Has medical science determined health risk/cost greater from smoking than processed..

[Iamme]

...foods?

According to Dr. Ted Brouer Ph.D, on Benny Hinn's show on TBN, for the last 2 nights...and he will be on again at 10:30 Pacific time...by eating processed foods, diet sodas, etc., the incidence of certain leukemia can even go up 9 times! 9 times! He said leukemia is the #1 killer of children under age 14, after accidents,... and he cites parents neglect in feeding their children properly.

He cited what sodium nitites in foods do. What aspertane does. Etc. He is a very fast talker and gets very specific. Not just the typical cliches regarding foods, that many people already know.

He said that the Old Law in the Bible, saying what we can and cannot eat, as commanded by the Lord, is true,... and he gave specific examples. He got talking about pork with worms, and other stuff.

With this said, then why is the gov't so eager to ban smoking everywhere, if likely almost EVERYONE one (since we all eat) eats food whose ingredient labels appear to be something out of a chemical lab? Isn't it plain logical to assume, without having specific knowledge in this field, that eating stuff that is foreign to our bodies, will cause adverse reactions, even on the cellular level?, ...and perhaps cost us as much or more, in health care costs, than what smoking does to those who smoke? And the fact again is, we all eat?

According to the Ph.D Brouer, we are not to have luncheon meat, bacon, processed meats of any type with sodium nitite in them...no diet sodas...no twinkies...don't use margarine...no shellfish...and there are 6 other food groups he is to address tonight on Benny Hinn. On his website I guess you can look up what the 10 groups are.

He and his wife are 52/51 and are a bill of health and look it.

I am really starting to believe the likes of people like him...even Kevin Trudeau, that they are on the right track here.

And both these guys claim many, if not most, health issues are reversable...even major health issues...if you start eating and drinking that which we were designed to accept.

He also gave these interesting statistics where he claims that by lowering your cholestrol over 30 years only increases your lifespan by 6 months..., and using high blood pressure medication increases your lifespan by about 9 days.

The doctor and his wife have writen several books. I may buy his latest one called "Maximium Energy".

[DRBUZZ0]

Yes. Smoking is considerably worse than "processed" foods.

Benny Hinn? That guy is a Popoff wana-be.

There's nothing wrong with "processed" food. There's nothing wrong modern food in general and it's safer and more nutritious than any time in history. There may be some things that are new which are not especially good for you like transfat or refined sugar. Neither is that great in any kind of quantity.

You can't really compare food and smoking, IMHO, because smoking is basically binary: Yes, there are light and heavy smokers but in general you either smoke or you don't. If you smoke it's all bad for you and no redeeming qualities.

Every food based problem that is being seen these days is from stuff that is entirely known and understood but simply not followed by people in general: In other words most people don't eat optimal diets. In general, people eat too many calories especially empty calories.

Most people have a diet which is really not that healthy. A few people have very healthy and well balanced diets. Very few have a diet that is always and without exception 100% optimal for health and is chosen only for nutrition and not taste preference, convience and so on.

The issue with diet is that it's not at all complicated. Everyone pretty much knows that eating lots of bacon and soda and having donuts for breakfast every morning is not going to be that good for you. Most people eat more sugar, more high fat, more low-fiber foods than they should. Most people don't get as much exercise as they really should. And by and large, they are aware of this. It's not that complicated.

I personally will be the first to admit that I ought to be hitting up the produce isle a lot more, that I should be going through the drive-through a lot less and that I'd do well to start running and exercising a lot more than I do (which is about zero).

There's no secret. I don't do it for the same reason most people don't: Because I'm lazy.

[DRBUZZ0]

With this said, then why is the gov't so eager to ban smoking everywhere, if likely almost EVERYONE one (since we all eat) eats food whose ingredient labels appear to be something out of a chemical lab? Isn't it plain logical to assume, without having specific knowledge in this field, that eating stuff that is foreign to our bodies, will cause adverse reactions, even on the cellular level?
.

It might seem logical, but lets consider what we're dealing with here. The fact that something is a "chemical" does not make it "bad" or "unnatural."

This is the big scam of organic farming, for example. An organic farmer might need fertilizer that is high in phosphorus. For a mainstream farmer, the normal stuff is just off-the-shelf fertalizer. It would be something like potassium oxide, potassium hydroxide, potassium nitrate.

These fertilizers are made from potassium sourced from all kinds of places. As a byproduct of salt production from minerals and so on.

But an organic farmer couldn't use these, because they don't meet the definition of "natural"

So an organic farmer uses potash. What is potash? Well, it's one of the major sources of potassium and it includes the above listed compounds. Same goddamned stuff except potash is not refined (so its full of dirt and stuff). But if you sent that potash out to get the sand/dirt out and concentrate it? No. that's not natural. Ship the dirt with it too. And even worse. Add some potassium oxide that was made in a chemical factory? BAD BAD BAD.

Also, an organic farmer can use potassium nitrate, but only from the few natural depostis of "saltpeter." If it was synthesized? No. Same damn stuff but he can't use it.

An organic farmer can't use urea-based fertalizers either. He can use the urine runoff from animals though. That's a round-about way of doing the same damn thing.

What about Monosodium glutamate AKA MSG? That must be bad for you because you hear about it all the time being bad. It's a food additive. It was discovered in the 1940's.

It's also in Worcestershire sauce, soy sauce, seaweed soup. Who put it there? Nobody. It's natural. It always has been.

