Omega 3 snake oil

15:30 - onward Stef just doesn't get it. He doesn't get the horrors of today's dating market. If you're a man looking for marriage or just a LTR, you need to date two points down, eg a man who's a 7 needs to date/marry a woman who's a 5.

Basically yes that's what's been going on. I'm planning on seeing a naturopath in British Columbia, where they are able to prescribe drugs.

Yep so anyway Lyme disease... Saw a specialist in Toronto today, surprise surprise he says my Lyme test from a private lab in the US is inconclusive. He wants me to get another, OHIP test done to confirm. I'm thinking of going out of Ontario for treatment...

I think anyone who drinks tap water and buys food in a supermarket is ingesting artificial chemicals, so yes I definitely have. Maybe there is a toxicity component to my illness, but my Lyme test isn't lying.

Turns out I have Lyme disease. Glad it's not cancer but this is still pretty effed up. May have to leave Ontario for treatment.

- CBC - ESR - TSH - AST - C reactive protein - Glucose - HbA1C - Creatinine - Sodium/Potassium - ASR also a chest xray. All these were normal and I've been assured a disease like lymphoma would show up in the blood, but I'm not convinced. Melatonin is the only thing that has allowed me to get somewhat normal sleep in the past three years. Prescription meds were of little help; I could fall asleep but not stay asleep, or reach deep sleep. I think there is an autoimmune dysfunction with my HPA axis. My main worry is I've jacked my immune system with illness and stress, and I've been taking supplements to keep it propped up, and now it's finally blown a gasket. Does anyone know any details on how Stef got diagnosed? I'm going to a private MRI clinic as soon as they'll take me, just got the lab req from my doctor today.

I do have a history of Epstein barr infection--thats the same virus that causes mono. So yeah that could play some part here. What I'm worried about is, EBV has triggered something autoimmune like it did three years ago

diet is pretty clean, tons of veggies, fruits, protein, healthy fats, supplements... I've been maowing melatonin for the past three years as it's the only thing that allows me to get sleep. Now I'm learning you shouldn't use it if you're at risk for autoimmunity (!). Have already seen a naturopath, have been doing so for over two years.

I'm dealing with some scary health symptoms at the moment and am wondering if Stef or anyone else can offer some insight re: how to navigate Ontario's health care system. Over the past year or so I've had issues with weight/muscle loss and rapid aging/collagen depletion. I went to my GP for some basic tests and was told everything is normal. Over the past few months the loss of strength has gotten more pronounced and there has been increasing fatigue both physical and mental. Again my GP can't find anything. I've had a few instances of losing massive amount of weight quickly coupled with a general sense of malaise and been to an ER. Again basic tests, again normal. The past two weeks I've developed a cough at nighttime along with headaches, confusion, and the worst fatigue I've ever experienced (hurts to get out of bed). Haven't been to work in three days. Can barely function. Now there are pounding headaches and a burning pain in my chest. Went to ER tonight and was looked at then quickly sent home. Other symptoms I've had include skin lesions that don't heal, and slow healing in general, hoarseness/loss of voice. This has been over the past couple of months as well, even up to a year. I have a past history of autoimmunity and Epstein Barr infection which makes me worry about lymphoma specifically. I'm not sure what to do next. the ER doc told me he can get me a referral to a specialist in about a month. Any input re: where to turn for a proper diagnosis would be much appreciated.

I don't recall him saying anything like it. And your comment really highlights what I'm getting at--men seeking sex in a way that is by no means dishonest, manipulative or exploitative is somehow viewed as all those things.

