Health Information & Censorship

[sagas4]

Yup,

but I prefer Brylcreem, or Wildroot,

For that extra close smoothness, Burma-Shave, and Williams mug soap.

I don't like that Rock Solid look you get from palmogranite.

[eye2i2hear]

Dang, seems I didn't catch the spelling-----
Double dang, I didn't even know the two different words even.
Guess that explains not catching the metaphor.

Chock it up to cancer phobia...

[NonEntity]

sagas4 said:

Yup,

but I prefer Brylcreem, or Wildroot,

For that extra close smoothness, Burma-Shave, and Williams mug soap.

I don't like that Rock Solid look you get from palmogranite.

Not even when you're takin' yore best girl to the Drive-In in your Rock Hudson coupe'? (I think there's a Barney and Wilma joke hiding in there somewhere...)

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

I go "off" caffeine for months at a time, and typically when I am back "on" I become a completely different person within a week. (Listen to DTDS #8 for an entertaining example )


I was curious what The Wik' has to say:

caffeine is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive substance, but unlike most other psychoactive substances, it is legal and unregulated in nearly all jurisdictions. In North America, 90% of adults consume caffeine daily.

No wonder American Idol and Survivor keep getting renewed...


A psychoactive drug or psychotropic substance is a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior.

These drugs may be used recreationally to purposefully alter one's consciousness (such as coffee, alcohol, cocaine or cannabis), as entheogens for spiritual purposes (such as the mescaline-containing peyote cactus or psilocybin-containing mushrooms), and also as medication (such as the use of narcotics in controlling pain, stimulants to treat narcolepsy and attention disorders, as well as anti-depressants and anti-psychotics for treating neurological and psychiatric illnesses).

So altering my own conscience is okay so long as it's using an "approved method"?


Ooo... pretty picture


- - -
Caffeine is a central nervous system and metabolic stimulant, and is used both recreationally and medically to reduce physical fatigue and restore mental alertness when unusual weakness or drowsiness occurs. Caffeine stimulates the central nervous system first at the higher levels, resulting in increased alertness and wakefulness, faster and clearer flow of thought, increased focus, and better general body coordination, and later at the spinal cord level at higher doses.

Like alcohol, nicotine, and antidepressants, caffeine readily crosses the blood brain barrier. Once in the brain, the principal mode of action of caffeine is as an antagonist of adenosine receptors found in the brain. ...caffeine acts as a competitive inhibitor. The reduction in adenosine activity results in increased activity of the neurotransmitter dopamine, largely accounting for the stimulatory effects of caffeine.

Today, global consumption of caffeine has been estimated at 120,000 tons per annum, making it the world's most popular psychoactive substance.

Talk about the world being "doped up"

[Darren Dirt]

darrendirt said:

*IIRC, I had linked to this essay a few hundred days ago... or maybe I'm hallucinating, damn these anti-allergy meds

nonentity said:

Darren,

If your allergies are of the hay fever type, there is a great gizmo that I've been using for a few years now that almost eliminates my need for antihistamines. It's called Bionase. Look it up. It's not approved in the United Slaves of America but there is a pharmacy in London which will sell it you US, which is how I got mine. Using this thing I only have to pop pills on the very worst of days. It really works!

- NonE

lol, I was actually half-joking. I've only really had spring allergies for 2 or 3 years, but this year was the worst. So I made the mistake of taking "Benyllin" last week (First Time Evah) and took 2 pills instead of 1 and on an empty stomach.

Floated for 3 hours.

So on Saturday morning I visited a health food store, asked about allergy symptoms esp. burning/itchy eyes and running nose, they gave me an alternative (see Quercetin: nature's antihistamine) to the "anti-histamine" drugs. Works great, no side-effects and I think it's actually helping my body to naturally "rebalance" away from its over-reaction (been only 4 days so far, but already a noticeably improved condition, i.e. can "miss" my dosage and the symptoms aren't nearly as bad).

Thanks tho.

[NonEntity]

Yep, Quercetin is excellent. But the Bionase device really works and since I've had major hay fever issues most of my life I thought I'd share this info with the other six people who are reading this, just in case...

