08-12-2012, 03:08 AM
What is the deal with Paleobird? I have been on health forums for well over a decade dealing with a lot of personalities but I have NEVER ran across anyone so full of anger and themselves who believe everyone else is wrong but them. I see she ran from here because she was getting her butt kicked and ran over here to bash me some more thinking I would not see it:
And I see she is calling someone else, Dr. Anna, "demented". She obviously does not realize that by her thinking everyone else is "demented", "paranoid", "nutcase", "crazy", etc. is not done by a normal person!!!
A normal person if they disagree with you will provide evidence that you are wrong. Normal people do not simply state that everyone that they disagree with is somehow crazy. That makes them appear paranoid.
If a rational person thinks the other person is wrong they will tell themselves that the only way they can show that person is wrong is by providing actual evidence to the contrary. A rational person knows that is they simply keep claiming everyone else is wrong and resorts to personal attacks to try and chase the other person away instead of addressing the claims that this just proves to everyone that they have no clue what they are talking about in the first place.
She won't even discuss her views on soy with me claiming she does not have time. Does it really take more time to discuss soy than it does to post all of her personal attacks against others throughout this site? Just think, if she is really correct about soy and has the evidence to prove it here would be her opportunity to put me in my place, which she obviously would love to do. Obviously though she knows as little about soy as she does medicine. If I am wrong Paleobird then present some evidence to back your claims. Don't tip toe around like you did with my question for you as to where you get your medical information since you think scientific and medical research published in the medical journals is "cuckoo stuff".
08-12-2012, 03:19 AM
You are spot on.
Originally Posted by JamesS
This forum was a different place before she started getting vocal and preachy and patronising. I agree with what others have said, her and another similar member,mentioned above too, effectively drove a number of people away because they couldn't stand it. I left for most of a year too. I am lucky enough to be in contact with most of those people in real life but it is a real shame, this forum was great when it was more-- even.
As for what is wrong? Turf war. She does seem to think this forum is her own, so she is pissed you have a voice and others listen. She probably assumed you would just back down when she declared she didn't like your input because you were exposing flaws in her reasoning. Hard to maintain smug superiority and patronise others when you are exposed!I think she has lost a lot of credibility.
Nice to finally see someone stand up to her!
I like your style James. I will be following what you post.
Last edited by amberlee; 08-12-2012 at 03:26 AM.
08-12-2012, 03:40 AM
And all her references to having better things to do? After policing the Iodine threads so no one else could get a word in!
The extent to which she thinks she is the final word around here is evident in the way she keeps declaring you two actually agree. Are you glad you got the formal seal of approval, lol! In *her* thread!
I can't stand it, it would be interesting to see if the atmosphere changed if a couple of dominant people took a break for a while. and before anyone says it -- don't like it leave! -- yeah, that's what I did/will do...my input is merely social but a lot of others who have left had some great stuff to contribute.
08-12-2012, 04:30 AM
There is no doubt that HIV exists. It is rather hard to deny when there are actual electron microscopy images of the virus.
Originally Posted by breadsauce
As for it being sexually transmitted there is no doubt here either. Medical studies have also proven it is airborne transmitted as are some other leukemia viruses, spread by bed bugs and mosquitoes, transmitted in blood and one study even found it can be transmitted through the skin. All of these facts have been published in prestigious medical journals that can be found in any medical library, which is where I found them.
But, researchers also found that HIV could not infect healthy CD4 cells even with direct manipulation. They found the only CD4 cells they were able to infect were those of leukemia patients that already had severely compromised immune systems. This is why true HIV infection is not that widespread.
As for testing they are right. Actually, there are no common lab tests that can confirm the presence of any particular virus. The ONLY way this can be done is with electron microscopy. But this procedure is very slow, super expensive and like searching for a needle in a haystack. Therefore, it is not used as a diagnostic test.
Antibody tests cannot confirm the presence of a virus. In fact, there are over 65 known causes for false positives on HIV antibody tests. Most of these known causes are due to a problem called serological cross reactivity. Basically this means that antibodies of like structure can cross react on the antigen test targets yielding false positives. Even the manufacturers of these tests admit to this being a problem in their product inserts.
False positives can also occur from exposure without chronic infection. It is like if you have the flu and get over it then go in a month later for an antibody test for influenza if one existed you would test influenza+. Does this mean you have the virus? Of course not. It shows the immune system successfully fought off the virus using the antibodies in the process. This is basic immunology that the so-called AIDS experts somehow never seemed to learn.
The funny thing is that they use a second, less accurate, antibody test to "confirm" a positive result. It does not take a medical expert to understand how ludicrous it is to do something like that.
And how come these so-called "AIDS experts" don't understand the concept that the same exact antibodies that yield a false positive on the first antibody test are going to yield a false positive on the "confirmation test" since the cross reacting antibodies are not specific to HIV? Again, this is basic immunology!!!
