 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / November 2006NY Times article about Hidden Food connection
There was an article written in the New York Times about the Hidden Food connection to many health problems. It was written by Jane Brody, and it was written on April 29, 1990. Anybody who did not believe that food can trigger all sorts of health problems should read this article. Google "Food Allergies Controversy". Hidden Food Allergies is worth researching. You can also talk to many Integrative doctors about this. Many major university hospitals have an Integrative Medicine Center (Harvard, Duke, etc.). Hidden Food Allergies can trigger asthma, eczema, psoriasis, migraines, chronic fatigue, ADD, and many other health problems. bosco62a please post 16 more times so those of us who are dense "get it". U know I actually cook out of that lady's book? > There was an article written in the New York Times about the Hidden > Food connection to many health problems. It was written by Jane Brody, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > bosco62a > please post 16 more times so those of us who are dense "get it". U know I > actually cook out of that lady's book? There are some very dense people around. There are also some very lazy people around. Too lazy to do some research. bosco62a > > There was an article written in the New York Times about the Hidden > > Food connection to many health problems. It was written by Jane Brody, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > bosco62a > There are some very dense people around. Yes, but some have left, like a repetitious bore by the name of Brad Chad. Oh....never mind. >> There are some very dense people around. > > Yes, but some have left, like a repetitious bore by the name of Brad Chad. > > Oh....never mind. Oh yes...you mean the pathological liar..disguised with a new moniker (it didn't work). > > please post 16 more times so those of us who are dense "get it". U know I > > actually cook out of that lady's book? > > There are some very dense people around. There are also some very > lazy people around. Too lazy to do some research. I'm just not willing to waste my time on something that helps so few asthmatics. And I did go on a 3 day fast without any improvement. It continues to astound me that you come here with insults and then expect people to welcome your posts. Your constant reposting is just irrational if you want to make a good impression in addition. And I do read extensively about asthma - you are the one who hasn't done any research beyond this one thing. Should I therefore call you lazy? > > > please post 16 more times so those of us who are dense "get it". U know > I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > about asthma - you are the one who hasn't done any research beyond this one > thing. Should I therefore call you lazy? I did not write any insults into my initial message. It amazes me that you completely ignore the backhanded condescending remarks about me posting 16 times. I only started one thread in the asthma group about the New York Times Article. It amazes me that NOBODY read and discussed the article. Hidden Food Sensitivities covers many types of health problems. That is why I posted in other groups. If you read the article, you would know that. It is a free article. I only get irritated when people bring up their pet peeves that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. When is somebody going to discuss the article? If you want more information about Hidden Food Sensitivities, you can speak with an Integrative doctor. Integrative medicine is like a mix of alternative and conventional medicine. Many major university hospitals (Harvard, Duke, etc.) have an Integrative Medicine Center. Hidden Food Sensitivity testing does not work on everybody. It affects different people to varying degrees. Many doctors use a process that takes weeks to find the problem foods. A three day fast doesn't cut it. I stayed away from my problem foods for a few months before I was certain that I was out of the woods. I can now eat those foods in small amounts, every few days. Read the article. bosco62a > I did not write any insults into my initial message. It amazes me > that you completely ignore the backhanded condescending remarks about > me posting 16 times. THis time you posted the same article only twice. But in the past, you have posted and posted and posted the same unformation 6 times. Right after your own post. Is that an attention getting device? > Hidden Food Sensitivity testing does not work on everybody. Be honest. It doesn't work on Most people. I have found articles that in adults, the figure is extimated at 1 to 4 percent. That is why I am not lazy. I try the most likely treatments first and this one has a low rate of success. > > I did not write any insults into my initial message. It amazes me > > that you completely ignore the backhanded condescending remarks about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > lazy. I try the most likely treatments first and this one has a low rate of > success. Does that 1 to 4 percent pertain to "food allergies" or "food intolerances"? Alternative medicine has a different definition of the word "allergy" than conventional medicine does. Conventional medicine hides the fact that so-called "food intolerances" are more common than "food allergies". When they talk about food allergies they are referring to something that triggers an IMMEDIATE reaction. The food sensitivities that I'm talking about have a delayed reaction. There is a lot about food sensitivities that medicine doesn't fully understand. Some of their estimates can be way off. I don't try to pick fights with anyone. I don't need attention. I just tried