Health Alert: Antibiotic Resistance

The resistant factor is not just from doctors over prescribing but from the addition of antibiotics into the animal feeds to compensate for filthy conditions. The only antibiotics that do not induce resistance is the oxygen therapies and some naturally occurring antibiotics. Oxygen therapies include ozone, hydrogen peroxide, pure oxygen, chlorine dioxide and a few more.

That's true dude. There are good documentaries on how for instance the carcasses of beef are so dirty with fecal mater they spray them with ammonia before they package it. Letting chickens soak is fecal contaminated water. etc etc

Some 90 - 97% of all infectious illnesses are viral. Antibiotica does squat, to put it mildly, in those cases. Still people, worse parents demand antibiotica to do something in their ignorant and idiotic attempts. To to put it politely, again. Animals are fed with it. Then surprise (surprise?!?), the dim bulbs are surprised, that they do not work, when needed. Pharma is absolutely no help, having advertised all these wonder drugs. Did they believe all their own hucksterism? These players alltogether ruined a good game for the rest of us already.

And they have a desire advise for new things to mess up?

WHAT ABOUT LEARNING SOMETHING, ANYTHING, SOMETIMES FIRST TIME EVER IN THEIR LIFE? About immovable obiects, etc.

Expert are more than right.

To quote the good book, sloppily: the wilfully stupid will always be with us, so it seems.

To block any idea, That it is only talk. I raised 3 children, rarely sick, professionals now. Nothing special genetically. Good care for them by me, and saw Md.s and antibiotica in every 2-3 years. They did not need that more frequently. Did it take effort. mostly by me, you bet your a**.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the meantime, do not expect me to suffer damn fools gladly. Yammering is such an unattractive feature.

I'll agree with your outlook and take the opportunity to add a link to a book I haven't linked to in the past. I've had it checked out for months but only recently got around to reading it. It was published in 1972, and as I recently discovered, is available for free online. (Too bad it isn't a PDF.) It is entitled, "Vitamin C: The Healing Factor," by Dr. Irwin Stone. There are 2 forwards: one by Dr. Linus Pauling and the other by Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgyi, who first isolated ascorbic acid. Both Nobel prize winners. (There is a wonderful biography of Szent Gyorgyi, called "Free Radical: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and the Battle over Vitamin C.")

It is likely that many would prejudge the book just because it is about vitamin C. The book makes the case that a wrong-headed view of ascorbic acid as a "deficiency" that has a threshold above which no more does much, is what has led to many ill-conceived studies that indicate a marginal, or no effect, of ascorbic acid for treatment and prevention of many disease states. Ch. 10 is a nutshell explanation of why large doses, as advocated by Pauling and others, is not absurd. On the contrary it is more in line with the rest of the mammalian world. Part 1 of the book lays out the case for readjusting our perspective on what constitutes a "reasonable" level of intake. It is derived from a genetic perspective. Part 2 then looks at studies for a wide range of diseases and toxic conditions that, for the most part, correlate to ascorbic acid levels in the body.

There is a perception by some that vitamin C is most (or only) effective against viruses. The studies (and experiences) cited dispel that idea, too.

I don't know how I missed this book all these years, since a few years ago, I began investigating ascorbic acid with more than a passing interest. I find the case presented interesting, revelatory, and appealing to logical thinking.

Because ascorbic acid seems to be involved in quite a few processes in the body, it isn't surprising to conclude that the body's ability to ward off and deal with all sorts of threats is related to the level of ascorbic acid available. Since the body has the "intelligence" to adapt to threats (creation of antibodies, etc.) whatever support can be given to the protective "system" as a whole should be taken advantage of. Antibiotics can't "adapt" to organisms adapting to them. But the body has that potential. "Megascorbic" doses are not outlandish, according to the genetic perspective. They are closer to normal.

I could write more about the interesting insights that came to my mind from reading the book, but will leave it to readers to have their own. The insights are logical conclusions based on the data presented. Unfortunately, as Dr. Stone laments at the time of publishing, very few follow-up studies were done in the 30-40 years since the publication of many of the studies he cites, at corrected levels, based on the "genetic theory" of ascorbic acid. (I find the explanation for the reason the "defect" might have occurred, counter-intuitive and suspect. But the fact remains, that we lack the enzyme for synthesis of vitamin C from glucose, which most mammals have and do. There are other organisms, like reptiles, that do the synthesis in the kidney vs. the liver.) We could be much farther along in our understanding of how ascorbic acid relates to health if this perspective were driving our curiosity.

According to the legitimate studies there is a huge difference between natural vitamin C and the synthetic variety..Natural C is much more effective in working with the body.

I found at least one one resource that cites studies showing no difference. But I am always open to information I haven't seen and am interested in seeing the studies you mention. Do you have any links handy? Thanks.

I agree that natural vs. synthetic can definitely be different.

Of the discussions I've seen about "natural" vs. synthetic, usually the chirality of the molecules in question are mentioned -- the synthetic sometimes being a mirror image of the "naturally occurring molecule. Another view of chirality is in this short article. Synthetic vitamin E and natural vitamin E are an example. Look at the chemical named on a lot of vitamin E bottles in pharmacies and you'll see the dl- form. The natural form is d-. One statement about this from this Wiki article is clear: (And I wonder how many vitamin E studies used the dl form vs. the d?)

Natural alpha-tocopherol is the RRR-alpha (or ddd-alpha) form. The synthetic dl,dl,dl-alpha ("dl-alpha") form is not as active as the natural ddd-alpha ("d-alpha") tocopherol form. This is mainly due to reduced vitamin activity of the 4 possible stereoisomers which are represented by the l or S enantiomer at the first stereocenter (an S or l configuration between the chromanol ring and the tail, i.e., the SRR, SRS, SSR, and SSS stereoisomers).^[8] The 3 unnatural "2R" stereoisomers with natural R configuration at this 2' stereocenter, but S at one of the other centers in the tail (i.e., RSR, RRS, RSS), appear to retain substantial RRR vitamin activity, because they are recognized by the alpha-tocopherol transport protein, and thus maintained in the plasma, where the other four stereoisomers (SRR, SRS, SSR, and SSS) are not. Thus, the synthetic all-rac-α-tocopherol in theory would have approximately about half the vitamin activity of RRR-alpha-tocopherol in humans. Experimentally, the ratio of activities of the 8 stereoisomer racemic mixture to the natural vitamin, is 1 to 1.36 in the rat pregnancy model (suggesting a measured activity ratio of 1/1.36 = 74% of natural, for the 8-isomer racemic mix).^[21]

Although it is clear that mixtures of stereoisomers are not as active as the natural RRR-alpha-tocopherol form, in the ratios discussed above, specific information on any side effects of the seven synthetic vitamin E stereoisomers is not readily available.

Structure is important in molecular interaction. In the case of ascorbic acid the substance was isolated from adrenal glands and plants. The article here (scroll down almost halfway) discusses this "debate."

Related to your comment implying that "natural" vitamin C is as effective as ascorbic acid, only in much smaller amounts is a portion of Ch. 10 of the Stone book:

Hypoascorbemia can be "corrected" by supplying the individual with ascorbic acid in the amounts the liver would be making and supplying to the body if the enzyme were not missing. How, then, can we determine the amounts of ascorbic acid the human liver would be producing by an enzyme that is not there? The solution to this question may not be as difficult as it may seem at first glance. If the requirements for ascorbic acid in man are assumed to be similar to those of other, closely related mammals, then, by measuring the amounts of ascorbic acid produced by other mammals, we should be able to get a pretty good estimate of what man would be making, had he the complete synthetic enzyme system.When we look for this very important data in the literature, it is amazing how little we find. the only information available is on the rat. No one has bothered to determine the amounts of ascorbic acid the larger mammals such as the pig, dog, or horse are capable of producing.Clearly, a great deal more research is required to determine the extent of ascorbic acid synthesis by different mammals so that a more accurate estimate of man's needs can be calculated. Until this work is completed, we are forced to rely on the figures presently available for the rat.

