the subject being suppressed.

Just my 2 cents, 2scoops

And what evidence shows that it can be completely reversed.

samson09 wrote: »

That statement is so far removed from the truth I dont even know where to begin!

You're not serious, are you?

Because it is true.

Organic foods are made according to certain production standards. The use of conventional non-organic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides is greatly restricted

They are slightly more nutritional than non organic foods. But are more expensive and produce less yield.

Eating non organic food is no more dnagerous than eating organic food.

samson09

Theres much more to organic food than you think!

From www.naturalnews.com

Sources included.

Organic foods can be considered to be better and healthier not only for the consumer but also for the environment. Organic foods are considered to be more nutrient dense than their counterparts produced via modern farming practices.

Dr. David Thomas, a physician and researcher, has studied and compared the United States government guidelines and tables for the nutritional content of various foods. These tables have been published by the government first in 1940 and again in 2002. Dr. Thomas has noticed a trend that supports the decline in the nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables produced via modern farming practices in recent decades. Because of his research Dr. Thomas has posed the following question, "Why is it that you have to eat four carrots to get the same amount of magnesium as you would have done in 1940?"

A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition lists many nutrients that appear to be altered based on how they are farmed. The study looked at organic apples, pear, potatoes, wheat, and sweet corn and compared the levels of certain nutrients in relation to the commercially available counterparts produced via modern farming practices. The study lists the macronutrient chromium as being found at levels 78% higher in organic foods. The study also showed that Calcium is found at a level 63% higher in organic foods and Magnesium is found at a level 138% higher in organic foods. Other studies have shown that the use of pesticides can also alter the levels of certain vitamins including B vitamins, vitamin C, and beta-carotene in fruits and vegetables.

In 2003 a study was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry which found that organic corn had 52% more vitamin C than the commercially available counterpart which was grown utilizing modern farming practices. This study also found that polyphenol levels were significantly higher in the organic corn.

While many studies have been done looking into the benefits of organic produce there still is much to be learned. Dr. Marion Nestle the chair of New York University's department of nutrition, food studies and public health has said, "I don't think there is any question that as more research is done, it is going to become increasingly apparent that organic food is healthier."

Many studies including a study recently published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have done much to reinforce the perception of many American consumers that organic foods are both better for the consumer and the environment.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Scienc...
http://lookwayup.com/free/organic.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/org...

samson09

King Mob wrote: »

Eating non organic food is no more dnagerous than eating organic food.

Here's one nice little consequence of eating non organic food...

From www.naturalnews.com

According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, most researchers believe exposure to some kind of toxin or toxins in the environment triggers the development of Parkinson's disease (PD) -- the degenerative disorder of the central nervous system that impairs motor skills (including walking), speech and other functions. Pesticides have long been on the list of possible suspects as a PD-causing toxin. But a new study just published in the American Journal of Epidemiology by University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) scientists appears to be the "smoking gun" that places pesticides at the top of that list. They found that exposure to a combination of two widely used pesticides increased the risk of Parkinson's disease by an incredible 75 percent.

In previous animal studies and cell cultures, researchers have shown pesticides spark a neurodegenerative process that leads to Parkinson's disease. The UCLA scientists, however, are the first to provide evidence for a similar process in humans.

They came up with their alarming results by analyzing an epidemiological study of Central Valley, California, residents. The region is one of the nation's top food-growing regions and crops like potatoes, dry beans and tomatoes have long been routinely sprayed with fungicides, herbicides and pesticides.

For their study, the UCLA researchers enrolled 368 longtime residents of Central Valley who had been diagnosed with Parkinson's and 341 other PD-free residents as a control group. Their analysis found that people who lived within 500 meters of fields sprayed with two pesticides, maneb and paraquat, between 1974 and 1999 had an extraordinary 75 percent increased risk for Parkinson's. What's more, people who were diagnosed with PD by the age of 60 or younger were found to have been at much higher risk because they had been exposed to maneb, paraquat or both in combination between 1974 and 1989, during the time they were children, teens or young adults. In these people, early pesticide exposure had increased their risk for the disease by four to six times.

