Switch their diets from the living organic leaves and twigs of the Aacacia tree to the Genetically Modified corn feed and growth hormones of Monsanto, and this is exactly how Giraffes would look in a number of years.How would the lions who eat these Genetically Modified giraffes look in a number of years? They would look a lot like the people who eat genetically modified cows, pigs, and chickens, fed a diet of GMO corn and growth hormones look today wouldn't they?
Or are you one of them Sci-Fi Freemasonic Flunky Plantation Negros who needs to see a "study" (get permission) to make that kind of connection?
40 comments:
That's ill
Check out your sources DV.
observation?
I don't know why you are so against evidence. A study is not permission as you put it. Research scientists participate in studies to get to the truth. Any old moron (say like you for instance) can make any old pronouncement on a blog, and call it truth. You could say in 10 years squirrels will be the size of pitbulls because of changes in acorns. Why am I supposed to believe you...the dude with nothing to back up your statements.
See how that works?
Evidence?
LOL.
OK.
Do you mind if we start with the "evidence" of millions of diseased, dying and obese consumers of genetically modified animals? (Your customer base).
Are they not obese?
Are they not diseased?
Are they not dying of diet related diseases?
Do they eat genetically modified food?
Do these people eat genetically modified diseased animals who were fed genetically modified feed and growth hormones?
Are the animals they consume often twice the size of the animals they ate just a generation ago?
Are GMO Eaters not starting to look like the cows and hogs they eat?
LOL. Negros and their "studies".
Talking loud (and often) but still saying nothing.
This is a useless argument, since the foundation of your beliefs is that all disease stems from not eating $40 bread.
Back up one statement. It's not hard. Try it.
To eat is a necessity, but to eat intelligently is an art.
- François de La Rochefoucauld
...Accept no substitutes.
Beautiful Kay Duuub.
But to practice the art of intelligent eating requires a certain degree of critical thinking and self-definition.
The Plantation goes through great efforts to discourage individuals from thinking for themselves.
The Plantation wants people to think in terms of groups. Thus the fuckery of Group Identity Politics.
Look at how uncomfortable Plantation Enthusiasts become with even the SUGGESTION that one could eat in a manner BETTER than that which the Plantation endorses.
CNu is down right offended at the attacks upon genetically modified factory pork.
The Plantation MD is determined to portray questions about the efficacy of GMO as irresponsible and blasphemy.
(Notice neither has ever come out and suggested GMO food and cloned animals is GOOD for us. They are just offended by anything that questions the authority of the Plantation.)
CNu is a misanthropic Freemasonic Malthusian Negro deeply offended by anyone who thinks so highly of themselves that they even bother to notice what they eat.
These NeoNegro Bolsheviks want us to be happy to eat their little technocratic factory food no matter what diseases it causes.
Actually, I could not care any less than I do right at this moment if you eat or avoid meat or grain products that have been "genetically modified".
Why do you believe that "genetically modified" meat products cause men to have gynecomastia? You might have a point if say the gene regulating the aromatase enzyme were somehow manipulated to cause a massive increase in estrogen (that was somehow able to remain intact through the slaughter, cooking, and digestion process in quantities great enough to affect male physiology...but that's another story). But you wouldn't know that, would you? You are content to say GMO this and that causes gynecomastia...(err "man-boobs" to you).
You don't even known enough to make a good conspiracy.
...there IS an all natural substance consumed by alot of folks (probably most of you cats writing on this blog now) that is KNOWN to cause gynecomastia in men. It's not genetically modified, and has been consumed in locales like Jamaica for many, many years.
Cannabis.
^Citation with foolproof methodology please.
There is evidence that SOY can have feminizing effects on boys, but I am unaware of the cannabis link. Please advice.
that is KNOWN to cause gynecomastia in men. It's not genetically modified, and has been consumed in locales like Jamaica for many, many years.
Cannabis.-DMG
Gee Chee coughs on ganja he hasn't even smoked yet. Naw for real though, would that be the illegal cannabis or the legal cannabis?
You talking to me Mahndisa? Feel free to look it up yourself, no time to do anyones homework today. It won't be hard to find.
Gee-Chee...the illegal version, as this has been known far, far longer than it's been "legal" in the states.