Form these available figures, "full correction" of hypoascorbemia in a 70-kilogram adult human is estimated to require a daily intake of 2,000 to 4,000 milligrams (2.0 to 4.0 grams) of ascorbic acid, under conditions of little or no stress. Under conditions of stress, the data indicates an increase to about 15,000 milligrams (15.0 grams) per day. Under very severe stresses, even more may be required.

and...

The author has not been alone in the belief that the present recommended levels of ascorbic acid may not be the optimal levels to fulfill all our requirements. In 1949, Geoffrey H. Bourne, now head of the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, pointed out that an adult gorilla in the wild state consumes about 4.5 grams of ascorbic acid a day in his food. He also speculated that the recommended milligrams a day for humans might be wide of the mark and 1 or 2 grams a day might be the correct amount.

To me, this indicates the "normal" requirement of gram size amounts. If one can manage to have a diet which mimics the amount a gorilla would get in the wild, then I say, GREAT! Proponents of a raw food diet would certainly agree. Foraging seems to be the best way to get our nutrition. The nutritional content of vegetables and grains is usually highest when eaten as soon as possible after harvesting. I'm all for walking out to one's garden, picking a nice ripe tomato, and eating it on the spot. Otherwise, we might want to experiment with supplementation, given the low to nil toxicity of ascorbic acid, to see what effects it has on health. Ditto for other nutrients that might affect health, as long as we pay attention to limiting the amount of fat-soluble nutrients to safe levels.

Thanks for a very informative response. There is much confusion re: Natural v/s synthetic and the way that they are measured. I was on a synthetic version of thyroid hormone for may years with equal number of problems but when I finally was able to access natural thyroid hormone my health improved dramatically. Many tests show the vitamin or mineral in the blood stream but they do not test for the reaction at the cellular level. This was my problem with synthroid v/s natural. Blood tests appear to be inconclusive at best and many times down right misleading. Recent tests on vit. E showed big difference between natural and synthetic. I copied article which I attach for more reading. I saved some other articles but have to find them.

Vitamins, vitamins, vitamins. Whether we get them from our daily diet, from sunshine, or from store bought capsules or liquids, vitamins are vital to our health and to the proper functioning of our bodies.

Vitamin deficiencies lead to a wide range of problems spanning from anorexia to obesity, organ malfunction, confusion, depression and fatigue.

However, whether or not your vitamins are hurting you is another story. What people are not aware of is all vitamins are not created equal, and most are actually synthetic.

It may be safe to say that synthetic is better than nothing but the natural version is by far the best for working with the body to prevent undesirable conditions.

What is a "Synthetic" Vitamin?

The type of vitamins that are the most beneficial is up for debate. A healthy, organic dietshould provide a good amount of nutrients that the body needs, but supplements can help ensure that we are getting a healthy dose of specific vitamins.

The problem is that many vitamin and mineral supplements are manufactured synthetically with chemicals and do not come straight from their natural sources. They are made to mimic the way natural vitamins act in our bodies. Natural vitamins are derived directly from plant material containing the vitamin, not produced in a test tube.

Many synthetic vitamins lack the transporters and co-factors associated with naturally-occurring vitamins because they have been "isolated." The Organic Consumers Association emphasizes that isolated vitamins cannot be used or recognized by the body in the same way as the natural version.

The natural form come in packages with other vitamins, enzymes and minerals that control the way the body recognizes, metabolizes and uses them to make what it needs.

Isolated vitamins can't always be used by the body, and are either stored until you obtain or create the nutrients required to use them effectively or are excreted. Synthetic vitamins are also devoid of necessary trace minerals and must use the body's own mineral reserves which may lead to dangerous mineral deficiencies.

Did You Know? More than 95% of all the vitamin supplements sold today fall in to the synthetic category.

What's the Big Deal About Synthetic Vitamins?

Synthetic versions of vitamins contain chemical compounds that were not meant for human consumption and do not occur in nature. Evolution has dictated that we eat the food we can gather from the earth, not the food we create in a lab.

We might not always get what we're expecting from synthetics. The synthetic version of Vitamin E is often referred to as the dl- form. The dl- form is a combination of the d-form (which, by the way, is the naturally occurring form) and the l-form. No big deal, right?

Well it might not be, except that the body doesn't actually use the l-form- we excrete it! I must note here that this applies only to vitamins and not amino acids or sugars. Fat soluble vitamins in their synthetic form are especially dangerous because they can build up in your fatty tissues and cause toxicity. The reason that the synthetic form is more dangerous is because you get a high, concentrated dose of the vitamin rather than the amount that you would get from a food-based form.

• Vitamins A, D, E and K are all fat soluble
• Fat soluble vitamins are found naturally in butter, fish oils, nuts, and green leafy vegetables
• Excesses of fat soluble vitamins are stored in the liver and fatty tissues
• Most people do not get sufficient amounts of fat soluble vitamins from their diet

How do I know if the vitamins I'm buying are synthetic or natural?

The Organic Consumers Association has published aningredient chart to help consumers identify natural vs. synthetic vitamins. Many vitamin producers want you to believe that you are getting a "natural product" because it seems more wholesome to take "natural" vitamins.

Unfortunately, vitamins can be labeled as natural if they contain as little as 10% of the natural form of the vitamin. This means that your "natural" vitamin could contain 90% of synthetically produced chemicals! B-Vitamins and Vitamin C are also usually synthetically produced.

Common Synthetic Vitamins to Avoid:

Look for clues on your vitamin's label that offer insight into the origin of the vitamin.

• Vitamin A: Acetate and Palmitate
• Vitamin B1 (Thiamine): Thiamine Mononitrate, Thiamine Hydrochloride
• Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin): Riboflavin
• Pantothenic Acid: Calcium D-Pantothenate
• Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine): Pyridoxine Hydrochloride
• Vitamin B12: Cobalamin
• PABA (Para-aminobenzoic Acid): Aminobenzoic Acid
• Folic Acid: Pteroylglutamic Acid
• Choline: Choline Chloride, Choline Bitartrate
• Biotin: d-Biotin
• Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid): Ascorbic Acid
• Vitamin D: Irradiated Ergosteral, Calciferol
• Vitamin E: dl-alpha tocopherol, dl-alpha tocopherol acetate or succinate

NOTE: The "dl" form of any vitamin is synthetic.

Other Toxic Ingredients to Avoid In Supplements

• Magnesium stearate (or stearic acid)
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) disguised as "natural flavors"
• Carnauba wax is used in car wax and shoe polish
• Titanium dioxide is a carcinogen

-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, ND, DACBN, DABFM

... and thank you for your reply.

I am most interested in a statement at the Organic Consumer Association link:

Mega doses of synthetic vitamins can have very serious toxic effects. Naturally-occurring whole-food vitamins are not toxic since the vitamin is complexed in its natural whole integral working form, and requires nothing from the body to "build" a vitamin. When synthetic, or incomplete vitamins are introduced into the body, the body attempts to "build" a complete vitamin complex by adding the missing factors that it knows should be there, specifically minerals and other vitamin co-factors. This "building" process depletes the body's nutritional reserves, creating an overall deficiency. The body has a natural intelligence that is always directing its efforts toward wholeness. When you ingest a "partial" or isolated vitamin, the body assumes you meant to ingest a whole vitamin, and works hard to make up for an action that it views as a mistake.

I don't question the possibility of toxic or damaging effects of mega-doses of some vitamins, whether they are synthetic or not. I do wish there was a citation of some sort to further document or explain the comments of the body trying to "build" a "complete" vitamin. I don't necessarily disbelieve the statements, I just have asked, "How come?" and "Why?" most of my life -- to my Dad and teachers chagrin. I, too, consider "man-made" food items, including vitamins and nutrients suspect. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, though.

