2010 seems to be an unlucky year for me. Really. I somehow started to sneeze regularly for I don't know what. My mum says that it's probably an allergy. I was never ever allergic to anything, so why should I become allergic now? But is it really a coincidence that whenever I start to sneeze is when I go outdoor, pet a cat,etc. ? No, I haven't seen the doc yet, and I don't plan on doing so for quite a while, it's just sneezing after all..I can live with that, but really what if it gets worse, i.e. an unstoppable process, and I become really allergic to my pets, and the nature I admire so much?! Now that would really be a downfall.
But really, that isn't the point in question, more like WHY/HOW would anyone who wasn't allergic to anything previously DEVELOP an allergy in the first place? What could be the causes? Maybe someone could explain it to me, or if you feel like sharing your own experiences with allergies, then feel free to do so. Hey, I know..this is probably one of the rather dumber questions on this forum..but yeah.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to enlighten me about this subject.

Anyone can get them at anytime of their life.The process is initiated by a harmless foreign object coming in contact with the body and the immune system mistaking this substance as a danger to the well-being of the body, then you have a reaction which can be very bad or like you just a sneeze.

Yeah, I know that much. I guess I worded my question wrongly.. More like, why does the immune system suddenly think of something as a threat when before that it was just perfectly fine with it?

They haven't found out that I know of yet. Like something short circuts and it can't tell good from bad, like when you get to drunk! ;)

More like, why does the immune system suddenly think of something as a threat when before that it was just perfectly fine with it?It's been suggested that this is yet another instance of our caveman's body not being suited for modern life, because our civilization has evolved much faster than our biology.

In the pre-modern era, the environment was chock full of pathogens. Every baby was attacked by a zillion really nasty bacteria, viruses and other creepy things from the moment he was born. His immune system was put to work immediately. It could only develop antibodies for the worst things it encountered.

Nowadays the environment is much less hostile, particularly in the cities. On top of that, we vaccinate kids against everything from dreaded smallpox and poliomyelitis to plain old survivable measles and influenza. And on top of that, some people actually don't allow people to touch their babies.

Their immune systems don't have anything against which to calibrate themselves, so they go haywire. When some unusual bit of organic matter shows up in the blood, the immune system starts screaming, "Omigod, I've never seen this before, it must be trying to kill us!" That's basically what an allergy is. As to why it only kicks in later in life, it's probably because life has gotten so clean that our immune systems are bored and will attack anything unusual.

It's gotten to the point that immune systems, for lack of anything else to do, start attacking the body's own tissues. That's how lupus and fibromyalgia work.

Have you ever stopped to marvel at the concept of people being allergic to wheat? Where the hell did that come from? How long do you suppose a person who couldn't eat bread would have survived in the Middle Ages, about four days?

Are you guys sure? I thought allergies existed for like all of time :X

It's been suggested that this is yet another instance of our caveman's body not being suited for modern life, because our civilization has evolved much faster than our biology.

Yes, people do suggest that, but it’s conjecture. The rise in allergy rates in the developed world is still mostly a mystery. There is a lot of paradoxical and contradictory evidence.



His immune system was put to work immediately. It could only develop antibodies for the worst things it encountered.

No. Our immune systems develop antibodies to all the pathogens we encounter.



On top of that, we vaccinate kids against everything from dreaded smallpox and poliomyelitis to plain old survivable measles and influenza.

“Plain old” measles and influenza? There’s nothing “plain” about either of those infections. Whilst their lethality has lessened considerably due to modern medicine, measles and influenza can both cause serious complications in children who are not vaccinated against them.



Their immune systems don't have anything against which to calibrate themselves, so they go haywire. When some unusual bit of organic matter shows up in the blood, the immune system starts screaming, "Omigod, I've never seen this before, it must be trying to kill us!" That's basically what an allergy is.

Well, no, not really. That’s not a very good explanation of allergies.