to help people. I wrote messages to different groups because Hidden Food Sensitivities pertain to different health problems. People with arthritis can be affected by it. People with eczema can be affected by it, and so on. If you saw the same message in the same group, it may have been a glitch of some sort. I got angry because people were talking about all these pet peeves and not saying one thing about the article. Dr. James Braly has also written a book about this. You can probably find it at the library. Dr. Jonathan Brostoff has written a book called "Food Allergies and Food Intolerance". I am not selling these books. You might find them at the public library. bosco62a > Does that 1 to 4 percent pertain to "food allergies" or "food > intolerances"? Alternative medicine has a different definition of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a lot about food sensitivities that medicine doesn't fully understand. > Some of their estimates can be way off. Food anything. The timing isn't the issue. Food as a souce of a problem is not considered to be a big asthma trigger, although it certainly can be. > I don't try to pick fights with anyone. I don't need attention. I > just tried to help people. I wrote messages to different groups because [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > written a book called "Food Allergies and Food Intolerance". I am not > selling these books. You might find them at the public library. Take the time then to post specifically to the groups you want to target and stop blaming the "glitch" for posting over and over and over. Be willing to provide more information than "read this book". I try to tell people about the research I have read, but I don't tell them to go to NIH and look for themselves. If they wish to do that, it is free and they are free to do so, but people have limited time and they appreciate "the short version". So what is the short version of the procedures to see if you are a candidate for food "allergies" in Braly's book. How about Brostoff's book? > > Does that 1 to 4 percent pertain to "food allergies" or "food > > intolerances"? Alternative medicine has a different definition of the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > what is the short version of the procedures to see if you are a candidate > for food "allergies" in Braly's book. How about Brostoff's book? Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the words FOOD, ALLERGY, and CONTROVERSY in the search box, it will take you to the article that I'm talking about. I told you that Hidden Food Sensitivities can affect things like asthma, eczema, psoriasis, ADD, joint pain, etc. That is why I posted to each of those groups. How many times do I have to tell you this? The New York Times has an archive of articles going back to 1981. I didn't come here to fight. I just wanted people to read the article. Did you see where I mentioned Integrative doctors in this thread several times? bosco62a > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people to read the article. Did you see where I mentioned Integrative > doctors in this thread several times? I just did a search on google for those words, and no NYT article came up. So then i went to the NYT site itself and did a search for "food sensitivity" and asthma and nothing came up. If you actually want me to read this article about food sensitivities and certain health conditions, please be nice and post a valid link. waiting with bated breath, -Tina > > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > waiting with bated breath, > -Tina I found and read the article. It basically said what we all know. This is a controversial issue. Besides that, it is like 15 years old. There has to be more research since that. My complaint still stands. Brad Chad doesn't do any work. He just issues insults when we point that out - that we are lazy when in fact he is lazy. I would say after all these years, that I am pretty sick of looking up studies that end up not helping anyone with asthma just because some altmed nut comes by here and mentions a topic. I'm not gullible anymore. Let the altmeds do their own work. Write up a convincing argument with links to credible data and be ready to defend what you post. > I found and read the article. It basically said what we all know. This is > a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > altmeds do their own work. Write up a convincing argument with links to > credible data and be ready to defend what you post. Yeah, I finally found it, and was impressed by the total lack of any referal to scientific evidence or research. Might make a good bedtime story though, I almost fell asleep reading it. I think Brad just likes to feed on the attention he gets when he posts this stuff, at least that's what it seems like to me, a long time lurker (6 yrs). -Tina > > I found and read the article. It basically said what we all know. This is > > a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > altmeds do their own work. Write up a convincing argument with links to > > credible data and be ready to defend what you post. > Yeah, I finally found it, and was impressed by the total lack of any referal > to scientific evidence or research. Might make a good bedtime story though, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Tina I don't think that you read the ENTIRE article. The New York Times has NEVER printed an article, in its science section, that had a TOTAL lack of reference to scientific evidence or research. If I am wrong show me how. bosco62a Your are out there and no more is required. The NYT makes mistakes like everyone else. People have tried for years to tell you where you mis -steppped. > I don't think that you read the ENTIRE article. The New York > Times has NEVER printed an article, in its science section, that had a > TOTAL lack of reference to scientific evidence or research. If I am > wrong show me how. > > bosco62a > Your are out there and no more is required. The NYT makes mistakes like > everyone else. People have tried for years to tell you where you > mis -steppped. The NYT, like all media (especially print media and broadcast) is in the business of selling papers. That means that making the story correct, up to date, and completely valid are nice but only if they don't make it detract too much from making it interesting. Also, the stories are often written by journalists who basically ask researchers a few questions and then try to repeat what they think they heard. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not. If an issue turns out to not really br all that controversial they are left with three choices: 1) Drop the article (and waste all that time and effort). 2) Print an articel about a non-controversial topic (and run the risk of being boring). 3) Spice it up and try to highlight what controversy there may or may not be. Also keep in mind that many researchers and advocates for a particular point of view prefer to think of their theories as controversial rather than unaccepted.  Signature00doc > > Your are out there and no more is required. The NYT makes mistakes like > > everyone else. People have tried for years to tell you where you [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > 00doc Right!!! Did you read in some of my other posts about the Integrative doctors at many university hospitals? Harvard and Duke Universities have Integrative Medicine Centers where doctors are using the concept of Hidden Food Sensitivities to treat many people. I have visited an Integrative doctor at a state university hospital near me. Why don't you contact them and tell them that removing certain foods from some peoples diet can't eliminate their asthma, eczema, ADD, etc.? Go ahead, I dare you. bosco62a > Why don't you contact them and tell them that removing certain foods > from some peoples diet can't eliminate their asthma, eczema, ADD, etc.? > Go ahead, I dare you. I'll bet they already know that. <G> Signature00doc > Your are out there and no more is required. The NYT makes mistakes like > everyone else. People have tried for years to tell you where you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > bosco62a Mistakes!!! The New York Times has written articles where the ENTIRE thing is a mistake? I have never seen an article in the New York Times where the ENTIRE thing is a mistake. I'm not talking about Jason Blair. Besides Jason Blair did not write for the science section of the New York Times. bosco62a >> Yeah, I finally found it, and was impressed by the total lack of any >> referal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't think that you read the ENTIRE article. Riiiiiight...... She couldn't have possibly read it. If she had it would be impossible to disagree with you. So she must not have. Signature00doc > > > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > > > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > altmeds do their own work. Write up a convincing argument with links to > credible data and be ready to defend what you post. Did you read the ENTIRE article. It talks about the double blind studies that support the existence of Hidden Food Sensitivities. What difference does the age of the article make? If an article is written in 2010 about a study that proves that cigarette smoking causes cancer, wouldn't that article still be valid in 2030? The effects of smoking on the human body doesn't change in 20 years. Cigarette smoking wouldn't all of a sudden be safe in 2030. It is the same with food sensitivities. Hidden Food Sensitivities would have the same effect in 2006 that they did in 1990. Do you really think that anybody wants to fund further research that shows how some people can get better without the use of drugs? The pharmaceutical industry doesn't want to lose any profits. The processed food industry would lose money also. I have to buy most of my food from health food stores (less additives). I can't eat at fast food restaurants as often, and I no longer need a prescription for hayfever, joint pain, or severe eczema. Do you think that the Pharmaceutical industry is happy about that? bosco62a I'm getting sick here.This guy dropped off the planet years ago. > > > > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > > > > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > bosco62a > Did you read the ENTIRE article. It talks about the double blind > studies that support the existence of Hidden Food Sensitivities. What [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > bosco62a Yeah, I read the entire article...God help me. The only double-blind study mentioned was the one that said doctors were mistaken about suspecting food alergies. Nothing proving food sensitivity. Point to a study online and actually give me a link this time that says food sensitivities are the cause of all these ailments in the proportion that you are claiming. Then I will talk about it. Until then, bye-bye. -Tina > > Did you read the ENTIRE article. It talks about the double blind > > studies that support the existence of Hidden Food Sensitivities. What [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > -Tina The article referred to a test where 78 out of 88 people RECOVERED from migraines and other ailments when certain foods were removed from their diet. A re-test (in double-blind fashion) showed that 35 out of 40 people responded to foods. Now, when I said that this was possible, people said that it wasn't. The only reason that larger