Some of the B-vitamins work in concert and having an imbalance of their presence together can lead to diseased conditions. Beri-Beri is an example. This could certainly be described as a toxic condition. In that sense, the body isn't necessarily trying to build the missing B-vitamins it may require. But it does explain why, together, they are called the B-Complex.

In the case of ascorbic acid, the results of large doses indicate the body does utilize the man-made version quite readily, as is. The above statement would make me expect these kinds of "demands" on the body for other substances to complete the ascorbic acid, as a complex, to show up somehow, especially in large multi-gram doses, in an observable and detectable fashion. I don't know of any reported "side effects," which is what I would call these "demands." Many large doses, both oral and intravenously, have been administered by Dr. Klenner, and Dr. Thomas Levy, and others. And most people know Linus Pauling advocated doses way beyond the RDA. It's lack of toxicity, at very large doses is documented. The discussion of the "C Complex" at the vitamincfoundation.org web site is, I think, quite thorough.

The only way to compare naturally occurring ascorbic acid with the synthetic version would be in a trial. And then, it might be a bit apples and oranges, as obtaining mega-doses of naturally occurring ascorbic acid would be most impractical. Dr. Klenner did use both oral and IV vitamin C (sodium ascorbate) and from experience knew when IV would be called for -- usually critical and emergency situations. The IV form proved superior to oral ingestion in severe cases, such as polio. Actually most cases. It is just common sense that injection directly into the bloodstream will act faster than having to go through the digestive system. One has to ask the question, how many oranges or other foods containing ascorbic acid would one have to ingest to alter the progression of Polio? IV ascorbic acid has a track record there.

The case made in Dr. Stone's book, that I linked to, is that ascorbic acid should not be viewed as a "vitamin" as typically defined. No other "vitamin," that I know of, has been shown to have the ability to, essentially, nullify snakebite venom or treat heavy metal toxicity. A deficiency of almost any vitamin can lead to serious health deficiencies, but ascorbic acid seems to server a more varied purpose in bodily functions, as opposed to the other vitamins we know about.

I'm not so sure you should put your faith in '...Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, ND, DACBN, DABFM...'

.

He does have a whole jumble of letters after his name, but I got suspicious when I read the part about titanium dioxide being a human carcinogen. So I double checked:

.

Turns out, it is suspected that inhaled titanium dioxide dust could be carcinogenic, due to evidence of that being the case for mice, but there is no human evidence to support the claim.

.

And therein lies the problem: people promoting supplements are not held to the same standards for marketing claims of efficacy or safety that others supplying food and drugs are held to.

.

Check out 'Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, ND, DACBN, DABFM' website. This is no disinterested researcher. He is strongly vested in pushing all kinds of products of questionable benefit/safety. Three examples:

Hydrochloric Acid supplement.

and

A 'cleansing' supplement that contains wormwood. (Wormwood is a substance that is not allowed in food or alcoholic beverages in the US because of toxicity concerns. It is regulated in Europe as well.)

and

A lithium supplement, available over the counter without a prescription and without FDA oversight of the ingredients or processing.

.

.

Still convinced this is an impartial source worth trusting?

.

I think a lot of the information coming out warning carefully distinguish between natural and synthetic supplements is in reaction to the numerous reports coming out claiming no efficacy and occasionally some danger associated with supplements.

.

'Oh sure, those chemicals aren't helpful, but ours come with bark still attached!'

There is some skull duggery in every industry and supplements are no exception. Then again we have the pharmaceutical industry that is FDA supported and responsible for massive numbers of deaths and sickness each year. I do not have the numbers in front of me but they are substantial. I usually purchase from a proven manufacturer and do some research into independent tests of these products to see how they are rated. With both prescription medication and supplements one has to read the details and side effects. Supplements are still safer by a large margin.

Pharmaceutical industry certainly has its share a problems. Let's get a few things straight though:

.

The FDA does not support the Pharmaceutical Industry. Exactly the opposite is closer to the truth given the expense incurred by companies to get new drugs approved.

.

While the FDA is certain to make some errors along the way, having a regulatory body in place to make sure production standards, ingredients, marketing claims, and efficacy are all on the up and up (even if they occasionally get it wrong) is miles ahead of simply relying on the very companies with the ultimate goal of profit to monitor and manage their own production, ingredients, marketing and outcomes. Of course the those companies are going to tell you they spare no expense on ingredients, only hire PHD monk chemists, never overstate the benefits, and deliver their drugs using humanely employed living wage organic flying monkeys.

.

You are going to have a hard time developing a reasonable comparison between the supplement industry caused harm and pharmaceutical industry caused harm due in large part to two reasons:

.

-Pharmaceutical industry data for problems will a vast array of treatments for situation which the supplement industry does not (or at least has no business saying it should) treat. Many of these may be emergency treatments or treatments for chronic maladies that might have been caused by unregulated supplements self administered by the patient.

.

-The studies and data available that could indicate the level of problems with people taking supplements are severely lacking. There is very little record of most of the self administered supplement industry treatments.

.

You state you '...purchase from a proven manufacturer and do some research into independent tests ...'.

How do you judge the manufacturer is proven?

Are you sure the company you are buying from is the manufacturer?

How can you tell how long a company will continue to use the same manufacturer?

How do you qualify that the research is independent?

What parameters do you look for in these independent tests?

.

When you read the 'details and side effects' presented with the sale of a prescription medication and compare that to the 'details and side effects' presented with the sale of a supplement, aside from what we are calling those things at the moment, do you really thing those things are equivalent? Really?

There are two inherently incompatible scientific and business models for many decades. And as things develop right now, the two shall not meet. Too bad. But I do not give a flying bleep. The reasons for it are plain as day in previous notes.

1,. The FDA / pharma model is based on modified molecules, as standard ones cannot be patented. The companies need to produce profit, as companies do. The companies pay half(?) of the FDA's budget. Draw your own conclusion.

2,. Vitamines and supplements are whole food derived. A recent note about raspberry ketones: load up on rasperries, and forget about the expensive ketone aspects. More exactly, they are whole foods, concentrated, extracted, and supplied to you. That is a fundamentally different model, than the one the FDA pursues. Plainly put for the dense of understanding: I do not need your, or anybody else's permission for food, in any shape, form or fashion.

3,. A manmade chemical is a fundamentally different animal. And I do understand, but in the final account do not give a rat's behind about the hurdles and costs. Now, you have to understand something: business models change, do or die. Period. Sorry, buddy.

4,. Comparing the two fundamentally different model as equal is asinine, and fundamentally dishonest. You make up your mind, where you belong. And good luck with that, viewing your attitude. Mind it, it is not personal. Rather, it is fundamental.

------------------------------------------------

For anybody interested to know the difference in worldwievs, read the two notes, and contrast. Educational.

From you last response I can see we might have some common ground.

Here is the the main one:

'...There are two inherently incompatible scientific...models...'

.

The models relied on by many who are pushing 'natural' (there's a term you can rely on!(note sarcasm)) supplements are incompatible sound scientific inquiry.

.

.

I can also see that your tone changed significantly in this most recent post. I can't help but wonder if that, and your choice to ignore/avoid my inquiry as to how you vet the companies that sell you supplements, are related.

You seem to be offering advice, suggesting that your path is a good one to follow. If that is the case, wouldn't responsible action on your part include divulging what process you use to determine if a company is safe and reliable?

.

I invite you to revisit those questions.

.

.

Since you took the time to enumerate several portions of your response, I will respond to those, as I hope you will to the questions about determining a good supplier of your supplements.

.

'...1,. The FDA / pharma model is based on modified molecules, as standard ones cannot be patented. The companies need to produce profit, as companies do. The companies pay half(?) of the FDA's budget. Draw your own conclusion....'

