Thread: Homeopathic medicines works slower than Allopathic medicines?

I have heard Homeopathic medicines have no side effects.But it cures diseases much slower than Allopathic medicines.And Allopathic medicines have side effects.

My doubt is why cant homeopathic medicines work fast?Why cant we make allopathic medicines without side-effects?

Aside from working as a placebo, Homoeopathic 'medicines' don't work.

Often in actual medicine you can introduce things that have an effect on the body, it might have a side-effect but that side-effect is considered to be less negative than the original affliction. For example my grandfather has angina. He has a tongue spray that has glyceryl trinitrate in it, which widens his blood vessels helping his heart out. While this spray might give users a mean headache and make them possibly blackout as a side-effect (as has happened before with mine) - it stops them from dying.

4n4nd,

In theory the smalller a dose of homeopathic medicine is, the better. Smaller amounts should result in a faster effect, right? Obviously, though, as the dosage becomes vanishingly small the danger of overdosing becomes too large to be considered safe, so I think you're stuck with the present "speed" and effectiveness of those sorts of remedies.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Obviously, though, as the dosage becomes vanishingly small the danger of overdosing becomes too large to be considered safe

Those of us who never take homoeopathic medicines at all must be both protected against every disease going and suffering from a major overdose - the symptoms of which appear to mimic the normal frequency of random diseases...

Strange

I am 62 years old and have never taken any homeopathic medicine ever. I have been protected "against every disease going" for all those years.

Let me tell you of the history of homeopathy, written in a way that homeopaths would never accept, because it is the truth.
It was begun by a 17th century doctor called Hahnemann. His idea was that symptoms were the body's way of stopping a disease. He then decided to increase the severity of symptoms, to fight disease even harder. That is the "like attacks like" part of homeopathy, in that something increasing a symptom fought the agent that caused the symptoms. At the time, medicine was very primitive, but one area was relatively well developed and studies - the science of poisons. Hahnemann had a good range of poisons to increase different symptoms.

He started dosing his patients with these poisons, to boost the relevent symptoms, and thus fight disease. He discovered that a high dose of poison increased the chance of his patient dying. Surprise, surprise! So he started diluting the poison, and found that the weaker the poison, the better the chance of the patient surviving. Even bigger surprise!

This led to something utterly and totally ridiculous. Homeopaths, the followers of Hahnemann, now dilute their 'remedies' to the point of nonsense. Often to the stage where there is no active ingredient - not one atom - left in the remedy. They firmly believe that the more dilute the remedy, the better it is. This is the direct opposite of what science has shown, where an effective remedy works better with a stronger dose, at least up the the point where it becomes toxic.

Homeopaths try to get around this conflict with good science by postulating that water has a 'memory' and remembers the agent that was once in it, and the 'memory' carries out the therapeutic action. This hypothesis is quite contrary to what science knows of water. There is no indication that water can have a 'memory'.

However, in the end, only empirical, rigorous, scientific testing can show if a method works or fails. This has been done so many times, that a 'metastudy' could be carried out, comparing homeopathic remedies to placebo (sugar pills), using the results from 110 different rigorous studies.
Homeopathy and The Lancet

The end result showed homeopathy is exactly as effective as placebo. In other words, rather than homeopathic remedies that cost you a lot of money, just take a sugar pill. It is every bit as good.

Great post skeptic!

Nice potted history, thanks. It is a bit like that idea that you could treat diseases with plants that looked like the organ or disease; funny that no one uses that any more ...

Originally Posted by skeptic

Strange

I am 62 years old and have never taken any homeopathic medicine ever. I have been protected "against every disease going" for all those years.

Let me tell you of the history of homeopathy, written in a way that homeopaths would never accept, because it is the truth.
It was begun by a 17th century doctor called Hahnemann. His idea was that symptoms were the body's way of stopping a disease. He then decided to increase the severity of symptoms, to fight disease even harder. That is the "like attacks like" part of homeopathy, in that something increasing a symptom fought the agent that caused the symptoms. At the time, medicine was very primitive, but one area was relatively well developed and studies - the science of poisons. Hahnemann had a good range of poisons to increase different symptoms.

He started dosing his patients with these poisons, to boost the relevent symptoms, and thus fight disease. He discovered that a high dose of poison increased the chance of his patient dying. Surprise, surprise! So he started diluting the poison, and found that the weaker the poison, the better the chance of the patient surviving. Even bigger surprise!

This led to something utterly and totally ridiculous. Homeopaths, the followers of Hahnemann, now dilute their 'remedies' to the point of nonsense. Often to the stage where there is no active ingredient - not one atom - left in the remedy. They firmly believe that the more dilute the remedy, the better it is. This is the direct opposite of what science has shown, where an effective remedy works better with a stronger dose, at least up the the point where it becomes toxic.

Homeopaths try to get around this conflict with good science by postulating that water has a 'memory' and remembers the agent that was once in it, and the 'memory' carries out the therapeutic action. This hypothesis is quite contrary to what science knows of water. There is no indication that water can have a 'memory'.

However, in the end, only empirical, rigorous, scientific testing can show if a method works or fails. This has been done so many times, that a 'metastudy' could be carried out, comparing homeopathic remedies to placebo (sugar pills), using the results from 110 different rigorous studies.
Homeopathy and The Lancet

The end result showed homeopathy is exactly as effective as placebo. In other words, rather than homeopathic remedies that cost you a lot of money, just take a sugar pill. It is every bit as good.

Skeptic,

Thanks for a detailed explanation.I would sum-up what i understood from your post.

Allopathic medicines are direct medicines.I mean if Pancreas stopped working and insulin is needed,then insulin is injected directly.

In Homeopathy,the body's own immune response is increased using chemicals(may be poisons).Thatsy it is slower and shows less side-effects.

Am i right?If not please correct it.

If i am right,then please tell me how can it treat a disease like diabetis?

Originally Posted by 4n4nd

In Homeopathy,the body's own immune response is increased using chemicals(may be poisons).Thatsy it is slower and shows less side-effects.

In homeopathy, the patient is given pure water which has no effect. They may feel better because they have been given something (the placebo effect).

If i am right,then please tell me how can it treat a disease like diabetis?

Homeopathy? It can't. Anyone who suggests it can should probably be prosecuted. Attempted murder too strong?

Strange is right.

The thing about homeopathy is the dilution practise. Often what is given to a patient is pure distilled water or pure milk sugar, since it has been diluted to the point where there is no active ingredient left. Even if Hahnemann was correct (and there is no evidence to suggest he was), modern homeopathic remedies could not work, since they are diluted too much.

