The food pyramid really provide heathy, balanced nutrition?

[Guest guest]

Dear Josh,

 

I really enjoyed and agreed with everything you wrote--until your last thought:

the food pyramid.  I for one do not to it, and believe that this kind

of diet, which promotes a large percentage of the diet to be composed of

carbohydrates (good and bad) and very little good fat (essential fatty acids)

will actually promote diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.  Read the

research done by Barry Sears, PhD, (of the Zone diet fame) et al.  He competely

debunks the myth that we need substantially larger amounts of carbs than protein

or good fat.  furthermore, the pyramid doesn't even consider the glycemic load

of carbs.  It's another mistake and another example of corporate greed having an

agenda--this time spelled N-E-S-T-L-E-S.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Hah <x.kymus.x wrote:

 

 

Hah <x.kymus.x

Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust?

Chinese Medicine

Monday, May 11, 2009, 3:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Alon, thank you for your response.

 

I agree with you that viewing both sides of an argument is paramount. This is an

exercise I try to involve myself with whenever I can; though unfortunately most

people have trouble researching even 1 side of the argument efficiently (on any

topic).

 

In all of my research, I've continually found the same answer: vaccines are not

effective, and they can be dangerous as well. Of course I am always willing to

look at the information that disagrees with my conclusions, but in the end, I've

never found strong enough evidence to make me even doubt my stance on this

issue.

 

Doctors vaccinate simply because it is the dogma that is preached to them. Some

continue this practice because they believe in it, and others continue it

because it brings them a guaranteed revolving door of income (see Dr. Sherry

Tenpenny's comments). With every study I've seen on the flu vaccine, the results

have said that they are literally worthless. Despite this, the flu vaccine is

hyped every year and I do not recall hearing of many doctors that inform their

patients that they do not need this.

 

A similar argument can be drawn with - /at least/ certain - pharmaceuticals.

Depression medications are still prescribed even though studies show they work

only as good as a placebo. Cholesterol lowering drugs are still prescribed even

though they continually show to not lower cholesterol.

 

Again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because a doctor is well

meaning and has taken the Hippocratic oath does not in any way reduce their

likelihood of prescribing methods that are ineffective. Let's not forget as well

that these same doctors, most get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies

(whether they feel they're being bribed or not) and at least 40% admit to

prescribing a drug that their patient wants (that they saw advertised on TV)

just to shut them up.

 

Next of course is the issue of just not knowing any better, which I think

likewise plagues Allopathy. Faked and/or dishonest studies occur. Whether the

study was poorly designed, or was fabricated from the get-go by some big

industry, this can - and I'm sure has - affected the views of even the most well

meaning of doctors.

 

If doctors using less than proven techniques is a conspiracy theory, then so too

would be the claimed health defects of sodium-fluoridated water even though most

dentists strongly push for it. Let's not forget the USDA Food Guide Pyramid

which most doctors promote and dietitians also promote as a sound method of

nutrition despite the entire thing being a corporate fabrication (see Marion

Nestle's Food Politics. Nestle was one of the originals that worked on it).

There can be any number of reasons why such professionals support these things:

money, ignorance, gullibility, lack of appropriate research, etc. but it can't

be denied that such things are all around us and still occur despite the best of

intentions from most.

 

I know I drew some parallels to things unrelated to the subject at hand, but

hopefully you understand my main point just the same.

 

Thanks,

- Josh Barton, C.M.T., H.H.C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yehuda - you and Josh share the same opinion on the food pyramid.

 

My point of view is more pragmatic. They keep changing it. Maybe that means

they don't know what they're doing.

 

Hugo

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

Chinese Medicine

Monday, 11 May, 2009 23:27:25

The food pyramid really provide heathy, balanced nutrition?

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Josh,

 

I really enjoyed and agreed with everything you wrote--until your last thought:

the food pyramid. I for one do not to it, and believe that this kind

of diet, which promotes a large percentage of the diet to be composed of

carbohydrates (good and bad) and very little good fat (essential fatty acids)

will actually promote diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. Read the

research done by Barry Sears, PhD, (of the Zone diet fame) et al. He competely

debunks the myth that we need substantially larger amounts of carbs than protein

or good fat. furthermore, the pyramid doesn't even consider the glycemic load

of carbs. It's another mistake and another example of corporate greed having an

agenda--this time spelled N-E-S-T-L-E- S.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. net

www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. blogspot. com

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Hah <x.kymus.x (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

 

Hah <x.kymus.x (AT) gmail (DOT) com>

Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust?

 

Monday, May 11, 2009, 3:00 PM

 

Hi Alon, thank you for your response.

 

I agree with you that viewing both sides of an argument is paramount. This is an

exercise I try to involve myself with whenever I can; though unfortunately most

people have trouble researching even 1 side of the argument efficiently (on any

topic).

 

In all of my research, I've continually found the same answer: vaccines are not

effective, and they can be dangerous as well. Of course I am always willing to

look at the information that disagrees with my conclusions, but in the end, I've

never found strong enough evidence to make me even doubt my stance on this

issue.

 

Doctors vaccinate simply because it is the dogma that is preached to them. Some

continue this practice because they believe in it, and others continue it

because it brings them a guaranteed revolving door of income (see Dr. Sherry

Tenpenny's comments). With every study I've seen on the flu vaccine, the results

have said that they are literally worthless. Despite this, the flu vaccine is

hyped every year and I do not recall hearing of many doctors that inform their

patients that they do not need this.

