Changing diet seems to help relieve symptoms for some people, temporarily, not long term, but spontaneous remission also happens with no diet change, so much more, double blind study is needed before making definitive statements like the one you first made.
Prime allergy suspects, not necessarily causes, and only for some food hypersensitives, not everyone.

I agree, if the studies of fish oil were only for people on certain ra drugs they certainly should make that abundantly clear.

What you've quoted is that's the same thing I said in my OP -JH acknowledges that changing diets helps. They specifically say meat and milk are the prime allergy suspects.

There isn't any disagreement here :-)




But..........I do have a bone to pick with Hopkins. The fish oil study they reference on the Hopkins site, is a bit sus when you dig deeper.
Everyone in the study was also given disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs along with the fish oil..... so Hopkins isn't really giving us the full story here, which is: Fish oil helps remission in people on RA drugs.

Great, now RA sufferers have to buy toxic liver destroying drugs, and also buckets of fish oil supplements too(the doses were 10x the daily recommended amount of fish oil).... I guess they're line of reasoning is that you make more money if you can sell them two pills for the same disease.

They even try to hide the drugs part by calling it "DMARDs" after the references (which people don't usually read). Technically it's not lying I suppose, but it's very unethical. If I didn't go all the way through and find the research it'd have never figured that out. Turns out John Hopkins is largely industry funded, which doesn't surprise me now that they're approach is to push more pills, instead of less.

Sincerely, I have to thank you for bringing that to my attention. I like to keep a list of this misleading stuff.

You weren't wrong when you said there are some scummy misleading people in the medical field.

According to the JH website, it's not only wrong, the study could not show what you claim by it's design.
Excuse me...let me use their exact words....

Food Hypersensitivities and Their Link to RA

In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals.

Diet elimination therapy is a method of determining food hypersensitivities with patients. Elimination diets avoid a specific food or group of foods such as milk, meat or processed foods that are known to be prime allergy suspects. These foods are eliminated from the diet for a specific period of time. Foods are then gradually reintroduced one at a time, to determine whether any of them causes a reaction.

Panush and colleagues, demonstrated temporary improvement in the signs and symptoms of RA with diet elimination and modification in a controlled study where the symptoms associated with food sensitivities were studied.(ref 5) During this study when the patient was fasting or on a severely restricted diet, the patients symptoms improved significantly. However, when the patient had milk reintroduced into the diet, episodes of pain, swollen and tender joints and stiffness were experienced. Similarly, Kjeldsen-Kragh and colleagues(ref 6) noted that fasting may be effective in reducing the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, however most patients relapsed as new foods were reintroduced into the diet. Pain and discomfort frequently returned once a patient reverted to a normal diet. These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.

So, no vegan has arthritis, but the entire medical community just missed that fact? Not true.
One more total misrepresentation of the science by your guru....the ACTUAL science, from Hopkins, says....
"In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals."
So only in hyper sensitive patients that have allergies to dairy, meats, or processed foods has this appeared to be somewhat effective temporarily, not long term, not for everyone....and it seems only anecdotally at this point (they imply that there have not been double blind, placebo controlled studies yet).
Fish oils are FAR more effective, but, you know, that's an animal product, so McDougal (as he is want to do at every turn) dismisses it in favor of false claims about miraculous veganism and misrepresentation of the science.

I downvoted your comment for using misrepresentational propaganda and unverified anecdote masquerading as scientific data from a known liar with undeniable bias to support your unsupportable position(s), that veganism cures everything including cancer.

Good bit of poetry, i enjoyed it. I don't agree with the sentiment though.

Firstly and most convincingly for me, animals have been eating other animals since there existed anything that might be called an animal. Essentially we evolved as we are because we ate meat.

Secondly, food intolerances/allergies/etc. never seem to be acknowledged by crusading vegans or vegetarians, and i have a real bee in my bonnet about that. I'd love to have the luxury of choice but if i eat something that has been near to something that had gluten in it, i'm going to be bed ridden for days. Depending on where you live, buying ONLY food labelled "gluten free" can go from easy and cheap to near impossible and extortionate. Some people have it even worse than that and have to exclude more. When you aren't making the food yourself, (travelling, visiting friends, all kinds of stuff) sometimes the only thing that you can feel safe eating is meat. No one in that position wants a guilt trip from someone with the freedom to opt in and out of their limitations.

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

The self righteousness of your post almost made me feel sick. Vegetarianism SHOULD be a stepping stone to veganism? It SHOULD be whatever the hell you want it to be - for example a temporary situation for when you SHOULD return to eating meat.

Now i'm not going to do what you did and reel off the standard list of reasons why veganism is bad for you, they are well documented and discussed but we all know that it is very possible to have a varied and sufficient diet regardless of what you limit yourself to.

As for your comment about milk, i did a quick bit of research - most of the sources i can find saying that milk causes calcium to be ejected out of the body sourced from the bones and/or cause osteoporosis are new age blog style websites written by a vegan who - like you - clearly has some serious agenda.