.

You seem to be suggesting that 'natural' supplements are consumed unaltered, just as they occur in the wild, free of any 'modified molecules Do you believe this to be true?

.

Now while I fully support the idea that it is best if someone always got 100% of their nutritional needs met by eating a diet with sufficient whole food sources of those nutrients, I also know that a supplement, whether it claims to be natural or not, is not the same thing.

.

Also, the very broad brush with which you paint 'altered molecules' as compared to 'natural' seems to be generally lacking support. If it weren't so vague it would be easier to explain what exactly is the problem, but perhaps a two counter examples will get the point across that 'bad' and 'good' are much more related to the application and dose than slight chemical alterations:

A beneficial 'altered chemical': Folic acid. Folic acid when taken by women who become pregnant is miraculous in its ability to reduce the incidence in newborns of things like spina bifida and severe autism. Folate, the 'natural' version has only 1/2 the bioavailability of folic acid.

There are also numerous examples of very harmful 'natural' chemicals, and since there is so little oversight of 'natural supplements' there is a real possibility some chemicals are in your supplement that are not on the label. Cyanide is a good example.

.

One more point and then I'll look at #2, when you wrote, ''the companies need to produce a profit...draw your own conclusions", it seem to be trying to imply that because they make profits and because some of those profits go to help fund monitoring and oversight that they are necessarily corrupt. Do you think your supplement companies are not in it for profit? Or does the fact that they don't fund a third party for oversight somehow make you more confident?

.

.

'..2,. Vitamines and supplements are whole food derived. A recent note about raspberry ketones: load up on rasperries, and forget about the expensive ketone aspects. More exactly, they are whole foods, concentrated, extracted, and supplied to you. That is a fundamentally different model, than the one the FDA pursues. Plainly put for the dense of understanding: I do not need your, or anybody else's permission for food, in any shape, form or fashion....'

.

'Vitamines and supplements are whole food derived....' So exactly what 'whole food' was used to derive supplements found on sites like Dr. F Edwards quoted above, such as Lithium Carbonate supplements, or supplements containing wormwood?

.

I am not familiar with your raspberry dilemma or how it relates.

.

'...More exactly, they are whole foods, concentrated, extracted, and supplied to you....'

...and there is the big problem. Trying equate a supplement that has been extracted concentrated and packaged with the nutrition available from a whole live plant consumed as a real food source, is either blatantly disingenuous, or grossly naive.

.

WHEN IT HAS BEEN EXTRACTED AND CONCENTRATED IT IS NO LONGER A WHOLE FOOD.

.

...and no matter how free the product is of oversight, that fact doesn't change.

.

'... Plainly put for the dense of understanding: I do not need your, or anybody else's permission for food, in any shape, form or fashion....'

.

....The response to this is important, in part because your 'dense of understanding' statement is completely misleading: I am not suggesting you or anyone should be held back from ingesting whatever they please (well, there are a few exceptions, I am opposed to people ingesting other people, for example).

.

If you under your own volition decide you are going to start drinking a cup of bleach every day (it would keep you from aging) I don't think I have any right to stop you.

.

On the other hand, I have a problem if you start making claims baseless claims that consuming the special bleach you sell will cure all kinds of ailments.

.

Grow Datura in your garden and boil it down and ingest as much of it through every orifice you can....I don't care. But don't let me catch you trying to sell it to someone with the pitch it'll make them smart, good looking and bullet proof. Unless you can demonstrate such with a couple large peer reviewed scientific studies.

.

.

'...3..A manmade chemical is a fundamentally different animal. And I do understand, but in the final account do not give a rat's behind about the hurdles and costs. Now, you have to understand something: business models change, do or die. Period. Sorry, buddy....'

How are you so blind to the reality that supplement companies are affected by the same dynamics of hurdles and costs that you find so damning when related to pharmaceutical companies?

'....4,. Comparing the two fundamentally different model as equal is asinine, and fundamentally dishonest. You make up your mind, where you belong. And good luck with that, viewing your attitude. Mind it, it is not personal. Rather, it is fundamental....'

.

That last part is an interesting comment. You certainly seem to be trying to make it a personal issue.

.

Even more interesting though, is the first part of #4, since it was you who first brought up the comparison between the pharmaceutical and supplement industries. In that light I find your argument more and more convincing. It IS asinine and fundamentally dishonest to compare a system with almost no third party oversight of ingredients, procedure, safety, efficacy, or marketing, to one that has significant oversight of all of those things.

.

A final suggestion: there are far better ways to make up ones mind than relying on luck. Perhaps you should consider a more rigorous approach in the future. You may find your positions not only easier to support, but more beneficial to your person as well.

I need to make a correction. I was incorrect when I stated:

.

'...Even more interesting though, is the first part of #4, since it was you who first brought up the comparison between the pharmaceutical and supplement industries....'

.

It was not Leveles who raised the comparison between the supplements industry and pharma industries, it was Roy Hammy.

.

Sorry for the mis-attribution.

This is true. The best Vitamin C for human absorption comes from natural sources, especially that in hibiscus flowers which has been know to Chinese medicine for thousands of years.

Get some Celestial Seasonings Red Zinger tea and drink up! (no affiliation to the manufacturer)

This is time to weigh in to the debate. It is impressively high quality. Anything I say is not detriment to that, rather corrections. Sometimes the use and misuse of language is a main contributor to the confusion, to put it mildly.

1,. Chemical = chemical, no matter its origin. Theoretically, it is an absolute fact. BUT, a single chemical synthesized in a lab, if a natural mimic, qualifies as a vitamin or such. The same, even slightly modified and patented, qualifies as medicine. What this "slight modification" does to you, generally is anybodies guess.

2,. Medicine, by definition is a single or combination of single molecules, modified.

3,. Vitamins exist and work in the context they exist in nature. Always did, always will. The Vita. C molecule is the same, but with members of the same and supporting families present, it is most efficacious.

4,. Then there is handedness. For some, yet inexplicable reason biology is almost exclusively left handed. While chemistry is even handed. This only refers to the 3 dimensional twisting of a molecule.

5,. Therefore, chemically produced copies are frequently are a dud. The L (left) version is always right, the D (right) is mostly worthless, sometimes bad, rarely useful in an odd way.

6,. Hence, the literature, frequently bypassing these basics is abusing the language and our intelligence, intentionally or unintentionally.

7,. A shining example is Hammy's #6 note, re. Thyroid treatment. For any engineer in basic understanding of negative / positive feedback system it is rather primitive. Nonetheless, in medicine it is (mis)presented as a rather witches brew. The molecule is built up as T1-T2, then doubled to T4 and distributed. Peripherally, it is stripped to T3, and you are warm and vigorous and healthy. Nonetheless medicine latched on to a rather insignificant feedback factor TSH. And declares you healthy, even if you dying otherwise.

A simple question. You have a power generator, whose output is crappy. But the feedback signal is really in the sweet spot. Do you leave it alone, and declare the genset healthy, and you being the stupid hypochondriac?!? Well, that is the standard medicine today. You do not like it? Too bad, you are on your own.

I had family reasons to learn it right. Without my biochemistry training I would have been swamped. For a biochemist as well as an engineer it is a basic feedback system. Medical schools still teach the sh*t to the fan approach.

8,. A note to #7. In sychronicity with #4, 5 The DL chemically produced equivalent vitamin is bad or neutral. Missing its natural context, it is mostly is simply bad. IMHO, too bad for too cheap, thoughtless producers. And anybody using it in research should be drummed out for malfeasance and brute incompetence. Period.

9,. Then there is a note needed to Truth... #8. Every single cause has its prophets and flagbearers. I have found researchers to be a rather feisty bunch in their own way. For a recent, perfect example check out a full hour interview with Shinya Yamanaka in Iapanese TV.

