Allergies? Log Out | Topics | Search
Hairloss-Reversible Home Page | Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Hairloss-reversible.com » Nutrition and Hair Health » Allergies? « Previous Next »

Author Message
 

Eric R.
Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 02:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Tom,

I was wondering if you knew anything about getting tested for any certain types of allergies. Here is a web-site I found that I think answers some initial questions about getting an allergy test and what it may or may not involve. I am going to contact my family doctor and see what he recommends but I was wondering if you or anyone on this forum knew anything about having allergy testing done?...

http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/allergy/452.html
 

Eric
Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Here is probably one of the best articles I have ever read. All humans better reconsider milk...


http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.html?content=articles/enzymes_longevity. html
 

Tom Hagerty
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 09:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Eric:

That is a good article. I like this from the article:

"The vitamins we're talking about here are not the synthetic ones you usually see in the grocery store. Only natural whole food vitamins can collaborate with enzymes."

Click on the link in this article and read Tim O'Shea's Whole Food Vitamins: Ascorbic Acid Is Not a Vitamin. Here's a quotation from this article:

"Amazing as it may sound if you're hearing this for the first time, vitamins are more than the synthetic fractions we are commonly taught they are. The ascorbic acid you buy at the grocery store every few weeks, thinking you are buying Vitamin C, is just a chemical copy of naturally occurring ascorbic acid, which itself is still only a fraction of the actual Vitamin C. Real vitamin C is part of something living, and as such, can impart life. Your synthetic, fractionated chemical ascorbic acid never grew in the ground, never saw the light of day, never was alive or part of anything alive. It's a chemical, a cornstarch derivative, a sulfuric acid by-product. In your body it's just another drug. Synthetic vitamins have toxic effects from mega-doses and actually can increase the white blood cell count. Vitamins are only necessary in minute quantities on a daily basis."

This paragraph is about ascorbic acid but it could apply to other synthetic vitamins too. That's the reason I prefer to get my nutrients from real foods if I can. Brewer's yeast, cod liver oil, and flax seeds powder are real foods even if they are sold by supplement companies.
 

Eric R.
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 09:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Tom,

Here is another article from Dr. Mercola I need your opinion on... He says that sunscreen is toxic and should never be used, and never to get burned it the sun, but sun exposure is OK, just as long as you don't get burned?....He also goes on to say that sunscreens do not work at all...

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jun/19/sun.htm
 

Ty
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Everyone,

It's funny how Dr. Mercola sometimes contradicts himself. Here's two examples. Both paragraphs talk about SUGAR.

"You can also eat more flavanoids generally. With Valentine's Day only a few days past, it is interesting that specially processed chocolate may actually be an incredible source of these useful anti aging tools." (Dr. Mercola)

"Nearly all of us are addicted to sugar. There is not one single food item that is generally more damaging to health. The problem is that most of us are addicted to it. The Hellers in their book, Carbohydrate Addicts, discuss the evidence supporting this link. I do not agree with their one hour reward meal, but otherwise the book helps one understand the depth of this problem." (Dr. Mercola)





 

Dr. Gene Palermo
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

I tend to stay away from Mercola's site. I think he confuses people because he sometimes states his personal opinion rather than scientifical fact.

Tom, good post on the vitamin C. Not too many people realize that most vitamins are synthetic. There are however some natural supplements on the market, but they are a bit pricey.

 

Tom Hagerty
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 01:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Eric, Ty, and Gene:

I'm sure we'll all have to admit that Dr. Mercola is persuasive because his writing style is clear and positive. He also taps into a prevalent attitude that the establishment (doctors, pharmaceutical companies, the FDA) is out to get us. But getting beyond the polish of his prose, I think you'll find as Dr. Palermo wrote - "he sometimes states his personal opinion rather than scientific fact."

1. Dr. Mercola states that sunscreens do not work - "Although the American Academy of Dermatology will have you bathing in sunscreen, it is one of the LAST things you want to put on your body. It is a toxic chemical that can cause problems in your system. Even if it didn't contribute to disease, the central issue is that it doesn't even work."

But Dr. Mercola has a special definition for "not work." By not work he means that sunscreens do not prevent melanoma, the most serious type of skin cancer. There is controversy now about whether melanomas are caused by unprotected sun exposure. Perhaps they are not. There is no doubt, though, that unprotected sun exposure causes the two less severe types of skin cancer - basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Long-term unprotected sun exposure (and not just severe sunburn) also does permanent damage to the skin. It makes the skin look blemished and dried-out as we age.

In a way, Dr. Mercola is right though. Sunscreen may cause more harm than good. People who slather on tubes on sunscreen think they are completely protected and therefore stay out in the sun all day long. A bad idea.

Most of the studies about the safety of sunscreens give these unpronounceable chemicals a clean bill of health. But some studies done mostly in vitro (in test tubes) suggest that there may be DNA damage because of sunscreen use. I don't use sucscreen myself, but then I rarely go out in the sun without a hat. If I take a long bicycle ride, it's after 5:00 p.m.

2. Dr. Mercola states that lack of sun is associated with certain cancers - "If you choose to ignore your omega 6:3 ratio and stay out of the sun, you could limit your risk of skin cancer, but is that worth the risk of getting MS, breast or prostate cancer?"

He says that you may be susceptible to breast or prostate cancer if you don't get the optimum amount of vitamin D. He says that the best way to get vitamin D is from "UV-B exposure from sunlight."