"The results confirmed two previous observations from animal studies. One, that exposure to multiple chemicals may increase the effect of each chemical. That's important, since humans are often exposed to more than one pesticide in the environment. And second, that the timing of exposure is also important," UCLA scientist Beate Ritz, professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health, said in a statement to media about her research team's findings.

She added that this is the first epidemiological study to provide strong evidence that maneb and paraquat work together to become highly neurotoxic in humans and greatly increase the risk of PD. What makes this particularly concerning is that the UCLA data "suggests that the critical window of exposure to toxicants may have occurred years before the onset of motor symptoms when a diagnosis of Parkinson's is made," Dr. Ritz said.

For more information:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl...
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/

samson09

Here's some more reading material if you're interested:

Altered Breast Tissue Development in Young Girls Linked to Pesticides
http://www.naturalnews.com/019828.html

Pesticides and chemical fertilizers clearly linked to premature births
http://www.naturalnews.com/021957.html

The facts about organic foods; having more vitamins and minerals protects you from chronic disease
http://www.naturalnews.com/001408.html

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Here's one nice little consequence of eating non organic food...

From www.naturalnews.com

Snip

Yea that looks like a impartial site alright.


I note that the paper is referring to exposure to pesticides near a farm not eating non-organic food.

That's a bit misleading don't you think?

And why is it that you quote this scientific paper but can't quote any other scientific to back up your other claims?

Isn't the UCLA part of the conspiracy to keep natural medicine down?

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Here's some more reading material if you're interested:

Altered Breast Tissue Development in Young Girls Linked to Pesticides
http://www.naturalnews.com/019828.html

Pesticides and chemical fertilizers clearly linked to premature births
http://www.naturalnews.com/021957.html

Yep more of the same. They refer to exposure to spraying of pesticides not eating non organic food.

Have you given up on your other claims now?

And I have to say this is an awful lot of research for something you claim is surpressed.

samson09

King Mob wrote: »

Yea that looks like a impartial site alright.


I note that the paper is referring to exposure to pesticides near a farm not eating non-organic food.

That's a bit misleading don't you think?

And why is it that you quote this scientific paper but can't quote any other scientific to back up your other claims?

Isn't the UCLA part of the conspiracy to keep natural medicine down?

It highlights how harmful the pesticides that are used on foods really are.

I quoted this paper because I had it filed on my computer, I can find more research if you want to be anal about it.

I never stated UCLA was part of any conspiracy, if I did, please show me where I made such a mistake.

So, can you still tell me there isnt much difference between organic and non organic produce.

What do you have to say about the rest of the info. I linked?

6th

Lads, lets read the thread title again and stick on topic.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

It highlights how harmful the pesticides that are used on foods really are.

You mean the pesticide that isn't on the product when you eat it?

I'm sure they use tons of nasty stuff when making plates or cutlery doesn't mean plates and forks are harmful.

samson09 wrote: »

I quoted this paper because I had it filed on my computer, I can find more research if you want to be anal about it.

Maybe while you're looking you can find the evidence to back up your claims about cancer and diabetes.

samson09 wrote: »

I never stated UCLA was part of any conspiracy, if I did, please show me where I made such a mistake.

Well you never specified, did you?
You just said that someone is keeping the research down. Care to name and shame? And then back it up with some evidence?

samson09 wrote: »

So, can you still tell me there isnt much difference between organic and non organic produce.

Yes because there isn't that much of a difference.
There is no harm what so ever in eating only non organic food.

samson09 wrote: »

What do you have to say about the rest of the info. I linked?

See above.

samson09

King Mob wrote: »

You mean the pesticide that isn't on the product when you eat it?

I'm sure they use tons of nasty stuff when making plates or cutlery doesn't mean plates and forks are harmful.

Maybe while you're looking you can find the evidence to back up your claims about cancer and diabetes.

Well you never specified, did you?
You just said that someone is keeping the research down. Care to name and shame? And then back it up with some evidence?

Yes because there isn't that much of a difference.
There is no harm what so ever in eating only non organic food.

See above.