Changes in male sex hormones have been a source of controversy ever since the first report of a cannabinoid-induced decrease in serum testosterone level. Decreased levels were associated with morphological abnormalities in sperm and with decreased sexual functioning (100). Such changes must require long-term exposure to cannabis, for subchronic studies in experimental subjects have generally failed to confirm these findings (118). During the first 4 weeks of a chronic administration study, no major changes in hormone levels were detected, but with subsequent exposure a decrease first occurred in luteinizing hormone (LH) followed by decreases in testosterone and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (99). Testosterone synthesis by Leydig cells was decreased in rats, both by THC as well as by other cannabinoids (21). A similar finding had been reported earlier (57). A review of the literature on this subject concluded that no significant effect was found in regard to serum testosterone and that sperm production was decreased but without evidence of infertility. Ovulation was inhibited, and luteinizing hormone was decreased. Cannabinoids had no evidence of estrogenic activity, which had been postulated earlier (4).
The meaning of such changes in man is uncertain, as the hormone levels generally remained within the accepted limits of normal. Further, a single hormone level may not be truly representative of the prevailing levels of hormones that tend to be secreted episodically or which are subject to many extraneous influences.
Data on the effects of cannabis on the female reproductive system are sparse. Preliminary unpublished data indicate that women who use cannabis 4 times a week or more have more anovulatory menstrual cycles than do nonusers of the same age, Animal work tends to support this observation. THC administered to rats suppressed the cyclic surge of LH secretion and of ovulation (11).
Gynecomastia has been thought to be a complication of cannabis use, especially when it was also possible to stimulate breast tissue development in rats with THC (72). Eleven soldiers with gynecomastia of unknown cause were matched with 11 others with similar characteristics except for gynecomastia. No difference in cannabis use was found between the two groups (27). Such a finding does not disprove the relationship between cannabis and gynecomastia. Indeed, if cannabis increases peripheral conversion of testosterone to estrogens, then it is possible that the increased estrogens could stimulate breast tissue in a few susceptible men. Increased estrogens might also account for some reports of diminution in sexual drive or in performance in men.
These endocrine changes may be of relatively little consequence in adults, but they could be of major importance in the prepubertal male who may use cannabis. At least one instance of pubertal arrest has been documented. A 16-year-old boy who had smoked marijuana since age 11 had short stature, no pubic hair, small testes and penis and low serum testosterone. After stopping smoking, growth resumed and serum testosterone reached the normal range (41). As recent surveys of cannabis use indicate that some boys (and girls) may be exposed to it even as early as the prepubertal years, this question is of more than academic interest
Also, check ou this link:
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/g/gynecomastia/medic.htm
Which lists a whole bunch of possible causes for the condition that include far more than weed.
As a non-smoker, the weed angle doesn't really affect me, but I think it's a tad irresponsible to note that weed causes man boobs and not note all these other possible causes.
Hell, one of the medications listed as causing man-boobs is a common hypertension medicine, and is also used to help alcoholics and smokers.
So, it appears that natural and unnatural products are suspect.
Who would have thunk it?
Big Man,
Irresponsible? I gave ONE example...of a naturally occurring substance that has been linked to gynecomastia. Which was the point of the conversation.
Not sure if you've been paying attention, but our host has been talking about genetically modified foods are causing men to have breasts...just thought I'd point out an all natural substance that's ingested quite frequently that does just that.
If you want to find out all of the things that may or may not cause you to search for a man-bra, look for them yourself. Unless you are signing on at the library, you have just as much time to Google this yourself.
...just thought I'd point out an all natural substance that's ingested quite frequently that does just that.-DMG
I doubt you ever tell your patients that they need to smoke in moderation and exercise regularly. I'm sure the advice is usually food related.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of people are passing the peas and not the dutchie.
An all natural food causing gynecomastia would be a more effective argument.
Gee-Chee,
So what's your point? You all haven't quantified how many men actually HAVE gyencomastia. The way our host is carrying on you'd think it were a "pandemic".
Don't confuse gynecomastia with just plain FAT.
^^
Titties ... are Titties.
Just because a man is fat ... doesn't mean his titties don't count.
Do you really need a study ... to tell you that eating cheap factory chickens genetically engineered to have breasts twice as large as nature designed them to have ... causes men to have breasts larger than nature intended them to have?
... really?
Show me a thin weed smoking Rasta with titties.
"gyencomastia" ... lol
A Latin word for "Fat Dude W/ Tits".
"Gyencomstia" = too many trips to Subway.
You never were much for actually KNOWING anything. Must be nice to be happily ignorant. Is it blissful, MOTI?
you "know" a lot DMG.
But all of your patients / customers are unhealthy, diseased, obese consumers of GMO, vaccines and factory meat.
