Enzymes, Crudités and Pancreas or Pancreas

[Janic]

What does Janic know about my experiences, which have been going on for over 30 years first?

You mentioned VG, nothing else: Do you have 30 years of experience in this field?

Janic wrote:
I grant you that a reduction in ANY physiologically unsuitable product will generally result in better being.

Not the drugs!

Sorry ! Drugs or not, it's just a matter of the means used that may not fit into orthomolecular medicine or some other for that matter.

It can even lead to the death of the subject! This is what Janic's reasoning leads to, sometimes "absolutist" when it suits him, sometimes expressing a certain flexibility, when he does not want to give an overly fundamentalist image of his ideological struggle! Whereas with one ethical line of conduct and only one, it would suffice to stick to it without constantly facing perpetual contradictions. This is the ethical idea.

Once again you confuse progressivity and goal to be achieved which may appear absolutist to those who do not want to go that far, but normal for those who pursue this path.
Otherwise everyone thinks they are following an ethical line of conduct, but which one? like the Afssaps which has become ASNM, Servier or others?
For the mice you mix similarities and identity. Certain products beneficial to one animal category will prove to be toxic for another and yet with, overall, the same anatomical tools. Human is neither a mouse, nor a dog, nor any other guinea pig and you don't have to have a medical degree to realize this.
http://books.google.fr/books?id=0xJ68an ... ic&f=false

All that is poison for some beings is not forever poisonous for others. Thus arsenic is dangerous for humans, only purges wolves, dogs, etc… with force, and aloes, only drastic purgative for humans, kills dogs and foxes in a fairly small dose. The vomit nut, which is fatal to them, is less so for man. Pepper kills pigs, bitter almonds which do us little harm kill cats, martens, chickens, etc ...

http://www.one-voice.fr/sante-sans-tort ... ecessaire/
http://cav.asso.fr/

[Obamot]

Nothing understood in all this blah-blah. My journey huh! Servier and enzymes huh what a connection!

But your zapette works well anyway! ;)

So arsenic is dangerous for humans

Said like that it is still 100% false precisely in one case: guess which one ...!

NB: you better not go too much into biochemistry with someone who does.
There is a set of points in my list that cannot be disputed.
Nothing to do with your entire household: the "mouse model" shares 99% of the human genome:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modele_murin (for or against the animal experiment it's HS)

[Janic]

My journey huh!

I did not speak of course, but of experience according to your own formulation : how many years of VG do you have to speak about it with authority?

Servier and enzymes huh what a connection!

Servier: in relation to the ethics that you mentioned.
Enzymes: I didn't report!

[bidouille23]

bonsoir,

you are in Obamot shape, you would say ...


Just a little note

quote:

Not the drugs! It can even lead to the subject's death.

Apart from alcohol, no drug whose withdrawal is abruptly causes death ... even heroin or opium , on the other hand cardiac arrest very likely if too sudden withdrawal in an alcoholic .... in other cases you hit your head in the walls especially;) and you are bent with pain .... for other still well nothing It's like smoking cigarettes, it's psychological, the sympathetic system asks for its dose and the lack of dopamine and serotonin makes you pout and lazy .... ...

end of the remark ...

Otherwise what are you fighting obamot ??? or for what ???

there is something that escapes me there ...

You make the apology for taste, in most of your texts, but taste is nothing but a view of the mind, a personal judgment, which you like I don't necessarily like.
You talk to me about restriction, what is basically a restriction in relation to;), in relation to the form or to the mental image that you will put yourself in place, so it is once again a personal perception of the thing .
I'll take my example, red meat no longer gives me any desire, quite simply, I have changed my perception of this food so that you can present me with any piece of the most beautiful of meat. just don't want to. On the taste side too I have done a lot of experiments, and at the moment I think I can eat almost everything I have taste but I just don't get it in the foreground of what I expect from food .

In everything Janic has said I do not see any form of doctrine, he leaves the choice, does not say (as I can do) "we must, or we should", free will is left to everyone.

Free will which also implies that in order to adhere to (or / and understand) something you have to take the step (which will remain personal). If a form of food is followed as if it were a diet and not from a mode of food indeed, everything that is relevant to taste and desire would be in the foreground and the "restrictions" would be very real.

obamot

So much the better if some do and persevere, but they will have to do it alone

We always owe everything only to ourselves, life itself and what we do with it, we owe it only to ourselves. In the opposite case, we are simply the fruit of alienation mental system (which, moreover, succeeds very well in doing so, alienating us and losing ourselves in the meanders of the little things that go end to end make us lose all notion of what we should be looking for here below) ... .

In short I do not understand where you want to come from ??? you want to give everyone the solution that "must" follow, so give everyone the means to have a balanced diet, it's somehow everything to your credit, but you will have to go back in time and you change a lot of things, starting from the beginning which is to make people understand that you should not confuse the content and the form, the taste and the usefulness of eating, the need and the desire etc etc, the task is going to be hard, especially if we have part of the postulate that we cannot make someone accept what he does not want, this someone must make his own way, make his own understanding of the things .

In any case, the thing that is certain is that all will end up dying regardless of the diet, the question on the other hand is how are we going to spend the rest of our life, how are we going to modify our body, how are we going to suffer or not ... The stake of a diet that wants to be healthier is indeed in order to avoid a maximum of the words of our industrial society, not to live 150 years ... And finally the question is also at the level of our children and future (maybe) grandchildren, what are we going to leave to them if they continue on the way where we are engaged ...

well I digress I stop there somewhere that unfortunately gets on my nerves to read this game which will never end ...
Personally, I go to my garden to take care of my land and my seedlings ...

