Dr Mercola

[HowToBe]

Wow, thanks bunches for the helpful replies! I've gradually introduced the ideas about wheat and, more recently, milk. The primary difficulties aside from money are 1.)My younger brother is still in high school, and thus scheduling is tricky there, 2.)The three of us have absolutely no stable sleep cycle or regular, scheduled routine (part of the reason for tricky scheduling), and 3.)My mom is a sort-of picky eater compared to me, especially since we discovered her soybean allergy; she really craves variety. We're working on it, or at least I am, and they seem mostly on-board although I've been doing the brunt of research and implementing of changes. I've been striving to be very gentle, mostly for my mom's sake, but I'm feeling stifled so I think I've possibly been a bit too gentle; our family has lots of small, set patterns, maybe we need some shock to knock those patterns loose so we can grow. It seems to be what the situation is asking for.

Soybeans we are already on the path of eliminating, since discovering Mom's soy allergy; it has been a natural step to remove it from almost all of our purchases, and has provided some valuable learning and skills in the process.
Milk might not be so hard to eliminate, except for my brother's tendency to eat cereal whenever he feels hungry (a testament to our sparse mealtimes, I'm afraid - I'm the cook most often).
Wheat is much more difficult, as my mother does not like buckwheat at all (she says it tastes like motor oil - and she knows what motor oil tastes like). Otherwise, we possibly would already be in the process of making the switch. So I need to get a hold of some different recipes to see if there are any circumstances under which she can enjoy the stuff.

Or so I think. I'm hoping to sit down with my mom to seriously discuss the logistics of changing our diets soon.

 

[herondancer]

If your mom doesn't like buckwheat, you could look into quinoa or amaranth flour for making your breads. There've been a few folks who just don't like it. I wonder if it's some sort of "super taster" thing.

In 1931, A.L. Fox, a DuPont chemist, discovered that some individuals found phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) to be bitter while others found it tasteless.[4][5] At the 1931 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fox collaborated with Blakeslee (a geneticist) to have attendees taste PTC: 65% found them bitter, 28% found them tasteless and 6% described other taste qualities. Subsequent work revealed that the ability to taste PTC was genetic in nature. In the 1960s, Roland Fischer was the first to link the ability to taste PTC, and the related compound propylthiouracil (PROP), to food preference and body type. Today, PROP has replaced PTC in taste research due to a faint sulfurous odor and safety concerns with PTC. As described above, Bartoshuk and colleagues discovered that the taster group could be further divided into medium and supertasters. Most estimates suggest 25% of the population are nontasters, 50% are medium tasters, and 25% are supertasters.

I've heard buckwheat described as bitter.

 

[Ollie]

If your mom doesn't like buckwheat, you could look into quinoa or amaranth flour for making your breads. There've been a few folks who just don't like it. I wonder if it's some sort of "super taster" thing.

In 1931, A.L. Fox, a DuPont chemist, discovered that some individuals found phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) to be bitter while others found it tasteless.[4][5] At the 1931 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fox collaborated with Blakeslee (a geneticist) to have attendees taste PTC: 65% found them bitter, 28% found them tasteless and 6% described other taste qualities. Subsequent work revealed that the ability to taste PTC was genetic in nature. In the 1960s, Roland Fischer was the first to link the ability to taste PTC, and the related compound propylthiouracil (PROP), to food preference and body type. Today, PROP has replaced PTC in taste research due to a faint sulfurous odor and safety concerns with PTC. As described above, Bartoshuk and colleagues discovered that the taster group could be further divided into medium and supertasters. Most estimates suggest 25% of the population are nontasters, 50% are medium tasters, and 25% are supertasters.

I've heard buckwheat described as bitter.

For some, Buckwheat may be an acquired taste, it may take a while for their system to get used to the taste.

 

[Jacques]

For some, Buckwheat may be an acquired taste, it may take a while for their system to get used to the taste.

That was my case. I did not like it at the beginning and the odor was not pleasant.

Now that I am used to it, I liked it.

 

[HowToBe]

Well, recently she said she thinks she's getting so she can bear the taste, but she doesn't think she'll ever get so that she likes the stuff, and guessing by what I know of her experiences with other foods, she might be right. So far it seems that she can enjoy the stuff best in the form of homemade noodles. However, biscuits are a no-go; she had to spit part of one out after taking a bite (it may have partially been the combination with apricot jam).

