Natural News libertarian health site

[empyblessing]

http://www.naturalnews.com/index.html

I've been reading this website for a number of years and just wanted to promote it here. The owner regularly appears on the Alex Jones show (don't hold that against him) and is a libertarian. He has a lot of great articles about dieting, the dangers of big pharma, big sugar, and big government. Check it out!

 

[Mick Bynes]

Excellent website!  I've known about it for a year now and it has extremely informative stuff.  When I used to be active on Facebook, I would share stuff from Natural News.  It's a highly essential site and everyone here should check it out.

[fractional slacker]

The following is my opinion and reflects my experience with reading Natural News on occasion. I feel a bit uneasy whenever I see a NN article. Why? On several occasions I have read articles full of hyperbole, sometimes misleading, and sometime outright false information. That's not to say it's 100% propaganda, of course not. My problem is how NN seems to cloak itself as almost altruistic by being alternative media- the flip side of mainstream news and thus noble. I think NN and Alex Jones are a natural fit. NN seems to have an agenda. I would suggest that agenda is not always truth nor objective. 

FWIW, my opinion has been influenced by the likes of Dr. Dean Edell (no longer on the radio) and I realize is therefore subject to criticism. Dr. Edell is highly skeptical of the supplement industry. I realize Dr Dean Edell also has an agenda, some might argue as pro-Big Pharma.

 

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

The following is my opinion and reflects my experience with reading Natural News on occasion. I feel a bit uneasy whenever I see a NN article. Why? On several occasions I have read articles full of hyperbole, sometimes misleading, and sometime outright false information. That's not to say it's 100% propaganda, of course not. My problem is how NN seems to cloak itself as almost altruistic by being alternative media- the flip side of mainstream news and thus noble. I think NN and Alex Jones are a natural fit. NN seems to have an agenda. I would suggest that agenda is not always truth nor objective. 

FWIW, my opinion has been influenced by the likes of Dr. Dean Edell (no longer on the radio) and I realize is therefore subject to criticism. Dr. Edell is highly skeptical of the supplement industry. I realize Dr Dean Edell also has an agenda, some might argue as pro-Big Pharma.

 

Your comments about NN and the Alex Jones connection rings true for me too.  I agree with quite a bit of what I see on NN but when tracing the references (those that are available to me, I sometimes feel that they have been taken out of context.  That criticism applies to a number of websites which repeat these news items almost verbatim often without citing the actual source so that I have to go searching for the reference.  AJ has proven himself to be a misinformation tool whether by design or accident and I cannot bear listening to his voice even if his messages were pure gold.

My opinions on health matters were mostly formed by the works of Dr Herbert M Shelton but reinforced or adjusted by numerous rogue doctors, scientists and alternative practitioners.  Indeed my opinions have been greatly impacted by close experience with practicing physicians and surgeons, most of whom are well meaning people who are locked into their programming.  They cannot see past their indoctrinated beliefs in their own righteousness and their drugs and scalpels.

I'm not familiar with Dr Edell but took a few minutes out to see what an internet search turned up.  I'm learning to pay attention to a man's critics before getting too involved in his own work and for that reason I refer you to this webpage for what it's worth.

 

[fractional slacker]

 

 

The following is my opinion and reflects my experience with reading Natural News on occasion. I feel a bit uneasy whenever I see a NN article. Why? On several occasions I have read articles full of hyperbole, sometimes misleading, and sometime outright false information. That's not to say it's 100% propaganda, of course not. My problem is how NN seems to cloak itself as almost altruistic by being alternative media- the flip side of mainstream news and thus noble. I think NN and Alex Jones are a natural fit. NN seems to have an agenda. I would suggest that agenda is not always truth nor objective. 

FWIW, my opinion has been influenced by the likes of Dr. Dean Edell (no longer on the radio) and I realize is therefore subject to criticism. Dr. Edell is highly skeptical of the supplement industry. I realize Dr Dean Edell also has an agenda, some might argue as pro-Big Pharma.

 

 

I'm not familiar with Dr Edell but took a few minutes out to see what an internet search turned up.  I'm learning to pay attention to a man's critics before getting too involved in his own work and for that reason I refer you to this webpage for what it's worth.

 

 

 

I only skimmed the webpage you referred to. Do I have this correct? A German Guy was railroaded (detained/deported to Canada) by the US Immigration Service for investigating/questioning history and Dr. Dean Edell publicly approved or cheered that fact (because Dr. Dean Edell was threatened by others questioning a historical event) ? 

