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.

There's not much to it I'm afraid.

Plenty of successful treatments are available. It's simply a matter of funding.

From my experiences in Australia, both close and friends who work in mental health. They're overworked, the pay sucks, there's no budget to hire more staff and the rooms are crowded.

There has been multiple instances when a patient who needs to be admitted, will be left in a bed in emergency and ferried about as needed, while a bed in the mental health ward frees up.

This is the sort of funding mental health workers are dealing with.

If your patient is already at home and their low risk, you'll be told to just try to keep them at home and manageable for as long as possible. You're on waiting list, so just hope nothing happens in the mean time during their relapse.

What people fail to understand, is if all the workers are so stressed out to the point of trying to shuffle just getting some one a place to sleep. How in the hell do they have time to do any sort of actual therapy?

They get criticised for just pushing drugs and pumping people out after 2-3wks and yet no one appreciates that they must. Because they just got a new patient that is severely ill and a person with mild schizophrenia is going to be sent along on their merry way, regardless if they needed another month or two to fully stabilise. They're doing ok and they can just revolve back around when the meds wear off, perhaps they'll have another room then.

It's sad but it's reality and it's not their fault. You can point fingers and demand better this and that and this. Or you can realise just the mere fact that these people have these terribly shitty jobs means they care a whole lot more fucks than you or I ever have or will.

They need more money, simple.

For me, the primary thing was that I use vaping as a means to alleviate withdrawal and to break the routine of smoking cigarettes. Smoking was just an automatic thing I did at certain times (after a meal, after a cup of coffee, work breaks, etc.). I used to always carry a pack of cigarettes around with me, but now I leave my vaping equipment at home (unless I'm going to be gone more than eight hours or so). Really, I think getting over just the routine of pulling out a cigarette and smoking it is the biggest hurdle. It's always good to keep in mind that between emotional dependence and physical dependence on a drug, it's the emotional dependence that is by *far* the more powerful.

Granted, I could have painlessly weened myself off cigarettes in a couple weeks with vaping (or gum or whatever), but I think it's probably better to stretch it out a little longer, and the instant hit you don't get with inhalation is important. Six months was my goal, and I'm at about four now.

It's pretty great really. I can smell things again and food tastes better and generally breath easier. I quit smoking once before cold turkey, but that only lasted a year. When I finally put this down, if I do relapse (which seems much less likely), it will be back to vaping rather than smoking.

How do you define "small" when it comes to narcotics? If I have a pound of cocaine, is that small? What about meth? PCP? LSD? Heroin? Narcotics are banned because they are harmful. Not just to yourself but to others. They are also addictive. Do you really think a junkie will be satiated by the small portions allowed by your proposed law? Nope. They'll always be looking for more and will do anything to get it. That's why drug-dealing is such a profitable business. A better solution is execution. If you're convicted of possession or abuse (no trial necessary if there's irrefutable evidence), you're dead. No further expenses beyond the execution (via cow puncher or some other cost-effective means) and body disposal (incineration seems most efficient). Zero chance of relapse.

As for money, sure, we could cut military funding. That would give us some money, though most of it would go towards rehabilitating criminals and paying off our numerous debts. We could increase taxes on the rich, even though they already pay the majority of taxes in the country. We could increase taxes for everyone, which we would inevitably need to do if we want top-quality education and healthcare for everyone.

As to your other points, we already have free healthcare. Well, relatively free in the form of Obamacare. We already have free education too. Public schools are free and available in almost every city. Said schools already offer sex education as well. The issue isn't really about education. Any dunce knows that having unprotected sex will result in babies. The problem is apathy. Some people just don't care. They don't think in the long-term. They don't plan ahead. They don't consider the long-term repercussions of their actions. All they care about is the here and now. It's not hard to find a condom. It's much harder to convince an apathetic and irresponsible person to actually wear it. You can tell them about the risks but if they don't think the condom is comfortable or convenient, they won't wear it. On the other hand, put a gun to their head and they'll definitely wear it.

