According to the theory, it is in our best interest to make sure we eat more alkaline foods than acid foods, so that we end up with an overall alkaline load on our body. This will supposedly protect us from the diseases of modern civilization, whereas eating a diet with a net acid load will make us vulnerable to everything from cancer to osteoporosis. To make sure we stay alkaline, they recommend keeping track of urine or saliva pH using pH test strips.
In this two-part series, I will address the main claims made by proponents of the alkaline diet, and will hopefully clear up some confusion about what it all means for your health.d
Will eating an alkaline diet make you and your bones healthier? #alkalinediet #bonehealth
Foods Can Influence Our Urine pH
Before I start dismantling this theory, I want to acknowledge a couple things they get right. First, foods do leave behind acid or alkaline ash. The type of “ash” is determined by the relative content of acid-forming components such as phosphate and sulfur, and alkalis such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium. (1, 2) In general, animal products and grains are acid forming, while fruits and vegetables are alkali forming. Pure fats, sugars, and starches are neutral, because they don’t contain protein, sulfur, or minerals.
It’s also true that the foods we eat change the pH of our urine. (3, 4) If you have a green smoothie for breakfast, for example, your pee a few hours later will likely be more alkaline than that of someone who had bacon and eggs. As a side note, it’s also very easy to measure your urine pH, and I think this is one of the big draws of the alkaline diet. Everyone can probably agree that it’s satisfying to see concrete improvements in health markers depending on your diet, and pH testing gives people that instant gratification they desire. However, as you’ll see below, urine pH is not a good indicator of the overall pH of the body, nor is it a good indicator of general health.
Foods Don’t Influence Our Blood pH
Proponents of the alkaline diet have put forth a few different theories about how an acidic diet harms our health. The more ridiculous claim is that we can change the pH of our blood by changing the foods we eat, and that acidic blood causes disease while alkaline blood prevents it. This is not true. The body tightly regulates the pH of our blood and extracellular fluid, and we cannot influence our blood pH by changing our diet. (5, 6) High doses of sodium bicarbonate can temporarily increase blood pH, but not without causing uncomfortable GI symptoms. (7, 8) And there are certainly circumstances in which the blood is more acidic than it should be, and this does have serious health consequences. However, this state of acidosis is caused by pathological conditions such as chronic renal insufficiency, not by whether you choose to eat a salad or a burger. In other words, regardless of what you eat or what your urine pH is, you can be pretty confident that your blood pH is hovering around a comfortable 7.4.
A more nuanced claim has been proposed specifically regarding bone health, and this hypothesis is addressed somewhat extensively in the scientific literature. It supposes that in order to keep blood pH constant, the body pulls minerals from our bones to neutralize any excess acid that is produced from our diet. Thus, net acid-forming diets (such as the typical Western diet) can cause bone demineralization and osteoporosis. This hypothesis, often referred to as the “acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis,” is what I will discuss for the rest of this article. I’ll address some of the other health claims in part two.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
The Kidneys—Not Bone—Regulate Blood pH
While more reasonable than the first claim, the acid-ash hypothesis seems to completely disregard the vital role the kidneys play in regulating body pH. The kidneys are well equipped to deal with “acid ash.” When we digest things like protein, the acids produced are quickly buffered by bicarbonate ions in the blood. (7) This reaction produces carbon dioxide, which is exhaled through the lungs, and salts, which are excreted by the kidneys. During the process of excretion, the kidneys produce “new” bicarbonate ions, which are returned to the blood to replace the bicarbonate that was initially used to buffer the acid. This creates a sustainable cycle in which the body is able to maintain the pH of the blood, with no involvement from the bones whatsoever.
Thus, our understanding of acid-base physiology does not support the theory that net acid-forming diets cause loss of bone minerals and osteoporosis. But just for argument’s sake, let’s say that our renal system cannot handle the acid load of the modern diet. If bones were used to buffer this excess acid, we would expect to see evidence of this taking place in clinical trials. Alas, that is not the case.
Clinical Trials Do Not Support the Acid-Ash Hypothesis of Osteoporosis
At first glance, some of the studies may look convincing, because higher acid diets often increase the excretion of calcium in the urine. Some researchers assumed that this extra calcium was coming from bone. (8) However, when calcium balance (intake minus excretion) was measured, researchers found that acid-forming diets do not have a negative effect on calcium metabolism. (9) Some studies found that supplementing with potassium salts (intended to neutralize excess acid) had beneficial effects on markers for bone health, which would tend to support the acid-ash hypothesis. However, these results were only observed in the first few weeks of supplementation, and long-term trials did not find any benefit to bone health from these alkalizing salts. (10)
Finally, even though the hypothesis holds that higher intakes of protein and phosphate are acidifying and therefore detrimental to bone health, multiple studies have shown that increasing protein or phosphate intake has positive effects on calcium metabolism and on markers for bone health. (11, 12) Summarizing the clinical evidence, two different meta-analyses and a review paper all concluded that randomized controlled trials do not support the hypothesis that acidifying diets cause loss of bone mineral and osteoporosis. (13, 14, 15)
So, it appears that neither physiology nor clinical trials support the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis. But again, just for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that these trials are imperfect (which they are, of course; no science is perfect!), and thus we can’t depend on their conclusions. If the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis were true, we would expect to see an association between net acid-producing diets and osteoporosis in observational studies. Yet again, this is not the case.
Observational Studies Do Not Support the Acid-Ash Hypothesis of Osteoporosis
Observational studies have not found a correlation between dietary acid load and bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture risk, nor have they found a correlation between urine pH and BMD or fracture risk. (16, 17, 18) Additionally, higher protein intakes are correlated with better bone health in multiple studies, even though high-protein diets are generally net acid forming. (19) In fact, animal protein in particular (the most acid-forming food of all) has been associated with better bone health. (20, 21) Imagine that! One study included in a recent meta-analysis did find an association between higher protein intake and greater risk for fracture (22), but compared to the numerous more recent studies showing the opposite, this evidence isn’t very strong. Overall, the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis is not supported by physiology, clinical trials, or observational data.
Hopefully I’ve given you a decent understanding of how our bodies handle pH balance, and have reassured you that you don’t need to worry about the acidity of your urine with regards to bone health. Click here for part two, where I tackle some of the other claims of the alkaline diet!
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Hi Chris,
Your views about the bones not being responsible for balancing our PH but instead it’s our kidneys that balance out acid were very interesting and made a lot of sense.
But in that case, couldn’t it then put the kidneys at risk by putting too much strain on the kidneys if we consume a diet too high in acid foods?
Thank you,
Rhonda
James,
I think you should stop complaining about people being off topic. Every time, [15 – 20?], you asked Steaphen for published studies, you went off topic, therefore inviting more off topic comments.
All you had to do is ignore Steaphen’s and my comments from the beginning, but you could not do that. So you invite him over and over to come back with his off topic published studies.
Can you see this picture?
I read through many of the published cases and they are impressive, but don’t need those to know what the mind can do to systematically heal the body [along with diet etc], or hurt the body. I’ve got 43 years experience with this.
Of course, I strongly suspect, that nearly everyone reading this blog knows full well how rigidly, locked in you are to your limited understanding of the body.
So since it appeared that Steaphen was not going to post the links, I went ahead and did in hopes to finally shut you up concerning the published cases you keep asking for.
Then again, why should you read them when you WILL reject in any way possible anything that challenges your limited understanding.
Now, having said all of those facts.
James and Paleo. I agree that it was inappropriate for Steaphen and I to comment off topic as much as we did.
I’m sure both of you will admit though, there will be some natural deviation from the topic as I believe there was before we commented, but we did take it too far.
As soon as I saw the mind mentioned in relation to the body, I jumped on it with the intention of helping people but not sensitive to the scope on the blog.
It is very true, if there was a “thread” in a forum with the subject of, say, “influence of the mind on healing”, and somebody comes along and asks about the PH of the gut after eating whatever, then the forum modulator would probably instruct that person to start a new thread of that subject.
So, ignoring the off topic comments maybe the best way to handle it. At least I’d stay away.
Dennis: “James,
I think you should stop complaining about people being off topic. Every time, [15 – 20?], you asked Steaphen for published studies, you went off topic, therefore inviting more off topic comments.
All you had to do is ignore Steaphen’s and my comments from the beginning, but you could not do that. So you invite him over and over to come back with his off topic published studies.
Can you see this picture?”
Clearly you don’t. You and Steaphen were asked a number of times to stop posting of topic. But instead the tow of you were acting like atheists barging in to a church and trying to force your convictions on everyone. People don’t go to church to hear atheists ramble on about their convictions. And people were not reading this blog article because they wanted to hear your and Steaphen’s off topic rantings about YOUR beliefs. If people were reading this blog article it was because they were interested in what was being said about the alkaline myth, not hypotheses on the mind-body connection and spontaneous remissions. Now you want to make me the bad guy instead of taking responsibility for your own actions. Typical troll.
Dennis: “I wish you would have answered my other questions, also.”
If you get back ON TOPIC then I would happy to answer your questions on topic with the blog article. You and Steaphen though don’t seem to have enough brains between the two of you to figure out that your posts ARE NOT on topic, even when several people have told you this over and over. If you noticed I have been ignoring most of your and Steaphen’s posts because as the saying goes “don’t feed the trolls”. By responding to your off topic posts it just encourages you and Steaphen to post even more off topic. It’s like a sick game the two of you wish to keep playing.
Dennis: “OK, so, personally, I don’t think Steaphen should have or needed to look up any published medical articles for you.”
It is up to the original claimant to back their claims with the evidence. If these studies really exist AND if they really back Steaphen’s claims then he should have posted the evidence. The fact that he refused to post the evidence but rather spend so much time arguing against everyone but you just makes it appear all that more that the studies either do not exist or are flawed.
I see you claim they exist but I have seen all sorts of people post titles to articles they claim back their points. When you read the studies though they either have nothing to do with the topic or they are heavily flawed or misinterpreted.
This is why I repeatedly asked for these studies to be presented for review. Did you read and review all those 3500+ references or did you just see some references posted and assumed they must back Young’s belief? Being that you said you looked at the site and saw the references but said nothing about actually reading them it appears to to be the later.
So since you and Steaphen don’t want to back your claims with real evidence and it is off topic why don’t the two of you go somewhere else where your beliefs are the topic since this is not the topic here.
James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dennis: “Do you TRULY believe that Dr Turner simply made up all of her references to spontaneous remission?”
James: I have no idea. That is why I keep waiting for Steaphen to supply at least 20 of those over 3500 published medical articles he claims exists for review. The fact that he has yet to supply even at least one is pretty suspicious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wish you would have answered my other questions, also.
OK, so, personally, I don’t think Steaphen should have or needed to look up any published medical articles for you. For one reason, because I don’t believe you have any flexibility to adjust your thinking on that matter anyway. I could be wrong.
I just checked out his site and the links to published articles that you’ve been begging for, are there.