What about sugar? As in sucros? Well, that's artifically extracted from sugar cane, but it's there to begin with. If you take the juice from sugar cane, you can actually get a very high sucrose syrup from evaporating it. Then it's actually pretty simple to seperate that into white sugar and molasses.

What about soda? Soda is made of water that is carbonated. How? In a factory, but you can also get it from springs. Water + Co2. Both natural. Then throw in the falvoring. That's made from natural stuff too, except perhaps for an artificial sweetener, which is a synthetic compound - and it's generally one with a ridiculous amount of safety and health research behind it.


Now what about shellfish? Sure, they're not kosher. Neither is pork. Lets think about this though: Pork is one of the meats that has a lot of likelyhood for foodborn illness. Shellfish, if they've been exposed to red tide or something can kill you. Not really a problem anymore, but still, if there's any reason why it's not kosher it's because at one time people sometimes ate shellfish and then dropped dead.

[Iamme]

The doctor said that oysters and other such sea creatures filter out every harmful thing out of the water,... and if we injest them, we injest what they ate.

You cited cabonated beverages. He went into some detail about aspertame.

.................
Thanks for your 2 very knowledgeable sounding posts. If you are up at 10:30 Pacific time and can get TBN...,you should watch it. I am going to try again, if I do not fall asleep on the couch. Last night I fell asleep and woke up again 2 minutes before it started, so I lucked out. I think I'll set my cell phone alarm.

[Gate2501]

I know that this is an anecdote, but I have consumed a 2 liter of diet soda every single day for the past 7, yes SEVEN years. I am in fantastic health.

Aspartame is not dangerous. It has been studied more than almost anything we consume and has proven itself again and again to not be dangerous.

It is also worth pointing out that Benny Hinn is a horrible idiot. He is a "faith healer" and fancies himself a prophet. He predicted that god would "destroy" the homosexual community in America in the mid 90's...

[vexed]

I stopped reading after Benny Hinn.

[Bill_H]

Mention was made of sucrose. But if you read the labels on things you find that much less sucrose is used these days than fructose. It is a product easily extracted from corn, which is plentiful, and thus cheaper to put into processed foods.

Fructose is in almost every processed food, even ones you don't automatically think of as sweetened. Calories aren't just calories-the body processes different kinds of calories at different rates. The more complex sugars and starches get broken down to basic components and the body absorbs them over a period of time.

The problem with fructose is that it is already a simple sugar so when you consume it, the body must deal with it NOW. It jumps into the blood and the body must turn it into something. This impulse of simple sugar in the blood causes fluctuations in the insulin level and may from long term repetition interfere with insulin regulation.

One of those things the body makes with excess blood sugar is triglycerides, the form of fats in the bloodstream. Triglycerides and cholesterol chemistry are intertwined; Triglycerides are one of the numbers you get with a cholesterol checkup.

So I'm convinced that the amount of fructose we consume contributes greatly to the diabetes and heart disease that are rampant in the US.

[fls]

Has medical science determined health risk/cost greater from smoking than processed foods?

Of course not. Health risks are of very little interest to medical professionals, but we realize that for some reason people expect us to come up with stuff. A committee is assigned the task each year of coming up with a list of "Stuff That Is Bad For You", just like the list of names for hurricanes/tropical storms. The year we came up with "smoking", I can't remember if it was "C" for cigarettes or "T" for tobacco, though.

I checked the list for this year, and "P" is "potash". Maybe next year.

Linda

P.S. Don't fill your head with crap. It doesn't leave room for much else and tends to cling when you try to clean it out.

[DRBUZZ0]

The doctor said that oysters and other such sea creatures filter out every harmful thing out of the water,... and if we injest them, we injest what they ate.



Why on earth would something like an oyster or any organism selectively filter and retain "harmful" things and pass everything else? It's not like it would benefit the organism to somehow retain only toxic material and pass nutritious material.

An oyster or any shellfish is going to absorbe material from the environment. If the environment is polluted then sure, it could get some of that into it's system. It's like anything else which grows in a poluted enviornment.

Does he say what this "every harmful thing" is? I would doubt it.

[JoeEllison]

Wow, some fraud came on another fraud's TV show, and fooled professional patsies like Iamme... what a surprise.

I don't even think Iamme is a real profile, because it is hard to believe that someone could be so foolish, so consistently.

[DRBUZZ0]

You cited cabonated beverages. He went into some detail about aspertame.



Aspartame is an artificial sweetner. It's only in diet soda. It's not even necessarily in all diet soda, because there are others that could be used as well.


Aspartame has been part of the "sky is falling" controversies since it came out. I'm not even going to go into that because aspartame has so much damn research and so many inflated claims it's a subject onto itself.

It's pretty much up there with depleted uranium, silicone breast implants, fluoridation of water, wireless technology, vaccines and all the other stuff that gets blamed for every non-existent and unrelated problem one can think of.

[JoeEllison]

I know that this is an anecdote, but I have consumed a 2 liter of diet soda every single day for the past 7, yes SEVEN years. I am in fantastic health.

I seem to recall that Frank Shorter, the Olympic marathon runner, drank a steady supply of de-fizzed Coke for years and years. Somehow, he continued to be a world-class athlete into his 40s.

[Iamme]

Does he say what this "every harmful thing" is? I would doubt it.