Here is what the experts say:



Genetic factors contribute to the development of IgE-mediated allergy, but environmental factors may also be important.

As many as 40% of people in Western populations show an exaggerated tendency to mount IgE responses to a wide variety of common environmental allergens. This state is called atopy and seems to be influenced by several genetic loci. Atopic individuals have higher total levels of IgE in the circulation and higher levels of eosinophils than their normal counterparts. They are more susceptible to allergic diseases such as hay fever and asthma. Studies of atopic families have identified regions on chromosomes 11q and 5q that appear to be important in determining atopy; candidate genes that could affect IgE responses are present in these regions.

The prevalence of atopic allergy, and of asthma in particular, is increasing in economically advanced regions of the world, an observation that is best explained by environmental factors. The four main candidate environmental factors are changes in exposure to infectious diseases in early childhood, environmental pollution, allergen levels, and dietary changes. Alterations in exposure to microbial pathogens is the most plausible explanation at present for the increase in atopic allergy. Atopy is negatively associated with a history of infection with measles or hepatitis A virus, and with positive tuberculin skin tests (suggesting prior exposure and immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis). In contrast, there is evidence that children who have had attacks of bronchiolitis associated with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection are more prone to the later development of asthma. It might be expected that exposure to environmental pollution would worsen the expression of atopy and asthma. The best evidence shows the opposite effect, however. Children from the city of Halle in the former East Germany, which has severe air pollution, had a lower prevalence of atopy and asthma than an ethnically matched population from Munich, exposed to much cleaner air. This does not mean that polluted air is not bad for the lungs. The children from Halle had a higher overall prevalence of respiratory disease than their counterparts from Munich, but this was predominantly not allergic in origin.

While it is clear that allergy is related to allergen exposure, there is no evidence that the rising prevalence of allergy is due to any systematic change in allergen exposure. Nor is there any evidence that changes in diet can explain the increase in allergy in economically advanced populations.

Immunobiology, 5th edition
Janeway, Travers, Walport Shlomchik
New York: Garland Science; 2001.
ISBN: 0-8153-3642-X

If you want to cure your allergies for good, all you have to do is change your diet.

I've had bad allergies since I was a kid. But now I don't have allergies anymore and I also don't get sick anymore. Allergies are simply a sign that your body is being burdened with more pressing issues, such as malnutrition and toxicity, and doesn't have available resources to deal with anything that might cause an allergic reaction. In a state of bad health, the body also has a tendency to overreact to these allergens. So you're probably thinking that you're in a state of good health, right? Wrong. And here's why- the experts don't know what good health is, so how would you? The experts don't understand the connections between the crap we eat and how our bodies uses those chemical concoctions we shove down there. Remember, you are what you eat. Our bodies are only meant to eat certain foods, and only certain chemicals. Your body doesn't know what to do with the rest of that junk. Unfortunately, "that junk" is what makes up most of modern day diets. You must learn what the junk is so you can avoid it.

So here's what you need to be healthy, and be free of allergies for life:

1)Stop eating processed dead foods. Shop at Wholefoods or some other health food store. Throw away your microwave. Forget about the nutritional chart on the backs of food items. Read only the ingredients. Avoid all chemicals that don't belong in your body, such as MSG, dyes, and most any chemical-sounding ingredient- especially MSG(MSG has many names so watch out). Keep fluoride away from your body, including your toothpaste.
2)Eat only organic fruits and vegetables. Vegetables should be raw or fermented when possible. Avoid nightshades such as tomatoes, white potatoes, eggplant, and peppers. Fruits and vegetables should be a big part of your diet obviously.
3)Find a good local farm to buy your meat from. If you're a vegetarian, stop being one. All meat should come from organic, grass-fed sources, and should be eaten as raw as possible and cooked at low heat to preserve nutrients and such. Animals should eat only food that is part of their natural diet. Eat pastured eggs- raw or cooked at low heat. Don't be afraid to eat the fat too- it's good for you.
3)Avoid most oils. Especially do not cook with most oils because many oils quickly become unhealthy. I only cook with organic cold-pressed coconut oil. Make coconut oil a part of your life- it's very healthy. It can also withstand being cooked at higher temperatures.
4)Sprout or soak all nuts, seeds, legumes, and grains- and they should be raw and organic. Eat sprouted whole wheat bread. Stay away from all soy products- it's not healthy, it's bad for you.
5)Drink ONLY grass-fed, organic RAW milk. Use ONLY raw grass-fed butter from your farm source.
6)Get any metal removed from your mouth as soon as possible. Avoid vaccines and any other drug for that matter, unless it's an emergency.
7)Drink more water. Do not drink chemically enhanced water.
8)Don't eat fish because it can't be trusted. It's full of heavy metals.
9)Use all-natural, organic cleaning and hygiene products. The aluminum in deodorant is bad. The fluoride in toothpaste is bad(ask your dentist about DenClude instead).
10)Take these supplements:
-probiotic
-vitamin C
-vitamin D
-calcium/magnesium
-cod liver oil
-alpha lipoic acid
-multivitamin
All supplements should be from a high-quality source, such as: http://www.drrons.com/

Finally, ignore what you hear about keeping healthy from mainstream sources- They are usually wrong. That includes conventional doctors, and their pharmaceutical masters.

Buy these books: Nourishing Traditions, by Sally Fallon and Traditional Foods Are Your Best Medicine, by Ronald Schmid

Go to this website, it's a great place to start: http://www.westonaprice.org/home-mainmenu-1.html

Cut your emotional attachment to food. Think of every single bit of food that goes into your mouth as medicine for your body. Nourish every single cell of your body as if they are living beings(which they are). Your healthier, allergy-free life awaits.

Wow, breathtaking post. But I don't think that I could eat raw, or almost raw meat O_O
I actually already started to look into buying more organic products, especially when it comes to fruits, and vegetables. And I was never a fish eater anyway, so yay. I'll check out the rest. Thanks for answering, guys! :)

Finally, ignore what you hear about keeping healthy from mainstream sources- They are usually wrong. That includes conventional doctors, and their pharmaceutical masters.
Evidence please.

Evidence please.

Evidence being the state of health in America and other "developed" countries, and the dramatic change in the state of my health due to adopting my new diet.

I may have exaggerated when I said not to trust all mainstream health authorities, but for the most part it holds true.

Evidence being the state of health in America and other "developed" countries, and the dramatic change in the state of my health due to adopting my new diet.
Then you have little understanding of the meaning of the word "evidence". Or how evidence is obtained and validated.


I may have exaggerated when I said not to trust all mainstream health authorities, but for the most part it holds true.
Bull.

For example, mainstream health would have you believe that saturated fat causes heart disease. That's not true at all.

Mainstream health would have you believe that soy is a health food. But it's just a cheap-to-grow cash crop, and it's harmful.

Mainstream health makes it as hard and expensive as possible to buy nutritional supplements. The pharmaceuticals that actually work are hidden from the public as much as possible(ie. natural desiccated thyroid meds, Denclude toothpaste,...)

Cancer is preventable and mostly curable but this information is kept from the public. Here's a good site to check out: http://www.gerson.org/

Mainstream health dumps toxic fluoride into our drinking water, and mercury into our mouths(even mainstream health figures are starting to see the harm in this).

This list could go on forever, and everything I write is supported by loads of research. The counter, mainstream positions are only supported by corporate propaganda. For example: "Fluoride has been shown to be safe and effective" is the extent of the science supporting this claim.

Evidence being the state of health in America and other "developed" countries, and the dramatic change in the state of my health due to adopting my new diet.That's not evidence. It's the argument Post hoc ergo propter hoc, "Correlation implies causation." And it's one of the most insidious types of fallacy.

Both observations could be the effects of some other cause that hasn't yet been identified. Or it could be pure coincidence; coincidences happen all the time.