There is no disinterested researcher. Yo bet! On the other hand, a competent researcher handles both "win" and "defeat" gracefully. An easy way to sort out.

HCl supplementation? I, and many generations of people using it. Glad fill you in the detail.

Wormwood? Yes, but controlled!! Does, what no other does for intestinal worms. For uncontrolled use see Wikipedia Absinthe.

Lithium, in whatever form, is a tricky, mostly unexplained. Professional use, or preferably no use.

And a preferably final note: Trusted note on Internet in general or anywhere else?!? You got to be pulling my leg, don't you?!? 90 - 95% of everything there is garbage, as at most anywhere else.

Last week I received a convincing sounding info from an Md. operating somewhere in the caribbean islands. He claimed to restore my pH balance - for an undisclosed fee - to good with intravenous baking soda. I sent no checks.

There is no king's shortcut to learn math, nor for you to learn biochemistry. But, if and when you do, you are no more buffeted by the medical system, as it is in the now and here.

-------------------------------------------------------

"An uneducated popuolus will fall for anything". Ben Carson Md. Iohn Hopkins, Baltimore.

Excellent information and thanks..

leveles,

I just came back to find your post -- I don't usually subscribe to any threads but do try to check one's I've posted in. I've been distracted for a few days. My apology.

I wasn't sure if your addressing my post about -dl vs. -d forms of analogous molecules was a correction or not. But the intent, in pasting the info. (and the discussion of vitamin E), was to show that the -dl form is usually not as effective as the -d form; the naturally occurring form. I think we both are in agreement. Structure/chirality (and the dependent functionality) is very important.

Earlier, I wanted to find a discussion of chirality and vitamin C, but was short on time. I just found one. Vitamin C is actually a sub-subject within the larger discussion. But still a good reference when questioning the bio-availibility of synthesized ascorbic acid, as well as other chemicals mentioned. It will mean more to you, leveles, than to me or probably most other readers. I am no biochemist. But the essence is sufficiently understandable, I think, without being one.

(Also, here is a link to an article arguing for natural vs. synthetic. I only skimmed it, so I'm a bit on a limb posting the link. But it seems to have good info. I'll trust that other readers are willing to vet any of it's contents they question. Also, citation 8 in the article is to a paper entitled, "Natural vitamins may be superior to synthetic ones," link here. [Note link to PDF near top left of page.] If that link doesn't work, or the PDF link is missing, it may be because a level of subscription may be necessary. From within the university, this becomes transparent, to some degree -- the full article (or link to it) appears or doesn't. If not the Abstract link is here.)

I like a lot of what you wrote.

#8 however doesn't sit straight with me. Well I guess since #8 is tied into #7 and #9 then the problem bleeds over a bit.

.

Here is the the thing that first popped into my mind when I read your #8: Folic Acid. Folate is the natural substance found in green leafy vegetables and some beans, but it doesn't store too well. Folic acid is provided as s supplement, man made, not natural by many definition.

Taking the folic acid as a supplement (not in excess) has significant unequivocal benefits. In the case of women who become pregnant the benefits are so unambiguous and important, that it would be almost criminal to not be taking folic acid if expecting to become pregnant. There is no doubt that folic acid supplementation leads to significant reduction in the risk of the newborn having a wide array of problems, such as heart defects, cleft palate, spinabifida, or severe autism.

.

Perhaps it is better to take the natural substance, folate. I don't know. What I do know is that folic acid even though it is man made is definitely something certain people should take without fail.

Hallo roy

Pls. look at Amazon: Dr. Brownstein: Overcoming Thyroid disorders. And Iodine.

They cover an easy 70% you need to know.

Good luck.

Somehow this blog got off subject really quickly but I see the connection. Premise: If we eat only natural foods and natural mineral and vitamin supplements, will we be healthier and not need so many antibiotics to survive the barrage of bacteria and viruses we come into contact more and more everyday as the population grows and travels more and food comes from more and more unregulated sources?

One thing not mentioned by anyone is absorption rates. Although we are all the same, we are all different too. Our eating habits, sleep habits, stress in our lives, and food sources outside the home all lead to less than ideal conditions to absorb necessary nutrients our body needs.

People who drink alcohol and smoke tobacco are going to be deficient in Vitamin C ad calcium if they don't modify their diet to include more of it than the daily minimum. Stress especially uses up huge amounts of certain vitamin and minerals and usually upsets the digestive system too making absorption that much less efficient.

You only absorb a relatively small portion of the total gram weight of any vitamins and minerals you ingest. The heavy metals like iron and zinc are especially hard to digest and absorb. Trace minerals not even included in many 'multi-vitamin' supplements are an absolute requirement for total metabolic balance. You get these from a eating a balanced and varied diet.

The natural controls that the human metabolic system uses to create a balanced 'soup' of available vitamins and minerals is regulated by changes up and down in the ratios. Many things are not capable of being stored. Other things like Vitamin D are changed into one or more usable forms by different parts of the body. Vitamin D is changed twice, first into D25 and then into D 1,25 in the kidneys where it is reabsorbed into the renal artery before it can be used by the immune system. Certain bacteria like the Lyme spirochete Borellia burgdorfi have the capability of blocking the final form, thereby making the white blood cells harmless against it. No matter how much Vitamin D you take it won't help if you have a severe infection of Lyme.

There is now a rather silent epidemic of Lyme going on because it can bore it's way out of the blood stream and into the 'white' tissues of the body where there are no capillaries and therefore no antibodies, white blood cells or anti-biotics to attack it. It can live in the sheathing surrounding nerves and disrupt the normal functions like a regular heartbeat. Arrhythmia can occur if the Lyme bacteria decide to inhabit the nerves of the heart. Stokes can be caused by this if the person infected has arrhythmia in their sleep and their blood stops flowing in their brain long enough to clot. It can cross the blood barrier into the brain and spinal cord and disrupt normal functions there. It does this for no other reason than it has learned that it is safe there from the immune system and most antibiotics, few of which can cross the 'blood barrier' into the neural fluids. There are dozens of ways this bacteria has adapted to surviving.

New developments in dark field microscopy have allowed us now to watch live cultures react to different attacks by the immune system and antibiotics. Plenty on youtube to watch nowadays. Great progress has been made in the last two years in combating 'resistant' strains of bacteria but it takes 5 years in the US to get anything approved. We now know many bacteria are capable of clustering up and creating small colonies which coat themselves in some cases with polysaccharide, covering the attachment site that antibodies bind to. They become mostly dormant in these biofilm clusters, waiting for the immune system to weaken. It is really amazing how many different foils Borellia has to survive life inside mammalian systems.

I am certain that new types of 'antibiotics' whose function will be break down the defense systems of bacteria will be discovered in the near future now that we have a much better understanding of biofilms. Most Tetracycline derivitaves like Minocycline and Doxycycline stop the cell wall closure of dividing bacteria once they try to separate. Enclosed in a polysaccharide coated biofilm cluster they are capable of dividing within the protected cluster and spewing out dozens of newly formed cells into the hosts system nearly at will. Many of the chronic diseases that now seem to have no known source will be exposed as simply clusters of protected bacteria that re-emerge when the bodies defense systems are weakened.

My "straying" from the topic was more specific than just eating healthier. (Post #3) Healthy eating doesn't deal with critical conditions, like polio, meningitis, Lyme disease, etc. And absorption rate of nutrients, as well as any molecular intervention, pharmaceuticals or otherwise, IS very important. From my reading, vitamin C is absorbed at the rate of ~21%, depending on the source you read. (Liposomal is different, purporting to be around 95%.) I don't have it handy, but Linus Pauling gives a detailed measure of ascorbic acid absorption in his book, "Live Longer and Feel Better." As I recall it is quite low and is supportive of the view that even megascorbic oral doses are best broken up into smaller, regular ingestion, vs. one large dose. (Again, liposomal seems different.)