I highly encourage you to watch this guy. He is an expert nutritionalist and author. He goes into detail on all that he says. You can tell he knows his stuff. It has been so popular for Hinn, that he is having him continue their dialogue on tonights show and tomorrow nights show, that airs at 10:30 PM Pacific time. I watched him again last night (for me, in the midwest, I have to wait up til 12:30 AM). He and his wife Sharon.

[Iamme]

... because aspartame has so much damn research and so many inflated claims it's a subject onto itself.

It's pretty much up there with depleted uranium, silicone breast implants, fluoridation of water, wireless technology, vaccines and all the other stuff that gets blamed for every non-existent and unrelated problem one can think of.

He did mention briefly about clorinated and fluoridated water. Think about it once. Our bodies did not evolve with this stuff. Therefore it is only logical it is going to cause adverse reactions in our bodies. I think you do not even have to be a Ph.D. to understand that. It is only common sense logical. We try to play God and find convincing evidence it is okay, so we cando as we please, and take the easy way out with everything. (Like eat foods from factories so we do not have to grow our own food in our back yards, organically)

Let me give you an example of something he said in regard to some comments I have been reading in this thread how people and noted people have gone for years injesting some things the doctor thinks is bad. He cited a case where this one woam went for years and years with all kinds of annoying malladies. None were serious, at the time. When questioned by him, she snapped at him that she was healthy. And he more or less said, "You are? Really? With that list of ailments you have thrown at me?" My point is, just because someone has gone 40 years doing something they shouldn't and are still alive at the time, that does not prove that they are in optimum health, nor feel their best. I* know a woman who is 84 who has smoled for 65 years. She does not have cancer. But her body is falling apart.

I am 54 3/4. I could say *I* am in good health. I am very active. I never am tired to where I have to nap. I am very busy. But am I in optimum health. I really do not think so. Probably not even close. I have all sorts of things that have been nagging at me for years. And it is the type of stuff I have that could very well be nutrition related, where I have poisoned my body over the years, or deprived myself of proper amounts of certain things.

[chulbert]

Therefore it is only logical it is going to cause adverse reactions in our bodies.

No, it's not.

[chulbert]

Therefore it is only logical it is going to cause adverse reactions in our bodies.

No, it's not.

[Jorghnassen]

I know that this is an anecdote, but I have consumed a 2 liter of diet soda every single day for the past 7, yes SEVEN years. I am in fantastic health.


You're not taking mental health into account it seems. No one in their right mind would drink diet cola...

[DRBUZZ0]

I highly encourage you to watch this guy. He is an expert nutritionalist and author. He goes into detail on all that he says. You can tell he knows his stuff. It has been so popular for Hinn, that he is having him continue their dialogue on tonights show and tomorrow nights show, that airs at 10:30 PM Pacific time. I watched him again last night (for me, in the midwest, I have to wait up til 12:30 AM). He and his wife Sharon.

The whole thing about him being an expert nutritionalist (wahtever the hell that is) and being highly qualified:

I don't know a thing about this guy, so I'll issue this wager before I even go to the trouble of looking up any info: I will bet you a donut he's not nearly as qualified as he seems.

[Elvis666]

From Brouer's website at http://www.healthmasters.com/Ted/index.shtml: "Dr. Ted Broer is an international bestselling author, with extensive graduate and post graduate studies in the field of nutrition and biochemistry. His education includes an undergraduate degree in Biological Science and Chemistry from Florida State University. He has also completed a second undergraduate degreee in Psychology and Exercise Physiology, a Masters degree in Business Administration, and has received a doctorate from Southestern University." (Note misspellings)

So he claims "extensive graduate and post graduate studies in the field of nutrition and biochemistry", but he actually lists undergraduate degrees in "Biological Science and Chemistry" and "Psychology and Exercise Physiology", a Masters degree in Business Administration (I have one of those!), and an unspecified doctorate from Southeastern University, a Christian university of about 3,000 students, which lists no doctorates on their website, http://www.seuniversity.edu/academics/.

Lots of red flags if you are willing to look.

[dudalb]

I stopped reading after Benny Hinn.

I did'nt stop reading, but The Name Benny Hinn is a sure sign a whole bunch of Woo Woo is on it's way.

[dudalb]

He did mention briefly about clorinated and fluoridated water. Think about it once. Our bodies did not evolve with this stuff. Therefore it is only logical it is going to cause adverse reactions in our bodies. I think you do not even have to be a Ph.D. to understand that. It is only common sense logical. We try to play God and find convincing evidence it is okay, so we cando as we please, and take the easy way out with everything. (Like eat foods from factories so we do not have to grow our own food in our back yards, organically)

Been watching a lot of Bill Maher, have we?

Sad to say, Iamme does seem to be a sucker for any stray piece of Woo that happens along.

[Iamme]

Why on earth would something like an oyster or any organism selectively filter and retain "harmful" things and pass everything else? It's not like it would benefit the organism to somehow retain only toxic material and pass nutritious material.



Who knows. Maybe the organism itself is immuned to it's own ingestions, but yet if something else eats the organism, it could have consequences.

Amazing how nature created organizms that can break down many things on our earth that would be detrimental if they were not around. There are even organizms I guess that can eat up plastic waste. Amazing to think there are all these niches that simply were filled, with no real purpose in mind.

[Iamme]

The whole thing about him being an expert nutritionalist (wahtever the hell that is) and being highly qualified:

I don't know a thing about this guy, so I'll issue this wager before I even go to the trouble of looking up any info: I will bet you a donut he's not nearly as qualified as he seems.