For example, mainstream health would have you believe that saturated fat causes heart disease. That's not true at all.
And you know this, how?


Mainstream health would have you believe that soy is a health food. But it's just a cheap-to-grow cash crop, and it's harmful.
Same question.


Mainstream health makes it as hard and expensive as possible to buy nutritional supplements.
Evidence please.


Cancer is preventable and mostly curable but this information is kept from the public. Here's a good site to check out: http://www.gerson.org/
Gerson is a fraud and a crank. IIRC his "treatment" has actually killed a number of people.


This list could go on forever, and everything I write is supported by loads of research. The counter, mainstream positions are only supported by corporate propaganda.
Hmm, as opposed to, say, crank propaganda? Or self-interested party propaganda? Or unsupported with actual evidence propaganda?
I see what you mean.

That's not evidence. It's the argument Post hoc ergo propter hoc, "Correlation implies causation." And it's one of the most insidious types of fallacy.

Both observations could be the effects of some other cause that hasn't yet been identified. Or it could be pure coincidence; coincidences happen all the time.

The reason I started this new diet is because my identical twin brother started it first, and he got excellent results. He didn't have allergies anymore, he didn't get sick much anymore(never for more than a day or 2 and very rarely), he got thinner(despite eating all of the stuff that mainstream health says makes you fat), got noticeably better skin, and he has more energy. Basically- the definition of good health.



Gerson is a fraud and a crank. IIRC his "treatment" has actually killed a number of people.

First of all, mainstream cancer treatment options kill millions of people every year. And also, how can you believe that propaganda against him. There's a multi-billion dollar conglomerate of industries trying to discredit the man. Besides, if anybody has died while in his treatment, don't you think there was an underlying cause for it- not the treatment itself.

BTW, I could send you mountains of evidence, studies, research, and testimony to back up any claim I've made here.

But there's also counter claims by the mainstream health authorities and other invested parties as well.

In the end it comes down to who you trust. I trust the scientists and researchers that don't bow down to corporate interests.

The reason I started this new diet is because my identical twin brother started it first, and he got excellent results. He didn't have allergies anymore, he didn't get sick much anymore(never for more than a day or 2 and very rarely), he got thinner(despite eating all of the stuff that mainstream health says makes you fat), got noticeably better skin, and he has more energy. Basically- the definition of good health.
And what else do you and he do health-wise, besides this diet?


First of all, mainstream cancer treatment options kill millions of people every year.
Millions? I agree that cancer treatments can prove lethal but, at the same time, those treatments actually do help arrest or slow the cancer itself.


And also, how can you believe that propaganda against him.
And how do you know it's propaganda?


There's a multi-billion dollar conglomerate of industries trying to discredit the man.
Because he refuses to actually provide supporting evidence for his "treatment" to anything other than circumstantial and hearsay/ anecdotal. They're "trying to discredit" him the way they "discredit" any crank who makes claims he can't justify.


Besides, if anybody has died while in his treatment, don't you think there was an underlying cause for it- not the treatment itself.
Nope. It was the treatment (http://benhills.com/articles/articles/MED06a.html). And your "if" comment is trying to imply that it may not be the case that there were deaths. That's somewhat dishonest.

You appear to be as much a conspiracy theorist on health issues as you are on the "chemtrail" thing.

BTW, I could send you mountains of evidence, studies, research, and testimony to back up any claim I've made here.
Please do so. And then I'll forward the "evidence, studies and research" to the health authorities. One reason they come down so hard on the cranks is the absolute lack of hard evidence and valid (reliable) studies. If YOU have access to any then you're privy to more information than has been provided to any official body.


I trust the scientists and researchers that don't bow down to corporate interests.
Yeah, I wonder why the cranks get the same short shrift in the UK....

Edit: I suggest you get hold of a copy of this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278551501&sr=1-1) book. It's most informative.

And what else do you and he do health-wise, besides this diet?