Your description of how Lyme disease is adept (an interesting point in itself) at adapting was my main point in suggesting Dr. Stone's book. The body, as a living organism, also has the ability to adapt. Antibiotics only adapt as we design and change them. The body has the ability to respond more rapidly, and with a seemingly inborn or innate "wisdeom." That is the reasoning behind vaccines. The question Stone's book raises, is what effect, if any, would there be, to raise ascorbic levels in humans, to match the levels we might have, if only we had the missing enzyme to synthesize ascorbic acid from glucose? An allied interesting question which arises, is how we still have many processes in the body that depend on ascorbic acid, and yet we "lost" the ability to synthesize it as almost all mammals do, and some reptiles. (See pasted image below.) And the raw material is glucose, a most ubiquitous molecule in nature.

Quite a number of books about health, such as "Sharks Don't Get Cancer," "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers," "Why Geese Don't Get Obese," etc. imply man is "disadvantaged" in some ways and can learn to improve our health from studying health in other animals.

I do not have a perspective of "full speed ahead, Katy bar the door," thinking that ascorbic acid is a cure-all. Lyme disease may be a very hard nut to crack. Death has no cure and it is sure to everyone at some point, since our bodies seem "programmed" to fizzle out. With all of our knowledge, we still know so little about how our bodies work and how organisms do adapt, as well as how our bodies might adapt. I would suggest anyone, physician or patient, to investigate whether or not ascorbic acid has been tried, or tested, for any condition, before using it. Irwin Stone's book is as good a starting point as any.

I just found this report concerning vitamin C and Lyme disease. The word anecdotal has become both a way of diminishing observations and an apology for stating them -- "these are only anecdotal." I would no more dismiss the observations of Mr. Grier than I would Dr. Klenner's. Observation is at the root of all science. The question becomes, who will investigate further and when?

In the case of ascorbic acid, and other "naturally occurring substances," it is common reasoning by many that since it can't be patented, there is likely to be no funding for trials that might substantiate Dr. Klenner's experience with polio and other infectious diseases. That is very likely true. Too bad that money, paradoxically, often cripples the search for truth. So, anecdotal will remain as a large part of medical observation, it seems. I am curious as to what percentage of anecdotal observations/trends are confirmed when tested. (As in the case of Dr. Brown, cited below.)

I do find bacterial adaptation interesting. Your good description of the ways Lyme bacteria "has learned" to adapt is the interesting part. Usually we think of adaptation as being an evolutionary process driven by the law of survival of the fittest. The ability to "learn," as you put it. The word survival implies motivation. And motivation is something we, as humans, associate with reasoning -- analysis of facts at hand and then acting on a reasoned basis. Adaptation implies the underlying purpose or "goal" -- survival. So we observe processes that seem "purposeful."

Like the common cold, there are at least 3 bacteria associated with Lyme disease symptoms. I find that, also, interesting. Variations on a theme. The similarities between the symptoms of Lyme disease and Rheumatoid Arthritis, is what led Dr. Thomas Brown to try treating his RA patients with low-dose antibiotics, for months in cases. By his reports, he achieved success with a large number of his patients. Anecdotal, as they say, until the NIH trials were began, after his death. ("An editorial accompanying the MIRA study described the outcome as "highly significant...with minimal adverse events.") So sad, from that perspective.

Scientific advancement owes much to the many "renegades" and "rogues" who challenge current thinking with observations and insights. Many never lived to see the vindication of their postulations.

I am for utilizing all the tools at our disposal in combating disease. I am not against man-made pharmaceuticals. Relief of suffering should be the driving force behind all medical research. But why limit ourselves to "our" knowledge (especially since it is quite incomplete), when nature may have some of it's own, tracking the ability of disease organisms to adapt, that we are ignoring, or paying too little attention to?

The only way to test Stone's (and others) hypothesis that many of us may be living in a state of "sub-clinical scurvy," is to experiment with increasing the base level of ascorbic acid based on the body-weight extrapolation. We have 3 distinct forms to choose from in testing: IV, standard oral (as occurring in food but also synthesized) and liposomal, with 3 different points of entry into our system... and likely 3 different responses. The studies cited in Stone's book indicate that we might be less susceptible to succumbing to any number of disease organisms/states if we had a higher base level of ascorbic acid than comes from eating food. Quite specific as opposed to just eating healthier. That can't be denied, either. ALL tools available.

From the book, "Vitamin C - The Mysterious Redox-System" - 1981 (The original scan is much more acceptable than what I seem to achieve in pasting here.)

Fortunately for most, I'm now fizzled out.

Not that it needs clarifying, but my statement "Like the common cold,..." could be construed as saying it, also, is a bacterial infection, because the reference to Lyme disease being caused by at least 3 bacteria follows it. We know it is viral. "Well over 200 viruses are implicated in the cause of the common cold; the rhinoviruses are the most common." (Wiki article.)

It is always best to get your nutrients from food! Real food that is, not processed food. Everyone seems to have forgotten about the old Food Pyramid.

There are 8 different forms of Vitamin E.

Read the Wiki on Tocopherol, it will help you to understand that the synthetic form of Vitamin E usually contains 20% natural Vitamin E.

Ascorbic Acid or Vitamin C is a 'healing' Vitamin. The body uses it to repair and replace damaged tissues. Ascorbic Acid has some antibacterial capabilities which is why it is used as a preservative in many processed foods.

http://www.surgerysupplements.com/the-role-of-vitamin-c-in-wound-healing/

Cyanide, -CN, is made of the two most common elements on earth. Like the different kinds of alcohol, there are many different kinds of cyanide. Some can kill you but one form is absolutely essential to good health may be one of the basic building blocks of life itself.

Read the Wiki on Hypothiocyanate! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothiocyanite

It is made from Thiocyanate stored in the liver. Thiocyante is made by the body from Amygdalin which is found in nearly all whole grains, nuts, seeds, beans, spinach and many other healthy foods.

Your Lactoperoxidase-Thiocyanate-Hydrogen Peroxide System found in the mucus membranes in your lungs, mouth, sinuses and the surface of your eyes uses Thiocyanate to kill bacteria, molds and fungi . It is called the LPO system and it is the firewall of your immune system.

Children who are born with a genetic flaw that eliminates their ability to create Rhodenase, the enzyme that creates Thiocyanate, suffer from Cystic Fibrosis.

When combined with Iodide, the LPO is capable of stopping viruses before they can enter cell tissue.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24053146

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21441383

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23540488

Eat your apple seeds!

That chart is incorrect. Evolution didn't happen. Watch Kent Hovinds movies. God created everything 6000 years ago.

The problem with over indulging in vitamin and mineral supplements is that most single cell organisms are heterotrophic and don't synthesize anything but absorb it from our blood serum.

When you overload your system with nutrients your body can't use up in the course of a day, you are setting out a smorgasbord of food for them to thrive on.

What is missing today is seasonal eating habits since we have at our disposal any kind of food we want any time of the year.

In researching why white tailed deer don't get Lyme disease I came on the fact they they have huge amounts of amygdalin in their systems from their diets.

It gets broken down into small amounts of cyanide which kills the bacteria.

Cyanide deactivates the enzyme cytochrome c oxidase. This is the last enzyme of the electron transport chain (the final step of cell respiration).
All Things in Moderation so don't go eating a bunch of raw almonds because it will probably kill you.

'....All Things in Moderation...'

.

Always?

...or can we enjoy a modicum of moderation in our adherence to 'all things in moderation'....

.

....in which case, why not say, 'Most Things Frequently in Moderation'.....

...or, 'Overdo it Infrequently'.

.

'...so don't go eating a bunch of raw almonds because it will probably kill you.....'

.

....Raw bitter almonds, no doubt. But what most people associate with the English usage of 'almonds', 'sweet almonds' you would have to eat such a huge amount to make death likely, that death would have been likely eating a similar amount of any number of different things.