But you don't "know" enough to teach them otherwise.
Actually you do know now.
Because we are teaching you.
You just don't have the courage to implement what you now know.
Because you work for the Plantation and you "know" what they give you permission to know.
Think for yourself Doc.
"But all of your patients / customers are unhealthy, diseased, obese consumers of GMO, vaccines and factory meat"
Actually that's where you are wrong. I do recall removing all of the reproductive organs from a young lady who went to her naturalist/accupuncturist for a mass growing in her abdomen. These quacks assured her it was something to do with her colon health. Turned out to be ovarian cancer. She's not the only one. I run into people all the time, who have done all their colon cleanses, detoxes, chia-seed enemas, and whatnot. I don't discourage eating healthy. I think people who are "health conscious" (even you seed eaters) are probably more likely to exercise and eat a less fatty diet than those who amble in like elephants.
Moderation. It's not sexy, or expensive, but it works.
Blah, blah, blah, school, blah, blah, blah, vaccines, blah, blah, blah.
Can you just skip this crap? Distill your tired responses down to something like Vaccine special...or school.
DMG
Is insulting your default position?
In a discussion about man-boobs, where you were lamenting our host's focus on GMO foods as the cause of the condition because you viewed it as myopic, you then threw out "weed" as a potential cause because...
How is that not the exact same thing?
If you wanted to refute his assertions that man-boobs are because of GMO foods, you could have just said "No, here are the common causes of man-boobs, and one of them is even weed." Then posted a link.
You did the exact same thing your criticized him of doing. Turning to a sensational answer, instead of giving people a more complete picture of the problem.
If you're going to poke holes in what he's saying and slam him for his tactics, which I have no problem with by the way, at least have the decency to avoid USING THOSE SAME TACTICS.
That's just hypocritical son.
It's bad when DV does it, it's perfectly all right when YOU do it.
Besides because if we really wanted more information we could all use google and do our "homework."
That's ridiculous. Just the whole exercise is ridiculous. Calling somebody out for something than doing it yourself is tired.
DV
I couldn't find a pic of fat rasta smoking weed. Maybe they don't exist.
But, you know Bob Maley died from brain cancer, right?
What happened?
Big Man, your research showed the myopia of DMG AND DV in certain areas. The other issue is that since pot is effectively under prohibition in the USA, it would be hard to get studies done on the pot that aren't methodologically biased. Some of the pot research that seems more legit has come out of places like Holland where it was decriminalized for a long while. Israel routinely uses pot for treating PTSD of their soldiers. They've found that pot and yoga really help PTSD because most antianxiety and antidepressants aren't helpful in PTSD patients.
With that in mind, DMG simply blew off your valuable comments, as he did mine. DMG you cannot have it both ways you want proof of assertions but you refuse to furnish it when asked, instead leaving Big Man to the job.
And what he presented does not corroborate your point of view.
Smoking Pot doesn't prevent cancer. But applying THC oil to a skin cancer lesion MAY cause it to heal. There are many uses for marijuana that are only recently being explored in the western medical literature.
DMG your statements were weak here.
Big Man,
If your responses are going to be tired one sided chastising then save it...not listening. Like you said on the other thread, sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel.
And by the way, you answered your own query. I never said cannabis is the ONLY or MAIN cause of gynecomastia...but that it was an all natural substance consumed by many. THAT'S how it's completely different. Keep up, we don't have time review sessions.
And Bob Marley didn't die of brain cancer, he died of malignant melanoma with a metastasis to his brain...large detail. Look it up, you got Google down there in Mississippi? (Look up acrolentiginous melanoma, also known as subungual melanoma). The man refused to have a cancer operation to remove the toe before it metastasized. What? Was Bob Marley eating a plantation diet? Not getting enough sunshine? Explain that one.
Now, Mahndisa...we've been getting along lately, let's not spoil the new found love. My comments were neither myopic nor weak, and, unlike many comments, addressed the main point of our hosts argument. I gave an example, and tried to elevate the conversation a bit. Gynecomastia isn't just a fat chest, but if you all choose to be misinformed, that's on you. I invite you to read my comments again.
And, I didn't blow off your comment. You can very well look it up details if you want to. This link to gynecomastia isn't some obscure phenomena.
And for the record... I'm ALL for smoking weed for recreation, using it for medicinal use, making hemp clothes, and think more research should go into this versatile plant. I don't smoke weed out of personal choice, the same way that I don't drink enough alcohol to get drunk.
Big Man
Bob had a skin cancer, malignant melanoma not brain cancer.