I don’t know why he didn’t simply put the link here, but it could be, like I believe, he didn’t want to simply bow to your demand. I don’t know. I’m just guessing.
http://beliefdoctor.com/news/9-key-factors-affecting-radical-remission-from-cancer#remissions
Sorry Dennis, I think you, James and his affiliate have misunderstood me – I really don’t care if James accepts the research that Dr Turner has presented.
As far as I’m concerned, from a holodynamic-systems perspective, all healing is in a sense “spontaneous remission”. Btw Dr Turner does not use the term “spontaneous” as it implies healing occurs without our deliberate intent. Not so, she says, as her research makes abundantly clear..
The research is, for me, irrelevant. But not everyone has spent decades developing a world-view that provides a fuller view with which to the appreciate the cultural and scientific dogmas at work.
My posting here is to give those who are experiencing severe illness, a fuller understanding of the dynamics of recovery. The naysayers are irrelevant, or at least they need to be considered irrelevant when seeking recovery from illness. It’s crucial to recovery for people to take control of their lives, their beliefs, diet, and their relationships that are undermining their beliefs, and expectations of recovery.
I think Stuart Chase was close to the mark when he said that “For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible”. I understand the deeper rhythms and processes of life and do not require proof, having now moved beyond the need to look for supporting evidence of that understanding. That said, I’m still delighted when my understanding throws up some surprises, as I make mention here http://beliefinstitute.com/blog/steaphen-pirie/quantum-physics-sex
Mind you I do get quite vocal about the superstitions and egregious behavior of mechanical-universe thinkers. I share Prof. Richard Conn Henry’s lament that to not speak up about those old-world mechanical beliefs, is a dereliction of social duty. As he says “As a person of iron integrity, I cannot participate in the dereliction of social duty that is going on among scientists today. I must speak up, and, by gum, I am!” (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html)
In my work I go into detail about the irrational superstitions that are endemic in modern medicine and science. It really is a travesty of modern science to steadfastly maintain old, irrational superstitions that are causing immense harm in our world. http://beliefdoctor.com/the-travesty-of-modern-science.html
Astute readers will be alert to the underlying reason why James seeks to discredit the research — because biochemical processes won’t explain “spontaneous remissions”.
Just as a biochemical analysis won’t explain how we move our bodies to even so much as lift a finger.
If anyone wants the unquestionably robust argument as to why that is the case, and will continue to remain the case, read the content of the following link. http://beliefdoctor.com/the-modern-superstitions-of-science-and-religion.html
I already gave several explanations behind spontaneous remissions. So why are you lying again Steaphen? Just looking for another excuse to push your bogus site?
Steaphen: “Just as a biochemical analysis won’t explain how we move our bodies to even so much as lift a finger.”
You clearly know nothing about how the body really works if you don’t think science know how muscles work.
“You clearly know nothing about how the body really works if you don’t think science know how muscles work.”
Perhaps true, I know very little — so I ask questions.
For example: A runner begins running.
He moves off the start line, and moves forward 1/1,000,000th of the Planck length (note: infinite-series, used to mathematically “solve” Zeno’s Paradoxes requires movement through all increments, including infinitely shorter than the Planck Length).
Precisely, exactly what biochemical/electrical processes are responsible for that movement?
If you would be so kind to enlighten the physics community, they’ll reward you with a Nobel or two.
James
When you lift a finger, initially moving it a small distance, say 1/1,000,000th of the Planck length, exactly what biochemical process does that?
Please be aware, casual observers of your reply will notice the tell-tale signs of your “cognitive dissonance” in the form of denial, or imprecise generalizations that do not answer the question, or comments about being “off-topic”.
Earlier I suggested you’d receive a Nobel or two if you answer that question. Besides physics you would be a certainty for a Nobel in Chemistry and Medicine, as a precise answer would undermine much of modern scientific and medical dogma.
James
To appease those who believe my comments (and those of Dennis) are off-topic, why don’t you provide a link to a forum at which we can drill down into the biochemistry, say of muscle movement, thinking, memory, feelings, imagination, creativity, hope, desire, love.
Preferably a professional-level forum, like LinkedIn.
StenBjorsell: “I am quickly losing faith in James.”
No problem. As I have to keep reminding certain individuals here that this blog article IS NOT about me. If you disagree with something then respond about the comment, not the person, and back your claims with some evidence. Not that hard to do!!!
StenBjorsell: “What is this: “They totally ignore certain simple facts such as much of the acidity would be lost as the carbonic acid releases and the carbon dioxide gets burped up.””
Again, not that hard to figure out. If carbonic acid levels is subject to the amount of carbon dioxide present then the loss of some of CO2 that dissociates from the soda and is burped up means less CO2 to form carbonic acid, thus less acidity. Get it now?
StenBjorsell: “Is this referring to some well known facts, personal experience facts or study facts? Reply please !”
Mostly what is well known in science and medicine. Have you tried researching these facts from some anatomy and physiology books or some valid medical research?
StenBjorsell: “Fact is that bulk CO2 in our bodies is produced through combustion or metabolism. ”
Nobody has denied that fact. Also, if you paid attention to what I said several times ALL foods gets metabolized in to acids. The primary acid I was referring to is carbonic acid.
StenBjorsell: “The combustion process generates CO2, that is acidic by default”
So where is the hydrogen atom in CO2 to make the CO2 acidic? Ah, it does not exist. The CO2 has to react with water for a hydrogen source to create the acid carbonic acid. And the higher the CO2 levels dissolved in the water the higher the acidity, which goes back to my first comment about burping up so much of the CO2 would reduce the acid activity the soda would have on the body.
By the way, the body also maintains a levels of dissolved CO2 in the body since it is required by the body. Dissolved CO2 levels are in equilibrium with lung CO2 levels, which is hundreds of times higher that carbonic acid levels. Levels of carbonic acid can be maintained based on need by increasing or decreasing respiration, which decreases or increases dissolved CO2 respectively.
Some of the dissolved CO2 can be utilized to form carbonic acid as needed catalyzed by the enzyme carbonic anhydrase.
StenBjorsell: “But no neutralisation takes place, only removal of the acidic combustion product, CO2 takes place,”
Wrong again. First of all what acid is required to form the body’s bicarbonate? That’s right, carbonic acid, which quickly disassociates in to bicarbonate. And bicarbonate is maintained in a higher level than carbonic acid in the blood. Carbonic acid also reacts with highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia NEUTRALIZING the carbonic acid in the process and forming one of the body’s primary antioxidants uric acid.
During the disassociation of carbonic acid in to bicarbonate there is an acidic hydrogen proton also released. This proton is BUFFERED by binding to hemoglobin or phosphate.
Further buffering in the blood occurs with extracellular proteins such as albumin.
As I mentioned earlier, the body produces carbonic acid utilizing the catalyst carbonic anhydrase. So why would the body produce carbonic acid if it is so bad for the body as you are implying? Simple, because we need carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is needed to neutralize highly toxic ammonium, it is needed for the production of stomach acid, it is needed to release oxygen from hemoglobin, it is needed to dilate blood vessels to allow proper circulation and it is needed for the formation of bicarbonate in the body.
StenBjorsell: “When the blood reaches the lungs the CO2 is released and the pH rises and oxygen can attach again. This is pure transportation of CO2 out of the body, not neutralization.”
Very good, but there are reactions in which there is neutralization of the carbonic acid in the blood such as the reaction of carbonic acid on ammonia to form uric acid.
And this backs my earlier statement about excess alkalinity preventing the release of oxygen from hemoglobin. Again, a slight acidity is required for the oxygen release.
StenBjorsell: “In the kidneys pH is dropped by means of proton pump that split a neutral salt in acid that is excreted and base that is retained, I understand.”
The pH of urine is dropped as many acids are excreted in the urine such as uric acid, dihydrogen phosphate ion, ammonium ions, citric acid and sulfuric acid.
StenBjorsell: “To claim that acidic foods or free acid can be ventilated by itself or via CO2 integrated in this process seems an unsupported hypothesis to me at least.”
And nobody ever claimed that. Especially the “acidic foods” part since as has been pointed out numerous times there is no such thing as a truly acidic food. Or a truly alkaline food for that matter. ALL foods are made acidic in the stomach, alkaline in the intestines, and eventually all metabolized in to acids in the long run with highly dangerous alkaline ammonia being an intermediate to the acid formation in some cases.
StenBjorsell: “As soon as CO2 is created acidity takes place.
Again, not true as explained earlier in this post.
StenBjorsell: “What are the suggested reactions, please!”
Already explained earlier in this post.
StenBjorsell: “The reference I gave was not to a “study”. It was to a review of a number of studies on subject matter. Please read it and the studies. You and Chris seem to be out on some kind of metaphysical ride without slightest proof for “neutralization through breathing”.”
Once again you are twisting things that were NEVER claimed to make your argument. Carbonic acid is reduced through respiration, not neutralized as you are implying was said. That is as ridiculous as claiming that if you add distilled water to an acid that the reduction of acidity is from neutralization of the acid. You need to learn the difference between reduction of acidity as opposed to neutralization of acidity. Although, as pointed out some of the carbonic acid is neutralized contrary to your claim. But not by respiration.
StenBjorsell: “Finally the study I referred to was trashing meat protein, which I think is right, when too high. Equally bad and acidifying are grain based products”
Once again, there is NO such thing as a truly acidic food. Just because a food such as meat or grains are high protein this DOES NOT make them acidic.
In fact, let’s take a look at beef. How do you explain beef being acidic considering the very high levels of calcium, magnesium and potassium in the beef? For example, do you know what causes rigor mortis when an animal dies? It is from the calcium influx in to the muscles and the pushing out of magnesium from the muscle cells. That calcium and magnesium does not magically disappear when the animal is killed. They are still there and calcium, magnesium and potassium are all considered alkaline. So again, how do you explain beef being considered acidic?
StenBjorsell: “The worst of the worst is a standard US diet, normal in meat and high in grains, especially when sugar is added.
And sugar is naturally found in all plants considered “alkaline”. Since simpler plant sugars are metabolized in to carbon dioxide just like sucrose (“table sugar”), why is it you think added sugar is acidic while simpler plant sugars found in the so-called “alkaline foods” are not? Also keep in mind that the more complex sugars known as fibers are fermented by the flora forming even more acids. So why is a plant such as kale, which is also loaded with oxalic acid, considered alkaline, while Twinkies containing “alkaline” minerals from sources such as whey and baking soda is considered acidic?
StenBjorsell: “The table in the review of the acidifing levels of foods makes sense.”
How?
StenBjorsell: “Regardng calcium it may also be well worth noting that only calcium from bone is in non-ionic form and can hence neutralize acid. Cacium citrate, and chloride etc. have no neutralizing effect as . they are already neutralized.
The same applies to phosphorus and other minerals.”
Good try, but you are overlooking something. Ever hear of ions, such as calcium ions or magnesium ions? What about the electromotive series of metals? Point is that you are assuming that the minerals will remain the same. If this is the case then how does the sodium from sodium chloride form sodium bicarbonate? How does the chlorine atom from sodium chloride form in to hydrochloric acid?