Why don't you treat yourself and listen to the guy. *I* try to round out my knowledge by reading the Bible AND listening to you guys. I want to take it all in. THEN decide, someday. I will never block out opposing views, or prematurely label someone. I want to hear for myself. Just like the UFO vortex show I was watching last night on the History Channel. Superficially sounds like hocus-pocus. or IS it?

[Iamme]

Been watching a lot of Bill Maher, have we?

Sad to say, Iamme does seem to be a sucker for any stray piece of Woo that happens along.

Whatever. Ya. Bigfoots created or let loose from UGO's. Crop circles. Energy vortexes that cause an attraction to UFO's, making UFO "hot spots", and anamolies that cause electronic/magnmetic equipment to go haywire. I am all ears for all this stuff because frankly, surely there could be a tie-in between all this stuff including things people observed and drew about in the ancient world, and even the construction of places like Stone Henge. I'm not ruling anything out yet. All of life is an utter mystery. To jump into the middle of the picture (like our current theories do) and claim that this (whatever the current theory is at the time) is how it all happened, without understanding it all, back to the very beginning, is quite foolhardy, IMO.

[Iamme]

I did'nt stop reading, but The Name Benny Hinn is a sure sign a whole bunch of Woo Woo is on it's way.

From what I have seen of him, and I have watched several of his crusades and evangelistic preachings, he comes up with some very interesting deep stuff that sounds plausible. he does not sound like someone making stuff up as he goes. There is a lot of thought that has gone into what he says. Also, his off the cuff responses follow in the mold of his teachings, that show me that all is not just rehearsed. It comes from within. He seems cordial and likeable. I do not get the opinion is knowingly some sharlatan.

[Iamme]

From Brouer's website at http://www.healthmasters.com/Ted/index.shtml: "Dr. Ted Broer is an international bestselling author, with extensive graduate and post graduate studies in the field of nutrition and biochemistry. His education includes an undergraduate degree in Biological Science and Chemistry from Florida State University. He has also completed a second undergraduate degreee in Psychology and Exercise Physiology, a Masters degree in Business Administration, and has received a doctorate from Southestern University." (Note misspellings)

So he claims "extensive graduate and post graduate studies in the field of nutrition and biochemistry", but he actually lists undergraduate degrees in "Biological Science and Chemistry" and "Psychology and Exercise Physiology", a Masters degree in Business Administration (I have one of those!), and an unspecified doctorate from Southeastern University, a Christian university of about 3,000 students, which lists no doctorates on their website, http://www.seuniversity.edu/academics/.

Lots of red flags if you are willing to look.

I see no reason for any chest thumping that you too have something he has, regarding the business degree. What is your point? How many people have all the stuff he has on his educational resume'? Sounds impressive enough, if you ask me. If you want to tear someone down, you can tear everyone down, I think. Many of you here are good at that. I don't think anyone ever meets your criteria.

And regarding degrees: They are not everything you know. Any person who devotes their life to a subject matter can become even more knowledgeable than many taught masters.

I just went to the website. Thanks. Sounds impressive enough to me. Look at all the people (dignitaries) he has spoken before! And to hear him talk, he processes information rapidly, and is probably is on a genius level.

[fuelair]

I stopped reading after Benny Hinn.I didn't - Hinny Binny used to be around these parts - but the PhD (not MD) made several points that are on the woosh side. But, no disagreement that smoking can kil you faster than some other things - and with more pain involved.

[CurtC]

Mention was made of sucrose. But if you read the labels on things you find that much less sucrose is used these days than fructose...

So I'm convinced that the amount of fructose we consume contributes greatly to the diabetes and heart disease that are rampant in the US.
I'm not convinced. From http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040910.html :

"Whatever chemical differences there may be between fructose and glucose, the difference between HFCS [high fructose corn syrup] and traditional sugar is slight. Both sweeteners contain both compounds, and in roughly similar amounts--table sugar is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose, whereas the most common form of HFCS is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose."



From what I have seen of him, and I have watched several of his crusades and evangelistic preachings, he comes up with some very interesting deep stuff that sounds plausible. he does not sound like someone making stuff up as he goes. There is a lot of thought that has gone into what he says. Also, his off the cuff responses follow in the mold of his teachings, that show me that all is not just rehearsed. It comes from within. He seems cordial and likeable. I do not get the opinion is knowingly some sharlatan.

Benny Hinn is one of the most despicable people on the planet. Watch the video linked near the top of this page (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html). I cried when I watched it.

[Elvis666]

I see no reason for any chest thumping that you too have something he has, regarding the business degree. What is your point? How many people have all the stuff he has on his educational resume'? Sounds impressive enough, if you ask me. If you want to tear someone down, you can tear everyone down, I think. Many of you here are good at that. I don't think anyone ever meets your criteria.

And regarding degrees: They are not everything you know. Any person who devotes their life to a subject matter can become even more knowledgeable than many taught masters.

I just went to the website. Thanks. Sounds impressive enough to me. Look at all the people (dignitaries) he has spoken before! And to hear him talk, he processes information rapidly, and is probably is on a genius level.

Out of all that, about half of your response is related to an aside I made about both of us sharing an MBA? If I wanted to thump my chest, I would mention a number of things before my MBA. It's just not that unusual a degree.

As far as the degrees not being important, remember, he's the one that put them prominently on the site, not me. And included one that doesn't seem to exist. If Southeastern had the requisite faculty to offer a doctorate, they would.