Hey everyone, Just finished the latest podcast, I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't listened yet. In it Stef talks with a young man who expressed deep and genuine concern about his ability to find a woman for long term partnership and child rearing purposes. The man is 32, very bright, and seems to have a lot going for him. I think Stef's insights re: men's sense of value and obligation were spot on. The back and forth between Wes (I think?) and Stef was one of the best I've ever heard. Kudos and thanks to both of them. One point of contention with what Stef said re: finding a female partner... Stef gave his usual advice re what to do when looking, i.e. being up front about what you want, making sure a woman you date knows you are serious, etc. He was also critical of Wes for carrying on casual/physical relationships with women and not explicitly stating he's looking for wife material. To this I say, Stef really hasn't dated lately. Young, single women can barely commit to meeting for lunch, let alone life long partnership. Not just with Wes (who sounds like a total catch), or myself (still pretty decent I think), but men in general. They simply aren't interested. And Stef cautions against trying to change people to fit your own needs -- he says, find a woman who's an anarchist. That's like saying, quit your day job and dig for gold in your backyard -- if you hit the jackpot it'll so be worth it. I still agree with 90+ percent of what Stef said, but in my mind it is not reasonable to tell a young man to join a losing cause, while chastising him for seeking sex in a way that is by no means immoral. Put another way: I think I'm a bit like Wes, only from a lower middle class background and probably less successful. Still I find myself with a fair number of options for short term relationships and very few options for long term ones--or a bit more honestly, I find myself with many appealing options for short term, and few appealing options for long term relationships. Is it really reasonable to expect a guy like Wes or myself to be entirely--even naively-- straightforward with women who do not expect nor necessarily deserve it?

I remember sometime back Stef did a show on being okay with ambivalence. I found it worthwhile and I was thinking, this is one of the most important topics for me personally in terms of personal growth. Not sure if anyone else is with me there, but given what I do know about FDR'ers I'd say this is something many of us need to work on.Being okay with the wishy washiness. The I don't really give a shits. And so on.How to look those people in the eye and accomplish whatever the situation calls for. Dealing with people who may be close to you but aren't friends.What does everybody think? I think it would help me in my personal and professional lives.

Hey all, I've been having some scary health issues the past couple of weeks (maybe months, not sure). I'm awaiting test results on Monday.Over the past two years or so I've done a lot of reading/researching on the stress-disease connection. This was brought on by another health scare that left me with lingering fatigue/energy issues. While this past issue was very much physical (as I am sure is my current situation) I know that the underlying cause was stress, which compromised my immune system, resulting in myriad issues.A lot of this stress has been brought up by dealing with past issues with my family, and partially de-FOOing. My parents did their best to be supportive with my first scare but at the same time they let me down in several ways (general lack of understanding) which again caused me to push them away.Flash forward to last week: I ran into my dad outside the doctor's office. We got to talking, and now I'm speaking to him and my mom again. They still seem to lack understanding but I realize now that they are the only people in the world who have truly cared about me during the past little while.A lot of things are going through my head now, maybe none more than the regret of pushing my parents away. Being virtually alone the past year or so, with close friends turning their backs on me, and new ones being only out for short term gain, has caused the kind of stress that's made my body not want to go on.I've always taken great care of myself. Now I wonder if I was just trying to muscle through the unhappiness.

hit 6' before I turned 13. Lanky as a kid. Filled out a tad when I was about 17. That never really changes. Some worse than your own, some better. Some bullies are narcissists or sociopaths who were never themselves abused. Some had things rough and it was just all they knew.

Hasn't been my experience. I was always big for my age and I can say that if a dude thought I wouldn't fight sometimes he'd fuck with me just to say he was able to

How are they measuring aggression? A martial arts competitor can be highly aggressive on the mats, but not aggressive whatsoever in the real world.If aggression is measured via number of street fights they've been in, or number of girlfriends beaten up, or number of people bullied, etc. then fine...

A little from column a), a little from column b) Look in those eyes, dude is straight out of his mind.

Source?

This makes the sport look terrible.I know some high level martial artists including a couple pro MMA fighters and they are all good/great people. Unfortunately the violence of the sport is going to draw some real d-bags like this dude. I still maintain team sports like hockey and football promote victimization more than than martial arts/MMA does.

Nope, just a snippet that I caught and filtered through the lens of my own experience.