You also overlooked the fact I mentioned in my earlier post to you that the foods they incorrectly called “acidic” were high in phosphorus, which promotes bone loss and urinary calcium excretion due to hyperparathyroidism. This has nothing to do with a supposed pH shift from foods.
StenBjorsell: “Chris and you claim neutralization of acids through the lungs.”
Again, that is not what was said. You are twisting what was said in to things that were never said.
StenBjorsell: “Any acids, so lets start with lactic acid. How ??”
First of all what lactic acid? Better do your homework before answering this one!!!
I am quickly losing faith in James. What is this: “They totally ignore certain simple facts such as much of the acidity would be lost as the carbonic acid releases and the carbon dioxide gets burped up.”
Is this referring to some well known facts, personal experience facts or study facts? Reply please !
Fact is that bulk CO2 in our bodies is produced through combustion or metabolism. The combustion process generates CO2, that is acidic by default and status quo is maintained as long as it is constantly released as it is being produced, else we die and before our pH drops significantly
But no neutralisation takes place, only removal of the acidic combustion product, CO2 takes place,
A transient acidic state takes place when CO2 is dissolved in the blood lowering pH to near 7, which then causes the oxygen to detach hereby enabling O2 transport to tissues.
When the blood reaches the lungs the CO2 is released and the pH rises and oxygen can attach again. This is pure transportation of CO2 out of the body, not neutralization.
In the kidneys pH is dropped by means of proton pump that split a neutral salt in acid that is excreted and base that is retained, I understand. Same mechanism that is used to produce stomach acid. That is totally different to ventilation away of CO2, To claim that acidic foods or free acid can be ventilated by itself or via CO2 integrated in this process seems an unsupported hypothesis to me at least. As soon as
CO2 is created acidity takes place. What are the suggested reactions, please!
The reference I gave was not to a “study”. It was to a review of a number of studies on subject matter. Please read it and the studies. You and Chris seem to be out on some kind of metaphysical ride without slightest proof for “neutralization through breathing”.
Finally the study I referred to was trashing meat protein, which I think is right, when too high. Equally bad and acidifying are grain based products, especially if they are high or dominate a diet with close to and over 50% intake like the USDA promotes. The worst of the worst is a standard US diet, normal in meat and high in grains, especially when sugar is added. SAD.
The table in the review of the acidifing levels of foods makes sense.
Regardng calcium it may also be well worth noting that only calcium from bone is in non-ionic form and can hence neutralize acid. Cacium citrate, and chloride etc. have no neutralizing effect as . they are already neutralized.
The same applies to phosphorus and other minerals.
But before we look at the kidneys lets complete the discussion of the lungs; focus at an issue at a time. Maybe I am missing something, and then I would like to know!
Chris and you claim neutralization of acids through the lungs.
Any acids, so lets start with lactic acid. How ??
Citation from a JNL discussion with a totally opposite view:
http://nutrition.highwire.org/content/128/6/1051.full
The study authors are comfortable with that not only diet but also intake of buffers effects calcium = bone loss, based on several studies referred to. The last words of the summary:
“In summary, a diet high in acid-ash protein causes excessive urinary calcium loss because of its acid content; calciuria is directly related to urinary net acid excretion. Alkali buffers, whether chemical salts or dietary fruits and vegetables, reverse this urinary calcium loss.
Overall, the evidence leaves little doubt that excess acidity will create a reduction in total bone substance. This is normal physiology—not pathology. This is a mechanism of Homo sapiens to protect himself against acidosis. The ability to buffer the acidosis of starvation or a high meat diet gave a survival advantage in a hunter-gatherer society. Modern peoples are now eating high protein, acid-ash diets and losing their bones. The study by Appel et al. (1997) shows that increasing buffering capacity by increasing fruit and vegetable intake is a practical way to counteract the acidity generated by the dietary protein, reduce calciuria and consequently improve calcium balance.”
That we can regulate acid balance through breathing as Chris states above makes no sense: By removing CO2 via the lungs we indeed remove acid. But bulk CO2 comes from metabolism, and we can only remove CO2 in proportion to that metabolism. Moreover it is just during metabolism that CO2 is formed and hence the point when this acidity is created, then quickly dispersed through ventilation.
The body can of course become more acidic from retaining part of that CO2. It cannot become more alkaline by giving up more CO2 as there is no other bulk body source for it.
The small buffer of CO2 in the blood we have is necessary for proper oxygen delivery through the Bohr effect. As soon as that buffer is gone a condition called pulmonary alkalosis is entered. A condition that happens at the same time as metabolic acidosis. That is the exact result of attempting to rid the body of acid through breathing. (Over breathing = hyperventilation) It usually ends in death if subjects are allowed to breath faster and faster due to failing oxygen delivery.
If there however is ample bone substance and working kidneys, calcium can then instead react with excess acid and bind it as Calciumchloride and water, into the urine.
Hi StenBjorsell
Thank you for posting this link — the website is an excellent resource on nutrition (I’ll include in my workbook for the nutritional component of those 9 factors I mentioned above).
Again, thank you!
btw, in the current issue: “Dietary Intakes of Individual Flavanols and Flavonols Are Inversely Associated with Incident Type 2 Diabetes in European Populations.” ( http://bit.ly/1g9vRHM )
Rule of Thumb (from the above): majority alkaline-producing diet -> low incidence of Type 2 Diabetes; decreased loss of bone density. 🙂
Not the first time I have seen this flawed study used to try and promote the acid diet myth,
The first and most obvious flaw is that they never tested blood pH. Instead they relied on urinary pH, which DOES NOT reflect blood pH. Therefore, they cannot definitively state that there ever was acidosis.
Another major and obvious flaw is look what they are are claiming are acidic foods. These are both HIGH calcium containing foods. High serum calcium can cause problems such as high blood pressure, increased risk of asthma attacks, constipation, muscle cramping/spasms and mental fogginess. Due to the dangers of high serum calcium the body is obviously going to try and dump the excess calcium from the food through the urine. In this case the calcium IS NOT coming from the bones as is being claimed. Since they failed to identify the source of the calcium it is pretty premature of the “researchers” to claim the calcium is the result of bone loss.
And if the “researchers” knew anything about nutrition and how the body works then they would have known that the foods they list as “acidic” can cause bone loss, but this has NOTHING to do with acidity. These are high phosphorus foods that trigger bone loss by inducing pseudohyperparathyroidism.
Just like their bogus claims about soda and acidity. They totally ignore certain simple facts such as much of the acidity would be lost as the carbonic acid releases and the carbon dioxide gets burped up. And the fact that there could be acid buffers in the diet, and even if not the acid would be neutralized as part of the chyme by pancreatic bicarbonate.
In addition, they focus heavily on kidney excretion of hydrogen ions while hardly mentioning the more important pH regulator respiration. Respiration is the body’s primary means of pH regulation. Kidneys are secondary. And there are still other pH regulators such as binding of hydrogen ions to proteins or by the reaction of ammonia from amino acids and carbonic acid leading to the formation of uric acid required by the body. These two reactions require the proteins the researchers are calling acidic. And then there is buffering by hemoglobin and phosphates. Again the “researchers” claim the phosphates are acidic, which is misleading.
They also overlooked the well known fact that the primary blood pH buffer is bicarbonate, which is is maintained at a much higher levels in the blood than carbonic acid. And what is the bicarbonate made from? Carbonic acid, which lowers the level of carbonic acid during its production.
It is well known that buffering by bone minerals is ONLY used as a last resort, which means it wold take severe acidosis to cause bone loss from any acidity associated with diet.
The “researchers” have also failed to take in to account the fact that ALL foods eventually metabolize in to acids. Even the so-called “alkaline foods”.
In addition, the “researchers” failed to take in to account that just like the body has to maintain a tight regulation on pH, it also maintains tight regulation on its potassium levels since excess serum potassium can stop the heart. This is why potassium is used to stop the heart in lethal injection.
Potassium is a natural diuretic, and it is known that diuresis leads to potassium loss. This is part of the body’s means to regulate its potassium levels. And by the same token this means the higher potassium levels would not remain long to buffer any acidity. This is why the body relies primarily on respiration and dumping of hydrogen ions through the kidneys as their primary means of pH regulation.
Even if the potassium can remain there is another flaw with their claims. Potassium is an alkali, just as sodium is an alkali. Yet they claim that salt as sodium chloride causes bone loss as where potassium salts supposedly prevent bone loss. Again, they do not understand what they are talking about. The acidosis from ingesting “table salt” is the result of the chlorine atom in the salt resulting in hyperchloremic acidosis. Therefore, the same problem could just as easily occur from the ingestion of excess potassium chloride.
There are other errors, but these are the primary ones.
It is like these “researchers” went in to the research with a pre-concieved idea and blinders on so they were going to back their erroneous beliefs by manipulating the research and through misinterpretation.
This is a great example though of why people need to understand how the body really works, and why research articles like this need to be reviewed rather than blindly accepted.
Same reason I have repeatedly asked Steaphen for at least 20 examples of the over 3500 research articles he claims backs his beliefs for review. So far he has yet to even provide even one, which calls in to question if these studies even really exist, and if they do exist if they really back Steaphen’s views. For some reason he has been trying really hard to dodge my requests and not provide any of these thousands of studies that are supposed to exist.
Summarizing Dr Turner’s research:
7 out of 9 factors in recovering from cancer, “against all odds” are psycho-social.
Only 2 of those 9 essential factors are dietary / biochemical.
In other words, 77% of your healing regimen will (according to the research) necessarily involve working on and improving psycho-social conditions.
Only 23% will involve diet etc, as typified by much of the discussion on this page.
When facing serious illness, I think it behoves those seeking wellness, to remember the relative weight of the various factors.
By all means pay attention to diet, add some supplements as needed, but most of all work on those psycho-social factors that are contributing to your illness, and are preventing you from regaining wellness.
As I reported (early in my comments on this page) diet and related physical factors are a minor issue (as documented by Sir Prof. Michael Marmot, Prof. Len Syme and others). To direct all your attention towards diet and supplements (and studying the detailed biochemistry thereof) is, according to the research, ignoring the other (7 of 9) factors that are crucial to your recovery, and wellness.
Part of that focus on psycho-social should, I believe, focus on ‘letting go’ any hostility towards others. I.e. not blaming others for your situation.
I believe it is pertinent for those who are ill, to read the comments directed towards me on this page. For example, the assertion that I am a “passive-aggressive guru”.. (according to an online definition, “Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility”.).
I don’t feel any hostility towards the people who have responded here. I may be stubborn (guilty 🙂 by not accepting comments that denounce the efficacy and importance of pyscho-social factors in regaining wellness. But that doesn’t cause me (to be a victim) to feeling angry, or similar.
I don’t believe I’ve labeled anyone here a charlatan, a fraud or any other such terms, as that would reflect my stuff, my issues, my anger. And if I have, I’m not perfect and occasionally I may slip, fall and curse, so please forgive me if I do 🙂
I find that when you meet resistance, e.g. as typified on this page, my advice is simply stay focused on what you want (wellness), and allow the naysayers, and argumentative types, their opinions.