Hey, I've spoken on the same podium as Zig Zigler. I was getting some piddling insurance designation (so you won't think I'm beating my chest again :rolleyes:) and he had been paid by the insurance company to give one of his canned speeches.

These kind of site bios are always meant to put the person in the best light, just like a resume. If you can find anything off about them, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

EDIT: To add some actual information about the OP, the cost of insurance for a smoker averages two to three times that of a non-smoker. I'll need to get home and dig out some of my actuarial textbooks, but that's a good ballpark figure.

[dudalb]

Concerning Benny Hinn:
From what I have seen of him, and I have watched several of his crusades and evangelistic preachings, he comes up with some very interesting deep stuff that sounds plausible.

If this were a Warner Brs. Cartoon,this poster would turn,for about ten seconds, into a Giant Size Lollipop of the kind formally called "Suckers" at this point.

[Gate2501]

If you want to see a good Benny Hinn video...

5lvU-DislkI

[Pup]

With this said, then why is the gov't so eager to ban smoking everywhere, if likely almost EVERYONE one (since we all eat) eats food whose ingredient labels appear to be something out of a chemical lab?
In the U.S. at least, the smoking laws are generally designed to prevent smokers from forcing others to breathe smoke while going about their normal business.

There are also laws that prevent eaters from forcing food into other people's stomachs.

I don't really see the problem.

[Iamme]

I stopped reading after Benny Hinn.

*I* did the same thing after I bought that one book from that guy who "died" and spent 90 minutes in heaven (the title of the book, actually), and he said in this one chapter that he heard all these angels wings beating. Angels wings. I can't come to grips that an all powerful God would not have had the smarts to move way beyond wings. A belief surely conjured up by people who never thought man could travel 18,000 mph in outer space, or whatever, (and that is just what we can do now. Who knows what we will be able to do that way, in the future.)

[Iamme]

In the U.S. at least, the smoking laws are generally designed to prevent smokers from forcing others to breathe smoke while going about their normal business.

There are also laws that prevent eaters from forcing food into other people's stomachs.

I don't really see the problem.

Ha. I see your point.

But yet, there is a little more too it. They also are doing it to cut down on health care costs associated with smoking. And it is that part of the subject that also can correlate to bad diets.

[Iamme]

If you want to see a good Benny Hinn video...

5lvU-DislkI

Rats. I have no sound. People are dropping on stage like flies. But that is not isolated to Benny Hinn. Pentecostal services have that I guess too.

[Gate2501]

Rats. I have no sound. People are dropping on stage like flies. But that is not isolated to Benny Hinn. Pentecostal services have that I guess too.

The song is: Let the Bodies Hit the Floor, by Drowning Pool.

I thought it was rather funny.

[TheDaver]

Iamme, I have to say it's... er... strange that you've spent five years of your life on these forums and still do not have one ounce of rationality in you.

[CurtC]

I sure hope Iamme watches the video I linked to in post #28 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3567533&postcount=28).

Here is is again, near the top of this page. (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html)

Iamme, please please watch that.

[blutoski]

He seems cordial and likeable. I do not get the opinion is knowingly some sharlatan.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Hinn is one of the world's most exposed charlatains. He's been exposed on television (the Tonight Show) as he was using a radio disguised as a hearing aid and planted confederates in the audience to pretend he received information directly from God. It impacted his scam's revenue for a few years, but as they say, there's a new sucker born every minute. Another related expression: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Any moral person would be offended by the fact that he exploited these religious people's good will and trust, and would work very hard to see that at least his show gets taken off the air.

(Personally, I was more offended during this exposee by his continuous reference to black people as 'dumb niggahs'.)

[dudalb]

He seems cordial and likeable. I do not get the opinion is knowingly some sharlatan.


Uh,being cordial,likeable, and beleivable is the first thing that Scam artists learn if they are halfway competent.
If they need a picture for "Gullible" in the dictionary, Iamme would be very suitable.

[Iamme]

EDIT: To add some actual information about the OP, the cost of insurance for a smoker averages two to three times that of a non-smoker. I'll need to get home and dig out some of my actuarial textbooks, but that's a good ballpark figure.

So also, based on my OP, then what should insurance go up for people who do not eat optiomal food and drink? Consider that smokers are now a small percentage of the general public (and bear in mind that kids do not smoke, but kids DO eat plenty of junk food, and are well on their way to develop cravings in their adult life for all the junk food/drinks). If their insurance (smokers) should be 3X higher to offset associated medical costs, then I'd venture to guess that since most everyone eats way too much junk food and sodas and snacks that contain a chemical plant of ingredients, that even if a fraction above 1X were to be tacked onto everyone's insurance, that the TOTAL insurance cost could surpass that of if you added up all the 3X amount for every smoker.

[Iamme]

Iamme, I have to say it's... er... strange that you've spent five years of your life on these forums and still do not have one ounce of rationality in you.

Well? Let's hear some of YOUR deep thoughts about how I am out to lunch on this thread, rather than just attack.

Is it Benny Hinn? Dr. Ted Brouer is not Benny Hinn. On last nights show, BHenny was not even on his own show. He figured Ted and his wife Sharon could handle things alone, and they did very nicely. They will be on again tonight. I am glad my cell phone alarm woke me up.

[blutoski]

So also, based on my OP, then what should insurance go up for people who do not eat optiomal food and drink?

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, here: the examples in your original post are perfectly fine as food. In fact: aspartame in the menu history is a sign of a healthier diet. Especially in this era of obesity and type II diabetes complications.