As for decent sources, here is what i found:
- Several scientific papers noting that though some observational studies have shown more alkali diets being beneficial to bone health in pre- and post- menopausal women, it has yet to be proven in any definitive clinical trial
http://osteoporosis.org.za/general/downloads/dairy.pdf
(and other sources, but not as scientific)

- The Harvard School of Public Health state that it is not clear what the best source of calcium is for bone health. However the consumption of dairy products has more beneficial effects than just bone health - protection against colon cancer for example, also other vitamins, proteins and minerals that are present.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/#calcium-from-milk

Job losses may seem irrelevant to you, but i suggest that's because you have a very very tenuous grasp on the farming profession and don't rely on it for your income. No, you can't simply replace any and all dairy farms/farmers and workers with plant-based farming alternatives. There are a huge number of reasons for this which only a farmer would be able to tell us in detail, but for example - the equipment is different and requires a huge investment (both for acquisition and storage and transport and so on), the land and buildings are not necessarily interchangeable, the skills and knowledge are often built up since childhood and are not instantly transferable, the connections within the industry for logistics and business dealings are different. These are just a few that i thought up.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in the farming industry and it makes me very sad to think of. However if you are careful and attentive you can ensure that you do not consume any products that were unfairly treated. This is like saying that a minority of clothes sold in shops are made in sweatshops by exploited child labour, therefore we should ban all clothes from the planet.

I could go on and on and on, and even begin my own dissertation on how "everyone going vegan" would be detrimental to overall public health and prosperity; if we grow more crops, more animals must be killed to ensure the crop is healthy and full.. we are not able to process celulose because we evolved.. there are things you can't get from plants that your body needs.. etc. But this comment is already very long, and i think i've broken the backbone of your argument already.

I will mention though that your crusade could end up being very damaging to the health of people who have auto immune diseases and/or allergies that rely on meat to have a balanced and varied diet. I recently discovered that i have coeliac disease (auto immune response to gluten) and secondary lactose intolerance, and i really wish i could explain to you just how difficult it is to avoid gluten containing grains and lactose.

For you it is a choice to not eat anything that comes from animals, for me it is a necessity that i have to avoid gluten and lactose otherwise i get debilitating pain within half an hour. If i did not have access to meat and eggs, there would be very little that i could eat. Wheat is added to almost everything, or almost everything is made in the same vicinity as wheat products resulting in cross contamination. Meat and eggs are sometimes the ONLY thing that i can be sure are safe to eat, and yet some self righteous do-gooder like yourself sits there on a high horse telling me how terrible it is that i inevitably, medically do what our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years of human prosperity and ascendance.

If you'd had a bit more of an open mind when you wrote that comment, if i hadn't found out i have these medical conditions, if you'd said things in a debatable way, presented your sources (you provide none), offered it up for discussion rather than a commandment written on a stone tablet, then i probably wouldn't have replied like this. But when i'm forced into doing something and an interfering busybody strolls along and shrieks "oooooooooh you shouldn't be doing that!!!" it really does wind me up.

*talks *wtf

I don't need that crap. Thanks to allergies. :~(

I did a few months ago, so I lowered my sugar consumption like from drinks. Doctors didn't say I have diabetes. However, they did say I have high blood pressures (family tree members have it and had to take daily tablets) and very low vitamin D (not an outdoor guy; taking pills and trying to go outside for at least 15 minutes per day). I have lots of allergies (itches, leaks, etc.) too.

Wow... it seems I have an allergy to dog dander that can travel over the internet.

*sniff*

That's quite the story to share, I commend your courage to type it out here. Bravo!

My personal story has similar details, but in a kind of strange reversal.

I just turned 30. I have an athletic/skinny build. My metabolism is such that I could eat fast food almost every meal and not become overweight, although that will surely change, and doesn't mean the other ill effects of fast food don't harm me. I have no allergies, no diseases, I've never even broken a bone.

But on multiple occasions I've sat in the dark alone, 911 predialed on my smartphone, fingers on my pulse, wondering if it was the moment I'd finally gone too far with the amphetamines.

I've had a physical since; doctor said I was healthy as a horse.

But I still fear the toll it took, that if I exercise too vigorously or have wild enough sex, my heart will just explode.

I suppose there's worse ways to go out.

Very interesting...

I'm one of those people who is highly sensitive to perfumes / scents, which is sometimes called "multiple chemical sensitivity". I know that it isn't technically an "allergy", but other than that I honestly have no idea whether this whole thing is psychosomatic (all in my head), "real" but with a lot of additional input from mental/emotional states, completely real and tied in some way to the smells themselves, or completely real and tied in some way to the actual "chemicals" (in a chemistry sense) in the air. All I know is that there are a LOT of triggers for me where I can get one small whiff of something and know that I'm going to get a pounding headache.