Nothing besides moderate exercise, which we've always done.


Millions? I agree that cancer treatments can prove lethal but, at the same time, those treatments actually do help arrest or slow the cancer itself.

The reason it slows or kills the cancer is the same reason it slows or kills the person as a whole. It's not a targeted method of cancer fighting. It's just basically a game of let's see who dies first- the cancer or the patient.


You appear to be as much a conspiracy theorist on health issues as you are on the "chemtrail" thing.

I have learned not to trust people simply because they are official authority figures. In fact, I've learned that people in power tend to lie and cheat just like the rest of use, the only difference being that they have better commercials.

Well the proof is in the pudding. My health has improved on every level dramatically with this diet. Those following similar diets have had the same results. It's just that simple.

If you want evidence, I suggest you start with Weston A. Prices's research.

Nothing besides moderate exercise, which we've always done.
It would be interesting to study this.


I have learned not to trust people simply because they are official authority figures.
You've merely swapped one set of "authority figures" for another. And your new set has less rigour in its claims.


In fact, I've learned that people in power tend to lie and cheat just like the rest of use, the only difference being that they have better commercials.
So why do you believe Gerson? Or anyone else for that matter?


If you want evidence, I suggest you start with Weston A. Prices's research.
Link please.
You did say "I could send you mountains of evidence, studies, research, and testimony to back up any claim I've made here".

The reason I started this new diet is because my identical twin brother started it first, and he got excellent results. He didn't have allergies anymore, he didn't get sick much anymore(never for more than a day or 2 and very rarely), he got thinner(despite eating all of the stuff that mainstream health says makes you fat), got noticeably better skin, and he has more energy. Basically- the definition of good health.But this is not a controlled experiment, so it's not science. No one is monitoring this rigorously. When people go on diets it's because they're in a mood to change their life. They usually make several other changes at the same time, not things you or anyone close to him would notice because you're not looking for them. Without a neutral observer you have no way of knowing whether his health improved because of the diet or because of something else he did that neither of you even realizes. I have spent three decades with a wife who has been on more diets than I can count, so I know whereof I speak.

This is what distinguishes science from just "fooling around and hoping it works."
First of all, mainstream cancer treatment options kill millions of people every year.Cancer is (in the majority of cases) a fatal disease. The reason they call people who have lived for five years "survivors" is that they're not especially optimistic that they'll last another five years. So signing up for a risky treatment is just a gamble, a matter of personal choice: Sure, the treatment might kill me, but if it doesn't, I might live longer than I will otherwise.

But the risk must come with a potential benefit, or else it's stupid to take it. The treatment in question must have some evidence of potentially fighting the cancer--scientific evidence, not the kind of majestic arm-waving evidence you're talking about with your brother's diet.
There's a multi-billion dollar conglomerate of industries trying to discredit the man.This isn't the Soviet Union. Big Business may have a lot of power, but there are always voices speaking out freely in opposition. Which respected scientists have lined up on his side?
Besides, if anybody has died while in his treatment, don't you think there was an underlying cause for it- not the treatment itself.What a strange question to ask on a science board! We're not supposed to jump to conclusions, we're supposed to examine the evidence.

Be a proper scientist and start with Occam's Razor, one of the cornerstones of the scientific method: Test the simplest solutions first. The simplest solution to this question is that the treatment did indeed kill the patient. This does not mean that it is the correct answer, it just means that it's the quickest and easiest to test. If it's the wrong answer you'll know quickly, and then you can spend more time testing the complicated answer. But if you start with the complicated answer first, it could take years to discover that it's wrong, and you've wasted all that time.

3)Avoid most oils. Especially do not cook with most oils because many oils quickly become unhealthy. I only cook with organic cold-pressed coconut oil. Make coconut oil a part of your life- it's very healthy. It can also withstand being cooked at higher temperatures.

