Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Virus Induced Obesity - what the hell!?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Woohhh i cant believe how much controversy and interesting info that has surfaced from my thread. Thats all i have to say as its going to take me a bit to go through the piles of new info since i last logged on, absolutely brilliant!
yikes! keep it up yall!





EDIT:............
...........yikes??? woohhh im becoming old *shudders*

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Shadow88]




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Wow Hamburglar, that last post was.....I don't know, it was so all over the place in your desperate effort to imply I'm some uneducated, personal agenda pusher, people may have missed 'your personal agenda' and thought you were being unbias, and I'm just crazy. Ahh, that is, what your post was!

So we all get that you have no qualms, doubts or concerns about any and all vaccinations, ever.
Infact, you seem to state that anyone who believes vaccinations have or can, do any harm, of any sort, to anyone is, "at odds with modern medicine".

Would that include the doctors who tell people they aren't medically fit enough to be safely vaccinated?

Would that include all the doctors who treat children with vaccine induced illness?

Would that include all the drug company scientists who have developed "new", "better", "safer" vaccines?

Your wildly raging, 'all vaccines, are always, all good, and NEVER harmfull, so lets vaccinate people against getting fat', industry promotion speach; no scub that, it was a "rant"; anyway, it makes me feel you have some personal investment in the industry.
Maybe you made an early investment in a company that will soon bring out an anti-fat vaccine, instead of investing in gold, so you're, 'a bit touchy'.

As for you calling me, "mentally ill", for stating the natural life expectancy of healthy, uninjured people....surely you're not one of those children who believe, "in the olden days, 30 was old age and everyone was dead before 50", so why try to sell that as fact? Just to build a platform from which to call me mentally ill?

Some facts, for children reading this thread, who may be tricked into believing that's what your statistic ment.
PERSON, YEAR OF DEATH, AGE;
U.S. Pres. John Adams - 1826, 91.
Benadict Arnold - 1801, 60.
Lord Baden-Powell - 1941, 83.
Danial Boone - 1820, 86.
Buffalo Bill - 1917, 71.
Davy Crockett - 1836, 50, but died "fighting at battle" of the Alamo.
Hernan Cortes - 1547, 62.
Geronimo - 1909, 80.
Haile Selassie - 1975, 83.
Herbert Hoover - 1964, 90.
U.S. Pres. Thomas Jefferson - 1826, 83.
Sitting Bull - 1890, 56, killed.
Imogen Cunningham - 1976, 93.
Edward Jenner - 1823, 74. (for you Hamburglar, the 'father' of vaccination)

So kiddies, 'you' can all see people don't 'need' drugs and 'modern medicine' to live past 49.24 years. Funny though, that many died that age and younger building the drug company owners skyscrapers, because of the highly dangerous work conditions.

Oh, and as for all those Americans living in pockets of "Third World Conditions" and on the street, tell them they don't live in poverty, but you'll have to get off your p.c. and tell them face to face, how good their lives are.

I don't worry about the condition of your 'mind' Hamburglar.
You really thought about, how to stop people thinking about any 'possible' connection between vaccination and an obesity virus, and encouraged them to look forward to being vaccinated against getting fat, but I truely do worry about your 'heart'.

Did you know that vets in America, now have to provide a warning about the many side effects of vaccination, to pet owners before giving them, because of a successfull class action suit?
Did you know that 'modern' cats and dogs have become fat and full of cancers?
They share an enviroment and vaccinaton in common with their owners, but not fast food and video games. But lets not think, let alone talk about these "facts", Hamburglar doesn't like it.

P.S. If it wasn't for your desperate, nasty attack on my 'suggesting' there 'may' be a connection between obesity viruses and vaccination, I doubt anyone would have bothered to take their mind down that road, but now I ask people to look into correlating those related statistics. This is a conspiracy site, after all.



[edit on 11-1-2006 by suzy ryan]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Suzy and Hamburglar - I researched my butt off and made a detailed post at the bottom of the last page. So please - don't feud. Just read my stuff and comment, okay?

