12-06-2011, 04:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2011, 04:44 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
1. Your average MD would never even see a textbook like this, as they have hardly any training in nutrition, whatsoever. I think this is a really good textbook, though I guess I can't really expect anybody else to take my word for it. Based on some responses to my posts, I can see that I haven't really much credibility on this forum.
2. Without going into further nauseating detail on physiology... there is a deep chasm of failed logic that gets invoked when one says eating cooked food depletes lipase within fat cells. I don't know how to convey this any more directly... but the thought process involved there tells me that the person actually doesn't have a firm understanding of physiology to begin with. So how somebody could consider them an "expert" I don't know. An expert, when offering information that contradicts the consensus knowledge base, will actually offer an explanation about that.
3. The argumentation offered above is different than simply alternative view. It would actually overturn some very basic fundamental knowledge about human physiology. The conclusions actually contradict the "scientific" premises upon which they are based. Not to mention that it is just not deductively sound. Even if the conclusions were true, the logical pathway they used to get there is fallacious in many respects. This isn't about me trying to defend the mainstream view this is about offering bunk arguments to counter the mainstream view. That's two different things.
4. The responsible thing for gurus and alternative practitioners to do would be to communicate with soft qualifiers... this may be the case... this possibly affects this... but we don't really know... and so on. I think the problem with this approach for certain people is they feel it doesn't pack enough "punch". So in their minds they would rather twist or dumb-down the truth so as to be more "impactful" i.e. attract more clients and increase their sales. Or they are just stuck in absolutist thinking themselves.
5. Good intentions do not negate bad medical advice. While some people may in fact benefit from taking digestive enzymes... and certainly increasing one's intake of live food is going to be of benefit in general... when the situation is oversimplified it is actually a disservice, because it may cause a person to become sidetracked for years (as Monica described) or actually cause them harm.
6. I find the logic offered above similar to the notion that every disease is caused by "parasites" or "yeast". We actually have real tests to check for these things... not just muscle testing and other intuitive methods. I see people all the time whose natural practitioner or guru swore up and down they had parasites or yeast, when it turned out to be a bacterial issue. I have also actually found parasites when I didn't expect to find any at all. Now- I hardly blame the individual who accepts misdirection from a practitioner... but what does this say for the practitioner when they don't offer actual lab tests that can back up their "diagnosis", when they exist and are available? I just see that as irresponsible.
7. Regarding colon hydrotherapy, my biggest concern is that is clears out the good stuff along with the bad. By good stuff I mean beneficial gut microbes. I observe many colon hydrotherapists don't even suggest a probiotic formula to their clients...?? Also, sorry but if somebody needs to get their colon blown out 2 - 3 times a week for a year, that tells me the treatment isn't working. Once every few months is a different thing.
8. In my experience, I have found health to have much more to do with getting the right stuff in, rather than getting the wrong stuff out. This is the crux of my argument against anything which places undue focus on fasting, "detoxing", and strict taboos on certain substances. Think about it. What kind of thought process is this approach based on? Negating a negative? That kind of thing doesn't usually work out too well. This is not to say there is no benefit whatsoever to these things, so please, don't go there. It is about the thought process involved.
2. Without going into further nauseating detail on physiology... there is a deep chasm of failed logic that gets invoked when one says eating cooked food depletes lipase within fat cells. I don't know how to convey this any more directly... but the thought process involved there tells me that the person actually doesn't have a firm understanding of physiology to begin with. So how somebody could consider them an "expert" I don't know. An expert, when offering information that contradicts the consensus knowledge base, will actually offer an explanation about that.
3. The argumentation offered above is different than simply alternative view. It would actually overturn some very basic fundamental knowledge about human physiology. The conclusions actually contradict the "scientific" premises upon which they are based. Not to mention that it is just not deductively sound. Even if the conclusions were true, the logical pathway they used to get there is fallacious in many respects. This isn't about me trying to defend the mainstream view this is about offering bunk arguments to counter the mainstream view. That's two different things.
4. The responsible thing for gurus and alternative practitioners to do would be to communicate with soft qualifiers... this may be the case... this possibly affects this... but we don't really know... and so on. I think the problem with this approach for certain people is they feel it doesn't pack enough "punch". So in their minds they would rather twist or dumb-down the truth so as to be more "impactful" i.e. attract more clients and increase their sales. Or they are just stuck in absolutist thinking themselves.
5. Good intentions do not negate bad medical advice. While some people may in fact benefit from taking digestive enzymes... and certainly increasing one's intake of live food is going to be of benefit in general... when the situation is oversimplified it is actually a disservice, because it may cause a person to become sidetracked for years (as Monica described) or actually cause them harm.
6. I find the logic offered above similar to the notion that every disease is caused by "parasites" or "yeast". We actually have real tests to check for these things... not just muscle testing and other intuitive methods. I see people all the time whose natural practitioner or guru swore up and down they had parasites or yeast, when it turned out to be a bacterial issue. I have also actually found parasites when I didn't expect to find any at all. Now- I hardly blame the individual who accepts misdirection from a practitioner... but what does this say for the practitioner when they don't offer actual lab tests that can back up their "diagnosis", when they exist and are available? I just see that as irresponsible.
7. Regarding colon hydrotherapy, my biggest concern is that is clears out the good stuff along with the bad. By good stuff I mean beneficial gut microbes. I observe many colon hydrotherapists don't even suggest a probiotic formula to their clients...?? Also, sorry but if somebody needs to get their colon blown out 2 - 3 times a week for a year, that tells me the treatment isn't working. Once every few months is a different thing.
8. In my experience, I have found health to have much more to do with getting the right stuff in, rather than getting the wrong stuff out. This is the crux of my argument against anything which places undue focus on fasting, "detoxing", and strict taboos on certain substances. Think about it. What kind of thought process is this approach based on? Negating a negative? That kind of thing doesn't usually work out too well. This is not to say there is no benefit whatsoever to these things, so please, don't go there. It is about the thought process involved.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)