studies have not been done is because the pharmaceutical industry and the processed food industry are afraid of losing money. Nobody wants people to get well without the use of drugs, even if it doesn't apply to 100% of people with health ailments. bosco62a > The article referred to a test where 78 out of 88 people RECOVERED > from migraines and other ailments when certain foods were removed from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > bosco62a Really? Where did it say that? All I read was that the doctors were wrong about the people having alergies. Of course there were only 500 people, SOME of whom had been diagnosed with alergies, and SOME of those had no testable alergies. I wonder how many that made. Soooo....Where do you get this other info from? Post me the link, or I will simply assume you are full of you-know-what. People who really believe in their convictions would be happy to post a scientific study to support their arguement. And don't give me that hooey about drug companies holding down studies that threaten their income. They did do studies that prove that certain anti-biotic regimens cure some types of asthma, and that would defineately cut down their income. Flu vaccines don't exactly help out drug companies that sell flu and cold remedies. And then there are those studies on transplants that will cure diabetes going on right now...hmmm. There goes your theory. But then again, by all the replies you get, I doubt that anyone has ever bought your theory. -Tina > > The article referred to a test where 78 out of 88 people RECOVERED > > from migraines and other ailments when certain foods were removed from [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > -Tina I don't know what article you read. If you put three unquoted words (Food Allergies Controversy) in the search box of The New York Times Home Page, clicked it, and then srolled down the page. You would have found an article by Jane Brody. It was published on April 29, 1990. The title was "Food Allergies: A Growing Controversy". It started like this: LEAD: SEVEN-YEAR-OLD JOSEPH'S ENTIRE face swells if he merely has a peanut in his mouth. Should he accidently eat one he could die, the result, his mother says.......... If the article that you read doesn't start like what I wrote above, you are at the wrong article. The right article should have a URL like: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9COCEOD61E3DF9AA..... >> > The article referred to a test where 78 out of 88 people RECOVERED >> > from migraines and other ailments when certain foods were removed from [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9COCEOD61E3DF9AA..... Yup, same article. Maybe you are not reading it right. Try again. And answer this. Where are the exact scientific studies? Your drug company holding down the man theory is shot, as I stated (and you so conveniently ignored), so give me a link to an actual scientificly acceptable study. Like I said, if you truly believe this stuff, you would have no problem giving me a link. So I am thinking that you cannot provide proof that these "sensitivities" do the damage you claim at the rate that you claim. I really hate it when people make claims that even they cannot or will not back up, and then have the gaul to put the onus of proof on those that don't even agree with them. Shows a severe lack of intellect. If this obsession is the extent of your knowledge and life-skills, I truly feel sorry for you. -Tina P.S. You are real funny. You will go though great lengths to copy and paste the first paragraph of the article you are talking about, but still refuse to post the actual link...how petty of you. It is so laughable it's sad. > >> > The article referred to a test where 78 out of 88 people RECOVERED > >> > from migraines and other ailments when certain foods were removed from [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > first paragraph of the article you are talking about, but still refuse to > post the actual link...how petty of you. It is so laughable it's sad. What is the problem? The article that I'm talking about is 4 pages long. If you don't see what I'm talking about in the last paragraph of page 3 you are not reading the right article. Did you just read one page? bosco62a >> Yup, same article. Maybe you are not reading it right. Try again. And >> answer [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > bosco62a Hey, you got a problem with reading comprehension? You don't answer anyone's requests. Go back to kindergarten and learn to read. > >> Yup, same article. Maybe you are not reading it right. Try again. And > >> answer [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> Shows a severe lack of intellect. If this obsession is the extent of your > >> knowledge and life-skills, I truly feel sorry for you. If you want more info read "Food Allergies and Food Intolerance" by Dr. Jonathan Brostoff. He talks about various studies. He talks about the complexities and cost of doing the studies. He talks about double blind studies. He gives a thorough history of this topic. Nobody wants to get off their rear end and read the book. Some people would rather spend ten times as much energy (and time) harassing me than reading the book. Another book is "Dr. Braly's Food Allergy and Nutrition Revolution". Maybe you can find them in the library? I also told people that they could contact an Integrative doctor at some state university hospitals. Harvard and Duke University have an Integrative Medicine Center. Ask them. bosco62a > >> -Tina > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Hey, you got a problem with reading comprehension? You don't answer anyone's > requests. Go back to kindergarten and learn to read. > Did you read the