Love ya both, sofi



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Soficrow, your whole arguement is medically unsound. What you're doing is pinpointing ONE symptom of various disease and saying that these diseases are a direct link to obesity. Any physician can tell you that multisystem failure will lead to weight gain in some instances. You know why? Your body can't process sugars appropriately when biliary organs are not working properly, leading to sugar being stored as fat. Saying that neurotoxins lead to obesity is misleading. The neurotoxins don't do it. The multisystem organ failure, which can be caused by viruses, backteria, toxins, environmental hazards, genetics disorders, etc. can cause obesity. That would be like me saying certain strains fo bacteria cause loss of appetite when in fact it's your body's immune response to ANY bacteria which causes the loss of appetite (an actual symptom of chronic infection due to your body's cytokine response). It's scientifically irresponsible to claim that a handful of pathogens can cause a health problem that is in all actuality due to multisystem failure, or even specific singular system failure, that nearly all pathogens can cause given time and circumstance.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
My previous post

Originally posted by Shadow88
On par with being able to find cures for some types of obesity, some might be interested that we apparently have a 6th taste sensation (other than sweet, salty, bitter etc). The fat taste buds.

Yes they state that we can actually experience a taste sensation of fat (which of course like sweet tasting, sour, bitter, salty etc are all pleasurable in theirown ways), leading perhaps to addiction and you know how the rest goes. Link

Also whats this?Contraversial device claims to "melt away" fat

Oh and this ones obvious...but now they have a direct link which is always good.Metabolism rules weight loss?

Finally i think this may be related to the last one but i havent read it properly. Fat busting jab. the new liposuction?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Soficrow, your whole arguement is medically unsound.


bsl4doc - I wrote my previous post in response to your challenge and queries. You said the articles I listed as coming from a search for induced obesity had nothing to do with obesity, and challenged me to explain their relevance to the topic. I did so.

In the process, I identified the fact that the evidence suggests very clearly that the obesity epidemic results directly from endemic contamination of the food supply with myco- and neurotoxins. Evidence also suggests that GM food is linked to obesity.

Now you are saying, "There is no problem. Move along now."

Deep. Unbiased. Well thought out. Well-documented. Bravo. /sarcasm.






[edit on 12-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
My previous post

Originally posted by Shadow88
On par with being able to find cures for some types of obesity, some might be interested that we apparently have a 6th taste sensation (other than sweet, salty, bitter etc). The fat taste buds.

Yes they state that we can actually experience a taste sensation of fat (which of course like sweet tasting, sour, bitter, salty etc are all pleasurable in theirown ways), leading perhaps to addiction and you know how the rest goes. Link

Also whats this?Contraversial device claims to "melt away" fat

Oh and this ones obvious...but now they have a direct link which is always good.Metabolism rules weight loss?

Finally i think this may be related to the last one but i havent read it properly. Fat busting jab. the new liposuction?


I'll let somebody else go first on those rides. Why am I always skeptical of the latest, greatest fat-burning pill/solution? Oh yeah, 'cause there are 600 of them on TV or at the GNC, and none of them work.

Maybe they're onto something this time. Maybe not. I'll let someone else be the test monkey.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

bsl4doc - I wrote my previous post in response to your challenge and queries. You said the articles I listed as coming from a search for induced obesity had nothing to do with obesity, and challenged me to explain their relevance to the topic. I did so.

In the process, I identified the fact that the evidence suggests very clearly that the obesity epidemic results directly from endemic contamination of the food supply with myco- and neurotoxins. Evidence also suggests that GM food is linked to obesity.

Now you are saying, "There is no problem. Move along now."

Deep. Unbiased. Well thought out. Well-documented. Bravo.


No, what I said was that obesity can occur from any type of multisystem or singular acute system failure. If the liver can biliary system fail and cannot properly breakdown fats, leading to diabetes among other conditions, yes, mild weight gain and in some instances obesity may occur. You are taking one effect of about 2,000 different disease, toxins, environmental chemicals, etc. and boiling it down to one or two viruses which happen to shop up in 20% of obese people. Did you ever stop to think that the reason 30% of obese people show this virus is because obesity lowers your immune system? It does. If you took a high school biology class, you can apply the theory of cell volume to a human. Surface area increases by a square, volume increases by a cube. Now, when you have twice the normal volume of someone your height, your immune and circulatory system have to provide vessels for twice as much volume, but they do not produce extra lymphocytes, meaning it is easier to get a bacterial or viral infection as your defenses are not as strong. Also, when you are obese, your diet, assuming you eat an unhealthy one which most likely is the case for most obese people, not all, but most, puts an extra strain on certain organs like the liver (huge hot spot for white blood cell activity). Thus, doesn't it make sense that maybe, since these people already have lower immune systems, that this virus is simply opportunistic and THIS is why the virus shows up prevalently in obese people?