Coconut oil is TERRIBLE for you. It's one of the worst oils there are. It's almost all saturated fat with almost no mono/poly unsaturated fats. Ideally, you would never use coconut oil in cooking.

Evidence being the state of health in America and other "developed" countries, and the dramatic change in the state of my health due to adopting my new diet.


Statistically speaking, "developed" countries including the USA have way higher life expectancies than underdeveloped countries. Get a clue, you pseudoscientific dip. You should quit spamming your links to scam sites too. Your posts resemble infomercials.

I'm wheat intolerant, but I certainly didn't have an overly sanitized upbringing. I'm very well acquainted with muck :)

You've merely swapped one set of "authority figures" for another. And your new set has less rigour in its claims.

I trust unbiased biochemists and research first, you trust invested politicians and press releases first.



So why do you believe Gerson? Or anyone else for that matter?

I trust that the human body has great potential to heal itself(and prevent disease) when given proper nutrition, and when unburdened from toxicity. That's all that Gerson's methods do. It clears the body of debilitating toxins, and nourishes the body with nutrition, so that the body can then be fully functional to fight off the cancer. For example- If a piece of broccoli requires, lets say calcium, in order to fulfill the request of it's DNA but there's no calcium in the soil, this broccoli plant might still grow but it will not be fully functional. It's calcium deficiency might affect it's ability to withstand too much sun or something. The same is true with the human body- it requires certain things in order to function properly. That is the goal of my diet- to supply my body with those things, and to keep out the things which hinder my body's functions.

I'm constantly changing and refining my diet as I gather new info. If you have any suggestions I'd appreciate it.


Coconut oil is TERRIBLE for you. It's one of the worst oils there are. It's almost all saturated fat with almost no mono/poly unsaturated fats. Ideally, you would never use coconut oil in cooking.

That's weird. I wonder how it is that mankind has been able to withstand the harmful effects of saturated fat all these millions of years.

Here's a link I'm sure you'll read:
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/526-skinny-on-fats.html


Statistically speaking, "developed" countries including the USA have way higher life expectancies than underdeveloped countries. Get a clue, you pseudoscientific dip. You should quit spamming your links to scam sites too. Your posts resemble infomercials.

Lets take it down a notch because I didn't come here to battle. I realize that we have a higher life expectancy than underdeveloped countries. I don't understand what that has to do with my diet though.
What site do you think is a scam?

I trust unbiased biochemists and research first, you trust invested politicians and press releases first.
Hmm, slight error there.
"Unbiased" chemists and research?
Give me an example of "invested politicians and press releases" that I trust please.


I trust that the human body has great potential to heal itself(and prevent disease) when given proper nutrition, and when unburdened from toxicity. That's all that Gerson's methods do.
Apart from killing people with his treatment, you mean?

I'll repeat this, since you appear to have ignored it:

If you want evidence, I suggest you start with Weston A. Prices's research.

Link please.
You did say "I could send you mountains of evidence, studies, research, and testimony to back up any claim I've made here".
Or are you now backing down from your claim?

Hmm, slight error there.
"Unbiased" chemists and research?
Give me an example of "invested politicians and press releases" that I trust please.

I was making a general statement about your apparent blind trust in official authority figures. I didn't necessarily mean it literally.

I would be glad to give you a link. Is there something specific you had in mind about my diet?

I was making a general statement about your apparent blind trust in official authority figures. I didn't necessarily mean it literally.
So you were guessing? And getting it wrong.


I would be glad to give you a link. Is there something specific you had in mind about my diet?
Which bit of YOUR OWN POST did you miss?

Originally Posted by You
If you want evidence, I suggest you start with Weston A. Prices's research.

So you want me to give you information about Dr. Prices research? Do you want his bio? Have you heard of Google? Ok well here's some links for you:

Read his book: http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston-Andrew/dp/0879838167

See his foundation: http://www.westonaprice.org/home-mainmenu-1.html

So you want me to give you information about Dr. Prices research?
That would seem to be implied in my wording "link please".