If you’re confident within yourself you’ll not be upset by contrary opinions, or those who disagree with you.
I find a response similar to “thank you, you’re welcome to your opinion” highly beneficial in reminding you to let go their ‘stuff’ and for you to redirect your focus back to your wellness. In my experience, your recovery will involve developing that sense of focus, confidence and ease …
Blessings to all including those who’ve labeled me all sorts of bad things.
Peace.
What exactly do YOU want, Steaphen?
Are you THAT GUY who has to steal everyone’s thunder? Do you pout and stomp at other people’s birthday parties? Do you want to be rude to the host of this blog? Do you want to invalidate the people commenting in the thread? Do you want to force others to acknowledge you even without their consent? Do you want to force your doctrine down their throats even after you’ve been asked politely to leave? Do you want to ruin any semblance of an on-topic conversation by refusing to respect it?
Don’t you have a forum of your own, Steaphen? Can you not invite your ONE agreeing disciple there and leave this conversation in peace?
I didn’t label you Steaphen, you are who you are– another jerk on the internet force-feeding his doctrine where it (and he) is not wanted. If you don’t like the way we see you, then stop being that guy.
I have no problem with contrary opinions, I have a problem with people inserting them where they aren’t asked for and aren’t welcome. It’s one thing to present a different idea and let people consider it– it’s another altogether to ram it down their throats. Considering your repeated scolding that “naysayers” are toxic, it is utterly bizarre that you would continue to tell those of us who believe nutrition is the primary constituent to health, that WE are wrong. Do you read what you write? Do you have any idea how incongruent your ideals are with your actions?
Here in THIS forum, I want to discuss pH, and seeing as it’s the topic of this post, I’d say it’s a pretty reasonable expectation. You brought your strawberry to the table, I tried it and I opted to go back to my chocolate. Now please, try and muster up a modicum of respect and honor and take your naysaying and GO AWAY. You may very well have a decent message, but if so, it is lost in your disrespectful strong-arming.
Without the ability to edit or delete your comments, your words will be here in this forum for others to refer to for a very long time. Is this conversation really the one you want people judging you and your ideology by?
Also, please be sure to help them understand that it is only resistance to their choices for THEMSELVES that should be opposed. If you’re forcing something on someone against their will and without their consent, they have every RIGHT to resist it, and the forcer should EXPECT it. Teaching them to deal with that kind of resistance would be like teaching a rapist do deal with his victim’s resistance.
The real message here is that your journey is your own. You have no right to force your beliefs on others, nor do you have the right to insist that they buy into your recovery methodology.
I will admit that I have indeed been quite rude in “hijacking” this topic, away from the specifics of alkaline-acid diets and similar matters.
I have done so because, if I may use an analogy, to continue the various arguments here specific to the biochemistry of alkaline-acid diets while ignoring the underlying impetus towards regaining health, is akin to “shifting deck-chairs on the Titanic”.
Having now highlighted the psycho-social “icebergs” in one’s path, I invite those interested to resume discussion of (to continue the analogy): where and why which deck-chairs are to be placed, and the relative merit thereof.
For those who are interested in discussing further the psycho-social factors vital to wellbeing, I’ve posted a news item about Dr Turner’s book, to which one can comment ( http://beliefdoctor.com/news/9-key-factors-affecting-radical-remission-from-cancer ).
I thank everyone who’s responded to my posts — it has been helpful to me … I’m presently writing a health and wellbeing workbook for some people, and as a result of these (and other) responses and experiences, I will be including mention of the style of responses one might encounter on the path to health and wellbeing.
Everything in the physical or esoteric world has a hidden or esoteric counterpart. I mean EVERYTHING.
You cannot learn the true nature of a thing, like disease, by only studying it on the limited, physical level.
This is what James is attempting to do by rigidly staying within the scope of his medical journals.
In terms of disease, to truly understand it, you have to include the esoteric or metaphysical aspect of disease.
This is what Dr. Kelly Turner has done or is at least starting to do, by not simply acknowledging the many published cases of radical remission, but digging deeper, beyond the physical to understand why this happens. Of course, the answer will be “metaphysical”. Beyond the physical. The mind.
Here is a VERY practical example of how helpful it can be by including the “hidden” counterpart of the physical, when studying the body and it’s health or lack of.
Every organ of the body emits a particular color which can be seen by anyone with refined or psychic vision. When that organ is healthy, the color is clear and vibrant.
{here is the helpful part]
The color an organ emits will be faded and cloudy BEFORE a disease manifests in that organ on the physical level.
Eventually, this kind of “healthcare” will be commonplace, I suspect, in the near future.
For those in trouble, cancer, disease, however, Dr Turner includes mention of the need to deal with resistance (e.g. the kind that James/Huntress is providing in this thread.)
From the book (citing the case of a woman who had stage 4 cervical cancer in 1985)
“When I was in the hospital, the doctors and nurses spent two hours a day for two months trying to convince me that I was going to die, that there was no hope, that I had to accept this.
I told them I did not accept it. I understood what they were saying. I understood their statistics. I understood the prognosis. However, I was determined to stay focused on the possibility that my health was assured, that I would be cured. . . . And I do believe my level of control positively affected my healing.”
I think anyone who’s ill, will appreciate Dr Turner’s approach (in contrast to the denials and refutations of James/Huntress).
As she writes:
“when I came across a case of what I call Radical Remission. I froze, confused and stunned. Had this actually happened?
Did this person really overcome advanced cancer without
using conventional medicine? If so, why had it not been on
the front page of every newspaper? Even if it had happened only once, it was still an incredible event. After all, this person had somehow stumbled onto a cure for his cancer.
The men and women I was counseling would have given anything to know this survivor’s secret—and so would I.”
Hence her book.
I suggest those who are ill, to read this book, and ignore those like James who openly deny or refute people’s ability to naturally heal themselves.
I guess it goes without saying, but, I second that.
Think of it this way.
What have you got to lose by being open minded to what others have studied or experienced?
Dennis: “What have you got to lose by being open minded to what others have studied or experienced?”
Some people have such open minds that their brains have spilled out!!!
Steaphen: “I suggest those who are ill, to read this book, and ignore those like James who openly deny or refute people’s ability to naturally heal themselves.”
At no time have I ever refuted people’s ability to naturally heal themselves. In fact, if you read my responses you will find just the opposite.
So I take it you are just making up this lie to divert attention away from the fact that you have yet been able to provide even ONE of the over 3500 published medical studies you claim exist.
To those who are ill I advise you to be alert to the “cleverness” of people who seek to undermine your natural healing regimen.
In the above comments James asserts only psychosomatic illness (a minor percentage of relatively non-threatening illnesses) can be healed with mind (and related pyscho-social factors).
I’m sure those who are experiencing stage 4 cancers don’t sit around wondering if it is psychosomatic, or not. They take control, and using the 9 factors (as reported by Dr Turner), begin their journey to regaining wellness.
The book’s examples of people who’ve survived against all odds, makes it very clear: Ignore the naysayers, and do what it takes. That often involves radical changes to one’s diet, beliefs, behaviors and relationships.
Whether or not a true portrayal of the facts, the 1988 film “Leap of Faith” with Anne Archer and Sam Niell (based on the true story of Debby Ogg’s experience of overcoming nodular lymphoma) includes a very moving scene revealing the determination needed. While at dinner attended by various family and relatives, in response to seemingly innocent teasing about her eating “rabbit food” – she having radically changed her diet after being diagnosed with cancer – Archer/Ogg tells the person to leave immediately, and not come back, ever. It’s been around 20 years since I’ve seen that film, and I may have misremembered the exact details, but the message was clear: Do what it takes to create a positive and supportive environment, social circle and belief-system. If some within your family/social environment persist with being snide, sarcastic or skeptical, exclude them entirely from your life. Your recovery/life more than likely depends on it.
Hi to all, especially those who are unwell.
In this comments section (“The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 1”) I’ve been labeled a fraud, a charlatan, stupid, selling snake oil, rude, and many other things.
I may indeed be all those things — rude, a fraud, a snake oil salesman, receiving payment for selling my services (sort of begs the question, who doesn’t? But I digress :).
The question is, does this particular flawed, rude messenger – by some accounts, a bad … a very bad person – have a message worth considering?
Has the messenger provided any useful ideas?
If not, well then of course you’re wise to ignore his message and go about your day, barely giving the message a second-thought. The messenger might be harder to ignore, being as he is ever so rude, stupid and vocal.
In my experience the exchanges on this page are somewhat representative of what you will likely experience if you “rock the boat” by not obediently accepting and doing what you are told. I encourage those being diagnosed with a severe or terminal illness, to find within and around you the resources and, if necessary, the the temerity, the arrogance, the confidence, the rudeness – to forge your own path to wellness.
If you get sick and your illness has anything to do with nutritional deficiency whether genetic or dietary then you are screwed. The current medical establishment was not required to take nutritional training in med school! 12 hours of training at best. California is the only state that requires new doctors get a certain amount of nutritional training but that was mandated just 3 years ago.
Most doctors are trained to drug away any uncomfortable symptoms that be a direct result of a nutritional deficiency and you just can’t live in a deficit like that forever. When you get into that situation and the drugs start to mount it is time to take your health into your own hands and seek the proper help with trained individuals.
You’ll always notice when you go back to that original doctor that loaded you up with drugs that he doesn’t want to know how you were able to reverse what was happening with you and how you were able to stop all those drugs. Its this status quo thing… the patients are the ignorant enemy and the drug company controls the doctors mind through drug company sponsored studies. Gone is any shred of intellectual curiosity he may have once had.
Plus, I personally believe the doctor is thinking “Damn, there goes my Merck sponsored golf junket! That was my best customer!”. He certainly doesn’t want to hear you cured your RLS with inexpensive iron tablets.
James.
Do you TRULY believe that Dr Turner simply made up all of her references to spontaneous remission?
What good would it do for Steaphen to take the time to look up any published cases of spontaneous remission?
If he did, would you actually admit that your thinking was limited when it comes to healing and the mind?
Maybe, for all of us, you could explain one more time, what is it concerning the mind and healing that you do refute? Seriously.
Dennis: “Do you TRULY believe that Dr Turner simply made up all of her references to spontaneous remission?”
I have no idea. That is why I keep waiting for Steaphen to supply at least 20 of those over 3500 published medical articles he claims exists for review. The fact that he has yet to supply even at least one is pretty suspicious.
I never even implied “thinking away”, because “thinking away”, to me, is not even close to precise mental techniques one can use to heal.
Sorry I didn’t get your joke, since it was mixed in a lot of displaced aggression.
I’m sure by not you have revealed who you really are as a person to all of the readers, by in case anyone has missed that, here are the facts again.
What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name calling to build himself up. Oh yes, and you made sure you corrected a misspelling and made fun of me for that. That must have made you feel really good.
I said “It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet”
Once again: IT APPEARS………
Let me explain what I mean by this. I know it’s complicated.
It means that is is my impression from reading all of the comments that the majority of people are believers in the alkaline type diet.