I can't continue this discussion with you, its become obvious you only see what you want to see, even after everything has been clearly laid out for you. Anyone who thinks there is absolutely no harm in eating non organic food is only fooling themselves. And may I remind you KingMob, if all the evidence about diabetes being easily reversed was readily available for all to see, this thread wouldnt be in the Conspiracy Theories forum, remember where you are.

Lets hear what other people think

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

I can't continue this discussion with you, its become obvious you only see what you want to see, even after everything has been clearly laid out for you.

No it hasn't. You've offered no evidence to back up any of your claims.

samson09 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks there is absolutely no harm in eating non organic food is only fooling themselves.

Why? What evidence do you have that eating non-organic food has harmful effects?

The links you provided are only referring to direct exposure to pesticides not eating the food it was used on.

Do you realise this is a bit misleading?

samson09 wrote: »

And may I remind you KingMob, if all the evidence about diabetes being easily reversed was readily available for all to see, this thread wouldnt be in the Conspiracy Theories forum, remember where you are.

So if there is no evidence (especially the verifiable kind) how do you that it is reversible?

How do you know there is a conspiracy and that there isn't another explanation?

samson09

Spreading the Organic Word
by Shane Heaton, Organic Food News Quarterly

A growing number of consumers, and especially those dealing with chronic illness, are switching to organic food. A key motivation for consumers doing this is a simple belief that it's better for them. But is it true that there are health benefits to eating organic food?
Official food agencies around the world are unanimous in claiming there is no evidence of a nutritional difference. Yet a more careful and thorough review of the science comparing organic and non-organic food reveals that, collectively, the available evidence does indeed support the consumer belief and claims by the organic industry that their food is safer, more nutritious, and better for you than non-organic food.
Health Benefits of Organic Food

HIGHER NUTRIENT LEVELS
It's often claimed that a large number of studies have found no difference in the nutrient content of organic and non-organic crops. It's true there have been more than a hundred studies comparing the nutrient content of organic and non-organic foods and the results are inconclusive. But this is because the majority of studies are of poor quality, being either agriculturally or analytically flawed.
I reviewed the literature using clear validity criteria to ensure relevant nutrients were being compared in properly matched organic and non-organic crops. This eliminated 72% of comparisons as invalid. The results of these spurious studies were either dramatic, inconclusive, non-significant or inconsistent, as would be expected, and served only to obfuscate the clear trend in the valid data that organic crops, on average, do contain higher levels of trace minerals, vitamin C, and antioxidant phytonutrients.
Official food composition tables, including data compiled by the US Department of Agriculture, reveal that since the 1940s the mineral levels in fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy have declined substantially in conventional foods. Combine this with earlier (pre-ripened) picking, longer storage, and more processing of crops, and it's not surprising that we may be getting fewer nutrients in our food than we were 60 years ago.
The artificial fertilization associated with conventional crops produces lush growth by swelling produce with more water. On a pound-for-pound basis, organic food has more "dry matter" (i.e. food). Partly because of this (and for other reasons too), there are higher levels of nutrients in organic produce. Research by American nutritionist Virginia Worthington has confirmed that, based on current dietary patterns, the differences can be enough to help you achieve the recommended daily allowances for certain nutrients that you otherwise may not get.
We can expect also that phytonutrients, many of which are antioxidants involved in the plant's own defense system, will be higher in organic produce because crops rely more on their own defenses in the absence of regular applications of chemical pesticides. Evidence is emerging that confirms this expectation. Higher levels have so far been found of lycopene in organic tomatoes, polyphenols in organic potatoes, flavonols in organic apples, and resveratrol in organic red wine. A recent review of the subject estimated that organic produce will tend to contain 10-50% higher phytonutrients than conventional produce.
Health Benefits of Organic Food

