I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Grant's May 2022 Update
I've already written about psyllium or other fibers a number of times. I've tried psyllium husk, acacia fiber, charcoal, and clay on my mostly carnivore low Vitamin A diet, and I don't see that they've benefitted me at all...if anything, they muck up my GI tract.
I think fiber is simply unnecessary for any kind of detox when your gut biome is healthy, and I think the best way to make your gut biome healthy is by removing plants from the diet. Pooping more doesn't equate to more toxins coming out, it equates to more unusable fiber coming out, and maybe more bacteria coming out because they've multiplied on the fiber. Fiber depletes you of bile acids and cholesterol, both of which are essential for health. It also inhibits nutrient absorption to some extent...maybe not that much, depending on the circumstances, but any inhibition is worse than none when your body is starved for nutrients in order to detox.
I've been wondering lately if the people that think they see benefits from fiber are actually benefitting from increased molybdenum intake (when they're eating beans), or if they've added supplements (like molybdenum) at the same time as adding fiber and cannot distinguish the effects of one from the other.
My diarrhea stopped as soon as I stopped supplementing magnesium. I've been having 1-2 Bristol Scale 4 bowel movements per day on mostly meat and fat with a tiny bit of white rice here and there. Don't...need...fiber...
@ggenereux2014 I am grateful for the raising of the topic, it's sure an interesting one, and I'm always excited to see a blog post from you.
@wavygravygadzooks I don't disagree with your views on meds including herbs. I do think you should possible study the notion of "fair fighting" so that you get in less trouble in your arguments. In general it's about discussing the topic and not the people. I feel you are a smart guy, I like the content of your posts (even when I sometimes don't agree), but it's so easy to get people mad at you with writing on the web (ask me how I know this). It's also nice to read and re-read and make things even more polite than you think necessary. And here I am talking about you which is a no-no and probably going to get you mad at me!
Now, if you are going to tell Grant not to wander into creationism, I'm not sure it's fair for you to talk about evolution starting with primordial soup. We don't really know how life began and a creator is about as likely as primordial soup (to me). All I know is that I don't know how living things began, I don't know which came first the chicken or the egg. I just don't know. Primordial soup is as much religion as a thunder god.
I do sort of feel like having rna/dna sort of makes a thing alive though.
I remember back in biology we had a wicked good teacher. He didn't always have the answers.
He had us go out to the grass/trees and take a bunch of samples of the environment (including water, dirt, vegetation) in a mason jar and then had us put it on the shelf for about a month.
Then he made us look at it, smell it, whatever we wanted. Then we had to try to define "what is life".
I'm always intrigued by genesis which states "in the beginning there was the word".
Edit: I'm not religious. But sometimes these old texts do have eons of philosophy in them. The quote is actually the New Testament, and the current translation is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
I hear you Arena, you are right, this isn't a fight. I'm not sure it is entirely true that Wavy hasn't used what I might call judging words. (which aren't allowed in so-called "fair fighting"). Also, sometimes a person isn't even using judging words but can be construed to be doing it, just because you can't hear the inflection of their voice on the internet. You loose a lot of info when you go to just words. Even when he said something like "don't go down the creationist path with this!" that could be construed as judging words. It's tough, and I don't want to silence Wavy at all. I've gotten a lot of people mad at me on the internet, and I'm struggling with it just as much as anyone.
There might even be times when judging words are the right thing. I'm not averse to their usage when necessary. I don't think of myself as a snowflake, I just think what flies in real-life debate needs to be brought to an even more polite place on the inter webs. It's very hard to communicate as easily when all of the non-verbal cues are gone.
If a person said jokingly "don't you dare go down the creation black hole" with a smile on their face and a friendly expression it's different than a person with a sneer saying it.
Strangely enough, I'm fairly robotic, LOL and it has taken me many years to realize that much of communication is non-verbal. They told me this at my first job as a computer programmer. I was like: "whhhaaaat?"
Anyways, to return to the subject at hand, Viruses and Onions!
With the non-viral model, how does one explain getting something like chicken pox over-with and having immunity afterward? I remember those chicken pox parties as a child.
It's so interesting that Wavy hates the smell of garlic. I'm always interested in the idea that our tastebuds can tell us things. The onion and garlic thing can get to be too much, but I like a little. I wonder if Grant liked it. I had a bunch of basil at an Italian meal the other night, and the next day I had a back spasm... Sigh...
There is a thing called a super taster. Autistic kids often have the urge for the bland. What is the connection? Some think autism can be caused by vaccines for viruses. Look at that interesting connection between the two topics.
(or maybe even all three topics! as I said, I think I'm fairly robotic, and perhaps someone MIGHT say I could be "on the spectrum", and that could be why I've had to figure out how to not get people mad during debates).
Are many people here "possibly on the spectrum"?
@grant A lot of people are waking up to the notion that viruses are not what we thought they were because of the last two years. I'm a gay man who has had a kind of 'Covid' hanging over my head all my life in form of 'HIV'. I became aware of challenges to the HIV theory of AIDS 20 years ago and it completely opened my eyes to the world of virology. It's quite likely there is no HIV, it's a misinterpretation of laboratory phenomena. The guy credited with the discovery of HIV back in the early 80s had 'discovered' another virus claimed to cause some kind of cancers, called HL23V. It was published and accepted by the scientific world as a real virus, until some other researchers realized that there was no virus, that he had simply misinterpreted his laboratory finding.
A couple years later he 'found' HIV using the very same processes, and the government held a press conference in 1984 (which you can find on YouTube) announcing that the cause of AIDS had been found, before the papers he published had been properly vetted by the scientific community. Various scientists realized there were really significant problems with these establishing papers, but once the announcement went out, there was now no way to challenge the science, especially given their politically hot nature.
Several groups of scientists have continued to publish challenges to HIV for decades. Recently a doctor from New Zealand has been taking up these challenges and showing how 'HIV' was a kind of precursor to what's happened in the past 2 years. You should check out these videos where she goes over this in great detail. She's a traditionally trained physician, and she talks a lot about the 'terrain' theory of illness.
One of the things that is brought up in what might be called "hiv denial" writings is that the disease symptoms were quite different if you were a gay prostitute in the city, a struggling hemophiliac, or an African tribal member. But they were all lumped together and given the same (toxic) drugs.
For instance, I think eventually they linked carposi's sarcoma to popper usage instead of HIV.
But all three do share the fact that their immune systems were taking a beating, from many fronts.
And I think it is considered kind of odd for a retro virus to cause problems.
And the HIV drugs are poison, (much worse than onions LOL) they are basically chemo.
After reading all of this (because I do like to read both sides of things) I guess I eventually stumbled over to the "I don't think we really understand what aids *IS*" camp. And the "I would never get tested" camp.
The same big Pharma gurus are behind both pandemic's research, and have gotten rich off of both.
And so if someone were to say to me that there might be shenanigans/bad science going on with *current* virology... I would agree. It doesn't necessarily mean that I want to throw out all the past virology... there are some things that the past virology seems to explain pretty well (like rabies or chicken pox parties). One of the shenanigans might be that a bunch of gay men were given experimental hepatitis shots.
The guy who invented PCR didn't believe that HIV caused AIDs, and didn't think PCR should be used to diagnose illnesses in general.
An interesting case to ponder is the writer of "Wild Fermentation" who decided to fix his immune system instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandor_Katz.
I don't think it's wrong that people's immune systems can get broken. It might however be wrong that the retro virus HIV is the culprit.