I think the best way to get sufficient vitamin D is from cod liver oil. I get Emulsified Cod Liver Oil, mint flavor, from Swanson. One tablespoon gives you 470 IU or about 120 percent of what you need - and it doesn't damage your skin.

3. Personal comment - I know a topic like this is a sensitive one. The belief of some people about the benefits of the sun is almost like a religious conviction. A friend of mine in a suburb of Chicago would spend hours sunning herself in the noonday sun without any protection. She thought sunscreen was a poison. She would not listen to any "anti-sun propaganda." This beautiful 40-year-old woman's skin was damaged beyond belief.

I'm sure some true believers in the benefits of the sun won't like this message. I hope they won't be too hard on me if they respond to my ideas.
 

worried
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 04:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Tom, I read in the letter you sent me with the booklet that sun exposure has a bad effect on the hair follicles. Can you explain exactly how the suns rays might damage the hair follicles. You gave the examples of professional tennis players like Pete Sampras and Andre Aggassi who play grueling three out of five set matches under the noonday sun. These young guys lost tons of hair. I am in the sun a lot in the summer. I am worried.
 

Tom Hagerty
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Worried:

I can't explain how sun exposure specifically damages the cells of the hair follicles. Prolonged, unprotected sun exposure damages all skin cells though. Hair follicle cells are just specialized skin cells.

There are two types of sun rays. UVA penetrates between 165 and 250 micrometers into the skin; UVB penetrates between 20 and 50 micrometers into the skin. The UVA rays are most damaging to the skin cells.

UVA produces a cascade destructive free radicals that can damage the cell membranes. Some researchers claim that UVA also suppresses the immune system by damaging the Langerhans cells in the epidermis. Certainly unprotected sun exposure damages or destroys the collagen under the surface of the skin. All of this is not conducive to healthy hair.

But moderation is the key word. You can't hide from the sun in a dark hole. Enjoy the sun but don't get too much of it in the hours between 10:00 and 4:00.

By the way, UVA rays can get through glass; UVB, the rays that cause sunburn, cannot. So you can't get sunburned while driving in a car with your windows up, but you can still get skin damage from the UVA.
 

Eric R.
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 03:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Tom,

I agree 100%. I know this girl that I go to college with is very pale and just looks like a ghost. She's very unattractive. I like girls that have tans.

There was also this older lady that went to the same pool as me and she'd be out there every day, AND I NEVER SAW HER PUT ANY SUNSCREN ON. Her face had so many wrinkles and the wrinkles were so deeply embedded that she looked like a freak, and when I say this I mean she looked like a big piece of burnt steak.

I believe moderation is the key to everything, well, except for prayer.

Thanks Tom!

 

Tom Hagerty
Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Eric:

You wrote, "I believe moderation is the key to everything, well, except for prayer."

What does this mean? Do you believe in a lot of prayer or no prayer?
 

Eric
Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 04:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Tom,

Sorry if you or anyone else misinterpreted me... I mean we should be praying a lot... I believe strongly in prayer.

Eric
 

Eric R.
Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 10:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Bread and crisps in cancer risk scare

I strongly believe in eliminating "ALL" bread from our diets. Since I have cut out bread, my breakouts I got have totally cleared up. I attribute this not only to the elimination of bread, but also eliminating anything with high-fructose corn syrup, sugar (except that of USDA organic yogurt), pasta, and cereal.

Please read this article;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1949413.stm

 

Tom Hagerty
Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 07:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Acrylamide and Cancer

In April 24 2002, swedish Livsmedelsverket (National Food Administration) alarmed that acrylamide may be a carcinogen, and concern was raised as it can be found in small quantities in baked and cooked foods, such as potato chips and breads. It is believed to be created in foods when starches and other carbohydrates are overheated far past 100°C. Some sources claim that people in the modern world consume daily on average around 25 micrograms of acrylamide, and that this accounts for a significant number of cases of cancer.

However, since then, further research has not revealed any connection between acrylamide intake via food and cancer in the large intestine, rectum, bladder, or kidneys. And in 2005, in a cooperation between Harvard School of Public Health and swedish Karolinska Institutet, researchers were seeking a connection between acrylamide and breast cancer, but could not find any in that case either, as revealed in a press release published March 15, 2005. The current opinion among most researchers is therefore that former acrylamide reports have been exaggerated by media, although with the caveat that any substance in "astronomical doses" can still be dangerous to any organism, including humans. However, in the case of acrylamide, such doses are currently believed to be far greater than the acrylamide intake from food. Unfortunately, warnings by media had sometimes been misunderstood. For example, there were earlier reports of 200-700 swedes dying annually due to acrylamide intake via food; however these results were in fact based on lab rats.

However, acrylamide may still be a carcinogen if exposed to it in larger doses. There are limited evidence large doses can cause damage to the male reproductive glands. Direct exposure to pure acrylamide by inhalation, skin absorption, or eye contact irritates the exposed mucous membranes, e.g. the nose, and can also cause sweating, urinary incontinence, nausea, myalgia, speech disorders, numbness, paresthesia, and weakened legs and hands.
 

pete1
Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 04:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

" was wondering if you knew anything about getting tested for any certain types of allergies. Here is a web-site I found that I think answers some initial questions about getting an allergy test and what it may or may not involve. I am going to contact my family doctor and see what he recommends but I was wondering if you or anyone on this forum knew anything about having allergy testing done?"


I do a few things which have reversed my allergies:

1)raise glutathione levels
2)inhibit bacteria/ viral / fungal / parasites
3)increase Growth factors to heal any damage to the gut lining
 

Anonymous
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 01:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Yeah. How did you do that?

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.