LOWER PESTICIDE RESIDUES
Consuming more organic food certainly isn't the only way to improve one's nutrient intake, but it may be the safest. It's regularly claimed by the mainstream food industry that pesticide residues in foods are known to be safe on the basis of total diet surveys that supposedly find the levels of pesticide residues in our food to be very low and within acceptable safety limits. But monitoring programs consistently show that around one in three non-organic food samples tested contains a variety of pesticide residues, with far lower levels being found in and on organic produce. Conventional-food proponents also claim that rigorous safety assessments show that pesticide residues are no threat to human health. Yet consumers intuitively know this is a false assurance.
Most pesticide-residue safety levels are set for individual pesticides, but many samples of fresh produce carry multiple pesticide residues. Rules often do not take into account the "cocktail effect" of combinations of pesticides in and on foods. Research is emerging confirming the potential for such synergistic increases in toxicity of up to 100-fold, resulting in reproductive, immune and nervous system effects not expected from the individual compounds acting alone.
Israeli researchers have linked symptoms such as headaches, tremor, lack of energy, depression, anxiety, poor memory, dermatitis, convulsions, nausea, indigestion and diarrhoea with dietary intakes of pesticides. Belgian research has found that women diagnosed with breast cancer are six to nine times more likely to have the pesticides DDT or hexachlorobenzene in their bloodstreams compared to women who did not have breast cancer. Hawaiian researchers following 8,000 people for 34 years have found that increasing consumption of conventional fruit and juice (and the pesticide residues they carry) raises the risk of Parkinson's disease.
Dr. Vyvyan Howard, toxico-pathologist at the University of Liverpool, UK, comments on the trend towards organic food on the part of health-minded consumers:
"People are applying the precautionary principle to their own lives by purchasing food that has not been produced by industrial methods. From the simple stance of hazard avoidance, organically produced food is the best option that we have."
The British Medical Association appears to agree:
"Until we have a more complete understanding of pesticide toxicity, the benefit of the doubt should be awarded to protecting the environment, the worker, and the consumer—this precautionary approach is necessary because the data on risk to human health from exposure to pesticides are incomplete."
Health Benefits of Organic Food

CHILDREN NEED IT THE MOST
Children's immature and developing organs, brains, and detoxification and immune systems, plus their larger intake of food per kilo of body weight, combine to make them even more susceptible to toxins than adults. American toddlers eating mostly organic food have been found to have less than one sixth the pesticide residues in their urine compared to children eating conventional foods, lowering their exposure from above to below recognized safety levels.
Elizabeth Gillette's landmark 1998 paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives showed how a combination of low-level environmental, household and dietary exposures caused subtle yet measurable developmental deficits in children. Gillette compared children in two nearby isolated villages in Mexico, one in which pesticides were routinely used in their farming, and one in which they were not. Everything else was the same between these two villages—genes, diet, lifestyle, climate, culture, etc. The study found significant differences between the two groups in both mental and motor abilities (with the children who were exposed to pesticides scoring at a much lower level), as well as an increase in aggressive behavior.
In many Western countries, children and adults are similarly exposed to multiple sources of pesticides, and in 1995 an Australian study of breast milk found that infants are regularly exposed to several pesticides at levels greater than maximum recommended exposures. In Canada, a direct correlation has been observed between pesticide contamination of breast milk and increased risk of otitis media in Inuit infants.
Organic Food and the Problem
of Antibiotic ResistanceConsidering the growing problem of increasing antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria, animal farming may be a much larger contributor to the problem than over-prescription of human antibiotics by doctors.

While the use of antibiotics is severely restricted in organic farming, they're used extensively in non-organic farming to promote growth and to prevent disease from decimating intensively reared, overcrowded, stressed farm animals. As much as 60% of all the antibiotics used in Australia are given to farm animals, not people.

University of Queensland marine biologist Dr Simon Costanzo reported in the March 2005 issue of Marine Pollution Bulletin that antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria are common in the sewage and waterways of the state capital Brisbane, potentially posing a threat to human health and the environment. The British Medical Association has warned that antibiotic resistance is "one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21st century," while the World Health Organization has called for a reduction in the use of antibiotics in agriculture.

Better animal welfare standards in organic farming minimize the need for antibiotics and other veterinary drugs—they are used only when strictly necessary.