 

A similar argument can be drawn with - /at least/ certain - pharmaceuticals.

Depression medications are still prescribed even though studies show they work

only as good as a placebo. Cholesterol lowering drugs are still prescribed even

though they continually show to not lower cholesterol.

 

Again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because a doctor is well

meaning and has taken the Hippocratic oath does not in any way reduce their

likelihood of prescribing methods that are ineffective. Let's not forget as well

that these same doctors, most get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies

(whether they feel they're being bribed or not) and at least 40% admit to

prescribing a drug that their patient wants (that they saw advertised on TV)

just to shut them up.

 

Next of course is the issue of just not knowing any better, which I think

likewise plagues Allopathy. Faked and/or dishonest studies occur. Whether the

study was poorly designed, or was fabricated from the get-go by some big

industry, this can - and I'm sure has - affected the views of even the most well

meaning of doctors.

 

If doctors using less than proven techniques is a conspiracy theory, then so too

would be the claimed health defects of sodium-fluoridated water even though most

dentists strongly push for it. Let's not forget the USDA Food Guide Pyramid

which most doctors promote and dietitians also promote as a sound method of

nutrition despite the entire thing being a corporate fabrication (see Marion

Nestle's Food Politics. Nestle was one of the originals that worked on it).

There can be any number of reasons why such professionals support these things:

money, ignorance, gullibility, lack of appropriate research, etc. but it can't

be denied that such things are all around us and still occur despite the best of

intentions from most.

 

I know I drew some parallels to things unrelated to the subject at hand, but

hopefully you understand my main point just the same.

 

Thanks,

- Josh Barton, C.M.T., H.H.C.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sorry guys,

 

I didn't read carefully enough!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 5/11/09, wrote:

 

 

 

The food pyramid really provide heathy, balanced nutrition?

Chinese Medicine

Monday, May 11, 2009, 8:27 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Josh,

 

I really enjoyed and agreed with everything you wrote--until your last thought:

the food pyramid.  I for one do not to it, and believe that this kind

of diet, which promotes a large percentage of the diet to be composed of

carbohydrates (good and bad) and very little good fat (essential fatty acids)

will actually promote diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.  Read the

research done by Barry Sears, PhD, (of the Zone diet fame) et al.  He competely

debunks the myth that we need substantially larger amounts of carbs than protein

or good fat.  furthermore, the pyramid doesn't even consider the glycemic load

of carbs.  It's another mistake and another example of corporate greed having an

agenda--this time spelled N-E-S-T-L-E- S.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. net

www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. blogspot. com

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Hah <x.kymus.x (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

 

Hah <x.kymus.x (AT) gmail (DOT) com>

Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust?

 

Monday, May 11, 2009, 3:00 PM

 

Hi Alon, thank you for your response.

 

I agree with you that viewing both sides of an argument is paramount. This is an

exercise I try to involve myself with whenever I can; though unfortunately most

people have trouble researching even 1 side of the argument efficiently (on any

topic).

 

In all of my research, I've continually found the same answer: vaccines are not

effective, and they can be dangerous as well. Of course I am always willing to

look at the information that disagrees with my conclusions, but in the end, I've

never found strong enough evidence to make me even doubt my stance on this

issue.

 

Doctors vaccinate simply because it is the dogma that is preached to them. Some

continue this practice because they believe in it, and others continue it

because it brings them a guaranteed revolving door of income (see Dr. Sherry

Tenpenny's comments). With every study I've seen on the flu vaccine, the results

have said that they are literally worthless. Despite this, the flu vaccine is

hyped every year and I do not recall hearing of many doctors that inform their

patients that they do not need this.

 

A similar argument can be drawn with - /at least/ certain - pharmaceuticals.

Depression medications are still prescribed even though studies show they work

only as good as a placebo. Cholesterol lowering drugs are still prescribed even

though they continually show to not lower cholesterol.

 

Again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because a doctor is well

meaning and has taken the Hippocratic oath does not in any way reduce their

likelihood of prescribing methods that are ineffective. Let's not forget as well

that these same doctors, most get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies

(whether they feel they're being bribed or not) and at least 40% admit to

prescribing a drug that their patient wants (that they saw advertised on TV)

just to shut them up.

 

Next of course is the issue of just not knowing any better, which I think

likewise plagues Allopathy. Faked and/or dishonest studies occur. Whether the

study was poorly designed, or was fabricated from the get-go by some big

industry, this can - and I'm sure has - affected the views of even the most well

meaning of doctors.

 

If doctors using less than proven techniques is a conspiracy theory, then so too

would be the claimed health defects of sodium-fluoridated water even though most

dentists strongly push for it. Let's not forget the USDA Food Guide Pyramid

which most doctors promote and dietitians also promote as a sound method of

nutrition despite the entire thing being a corporate fabrication (see Marion

Nestle's Food Politics. Nestle was one of the originals that worked on it).

There can be any number of reasons why such professionals support these things:

money, ignorance, gullibility, lack of appropriate research, etc. but it can't

be denied that such things are all around us and still occur despite the best of

intentions from most.

 

I know I drew some parallels to things unrelated to the subject at hand, but

hopefully you understand my main point just the same.

 

Thanks,

- Josh Barton, C.M.T., H.H.C.