Re: NIH, HA

Re the note on your site. NIH, The heart Asso. some profit driven health company, chemical metabolistic renderings that arent compared to anything so as to know where to place them in the scheme of things? How many times in t he past 50 years have they and those like them led people astray because of their agendas or behind the scenes power struggles. We all should know by now that the saturated vs unstaurated fat issues are not what had been promoted for years by such groups for one, as a starting point of reliability in relating truth . Sure ill, unhealthy , dysfunctioning systems will respond to things but that doesnt particularly mean they are the way to return to a freely unihibited healthy function. We can find reasons to believe and find evidence for actions that seem to point to conclusions which in later analysis prove to be strictly contingencies to particular situations which led to differing changes rather than what had been intended, which is an unsupplemented unrestricted healthy functioning. You dont agree but some of us think that after the whole fiber thing ceases to be the answer that had been hoped for we will start to consider how infants GI tracts function so effortlessly and completly while eating only mothers milk which has no fiber, or humans who live away from easily obtained fiber sources who eat mainly raw animals still have no heart disease.( dont attribute eating no fiber to this diatribe, rather what fiber is particualrly designed for frugivorus primates) My point is supplementing has its power especially for the suffering but we need to also be open to the simple and how it affects the complex organisms also, and believing that because a text or a powerfull group says things are such and such without really studying the opposite viewpoint can delay our coming to an understanding of how things really are designed to be irrespective of the needs of how unhealthy we all have become from ignoring such basic simple information. Tweet