diabetes

[healthinfo6]

While I enjoy a learning experience, I wasn't looking for a
teacher/student nor master/slave one!

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
we

[Shannon Nelson]

It's important to note that this below
applies to *healthy* children. (Children without a relevant active
miasm, we could say.) With children as with adults, when there is
chronic illness, the body's signals are not effective in maintaining
health, and may be specifically counter-productive. A child who wants
to, say, take in nothing but milk is very unlikely to reestablish
health that way! And nowadays we have the added distortions of habit,
advertising, and addictive ingredients...
Shannon

[Tanya Marquette]

i noted that already in my comment about needing to fast or cleanse
to get the body back on track.

as for food selections that are somewhat stilted, as with your milk
example, i would say one needed to look at what might be missing
in the person's diet or what might be out of tune in the body. one
of the things that we have all probably had experience is how the
diet often changes when beneficial remedies are given. i don't know
how many times this has happened to me where i take a remedy and
my taste in food changes, usually for the better. i remember years ago
on some remedy i lost my taste for beer. i don't think i have more
than 2 beers in the past 10-12 yrs. now others may not agree,
but in my book, not a bad benefit!

tanya

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Irene,
Indeed! It is *your* selection of what to study, *your* decision on
what is "good" research, *your* perception of what you read, *your*
interpretations and generalizations - in other words *your*
conclusions that then reach the lists. In order for us the evaluate
this, we would have to know you a lot better than we can know you -
and then we would either adopt it or reject it according to our own
view of things. Or you would have to reference the original research
and explain why you came to your conclusions.

If we ourselves look at the original findings, the same mechanisms
come into play.

Take for example the "baloney" Prof. Wendt published.

I just dug up the book and had a quick look. Found one item he used to
back-up his ideas:

He talked about a symposium held on 0 Nov. 1878 by the "European
organization for the control of circulatory diseases" (heart attacks
etc.) They only talked about fats as the only risk factor - this had
been so for the 30 years before. Other items of nutrition were not
even taken into consideration ( I know this play greatly into your
hands, Irene - but see below). It there was also said that there are
too many variables as far as risk factors are concerned to come a
conclusion by statistical means.

Wendt then contradicts: (I'll translate)

**********

According to the statistics of the German Government Department on
Nutrition and of the Government Department of Statistics, in the last
30 years (i.e. 1949 - 1978) the consumption of fat per statistical
person has remained the same (**after** 1978 it, of course, was much
reduced - my comment), **the consumption of carbohydrates was reduced
by 40%**, but the consumption of animal protein has risen by 80
percent. (Soy was no issue at that time yet - my comment) Simlar
results have been reported by the WHO from other Western industrial
nations. According to WHO statistics: For the last 30 years the meat
consumption in the Western nations pro person and year has risen by 1
kg, in some wesernt European countries in some years by 2 kgs, in West
Germany a rise of 2,7 kgs was predicted for 1979. There has not been
during the last 30 years any other nutritional factor that has risen
as much as the consumption of meat.

****************

This kind of thing is what seems important to **me**. This is what
**I** would include in my conclusions of research findings at high
priority. I would also include the fact that there were very
significantly less of the "modern" diseases in communist East Germany
before the unification. My hypothesis would be that, since their life
style was generally less opulent than in the West, their consumption
of meat might also have been significantly less. I would try and find
information on this matter and give the results also high priority for
coming to my conclusions.

So obviously, pre-supposing equal skills for the two of us and equal
motivation to find the truth, we would still come to quite different
conclusions.

The argument that I am basing **my** conclusions on outdated research
is not valid, since nothing has changed the facts for the period
between 1948 and 1978. Any reasoning based on these facts will be
valid (or not) even 1000 years from now, same as then, same as now!

If statistics now show different values for the time between 1978 and
now - this would be different. I would of course look for that and
take it into consideration, especially where it contradicted the
conclusions so far held by me.

And the latter is what I am missing in your approach and that of most
other people - scientists and alternative/homeopathic folks alike. The
phenomena are there - findings of specific research are only part of
them. Science ignoring the phenomenom that homeopathy can cure
illness is one example, and it should make us aware that we ought to
consider phenomena that are contradictory to the ideas we hold.

Indeed - I do it with homeopathic remedies:-)

Regards

Luise

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Irene de Villiers]

Luise, I do not agree.

The difference is in the details.
For example:
Back then the word used was "fat" - as you quoted. There was no
differentiation ( as we NOW know is relevant) between fat from red
meat, egg, soy oil, extra virgin olive oil, fish oil, blackcurrant
oil, coconut oil, etc. - much less differentiation on what was eaten
WITH the fat in question. For example, if you eat red meat (and its
fat) with olive oil or ANY other anti-inflammatory food, then the
inflamamtory effect of the fat is countered so that the nutrients
from the red meat that are beneficial become more so, and any
inflammatory effect frrom saturated fat, is negated and replaced with
beneficial effect. It is the arachidonic acid in red meat fat that is
inflammatory. However it performs an essential function in the body
as well. So the healthy way to use it is to eat it to get the benefit
and to eat anti-inflammatory food to counter the inflammatory effect
- getting the best of both worlds.

You can NOT get any of this relevant factual information from old
research as people did not then know enough about fatty acid
composition of fats, much less about the eicosanoid ratios involved
with each - and which determine the NET inflammatory versus anti-
inflammatory effect of the fatty acid.

So any research - as you quoted - which talks about "fat" is
meaningless compared with research that breaks it down into specific
eicosanoids or at least fatty acids, as the BALANCE of inflammatory
versus anti-inflammatory intake (per meal or day) is what counts -
valuable NEW research shows - making ALL the (old or new) research
findings concerning "fats" quite meaningless.

It is better to *assume* old research has too little detail than to
assume it is okay - and to look for the newer research that adds
relevant detail. This is especially true of any research that speaks
of whole categories of things (like fats, proteins, carbohydrates
etc) and where modern findings show that not all are created equal:-)

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Irene,

I agree on what you say below. But that is not the point.

It did say in the statistics that fat consumption had not
increased in the 30 years - so that Wendt dismissed this longheld
(still held) assumption that fat was the risk factor.

What is germaine to our discussion is the fact, that carbohydrate
consumption had decreased by 40 percent - so carbohydrates could not
and cannot be considered the culprit.

Meat consummption had been going up hugely - so it is legitimate to
ask whether that was the culprit.

(Btw: Wendt does not consider it as simply as that - but his theory,
while pretty convincing to me, is not the point here either.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[ForumGal]

Dear all,
I'm not a practitioner, just a fan. I've found that insulinum (30c) makes a difference. No recommended dosing -- I use kinesiology (muscle-testing) to determine if/when I should take.

Best,
Margaret
Boston