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Seems to me you are supporting the corporate-medical position that only acute symptoms are worthy of attention, and only direct cause-and-effect relationships are of legitimate concern.

I stated clearly that obesity-related syndromes are multifactorial - meaning that many factors contribute to disease. I also said chronic exposure to low level biotoxin contaminations creates chronic disease - which now is epidemic in the world.

My focus is to investigate the factors and relationships between the factors. It appears to me that your agenda is to prevent fruitful investigation.


.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Seems to me you are supporting the corporate-medical position that only acute symptoms are worthy of attention, and only direct cause-and-effect relationships are of legitimate concern.

I stated clearly that obesity-related syndromes are multifactorial - meaning that many factors contribute to disease. I also said chronic exposure to low level biotoxin contaminations creates chronic disease - which now is epidemic in the world.

My focus is to investigate the factors and relationships between the factors. It appears to me that your agenda is to prevent fruitful investigation.


So...you are suggesting that despite the fact that modern medicine has made leaps and bounds in even the alst 10 years, we are approaching in the wrong direction? And you are suggesting that we somehow step outside the bounds of biological science (seeing as biological science is about cause and effect relationships) and somehow see relationships which aren't entirely there? As, just for your own information, I am not pro "corporate-medicine", I am actually an intern (3rd year medical student) in a public hospital that works with my university in Firenze. My country has almost wholly socialized healthcare. Now, remind me where the corporate part of that comes into play? I do my work and study in my classes so that I can learn to treat people. And, believe it or not, nearly every pathogen has characteristic acute symptoms, such as elevated acidosis, chronic headaches, etc. The symptoms are too numerous to name here. When you say we are "treating" the acute symptoms, you are incorrent. We do not treat symptoms. We treat what we feel best fits the profile BASED on the symptoms. We do what's called a SOAP evaluation (subjective, objective, assessment, and plan). We get information on the patient's complaints, their history, we perform tests to find a conclusive answer, and then we treat the pathogen or condition in a way as safe for the patient as possible. We do not, by any means, simply treat just the acute headache accompanying meningitis, or just the back pain associated with a pinched disc. This is ludicrous. I still stand by my statement that the virus presence could be due to a semi-compromised immune system.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
On the virus line of thought....

We could engineer a virus to do the exact opposite of the virus in question right? Why not?

Or whats to stop us engineering a (curable, non contageous) virus that rapidly increases the metabolism of its host?

Or nanobots which fill sacks attached to themselves with fat and redirect it to the bowels, where its excreted from the body?

Fat eating virus?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
And you are suggesting that we somehow step outside the bounds of biological science (seeing as biological science is about cause and effect relationships)


Yes.




and somehow see relationships which aren't entirely there?


Systems biology is cutting edge - molecular biologists now are working with physicists - great leaps and strides are occurring in multi-disciplinary projects and organizations.




believe it or not, nearly every pathogen has characteristic acute symptoms, such as elevated acidosis, chronic headaches, etc. The symptoms are too numerous to name here.


This is what is recognized. The fact that chronic disease now is epidemic worldwide illustrates clearly that the dogma is missing something - chronic diseases do not happen overnight, nor are they solely the product of an individuals lifestyle.

Everything comes together to have a biological effect - and science is just now getting on the problem. But it is getting on it.



I still stand by my statement that the virus presence could be due to a semi-compromised immune system.


Absolutely - cutting edge science in systems biology also makes it quite clear that other factors almost are guaranteed to be involved as well. Some of the most obvious factors contributing to compromised immune systems are:

* chronic low level exposures to biotoxins in food;

* chronic low level exposure to hormones and hormone-like compounds in the food supply and personal products;

* electromagnetic pollution;

* chemical pollution;



BTW - Congratulations on your medical studies. Gotta say tho, you guys have it EASY in Italy. I do not know anyone who went through med school with more than 15 minutes of personal time each day - for showering and toileting, socializing, and having a life. You need to know that you are lucky to have so much time to play on the net!



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

quote: Originally posted by bsl4doc
And you are suggesting that we somehow step outside the bounds of biological science (seeing as biological science is about cause and effect relationships)


Yes.


quote:
and somehow see relationships which aren't entirely there?