One of the best examples of these false positives occurred in California years ago. A TV news station down there was doing an expose' on HIV/AIDS. They bought a piece of steak at the local market and had the HIV tested. The steak came back HIV+. They tried to claim that HIV+ factory workers at the meat processing facility had infected the cow. Problem with this claim is that a dead cow cannot produce antibodies. Thus the cow had to have the cross reacting antibodies to begin with. Where did those antibodies come from? If a cow is infected with bovine leukemia virus (BLV) the antibodies can cross react on HIV antigen targets because BLV is the second closest known relative to HIV there is. BLV shares 51% of the genetic markers for HIV including the same exact gene that codes for reverse transcriptase.
Some people believe that polymerase chain reaction (PCR, viral load) can confirm the presence of a virus and its activity. This is simply not true. Nor are the claims of a 99.9% accuracy rate. In fact, a new test came out a few years ago that claimed it was significantly more accurate than PCR. How can you get significantly more accurate than 99,9% accurate? The manufacturers are simply making up wild claims to promote their products.
PCR cannot confirm the presence of any particular virus since it does not use the entire genetic sequence. Shared genetics from other pathogens can yield false positives so the test results are really subjective. For example look at how the hepatitis C virus shares sequences with various other viruses including those from plants:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Mar;87(6):2057-61.
Hepatitis C virus shares amino acid sequence similarity with pestiviruses and flaviviruses as well as members of two plant virus supergroups.
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an important human pathogen that is associated with transfusion-related non-A, non-B hepatitis. Recently, HCV cDNA was cloned and the nucleotide sequence of approximately three-quarters of the virus genome was determined. A region of the predicted polyprotein sequence was found to share similarity with a nonstructural protein encoded by dengue virus, a member of the flavivirus family. We report here that HCV shares an even greater degree of protein sequence similarity with members of the pestivirus group (i.e., bovine viral diarrhea virus and hog cholera virus), which are thought to be distantly related to the flaviviruses. In addition, we find that HCV shares significant protein sequence similarity with the polyproteins encoded by members of the picornavirus-like and alphavirus-like plant virus supergroups. These data suggest that HCV may be evolutionarily related to both plant and animal viruses.
One report in a journal I read was discussing how often doctors could not agree on what pathogen they were looking at with PCR results. As I once wrote about PCR in an old post elsewhere:
" PCR is like taking a deck of cards and and pulling a single card from the deck. Then without even looking at the card claiming the card is the Jack Hearts all because it shares some similarities to the card. If you keep doing this eventually the card will actually be the Jack of Hearts. But the odds of being correct with each pull are stacked against you."
PCR is also prone to numerous other problems including "product carryover", machine calibration issues, replication cycles, operator experience, etc. Some doctors are aware of these problems though such as this one:
Re: For God's Sake please answer HCV PCR Question - Forum on Hepatitis and HIV Coinfection -- TheBody.com
As I pointed out earlier there are no common lab tests that can confirm the presence of any particular virus. These tests are more sales tools that diagnostic tools.
More evidence of false positives on PCR that I saved from an old post:
Detection of hepatitis C virus RNA by a combined reverse transcription PCR assay: comparison with nested amplification and antibody testing.
"Many of the current reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assays for the detection of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA are multistep processes which use multiple enzymes and buffers. The assays are also often suboptimal, requiring nested amplification to achieve the desired levels of sensitivity. As a result, these assays are cumbersome and prone to false-positive results. The susceptibility to contamination is further aggravated by the lack of carryover controls. "
Reliability of polymerase chain reaction for detectio... [Lancet. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI
"Central Laboratory of the Netherlands Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service, Amsterdam, Netherlands.The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used to detect hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA, and the results of this assay may have a bearing on management of patients. We tested 31 laboratories for performance of HCV PCR with a coded panel that comprised 4 HCV-positive plasma samples, 6 HCV-negative samples, and two dilution series of HCV-positive plasma. 15 (48%) laboratories had faultless results with both dilution series, and 16 (52%) laboratories reported erroneous results with one or both series. 10 (32%) laboratories had faultless results when testing undiluted plasma samples, 11 (35%) produced a false-negative result with a weak-positive sample, and 10 (32%) produced false negative and/or false positive results. Only 5 (16%) laboratories performed faultlessly with the entire panel of samples. Reports of presence of HCV should be interpreted with care until reliable HCV-RNA detection becomes widely available"
One of the most famous examples of false positives by PCR was when there was a claim that a British sailor died of HIV induced AIDS back in 1950. PCR of preserved tissues seemed to back this claim, but it was later proven that the samples were contaminated in the lab.
08-12-2012, 04:41 AM
That was not evidence, that was Wikipedia where anyone can post their opinions.
Originally Posted by breadsauce
Furthermore, I never claimed HIV does not cause AIDS. I clearly stated that HIV could not cause under the original definition of AIDS, which is why the definition of AIDS was later changed to fit the virus. Thus under the new expanded definition of AIDS yes, HIV can cause AIDS. And it remains only one of several causes of AIDS.
Now, what I asked you to present evidence to was proof that HIV could cause AIDS under the original definition. Clearly you could not do that since the evidence that HIV causes AIDS under the original definition does not exist. So thanks for playing. Next?!!!
