New Treatments for Psychological/Brain Disfunction

[nature]

Perhaps that is why the cats like to play with mice before they eat them? Perhaps that game creates some kind of beneficial substances in mouse body? So the cat gets the benefits without suffering herself?

Most of cats don't eat the mouse after playing with it. It plays with it, in the same way it plays with another moving object. When cats eat the mouse, it's in the same way it would eat whatever meat.
Saying that it's because of so-called appetizing substances (it reminds about the adrenochrome stuff) is an hypothesis only, which questions about the scientist's methods. To believe that making the animal suffer in order to extract an appetizing flesh for humans is STS extremism. This is unacceptable for humans , unless you are a satanist (cf their rituals). We are humans, there are things we must not accept, whatever "benefits" are claimed, there are lines we must not cross.

That Cs' quote is not about making another being suffer. It's about oneself searching for solutions to get out of a difficulty, when you're in a suffering situation.

It seems that it's true that a lot of interesting neuro-chemicals are produced when we suffer, either through pain, stress, sleep deprivation or other ways. Now, you cannot expect to get benefits just from suffering alone, otherwise people would gladly welcome their suffering. You do need a little bit of knowledge about it to potentially reap the benefits. I think that these two articles are particularly interesting on that subject:

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12907

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304395911005033

The first paper is about anti-inflammation substances produced by the intestine cells, in order to protect the instestine from pro-inflammatory products. The second one is about the synthesis of a neurosteroid that has an analgesic/ antihyperalgesic effects in acute and persistent pain. Studies like that are usual and frequent in publications since many decades. It's the way pharma markets and sells various antlagic (anti-pain) medicaments. It's not about the acceptance of suffering, caused by someone else or performed on someone. It's about searching for solutions to overcome it, here in these papers, to find antalgics. Suffering is an unvoluntary thing (unless one is a masochist), coming from external involuntary factors (cold, bone fracture, ilness, wars, etc)

Even the Charles Schnabel was harvesting his wheatgrass at 4 AM, possibly during the cold stress that plants were experiencing.

Cold stress on plants are provoked here by natural variations, not purposely caused.

That could possibly also explain the variations of cabbage healing effects from the same land parcel that Garnett Cheney talked about. Perhaps the variations in air temperature during the harvesting made the difference?

Or other factors. Scientists sometimes miss other possible hypothesis. If you look at the big picture in science and medicine, you'll see lots of prejudice and misleading conclusions. Meanstream scientific mand medical papers are, alas, full of that. Most of papers conclude with the words "possibly ", "potentialy", because authors feel (sometimes unconsciuosly) that they miss something. You must take with a grain of salt what you read in this literrature.

 

[Persej]

The video is in Spanish, but you can turn on the automatic subtitles:

Inflammation is a common feature in many diseases. In this webinar, we will explore, with renowned experts in their field, the latest research on the processes involved in inflammation resolution and the use of proresolvins in inflammatory pathologies.

In this webinar you will learn:

1 - Inflammation resolution as a therapeutic strategy in inflammatory processes
2 - Mechanisms governing the resolution of inflammatory processes
3 - Preclinical and clinical experience with proresolvins in inflammatory pathologies
4 - Inflammation proresolution in animal health

 

[Persej]

Yes, it sounds very STS-ish. I cannot fathom a time when I would want an animal to suffer before killing it so I can get some little extra "something" from eating it.

I can, if this could cure some human disease.

To believe that making the animal suffer in order to extract an appetizing flesh for humans is STS extremism. This is unacceptable for humans , unless you are a satanist (cf their rituals). We are humans, there are things we must not accept, whatever "benefits" are claimed, there are lines we must not cross.

I don't see why it would be not acceptable for us to eat the animal that has suffered in some way before death. Other predatory animals do it all the time.

That Cs' quote is not about making another being suffer. It's about oneself searching for solutions to get out of a difficulty, when you're in a suffering situation.

Yes, but this could be one such solution.