Systems biology is cutting edge - molecular biologists now are working with physicists - great leaps and strides are occurring in multi-disciplinary projects and organizations.



Biologists have always worked in interdisciplinary projects. We depend on physicists for better microscopy technology, we depend on chemists for cheaper and more efficient enzymes, etc. This has been going on for pretty much the entire history of modern medicine, at least as far back as Jenner. This does not, however, mean the face of modern medicine is changing to face the "chronic" conditions you mention, most of which are just the untreated forms of acute diseases. There is a lot or work going on in the field of genetically engineered viruses, etc.


quote:
believe it or not, nearly every pathogen has characteristic acute symptoms, such as elevated acidosis, chronic headaches, etc. The symptoms are too numerous to name here.


This is what is recognized. The fact that chronic disease now is epidemic worldwide illustrates clearly that the dogma is missing something - chronic diseases do not happen overnight, nor are they solely the product of an individuals lifestyle.

Everything comes together to have a biological effect - and science is just now getting on the problem. But it is getting on it.



So now you are lumping every chronic disease into one large disease category? Shame on you. That is like saying ALL headaches should be classified as one type of illness. This just simply isn't how you classify diseases. Some chronic conditions can appear overnight in the case of lingering effects from poisons or an injury. Some chronic diseases are the result of ignoring an easily treatable disease until it develops into a late stage infection or cancer, etc. I agree that a few, not many, but a few, cases of obesity can be linked to thyroid or other hormonal problems or genetic problems. Most, however, can be linked to lifestyle. How else would you explain cases where one sibling is obese and the other isn't? They've been in the same household, exposed to the same toxins, same environment, but maybe one is more athletic or drinks more water instead of high fructose corn syrup filled drinks? That does indeed make a difference.


quote: I still stand by my statement that the virus presence could be due to a semi-compromised immune system.


Absolutely - cutting edge science in systems biology also makes it quite clear that other factors almost are guaranteed to be involved as well. Some of the most obvious factors contributing to compromised immune systems are:

* chronic low level exposures to biotoxins in food;

* chronic low level exposure to hormones and hormone-like compounds in the food supply and personal products;

* electromagnetic pollution;

* chemical pollution;

So you're basically just proving my point by saying that by eating biotoxins in processed foods (linked to obesity), eating hormone treated meat products (also possibly linked to obesity among other conditions), and pollution (which can indeed cause compromised immune system), you can compromise your immune system while becoming obese. The compromised immune system seen in obesity isn't always exclusively due to the excess fat. It can be caused by the types of chemicals you ingest and are exposed to. Obviously, someone who eats healthier will not become obese most likely due to both fewer trans fats and fatty foods, as well as lower exposure to these immunosuppresant chemicals, leading to both a healthier immune system and low body weight.



BTW - Congratulations on your medical studies. Gotta say tho, you guys have it EASY in Italy. I do not know anyone who went through med school with more than 15 minutes of personal time each day - for showering and toileting, socializing, and having a life. You need to know that you are lucky to have so much time to play on the net!


Congratulation on not knowing anything about the medical education system! The third and fourth years are comprised of hospital internships, just like in the United States. It means we have no classes, we learn by doing, and we typically work 12 hours and have off for 12 hours, just like in the United States, also. But, thanks for being critical of me on an issue you know nothing about! Lends real creedence to your post. A domani!

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Well, we all seem to agree that the immune system is the frame that holds up our general health. Hurt that and "dis"-ease will follow.

So why is the one great artificial assult on our immune system, vaccination, such a 'no go' aspect of this subject?

As I've already mentioned, working with animals, we found the general health of animals always seemed to be more negatively effected, overall, in the vaccinated stock. It particularly stood out in siblings and closely, geneticly related animals.

Skin complaints, cancers, fertility and obesity, in particular, were worse in the vaccinated, and the overall health, actually improved in those unvaccinated and their successive, unvaccinated, generations.

In our case, we were looking for the geneticaly stronger family, but found vaccination and drug relience to have a greater negative influence than the genetic background.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc


BTW - Congratulations on your medical studies. Gotta say tho, you guys have it EASY in Italy. I do not know anyone who went through med school with more than 15 minutes of personal time each day - for showering and toileting, socializing, and having a life. You need to know that you are lucky to have so much time to play on the net!