DMG
It's not "tired one-sided chastisting."
DV has never promoted himself has an impartial voice of reason making pronouncements based on superior judgement, logic and factual studies.
You have.
Thus, you have established a different baseline to judge your actions. Which I why I pointed out how tired it is for you to criticize DV tactics, than use them yourself. But, do you.
As for the brain cancer thing, clearly my google search turned up incorrect information. (It was made in Louisiana, not Mississippi, we're only slightly better, but better.)
The point being, dude was a rasta. On a natural diet. And he was skinny.
And he got cancer.
If you hadn't been in such a rush to craft your next insult, you would have seen how that comment buttressed your own claims.
One, that this "natural" thing isn't a cure-all. And two, that none of us completely understands why the body has certain problems.
But, you were too busy patting yourself on you back for your own intelligence...
When I was a minor football star in high school, a coach attacked a player on our team because he felt the young man was challenging his manhood. The coach probably outweighed the kid by like 250-300 pounds, but that didn't stop him from pushing the kid against lockers, and berating him repeatedly.
My dad, who used to come to practices sometimes, gave me a talk on the way home. He was visibly upset by the coach's behavior. He said:
"Son, a man doesn't have to tell everybody he's a man. Folks will see it from watching him."
It was good advice...
KW
Thanks for the correction sister.
Blowing someone off consists of telling me to do my homework if I ask a question pointing to a comment YOU made. That is rude DMG. Your bad not mine. Big Man cited text from a study that didn't corroborate what you said. All you had to do was link to an article that verified your statements. That would have taken what like thirty seconds?
Because MJ is under prohibition in the US, most studies I've found conducted HERE contradict themselves. So if you know of a study that was done with a decent sample size and is methodologically sound that tells explicitly that MJ causes man boobs, please do tell. However, asking you for a link is not the same as asking you to do my homework.
If you are the expert doctor you claim to be, the you ought to be able to cite a link without getting your panties twisted in a bundle!
Or you could just be a manifestation of a fogue state...
Big Man,
If you read closely, you'd KNOW I wasn't using the tactics of our host. Nobody is insulting you. This is grown folks talk. I didn't think you were too delicate to take a little shove. Am I wrong? Now quit sermonizing.
Mahndisa,
Do you mean fugue state as in dissociative fugue? What's rude is jumping in a conversation and demanding something you could do for yourself...actually, that's not rude...it's lazy. I am a surgeon. I'm not repository of psychopharmacologic articles on cannabis. You have a computer, do your own work. I'll provide a link for something that most people don't know (shit, I knew about cannabis and man-tits when I was in HIGH SCHOOL).
And you do realize your backhanded taunts..you know the ones---"if you are a doctor"---don't bother me right?
Now are you two done? Can we going to get back on point?
DMG
Not trying to sermonize.
Trying to make a point.
You wrote this:
"Why do you believe that "genetically modified" meat products cause men to have gynecomastia? You might have a point if say the gene regulating the aromatase enzyme were somehow manipulated to cause a massive increase in estrogen (that was somehow able to remain intact through the slaughter, cooking, and digestion process in quantities great enough to affect male physiology...but that's another story). But you wouldn't know that, would you? You are content to say GMO this and that causes gynecomastia...(err "man-boobs" to you).
You don't even known enough to make a good conspiracy.
And in the next comment you wrote this:
"there IS an all natural substance consumed by alot of folks (probably most of you cats writing on this blog now) that is KNOWN to cause gynecomastia in men. It's not genetically modified, and has been consumed in locales like Jamaica for many, many years.
Cannabis."
So, you go from chastising DV for his focus on GMOs as a cause for man-boobs to pointing out that a "known cause" of man-boobs is cannabis.
What exactly are you saying?
GMOs may cause man-boobs, but cannabis definitely causes it.
(And I searched for a hot second for research that says cannabis definitely causes man-boobs, and couldn't find anything. Just a study of some solidiers that said that the results were inconclusive and a website that listed cannabis with a host of other substances.)
It appears that your comment on cannabis was an attempt to push the conversation in another direction by throwing out a random sensational factoid. Also, a taunt for the "natural" cats who love weed.
And you telling me that you don't see the parallels between that and what our host does?
Come on.
If you want to use the same tactics, then use the same tactics.
But don't turn around and get all huffy cause DV does it on a thread about vaccines, or planatation medicine, or whatever.
Y'all doing the same thing. Just with different information.
As for shoving, what do I care, it's the Internet.