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

I don't know if any of the results have been published. Here is a quote from an online blog on the subject:

"So far, three adults suffering from chronic leukemia have been treated and are in complete remission (two of them for more than two years). Four adults improved but are not in full remission, and in two adults the treatment did not work at all. Another child aside from Emma improved but then relapsed.

The researchers believe that patients who did not respond received flawed T-cells."
source: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/in-breakthrough-patients-immune-systems-attack-cancer-cells/7670

I mostly agree with you, although there is likely a way of watching porn that is more (or less) harmful than others. Having said that, I think the question is one of values. That is, what are/were the values that were instilled in you which enabled you to quit watching porn such that similar values can also be instilled (i.e., introduced, taught, nourished, evoked) in your kids?

It's a dangerous world out there, but, truth be told, it's probably just differently dangerous than it was when we grew up -- or when our parents grew up -- and it's not going to go away to "keep the kids safe." Thus, good role modeling and good values -- probably the way to go.

>> ^spoco2:

Without being prudish, internet porn is damaging. And it's damaging due to just what he says, it's SO easy to access, SO easy to watch different porn all the time.
I'm a guy who used to look at plenty of porn, and I've given it up. Not due to erectile dysfunction as mentioned in the talk, but because it was hurting my wife. She hated the thought of me looking at other women having sex like that. And I agreed with her...
It took some time, and I relapsed a few times, but I don't look at it any more, and I'm more than happy about it.
There's nothing wrong with porn per se, there's nothing wrong with sex, nothing with masturbation. It's the instant access, instant change porn, coupled with the horrendously degrading shit that has become mainstream that's the problem.
I'm seriously concerned about how I'm going to protect my kids from it. It's not that I don't think they should ever have access to porn or should not masturbate... it's how to you make sure what they view is respectful, and the volume of what they view is low?
I know when I was younger I had a draw with a few magazines in it, and that was it... I had to 'make do' with the same women over and over again.
I'm going to quality this talk as it's a real issue which is having serious relationship outcomes.

Without being prudish, internet porn is damaging. And it's damaging due to just what he says, it's SO easy to access, SO easy to watch different porn all the time.

I'm a guy who used to look at plenty of porn, and I've given it up. Not due to erectile dysfunction as mentioned in the talk, but because it was hurting my wife. She hated the thought of me looking at other women having sex like that. And I agreed with her...

It took some time, and I relapsed a few times, but I don't look at it any more, and I'm more than happy about it.

There's nothing wrong with porn per se, there's nothing wrong with sex, nothing with masturbation. It's the instant access, instant change porn, coupled with the horrendously degrading shit that has become mainstream that's the problem.

I'm seriously concerned about how I'm going to protect my kids from it. It's not that I don't think they should ever have access to porn or should not masturbate... it's how to you make sure what they view is respectful, and the volume of what they view is low?

I know when I was younger I had a draw with a few magazines in it, and that was it... I had to 'make do' with the same women over and over again.

I'm going to *quality this talk as it's a real issue which is having serious relationship outcomes.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Trust me, you folks across the pond are light-years ahead of Americans when it comes to reasonable expectations from the health-care system. A mistake many people make when dieting is losing weight too quickly. It's very easy to relapse because the change in eating habits has not been established. I find the apps for calorie counting very helpful. You can scan bar codes and import all the nutritional info. It's definitely more work entering home cooked meals though. Don't pay attention to all the fad diets, low carb, etc. Calorie counting is the most effective and sustainable way to lose weight and keep it off. Good luck. Never underestimate the power of your own mind.


I've been looking for a valid reason to justify getting a smartphone, thanks

Trust me, you folks across the pond are light-years ahead of Americans when it comes to reasonable expectations from the health-care system. A mistake many people make when dieting is losing weight too quickly. It's very easy to relapse because the change in eating habits has not been established. I find the apps for calorie counting very helpful. You can scan bar codes and import all the nutritional info. It's definitely more work entering home cooked meals though. Don't pay attention to all the fad diets, low carb, etc. Calorie counting is the most effective and sustainable way to lose weight and keep it off. Good luck. Never underestimate the power of your own mind.