08-12-2012, 04:52 AM
I really prefer seaweeds (kelp) as a source of iodine for several reasons.
Originally Posted by chronyx
First is that seaweeds also provide other required nutrients needed for proper thyroid function.
Secondly, seaweeds support the other glands that have feedback mechanisms with the thyroid.
And seaweeds contain lower, safer amounts of iodine.
One thing though is that I highly recommend slowly reducing your iodine dose. When people take excessive doses of iodine the thyroid originally kicks in to high gear. But an overactive thyroid is dangerous so in response the thyroid starts reducing its ability to utilize iodine to protect itself from the poisonous levels of iodine. If the person suddenly reduces their iodine levels drastically it can throw the body in to a severe state of hypothyroidism.
As I mentioned earlier I am helping someone right now that had this happen. And it has been a rock road trying to get him to recover. He is now taking herbs to support his thyroid including herbs to improve the utilization of the iodine still in his system to take advantage of it so he will not crash as bad. So far it has been working great. But there were some rough days there where he was so weak he could not even stand and severe confusion. I would hate to see you or anyone else go through this by suddenly dropping iodine intake drastically from poisonous high doses.
08-12-2012, 06:48 AM
What is your take on cholesterol? Is total cholesterol something we should ignore?
08-12-2012, 07:54 AM
Cholesterol is not the issue the drug companies make it out to be. Their scare tactics is just part of pushing the sale of heart failure promoting statins. Oh, I can just see Paleobird biting her tongue on that one.
Originally Posted by KathyH
What they are not telling people is that about 50% of people who have heart attacks have normal to low cholesterol levels. In addition, excessively low cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart attack and stroke.
Here is an old response I did to someone's question about the benefits of cholesterol:
Yes, cholesterol is very important to the body. In fact low cholesterol is extremely dangerous and can lead to heart attacks, stroke, dementia, depression, etc.
High cholesterol though can only have two reasons though. Either the liver or the thyroid are not working properly.
The liver regulates the synthesis and the breakdown of cholesterol and is the main reason for high cholesterol. People often have a hard time grasping this because they think if their liver tests come back normal that their liver is working fine. Liver enzyme tests are not testing for liver function though. They are looking for liver damage.
The thyroid aids in cholesterol metabolism. And when the thyroid is under active inflammatory homocysteine can rise leading to arterial inflammation and plaque formation. This is where the "protective reaction" really comes in. Cholesterol is a healing agent for the body. When we injure an area the cholesterol floods the area to help promote healing of the injury. This is true whether it be a cut or damage to an artery from something like high blood pressure. The reason we end up with arterial plaque has absolutely NOTHING to do with high cholesterol. Again when the arterial wall is injured the cholesterol lays down over the injured area as a patch work to promote healing. If the source of that inflammation is not removed then the cholesterol keeps laying down over the injury, which leads to the narrowing and possible eventual occlusion of the artery.
What is really ironic though and also shows the ignorance of the drug companies and the FDA is the use of statin drugs for high cholesterol. They tell the public that they need to keep their cholesterol low to prevent heart attack. But statin drugs are extremely well know in the medical system to cause heart failure by decreasing CoQ10 levels, leading to a deficiency of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). In fact, a commonly mentioned side effect of statin drugs is a condition called rhabdomyolosis, which is a breakdown of muscle tissue due to an ATP deficiency. This is why the commercials tell you if you experience muscle pain tell your doctor right away. What they don't mention is that the heart is also a muscle and deteriorates to the decline in ATP the same way as skeletal muscle does. In addition, statin drugs are also well know for causing liver damage. Since the liver is responsible for breaking excess cholesterol down in the first place the liver damage from statin drugs can raise cholesterol levels in the long run.
So we are back to the idiocy of the medical establishment. Not only do they fail to address the cause of the problem, but they also prescribe drugs that can lead to the same problems they are supposed to address. Again a better scam that the iodine peddlers have going.
If people want to help prevent the cholesterol from depositing on arterial walls then their main focus needs to be on keeping the arteries healthy (silica and vitamin C primarily) and keeping arterial inflammation down. Common causes of arterial inflammation include high blood pressure, diabetes (insulin damage), cow's milk (contains inflammatory xanthine oxidase), smoking and hypothyroidism (increases inflammatory homocysteine).
Fish oil is a good source of anti-inflammatory omega 3 fatty acids. And for those who are worried about cholesterol fish oil also helps increase HDL and lower LDL. Fish oil and chromium supplementation can also lower triglycerides.
08-12-2012, 07:58 AM
Originally Posted by JamesS
A bit late for the slow titration now But I seem to have survived.
How many mg of kelp-based iodine would you suggest? I think the standard dose is 150mg.
08-12-2012, 08:21 AM
Did you mean 150mcg? Or is the 150mg mean 150mg of kelp, not iodine?
Originally Posted by chronyx
As far as iodine I recommend 150mcg daily in most cases.