At the grocery store just now. Behind me in line was a mom with her three or four year old daughter. The girl grabbed a packet of freezies from the display conveniently located at her eye level.girl: What's this??mom: Mostly just sugar and water.The girl put down the freezies, seemingly having lost interest. I said to myself, YES. Twenty years ago the typical response from the mom would have been ordering the kid to put it back, then the kid would either want to talk back or would do as told but continue wanting freezies.This is kind of a trite example but I think it's small decisions that (mostly) make up life.

The problem with psychology is, a lot of things can pose as it. And the things that do are usually bad things. Here we have socialism masquerading as psychology, in the way racism did in the 1800s (think phrenology). You have pseudoscience using sparse, subjective facts to derive arguments that are often barely logical, and "science" being wielded for authority.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fair-society/201108/what-s-the-matter-libertarianism?tr=MostViewedI don't see much of an argument being presented: "Indeed, libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests. For instance, the canonized conservative economist Friedrich Hayek posited a stark choice between two alternative models - either a "free market" of atomized individuals rationally pursuing their self-interests in transactional relationships or an authoritarian, coercive "state" that seeks control over us. In Hayek's words, "socialism means slavery." The libertarian novelist Ayn Rand went even further. As she saw it, there is a perpetual class war going on between the "creators" and "producers," on the one hand, and the great mass of "parasites" and "moochers" who use government to steal whatever they can from the deserving few. One of Rand's heroes, the defiant architect Howard Roark in her novel The Fountainhead, tells us: "All that proceeds from man's independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man's dependence upon men is evil...The egotist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices for others....Man's first duty is to himself...His moral law is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men....The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is - hands off!" The benign free market model of society is equally deficient. Many libertarians seem to be myopic about the prevalence of self-interested "organizations" in the marketplace, from the many millions of mom-and-pop businesses with only a few employees to mega-corporations with hundreds of thousands of workers (whose freedom they may severely restrict). These "corporate interests" sometimes oppose the common interest and perpetrate malfeasance. (Do we need to rehearse the recent examples of Enron, Capital Management, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, BP, Massey Energy and other disasters?) So-called free markets are routinely distorted by the wealthy and powerful, and the libertarians' crusade for lower taxes, less regulation and less government plays into their hands. Perhaps unwittingly, anti-government libertarians would have us trade democratic self-government for an oligarchy. A more serious concern is that the libertarian fixation with individual freedom distracts us from the underlying biological purpose of a society. The basic, continuing, inescapable problem for humankind, as for all other living organisms, is biological survival and reproduction. Whether we are conscious of it or not, most of us spend a large majority of our time and energy engaged in activities that are directly or indirectly related to meeting no fewer than 14 domains of "basic needs" - biological imperatives ranging from such commonplace things as food, clothing and shelter to physical and mental health and the reproduction and nurturance of the next generation. In a very real sense, therefore, every organized economy and society represents a "collective survival enterprise" - an immensely complex "combination of labor" (a term I prefer to the traditional "division of labor") upon which all of our lives literally depend. And our first collective obligation is to ensure that all of our basic needs are met. If there is a "right to life," as our Declaration of Independence and pro-life conservatives aver, it does not end at birth; it extends throughout our lives, and it imposes on all of us a responsibility for ensuring the "no-fault" needs of others, when they cannot for various reasons provide for themselves. So why is libertarianism unfair? It rejects any responsibility for our mutual right to life, where we are all created approximately equal. It would put freedom and property rights ahead of our basic needs, rather than the other way around. It is also oblivious to the claims for reciprocity, an obligation to contribute a fair share to support the collective survival enterprise in return for the benefits that each of us receives. And it is weak on the subject of equity (or social merit) as a criterion for respecting property rights. It presumes a priori that property holdings are deserved, rather than making merit a precondition. Imposing a test of merit would put strict limits on property rights. Finally, it is anti-democratic in that it rejects the power of the majority to restrain our freedom and limit our property rights in the common interest, or for the general welfare.

Violet, I am truly sorry to hear what you're been through. It takes a lot of strength to face all that, so good job. Agreed 100%. You should be proud you haven't lost your heart

I really need to give you a thumbs down on this one. I think you're not engaging with the facts and arguments laid out in this thread, i.e. kinda trolling.