To deal with diabetes, I suggest you consult a proper doctor and follow expert advice.

It should be warned, you won't find a lot of people on a science forum who believe homeopathy works, at all (including myself). So asking how to use it here is like asking Richard Dawkins how to pray.

One more comment for 4n4nd.

The term "allopathic" is a word invented by Hahnemann to describe conventional medicine in an insulting way. This word is only used by alternative medicine enthusiasts (otherwise known as quacks) - never by real doctors, and never by anyone who uses good science. if you are in the habit of using that word, it immediately identifies you as a follower of quack medicine. I would recommend that, if you intend to be taken seriously by the good people of this forum who think scientifically, you discard the word "allopathic."

Originally Posted by skeptic

One more comment for 4n4nd.

The term "allopathic" is a word invented by Hahnemann to describe conventional medicine in an insulting way. This word is only used by alternative medicine enthusiasts (otherwise known as quacks) - never by real doctors, and never by anyone who uses good science. if you are in the habit of using that word, it immediately identifies you as a follower of quack medicine. I would recommend that, if you intend to be taken seriously by the good people of this forum who think scientifically, you discard the word "allopathic."

Wow thats a new piece of information to me.Thanks.But can you suggest an alternative term for Allopathy?Actually in my locality we call it Allopathy or English medicine.Here most of the people follow this "allopathic"medicine(I dont know another name).But now a days the followers of Homeopathic treatment is increasing.I know it,because my house is near a homeopathic dispensary.

And also these homeopathic centres are directed and are working under the government.Government pays salary to the doctors and other staffs.
If it is scientifically proven wrong,why this much importance is given to them by goverment?

To 4n4nd

The word "allopathy" literally means 'other suffering'. It was invented with the idea that conventional medicine simply used agents to reverse symptoms, as opposed to Hahnemann's view that his homeopathic remedies treated the actual cause of disease. As you will, no doubt, realise, that is a very inaccurate and unfair description. When a doctor prescribes antibiotics, those agents actually kill bacteria, thereby attacking the very genuine cause of disease. A surgeon attacks causes of illness. As does treatment for cancer and a wide range of other effective measures.

A better term is conventional, or orthodox medicine.

Originally Posted by skeptic

To 4n4nd

The word "allopathy" literally means 'other suffering'. It was invented with the idea that conventional medicine simply used agents to reverse symptoms, as opposed to Hahnemann's view that his homeopathic remedies treated the actual cause of disease. As you will, no doubt, realise, that is a very inaccurate and unfair description. When a doctor prescribes antibiotics, those agents actually kill bacteria, thereby attacking the very genuine cause of disease. A surgeon attacks causes of illness. As does treatment for cancer and a wide range of other effective measures.

A better term is conventional, or orthodox medicine.

Thank you verymuch.Because i didnt even think that this Homeopathic medicine is not a scientific one.I searched so many websites.All that gave the same result you told me.

Thank you so much.Many of my relatives follow homeopathy.I didnt object it as i didnt know the reality.Now I make them understand the truth,for sure.

The main reason,the people are lured towards it is their claim of not having any side effects.Now i know why no side effects.Because nothing is there in water and sugar to cause side effects.

I wonder why the world is so crazy.

4n4nd

Let me congratulate you on your gracious acceptance of new knowledge. I only wish all people were so willing to learn. It is always nice to meet new people so willing to accept good science.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by 4n4nd

Originally Posted by skeptic

Strange

I am 62 years old and have never taken any homeopathic medicine ever. I have been protected "against every disease going" for all those years.

Let me tell you of the history of homeopathy, written in a way that homeopaths would never accept, because it is the truth.
It was begun by a 17th century doctor called Hahnemann. His idea was that symptoms were the body's way of stopping a disease. He then decided to increase the severity of symptoms, to fight disease even harder. That is the "like attacks like" part of homeopathy, in that something increasing a symptom fought the agent that caused the symptoms. At the time, medicine was very primitive, but one area was relatively well developed and studies - the science of poisons. Hahnemann had a good range of poisons to increase different symptoms.

He started dosing his patients with these poisons, to boost the relevent symptoms, and thus fight disease. He discovered that a high dose of poison increased the chance of his patient dying. Surprise, surprise! So he started diluting the poison, and found that the weaker the poison, the better the chance of the patient surviving. Even bigger surprise!

This led to something utterly and totally ridiculous. Homeopaths, the followers of Hahnemann, now dilute their 'remedies' to the point of nonsense. Often to the stage where there is no active ingredient - not one atom - left in the remedy. They firmly believe that the more dilute the remedy, the better it is. This is the direct opposite of what science has shown, where an effective remedy works better with a stronger dose, at least up the the point where it becomes toxic.

Homeopaths try to get around this conflict with good science by postulating that water has a 'memory' and remembers the agent that was once in it, and the 'memory' carries out the therapeutic action. This hypothesis is quite contrary to what science knows of water. There is no indication that water can have a 'memory'.

However, in the end, only empirical, rigorous, scientific testing can show if a method works or fails. This has been done so many times, that a 'metastudy' could be carried out, comparing homeopathic remedies to placebo (sugar pills), using the results from 110 different rigorous studies.
Homeopathy and The Lancet

The end result showed homeopathy is exactly as effective as placebo. In other words, rather than homeopathic remedies that cost you a lot of money, just take a sugar pill. It is every bit as good.

Skeptic,

Thanks for a detailed explanation.I would sum-up what i understood from your post.

Allopathic medicines are direct medicines.I mean if Pancreas stopped working and insulin is needed,then insulin is injected directly.

In Homeopathy,the body's own immune response is increased using chemicals(may be poisons).Thatsy it is slower and shows less side-effects.

Am i right?If not please correct it.

If i am right,then please tell me how can it treat a disease like diabetis?

Homeopathy does not cure at all. It does not cure slowly. It has no curative effect, None, zero , zilch. Homeopaths sell tap water as medicine. Homeopathy can't treat a disease like diabetes at all. It can just hurt the patient. It is not medicine it is a scam. I don't know how to make that clearer.

Homeopathic medicine is a sham. It does nothing and employs pseudoscientific assumptions. It has been proven to be bollocks by mainstream science. I still get quite annoyed when I see "homeopathic pharmacies" that milk gullible or uninformed people of their hard earned money.

As to why government is supporting the homeopath dispencery, there are several posiblities. The one I tend toward is very synical. Governments give the people what they ask for. Ask for homeopathy and you will get homeopathy. I hope they don't let their military be treated by homeopaths. Even more synical, people treated by homeopaths will die more rapidly thus reducing the need for government services. Of course there is the least synical reason for such a govenment action; the government offical has been taken in by the homeopathy scam and really thinks it works.