It is pretty easy to tell based on their reactions to what you say.
I want you to notice another thing. I referred to the “alkaline” diet as
….. “what is thought of as an alkaline diet”. The kind of diet that people often describe as alkaline.
If you can read again, my comments, but this time with your hear OUTSIDE your ass, then you will see that I only talk about the diet that people CONSIDER alkaline. I personally don’t put much attention or alkalinity or acidity. I just know that the diet they eat is healthy.
[people like Steaphen and Dennis prefer to remain in
the dark ages believing that hardly anything has been learned about the human body.]
This is ironic that you think that Steaphen and I are in the dark ages.
I expect that you can talk to anyone on the leading edge of studying the mind-body connection and they will tell you of how little they know.
There is so much more to learn. You read your scientific journals actually believing that what you read is all there is to know.
You got to step back from your little details and get the big picture. It is ever expanding, while you are not.
[ You cannot simply think away a pathogenic infection
or disease caused by a pathogen such as most cancers.]
I NEVER said or ever implied that one can just ”think away” disease.
That was a question Steaphen asked me to clarify my comment that disease is caused by the mind, including cancer.
You know, someone said “do not cast pearls before swine”.
It is so obvious that you are the swine.
In other words, it’s a waste of time trying to convince the lessor evolved and the ignorant. You will get it eventually.
Dennis: “I never even implied “thinking away”, because “thinking away”, to me, is not even close to precise mental techniques one can use to heal. ”
Mental refers to thinking. So now you are saying that in the mind-body connection of healing that no thinking is involved. It just magically happens?
Dennis: “I’m sure by not you have revealed who you really are as a person to all of the readers, by in case anyone has missed that, here are the facts again.”
Your sentence, if that is what you call it, makes no sense whatsoever.
Dennis: “What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name calling to build himself up……….”
Wow, deju vu!!! Dennis is reposting his same temper tantrum rant word for word that he posted yesterday and that has already been addressed.
I guess he has nothing new or important to add.
I’m an efficient person. Why would I take the time to write the truth and who you are, in a different way?
I’m sorry you were not able to comprehend my comment when I tried to explain that there is a difference between just “thinking away” as opposed to a precise mental technique. No one using the mind to heal would use the phrase “thinking away”.
No temper here.
I’m interested in trying to keep people from being hurt by your ignorance to holistic healing and the actual cause of disease.
How does it feel advertising your extreme close-mindedness and ignorance to the world?
Yo, James and affiliates: in trusting that I’m within the limits of fair-use, I’ll quote Dr Turner’s definition of “Radical remission”
“I define Radical Remission as any cancer remission that
is statistically unexpected, and those statistics vary
depending on the cancer type, stage, and medical treatment
received. To be more specific, a Radical Remission
occurs whenever:
• a person’s cancer goes away without using any
conventional medicine; or
• a cancer patient tries conventional medicine, but the
cancer does not go into remission, so he or she
switches to alternative methods of healing, which do
lead to a remission; or
• a cancer patient uses conventional medicine and
alternative healing methods at the same time in order
to outlive a statistically dire prognosis (i.e., any
cancer with a less than 25 percent chance of five-year
survival).”
Steaphen,
First of all a “remission” is not cured.
Secondly, regardless of how Turner chooses to define “radical remission” this does not mean much of anything if those over 3500 studies published in medical journals you claim exist don’t. Therefore, there is really not much reason for you to continue with your line of reasoning until you provide those at least 20 studies you claim have been published in the medical journals for review. Otherwise it still appears that a lot of claims are being made up. So let’s see those studies Steaphen or are these studies as mythical as the unicorn?
Hello James (and your alto-ego, Paleo Huntress — yes, it’s obvious it’s you under an alias)
I’m reading case studies of people who literally were given months to live (e.g. severe kidney cancer, one kidney surgically removed), and 33 years (I’ll say that again, 33 years) later are entirely cancer-free.
So I don’t know what your definition of “cured”‘ is, but I’ll take her’s. Thanks very much.
Steaphen: “Hello James (and your alto-ego, Paleo Huntress — yes, it’s obvious it’s you under an alias)”
Boy, you cannot get anything right can you?!!!
I AM NOT Paleo Huntress. First of all I am not female. Secondly, I don’t follow the ideas of the various thoughts behind what the paleo diet really was. So it appears you are getting more and more desperate, which is why you keep resorting to posting off topic attacks instead of trying to back your bogus claims.
Steaphen: “I’m reading case studies of people who literally were given months to live (e.g. severe kidney cancer, one kidney surgically removed), and 33 years (I’ll say that again, 33 years) later are entirely cancer-free.”
And you claimed these were published studies in medical journals. So why can’t you produce the at least 20 out over 3500 studies you claim exist? Do they really exist, or are these just more fabrications of your imagination?
Steaphen,
Here’s a little exercise for you– Go to a search engine and type in “livejournal paleo huntress”. What you’ll find is the very first account I ever created under the Paleo Huntress ID, and you’ll note that I created it in early 2007 and that it hasn’t been updated (meaning it hasn’t been changed) since late 2007. (I don’t use it anymore, but it has sentimental value.) You’ll also note my current icon (which I created myself for the livejournal account) and the image of me with my very long hair… and even if you squint REALLY hard, you won’t be able to confuse me with James. Now I suppose that one could posit that 7 years ago, James may have thought it possible that in 2014 he’d be having a debate with a character such as yourself and that his own credentials wouldn’t be enough to provide legitimacy, and so he attempted to shore up his future image by spending the time and energy creating a livejournal account in the fictional persona of an un-credentialed, married mom of 3, (one an Aspie) who was healed by a paleo diet– and then went on to moderate that community for 6 months, just in CASE someone like YOU showed up in 7 years. Beyond that, he continued to maintain this persona through countless posts in paleo and vegan nutrition communities everywhere.
More to the point though, for someone extolling the healing virtues of positive thinking and avoiding the ‘toxic’, you are a fraud as its representative. Your posts are passive-aggressive, your continued off-topic presence here is disrespectful of the discussion topic and its author, and your personal attacks run contrary to your healing doctrine. Further, you preach about controlling mind and ego but you clearly lack the ability and willpower to do so yourself, and your responses toward me and others are both flippant and invalidating. You are a charlatan, everything you claim not to be– and someone who very obviously doesn’t practice what he preaches, but is dependent on people buying what he’s selling. Snake oil.
Without a doubt, the “mix of commercial sales and business experience, interspersed with and accompanied by many and varied courses in sales and management training” that your site boasts is where you have focussed your energy. You have a long way to go with the healing spirit.
You’re a fraud Steaphen. Please go away.
PS. My grammar is MUCH better than James’.. (no offense intended, James.) >.<
Dear Paleo Huntress
You’re welcome to your opinions.
If you believe my affirming people can heal naturally, using mind, meditation, and improved psycho-social circumstances is me being fraudulent, so be it.
I note your quoting various elements of my biography that I’ve made available, while not offering anything about yourself. I’m happy to stand and affirm my beliefs. Publicly. Openly.
As I said, you’re welcome to your opinions.
Blessings on your journey.
Steaphen,
You seem to be suggesting that giving out your real name and biography shows people who you ‘really are’… but it doesn’t. It is conversations such as those in this thread that reveal the real you.
As I wrote earlier, I DO believe in the ‘power of healing naturally and using mind, meditation, and improved psycho-social circumstances’… I even mentioned that I find the subject fascinating… but that isn’t where the fraud lies. The fraud lies in a critical, undisciplined, passive-aggressive guru trying to sell the masses what he preaches instead of what he practices. No one needs to read your bio to see that, Steaphen, they need only read this thread.
I’m not trying to sell a book, so my name doesn’t matter. Information is information, the messenger is irrelevant. And while I support anyone ‘standing by and affirming their beliefs’, either your belief is a charade, or you are failing miserably at putting it into practice. Either way, you are a poor spokesperson for your own program.
Quoting Dr Turner
“Intrigued, I instantly began trying to find other cases of Radical Remission. What I found shocked me.
There were over a thousand cases in print, all quietly published in medical journals, and yet here I was, working at a major cancer research institution, and this was the first time I had ever heard of one.
The more I dug into this topic, the more frustrated I
became. It turned out that no one was seriously
investigating these cases, nor were they making any
attempt to track them. What’s worse, most of the Radical Remission survivors I began talking to said that their doctors, while happy for them, often had no interest in hearing about what they had done to get better.”
The astute reader will not your attempt at denying the evidence, given the efficacy of the factors she’s cited.
Once again Steaphen, just because someone writes something in a book this does not make it true. There was a quack who wrote a book claiming cancer is a survival mechanism. Does this make it true? Of course not!!!
So where are those studies. I would think that if Turner wanted any credibility that she would have referenced those studies in her book making them even easier for you to find and present for review. Of course that can only happen if these studies actually exist as you keep claiming. If you cannot present at least 20 of these over 3500 studies you claim exist then your claims are going to appear as made up as your other disproven claims.
For those in poor or dire health: http://lissarankin.com/9-key-factors-affecting-radical-remission-from-cancer
“Spontaneous Remission Project put together by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which collected over 3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions from seemingly “incurable diseases.” Most of the case studies revolved around people with Stage 4 cancers who either declined conventional treatment or were given treatment deemed by doctors to be inadequate for cure. But the Spontaneous Remission Project also includes case studies of people who had remissions from heart failure, autoimmune diseases, high a gunshot wound to the head, and HIV.
9 Key Factors
So what were the 9 key factors that these patients with radical remissions employed? Dr. Turner goes into much more detail about these 9 key factors in the book. In fact, each factor has its own chapter, as well as stories of how patients used these factors to participate actively in their healing journey. But here are the nine overlapping factors her research uncovered.
1. Radically changing your diet.
2. Taking control of your health.
3. Following your intuition.
4. Using herbs and supplements.
5. Releasing suppressed emotions.
6. Increasing positive emotions.
7. Embracing social support.
8. Deepening your spiritual connection.
9. Having strong reasons for living.”
I cannot believe that you are still posting here. You have stated twice now that you were leaving the conversation and you have returned to it each time. Is the inability to follow through with one’s convictions a side-effect of your treatment?
You got your free plug in, now you’re just being rude. Your comments are inappropriate and off topic.
I’m in touch with my feminine intuitive side. It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind. lol
🙂
Steaphen: ‘So what were the 9 key factors that these patients with radical remissions employed? ”
Chemotherapy can cause a radical remission, which is not necessarily a cure. This is not the same as “spontaneous remissions”, which is what you originally brought up and was being discussed.
Quote (verbatim): “3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions”
The remainder of the above is also a verbatim quote of Dr Lissa Rankin’s article. Not my words. Research. Solid, evidence based. Fact. 🙂
Steaphen: “Quote (verbatim): “3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions”
The remainder of the above is also a verbatim quote of Dr Lissa Rankin’s article. Not my words. Research. Solid, evidence based. Fact. ”
If these really exist then it should be easy enough for you to post let’s say 20 of these cases here for review.