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

...I thought I'd share this info with the other six people who are reading this, just in case...

you must be including counting that holy trinity here?! (aka "non-me, non-myself, & non-i")... ;D

[marc stevens]

DD, you should talk to Alistair about those allergies so you can stop popping those pills.

hypgnosys.blogspot.com/

[eye2i2hear]

erhaps the biggest bombshell …. is about to go off. In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention. Their results are nothing short of astounding.

"Dropping 'D' Bomb On Cancer"

[Darren Dirt]

eye2i2hear said:

erhaps the biggest bombshell …. is about to go off. In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention. Their results are nothing short of astounding.

"Dropping 'D' Bomb On Cancer"

Pass me the Fish 'n Eggs! ;D

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Role_in_cancer_prevention_and_recovery

[eye2i2hear]

note the section in the LewRockwell.com article about sunscreen, 4sure...

[eye2i2hear]

Well, I have to admit a coin toss moment here; does this go under "Health" or "Energy" threads?! Ok, this thread has "health" AND "censorship" so here we are:

Boiled down to its fundamentals the fear of nuclear energy has its roots in the fear of radiation. Invisible, silent, and thus undetectable by human senses, it is the bogeyman of all things atomic. Fear feeds on ignorance.

The natural energy of the Universe, the power that lights the stars in the sky, is nuclear. Chemical energy, wind, and water are, from the viewpoint of the Universe, almost as rare as a coal-burning star. If this is so, and if the Universe is nuclear-powered, why then are so many prepared to march in protest against its use to provide us with electricity and preserve our food?

When X rays and nuclear phenomena were discovered at the end of the nineteenth century, they were seen as great benefits to medicine--the near-magic sight of the living skeleton, and the first means to palliate and cure cancer. But sure enough, there was a dark side also, and too much radiation means a lingering death.

But even sunlight, (also in fact a form of radiation), can kill with too much exposure, conversely not enough will harm a human as well. Surprisingly a number of scientist believe, that what is true of sunlight, may be true of other forms of radiation. They claim that low-dose radiation has been shown to enhance biological responses for immune systems, enzymatic repair, physiological functions and help prevent the onset of cancer. This effect known as radiation hormesis: a moderate overcompensation to a disruption in homeostasis caused by the radiation; it is a stimulus to the repair mechanisms that cope with non-radiation damage as well, so that the overall effect is a health benefit. Many studies have been done that support this view.

For example: no chromosomal damage was detectable in animals with high radiation counts living around Chernobyl and a lower than expected increases in cancers have been found in the human population living near the area at the time of the accident. This is not an isolated case, populations living in areas of high natural radiation show a marked decrease in the cancers reported, and occupational studies on nuclear industry workers, where they had good radiation dosimetry and records, found that cancer mortality was statistically significantly lower among nuclear workers than among non-nuclear workers.
Legislatively however, the current accepted standard is the linear no-threshold model (LNT)...

The LNT model was first considered in the 1940s purely on... theoretical grounds...
Added to this, during the Cold War a number of people promoted the LNT model in an attempt to discourage nearly all uses of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, but other scientists disagreed with LNT from the beginning.

As a result the radiophobes and the politicians took a handy but false rule of thumb and enshrined it in law and regulation. The second problem, related, is that this results in a lot of stupid but expensive procedures where people and vendors can make a lot of money thus entrenching this false standard through special interests.
...
The evidence against the linear model and for radiation hormesis has been solid as a rock for 40 years. Yet the LNT model prevails. Why? Follow the money and the politics. The health-physics community is divided, roughly along the lines of who puts money before principles. There have been some amazingly bitter fights within the Health Physics Society.

--- ScienceScoop/the rest of the story... <<===clik there

Compare this with the recent sunlight = vitamin D research?!?

Radiation, Science, and Health is an international non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the misrepresentation of data, and the waste of public funds that provide NO public health benefit. They can be found at www.radscihealth.org/rsh/index.html. The website also includes a large number of papers and studies supporting the existence of radiation hormesis

---ibid

[Darren Dirt]

eye2i2hear said:

The natural energy of the Universe, the power that lights the stars in the sky, is nuclear. Chemical energy, wind, and water are, from the viewpoint of the Universe, almost as rare as a coal-burning star. If this is so, and if the Universe is nuclear-powered, why then are so many prepared to march in protest against its use to provide us with electricity and preserve our food?

