Blog

5

1

Based on Dr. Harris' new idea about our inadequate micro biome and pseudocommensals in our environment as the primary NAD, is this directly contradictory to the conclusion he comes to in his Therapy vs. LIfe post :

"My car cannot fix itself. The human body often can if we just stop ruining it.

So I would encourage you to ask yourself, what are you looking for? Do you think there is a "secret"? Are you fantasizing about immortality? Is everything a tweak or a hack or a trick? Do you think every problem in your life can be fixed by changing your diet?

Or do you see life as complex and tragic but sweet and rewarding, and are happy just to stack the odds in your favor with diet and then get on about your other business?"

His post argues that we are capable of self-healing, while he is now stating that we are not. Right..?

nance: tag edit only

flag
3 
 If he hasn't done a comprehensive blog post in it, I wouldn't try to characterize his views based on comments here or on my blog. – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Mar 29 2012 at 21:23
I think it's very situational and either statement can be true or false. I think this question is off topic. – Nance Mar 29 2012 at 21:23
3 
 what's more pertinent than understanding how a possible 180 can occur within a couple months. I'm sure most people in the paleo world understand that we're dealing with an extremely inexact science, but the change between the human body being able to fix itself and suddenly 'not being able to' (i.e. now avoidance of the prior three horsemen is just palliative) is rather 'on topic' if you don't mind my disagreement.... – Steven Mar 29 2012 at 21:40
6 
 It might be possible to fix your micobiome, and it might not. You might fix it, and then still be stuck with some disease for which there is no dietary cure, not any cure at all. No contradiction at all. Only a 180 if you are not thinking carefully. Maybe you should stop reading blogs if every sentence you read looks like a prescription written for you personally.... What is up with coming up with new insights and being dismissed because of some alleged contradiction? Do you imagine bloggers write all posts at once and then publish them slowly over many years so they all fit together? – Kurt G Harris MD Mar 29 2012 at 22:25
7 
 You are treating internet blogs like a medical textbook when they are more like an evolving corpus of case law. Try to think of everything contextually and with contingency in mind. – Kurt G Harris MD Mar 29 2012 at 22:26
show 1 more comment

closed as not a real question by Patrik♦♦ Mar 30 2012 at 0:25

4 Answers

9

Jesus Christ, how many threads can we have about one comment on a blog? You PH folks must be having a slow news day. Even Sean Abbott is bored, I guess.....

Sean, why not make yourself useful and start another thread for them. Find the oldest sentence I ever wrote, take it out of context and find a newer sentence that sounds different. Be sure to take everything literally, of course...

link|flag
4 
 LOL! News headline: "Dr Harris says boredom rampant!" – Nance Mar 29 2012 at 22:35
1 
 "Is the comment made by Dr. Harris about Sean Abbott a paleo-compatible comment?" – Anonymous Chump Mar 29 2012 at 22:49
7 
 Piss off Kurt, what makes you the expert of what is useful. Just because you are famous? I'll have you know my fanboy meter is pegged to 11. Also "we" in the community don't approve of any sort of ad hom behavior. – Sean Abbott Mar 29 2012 at 23:11
1 
 @Sean Abbott, much better than starting a new thread! Thanks for making me LOL. I needed that. – Nance Mar 29 2012 at 23:20
1

"Or do you see life as complex and tragic but sweet and rewarding, and are happy just to stack the odds in your favor with diet and then get on about your other business?"

Less Woodstock, more science. Is this a poetry reading?

link|flag
1 
 Huh. I heard somewhere that "Also "we" in the community don't approve of any sort of ad hom behavior. – Sean Abbott 1 hour ago" Irony. I like it. – Satchmo Mar 30 2012 at 0:34
0

I didn't get that from that post, and I think he has been pretty consistent in this area. He was saying that some things cannot be touched by diet, then and now. I.e. if you are eating well as in not making your health actively worse but still have a health issue, do not go searching for that magical tweak, as you will more than likely fail, or worse damage your health with some untested 'treatment'.

link|flag
how do you reconcile this line: " You don't need fixing so much as to just stop injuring yourself." ? Because as I see it the eukaryotic commensals of the old friends hypothesis suggest that a certain amount of injury is actually necessary.... in this case fixing is allowing injury, albeit mildly.. – Steven Mar 29 2012 at 21:47
1 
 I think that's a matter of semantics. I read that line as the best you can do with diet is to stop making things worse where you can, I saw that post as railing against the 'I can make it ALL better' attitude that some people in the blogosphere posess. – sarah-ann Mar 29 2012 at 21:51
and i'm not arguing the diet part, or any magical tweak. I'm merely saying that one view (the life one) suggests that we can, more or less, enjoy life without damaging ourselves through superfluously through inadequate diet, while continuing to endure the necessary hardships (one's that you can't get around with magic pills..etc). But the hygiene hypothesis is saying we'll have an half the flask of water that our ancestors had while walking through the desert (i.e. we actually will have a disadvantage, or more hardship than we should). So therapy is useful, just as long as it's the right one – Steven Mar 29 2012 at 21:56
@Steven -On the contrary, OFH suggests that they work in concert with the immune system to do the actual fixing and in fact they are not damage, they are part of our bodies they same way bacteria are. Read some of the sources (pubmed is your friend) before making armchair pronouncements about it. – Kurt G Harris MD Mar 29 2012 at 22:29
my pronouncement was based on the fact that " Helminths secrete a multitude of molecules, including protease inhibitors, cytokine homologues, and a number of other compounds that alter T-cell function. These molecules down-regulate the host’s immune system.". Going hand in hand with your analogy about the uneducated, yet well armed immune cells, these compounds "teach" and occupy our immune systems so that they don't attack our own tissues. And if they were working in concert with our immune system, then why does Graham (grahamrook.net/downloads/files/… – Steven Mar 29 2012 at 22:48
show 1 more comment
0

The whole basis of the placebo effect is that about 2/3's of our "ailments" will pretty much go away on their own.

link|flag

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.