After all anyone can make claims that something exists when they don’t. So let’s see some proof that any of these cases actually exist. If you cannot provide at least 20 out of over 3500 supposed cases then everyone will know that the whole thing is just most made up BS instead of the ” Research. Solid, evidence based. Fact. ” you claim.
No thanks James.
I don’t intend to infringe the copyright of the good work done by Dr. Kelly Turner.
I have (today) purchased the Kindle version.
You’re welcome to do so, and argue your case.
For those who might be presently suffering cancer, from what I’ve read so far, detailing some very interesting cased, I highly recommend this book.
“Radical Remission: Surviving Cancer Against All Odds”
(Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Remission-Surviving-Cancer-Against/dp/0062268759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395200144&sr=8-1&keywords=radical+remission )
Published today it seems (18th March).
Steaphen: “No thanks James.
I don’t intend to infringe the copyright of the good work done by Dr. Kelly Turner.”
Let me repeat YOUR quote again:
“3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions”
If these were published in the medical literature then they should at least have abstracts on PubMed or somewhere on the internet where they can be linked. Supplying links to these supposed studies DOES NOT infringe on copyright. And if you read the copyright terms of PubMed you will find that many of the studies on their are public domain. Therefore, once again let’s see you supply at least 20 of these supposed over 3,500 studies you claim exist. If you only come back with more excuses then it is going to look even more like the studies never existed and you are just making up bogus claims.
Okay, I get it. You’re saying Dr’s Turner and Rankin are quacks, frauds, charlatans …
I’m enjoying reading the research she’s done.
As I said, once you’ve been to all those countries (I wasn’t aware they were necessarily part of PubMed) I’ll pay attention.
Chill. 🙂
Steaphen: “Okay, I get it. You’re saying Dr’s Turner and Rankin are quacks, frauds, charlatans …”
Wow, the subconscious mind is such a wonderful thing. Look what your subconscious mind is coming up with about Turner and Rankin. Since nobody else has said anything about this it has to be your subconscious mind coming out with what you believe to be the truth.
I personally have not made any real opinion either way since I am still waiting for you to provide some of those 3500 medical journal published research articles you claim exist. So I guess you finally realized that they don’t really exist and thus your subconscious mind is telling you that Turner and Rankin are quacks.
The only way you are going to prove to your subconscious mind that they are not quacks is to actually search PubMed to see if any of this research was ever done in the first place. Then see if it was done without manipulation.
Don’t forget to share what you find here or everyone else will start thinking like your subconscious mind thinking that Turner and Rankin are as you put it “quacks, frauds, charlatans …”
“Let me repeat YOUR quote again”
??
For heavens sake … I quoted Dr Rankin.
Jeez, please demonstrate you’ve got the intellectual horsepower to keep up. I mean, I can be Zen patient, but … well, really, there are limits.
🙂
Are you really that stupid Steaphen or is this all an act?
As you clearly stated “I quoted Dr Rankin” So if you “QUOTED” someone it is still your quoting. Read the definition of quote:
https://www.google.com/search?noj=1&q=quote+definition&spell=1&sa=X&ei=ahQqU_23N4uNqwH6voDACA&ved=0CCcQvwUoAA&biw=1920&bih=972
Dear James, I find your comments very interesting. I’ve spent so much times taking alkalinizers and alka water prescribed by my doctor. Spending lots of money with very little improvements.
Are you a doctor? I see you’re an herbalist but can’t understand if you are an MD. I’m curious. Thanks.
Hi Dan,
No, I am not a doctor. I am allergic to doctors so it would be hard to work if allergic to myself 😉
Actually I do avoid doctors at all costs since I will live longer that way. Last time I went to a doctor was 33 years ago. I took care of myself when I got bit by a brown recluse, when I got sideswiped by a van while on my bicycle, when I had a 107F fever from the measles and when I lacerated my liver falling on a narrow fence. So yes, I seriously do everything I can to avoid doctors.
I have worked in medicine for the last 35 years, starting out in allopathic medicine for 13 years. But I have seen how doctors practice medicine rather than perform medicine. So I decided to leave allopathic medicine for good and have been in holistic medicine ever since.
For example, I watched as an ER doctor tried to intubate a patient while the patient was awake, which is major no-no. The doctor apparently had never used a laryngoscope in his life because he had no clue how to use it properly. Long story short the doctor ended up slicing the patients throat open from the inside using the laryngoscope and they ended up suctioning a lot of blood out the patients throat.
In another case I had to explain to my friend’s primary doctor why she had a stroke from the medication she was on and why her blood pressure was going to around 300/200 the 60/40 a few minutes later then back up them back down…….. Her primary doctor nor her 4 other doctors could figure it out even though the answer was pretty simple.
Doctors killed my grandfather by giving him heparin therapy 3 times in 4 months, which induced a stroke from white thrombus syndrome. Heparin therapy is not supposed to be given more than once in a two year period or the body tries to attack the antigenic heparin derived from pig lungs forming white blood clots (white thrombus syndrome), which among other things causes strokes. But I don’t think most doctors have a clue what white thrombus syndrome is because they are taught how to treat symptoms with drugs, not what their side effects or interactions are.
Doctors also told my family that my grandmother had polycythemia vera, which the doctor claimed was an excess of white blood cells in his report. Polycythemia vera is considered a form of cancer involving red, not white, blood cells. And the diagnosis was not correct anyway. The doctor totally ignored things such as the high altitude she lived at and the dehydration, both of which will raise red blood cell counts.
My business partner’s father was killed from an overdose of iodine based Amiadarone after we spent 4 months getting him off the drug the first time due to the severe hypothyroidism induced by the drug, which was creating severe weakness among other things. So his cardiologist went against the primary doctor who prescribed the drug in the first place and said we needed him off the drug. The kicker is that he never needed the drug. He was already on other drugs to deal with the same issue.
I have had multiple friends told by doctors that they had cancer when no tests were performed or the biopsies came back negative.
I could go on and on with examples of the crap I have seen these quack medical doctors do.
Or simply doctor ignorance. For example, how many doctors know that high cholesterol DOES NOT cause heart disease or that low cholesterol significantly increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes? Or the fact that taking aspirin during a heart attack will make things worse as the studies have proven? Or that AIDS is not a disease and has multiple causes including the drug primarily given to HIV+ (which means nothing) patients? Or that “liver enzymes” are not specific to the liver? Or that there are numerous causes of hepatitis other than hepatitis viruses? Or the fact that there are no common lab tests that can confirm the presence of any particular virus including hepatitis and HIV tests? Or that even the manufacturers of the sleep aids Ambien and Lunesta have admitted their drugs don’t work? Or why thyroid tests frequently miss cases of hypothyroidism? Or why cholesterol lowering statin drugs can cause heart failure? Or why osteoporosis drugs increase the risk of bone fractures?……….
The ironic thing is that allopathic medicine has been mimicking holistic medicine for very long time despite calling holistic medicine quackery. For example most medications are made from herbs or are tweaked versions of herbs. Angiogenesis inhibition as a cancer treatment was being used in holistic medicine years before allopathic medicine caught on. Protease inhibitors were being used in the holistic medical field years before allopathic medicine caught on. The fact that Premarin could cause cancer was being reported in the holistic medical field for decades before the allopathic field finally admitted to this fact. We knew that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen, Celebrex, Naproxen, etc. could cause heart attacks and strokes even with a single recommended dose for decades before allopathic medicine admitted to this fact. All they had to do was to use some common sense realizing that heart attacks and strokes could occur for the same reason NSAIDs can cause liver or kidney failure even with a single recommended dose.
Seriously, people can often live a lot longer simply by avoiding doctors and learning to properly take care of their health without pharmaceutical drugs.
James
Hey James
from the book Dr Turner
“spent ten months tracking down and interviewing alternative cancer healers in the jungles, mountains, and cities of ten different countries, ncluding the United States (Hawaii), China, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, India, England, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Brazil.”
Sorry, but unless you’ve done the same, and been to all those countries and jungles, everything you say must be BS, to use your logic 🙂
Oh, and she spent 10 years researching for the book.
But look, don’t take my word for it. Buy her book (I don’t have any vested interest in, or association with her).
Steaphen: “from the book Dr Turner
“spent ten months tracking down and interviewing alternative cancer healers in the jungles, mountains, and cities of ten different countries, ncluding the United States (Hawaii), China, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, India, England, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Brazil.””
Wow, you found this in a book. Well according to the books by Gene Roddenberry, Captain Kirk has been flying around various galaxies saving us from being taken over by the Klingons. So I guess you believe that as well since it is in a book.
Still waiting for you to provide links to at least 20 of those supposed over 3500 studies you claim are published in medical journals. That would be a great start to giving some credibility to Dr. Turner’s book. If these supposed studies are just more bogus claims then Turner’s book has as much credibility as Roddenberry’s books. So if these studies exist present some for review. I did not ask for all 3500, just at least 20 to see if there is any credibility to your or Turner’s claims. Of course if they never existed in the first place I can see why you are having such as hard time presenting links to as little as 20 of these studies!!!
Whoopsie daisy …
Dr Rankin misquoted Dr Turner by numbering the list.
Quoting from Dr Turner’s book,
“These nine key factors for Radical Remission are:
• Radically changing your diet
• Taking control of your health
• Following your intuition
• Using herbs and supplements
• Releasing suppressed emotions
• Increasing positive emotions
• Embracing social support
• Deepening your spiritual connection
• Having strong reasons for living
It is important to note that these are not listed in any
kind of ranking order. There is no clear “winner” among
these factors. Rather, all nine were mentioned just as
frequently in my interviews.”
i.e. diet is NOT no.1. in importance.
I have to take note of this list. It is excellent and comprehensive.
James.
It might be appropriate if I just follow Steaphen’s comments and simply apologize for all offensive comments, [which may be ALL of them]
Hi Dennis
Mate, no worries — to take offense is to blame someone else for how you feel.
To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, no one can make you feel _____________ (inferior, offended, bad etc), without your permission 🙂
Hi James (and Paleo Huntress)
In my experience I’ve seen too much emphasis on the biochemistry associated with ill-health. I’ve participated in health forums in which various biochemical results are analysed and discussed in detail ad infinitum, and corresponding treatment regimens discussed.
From my experience many people get confused and become dependent on the advice of their naturopath, or physician.
I take a much simpler, and far more effective approach — I engage the future in which one is well. That trumps any and all arguments as to what is correct or isn’t, simply because in that future, one IS well.
Working on an intuitive level, one will seek whatever facts about biochemistry are needed, but … and it’s a big but, the way forward has to remain fluid, open to possibility, intuitively driven. It has to remain open to the power of the heart, to love, live, and literally do the impossible.
A focus on the technical detail is like watching and waiting for the proverbial kettle to boil. It’s not how things work. There’s a cyclic rhythm to reality, and health. When giving business presentations on creativity and natural healing methodologies, on how we have to learn to let go, and trust intuition, the women in the audience typically give me a “yeah yeah, tell us something we don’t know” look – and say as much to me personally after the presentation. The guys are typically clueless and shake their heads in disbelief.