In the UK we have several homeopathic hospitals, although not without controversy.

I always find it funny when people argue points based on second hand information. If you really want to know whether homeopathy works, go shadow a well trained homeopath. Until then, you should probably just remain quiet. I have worked with one and know beyond doubt that there is no placebo.

Conventional medicine is a joke for anything but surgery. This is what conventional medicine is good at. It does nothing to cure problems and ailments. It is a big money industry headed by the pharma companies. Only the fool buys into this absurdity that you can treat and cure a symptom with a pill.

Science on one hand is great because it has brought us to where we are at today. However, on the flip side, it is filled with buffoons who are so pigheaded that they can't get out of their own way. If it doesn't exist to-day, or can't be proven, it is a falsehood. But not just that, they boastfully refute any other possibility. There's nothing worse than pompous ignorance. Science constantly defeats its own assertions with the finding of new data. In 100 years from now, much of everything that people say is false today will be proven then. I can't tell you how many people I have known and talked to that have had their ailments cure with naturopathic medicine, not just homeopathy, but other modalities which do work.

Another thing, medicine isn't just a pill, and it never was until Big Pharma came around. Why do you think Naturopathic medicine has a higher placebo effect? Because of mind body medicine. Only a fool and ignorant person argues that placebo has no truth to it. When a person sees a naturopath, they are listened to, time is spent with them, that IS medicine people. Treating a patient is mulitfaceted, not unidimensional with a prescription pad.

Here's one for you. Silver was used effectively as an antibiotic well before Big Pharma, then...antibiotics came about and silver fell to the way side, then it was deemed to be dangerous and turn you blue. Funny how something that goes unchanged miraculously turns to be evil. No smear marketing campaign there, oh no. BUT, it's so ineffective that catheters are then lined with silver, they use silver nitrate on burns, and so many other uses. BUT...when it comes to the cash cow, it is quackery. You people make me laugh at your own stupidity and ability to be brainwashed and misled. If you really want to know the truth, go get your info first hand rather than spew misrepresented facts.

Also, go study energy vibrations and how being that everything is energy in this world, once you change the vibrational frequency, things change, and that goes for the body as well. Do you think you can test this? No. But now you'll say that energy doesn't exist? LOL But energy has nothing to do with the body and health, too, right? Laughable you people are.

Only the fool buys into this absurdity that you can treat and cure a symptom with a pill.

Or an injection?

So what exactly can homeopathy offer people with endocrine disorders like Type 1 diabetes or hypothyroidism. Your much despised conventional medicine prescribes insulin injections or thyroxine tablets. I've yet to hear of a homeopathic treatment that could even pretend to deal with such lethal conditions.

Originally Posted by fooch

There's nothing worse than pompous ignorance.

Love this. I'm going to frame it.

The rest was the standard delusional fantasy constructs of Free-Thinking Hero wielding Mystical Healing Energies vs Evil Big Pharma and "their" Evil Machinations for Evil Profits.

@fooch: How is homoeopathy and its offshoots not attempted murder?

It had to happen. We get an honest question from a person genuinely seeking an honest answer, about a topic relating to a swindle. Sooner or later we had to hear from the swindler.

Anyone who makes money from homeopathy is a swindler. Just that simple. Homeopathy is quack medicine with no scientific backing, and no therapeutic value. Sure, it has a placebo effect, but so does everything. A witch doctor mumbling over a sick person and shaking the bones has a placebo effect. So does homeopathy. That is not therapy. That is, ethically, no different to breaking into someone's home and stealing his money and jewelry. Theft, by definition, is taking money or possessions from someone without giving something back of similar or greater value. Homeopaths take money from the poor suckers and return nothing of value. That is theft.

I can't rule out the possibility that at least some of these practitioners are just as much placebo'ed as their customers, i.e. that they might really think it works.

Great topic. I agree with skeptic. I tend to feel that way about Chiropracters too. I think read something recently about someone famous who didn't go with science and have possibly a life saveing surgery. He kind of went with the homeopathic thing. He didn't survive. Filix.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I can't rule out the possibility that at least some of these practitioners are just as much placebo'ed as their customers, i.e. that they might really think it works.

'Fraid so. A friend's daughter-in-law has just set up her 'practice' after completing her 'studies'. She uses one of those magical, mystery diagnostic machines. When my husband asked how this gadget worked, she couldn't even describe its supposed mechanism.

She just believed what she'd been told about what the pings, buzzes and lights were supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by 4n4nd

I have heard Homeopathic medicines have no side effects.But it cures diseases much slower than Allopathic medicines.And Allopathic medicines have side effects.

My doubt is why cant homeopathic medicines work fast? Why can't we make allopathic medicines without side-effects?

I suppose you are referring to the choice between taking herbs to solve a health problems against taking mostly manufactured drugs. Most of both do tend to have an effect, and that of the drugs does tend to be stronger and hence more effective. In the drugs, however, there is more change of harmful side effects, as you've noticed; but the research on the herbal products has been contradictory and sloppy. It would have you believe that if you took all these many products for every ailment you have---and the number of ailments grows with age!---you could live forever. Myself, I have many such problems, so I am taking five inorganic drugs and three organic ones every day. I managed to narrow it down to only those.(!)

I suppose you are referring to the choice between taking herbs to solve a health problems against taking mostly manufactured drugs.

Not at all. Homeopathy is not the same as herbal medicine. Not in the least.

Many herbs, though not as many as claimed, have medicinal properties. Some of our most effective drugs are based on identifying and then manufacturing compounds originally found within plants.

Homeopathy is nonsense. Read up on Hahnemann and then realise that 'modern' homeopaths still maintain that diluting a substance until its presence is undetectable in the resulting water (or alcohol) is a more efficacious, stronger preparation than the original compound.

Yes, you are right, but I assumed he meant "alternative medicine" because Homeopathic medication is about as dead as reflexology, bloodless surgery and colonic detoxicication.

And for anyone with lingering doubts about whether homeopathy might have some sense to it .......

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: If homeopathy works ... I'll drink my own piss

or more suitable for family or grandma viewing ......

Make Your Own Homeopathic Remedies … and Play Dough! « Skeptic Family

Allopathic medicine is murder manipulation medicine that prides itself playing god by manipulation chemicals that shouldn't even go in the body in the first place.

Homeopathic medicine is guess work.

Neither follow the laws of mother nature.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the body. The blood carries nutrients to the cells and the lymphatic system takes the cell waste away. The cells will never dump cell waste in the blood stream; thats just insane.