Aggravation with that has often caused me to wonder if it would be possible to surgically or pharmacologically destroy or impair my olfaction senses, like what happened to the woman in the video, and cure the headache triggers. If the smells themselves are the triggers, it seems like that could work. If it is largely or completely psychosomatic, it could still work because I wouldn't know that I was being exposed to the smell triggers; one thing that I've considered is that I also get very angry if I'm in a private place like my home or otherwise trying to avoid triggers and somebody wanders in wearing some nasty shit and compromises the integrity of my safe zone. In public I know that I can't control what other people wear so I just try to get away very quickly from trigger smells, but in my own home I get ultra pissed if somebody comes in and stinks it up. I have wondered if that anger exacerbates or maybe even in some cases is the actual primary source of the headache symptoms. But anyway, even if that was the case, being able to cap or cut off my sense of smell would solve the problem.

The only way that the problem could persist AFTER surgically eliminating my sense of smell would be if the reaction is really to the chemicals themselves in the air. And then, that would be worse because I wouldn't have the warning system of smell telling me to get the hell away from perfume counters, ladies wearing the stuff, dudebros wearing shit like Axe, etc.

All in all, I don't actually think it would be worth the downsides. BUT, I must say I've really wondered about it when I've got a pounding headache after simply walking by somebody wearing perfume in line at a grocery store or whatever...

You rely on the government for national defense, you idiot. You know why? Because in the real world you can't defend yourself from foreign armies and terrorists. You depend upon the police for protection no matter how many guns you might have.

Where the disconnect here is the idiotic notion that we don't need government for things like health care regulation. The reality is ACA didn't just come out of the blue. It came from an obvious systemic problem within the overwhelmingly market controlled system.

You can keep mindlessly babbling all you want that government intervention is always bad, but that is turning an idiotically blind eye to basic US history, where there are ridiculous number of examples the government getting involved to effectively regulate industries are undeniably good, like the Meat Inspection Act, Food and Drug Administration, making it illegal to put lead in paint, regulations for car safety, regulations on buildings so you can't for example put asbestos in the walls, requiring labels on food so you know what ingredients are in them, so you could avoid nuts if you have a deadly nut allergy.

You know why? Because, despite your delusions, you can't inspect all your food, wear a mask when you walk into every building you go into to protect from asbestos, know that the tires you are buying don't have an excessively high chance of blowing off your car and killing you, ensure the air you breathe doesn't have too much lead in it, etc. etc. etc.

You're dependent on the government for all that, and it has massively improved your quality of life, and it has nothing to do with your self pride or dignity, so cut the utter bullcrap.

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

So the FCC won't let me be
They want to stack the deck for the ISPs
but we've got a couple of tricks up our sleeves
It's far too important to leave to police
it could lead to the streets
a breach of the peace
and even decrease our freedom of speech
there's never been a bigger reason to read up
and see what's agreed 'cause of greed for the green and deceit
The greener the leaf, the sweeter the tree
the quicker they'll chop it down and leave nothing but tree stumps; debris
the damage is done, no refund received
see, the thing about net neutrality
is unless you get huge salaries
? the paramedic won't rescue casualties
' til they've seen to the rich next dude's allergies
they'll prioritise cash over content
wanna send one bit? That's one cent
What nonsense, man it's scaring me
a planet of plenty's selling scarcity
Innovation paved the way
Now invaders are paying to take it away
but they ain't gonna make it today
! Letting that happen's a major mistake
If Lessig was rapping he'd tell you the same
LETTING THAT HAPPEN'S A MAJOR MISTAKE
Tim Berners Lee baked us a cake
and they've taken the cherry.. AND THE CAKE
discrimination is happening today
to blacks and to gays and to packets of data
though ethically they're exactly the same
so Oi, we're not gonna stand 4 it m8

U WOT?
THE FOK U SAYIN BRUV?
U WOT M8??????
! THE FOK U SAYIN BRUV
U WOT?
FAK OFF U ARSEHOLE!

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

I'm from the place John Oliver came from
but no matter where you live you should be singing the same song
at long last, I'm putting Comcast on blast
'cause they never learn their lesson like they're in the wrong class
well I'm the professor and I'm setting you with one task
Get them knocked back like a shot glass
Straight in front of me's a cable company
The way they're behaving's unbelievable
Comcast is in league with the devil
and it's pissing me off, I'm not even American
! Take a peek, see from the evidence
Netflix had to pay a fee to get better links
it's a shakedown, communication breakdown
There's a bully in the playground
I had enough of that at school, won't lay down
lay a finger on me, you'll be laid out
You'll be laid out
You'll be laid ou
You'll be laid out
You'll be laid out
lay a finger on me, you'll be laid out

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

Taking it back, we're taking it back
We're taking it, we're taking back

I have rewritten this post about 20 times.

My first instinct was to tell you that your mom was a moron and you don't even have the excuse of not having the information that mom didn't have.

Oh hey, turns out I'm really not that conflicted on it.

Your attitude is unbelievably selfish. There are kids out there that genuinely cannot be vaccinated, because of (incredibly rare) allergies to the vaccines. You are putting those kids at risk.

@Trancecoach, of course, continues his tradition of not having a fucking clue about anything by spouting complete and utter bollocks espoused by someone who has embraced believing in water memory.

Here's some of your libertarian pals on the reality of vaccination.

It is unfathomable how people in the 21st century can be so mind-numbingly ignorant.

How fucking retarded do you have to be when even FOX MOTHERFUCKING NEWS is smarter than you.