Do you want his bio?
No, I want his research.


Have you heard of Google?
I have, but I assumed that when you wrote

BTW, I could send you mountains of evidence, studies, research, and testimony to back up any claim I've made here.
you were being honest.


Ok well here's some links for you:
Read his book: http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston-Andrew/dp/0879838167
See his foundation: http://www.westonaprice.org/home-mainmenu-1.html
Ah, I see. You weren't being honest.
His book, and his site do NOT show the research (either procedures or methods), merely his conclusions.
Do wish to retract your claim?
Have you actually read his research or merely the conclusions he came to based on research that he will not let accredited institutions have access to?

You're right. Upon closer inspection, everything can be proven insufficient of evidence and proof. Weston Price could have made it all up. Maybe the fact that my allergies went away is all coincidence too. And the fact that I haven't gotten sick this year for the first time, and the fact that I don't get headaches anymore, and the fact that I no longer get acid reflux or indigestion or diarrhea(what used to be a common occurrence for me), or the fact that my bowel movements are regular and complete and a thing to behold, or that fact that I no longer get sunburned, or the fact that my skin has improved and I no longer get heat rashes on my back or elsewhere while working and sweating all day, or the fact that I no longer get those little random ingrown hair bumps on my forearms, or the fact that I have so much more energy now than I used to...

Maybe we're all lying to you, to get you to invest in coconut oil and organic farming....maybe it's all just a conspiracy.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. You keep waiting for the perfect evidence. I'll keep being healthy.

I said I "could" not that I would. I honestly didn't think you would hold me to it.
And you don't think that's at least a little dishonest? What's the point in saying you "could" if you have no intention of actually doing so? That's as useful as me claiming I could jump from here to the Moon, but I don't feel like doing it whenever anyone asks me to prove it. Would you believe me?
You're trolling.
Edit: editing your post, however quickly, didn't stop my quote showing your admission of dishonesty.


But you're right. Upon closer inspection, everything can be proven insufficient of evidence and proof.
Untrue.


Weston Price could have made it all up.
The fact that he will not publish his research or let others check his figures tends to lend some weight to that, doesn't it?


But you have to draw the line somewhere. You keep waiting for the perfect evidence.
And again you mistake my intent. I'm not after perfect evidence, merely reliable evidence.

Edit: editing your post, however quickly, didn't stop my quote showing your admission of dishonesty.

Wow you are quick! I'm impressed.

Ok I give in. You're right. I don't have the evidence. I'll stop trolling here.

That's weird. I wonder how it is that mankind has been able to withstand the harmful effects of saturated fat all these millions of years.
Excessive sat. fat intake has the same effects on people that it always has had. Recently, longer lifespans and increased inactivity exacerbated some of the results. Duh.


You're right. Upon closer inspection, everything can be proven insufficient of evidence and proof. Weston Price could have made it all up. Maybe the fact that my allergies went away is all coincidence too. And the fact that I haven't gotten sick this year for the first time, and the fact that I don't get headaches anymore, and the fact that I no longer get acid reflux or indigestion or diarrhea(what used to be a common occurrence for me), or the fact that my bowel movements are regular and complete and a thing to behold, or that fact that I no longer get sunburned, or the fact that my skin has improved and I no longer get heat rashes on my back or elsewhere while working and sweating all day, or the fact that I no longer get those little random ingrown hair bumps on my forearms, or the fact that I have so much more energy now than I used to...


I have never had allergies, haven't ran a fever in years, almost never get headaches, never have GERD, diarrhea, indigestion, irregular BMs, rashes, sunburn, or ingrown hair bumps, I weigh just 160 lbs at 6'0", and I don't subscribe to any of that idiotic nonsense you have posted. However, I am a nurse, so I know pretty well what is necessary to keep healthy. Perhaps you would benefit from some re-education.


Ok I give in. You're right. I don't have the evidence. I'll stop trolling here.

See ya fatboy.