Aren't all the anthro-centric folks (esp. the theo-creator promoters) kinda hypocritical when they suggest that natural rays from the "it was good" Sun are "bad" for you?

eye2i2hear said:

As a result the radiophobes and the politicians took a handy but false rule of thumb and enshrined it in law and regulation.

meh... what else is new?

"the [...]s and the politicians took [...false...] and enshrined it in law and regulation"

[eye2i2hear]

No so much in the "Censorship" vein of this thread, but perhaps of general interest:

disclaimer: for those who don't like long or full copy/pastes, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200... ;D
(seriously, I post the entirety as I'm not sure that since its a "new" news article, on a subscription site, a link will remain)

To Treat the Dead:
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about heart attacks—and death itself.

[/b]

by Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue -

Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?

As recently as 1993, when Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote the best seller "How We Die," the conventional answer was that it was his cells that had died. The patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen. This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes. If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is unlikely to recover. That dogma went unquestioned until researchers actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "After one hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later.

But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed. It was that "astounding" discovery, Becker says, that led him to his post as the director of Penn's Center for Resuscitation Science, a newly created research institute operating on one of medicine's newest frontiers: treating the dead.

Biologists are still grappling with the implications of this new view of cell death—not passive extinguishment, like a candle flickering out when you cover it with a glass, but an active biochemical event triggered by "reperfusion," the resumption of oxygen supply. The research takes them deep into the machinery of the cell, to the tiny membrane-enclosed structures known as mitochondria where cellular fuel is oxidized to provide energy. Mitochondria control the process known as apoptosis, the programmed death of abnormal cells that is the body's primary defense against cancer. "It looks to us," says Becker, "as if the cellular surveillance mechanism cannot tell the difference between a cancer cell and a cell being reperfused with oxygen. Something throws the switch that makes the cell die."

With this realization came another: that standard emergency-room procedure has it exactly backward. When someone collapses on the street of cardiac arrest, if he's lucky he will receive immediate CPR, maintaining circulation until he can be revived in the hospital. But the rest will have gone 10 or 15 minutes or more without a heartbeat by the time they reach the emergency department. And then what happens? "We give them oxygen," Becker says. "We jolt the heart with the paddles, we pump in epinephrine to force it to beat, so it's taking up more oxygen." Blood-starved heart muscle is suddenly flooded with oxygen, precisely the situation that leads to cell death. Instead, Becker says, we should aim to reduce oxygen uptake, slow metabolism and adjust the blood chemistry for gradual and safe reperfusion.

Researchers are still working out how best to do this. A study at four hospitals, published last year by the University of California, showed a remarkable rate of success in treating sudden cardiac arrest with an approach that involved, among other things, a "cardioplegic" blood infusion to keep the heart in a state of suspended animation. Patients were put on a heart-lung bypass machine to maintain circulation to the brain until the heart could be safely restarted. The study involved just 34 patients, but 80 percent of them were discharged from the hospital alive. In one study of traditional methods, the figure was about 15 percent.

Becker also endorses hypothermia—lowering body temperature from 37 to 33 degrees Celsius—which appears to slow the chemical reactions touched off by reperfusion. He has developed an injectable slurry of salt and ice to cool the blood quickly that he hopes to make part of the standard emergency-response kit. "In an emergency department, you work like mad for half an hour on someone whose heart stopped, and finally someone says, 'I don't think we're going to get this guy back,' and then you just stop," Becker says. The body on the cart is dead, but its trillions of cells are all still alive. Becker wants to resolve that paradox in favor of life.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.[/color]

--Newsweek - Health[/blockquote]

[Darren Dirt]

eye2i2hear said:

note the section in the LewRockwell.com article about sunscreen, 4sure...

Remember that song "Use Sunscreen"?

"If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists ... Be careful who advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than its worth. But trust me on the sunscreen..."



PURE PROPAGANDA! To get us all to rub poison onto our skin (the body's largest, most permeable organ, btw!) and in a few decades we'll be told, "oops..." aw never mind, let Lewis Black tell you:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwsJm1UEj1g