.

....oh wait. I get it. You were practicing what you preach, 'All things in Moderation'...

...not wanting to be an extremist for veracity...J/K.

You are correct, sir, to imply that I should have typed 'raw bitter almonds' but I was basically directing the comment at mr.passerby who seems to feel that if 2 are good 200 must be better.

He hasn't said how much water he drinks in a day either.

I don't drink any unless I'm sweating.

I do have a great deal of experience in over-indulgence tho and have suffered greatly many a morning after but that is all behind me now.

Two pints if Guiness and I'm a happy camper!

Two Pints of Guinness is definitely good advice!

But...getting back to the original question of mutations, much work has been done on it similar to this:

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5333/1833.full.pdf

Basically, it is commonly found that the average number of mutations to resistance are nearly similar to mutations to other things like bacteria being able to absorb sugar more efficiently, the number being 1 x 10 to the minus 8th.

It is normal for bacteria to mutate if their living conditions change. They have been around for millions of years. We even have bacteria in us that have only been found in thermal vents deep in the bottom of the oceans. Have they always been in our systems or are they being delivered to us through the food chain?

Much work has been done on the human microbiome and future 'antibiotics' may actually end up being other bacteria who have the ability to attack the offending species. Many bacteria show the ability to kill other bacteria of the same species but of a different strain.

One of the fascinating things about the way bacteria adapt, such as developing a resistance to a certain antibiotic, is that vertical gene transfer (as in reproduction) may not necessarily be a big part of any particular change.

Horizontal gene transfer is especially interesting in that it allows traits (like drug resistance) to be passes, not only to adults of their own species, but also to bacteria of other species.

.

Being able to share an immunity across various distinct species is pretty impressive to me.

Now they have seen tiny fibers like cables or nano-tubes connecting clustered groups of bacteria that they use to communicate with each other with.

Lyme does quorum sensing during the initial infection which is what form the red ring.

They wait until a sufficient number of divisions produces a large enough population to be able to disperse and survive the body's immune system.

Smart little buggers. Amazes me the detail available to current researchers using dark field HD computer enhanced microscopy.

Like this pic showing a fairly young Borellia burgdorferi spirochete that is about 10 microns long.

After sleeping on it, I don't think the problem with antibiotic resistant mutated bacteria is too many antibiotics being used, it is with there being too many bacteria to use them on.

Part of the factors driving the resistant strain problem is people not taking their full proscribed regiment...stopping 1/2 way through when they feel better.

.

Then when they or a friend feel sick the next time, the administer the other partial portion.

.

That is a sure fire path to resistant bacteria.

.

It also can be bad for the heart.

Common assumption but the hypothesis is backwards. Tetracycline antibiotics kill most bacteria by not allowing it to close back up it's cell wall after division, they bleed out.

When you don't take your full regiment, you are just allowing more generations to divide without danger, thereby increasing the odds that they will reach the magic generational number of 10 to the 8th, which is how many generations it takes to produce one mutation in a strain.

Borellia is weird in that it can run and hide in less than an hour and a half. Antibiotics work 13 times better if you exercise long enough to get your heart rate up well over 100 a half hour after taking it, thereby opening up ALL your capillaries and pushing the antibiotics to every cell in your body.

Symptoms occur when Borellia are active and dividing which is when you zap them, but only once or again a day later if symptoms don't go away completely. They can hide out for 42 days, then start dividing again.

If you would be so kind, please take a moment to explain to me how 'people not taking their full prescribed regiment of antibiotics' is NOT a factor in developing drug resistant strains.

.

The hypothesis doesn't seem to be contradicted by what you wrote. If anything it seems to be supported.

.

This is all based on the assumption that the prescribed regiment was close to optimal.

Yes, take what your doctor gives you. But...

In a perfect world, the doctor would take a blood sample, do a microbial cell count and calculate how many days you would need to clear out the troubling bugs based on your body weight, age, and physical condition. Most doctors don't do that because they don't have the time. They go for the long ball.

The less amount of antibiotic you take, the less there is that ends up in the city sewer system and on down the line into the ocean. Take for example, Doxycycline. It is out of your system in 13 hours, which is why it is usually prescribed twice daily.

All microbes have different reproduction times. E.coli is studied a lot because it divides every 20 minutes! Unless, that is, the same strain can live together for a long amount of time. Then it actually speeds up it's reproduction time.

Read this for some staggering numbers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Consequently, when you breed beef like they do in Brazil (on the land that used to be a rain forest), tens of thousands of generations of single source E.coli are being raised along with the cattle and passed along to humans in the processed meat. (England is one of their biggest customers.)

When they feed these cattle tons of antibiotics every year, it too passes into the soil creating the perfect environment for antibiotic resistant mutations.

Furthermore, the excess antibiotics end up in the water run off and eventually in to the ocean.

http://fish101.community.uaf.edu/tag/antibiotics/

Antibiotics in the body that are used up killing bacteria are not the problem, it's the excess that doesn't get used up that is a problem. Antibiotics aren't like a hammer that can be used over and over, they are the nail and once they bond to the dividing bacteria they are broken down and no longer a problem. So taking the least amount that will cure you is the best protocol.

One other thing that doesn't get passed along is that antibiotics work 13 TIMES BETTER if you exercise long enough (about 10 minutes) to get your heart beat up over 125 a half hour after you take them, then stop. It opens up every capillary in your body, thus delivering the antibiotics to every cell affected. More exercise will just pump the antibiotics out of your system too fast.

Drinking green tea also makes antibiotics work 3 times better. Probably the EGCG in it helps the liver and kidneys get rid of the toxins from the dying bacteria faster.

OK, so do what you can to find a good doctor, and take the entire prescribed regiment unless you live in a perfect world where you can get regular blood samples to determine when you are cured and then and only then, stop prior to completing the regiment?

.

Drink Green Tea

Regularly get your heart rate above 125.

The best thing to do is just not get sick in the first place...

Hmmm. I think there is a Chinese Proverb to the effect of 'Many diseases long life, one disease short life, no disease, no life.'

.

But this guy said it far better.

Humans are needing more and more antibiotics because we have homogonized our diet and supplemented it with too much fructose throwing off the ratios of both in our systems.

High fructose corn syrup is 55/45% fructose/sucrose and causes a lot of problems that sucrose at 50/50 does not. I would imagine bacteria to be able to use the former against us by creating polysaccharide coatings (antigens) more difficult for antibodies to attach themselves.

The other thing most people have done is completely remove Amygdalin from their diet. In the 'olden days' people ate seasonal food and made it through the winter on foods that would keep without refrigeration like nuts and dried beans. They ate the nuts raw for the high caloric content and slow cooked the beans in soups and stews which didn't destroy the Amygdalin. Humans can process a few mg of Amygdalin daily without harm but bacteria and viruses can't handle even minute amounts of it because when it binds to their oxygen metabolics they suffocate almost immediately.

HFCS seems to be a problem (perhaps for more reasons that just the ratio of sugars) and it is not easy to avoid in US super markets.

.

I suspect one reason we use an increasing amount of antibiotics is because we deliver a regular regiment to our meat producing livestock, in many cases for weight gain.

.

On 'amygdalin'. on what are you basing your assertions? Can you provide links to studies?

.

I am a little skeptical of the idea that regular introduction of HCN into the lower intestine will be very beneficial. A few mgs a day is well below the LD50, but I suspect chronic low level introduction of hydrogen cyanide is likely to have more adverse effects than just indiscriminately killing off beneficial and harmful bacteria in the gut.

.

.

Also this statement is troubling:

'bacteria and viruses can't handle even minute amounts of it because when it binds to their oxygen metabolics they suffocate ....'

.

The idea of 'Amygdalin binding to the oxygen metabolics of a virus, causing the virus to suffocate' is quintessentially FUBAR.