In allopathic medicine they chop peoples organs away without knowing what the organ does. Ever had or heard of someone have their tonsils taken out? Tonsils are part of the lymphatic system. How is the body suppose to take the cell waste away once the tonsils are gone?

Stimulate the lymphatic system and you'll cure every disease on this planet.

Frugivore

Without meaning to be offensive, I have to say that you are spouting seriously crackpot ideas.

Modern medicine is based on the general principle that everything needs to be tested very thoroughly. Alternative therapies are normally untested. For this reason, orthodox medicine usually works very well. Alternative medicine usually does not.

Any therapy put forward by orthodox medical researchers, that proves not to work, is dumped. Treatments put forward by alternative practitioners are not weeded out due to as lack of proper testing. Thus, alternative therapists continue to deliver treatments that have no value whatever.

The testing is also designed to discover harmful side effects. Thus, orthodox medicine is known medicine, with most harmful side effects well known. If tonsillectomy is a recommended therapy, it is done with full knowledge of both beneficial and harmful results. It is used because the former outweighs the latter.

Those who, like you, try to pour scorn on modern medical treatments are, nearly every time, doing harm - not good. Proper testing is the appropriate way to discover what is good and what is not so good. 400 years of modern science has elucidated the best test methods. Ignorant suggestions by those who have not studied modern scientific test methods is not helpful.

Neither follow the laws of mother nature.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the body. The blood carries nutrients to the cells and the lymphatic system takes the cell waste away. The cells will never dump cell waste in the blood stream; thats just insane.

Mother nature doesn't have laws governing the functions of individual people. Many billions of years of evolution have resulted in a system that works pretty well, most of the time, for whole populations of plants and animals. If something seems not to be working, there is no law that kicks into operation to fix things up. Either individual organisms die under some stress or other or whole populations go extinct if they are overwhelmed in some way.

Science based medicine is about looking at individual bodies and trying to work out how their functions have gone amiss and how to remedy those malfunctions with the least possible negative effects. A further extension of SBM is epidemiology which tells us about relative risks - long before malfunction appears at the individual level. Smoking being the classic example here. We cannot know in advance which people will or won't suffer adverse effects from smoking, nor which particular effect, let alone when such maladies might kick in for an individual. But we do know, beyond any shadow of doubt, which populations will suffer the most ill effects from a given prevalence of smoking. (Same thing goes for everything from asbestos, lead, SIDS, vaccine-preventable diseases to safe water, sewage treatment, seatbelts, food safety regulation, OHS.)

And I fail to see what the lymphatic system can do for genetic diseases or endocrine disorders or dozens of other conditions. Medicine is about diagnosing the causes of particular problems of individual people and finding a way to deal effectively with the problems identified.

Originally Posted by adelady

Mother nature doesn't have laws governing the functions of individual people. Many billions of years of evolution have resulted in a system that works pretty well, most of the time, for whole populations of plants and animals. If something seems not to be working, there is no law that kicks into operation to fix things up. Either individual organisms die under some stress or other or whole populations go extinct if they are overwhelmed in some way.

Exactly. This is what I mean by not following the laws of nature. All diseases are man-made and all the result of meat addiction that has lasted millions of years.

"Diseases are a result of both a toxicity and a major Vitamin deficiency within the body."

Hyperlipidemia (High blood fat) does not happen in carnivores/omnivores mammals. It is common in all humans that consume meat at different levels of severity.

Let me explain the charactaristics of mother nature and how they work with the human body. I urge you to check these out yourself instead of taking it at face value.

On this planet there is trees, leaves, fruits, roots and all mammals. Vegetables don't exist in the sense that they are brances and roots.

When we look at the mineral charactaristics of vegetation; we find that its always high in potassium and low in sodium. This means that all mammals accept high potassium and low sodium. Not the other way around which is the basis of majority of diets on this planet. Like I stated above, we humans develop Hyperlipidemia when consuming meat(high protein/fat); we aren't biochemically made do eat meat. Low protein/fat and high natural sugars are needed to run our brains. Brain and all cells run on natural glucose and natural fructose(no insulin needed). Sperm runs on fructose.

Now I will explain why high protein/fat is bad for humans.

(Protein) Amino Acids - > Acid
(Fats) Fatty Acids -> Acid
(Carbs) Carbohydrates -> Neutral

Ever heard your doctor say to watch your sodium intake? (The sodium taken from oceans/mines which isn't part of mother nature)

High Protein/Fats in the blood -> Acidosis -> Calcium taken from bones to lower blood PH -> Osteoporosis -> Calcium dumped into Hyperlipedimic blood -> Calcium(base) + high fatty acids + sodium (Saponification of hard soap) -> Atherosclerosis

Ever heard someone say to never eat too many bananas because of the high potassium content? Its not the potassium. Mother nature would never poison mammals.

High Protein/Fats blood -> Acidosis -> Calcium taken from bones to lower blood PH -> Osteoporosis -> Calcium dumped into Hyperlipedimic blood -> Calcium(base) + high fatty acids + potassium (Saponification of soft soap) -> Light Atherosclerosis

Studies Link Calcium Problem To Atherosclerosis And Osteoporosis - http://www.scienceblog.com/community...199700089.html
-> Oh really? Maybe it will take them another million years to see how deadly dairy and meat is.

The only way to clean up the soap is with natural beta-carotene.
Source: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/10/1923.full.pdf

Science based medicine is about looking at individual bodies and trying to work out how their functions have gone amiss and how to remedy those malfunctions with the least possible negative effects. A further extension of SBM is epidemiology which tells us about relative risks - long before malfunction appears at the individual level. Smoking being the classic example here. We cannot know in advance which people will or won't suffer adverse effects from smoking, nor which particular effect, let alone when such maladies might kick in for an individual. But we do know, beyond any shadow of doubt, which populations will suffer the most ill effects from a given prevalence of smoking. (Same thing goes for everything from asbestos, lead, SIDS, vaccine-preventable diseases to safe water, sewage treatment, seatbelts, food safety regulation, OHS.)

And I fail to see what the lymphatic system can do for genetic diseases or endocrine disorders or dozens of other conditions. Medicine is about diagnosing the causes of particular problems of individual people and finding a way to deal effectively with the problems identified.

Medical science is based on "managing" symptoms with manipulated chemicals. Not curing. The problems isn't the doctors though; no person wants to hear that they gotta change their diet to cure themselves.