We ain't about to fight, we're just typing words. My personal feeling is that people can disagree without resorting to name-calling or insults.
Your arguments and your logic are enough. But, that's my own personal belief. So, I espouse it, and let folks do what they want.
For the record, fro the U.S. National Library of Medicine run by the National Institues of Health
"Gynecomastia is a relatively common physical finding in men. A wide variety of drugs have been implicated in its cause. Sufficient evidence in the literature suggests that calcium-channel blockers, cancer chemotherapeutic agents, and histamine2-receptor blockers may play a role in the disorder. Evidence for digitalis glycosides and neuroleptic agents is insufficient. Ketoconazole and spironolactone can also produce gynecomastia, and data for marijuana are contradictory. Large numbers of drugs have only case reports of temporal association with the disorder."
Not to beat a dead horse Big Man,
"What exactly are you saying?
GMOs may cause man-boobs, but cannabis definitely causes it"
No. There is no evidence that GM food causes gynecomastia (the genetic modification would likely have to be very specific to regulation of sex steroids in human men).
Genetic modification could be ANYTHING from changes of color to smell, etc. MOTI is being far too broad in his claim.
I didn't attempt to change the subject. Just making a point about precision of language.
You know as well as I do that our host makes drive by proclamations, but never returns to back up what he says. That's what he's done here with GMO. You are right cannabis use in gynecomastia is an inconsistent finding. But, I've had a young man in breast clinic come in wondering why he was growing breasts (actual palpable breast tissue not just fat). Not particularly fat, no meds, or other risk factors, other than chronic weed smoking. Daily, or twice daily at least. Told him to cut back, he said he'd try.
Sure spironolactone and ketoconazole, and some others can disrupt ones endocrine system. If you are living near the Mississippi River or other parts of the country and have a severe fungal infection in your lungs...you may not worry about the small possibility of ketoconazole related transient breast enlargement...but most people aren't on it for that long anyway. Spironolactone can also cause it, although I've never seen it. In those cases we change the medication if possible.
Thank you.
I could jump on that point about "precision of language" in relation to what you said about cannabis and boobies, but I'm not.
I think we have reached an understanding of what I was saying.
Not to quibble Big Man, but:
"...there IS an all natural substance consumed by alot of folks (probably most of you cats writing on this blog now) that is KNOWN to cause gynecomastia in men. It's not genetically modified, and has been consumed in locales like Jamaica for many, many years.
Cannabis"
Jump on it.
DMG
Ain't no quibble
You wrote:
"You are right cannabis use in gynecomastia is an inconsistent finding.
And you wrote:
"there IS an all natural substance consumed by alot of folks (probably most of you cats writing on this blog now) that is KNOWN to cause gynecomastia in men.
Key words would appear to be "inconsistent" and "known."
I mean, I haven't taken science since high school (Didn't need it for my degrees) but it would seem that if something is scientifically "inconsistent" it can't also be scientifically "known."
But, maybe those words mean something different when scientists use them, then when regular folks use them.
It would appear that nobody truly knows whether weed causes boobies. Could be yes, could be no. Some tests say yes, some tests say no.
So that would mean, it's not "known" based on the standard you've applied to every thing else that mus be "known."
After all, I'm pretty sure the "natural" folks on here can provide studies that buttress their claims, but which wouldn't meet your standard for "known" results.
Right?
Big Man,
That's where you are wrong actually. I said that it is KNOWN. As in the finding has been observed. As in it is known to have occurred. Sorry you took it the wrong way.
Yes the findings are inconsistent. These findings are clinical observations...which I've personally observed.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to adjust my language to the audience.
DMG
No problem.
So, in the scientific community, saying something is "known" means that it has happened and been observed during a clinical study?
Does it not matter how often something happens?
I would think that if something happens as often as it doesn't happen, it would be misleading to label it as "known."
And, are these clinical studies all held using the same methods?
I noticed that the one about soliders used either 11 or 22 subjects, I can't remember off the top of my head.
That's an absurdly small sample size. Do you know if the previous studies about cannabis and boobies used similar sample sizes?
If I remember you story correctly, you had a single patient you had man boobies and smoked a lot of weed. Is that the clinical observation that you're describing, or did you sit in on another study?
I'm asking these questions because I'm curious about how you decide which studies to believe, and which sources of information have merit.
Plus, I'm curious about how things become "known" in the scientific world. Of course, I could embark on my own study of this information, but since you have it, and you're here, I figure why not ask you?
Post a Comment