If that's the case, it seems the German guy has bigger fish to fry, if you will. Dr. Dean Edell is also a proponent of forced fluoride consumption via public water - something I have  a problem with. There are other things I disagree with Dr. Dean Edell. However, I found his criticism of alternative health matters to be spot on. He used to refer to many of the alternative medicine treatments/fads as "faith based medicine" due to their lack of any scientific research or studies showing efficacy.

 

John, can I ask your opinion or take on dietary supplements as a means for improving health? For instance do you take a multi vitamin? Do you take any supplements?

[JohnDJasper]

 

I only skimmed the webpage you referred to. Do I have this correct? A German Guy was railroaded (detained/deported to Canada) by the US Immigration Service for investigating/questioning history and Dr. Dean Edell publicly approved or cheered that fact (because Dr. Dean Edell was threatened by others questioning a historical event) ?

That sounds like a good synopsis.  My main reason for referring to it is the idea that people can be imprisoned for questioning the official "facts" although ostensibly because it's considered "hate speech" to certain other peoples.  Nothing like freedom IMO.  I didn't catch the part about Edell being threatended so will have to revisit.

 

If that's the case, it seems the German guy has bigger fish to fry, if you will. Dr. Dean Edell is also a proponent of forced fluoride consumption via public water - something I have  a problem with. There are other things I disagree with Dr. Dean Edell. However, I found his criticism of alternative health matters to be spot on. He used to refer to many of the alternative medicine treatments/fads as "faith based medicine" due to their lack of any scientific research or studies showing efficacy.

Fully agree on flouride issue.  If it is a real need, we should be offered flouride tablets to allow us to control our intake instead of relying on getting the right amount through the water supply.  I also tend to agree with the unscientific criticisms of alternative health but the placebo affect has been proven effective about 30% of the time scientifically and homeopathy, for one, has been proven to be nothing more than a placebo so it's effectiveness exceeds that of most cancer treatments.  Homeopathists tend to spend more time with their patients which also carries a therapeutic benefit. The problem is managing expectations and charging according to the service being provided but once again, that's where the free market should play its part.  The big upside is that Homeopathists never amputate the wrong limb, overdose or mix contrary medicines or cause any of the other iatrogenic injuries that add up to the 3rd biggest killer in modern societies.  On the downside, one of their patients might occasionally die of an untreated mallady but I suspect that they would still be well ahead on points!

 

 

John, can I ask your opinion or take on dietary supplements as a means for improving health? For instance do you take a multi vitamin? Do you take any supplements?

 

I don't use them and I don't believe that they're good for you.  My idea of a supplement is the blended salad where I put a head of lettuce, cucumber, celery, tomato and other raw salad stuffs into a blender and turn it into a sort of gazpacho soup.  It makes it easier to consume a large salad on a daily basis without the jaw ache and pretty much insures a good intake of minerals and vitamins. Adding the odd brazil or other nut to the diet will help round out the selenium and other less available minerals.

I think that consuming processed minerals and vitamins as powders makes as much sense as getting your iron requirements from cereal with added ground up nails.  We're not designed to eat dirt but instead to eat the plants that synthesize dirt into usable nutrients or, if you're that way inclined, to eat the animals that eat those plants.  Reseach shows that high doses of certain processed vitamins can have a beneficial effect on the body where a deficiency has developed but as with all medications, theres the effect (benefit) that you see and the effect (price) that you don't see; the immediate sustaining of life possibly but the long term loss of quality of life due to damaged kidneys/livers/other organs.

I've learned that my fingernails give me a fair indication of the quality of my diet.  If I'm keeping up with the blended salads on a regular basis, my nails are in good shape.  If I leave them off for a week or more, I wind up with valleys in the nails and they become brittle.  Returning to the salads resolves the issue.  This implies that I'm not perfectly healthy if normal eating doesn't meet my requirements but after several decades of over-imbibing on the legal intoxicants, I'm not really surprised.

Online, you'll find mostly Naturopaths, etc who are wanting to supply your nutrient needs via supplement sales.  They may be right about their effectiveness but then again, would they argue against their product line?  Natural Hygienists are split between those who have demonstrated four or more decades of healthy living without supplements and those who believe that the modern environment is so taxing that supplements are necessary to stay healthy. It's tough to know who to believe and easy to worry that making the wrong choice could have an adverse impact on your future health.  I, for one, will trust in Mother Nature considering that she did a pretty good job with us for millions of years before we built the first pharmaceutical industry.  I'm not anti-science but I'm convinced that the most important ingredient of our food is the "living" part of it.  Once anything has been through the chemical mill that is the supplement extraction industry, there's no chance that any "life" still remains in it and a bottle of dead calcium, etc holds no appeal for me whatsoever.