Lymphatic system is hooked up to the kidneys which are part of the endocrine system. Check it out for yourself. Waste is taken away from the cells to the spleen and then transported to the kidneys. Cancer starts when the body is clogged up with animal fat however animal fat doesn't cause Cancer, carcinogens do. The animal fat gets in the way of the lymphatic system cleaning up the body of carcinogens.

Endocrine disorders are caused by a lack of hormones known has Vitamin A & D to regulate those organs and a major shock to the adrenal glands by huge amounts of unnecessary animal fats which lead to adrenal insufficiency. When an organ is overworked; it goes into shock. Just like when you stress the mind to the point of no return; it goes into shock.

Lymphatic system is stimulated by UVA rays, activity and certain fruits like ripe oranges. Whenever you get sweaty under your armpits; lymphatic system is working. How do I know this? I don't have to wear deodorant anymore, shower, and wash my hair anymore. My body is super clean and I smell amazing as my girlfriend points out to me.

Science is like that. Some things are so clearly demonstrated that dissent is a sign of ignorance.

This is mother nature, not science. Science is looking at things through a microscope and maniputing chemicals without taking into account how poisonous they are to ourselves and mother nature.

Open your eyes and not take information at face value. There is always a deeper "simple" meaning to everything.

(Protein) Amino Acids - > Acid
(Fats) Fatty Acids -> Acid
(Carbs) Carbohydrates -> Neutral

Ever heard your doctor say to watch your sodium intake?

High Protein/Fats in the blood -> Acidosis -> Calcium taken from bones to lower blood PH -> Osteoporosis -> Calcium dumped into Hyperlipedimic blood -> Calcium(base) + high fatty acids + sodium (Saponification of hard soap) -> Atherosclerosis

Ever heard someone say to never eat too many bananas because of the high potassium content? Its not the potassium. Mother nature would never poison mammals.

High Protein/Fats blood -> Acidosis -> Calcium taken from bones to lower blood PH -> Osteoporosis -> Calcium dumped into Hyperlipedimic blood -> Calcium(base) + high fatty acids + potassium (Saponification of soft soap) -> Light Atherosclerosis

What nonsense. Please show the peer reviewed scientific studies that support this.

"Mother nature would never poison mammals." What?
"All diseases are man-made and all the result of meat addiction that has lasted millions of years." What a load of crap.

I edited the post. Check the link below what I wrote.

Wow. That is the most profoundly ignorant post I have seen for a long time. Just a few highlights:

Originally Posted by frugivore

All diseases are man-made and all the result of meat addiction that has lasted millions of years.

So vegetarians never get ill? And cultures that have always been (largely) vegetarian don't suffer from colds, flu, small pox?

Any evidence for this idiocy?

Let me explain the charactaristics of mother nature and how they work with the human body. I urge you to check these out yourself instead of taking it at face value.

Certainly no one should take any notice of anything you say.

On this planet there is trees, leaves, fruits, roots and all mammals.

There is a bit more than that.

Vegetables don't exist in the sense that they are brances and roots.

I have no idea what that means - apart from the fact it is obviously wrong. Of course vegetables exist (whatever definition you choose to use). And they consist of more than branches and root.

When we look at the mineral charactaristics of vegetation; we find that its always high in potassium and low in sodium. This means that all mammals accept high potassium and low sodium.

Could you provide some evidence for your claim about relative Na/K levels (you have given me no reason to take your word on anything - quite the reverse).

And what about mammals that are omnivores or carnivores. Many mammals are exclusively carnivorous.

Now I will explain why high protein/fat is bad for humans.

(Protein) Amino Acids - > Acid
(Fats) Fatty Acids -> Acid
(Carbs) Carbohydrates -> Neutral

I thought you were going to explain something?

Ever heard your doctor say to watch your sodium intake?

Actually, no.

Ever heard someone say to never eat too many bananas because of the high potassium content?

Well, you can, of course, overdose on potassium as with everything. I doubt you could do it by eating bananas though.

Mother nature would never poison mammals.

Ha! The post toxic compounds in the world occur in nature: botulinum, ricin, etc. Would you like to eat some of these 100% natural mushrooms:


I give up. The rest of your post is just ignorant drivel.

Spoiled brat bullies with boxed minds addicted to meat. Typical signs of an addict. Gets defensive when their addiction is exposed.

Humans aren't vegetarians or vegans or herbivores or omnivores or carnivores or insectivores.

Humans are biochemically frugivores with light tender non-bitter leaves. I eat more than 50 bananas in a day. Potassium isn't toxic, animal fat is.

Originally Posted by frugivore

Spoiled brat bullies with boxed minds addicted to meat. Typical signs of an addict. Gets defensive when their addiction is exposed.

So no references to back up your bogus claims then? No science? (Did you notice the name of the website?) You are just going to resort to insults. Nice. And what makes you think I am "addicted to meat"? (which is a meaningless phrase anyway)

Humans aren't vegetarians or vegans or herbivores.

Evidence for this claim? As humans have been eating a mixed diet for as long as they have existed, I can't imagine why you think we are anything other than omnivores.

Humans are biochemically frugivores with light tender non-bitter leaves.

And your evidence for this is? And you do know that some fruit are toxic don't you? ("Mother nature would never poison mammals")

I eat more than 50 bananas in a day.

Well good for you. How is that relevant to anything at all?

Potassium isn't toxic

Of course it is in sufficient dosage.

animal fat is

Of course it isn't (in reasonable quantities).

Originally Posted by frugivore

Spoiled brat bullies with boxed minds addicted to meat.

You forgot to mention EVIL BIG PHARMA and how THE TRUTH is being suppressed in favour of EVIL PROFITS. :/

We're still waiting for the SCIENCE.

I must profess that the Evil Fatty Food == Evil Acid line had me spewing coffee. Funniest I've heard in a long while and so completely uninformed as to render any argument you made thereafter irrelevant.

Leonarda Cianciulli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could never do what the woman above did with a frugivore body since there is no fat.

50 bananas = 18g of potassium. Any human meat eater try to eat this many bananas would be rushed to the hospital with blood full of liquid soap.

Both of you didn't even try to read what I wrote and understand it. Doesn't take a genius to make soap. Keep getting defensive.

Originally Posted by frugivore

You could never do what the woman above did with a frugivore body since there is no fat.

If there was no fat in your body you would be dead (you do know that vegetables contain fats don't you?). You realise that lipids are an essential part of almost every bodily function. Your fat reserves also form an important part of the immune system.

50 bananas = 18g of potassium. Any human meat eater try to eat this many bananas would be rushed to the hospital with blood full of liquid soap.

Evidence for this ludicrous claim?

