3 ms·

Food. It’s food. We are only just beginning to understand the less obvious effects of the modern diet, including all the processing and additives. Much has not

Food. It’s food. We are only just beginning to understand the less obvious effects of the modern diet, including all the processing and additives. Much has not been explored, such as is if the abundance of various toxic chemicals at supposedly safe levels has a synergistic effect, for example the many endocrine disrupting compounds with diverse mechanisms. But over the past decade it has become pretty clear that the Gut-Brain relationship is extremely important, including in understanding psychopathology. Another emerging idea is that much of the negative health trend that’s been progressing extra rapidly since the 90’s is the result of mitochondrial dysfunction, driven by the multifactored (ultraprocessed foods, icides and tives, sedentary lifestyle, the incessant toxin-boosted immune shocks throughout development, possibly even omnipresent modulated emf) assault on our biology. It makes a lot of sense, to me at least, that crippling the source of cellular energy would precipitate seemingly unrelated chronic pathologies. This last paragraph especially is still highly speculative and controversial.

rozap 2y ago
Thanks for clearing this up, I certainly find your citations compelling.
- willy_k 2y ago
  It’s trivial to find studies detailing lower-magnitude negative effects of the things mentioned, but in isolation. As far is I’m aware, the net impact on our biology of the dozens of environmental stressors we face remains to be studied. This doesn’t directly go to anything I said, but I will share this fun review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750021001268 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002...
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Ah, VAERS strikes again.
    - willy_k 2y ago
      Sure? Is “Of all reported SIDS cases post-vaccination, 75 % occurred within 7 days (p < 0.00001)” that simple?
      - cyberax 2y ago
        No, it's just a lie. For example, vaccines _prevent_ SIDS: https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccines-and-other-conditions/sudden-infant-death-syndrome-sids https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety... But wait, there's more: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/missed-vaccinations-did-not-reduce-us-sudden-infant-death-rate-2023-09-29/ https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/missed-vaccinations-did-n... Missing vaccines did not reduce the incidence of SIDS. This is as close to a clean experiment as possible to get.
        willy_k 2y ago
        That’s what the study concluded, how is it a lie? I don’t see where your first source says they prevent SIDS, it cites some studies that found no effect and one where “The authors concluded that these data support findings of past controlled studies showing that the temporal association between infant vaccination and SIDS is coincidental and not causal.”, so perhaps the reasoning about the findings in the paper I linked are off the mark, but what you linked does not show that the statistics are wrong.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > That’s what the study concluded, how is it a lie? They use statistics incorrectly. They looked at VAERS that is _literally_ meant for reports of adverse effects. So it's of course correlated with SIDS. The reverse analysis would have proven them wrong.
        willy_k 2y ago
        I understand that, and I get that this study doesn’t show that 75% of ALL cases are within 7 days of a vaccination. They found that of mortality that occurred within 60 days post-vaccination, 75% happened within 7 days of a vaccination.
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  Thanks. I’m stealing that one :)
datameta 2y ago
What you're detailing is a growing body of study under the BioPsychoSocial model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model?wprov=sf... From personal experience I can say a dietary change reduced systemic inflammation for me and had as much of an effect on recovery as medication treatment. The anti-inflammatory diet eliminates foods well-known to cause inflammation in a sizable portion of the population. Out gut micro-biome takes the pharmacokinetics of nutrition even deeper by introducing another layer of breakdown or secretion.

rozap 2y ago

Thanks for clearing this up, I certainly find your citations compelling.

willy_k 2y ago
It’s trivial to find studies detailing lower-magnitude negative effects of the things mentioned, but in isolation. As far is I’m aware, the net impact on our biology of the dozens of environmental stressors we face remains to be studied. This doesn’t directly go to anything I said, but I will share this fun review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750021001268 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002...
- cyberax 2y ago
  Ah, VAERS strikes again.
  - willy_k 2y ago
    Sure? Is “Of all reported SIDS cases post-vaccination, 75 % occurred within 7 days (p < 0.00001)” that simple?
    - cyberax 2y ago
      No, it's just a lie. For example, vaccines _prevent_ SIDS: https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccines-and-other-conditions/sudden-infant-death-syndrome-sids https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety... But wait, there's more: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/missed-vaccinations-did-not-reduce-us-sudden-infant-death-rate-2023-09-29/ https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/missed-vaccinations-did-n... Missing vaccines did not reduce the incidence of SIDS. This is as close to a clean experiment as possible to get.
      - willy_k 2y ago
        That’s what the study concluded, how is it a lie? I don’t see where your first source says they prevent SIDS, it cites some studies that found no effect and one where “The authors concluded that these data support findings of past controlled studies showing that the temporal association between infant vaccination and SIDS is coincidental and not causal.”, so perhaps the reasoning about the findings in the paper I linked are off the mark, but what you linked does not show that the statistics are wrong.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > That’s what the study concluded, how is it a lie? They use statistics incorrectly. They looked at VAERS that is _literally_ meant for reports of adverse effects. So it's of course correlated with SIDS. The reverse analysis would have proven them wrong.
        willy_k 2y ago
        I understand that, and I get that this study doesn’t show that 75% of ALL cases are within 7 days of a vaccination. They found that of mortality that occurred within 60 days post-vaccination, 75% happened within 7 days of a vaccination.
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
Thanks. I’m stealing that one :)

datameta 2y ago

What you're detailing is a growing body of study under the BioPsychoSocial model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model?wprov=sf... From personal experience I can say a dietary change reduced systemic inflammation for me and had as much of an effect on recovery as medication treatment. The anti-inflammatory diet eliminates foods well-known to cause inflammation in a sizable portion of the population. Out gut micro-biome takes the pharmacokinetics of nutrition even deeper by introducing another layer of breakdown or secretion.