Yes, herondancer, I think so as well. She has a heightened sense of smell compared to me which I imagine is another indicator. She's never been much of a bread person and can't stand peppers in general, unless they are used as seasoning, and only in specific foods. She can also taste the machine oil in some processed foods, while I cannot (as far as I can tell).

We've gotten ourselves some quinoa flour to test out. It smells and tastes like beans. My mom says it reminds her of ground dried peas that she used to make soup from before I was born. The health store didn't have amaranth flour, and they were as surprised as me about this fact! Maybe they will get a stock in now that they know.

Overall, it mostly depends on my effort at the moment. To the extent that I cook good food, they will eat good food. When I don't cook, frustration and "snacking" set in. For the first time ever, I've suddenly gotten the urge to hold regular mealtimes; even when our hours are completely backwards, from now on, I'll try to ensure that we have filling food every 6 or so hours.

 

[HowToBe]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/13/fda-to-ban-new-supplements-and-classify-them-like-food-preservatives.aspx?e_cid=20110913_DNL_art_1

The FDA has issued a proposed mandate that represents the greatest threat to dietary supplements since 1994. Back in the early 1990s, consumers were so alarmed by FDA bullying that they staged a massive revolt. The result was that Congress passed a law prohibiting the FDA from banning popular nutrients (as the agency had threatened to do).

There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given authority to regulate ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.

It has been 17 years, but the FDA just issued draconian proposals as to how it intends to regulate what it now calls "new dietary ingredients". You can find the FDA Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDI's) here. If implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you are taking will be removed from the market. This includes many fish oil formulas and natural plant extracts. A detailed analysis of the FDA Draft Guidance is available here.

These oppressive rules are exactly what the 1994 law (DSHEA) sought to prevent. The FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent.

In order for these ingredients you are using today to return to the market, the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a "safety factor" up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis.

The FDA defines dietary supplements as being "new" if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that even certain nutrients that have been safely used over the course of three decades will be subject to the FDA's oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing.

I've not reproduced the links, which are available At the actual article.

This seems very serious. My family cannot afford supplements as it is. These FDA movements will condemn us if they succeed, and that is very likely the goal.

How can we fight this? I've gotten the impression that SOTT and colleagues do not hold petitioning as a very effective way to effect change. But I've been unsure of how else to do something, especially when it is difficult to pay the bills...

 

[Alana]

Yes, and it's not only the US, Europe and Canada are facing the same thing:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203652-Natural-Remedies-and-Supplements-Take-Blow-in-Canada-Brace-for-One-in-U-S-

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/228521-Criminal-Hundreds-of-herbal-remedies-now-outlawed-across-Europe

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/232530-FDA-Copies-the-European-Union-and-Slips-In-One-of-its-Deadliest-Weapons

This seems very serious. My family cannot afford supplements as it is. These FDA movements will condemn us if they succeed, and that is very likely the goal.

How can we fight this? I've gotten the impression that SOTT and colleagues do not hold petitioning as a very effective way to effect change. But I've been unsure of how else to do something, especially when it is difficult to pay the bills...

One thing I can think of that we can do, is to start or follow a low carb, high saturated fat diet. This way, we need to take less supplements. I hope that some vitamin C, magnesium and fish oils can make it through the bill though, because they are still needed.

It pisses me off to no end that they can allow people to suffer and die, so that the Big Pharma sharks get wealthy.

From the last article I posted above:

The justification given for the new guidelines is - as is always the case when facing a tighter regulatory noose around dietary supplements - consumer safety. This of course brings about a predictable response from the natural health sector: "But where are the dead bodies?" It's actually quite a pertinent question, and one that is rarely taken seriously by the FDA or other regulators.

A careful examination of the most recent two years of US National Poison Data System (NPDS) figures reveals that, of all products to which we are exposed that might cause harm, pharmaceutical drugs caused 80% and 81% of fatalities, respectively. The majority of these were from unintentional poisoning. Are you surprised? It makes it even more of a wonder that regulators continue to try to convince the public that pharmaceutical-like regulation will be the best way of guaranteeing their safety!

Another thing that we can all do, is write to our political representatives, en masse! So spread the word any way and as much as we can! And why not, sign petitions. Taking action is important and gives the Universe the message that we care and with what energy we align with.

 

[manitoban]

It pisses me off to no end that they can allow people to suffer and die, so that the Big Pharma sharks get wealthy.

This is infuriating!! It's not bad enough that they poison the water, air and most food, but now they want to take away the vitamins too!! Their evil agenda couldn't be more obvious!