The technical detail is important, but no where near as important as people learning to engage their intuition and heart, and connect with a beneficial future in which they are well. As I said, that trumps any and all arguments because in that future, one IS well.
You will note I’ve not argued against any of your statements concerning the technical merit of which chemicals do what and how. You’ve insisted I’m off topic, and yet, if health is the focus, you’ve been far and away more off topic than you realize.
Denis has tried to give you a heads-up, but away you go again, quoting technical detail. In the wider context of life, the love, the stress, the emotional dimensions, via the interactions we have with friends, lovers, family, work colleagues etc, and our relationship with the future, the technical detail is **relatively** unimportant. We don’t live in a mechanical universe. It’s responsive to our deep felt fears, desires and expectations.
As Denis pointed out, yes there are some misunderstandings of human biochemistry voiced by Chris Kresser – based on what we presently know – that warrant correction. But unless you couch your technical detail within a deeper, holistic framework, respondents like Mary and others won’t trust you. The more you quote technical details, the less they will trust you, because you’re demonstrating you’re not intuitively engaged to provide the best advice, irrespective of the volumes of technical detail at your disposal.
I chimed in here, to this forum, because I see the enormously detrimental results that come from seeking to mechanise life, all the while avoiding the rich emotional, spiritual dimensions that are the powerhouse of life, love and wellbeing.
I think that’s about all I wish to say on this topic, at least at chriskresser.com. Others reading this who appreciate what I’ve written, and who want encouragement or advice, are invited to contact me through the website, beliefinstitute.com
Yes, you’ve successfully plugged your own website and promoted your own book. Good for you.
Bye now.
Just a thought here.
Maybe the reason why the “conversation” has naturally moved from the alkaline & acid subject is because the details of, what is acidic or alkaline in different parts of the body, do not matter very much. What matters is the diet of fresh fruits and vegetables is a healthy one. Nothing else matters.
Notice I said “MAYBE”. I am not stating a fact.
If you mean a diet of whole foods, absolutely.
I only claim to know what a healthy diet is. I don’t claim to be an expert on alkalinity and acidity.
Here is comment by Brian that is worth copying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 AT 12:12 PM
You clearly only partially understand the way in which the body maintains it’s alkaline design. You are correct in saying that the blood pH is strictly regulated by the body it’s a life or death mechanism. Yes the Kidneys and other systems maintain this homeostasis when you consume acidic foods but you clearly lack understanding on how this wears down over time on the overall design and systems of the body. If you continue to eat acidic foods and drinks without a foundation of living alkaline forming ones, even though your body will compensate and blood will pull in bicarbonate, lungs will respire CO2, etc, over time this wears down on the entire biochemistry of the body. This is why eventually your bones will wear down. I have many testimonials of women who have reversed osteoporosis and osteopoenia following this lifestyle.
What you are lacking understanding of is that the body is not a separate system but a connected system, it’s a holistic system. You should have a conversation with Robert Young on this he would run circles around you in a debate and has clear formulas to prove it. And years of research many people have healed cancer by supporting the alkaline design of their body instead of working against it. Over time acids are thrown into the lymphatic and other systems and fatty tissues around organs and this is what gives rise to Cancer. Yes the body must maintain it’s design but overtime if we don’t support it we will deteriorate.
Why is this post by Brian worth copying when it is not true?
For example, he claims ” If you continue to eat acidic foods and drinks without a foundation of living alkaline forming ones, even though your body will compensate and blood will pull in bicarbonate, lungs will respire CO2, etc, over time this wears down on the entire biochemistry of the body. “. This simply is not true. The body maintains its pH throughout life regardless of what you eat. After all, EVERYTHING we consume, including the so-called “alkaline foods” will all metabolize in to acids in the long run. So the body is designed to deal with these acids from birth to death. And during that time the blood is maintained in a slightly alkaline state except in extremely rare circumstances.
Next he claims: “This is why eventually your bones will wear down. I have many testimonials of women who have reversed osteoporosis and osteopoenia following this lifestyle.”
First of all as pointed out acidosis is EXTREMELY rare, and bones are only used as a buffering source as a last resort. Therefore, buffering by the bones is significantly more rare that the already extremely rare acidosis because the body has so many other pH balancing systems that will be used before using the bones.
In addition, osteoporosis IS NOT a loss of bone minerals and so has NOTHING to do with acidosis. Osteoporosis is the result of a loss of collagen matrix. And what is required for the production of the collagen matrix? Amino ACIDS, ascorbic ACID and orthosilicic ACID.
Even the process of bone remodeling that keeps bones healthy requires citric acid produced by the osteoclasts.
Next he claims “And years of research many people have healed cancer by supporting the alkaline design of their body instead of working against it.”. Once again, cancer cells have an internal pH more alkaline than healthy cells. You cannot cure cancer by alkalizing the blood. The alkalosis required would kill you much faster than the cancer.
What people keep failing to realize with the so-called “alkaline diet” is that it is high in anti-cancer ACIDS!!! Malic acid, chlorogenic acid, tannic acid (polyphenol), etc. The diet also provides various other compounds including polysaccharides that stimulate the immune system and are metabolized in to beneficial acids. And the diet can provide other immune supporting compounds such as pantothenic acid, ascorbic acid, folic acid, selenium, etc. NONE of this has anything to do with alkalizing.
Then he erroneously claims “Over time acids are thrown into the lymphatic and other systems and fatty tissues around organs and this is what gives rise to Cancer.”. This is complete BS!!! First of all the lymphatic system is maintained at a more alkaline level that the blood, which is already alkaline. And again, this has NOTHING to do with the formation of cancer. In fact, research has shown that when healthy cells become too alkaline they morph in to cancer cells. On the other hand if the internal pH of a cancer cells becomes acidic this kills the cancer cell.
The primary cause of the vast majority of cancers are viral infections.
James – Brian’s post is right. Only the bloodstream is maintained at an alkaline pH. The rest of the body is a dumping ground for acids that haven’t been neutralized due to a diet deficient in minerals. All other explanations are bogus. There must be a source for alkaline minerals because they’re not recyclable. They are used up when acids are neutralized and excreted. Therefore the only source is the diet. You’re a victim of old school propaganda that relies on the pharmaceutical industry for answers that only mother nature can provide. However, I did like your analysis of horsetail silica, and thank you for recommending bamboo instead.
John Carraway: “James – Brian’s post is right. Only the bloodstream is maintained at an alkaline pH. The rest of the body is a dumping ground for acids that haven’t been neutralized due to a diet deficient in minerals.”
This myth was already addressed in my post February 25, 2014 at 12:39 am.
Acids in the body are dealt with in many ways. Again, respiration is the body’s primary means of pH regulation followed by the dumping or retention of hydrogen ions through the kidneys. There are even more means of pH buffering such as pH buffering by albumin, hemoglobin, bicarbonate, etc.
Breathing wears on the biochemistry of the body?
Right.
So the answer is to eat an “alkalizing” diet so we can BREATHE LESS?
Uh huh.
That is hilarious! Love your sense of humor Paleo Huntress.
James.
What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name
calling to build himself up.
Oh yes, and you made sure you corrected a misspelling and made fun of me for that. That must have made you feel really good.
I said “It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet”
Once again: IT APPEARS………
Let me explain what I mean by this. I know it’s complicated.
It means that is is my impression from reading all of the comments that the majority of people are believers in the alkaline type diet. It is pretty easy to tell based on their reactions to what you say.
I want you to notice another thing. I referred to the “alkaline” diet as ….. “what is thought of as an alkaline diet”. The kind of diet that people often describe as alkaline.
If you can read again, my comments, but this time with your hear OUTSIDE your ass, then you will see that I only talk about the diet that people CONSIDER alkaline. I personally don’t put much attention or alkalinity or acidity. I just know that the diet they eat is healthy.
[people like Steaphen and Dennis prefer to remain in
the dark ages believing that hardly anything has been learned about the human body.]
This is ironic that you think that Steaphen and I are in the dark ages.
I expect that you can talk to anyone on the leading edge of studying the mind-body connection and they will tell you of how little they know. There is so much more to learn. You read your scientific journals actually believing that what you read is all there is to know.
You got to step back from your little details and get the big picture. It is ever expanding, while you are not.
[ You cannot simply think away a pathogenic infection
or disease caused by a pathogen such as most cancers.]
I NEVER said or ever implied that one can just ”think away” disease.
That was a question Steaphen asked me to clarify my comment that disease is caused by the mind, including cancer.
You know, someone said “do not cast pearls before swine”.
It is so obvious that you are the swine.
In other words, it’s a waste of time trying to convince the lessor evolved and the ignorant. You will get it eventually.
Dennis: “What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name
calling to build himself up.”
Ironic coming from the man throwing a temper tantrum and calling me an ignorant fool.
Dennis: “Oh yes, and you made sure you corrected a misspelling and made fun of me for that. That must have made you feel really good.”
Sorry I hurt your feelings by joking around. I did not realize you were so sensitive. Have you had your testosterone levels checked lately?
Dennis: ” I said “It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet”
Once again: IT APPEARS………
Let me explain what I mean by this. I know it’s complicated.”
Apparently it is pretty complicated for you. I know what “appears” is and was asking how you came to your conclusion. Just because it “appears” to you that way this does not mean that it appears that way to everyone. So I was simply asking how you came to your conclusion since I see no evidence that makes it “appear” the way you saw it. Understand now, or do I need to break it down in to a simpler explanation for you?
Dennis: “If you can read again, my comments, but this time with your hear OUTSIDE your ass”
Wow, another childish temper tantrum all because you did not understand your own comment or my response.
Dennis: “I NEVER said or ever implied that one can just ”think away” disease.”
Actually you did. I know this is super complicated for you but I will do my best to explain it down on your level.
Here is your quote:
“9] Enter Dennis, [me], and makes the profound, if not unbelievable statement that, not only is disease is caused by the mind but that ALL manifestation originates from MIND, [individual and/or collective. Past and/or present]”
So to start with you clearly state that “ALL manifestation originates from MIND”. In relation to what what was being discussed, which was psychosomatic illnesses and how the mind can heal them then your use of “manifestation” would clearly refer to not the manifestation of disease, but also manifestation of a cure that would require “thinking away” the disease.
Before you try to argue this point and make even more of a fool of yourself let me now take you to your second quote:
13] One more important clarification:
a] Disease can be healed by way of the mind [can be easy, usually difficult]
In other words “thinking away” the disease. Or are you now claiming that thinking is in no way involved in mind healing disease?
Dennis: “You know, someone said “do not cast pearls before swine”.
It is so obvious that you are the swine.
In other words, it’s a waste of time trying to convince the lessor evolved and the ignorant. You will get it eventually.”
Wow, two paragraphs and two more personal attacks. You clearly have a problem with being proven wrong, especially with your own words. As I pointed out earlier though stressing like that can lead to immune suppression leading to illness. Maybe you should go off an play while the grown ups who know what they are talking about talk. I would hate to see you get all stressed out over having your beliefs proven wrong and showing all your contradictions and you ending up sick.