.

A virus is not known to metabolize oxygen, so the idea of suffocating a virus is, well, perhaps a little oxygen deprived itself.

Yes, but when a virus invades a cell, takes over it's metabolism, that cell might very well be susceptible to premature death in it's weakened state if subjected to HCN. Normal human cells convert the cyanide to thiocyanate which is harmless to them. Cells compromised by viruses may not be able to do this. It doesn't work on cancer cells because they aren't really compromised, just out of control. (Viruses aren't really the issue here and I should have left that for another time and place.)

As early meat eaters we ate mostly grass eaters. Deer are notoriously full of amygdalin. From meat eaters we went to collecting seeds and pounding them into a paste which was slow baked...again it contained amygdalin. We also ate the entire fruit if they did not have a pit, like apples, wild strawberries, blueberries, etc. again getting the amygdalin in our diet and simply dried them for winter food which kept it intact.

In winter we ate dried beans, nuts, berries, made breads and baked goods baked in stone ovens and cooked stews and soups over slow fires so they wouldn't burn, sometimes for days at a time. The low heat kept from breaking it down.

However...our diets over the millennia have changed from eating seasonally to just eating whatever we feel like any time we want and most of it is processed.

It was in our diets really up to only a generation ago. Now we get little or none.

Over processing, over cooking or microwaving nearly all our food and the cattle are grain fed and not grass fed (although there are cattle farms now that raise only grass fed using no antibiotics but they sell the meat at a premium of $9 a pound.)

I'm trying to find out if microwaving itself, regardless of temperature, breaks down Amygdalin.

'...Normal human cells convert the cyanide to thiocyanate which is harmless to them....'

.

That is a bit misleading. HCN is highly toxic, toxic enough to be used for executions.

.

The body has a very limited ability to convert to cyanide in the blood to thiocyanate. There is a limited amount of the enzyme involved in the conversion in the blood. More importantly the reactants involved in the conversion quickly get used up.

This is why thiosulfate is sometimes administered to treat amygdalin poisoning.

.

To top it all off, although very small amounts of thiocyanate are used a couple metabolic processes, thiocyanate in appreciable levels is toxic. It is about 7 times less toxic than cyanide, but cyanide can be pretty toxic.

Human cells all have the ability to convert cyanide in small quantities into thiocyanate so that the cyanide won't bind to a Golgi body replacing the oxygen and suffocating the person.

Bacteria don't make thiocyanate.

Many cultures who eat an all natural diet high in seeds, nuts, apricots, tapioca, grapes apples, and many other non-processed foods have a daily intake of amygdalin.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/land_of_hunza.htm

Amygdalin is dangerous because the bacteria in your gut have an enzyme that break it down to hydrogen cyanide.....the same thing used in gas chambers to execute people.

.

There numerous cases of fatalities and near-fatalities many are people given of encouraged to take 'amygdalin' or 'laetrile' to make them more healthy.

.

The reason amygdalin is found in high concentration in certain seeds, like some nuts, apple seeds, peach and apricot seeds, etc, is because it is the mechanism by which that species is trying to insure its continued existence. The plant uses amygdalin, to help insure the seeds are not eaten. Poisons typically taste bad.

.

The amygdalin is there to make whatever eats it sick, not to reward those who devour the plants chance at continuation.

Well, I'm glad you agree with me that we are missing the normal but unharmful amount in our daily diet!

We are finding more and more that we are not the only communicators on the planet.

This is not a drawing, it is a biofilm of bacteria who have fabricated nano-wires (possibly nanotubes) in order to know what each other are doing.

'...to know what each other are doing...'

.

and how do we know that?

.

I'm assuming it has something to do with clandestine listening-in on the other end of one of the nano-wires....but I had no idea we had linguists fluent in Bacterian .

.

On a more serious note, aren't the nanowires used more like breathing tubes than for communication?

.

.

One more serious note. I don't think anyone for a long time has suggested that we are the only communicators.

There are those who suggest we are the only known species that uses language; language being defined as an open ended system of communication making use of recurring syntactic and semantic components.

But most people are aware that many other species communicate, from bees to bonobos, and beyond.

All animals use language, normally their own. If we could attach video or audio here I would let you listen to my dog Hunter say, repeatedly, "I want to go out and run around!" From the day I birthed him I would always ask him, "Do you want to go out and run around?" Now he just tells me himself without any prompting.

His Aunt Velvet can say, "I want a milkbone" and when I tease her enough when I'm eating BBQ ribs and ask her if she wants a milkbone, she says, "No, I a want a real bone" so clearly that I have had all my guests spit their food out all over the room at the same time, lol.

This lady explains 'quorum sensing' a lot better than I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=TVfmUfr8VPA&feature=endscreen

Great video.

I do think the anthropomorphism is a little excessive. She is claiming communicating for something that just barely qualifies as sensation. There seems to be no distinction made between being being surrounded my many others of the same species, and being in a place with very low flow or tightly confinement. That hardly qualifies as communicating.

.

.

On a different subject, the communication between dogs and people comes pretty close to language. Dogs are able to understand abstraction to a degree not seen in wolves or even in chimps. If you extend your arm to point at something , a chimp will took at the end of your hand...but not follow it to the object like even some young puppies will.

.

Dogs can also be amazing perceptive of subtle nonverbal signals.

.

Dogs and Wolves certainly communicate, and like many animals often use a call system to do so.

Making the argument that this constitutes a language is difficult, since there isn't much strong evidence that dogs understand things like syntax.

For example; some dogs may make positive association when a person says, 'If you go outside right now you can chase a cat' and even go outside hoping to chase a house cat.

The evidence that they lack an understanding of syntax (and are therefor merely responding to a call system) is in the lack of variation in response if they are instead told, 'If you go outside right now a cat can chase you'. Dogs typically will not make a distinction and expect a cougar to be waiting to chase them around.

Most dogs would mainly hear 'outside' and 'cat', but the order wouldn't really matter it could just as well be 'cat' and 'outside'.

Even in cases where dogs are taught to remember orders of commands, the meaning does not change with the order, only when a particular behavior is expected and is likely to be rewarded (not necessarily a physical reward at that time).

.

Communication? definitely. Call system? definitely.

Language? no conclusive evidence.

If you read Wittgenstein you will note that syntax is not necessary to convey intricate ideas. Navy seals convey elaborate commands with a simple hand sign. Masons and bricklayers can start an elaborate chain of activities of their entire crew by simply yelling 'MUD!' which is where Wittgenstein got the idea in the first place while eating lunch across the street from a crew of bricklayers working on the facade of a new building.

My dog Velvet this morning came in the kitchen and said, "Want go out look around." (She leaves out all the prepositions.) Then she went to the front door to wait for me to let her out.

I got her to start talking not by repeating to her what I wanted to say but by asking her for months and months to "Tell me what you want" until she finally broke down saying "Ah want milkbone", her second sentence was "Ah want a real bone".

Now she won't shut up, lol.

Communicating intricate ideas doesn't necessarily require syntax, grammar, or abstraction.

Language does.

Machines like this are going to give us insights into the secrets of life not even imagined before!

http://www.asylumresearch.com/Products/Mfp3DSA/Mfp3DSAProduct.shtml

The nano indentation on silicon is really cool.

Looks like my broadhead pattern on my compound bow arrowheads. It will penetrate even bone. I suppose the maximum penetration test numbers would be more accurate with this shape but maybe more consistent with a four sided point on the diamond.

Antibiotics kill friendly gut bacteria that is essential for good health. Make sure to take your probiotics.

'probiotics' are a good idea available at much more reasonable prices under alternate names... such as 'yogurt' and 'kefir'.

Yes but kefir and yogurt don't have all the strains that probiotic pills have.

Indeed, another advantage of the less pricey alternatives. This is another case where 'more' is not always better.