Health Benefits of Organic Food

FOOD ADDITIVES
Artificial colorings and preservatives in food and drink are thought to contribute to hyperactivity in pre-school children, and while many still contest this issue, a recent study in the UK found that the proportion of hyperactive children was halved when additives were removed from their diets. Many additives—such as preservatives, artificial sweeteners, colorings and flavorings, MSG, hydrogenated fat, and phosphoric acid—are prohibited in organic food production.
Health Benefits of Organic Food

BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES
A recent review of controlled animal feeding trials found significant improvements in the health of animals given organic feed, and concluded:
"Reproductive health [and] incidence and recovery from illness are sensitive measures of health status and should be given appropriate weight. Taking all of this into account, the available data are very strong with regard to the health benefits of organic feed and food."
Similar tests with humans are problematic, though evidence is emerging here too. An early observational study revealed that boarding-school students eating predominantly organically for three years experienced a "very marked decline" in colds and influenza, more rapid convalescence, excellent health generally, fewer sports injuries, a greater resilience to fractures and sprains, clear and healthy skin, and improved dental health.
A recent Danish organic human three-week feeding trail with 16 subjects found significantly higher concentrations of quercetin (an antioxidant flavonoid) not only in the organic diets but also in the urine of those eating organically, confirming increased absorption and systemic circulation.
Health Benefits of Organic Food

THE BOTTOM LINE
So is organic food better for you? In my opinion, yes. Decreasing one's toxin burden and increasing one's intake of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants can have a significant impact on health, especially when trying to improve or restore health.
Can people afford it? I'm certain of it. Official household spending statistics in Australia and the UK reveal that the average family spends five times more on junk food, take-away (carry-out food), alcohol, and tobacco than on fruits and vegetables, and five times more on recreation than on fruits and vegetables. To make healthier choices they need encouragement and education.
I believe it's a false assumption that advocating organic food will reduce fruit and vegetable consumption due to the higher price. Perhaps people will instead cut down on junk food, take-away, alcohol, and cigarettes. Some even report anecdotally that the better taste of organics facilitates an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption that was hitherto unachievable.
Chris Ashton of the UK-based Nutritional Cancer Therapy Trust asserts:
"Those concerned with the fight against disease know that our bodies are designed to overcome disease processes before they become established. Our systems are readily disrupted by toxins and an absence of sufficient quantities of nutrients."
Organic foods are a simple way to reduce an individual's toxin burden of pesticides and food additives, increase their nutrient intake, and perhaps alter their consumption patterns away from less healthy choices.
Organic food isn't a luxury. It's how food's supposed to be, and a valuable part of any regimen intended to maintain, improve, or restore health.

King Mob

In all these copy paste articles I notice how they fail to mention the significantly lower yield.

Like how they say that we could afford it.
But 40% more expensive for up to half the yield to than non organic methods, I wonder how many other countries can afford it?

I also notice that these have nothing to do with the conspiracy you claim as organic food is freely available as is the research on it.

samson09

King Mob wrote: »

In all these copy paste articles I notice how they fail to mention the significantly lower yield.

Like how they say that we could afford it.
But 40% more expensive for up to half the yield to than non organic methods, I wonder how many other countries can afford it?

I also notice that these have nothing to do with the conspiracy you claim as organic food is freely available as is the research on it.

Yield and expense are irrelevant for the topic being discussed.

The suppression in this case is in the form of misinformation of the general public.

You are the general public.

You believe there isnt much difference between non organic and organic food.

There obviously is.

You are the perfect example of desired outcome of suppression.

Congratulations.

Here's a medal.

indough

but you havent shown proof that its better for us all round

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Yield and expense are irrelevant for the topic being discussed.

Oh so it's ok for the proponents of organic food to leave out important details then?

samson09 wrote: »

The suppression in this case is in the form of misinformation of the general public.

You are the general public.

You believe there isnt much difference between non organic and organic food.

There obviously is.

You are the perfect example of desired outcome of suppression.

Congratulations.

Here's a medal.

There's a difference alright. It's not much. It's just a difference in growing methods.
There is simply no good scientific evidence to support that they are significantly more healthy.

You have copy-pasted many many links. Yet you still say it's suppressed?

Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong?

Is your only evidence for a conspiracy is the impossibility that you are wrong?

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019

Oh and you've still to back up the claims you made at the start of the thread.