James
In response to “”Question for you: what is the biochemical process of spontaneous remissions?” you replied, “There is not a singular answer to this.”
What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
I agree with the following (which effectively gives a very specific singular cause):
“A sudden contemporary belief in illness will actually reach back into the past, affecting the organism at that level, and inserting into the past experience of the cells the
initiation of those biological events that will then seem to give birth to a present disease.
In the current pivoting of its experience, therefore, your conscious mind directs not only the present, but future and past experience of deep neurological events.
Cellular memory can be changed at any point. Present beliefs can insert into the past new memory, both psychologically and physically. The future is in no way predetermined on basic levels. This does not mean that the future cannot be predicted sometimes, for in practical terms you will often continue with certain lines of probability which can be seen “ahead of time.”
Such predictions can affect the probabilities, of course, and reinforce a present line of belief. Physicians often wonder whether they should tell terminal patients of their impending deaths. There is great controversy. In some cases such a prediction can make death a fact — while its opposite can regenerate the patient’s belief in his or her own ability to live.
No man will die simply because a physician tells him he is going to, however. No one is so at the mercy of another’s beliefs. Each individual, generally speaking, knows his challenges and overall programs, and the time of his death. But even such decisions can be altered at any time in your “now” — the entire body can be regenerated in a way that would be impossible to predict in usual medical terms.”
[Jane Roberts, The Nature of Personal Reality.]
Steaphen: “In response to “”Question for you: what is the biochemical process of spontaneous remissions?” you replied, “There is not a singular answer to this.”
What evidence do you have to support that assertion?”
I really cannot believe that I have to explain this to you!!! I gave you TWO examples of sources of “spontaneous remissions”. Since “singular” refers to ONE, and I gave you TWO unrelated examples this shows that there is no singular cause and thus not a singular answer.
I’m following the Cool Color diet! I used to eat Cheetos, Swedish Fish and Twinkies, but their warm color load was too much for my system and I developed diabetes, heart disease and fibromyalgia. Now I eat only cool color foods like blueberries, spinach and eggplant. I feel so much better, and my health has improved dramatically.
If you avoid warm colored foods like Doritos, Orange Crush and Red Velvet cake and eat only cool colored foods like kale, cabbage and bell peppers, you’ll be right as rain.
Foods from the Cool Color spectrum are best for optimum health and longevity. Just look at all of the other people eating the Cool Color Diet who’ve had so much improvement in their health. Clearly, red, yellow and orange foods cause disease while blue, green and purple foods heal it.
/pointedsarcasm
One needs only to google your handle to see that you go from forum to forum taking the contrarian position to stir up trouble. You are the very definition of a TROLL.
As the poster Thea tells someone on the forum where you argue that eating mercury laden fish is A-OK”
“If you aren’t Paleo Huntress herself, you are her identical twin. So, I’m leaving the conversation here. If you want to eat fish, go for it. May you live long and prosper.”
Troll.
Finndian,
I suggested you google my ID twice in this thread (“do your due diligence and plug our names into a search engine“ and “plug my ID into any search engine“,)– your superior tone over having taken my advice is a little odd. Still though, if you’re going to quote me, at the very least, quote ME and not just someone who thinks the person they’re responding to sounds like me. For example, in that same forum I myself wrote,
“[I]f we measure the heavy metals on their own we will conclude that the fish aren’t safe to eat, but when compared to a low selenium, mercury-contaminated, plant-food (like rice), the fish would actually be safer to eat because the net value of mercury absorbed will be lower.” ~Paleo Huntress, NutritionFacts.org 9/6/2013.
I learned about this here, in Chris’s blog. Since writing that however, I’ve learned that I misunderstood, and that the mechanism has little to do with selenium binding mercury, and more to do with mercury’s impact on our selenium levels. ~shrugs~ I’m always looking to update my understanding.
What’s ALSO odd are your continued criticisms of the participants in this particular forum, as you appear unfamiliar with Chris’ (the author’s) position on food and nutrition in general, which suggests you don’t frequent his blog. In Chris’ podcast RHR: The Truth About Toxic Mercury in Fish, he interviews Dr. Nicholas Ralston, an expert in mercury in fish and the protective effects of selenium. In that post, we find this-
There is also this blog post of Chris’- Is eating fish safe? A lot safer than not eating fish!
Chris writes,
And this-
So while your tenacity is admirable, your witch-hunt leaves much to be desired since the blog-owner himself is a proponent of fish-consumption and an advocate for education on the topic.
As for your repeated “troll” accusations, not only are they tedious, but it is a card commonly played by people who resent a well-argued, opposing position. The internet is overflowing with folks accusing those who disagree with them of being trolls. I’m a prolific poster… I post in nutrition forums a great deal… I am passionate about nutrition and often confrontational when I post (more so than I like at times) … and still, NONE of that makes me a troll.
The pH debate is certainly James’ forte. If you’ve Googled his name, you know that he discusses the science behind it in several forums, including his own. And since you’ve googled me, you know I discuss nutrition in general in several forums as well. This is MORE than enough evidence that we are expressing genuine beliefs and convictions and are therefore not trolling. Your input on the blog topic is welcome, but you haven’t posted anything but personal attacks in weeks. Don’t you have anything better to do then scour the internet in hopes of finding ammunition you can use to build into another ad hominem? By the true definition of “troll”, it is your recent posts that are fit “the very definition” of trolling.
Dear Paleo Huntress
As I alluded to above, if people are on a cool-colored diet and they’re getting results, please stay out of their way as they heal themselves. Naysayers are toxic elements in such people’s lives.
Not sarcastic, in the least.
now, I’d better go see how to stop getting email alerts to this thread 🙂
Ciao
Steaphen,
I think you misunderstand my intent. If we were talking about robbing a small child of the wonder of Christmas by ruining her belief in Santa, I would agree. If we were talking about robbing a homeless, crack-addict of his motivation to get clean by ruining his belief in a “god”, I would also agree.
That isn’t what we’re doing here. People come to Chris’ blog (and others like it) to learn the truth as is evidenced by science (and some come merely to insist he’s wrong, that’s OK too)- and of course, the “truth” is arguably subjective on many levels. Still though, showing someone the REAL mechanism of their new diet, is not going to harm them. And, if they’re intelligent and openminded, it will more often than not, help them. No one is even SUGGESTING that the people here who found health and renewed vigor from their “Alkaline Diet” were imagining it… it was VERY REAL… and not because they “believed” it would happen, but rather for very basic, biological and physiological reasons. Those reasons just don’t happen to include alkalization. As I pointed out in my mythical “Cool Colored Foods Diet” comment, the people who see these results are going from a diet full of processed junk food to a diet of whole food. THIS is the healing mechanism. THIS is the important take-away.
People don’t need mythology to make good choices, and this idea of yours (and others) that supporting the mythology somehow supports the individual, ALWAYS backfires in the end. There are densely nutritious foods in the “acid forming” category that many people will benefit from eating, but that they may be afraid to eat because they’re afraid of the dreaded “acidity” they will cause. Fear of healthy foods based on mythology is not a good thing- it is THIS that is toxic.
Trust people to make good choices based on good information. The last thing we need to do is build a dietary house of cards– they’re fragile and temporary. Tell people the TRUTH, let them make up their own minds, and forget the nanny-state.
If people are still seeking information on the internet, they should be prepared to have their preconceptions challenged… MANY times… over and over. That’s what’s so cool about being a seeker, you are constantly learning new things. If instead, you are already fully invested in your current ideology, then for gawd’s sake, stay away from the internet! I will not be party to repeating the myths to support your belief system– I have my own truths to honor.
Moral of the Story: If you switched to the whole food alkaline diet from the processed food SAD, it makes perfect sense that you are healthier. Yes, it was your diet.. Yes, you really are healthier, it isn’t your imagination OR the placebo effect. No, it had nothing to do with the mythical “alkalinity” suggested by the diet’s author. No, this in no way refutes the validity of the healing power of your whole-food diet. Soldier on, and perhaps consider adding some of the nutrient-dense whole foods you’ve been avoiding out of unsupported fear. You may find your diet more satisfying and more nourishing if you do so.
“stay away from the internet!” — seriously, did you actually mean to say that? lol
Now, you’re welcome to your beliefs even though they conflict with research that confirms: “We now have scientific proof that the mind can heal the body.
This means that you have the innate ability to self-heal diseases, prevent life-threatening conditions, and supplement established drug and surgical procedures with mind body techniques that can improve your physiology, biochemistry, brain functioning, and genetic activity.”
Now please do us all a favor and go off and tell Benson (and others) he’s a dill, a dummkopf, a dunce, a dunderhead. lol
Diet is not the primary factor in maintaining health and wellbeing. You’re welcome to push your idealogy, based in strict mechanism, which denies the wonderfully creative abilities of people.
Remind me: what exactly is the biochemical process of spontaneous remisions?
Do you have anything whatsoever to add to the acid/alkaline conversation? That is what THIS conversation is about. I mean really, you seem to think that your subject matter applies to any and ALL health issues, so why not go find another forum that ISN’T specifically discussing health as it relates to the pH of food? That’s not a complicated request, it’s really, REALLY simple one.
I’m going to assume that since you flounced off to learn to “stop getting email alerts” but you continue to respond, that you found unsubscribing to be too much of challenge. I think you should think really, REALLY hard about how much you want to stop getting them… and I’m sure they will stop coming. 😉
Then if that doesn’t work for you, I recommend clicking the little link at the bottom of the email and turning them off directly.
If you still find yourself challenged, you can click here too. http://support.chriskresser.com/
“you seem to think that your subject matter applies to any and ALL health issues”
Absolutely. 100%. No exceptions. Anything less requires irrational disconnects that cannot be credibly argued.
There is a “hierarchy of efficacy” in terms of regaining health, and roughly speaking it is:
1. Mind (belief-system)
2. Raw/alkaline-producing
3. Wholefood
4. “SAD” (white flour, processed etc)
5.(Supplement): exercise, physical movement
Now, strong 1 with 4, is sufficient for maintaining health.
Strong 1, and 2 (with 5) would be optimal for regaining health when facing serious illness.
poor, negative-orientated 1, with 3 won’t save you.
poor, negative-orientated 1, with 4 and no 5 … well we know that scenario.
5. is listed as supplemental because it is not essential to life. 1, coupled with 2,3 or 4 are essential, in some form.
btw, I am Steaphen Pirie, author of “BE and BECOME”, and “Simple Tools for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment”
I am open about who I am (I don’t use an alias) and what I believe, and I share what I have found to be the most effective path to regaining wellness.
I utilize the many profound discoveries of quantum physics, in conjunction with the wisdom that has been handed down through the ages by many great sages, to help people on their journeys.
You can read more about me http://beliefinstitute.com/bio/steaphen-pirie
I’m not interested in reading more about you. You’ve found a way to make money off of people’s disease, congratulations… you’re in good company. Clearly you have your own forums in which to discuss your woo. Please take it there.