[Iamme]

I sure hope Iamme watches the video I linked to in post #28 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3567533&postcount=28).

Here is is again, near the top of this page. (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html)

Iamme, please please watch that.

For starters I read the site page that came up. I'm on my late lunch break. Doesn't sound too bad. I'd venture to say that Joel Osteen has built up some wealth also, and likely does not live in a trailer park, and give most of their proifits to starving Africans. I was impressed by Benny's heritage and growing/staying in the faith and even who he chose to marry. I see no red flags. He could have pursued writing books, living only a static faith-based existance, living the life of Riley, and perhaps marrying someone who was famous and "hot". Instead he appears to live his faith and preaches worldwide.

But remember folks, this thread was not really about Benny Hinn. Just his guest on his show.

[Iamme]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, here: the examples in your original post are perfectly fine as food. In fact: aspartame in the menu history is a sign of a healthier diet. Especially in this era of obesity and type II diabetes complications.

So. Am I to take your word for it?, or this:

http://www.aspartamekills.com/mpvalley/hatch.htm

[blutoski]

But remember folks, this thread was not really about Benny Hinn. Just his guest on his show.

No, your question was about comparative risk.

The missing question was about whether Brouer's claims were true, and this led to a discussion about how to identify a con-artist.

Brouer's an boiler-plate quack, with all the red flags:


fraudulent, misleading, and inadequate credentials
claims profoundly counter to the body of scientific literature
claims used by hundreds of convicted scams - not even original
claims very familiar to heathfraud experts, debunked over and over

[blutoski]

So. Am I to take your word for it?, or this:

http://www.aspartamekills.com/mpvalley/hatch.htm

Neither. There is a body of literature available that speaks for itself. Experts have invested a great deal of time, money, and effort over two generations to explore the potential risk associated with aspartame. The body of literature shows it is safe as an intense sweetener in foods in the quantities typically used.

The PKU issue is valid, but not a reason to categorize Aspartame as unhealthy in general. These people can't eat anything with aspartate, which includes a lot of conventional foods, too.




And I also wish to add; doesn't it only make sense that if we injest all these unnatural things, that since kids have this high incidence today of ADHD, leukemias, and people have weird tumors (cancers and non cancerous and polyps, and MS and MD, and alzheimers and diabetes, fibromyalgia, debilitating headaches, weaknesses in vessel walls, and on and on,... that just maybe the way we eat has something to do with it? Why would this be some 'stretch'?

It's not a stretch. It's just unsubstantiated. Lots of things that are plausible turn out to be false when examined. Most of these claims have been examined and determined to be without merit.

Part of the problem is that there's no scientific meaning of 'natural'. It means whatever the speaker wants. That's what makes it a flag for scams.

It's a very popular idea, but not new. No matter how far back you go, or into what culture, you'll find some cranky old coot who thinks people should eat the equivalent of traditional foods.






If one ate 3 wieners and a twinkie + diet soda,

Meh. The weiners are probably quite healthy, the diet soda has the same nutritional value as water, so I'd call that neutral. The diet soda may even be a plus if it's a substitute for a sugary softdrink. The twinkie has a lot of calories and saturated fat for virtually no nutritional value: a type specimen for junk food. Moderation.




...while someone else ate handful of brazil nuts that are high in cancer-thwarting selenium + an apple + 1% milk, as just one example, who would you bet on should stay out of the hospital (or have the least expensive stuff go wrong with them)?, on average?

There is no evidence that selenium reduces cancer incidence, but there is evidence that too much selenium is unhealthy, and all nuts contain toxins (see below). Edible brazil nuts are a modern domesticated variety - wild brazil nuts are inedible. We have genetically modified brazil nuts over about 3,000 years to be the edible crop we recognize today.

Nuts would not have been part of the human diet until we modified them through genetic experimentation over the last few thousand years. The modification of wild almonds into the safe and edible varieties we have available today is reasonably well documented. They are derived from a fruit similar to apricots and the wild variety contains cyanide.

Most natural nuts are poisonous. The reason for this is that nature does not want us to be eating her baby trees: the fruit bred safe and tasty, but the nuts bred dangerous and yucky.

In my opinion, nuts in are an unnatural food for humans. I nevertheless think some varieties are pretty healthy in limited quantities. Some nuts contain a lot of saturated fat, and should be eaten in moderation. I'm thinking specifically of macadamia nuts or coconuts.

In terms of the apple: same applies. Unless you're going to some kind of specialty store, most apple varieties were developed over the past two generations through genetic manipulation. I'm unaware of any edible apple varieties that were not produced through genetic manipulation over the last few thousand years. Wild unmodified apples are called 'crabapples'. Apple seeds are toxic.

As for milk... you provided a scare website about aspartame. I can show you scare websites about milk run by scammers with similar aims. According to these websites, milk is for baby cows and any other animal eating it is poisoning itself. Makes sense, of course, but it is unsubstantiated.

[CurtC]

Then you haven't been paying attention. Hinn is one of the world's most exposed charlatains. He's been exposed on television (the Tonight Show) as he was using a radio disguised as a hearing aid...

Actually, that was Peter Popoff.

[blutoski]

Actually, that was Peter Popoff.

(head smack). Popoff. Right. Hinn's the Israeli one.

[blutoski]

(head smack). Popoff. Right.

Actually, a colleague of mine named Nardwuar went to a Hinn show when they were on tour here in Vancouver. Got knocked over and everything. It may be on YouTube.