ENTIRE article. It talks about the double blind > studies that support the existence of Hidden Food Sensitivities. What > difference does the age of the article make? If an article is written > in 2010 about a study that proves that cigarette smoking causes cancer, > wouldn't that article still be valid in 2030? Yes, but usually 30 year old events are the pervue of history books, not newspapers. The death of JFK is still relevant today but I don't expect to see it on the front page of the NYT. Signature00doc > > Did you read the ENTIRE article. It talks about the double blind > > studies that support the existence of Hidden Food Sensitivities. What [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > 00doc The Human Body (and food reactions) has changed since 1990? Wow, that is news to me. Maybe I should throw away my Algebra books written in 1990? Algebra may have changed since 1990, you think. bosco62a > > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > waiting with bated breath, > -Tina If you go to The New York Times Home Page, you will find a search box. Type the three words FOOD ALLERGIES CONTROVERSY in the search box. Then scroll down to the article written by Jane Brody on April 29, 1990. The New York Times has an archive that goes back to 1981. You can find any article written after 1981 there. bosco62a > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people to read the article. Did you see where I mentioned Integrative > doctors in this thread several times? Doctors aren't free and there had better be some hard evidence before I spend my time and money running something to the ground. I just don't think that 1 - 4 % is anything I need to waste my time on. Or for that matter, my money. See the post after Tina for my review of the article. Like isn't that kinda dated? > > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > See the post after Tina for my review of the article. Like isn't that kinda > dated? Did you read my post where I explained how conventional medicine is using that 1 - 4 % to refer to food "allergies" and not food "intolerances"? Food intolerances are more common than food allergies. Alternative medicine has a different definition of the term "allergy" than conventional medicine. Testing for food intolerances is not as accurate as testing for IgE food allergies, but we do know that food "intolerances" is more common. bosco62a Bummer No lit to support it. Nonel You're standing alone. > > > Did You take the time to at least read the title of this thread? > > > The title refers to an article in the New York Times. If you put the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > bosco62a > Did you read my post where I explained how conventional medicine > is using that 1 - 4 % to refer to food "allergies" and not food [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accurate as testing for IgE food allergies, but we do know that food > "intolerances" is more common. Sooooooo - in other words. First they change the definition of "allergies" and then they claim the regular docs and their tests don't recognize them. Then they admit that they can't really recognize them either but, darn it, they know they must be there. Nice. Signature00doc > > Did you read my post where I explained how conventional medicine > > is using that 1 - 4 % to refer to food "allergies" and not food [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > 00doc You got it wrong again. Alternative doctors use a more liberal definition of allergy than conventional doctors. Somebody told me that Hidden Food Sensitivities was rare. Anyway, I guess that I have proven that this Hidden Food Sensitivity controversy is more than just a figment of my imagination. Why don't you contact Harvard or Duke and tell them that their Integrative doctors are full of crap? bosco62a > > Take the time then to post specifically to the groups you want to target and > > stop blaming the "glitch" for posting over and over and over. Be willing to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > what is the short version of the procedures to see if you are a candidate > > for food "allergies" in Braly's book. How about Brostoff's book? From now on, I expect to see the answers to the questions I ask, and I expect you to end the insults to people who are asking for more information. You seem to have plenty of time to type up these insults. Use your time more wisely. > > > Take the time then to post specifically to the groups you want to target > and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You seem to have plenty of time to type up these insults. Use your time more > wisely. People insulted me when they started talking about their pet peeves and not saying anything about the subject of the thread (the article). Some people had more interest in attacking for things in other threads. I only want to discusss things in THIS thread, that pertain to THIS topic. That is why people have gotten on my nerves. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to find the New York Times article. I gave you the writer and date that it was printed. bosco62a Good you must be stupid. I already found and rejected that article. > > > > Take the time then to post specifically to the groups you want to target > > and [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > bosco62a > please post 16 more times so those of us who are dense "get it". U know I > actually cook out of that lady's book? I tried that, but the pages got soggy. > > please post 16 more times so those of us who are dense "get it". U know I > > actually cook out of that lady's book? > > I tried that, but the pages got soggy. You and Bob always make me laugh. LOLOL. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.