Congratulation on not knowing anything about the medical education system! The third and fourth years are comprised of hospital internships, just like in the United States. It means we have no classes, we learn by doing, and we typically work 12 hours and have off for 12 hours, just like in the United States, also. But, thanks for being critical of me on an issue you know nothing about! Lends real creedence to your post. A domani!




Hmmm. I congratulated you, and said you were luckier than your medical peers across the Atlantic. But you lash out. And attack my credibility. Yet again. Curious.

Newsflash - Reducing intern's shifts to 16 hours reduces number of medical errors




The rate of serious medical errors committed by first-year doctors in training (interns) in two intensive care units (ICUs) at a Boston hospital fell significantly when traditional 30-hour-in-a-row extended work shifts were eliminated and when interns' continuous work schedule was limited to 16 hours, according to two complementary studies published in the October 28, 2004, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Both studies were funded by HHS' Agency for Healthcare Research (AHRQ) and Quality and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Interns made 36 percent more serious medical errors, including five times as many serious diagnostic errors, on the traditional schedule than on an intervention schedule that limited scheduled work shifts to 16 hours and reduced scheduled weekly work from approximately 80 hours to 63. The rate of serious medication errors was 21 percent greater on the traditional schedule than on the new schedule.

In the first research of its kind on the impact of lack of sleep on the safety of hospital care, researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston eliminated the traditional schedule that required interns-doctors who have completed medical school and are finishing their medical training by working in the hospital-to work "extended duration work shifts" of approximately 30 consecutive hours every other shift. Under the traditional schedule, interns in hospital ICUs were scheduled to work approximately 80 hours per week. Under the intervention schedule that was tested in the studies, the "extended duration work shift" was eliminated, and weekly scheduled work hours were decreased by approximately 20 hours. Interns also were encouraged to sleep on their time off and to take naps before night shifts.








[edit on 12-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
So you think posting an article about American intern work ethics has anything at all to do with Italian medical students? Wow, your logic never ceases to amaze me. I work 12 solid hours in the hospital every day of the week, save Sunday. On top of that, I have roughly 20 hours per week or paper work and research to do. So if you are trying to imply that I am doing less work than an American medical student, you need to get off your high horse, stay on topic, and stop being so condescending. Ciao.

~MFP



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88

We could engineer a virus to do the exact opposite of the virus in question right? Why not?


Been done.


But it only works for the specific virus targeted, and does not touch other microbes or deal with other factors.




Or whats to stop us engineering a (curable, non contageous) virus that rapidly increases the metabolism of its host?

Or nanobots which fill sacks attached to themselves with fat and redirect it to the bowels, where its excreted from the body?

Fat eating virus?




Those things are in the works too. But IMO - we just need to clean up the world. Then most of the problem would go away along with all the contributing factors.




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The research is out there, and the evidence is strong - but many people still want blame obesity on a character flaw. Interesting. Wonder why that is? And why the deflection is so very very persistent.

Makes me think that these viruses are present in consumer products and "science" is being manipulated -yet again- to protect business and screw ordinary people.






At least three viruses may cause humans to gain weight, a finding that could explain why obesity can affect many people in the same region over relatively short periods. ...According to a study published in this month's American Journal of Physiology- Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, scientists now think a vaccine could prevent some people from becoming obese. ...In the United States alone, the prevalence of obesity among adults has doubled in recent years and it has tripled among children.

"There is a strong social bias against such findings because many people want to believe obesity is due to an individual's lack of control on some personal, mental level, but we now think viruses may be a factor," said Leah Whigham, lead author of the study and a research associate in the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

The viruses are transmitted by direct contact and through the air. ...Since 50 such viruses could be involved and all require further study, Whigham thinks a vaccine could take 5 to 10 years or more to develop.

Study: Virus Causes Obesity




posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I'm sure if there is even one case of virus linked obesity out there, a corporation is working on a vaccine to fix it and make a buck. Although, when they do make one, will you just accuse them of spreading disease like you did in the population control thread? There's just no pleasing some people...

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Hamberglar, you vaccinate against viruses with manipulated viruses, it's very much on topic.



Very much on topic Suzy because that is exactly what they plan to do in these studies is to find a vaccination to combat these obesity causing viruses...

as for scientifc study etc...oh just search the web it's out there, this began years ago and was published and peer reviewd by now.

off hand here is one CNN report of the studies etc dating back to 2000...but there's alot on the web

CNN Archive





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join