[Ysidro]

I stopped reading after Benny Hinn.

You're not the only one. I'd be willing to consider the concept in the OP if it came from a slightly more reputable source than a second rate faith healer.

[Iamme]

... and all nuts contain toxins (see below). Edible brazil nuts are a modern domesticated variety - wild brazil nuts are inedible. We have genetically modified brazil nuts over about 3,000 years to be the edible crop we recognize today.

Nuts would not have been part of the human diet until we modified them through genetic experimentation over the last few thousand years. The modification of wild almonds into the safe and edible varieties we have available today is reasonably well documented. They are derived from a fruit similar to apricots and the wild variety contains cyanide.

Most natural nuts are poisonous. The reason for this is that nature does not want us to be eating her baby trees: the fruit bred safe and tasty, but the nuts bred dangerous and yucky.

In my opinion, nuts in are an unnatural food for humans. I nevertheless think some varieties are pretty healthy in limited quantities. Some nuts contain a lot of saturated fat, and should be eaten in moderation. I'm thinking specifically of macadamia nuts or coconuts.

In terms of the apple: same applies. Unless you're going to some kind of specialty store, most apple varieties were developed over the past two generations through genetic manipulation. I'm unaware of any edible apple varieties that were not produced through genetic manipulation over the last few thousand years. Wild unmodified apples are called 'crabapples'. Apple seeds are toxic.



Really?! No edible apples or nuts in the Garden of Eden, then? We engineered those two things? Why? How? Who would try to start? Why then haven't we tried that with grass we cut from our lawn and dandelions?

Your whole post was quite eye-opening. What are YOUR credentials if I may politely ask? Just curious.

[Iamme]

There are two guys. You must follow one of them. The choices are.....Benny Hinn...and (drum roll) Dick Cheney.

I think I'd tag behind Benny. I get a sense of calm and serenity with him. There is actually something about him I like. I have heard him off the cuff give very interesting answers that make sense, regarding the world, and religion. I can see why people might want to give to his cause.

I'm not keen on those stage performances where people keel over. But I'd actally like to learn more what exactly is going on there before utterly dismissing it. My friend's lady friend who is a pentecostal, and she has many times fallen over backwards when touched on the forehead. And my friend has gone there and claims he has fallen over now about 5 times. He claims you have no control over yourself when it happens to you and he thinks it is some form of hypnosis. Yet he also says he believes it is bogus. So I asked him why he thinks it is bogus if he goes down, and he says he really does not know. Weird! He can't even answer me something logical! His lady friend (member of the church) uses the expression that you are "being slain in the spirit"

I like Benny in a preaching setting.

[Jeff Corey]

Really?! No edible apples or nuts in the Garden of Eden, then? We engineered those two things? Why? How? Who would try to start? Why then haven't we tried that with grass we cut from our lawn and dandelions?

Your whole post was quite eye-opening. What are YOUR credentials if I may politely ask? Just curious.

Trust him, he knows his nuts, and other facts about people genetically engineering food crops.
Think about the person who first figured out the rule "Don't eat the seed corn."
And young dandelion leaves are good in salad and the flowers are edible. And dandelion comes from French, "Lion's tooth".

[Iamme]

Think about the person who first figured out the rule "Don't eat the seed corn."


Could the expression been started before the discovery of fire and pots to boil water in? :)

[Neutiquam Erro]

Dandelions are tasty! I remember as a kid spending Summers digging them out of the lawn. When we moved to a part of the country where they didn't grow, I couldn't believe it when I found them in the grocery store.

[Pup]

Why then haven't we tried that with grass we cut from our lawn

That would be corn.

[fls]

Really?! No edible apples or nuts in the Garden of Eden, then? We engineered those two things? Why? How? Who would try to start? Why then haven't we tried that with grass we cut from our lawn...?

Perhaps you have heard of a little thing called "wheat"?

Linda

[fls]

Instead he appears to live his faith and preaches worldwide.

Considering that it was established that he lies extensively about his ability to heal, and he uses money donated for spreading the word to treat himself and his friends/family to a lavish lifestyle, to say that that represents the Christian faith is kind of a mean thing to say about Christianity.

Linda

[Pup]

That would be corn.

Perhaps you have heard of a little thing called "wheat"?

Voice over: "Each tribe was placed in a separate hemisphere and given the challenge to produce a nutritious, edible grain, using only native grasses. After thousands of years, here are the results, folks, and now it's time for you to call in your votes..." :D

[Elvis666]

So also, based on my OP, then what should insurance go up for people who do not eat optiomal food and drink? Consider that smokers are now a small percentage of the general public (and bear in mind that kids do not smoke, but kids DO eat plenty of junk food, and are well on their way to develop cravings in their adult life for all the junk food/drinks). If their insurance (smokers) should be 3X higher to offset associated medical costs, then I'd venture to guess that since most everyone eats way too much junk food and sodas and snacks that contain a chemical plant of ingredients, that even if a fraction above 1X were to be tacked onto everyone's insurance, that the TOTAL insurance cost could surpass that of if you added up all the 3X amount for every smoker.

First off, not everyone does eat too much junk food (whatever the measurement of too much is, since many people eat none at all).

Second, insurance uses weight as a measure of "too much junk food", and do add a percentage for that. To equal the increase in mortality that can be attributed to smoking requires a person be be way over into the morbidly obese category, 1.5 or more times normal weight.