Both of you didn't even try to read what I wrote and understand it. Doesn't take a genius to make soap. Keep getting defensive.

Read, understood and classified as ignorant drivel.

Why is it that so many people with crackpot ideas think the only reason that people don't agree with them is because they haven't "understood"; if we only took the time to understand we would see The Truth. Sorry, mate, without evidence no one here is going to accept this nonsense. Any one with the slightest knowledge of biology, biochemistry, human physiology, or even common sense, can see this is just garbage.

There is nothing to be defensive about. I am only pointing out your ignorance, errors and lack of support in case any poor gullible people are tempted to believe you.

Originally Posted by frugivore

50 bananas = 18g of potassium.

I would have thought more than that. Maybe your banana is very small? (no innuendo meant )

Of course, there are plenty of other good sources of potassium (as you seem to be obsessed with it for some bizarre reason): potatoes; spinach; milk; fish; chicken.... Oh noes! It looks like non-frugivores can easily get enough Ka in their diet!

Endocrine disorders are caused by a lack of hormones known has Vitamin A & D to regulate those organs and a major shock to the adrenal glands by huge amounts of unnecessary animal fats which lead to adrenal insufficiency.

Just in case a casual reader thinks there might be some sense in this. There isn't. How vitamins could possibly "cause" genetically linked Type 1 diabetes or cretinism from a mother's inadequate thyroid function is best left to the imaginations of science fiction writers.

I missed this among all the rest of the drivel.

Originally Posted by frugivore

Endocrine disorders are caused by a lack of hormones known has Vitamin A & D to regulate those organs and a major shock to the adrenal glands by huge amounts of unnecessary animal fats which lead to adrenal insufficiency.

The grammar of that sentence went a bit awry so I am not quite sure what point you are tying to make. But that is OK because it would be incorrect, anyway.

I would point out that if you are concerned about a deficiency of vitamin A in your diet, the best source is liver (ironic, huh). And the best source of vitamin D (apart from sunshine) is fish, eggs and ... liver. In fact, the only vegan (and hence, presumably, crank-frugivore) source of vitamin D is irradiated mushrooms - scary!

OF course, don't forget that both these vitamins (and most others) are toxic in excess.

Read, understood and classified as ignorant drivel.

Why is it that so many people with crackpot ideas think the only reason that people don't agree with them is because they haven't "understood"; if we only took the time to understand we would see The Truth. Sorry, mate, without evidence no one here is going to accept this nonsense. Any one with the slightest knowledge of biology, biochemistry, human physiology, or even common sense, can see this is just garbage.

There is nothing to be defensive about. I am only pointing out your ignorance, errors and lack of support in case any poor gullible people are tempted to believe you.

I will use wikipedia sources.

Longstanding chronic metabolic acidosis leads to osteoporosis and can cause fractures.

Metabolic acidosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMetabolic acidosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

High Protein/Fats in the blood -> Acidosis -> Calcium taken from bones -> Osteoporosis -> Calcium dumped into Hyperlipedimic blood to lower blood PH (metabolic acidosis) -> Calcium(base) + Triglycerides + sodium (Saponification of hard soap) -> Atherosclerosis

High Protein/Fats in the blood -> Acidosis -> Calcium taken from bones -> Osteoporosis -> Calcium dumped into Hyperlipedimic blood to lower blood PH (metabolic acidosis) -> Calcium(base) + Triglycerides + potassium (Saponification of soft soap) -> Light Atherosclerosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saponification

What causes Acidosis in your opinion?

What causes Acidosis in your opinion?

Metabolic acidosis is a crisis , a consequence of underlying organic dysfunction or of a serious episode of dehydration or diarrhoea.

Metabolic acidosis - PubMed Health

It is not, repeat not, a routine consequence of any kind of diet, foodstuff or other ordinary biological activity.

Originally Posted by frugivore

What causes Acidosis in your opinion?

Well, on the Wikipedia page you yourself linked to there is a list of causes. Not one of which is a normal human diet.

Originally Posted by adelady

What causes Acidosis in your opinion?

Metabolic acidosis is a crisis , a consequence of underlying organic dysfunction or of a serious episode of dehydration or diarrhoea.

Metabolic acidosis - PubMed Health

It is not, repeat not, a routine consequence of any kind of diet, foodstuff or other ordinary biological activity.

Meat, processed foods, dairy and other foods out there are acidic.

I guess I can eat battery Acid and my blood wont get Acidic.

Acidosis is more severe with less water however Acids still lower the blood PH.

Originally Posted by frugivore

Meat, processed foods, dairy and other foods out there are acidic.

You might want to stop flaunting your ignorance. It is getting a little embarrassing.

I guess I can eat battery Acid and my blood wont get Acidic.

That is what is known as a "strawman fallacy". Perhaps you could fill your car battery with milk?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by frugivore

Meat, processed foods, dairy and other foods out there are acidic.

You might want to stop flaunting your ignorance. It is getting a little embarrassing.

I guess I can eat battery Acid and my blood wont get Acidic.

That is what is known as a "strawman fallacy". Perhaps you could fill your car battery with milk?

So Amino Acids and Fatty Acids are NOT acidic? We can ingest as many Amino Acids and Fatty Acids as we want and the blood will never become Acidic?

Acidosis is more severe with less water however Acids still lower the blood PH.

This is a common misconception. Gastric acids have a pH between 1.5 and 3.5. You can drink vinegar with a pH of 2.5. Battery acid is more acidic at 0.8 - not just undrinkable but dangerous to all the mucous membranes of the mouth and other surfaces leading to the stomach.

BUT. There is no non-acidic or alkaline foodstuff that you can eat that will not be entirely consumed and neutralised by stomach acids.

The pH of blood is constantly, finely, adjusted to slightly alkaline balance of 7.35 to 7.45. The stomach and other digestive processes ensure that that level does not vary much at all. It's only if you have kidney disease or other organic dysfunction that blood pH goes outside these values.

Originally Posted by frugivore

So Amino Acids and Fatty Acids are NOT acidic? We can ingest as many Amino Acids and Fatty Acids as we want and the blood will never become Acidic?

Amino-acids are what proteins are made up of. If you think you can survive without consuming any amino acids and with no proteins in your body, good luck to you.

Seriously, you might want to enrol at your local adult education college for a few basic science courses. Start with biology and maybe chemistry. You clearly know absolutely zero about these subjects at the moment. Everything that you think you know appears to be complete misinformation and/or misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by frugivore

So Amino Acids and Fatty Acids are NOT acidic? We can ingest as many Amino Acids and Fatty Acids as we want and the blood will never become Acidic?