You can almost pinpoint when drugs became a problem, when she recovered, and when she relapsed. She was very beautiful once. It is pretty *sad.

>> ^rgnjc:

Health insurance is clearly not the same as college. With higher education you volunteer to pay X amount of dollars to get an education per year that is optional. Considering there are literally thousands of options in this country to choose from, CHOOSE ONE THAT WORKS FOR YOUR BUDGET! Consider buying a car, certainly we all don't go out and buy lamborghini's...instead we buy Toyota Corolla's and Ford Focus's...something that is more fiscally realistic. I wouldn't go buy a lamborghini and have the gall to sit here and complain about the price when there are better options.
Health insurance is different, and I don't care to talk about that, that's not the point of this thread.

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^rgnjc:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TUITION DON'T GO THERE! Find another school that fits your fiscal requirements, moron.

THIS! So succinct!
Hey, while I got ya here... It doesn't look like my medical insurance will pay even a third what they payed the first time, should I relapse. I'm not rich and, admittedly, I'm kind of a moron, so what should I do if that happens? Find another insurance company, or find another disease? Two seemingly impossible solutions... should I desire to live, but I just bet you can help me.



Except at some point, writing your degree on a paper napkin probably carries more weight that the low budget degrees. Or, I have 2 grand, my car options would be something that needs a lot of work and additional money invested or an extreme high mileage vehicle that has a good maintenance record but let's face it after some point on mileage maintenance or not something is going to happen...severity dependant. Or I borrow or otherwise go beyond my means in hopes that it will give me a reliable car that will get me to where I want to go but have no warranty, and then the transmission goes out and the dealership wants nearly what the car is worth to fix it. So I face having no car or going even further beyond my means to hopefully continue to keep my reliable car on track and get my invested money back out of it. I think that more accurately represents the school situation for that guy. You can't just go to another school and hope they transfer every credit 1:1....depending on where you are in your degree you might get boned out of many credits you otherwise would have kept had you not switched schools/programs.

And I'd argue the "optional" portion of a higher education when jobs that SHOULDNT require them, do. It's either tradeschool or college unless you like digging ditches, collecting trash or some other unskilled workforce area. And that's not a bash on those jobs, in fact I think most of those unskilled jobs should pay more than a teachers salary...because a lifetime of those utterly destroys your body. Be lucky if you don't need back surgery by 50 if you do hard manual labor from 18 on up.

Health insurance is clearly not the same as college. With higher education you volunteer to pay X amount of dollars to get an education per year that is optional. Considering there are literally thousands of options in this country to choose from, CHOOSE ONE THAT WORKS FOR YOUR BUDGET! Consider buying a car, certainly we all don't go out and buy lamborghini's...instead we buy Toyota Corolla's and Ford Focus's...something that is more fiscally realistic. I wouldn't go buy a lamborghini and have the gall to sit here and complain about the price when there are better options.

Health insurance is different, and I don't care to talk about that, that's not the point of this thread.


>> ^Fletch:

>> ^rgnjc:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TUITION DON'T GO THERE! Find another school that fits your fiscal requirements, moron.

THIS! So succinct!
Hey, while I got ya here... It doesn't look like my medical insurance will pay even a third what they payed the first time, should I relapse. I'm not rich and, admittedly, I'm kind of a moron, so what should I do if that happens? Find another insurance company, or find another disease? Two seemingly impossible solutions... should I desire to live, but I just bet you can help me.

>> ^rgnjc:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TUITION DON'T GO THERE! Find another school that fits your fiscal requirements, moron.


THIS! So succinct!

Hey, while I got ya here... It doesn't look like my medical insurance will pay even a third what they payed the first time, should I relapse. I'm not rich and, admittedly, I'm kind of a moron, so what should I do if that happens? Find another insurance company, or find another disease? Two seemingly impossible solutions... should I desire to live, but I just bet you can help me.