What's your take on it?

 

[RestoringGuy]

 

If that's the case, it seems the German guy has bigger fish to fry, if you will. Dr. Dean Edell is also a proponent of forced fluoride consumption via public water - something I have  a problem with. There are other things I disagree with Dr. Dean Edell. However, I found his criticism of alternative health matters to be spot on. He used to refer to many of the alternative medicine treatments/fads as "faith based medicine" due to their lack of any scientific research or studies showing efficacy.

 

From my understanding, Edell is one of the few who speak out against the forced circumcision routine most American boys are subject to in our hospitals.  I can forgive drinking fluoride in my childhood.

[mythness]

What turns me off about NaturalNews, as mentioned before, is the hyperbole. Their articles would hold more weight if they dropped the over-the-top tone. I would read their articles more often and take them more seriously if they turned down the volume a bit. I actually like Joseph Mercola's site (mercola.com). Sometimes I wonder how he's able to hold his own in the sheer amount of stuff he writes and researches, and the numerous interviews he's done. Is he authentic and truly looking out for our best interests? No idea. But then again, I will read an article on WebMD, not because I believe they're "looking out for my best interest", but because it's nice to understand the pathology of a certain illness, for example. I have to give Mercola props for promoting coconut oil years ago, even before it became accepted as healthy. (Sadly, to this day, there are still some who use the same out-dated arguments against coconut oil, mostly from medical-oriented folks.)

[mythness]

 

 

If that's the case, it seems the German guy has bigger fish to fry, if you will. Dr. Dean Edell is also a proponent of forced fluoride consumption via public water - something I have  a problem with. There are other things I disagree with Dr. Dean Edell. However, I found his criticism of alternative health matters to be spot on. He used to refer to many of the alternative medicine treatments/fads as "faith based medicine" due to their lack of any scientific research or studies showing efficacy.

 

From my understanding, Edell is one of the few who speak out against the forced circumcision routine most American boys are subject to in our hospitals.  I can forgive drinking fluoride in my childhood.

 

 

Is he against forced cirumcision on principle, or for health reasons? If he opposes it on principle (infringement of invidual liberty), then it's hard to understand how, at the same time, he supports forced fluoridation. If he opposes forced circumcision due to health reasons, then it means he would accept forced circumcision if someone convinced him it iis ndeed the healthier option?

[mythness]

 

I think that consuming processed minerals and vitamins as powders makes as much sense as getting your iron requirements from cereal with added ground up nails.  We're not designed to eat dirt but instead to eat the plants that synthesize dirt into usable nutrients or, if you're that way inclined, to eat the animals that eat those plants.  Reseach shows that high doses of certain processed vitamins can have a beneficial effect on the body where a deficiency has developed but as with all medications, theres the effect (benefit) that you see and the effect (price) that you don't see; the immediate sustaining of life possibly but the long term loss of quality of life due to damaged kidneys/livers/other organs.

 

You might not have the intention, but you're lumping all supplements together. Homeopathy, isolated minerals and vitamins, probiotics, whole-food powders, herbal extracts, et al, are not the same thing. I also do not have as much faith in our soil and food quality as you do. No, I do not eat junk, but I don't think our food supply, even the "organic" stuff, is as good as it was 20, 50, 100 years ago.

 

Homeopathy, I dismiss simply because its story keeps changing and its very idea is interpreted differently between different companies. Even the official historical story about how homeopathy works makes no sense logically.

 

Isolated minerals and vitamins, while not a replacement to food, can be very beneficial for those who do not (or cannot) get it in their diet. It can also make a difference for someone with digestive disorders or special needs / lifestyle.

 

Probiotics are essentially microorganisms that fill the role of our natural gut flora. There's more to it than that, but it's a brief description. They cannot be categorized with things like multivitamins.

 

Whole-food powders are just that: concentrated / freeze-dried greens, fruits, herbs, et al, with the water removed. Fundamentally, the same as what you do with your salad mixes. However, companies will standardize the process and measurements.

 

Herbal extracts are simply a concentrate / extract from a therapeutic herb; many times they standardize a particular constituent (e.g, 95% curcumin from the turmeric rhizome). Some have heavy research behind them; others are purely anecdotal / historical use; and others have low to moderate research. Judge them for yourself. I've found some highly effective. I don't mind experimenting on myself if it's not life threatening (e.g, testing out standardized oregano oil on an upper-respiratory infection.)