Amino-acids are what proteins are made up of. If you think you can survive without consuming any amino acids and with no proteins in your body, good luck to you.

Seriously, you might want to enrol at your local adult education college for a few basic science courses. Start with biology and maybe chemistry. You clearly know absolutely zero about these subjects at the moment. Everything that you think you know appears to be complete misinformation and/or misinterpretation.

I understand everything perferctly. You don't see it. Its shocking!

The ratios of protein/fats in meat does not correspond with the ratios that are needed by our bodies. Meat is in major "excess" of protein/fats for our biochemistry.

Essential amino acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to wikipedia. A 70kg body needs 12.180 mg of amino acids which I think its too low. I get more protein by eating fruit alone.

As for fats. We need omega 3's and 6's which are easily found in vegetation.

Humans dont need more than 10% from protein and 10% from fats. Body needs atleast 80% from carbs since all cells and even the brain runs on glucose.

Excess fat intake diseases:

Hyperlipidemia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atherosclerosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cows get all the essential amino acids from grass, this means that all vegetation includes all the essential amino acids. Even fruits.

Biochemistry course is going to tell me what I already know. We ingest chemicals and they get transported around the body with glycoproteins. The body is a huge city of small houses known as cells, beside these cells is the blood which feeds them and on the other side of the cells is the lymphatic system which cleans them. Not very hard. Unless you think the body dumps waste in the blood stream?

If you're smart enough as you claim. What takes cell waste away?

Cows get all the essential amino acids from grass

Absolutely! And when we evolve to have a stomach with 4 compartments to allow fermentation and other exciting reprocessing of our food, we'll do the same.

Of course, all those communities in the far Northern Hemisphere that thrive on a mostly meat and fat diet will have to move to accommodate such a change. But, hey ho.

Originally Posted by adelady

Acidosis is more severe with less water however Acids still lower the blood PH.

This is a common misconception. Gastric acids have a pH between 1.5 and 3.5. You can drink vinegar with a pH of 2.5. Battery acid is more acidic at 0.8 - not just undrinkable but dangerous to all the mucous membranes of the mouth and other surfaces leading to the stomach.

BUT. There is no non-acidic or alkaline foodstuff that you can eat that will not be entirely consumed and neutralised by stomach acids.

The pH of blood is constantly, finely, adjusted to slightly alkaline balance of 7.35 to 7.45. The stomach and other digestive processes ensure that that level does not vary much at all. It's only if you have kidney disease or other organic dysfunction that blood pH goes outside these values.

I was being humorous. Pointing out that if a person ingest acids from non-natural foods sources in excess, more than it needs; blood PH will become acidic.

Originally Posted by adelady

Cows get all the essential amino acids from grass

Absolutely! And when we evolve to have a stomach with 4 compartments to allow fermentation and other exciting reprocessing of our food, we'll do the same.

Of course, all those communities in the far Northern Hemisphere that thrive on a mostly meat and fat diet will have to move to accommodate such a change. But, hey ho.

Don't twist my words and erase what I wrote after it. Manipulation isn't nice. We are frugivores.

Whats sad in this world is me paying taxes that will pay doctors to safe meat eaters asses. Frugivores are disease proof.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by frugivore

50 bananas = 18g of potassium.

I would have thought more than that. Maybe your banana is very small? (no innuendo meant )

Of course, there are plenty of other good sources of potassium (as you seem to be obsessed with it for some bizarre reason): potatoes; spinach; milk; fish; chicken.... Oh noes! It looks like non-frugivores can easily get enough Ka in their diet!

Buy a couple kilos of bananas. Eat them. We are omnivores as you believe. They shouldn't harm you in anyway.

My banana is 18cm by 14cm since you're so curious. You know how hard it is finding a condom for this banana.

Small brains always have small bananas.

Originally Posted by frugivore

[I understand everything perferctly.

The trouble is, you think you do.

The ratios of protein/fats in meat does not correspond with the ratios that are needed by our bodies. Meat is in major "excess" of protein/fats for our biochemistry.

Evidence? (Apart from the fact that very few people live on nothing but meat.)

The body is a huge city of small houses known as cells, beside these cells is the blood which feeds them and on the other side of the cells is the lymphatic system which cleans them.

Even as a crude metaphor that is so grossly wrong it is laughable.

Originally Posted by frugivore

Frugivores are disease proof.

Got any evidence for that? Because, strange as it may seem, I don't believe it.

Frugivores are disease proof.

Oh really?

So how do you propose to use fruit to deal with the problems of the members of a family who suffer from Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease? 'Family' should be the clue that this is a genetic disorder. (Just like all those people with Type 1 diabetes and dozens of other genetic conditions.)

Currently they waste their money on podiatrists and specialised footwear to stop tripping over because of weak leg muscles and kitchen gadgets to help out with weak hands. Funnily enough, the greengrocer has never suggested he could do better with his produce.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by frugivore

Frugivores are disease proof.

Got any evidence for that? Because, strange as it may seem, I don't believe it.

Since herbivores eat grass. When you eat meat, you're just eating recycled compacted grass.

Fruit contains high amounts of antioxidants and bioflavanoids. Plus the sweet tooth instinct everyone has. Do you still believe recycled grass made your brain big?

High Protein Diet May Shrink Brain Say Alzheimer's Researchers

Originally Posted by frugivore

When you eat meat, you're just eating recycled compacted grass.

You really think meat is made of "compressed grass". Hilarious.

We have been eating a mix, meat-based diet for millennia.

For example, from A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence

direct evidence of past diet ... indicates the importance of animal protein in diets

there is a significant change in the archaeological record associated with the introduction of agriculture worldwide, and an associated general decline in health

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by frugivore

When you eat meat, you're just eating recycled compacted grass.

You really think meat is made of "compressed grass". Hilarious.

We have been eating a mix, meat-based diet for millennia.

For example, from A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence

direct evidence of past diet ... indicates the importance of animal protein in diets

there is a significant change in the archaeological record associated with the introduction of agriculture worldwide, and an associated general decline in health

What else would you call meat? It lacks antioxidants and bioflavanoids which help the brain. Do a search on lutein brain or lutein prostate. Longevity is based on who ingests the most antioxidants.

I agree about the grains. Why did we start farming? To survive. Why did we start eating meat? To survive. We survived however its time to put the meat/grains aside since we obviously can't biochemically eat unlimited quantities of meat/grains like carnivores and birds can without affecting us in negative ways. No animal out in the wild does portion control.

Forget about the past and what people did. We have an instinct towards sugar and the only natural sugar available is fruit. I follow my instincts, not what some guy did in the past to survive.