No matter how well intentioned, I think military interventions nowadays that aim to dethrone an authoritarian regime are practically guaranteed to fail.

Modern combat is fought through surgical air strikes with a limited ground force. It minimizes invading state casualties but poor intelligence from limited local manpower inevitably leads to mass civilian casualties. This progressively undermines local support. Fostering a vibrant democracy or training a self sufficient military and police force, hell, let alone rebuilding the infrastructure from the initial invasion cannot be done quickly. As has been seen from Afghanistan especially, this allows insurgencies to organise and further air bombing simply adds to their recruitment numbers.

Removing totalitarianism also reveals long-held grudges and power imbalances such as how removing Saddam's minority Sunni Ba'ath Party fermented a civil war with the oppressed Shi'ite majority. Local revolutions on the other hand, without intervention create a sense of solidarity regardless of past differences. A foreign coup d'état does not.

States that have democracy thrust upon tend to squander them or relapse back into authoritarianism. Often this is from a lack of established and respectable candidates to choose from, haphazard transition to a market economy (e.g Russia) or a lack of consistent ground level demands from the people resulting in simple pandering by politicians to secure votes with no intentions of governance. Democracy is only able to work effectively when individuals with growing affluence over time begin to demand better infrastructure, services and generally representation of their interests.

Not to mention, especially in Africa, many countries were wished into existence by exiting colonial powers with no logical cultural, religious or ethnic links among them. There is simply no genuine sense of national unity. This is arguably what caused the violence in Kenya in 07-08 following the disputed election. Foreign interventions in ex-colonial countries also inevitably leads to the perception of renewed imperialism, not matter how pure actual intentions. This is why intervention in Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe is inconceivable unless it by the African Union, which is far too weak and unwilling. Even now, Mugabe has considerable support by his colonial independence credentials.

Other countries simply have never had a legitimate and effective government in generations. The Taliban did not so much rule Afghanistan as loosely impose Sha'ria law on individual tribes who otherwise had signficant autonomy. Now that representational democracy has been imposed, there is simply no willingness on the part of an individual tribe to work together to improve the livelihood of all, but merely their own people. Politicians and officials are not corrupt because they are immoral but because political survival means following this creed.

Point is, military interventions don't work in removing despotic governments simply because something can and will go wrong. The only place they are appropriate is preventing genocide or aggressor nations. NATO was correct to intervene in Kosovo, the UN was correct to prevent Iraqi aggression into Kuwait (ignoring Iraqi invasion of Iran was not). Intervention should have occurred in Rwanda and equally in Sudan.

The Powell Doctrine more or less sets out what I wrote above concisely. In short, intervention should occur only with mass popular local support, and be undertaken swiftly and effectively with overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy established.

Thanks to Bush though, the US is overstretched militarily and lacks the moral authority to incite other nations into intervening where necessary. More importantly it's lost the deterrence its successful interventions in Kosovo and Kuwait created.

>> ^bcglorf:

Hurray for anything bringing some attention to the situation over there, particularly in correctly referring to it as Burma and not the Myanmar moniker imposed by the military dictatorship.
RedSky said:
For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.
I completely agree with your feeling conflicted on how best to help the poor people imprisoned in these countries. Honestly, I think using a foreign military to remove the regime followed by a nation building program on the scale used in post war Germany and Japan is the best way forward. But no nation on Earth has any reason to spend that enormous amount of money and political good will on something that in essence gains them nothing in the end anyways.
I do dearly wish that when Burma was hit so bad by natural disasters a few years ago the world have reacted more appropriately. Instead of allowing the ruling military to refuse and block any aid from going in, the world should have come in by force with as many soldiers and weapons as needed to deliver the volunteered aid to the devastated areas by force, then simply withdrawn after the aid had been delivered and provided. Sure the military would come and take it all for themselves after anyways, but the people there could've seen for a few months that the outside world actually cares about them and would gladly treat them for better than the junta is. Maybe allowing a base of resistance and opposition to gain wider support.