There are people, actuaries, who make it their life's work to study just the subject you are discussing. Their findings show that you are wrong, as is Brouer. The reduction in insurance rates for those who live a "preferred class one" lifestyle, casually defined as only being harmed by kryptonite, is on the order of a 10 to 20% reduction in rates. That's the best you can do by cleaning up your act.

I'm not saying that junk food isn't bad for you, but it takes a LOT of it to do as much damage to your body as even a moderate amount of tobacco use.

[portlandatheist]

I sure hope Iamme watches the video I linked to in post #28 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3567533&postcount=28).

Here is is again, near the top of this page. (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html)

Iamme, please please watch that.

Jesus Christ that was profoundly depressing and disturbing

[soylent]

Mention was made of sucrose. But if you read the labels on things you find that much less sucrose is used these days than fructose. It is a product easily extracted from corn, which is plentiful, and thus cheaper to put into processed foods.

This is misleading. Corn starch is a series of glucose molecules and can easily be broken down into pure glucose. Using an enzyme glucose can then be converted into fructose. Typical high fructose corn syrup is about 50% glucose and 50% fructose and it's flavour is somewhat similar to cane sugar(more so than pure glucose anyway).

If you eat some sucrose it is very quickly hydrolyzed into fructose and glucose in equal amounts. This hydrolysis happens in acidic environments and is a major contributor to the change in flavour of fruit as it ripens and soda sweetened with sucrose as the best before date draws closer. There is no reason to suspect that high fructose corn syrup(commonly 55% fructose, 45% glucose, known as HFCS-55) as used in beverages is any worse for your health than sucrose already is.

Calories aren't just calories-the body processes different kinds of calories at different rates. The more complex sugars and starches get broken down to basic components and the body absorbs them over a period of time.

The difference between "complex" and "simple" carbohydrates is usually negligible. Consider for instance white bread without whole grains; its glycemic index is nearly indistinguishable from pure glucose.

As far as rates are concerned the most important factor is mechanical availabillity. Pasta, where the starch grains are embedded in a matrix of protein with low solubility, has a low glycemic index even though it's made from similar stuff as white bread. Sugars in fruit juice are absorbed just as quickly as in sweetened beverages while sugar from fruits is absorbed fairly slowly due to the sugar having to "leach" from the insoluble fruit pulp before it is available.

Don't neglect the amount of carbohydrate either, as the rise in blood sugar is roughly proportional to how much was ingested. It's easy enough to eat a pound of candy but it'd be very difficult to eat 3 pounds of cooked rice.

The problem with fructose is that it is already a simple sugar so when you consume it, the body must deal with it NOW.

Fructose is absorbed slightly slower than glucose and starches. If there are additional problems with fructose or sucrose as opposed to starches or glucose ingested in similar amounts it is due to being processed differently in the body.

[Bill_H]

Glycemic index is defined in terms of blood glucose levels, and misses the effects of fructose. G.I. is simply not a valid means of comparison.

Also, G.I. is defined in terms of a 2-hour integrated response, so does not discern much about the speed of the initial rise in level of blood sugars.

[soylent]

Glycemic index is defined in terms of blood glucose levels, and misses the effects of fructose. G.I. is simply not a valid means of comparison.

Which is why I said fructose is absorded slightly slower than glucose without making any mention of glycemic index.

Also, G.I. is defined in terms of a 2-hour integrated response, so does not discern much about the speed of the initial rise in level of blood sugars.

Any carbohydrate that is almost completely absorbed within 2-hours is highly undesirable as staple food. Freely available starch is almost completely hydrolyzed within about 15 minutes so it's not much of a buffer against rapidly rising blood sugar. How much you eat and how rapidly you ate it is at leasts as big of factor as starch vs. glucose.

[blutoski]

Really?! No edible apples or nuts in the Garden of Eden, then?

Right. For two reasons. ;)




We engineered those two things?

Our ancestors did. And we still do today.




Why?

Because the wild varieties were unsatisfactory.




How?

Selective breeding.




Who would try to start?

People who found the wild variety unappealing. Go eat a wild banana sometime: there's a motivator for ya. Seeds like buckshot. Skin like leather.




Why then haven't we tried that with grass we cut from our lawn and dandelions?

We don't know what was 'tried' - only what succeeded. Some plants are easier to tinker with than others, and many probably lead to dead ends. See Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel for a breakdown of why some cultures lucked out by having access to the right wild varieties, or at least access to another culture that did.

Grass is a good example, actually: grains like wheat, oats, and barley are modified from wild grasses. Rice is modified from a grass. Maize from another type of grass. Those are your big three staples: all grasses. Although technically, rice was domesticated twice: once in Asia, and a second time independently in Africa, from different parent plants (which is why Asian rice is aquatic, but African rice grows in dry earth).

That is literally what the word '[domestication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication)]' means: a species genetically altered from its useless wild variety to conform to become useful for human wants and needs. Applies to plants and animals both.




Your whole post was quite eye-opening. What are YOUR credentials if I may politely ask? Just curious.

Psychology an immunology.

But you don't need my credentials. The history of cultivation is the product of many fields' work, from archaeology to genetics to agriculture.

However, my personal contribution that might be of interest to this specific subtopic is that my heritage comes from a Mennonite family that is quite proud of their vegetable cultivars, some of which are allegedly from inedible wild varieties.

My tangential interest in this is because my skeptical focus is on healthfraud, particularly where claims about the immune system are involved. These guys almost always claim their product is 'natural' but decline to explain what that means. 'Natural' in the context of health is explicitly a marketing word.