 

[Al Today]

What's even more is the s.o.b.s will probably get away with it.

Side note: I heard a fellow on the radio stating that the usa population is perfectly content to get obese and ignorant. I'm starting to wonder if the guy is right. Almost as difficult as believing in psychopaths, (that other humanoid life form), is that seemingly the majority of people may just really be dum@ss sheeple. And if this is the mass human experience that is shaping the future? Sweet BeeGeeBus, we are for a world of major hurt.

I don't know what makes me more angry. The psychos in power, or the indifferent sheeple being led to slaughter.


edit: typos, again,and again :P

 

[HowToBe]

pharmaceutical drugs caused 80% and 81% of fatalities

Yes, I read some data along these lines in the Mercola article, although that data was from 2004 I think. Here it is:

According to the 2001 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), of the substances implicated in fatal poisonings in 2001, 84.6 percent were pharmaceutical drugs, with analgesics being implicated as the primary cause of death in 32 percent of fatalities or 341 deaths. This compares with 0.8 percent for all dietary supplements combined, even including substances such as dinitrophenol, a dangerous (and illegal) substance banned in 1938, as well as the central nervous system stimulant Ma Huang (Ephedra). Interestingly, the anti-asthma drug theophylline alone was responsible for 15 deaths, 66 percent more than all the available dietary supplements combined.

One thing I can think of that we can do, is to start or follow a low carb, high saturated fat diet.

Yes, I want to do this. We are having a difficult time with diet because we currently cannot afford local grassfed meats, so we've been getting grocery store meats (just beef, because all of the chicken is "enhanced with broth", and my mom is afraid of pork; bacon is okay, but expensive) I've been getting us organic butter as it's the best we can afford, and an occasional jar of coconut oil. We have been basically eating various combinations of meat and veggies, and these days I try to get a decent amount of fat into the meals, but it's just not good enough. :( For this reason, I'm trying to finally get started making money, because with two incomes MAYBE we could manage to start progressing.

Another thing that we can all do, is write to our political representatives, en masse! So spread the word any way and as much as we can! And why not, sign petitions. Taking action is important and gives the Universe the message that we care and with what energy we align with.

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Once my current project is finished in a few days, I'll dedicate some time to that. I've been thinking about maybe printing out little informatory slips when important stuff like this comes up and dropping them in mailboxes around the neighborhood. But I don't know if this would be breaking "strategic enclosure". I wouldn't want to bring any local predators/agents down on my family.

In any case, I agree with everyone that the whole situation is ludicrous!

 

[D Rusak]

Being that I've just flown a couple of times, and I know many people were flying this weekend to Spain, I thought to search about the scanners that are being used (predominantly in the US). Was interested to see a good article on Mercola about this. Actually the scanners are not anywhere near as high in radiation as CT scans, though the invasion of privacy is still a huge issue, and the "backscatter" technology seems to be more potent than the "normal" kind.

I WAS very interested to see that apparently one actually receives more radiation on the flight itself. One can avoid most of the in-flight radiation simply by flying at night, it can be close to a 99% reduction in radiation received (I happened to do this on the last 4 flights I took, yay!). Also Mercola recommends astaxanthin to help limit the damage caused by radiation. Of course all this assumes that the numbers being given are even correct but that's a whole 'nother issue :/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/26/movement-grows-for-halt-of-fullbody-airport-scanners.aspx

 

[anart]

Yes, Mercola doesn't cover a health issue that he doesn't have a product ready to sell to solve it. ;)

 

[SolarMother]

Yes, Mercola doesn't cover a health issue that he doesn't have a product ready to sell to solve it. ;)

Yes, he does the 'problem/reaction/solution' thing very well!

Thanks for the info D Rusak!

 

[Mrs. Peel]

Yes, Mercola doesn't cover a health issue that he doesn't have a product ready to sell to solve it. ;)

Yeah, I try and find out who makes his product, or where he gets it from, then go there and get it myself, thus bypassing his price mark-up.

 

[Ruth]

I am watching an interview between Dr Mercola and Dr Latham about corruption in science specifically with regard to GMOs. It's pretty bad. Well, actually it's disgustingly awful and sad.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/01/17/growing-doubt-gmo-issues.aspx

The thing that struck me most was how unwell Mercola looks. He looks like death warmed up. It had me wondering if he has that long to live? I'm also wondering if this was natural, or not. Being the cynical person I am, I'm thinking not.

No doubt, if he dies soon, it will be further evidence brought up by the 'powers that be' to ignore everything he said or exposed.