The first paper is about anti-inflammation substances produced by the intestine cells, in order to protect the instestine from pro-inflammatory products. The second one is about the synthesis of a neurosteroid that has an analgesic/ antihyperalgesic effects in acute and persistent pain. Studies like that are usual and frequent in publications since many decades. It's the way pharma markets and sells various antlagic (anti-pain) medicaments. It's not about the acceptance of suffering, caused by someone else or performed on someone. It's about searching for solutions to overcome it, here in these papers, to find antalgics. Suffering is an unvoluntary thing (unless one is a masochist), coming from external involuntary factors (cold, bone fracture, ilness, wars, etc)

Yes, that is a common view on suffering. What I am suggesting is that perhaps we can view the suffering from another point of view which could be more beneficial for us. Suffering as a voluntary thing.

Cold stress on plants are provoked here by natural variations, not purposely caused.

Makes no difference in the end. You can either stress the plants or animals yourself or let the nature stress them herself, and you harvest/kill them at the right moment.

Or other factors. Scientists sometimes miss other possible hypothesis. If you look at the big picture in science and medicine, you'll see lots of prejudice and misleading conclusions. Meanstream scientific mand medical papers are, alas, full of that. Most of papers conclude with the words "possibly ", "potentialy", because authors feel (sometimes unconsciuosly) that they miss something. You must take with a grain of salt what you read in this literrature.

Yes, this is still just a theory. But I think that it has some validity.

 

[Nienna]

I can, if this could cure some human disease.

That's your choice, but it doesn't negate the fact that making another creature suffer for another's benefit is not STS and for me is a line I will not cross.

I don't see why it would be not acceptable for us to eat the animal that has suffered in some way before death. Other predatory animals do it all the time.

We are trying to raise our FRV above that of an animal. Yes? Saying that animals do it so why not us is saying we are no better than animals.

Yes, that is a common view on suffering. What I am suggesting is that perhaps we can view the suffering from another point of view which could be more beneficial for us. Suffering as a voluntary thing.

Very STS-ish

Makes no difference in the end. You can either stress the plants or animals yourself or let the nature stress them herself, and you harvest/kill them at the right moment.

I think for the person who is making animals/whatever suffer for their benefit it makes all the difference in the world for their soul. But that's just me.

 

[SasaM]

But that's just me.

Well, not only you.

The 'theory' proposed seems a lot like normalization and acceptance of torture.
Applying the 'theory' to humans, highly doubt that any of us would "voluntarily" choose to suffer for the benefits of the overlords and their physical wellbeing.
Only psychos, IMO, and maybe not even (all of) them, would approve and advocate for the things the C's said in early sessions that Consortium and overlords have been doing to humans and our children.

So, that's a big and clear NO for that 'theory' from my side also.

 

[3DStudent]

The 'theory' proposed seems a lot like normalization and acceptance of torture.

And there was this from Session 13 September 2009:

A: Acceptance of torture is the "mark of the beast."

 

[palestine]

Just checked the last messages and went back up to this area - if I may say something..

I know it sounds brutal, but perhaps some kind of suffering at the ends of animals life, or even after life, as described by Vladimir Filatov, would make their meat or fat more beneficial for us?

@Persej there may exist, indeed, technical benefits in making animals suffer before death. Those would be quantifiable benefits, and I believe limited to specific benefits (or simply, specific benefits).

Making animals suffer before killing them (in order to get those added benefits - if there are) - constitute an "action" (instead of simply "killing", one adds up an action). Like any action, it meets a sort of cosmic appreciation of "okay" "not okay". Seems to me it's a nogo, despite ONE possible benefit. Perhaps, a matter of balance, maths.

You've mentioned the necessary suffering, that the forum sometimes teaches about. I don't think the suffering relating to animals during their death by humans - is to be framed into the same "box".

And yeah, I think we could say that even if the meat becomes fatter it wouldn't be a good idea! We would have to "find a better way".