 

I don't want to expose too much of my regimen, but I will share some:

I regularly take probiotics, and I make sure to go through different brands. I will also stretch out their use. (A 60-day supply I can stretch for 120 days by taking one every 2 days.)

I take a high-quality B-complex with every breakfast, once a day. This is my "insurance plan", and it's quite inexpensive. (This is probably the cheapest way to safeguard yourself in the long haul.)

I mix a powdered nutrient-dense plant concentrate with some juice. I do this on and off. Sometimes every day, and sometimes I'll skip a few days.

I will often throw in a dash of sodium ascorbate (or calcium ascorbate) into a drink or plate of food for non-acidic vitamin C. Kind of hard to overdose on vitamin C, and it's also fairly inexpensive, even for USP grade.

 

That's pretty much it, really. On occasion I will use specific herbal extracts when I feel they may help. (Recently, I went overboard with andrographis, echinacea, elderberry, zinc, and vitamin C when I felt I was coming down with a cold. Well, I did in fact get a cold, with all it's familiar phases, but it lasted only a couple of days. After these two days passed, I had to recover my lost energy, but the symptoms were already gone by then. Did I get lucky? Was it my immune system taking care of this on its own? Did I simply catch a head cold that ran a quick course? Or was it the indeed the supplements? How can I ever know, really. The previous time I got a cold, it lasted about a week, after which I had to recover my energy.)

 

So that's (sort of) my take on that.

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

From my understanding, Edell is one of the few who speak out against the forced circumcision routine most American boys are subject to in our hospitals.  I can forgive drinking fluoride in my childhood.

 

 Is he against forced cirumcision on principle, or for health reasons? If he opposes it on principle (infringement of invidual liberty), then it's hard to understand how, at the same time, he supports forced fluoridation. If he opposes forced circumcision due to health reasons, then it means he would accept forced circumcision if someone convinced him it iis ndeed the healthier option?

 

Both reasons.  I think he is a courageous voice surviving in America's tornado of ignorance.  if a few children drink flouride it is bad but I believe he is moving in the right ethical direction.  On the ethical question, I found the following quote:

 

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/02/dr-dean-edell-statement-on-circumcision.html

 

Ethically, the AAP walks a fine line. While they admit that parents and
physicians have an ethical duty to act in a child's best interest and
well being, they fall far short of recommending that we have an ethical duty to leave a child's genitals intact.



It seems clear to everyone that female circumcision is a gross and
obvious violation of this right to genital integrity, but somehow male
circumcision is not seen as extreme an intrusion. The AAP does say that,
"parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this
choice."

[mythness]

He's an interesting guy, and I'm all for people treating circumcision as mutilation. I have no problem, of course, if a person chooses on his own to be circumcised. I couldn't find much about Dean Edell. I did read a bit of his article on drmomma.org, as well as an interview about his  history and views on "alternative" medicine. Based on what he's been through, I can understand why he dismisses supplements and alternative medicine as a waste of time. However, it felt like the same reasons why some people reject "capitalism" because of their experiences with "greedy capitalists."

I didn't like medicine, I didn't like the pressure, and I wasn't sure what I was doing there. Here was the sixties happening! What a glorious time! I don't know if the twentieth century has seen anything like that. I look at the health movements, the environmental movements of today and that's where it all began. The Oriental philosophy, the diets, holistic health, environmental movement, equal rights for everybody--all these things blossomed in the sixties. It was a very special time, good and bad. I couldn't resist it. [...]

I was very interested in alternative medicine. I come from the beginning, where we debated whether to spell it "wholistic" or "holistic." I read all the books, all the wild and wacky stuff. I quickly saw what was happening: It was hit and miss, there was no evidence. I saw people with real disease getting their "vibes checked" and succumbing to their disease. I realized quickly that the information base wasn't there, as wishful as I was about wanting all that to be real.

That's what it was: the wish and the romance. It was the hippie thing to prove those cold, calculating scientists and doctors and the white tower wrong. That appealed to me, I've always been rebellious. But as hard as I tried, there wasn't anything to sink my teeth into. It was all guesswork. So I went off on my own path.

 

I don't take homeopathic pills. I don't get my "vibes checked". I don't do "muscle testing". I don't have people stick needles in me (acupuncture). I do, however, take a B-complex with every breakfast. I can make the distinction for myself. I don't jumble alternative medicine into one big group and call it "non-allopathic vs allopathic."