We have the technology to grow fruit everywhere on the plant. Biomimicry is an example. North of Africa is a perfect place to put a huge cultivation of greenhouses.

When I say all this, don't take it like I'm saving the animals cause I don't give a rats ass about the cow. I feel sorry for the tiger that is starving because humans have stolen his food.

Originally Posted by frugivore

Longevity is based on who ingests the most antioxidants.

Really? Got any evidence for that? No? What a surprise.

We have an instinct towards sugar and the only natural sugar available is fruit.

Meanwhile, on another forum, another crank person is arguing that the current epidemic of obesity and diabetes is entirely due to fructose in the diet.

Faced with two contradictory extremists, I wonder what I should do.... Hmmm... Maybe eat a balanced diet and read some scientific research on the subject.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by frugivore

Longevity is based on who ingests the most antioxidants.

Really? Got any evidence for that? No? What a surprise.

We have an instinct towards sugar and the only natural sugar available is fruit.

Meanwhile, on another forum, another crank person is arguing that the current epidemic of obesity and diabetes is entirely due to fructose in the diet.

Faced with two contradictory extremists, I wonder what I should do.... Hmmm... Maybe eat a balanced diet and read some scientific research on the subject.

I don't understand how you can be so closed minded? Do you like being like this?

We know that free radicals damage cells in the body and antioxidants donate electrons by neutralizing free radicals.

Diabetes is caused by a high fat + high refined sugar diet. Fat clogs up insulin receptors. It is well documented by doing a simple search however there is always people like you who get brainwashed by nonsense studies.

Let me know when another primate develops diabetes from eating too much fruit. Not in a million years.

There is a big difference between synthetic high fructose corn syrup which is man-made and natural fructose.

Balanced diet is portion control. Let me know when another mammal on this planet does portion control.

Diabetes is caused by a high fat + high refined sugar diet.

And Type 1 diabetes is caused by ......... ?

Originally Posted by frugivore

I don't understand how you can be so closed minded?

The fact that I don't accept your ideas (which are contradicted by all known science, when they don't fall into the "not even wrong" category) does not make me closed minded. I am very open to new ideas, where they are supported by factual evidence. You are being closed minded by refusing to learn even the basics of biology or chemistry.

We know that free radicals damage cells in the body and antioxidants donate electrons by neutralizing free radicals.

We know they have a role in that. It is a long way from that to "longevity is based on who ingests the most antioxidants" (for which you have no evidence).

Fat clogs up insulin receptors

"Clogs up"? Is that a technical term?

Balanced diet is portion control.

Huh?

Originally Posted by adelady

Diabetes is caused by a high fat + high refined sugar diet.

And Type 1 diabetes is caused by ......... ?

Its obviously caused by a pregnant mother eating a high protein/fat/refined sugar acidic diet. The baby eats what the mother eats.

Originally Posted by Strange

The fact that I don't accept your ideas (which are contradicted by all known science, when they don't fall into the "not even wrong" category) does not make me closed minded. I am very open to new ideas, where they are supported by factual evidence. You are being closed minded by refusing to learn even the basics of biology or chemistry.

Those invented by man or those created by mother nature?

[We know they have a role in that. It is a long way from that to "longevity is based on who ingests the most antioxidants" (for which you have no evidence).

Antioxidants prevent inflammation. More inflammation shortens life.

Originally Posted by frugivore

[We know they have a role in that. It is a long way from that to "longevity is based on who ingests the most antioxidants" (for which you have no evidence).

Antioxidants prevent inflammation. More inflammation shortens life.

Some antioxidants may have a role in reducing inflammation. This is a long way from "preventing". And there is no evidence that "more is better". Inflammation is a health risk but is not the main determinant of longevity.

So your claim that "longevity is based on who ingests the most antioxidants" still sounds like bunk.

Frugivore,

We have strong evidence from fossil remains that Homo habilis, our ancestor of 2 to 3 millions of years ago, ate meat. That length of time is totally adequate to permit our bodies to adapt to that diet, and they have.

Antioxidants are a healthy addition to our diet, but only up to a point. Like vitamins, any excess is simply excreted. In fact, too many can be harmful, since some free radicals actually play a role in body chemistry, and should not be 'mopped up' completely. Free radicals such as reactive oxygen species (ROS) in small amounts are needed. Antioxidants such as vitamins C and E are great as part of a normal balanced diet, but too much does not help.
Free radicals and antioxidants in no... [Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

I quote :

"The "two-faced" character of ROS is clearly substantiated. For example, a growing body of evidence shows that ROS within cells act as secondary messengers in intracellular signalling cascades which induce and maintain the oncogenic phenotype of cancer cells, however, ROS can also induce cellular senescence and apoptosis and can therefore function as anti-tumourigenic species."


Which means, of course, that free radicals are both useful and harmful. This means that a moderate amount of anti-oxidant intake is good, but an excess is probably bad.

A balanced diet includes fruit and nuts, green and coloured vegetables, high fibre cereals like wholemeal bread, and animal protein. People who do not consume any animal protein often suffer from anemia from lack of iron intake, or from lack of vitamin B12, and animal protein is the very best source of a properly balanced intake of all 20 amino acids.

Animal protein intake in excess is not good if it is high fat. Too much McDonalds can be a route to early death. But good low fat animal protein like lean red meat, lean poultry, low fat milk, fish and eggs, eaten as part of that balanced diet, are an asset towards achieving the best of good health.

its really a very informative and the interesting article that which medicine is the best its allopathic or homeopathic...listen one thing that i were using a homeopathic medicine there is a lot of side effects of the homeopathic medicines.but i know that the allopathic medicine react very fastly..its depend on a type of a disease.so please don't use the homeopathic medicine.

Just as a note, it is considered rude to resurrect threads that havent been active for over a month, fyi

Homeopathic elixirs of health work but only if done the right day for the right person, you need to take the homeopathic elixir on Thursday is you are a Sagittarius, but on Friday if you are a Capricorn and use energy crystals, except if you got a Royal Fizzbin hand of cards on the previous monday, but the odds of getting that are astronomical.

My cousin is a homeopathic practitioner. I feel dirty just being related to her...

Interesting! Hahnemann seems as if he were on the fringe of discovering immunization. Is that what you are alluding to? This seems as if holistic approaches are deemed "curative" too. As if reading "aura's" could identify an illness and then using "chi" technology in accordance with the scientific method could "draw out" this caustative agent. Real science is like Regan...the trickle down effect...from the lab, to the pharmacy, sort of, I guess.