 

He later goes on to ask for the "proof" for their effectiveness. Fine. But I have yet to see the "proof" for the effectiveness of statins, of fluoride, of antibiotics, of hypertensive medication, of psychotropics, of "eat less, exercise more", of "essential" fatty acids, and so on. (Not simply their effectiveness, per se, but how they are currently used. Antibiotics for a life-threatening infection is a modern miracle.) I would also like to see how focusing on acute symptoms is more effective than preventative measures. Sure, an aspirin can knock out a headache. But if you suffer from frequent headaches, perhaps it's about time to figure out why (magnesium deficient?), make the changes (magnesium citrate daily?), and see how much it helps (fewer headaches? decreased severity?)

 

If I listened to the doctor, I would be taking two weeks of antibiotics to get red of this infection I currently have. I have yet to get the prescription filled (unknown to him), since I am going to let it run its course without intervention. It's day 3 now, and already the inflammation is beginning to subside on its own. Now, let us say it does heal on its own. What are the implications? I would have done myself more harm than good had I simply followed the advice of the "established" medical protocols. Personally, I don't take that too lightly.

[JohnDJasper]

 

...

I don't want to expose too much of my regimen, but I will share some:

I regularly take probiotics, and I make sure to go through different brands. I will also stretch out their use. (A 60-day supply I can stretch for 120 days by taking one every 2 days.)

I take a high-quality B-complex with every breakfast, once a day. This is my "insurance plan", and it's quite inexpensive. (This is probably the cheapest way to safeguard yourself in the long haul.)

I mix a powdered nutrient-dense plant concentrate with some juice. I do this on and off. Sometimes every day, and sometimes I'll skip a few days.

I will often throw in a dash of sodium ascorbate (or calcium ascorbate) into a drink or plate of food for non-acidic vitamin C. Kind of hard to overdose on vitamin C, and it's also fairly inexpensive, even for USP grade.

 

That's pretty much it, really. On occasion I will use specific herbal extracts when I feel they may help. (Recently, I went overboard with andrographis, echinacea, elderberry, zinc, and vitamin C when I felt I was coming down with a cold. Well, I did in fact get a cold, with all it's familiar phases, but it lasted only a couple of days. After these two days passed, I had to recover my lost energy, but the symptoms were already gone by then. Did I get lucky? Was it my immune system taking care of this on its own? Did I simply catch a head cold that ran a quick course? Or was it the indeed the supplements? How can I ever know, really. The previous time I got a cold, it lasted about a week, after which I had to recover my energy.)

 

So that's (sort of) my take on that.

 

Thanks for the very helpful response.  Although I choose not to use supplements (at least at the moment,) they are recommended by various alternative experts and it is a huge industry.  I'm very glad that it is working for you.

On the subject of colds, as a subscriber to the philosophy of Natural Hygiene, I believe that colds are the outword signs of the body's attempts to detoxify itself.  I can (and recently did in the run-up to Christmas) bring on a cold by eating too much rich food, spending too much time in stuffy rooms, getting too lax on my exercise program and burning the candle at both ends.  All of this increases the toxic burden on the body while simultaneously reducing the effectiveness of the elimination pathways.  Once toxicity reaches a dangerous, organ-threatening level, the body will open up extraordinary elimination pathways using the mucous membranes (eyes, ears, sinuses, bronchials,) re-direct vital energy to the elimination process thus leaving the body feeling weak with a reduced/absent appetite and  increase metabolism often resulting in higher temperature.  Once the body reaches a safe level, these symptoms will disappear of their own accord.

From that viewpoint, the occurrence of a cold would be a reflection of the internal state of the body and the duration might be due to the seriousness of that state or a reflection of how much energy was available to accomplish the house-cleaning activity.  If the patient spends a lot of time resting, avoiding food but drinking sufficient water to meet their needs and does not complicate matters by ingesting "remedies" of any sort, the body will be able to focus on the job at hand and quickly return to health.  If, instead, the patient remains active, eating regular meals and taking medicines to relieve the symptoms, the cold is likely to take a long time to resolve.

How would supplements influence this scenario?  If the supplements are supporting excellent health, then the body will be better able to resolve these crises when they occur.  If, instead, the supplements are working against the body, then they will drain energy which may reduce the effectiveness of the elimination processes thus leading to a cold or other acute illness.

I'm not saying that I'm right but just showing how I believe it works.