[Obamot]

4) It is quite dazzling (and remarkable) that you are able to make such extrapolations in your speeches, when you do not go to the same trouble when it comes to food! Like the "psycho-affective impulses" that would guide people's choice in this area!

As pointed out hack, I am open to

Do not understand? ( ) Is Bidouille here "Info requester" or occasionally opportunistically erected by Janic as "that expert"to arbitrate the debate? ^^

Well, I was kinda expecting that ... Maybe that's why I wasn't answering!

Janic may also have noticed that in the above post, he is upset to me, exactly the same observations that I make almost all the time with regard to ARE own speech! Funny!

And it is even such a caricature point, that "mischievous" as Bidouille can be sometimes, I wonder if it is not voluntary on his part, to do a little "fall Janic into the trap (?)" (if so, then fell headlong by the way)!

Regarding Fred, I must be one of the few who has never underestimated him here (*) Just like Janic by the way.

Otherwise, it would be just as fun (and he would have been less subtle than what he is capable of at this time? As this is hardly an option ^^ I rule out this hypothesis a priori), I do not know moreover not how he would have come to such a conclusion (if it is not by not having deepened nor followed all the debates on these topics, and to know well the positions of the ones and the others before ... of. ... too ... come forward! hey hey hey. I guess if he didn't, he will, because it's easily verifiable!).

With Janic, we've been playing Dupont-Dupont like thieves for several years now (on the theme of food, but not only), with barely one or two stumbling blocks - which even if minimal can have maximum effects in certain cases - hence disagreements because of misunderstandings (or the impossibility of getting along since - through diplomacy - I would say that "we would not have the same prerequisites" but just superficially) and always on the same two or three points! Which proves that we are not necessarily trying to agree since we each integrated what were the limits of the other (hihihihi!).

And finally it's a buzz that works quite a bit, because during this time, people are wondering about "what they eat", even "how they eat it" and especially "why they eat it"(essential and ethical point if it is for Janic and his fight in favor of the animal cause, even if not a fight of himself ...)

And it really doesn't matter to me that we don't have the same opinion, all of a sudden! Everyone has their own opinion ... It may even be that one or the other is wrong on certain points! LOL What a drama! But on the other hand it is hardly resistible to correct someone in error when you think of your neighbor! Whatever it seemed to me that on the question of "personal tastes" it was not really a point that Janic wanted to defend these times! (Even though it is nevertheless a tool of formidable precision, as long as we trust this indicator, and that we are in the "who is going well" approach ...)

Yes indeed, I note a lot of contradictions in all these speeches! And I understand that those who do not have the tools of appreciation (I may lack some too), do not always know what to think!

Well, well ... It's been a long time since some have been dropped on certain points (including this one) since we always come to these questions of prerequisites to understand the material (and that is precisely the crux of this all this iatus) and that at the same time we would not like as long as there is no "segregation in access to knowledge" !! On this point, which is André's leitmotif (and which has spread without reason), I believe that it does not depend so much on its inaccessibility, rather than a fixed idea and a distance emitted for a question of "personal will»(And here I fully put the notion of ego, to make it clear!).

[...] I am open to all other food modes where everyone can make their choice according to different parameters such as culture, habits, tastes and tastes, desires and other psycho affective impulses, etc ...

Totally out of frame and obviously totally FALSE. Considering that the general orientation of Janic's remarks does not go in the direction of this assertion!
Moreover, Janic mixes up easily observable notions by relegating them as non-essential, while the facts themselves show the opposite, and therefore their relevance! So I don't have too much time to (re) comment on it to (re) give the same answers over and over again! This is also a point that I have come back to me, so I will take it into account. Excuse me, this point has already been addressed many times ...

If now Janic had changed his mind to suddenly discovering such a broad mind, so much the better! But then we should keep this new line in mind constantly! and not pretend that it has always been so!

On the other hand, in a precise field I dispute the non-experimental points of view which are based on a priori or yes say! I therefore invite those who are interested in the subject to inquire to the sources rather than on pseudo studies made by characters ignorant of the subject or opposed to it.

ahahah this one is very good. Janic would be well advised to apply HIS words to himself and the VG ideolo-dogmatic doctrine to which he still frequently refers!

Because if there is one here who does not deny the freedom of choice concomitantly with the progression in its own stages of "reform" freely and at its own pace: it is in any case. ..not ... Janic! ( )

* and if I haven't told him his four truths yet, it's because it bugs me to the max! I don't have that to f ... And he knows exactly what it's all about, so I don't even need to teach him a lesson, since he is totally in control of his words ^^ and that he knows very well when there is abuse!

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
As hack pointed out, I'm open to

Do not understand? () Is Bidouille here an “information seeker” or occasionally set up in an opportunistic manner by Janic as an “expert” to arbitrate the debate? ^^

This shows that we do not have the same reading, but it is up to him to answer it. Above he did not express a theory, but his experience as you have yours.

With Janic, we've been playing Dupont-Dupont like thieves for several years now (on the theme of food, but not only), with barely one or two stumbling blocks - which even if minimal can have maximum effects in certain cases - hence divergences because of misunderstandings (or impossibility of getting along since - by diplomacy - I would say that "we would not have the same prerequisites" but just superficially) and this always on the same two or three points! This proves that we do not necessarily try to agree since we have each integrated what were the limits of the other (hihihihi!).

fortunately there are differences, it avoids unique points of view!

And finally it's a buzz that works quite well, because during this time there, people wonder about "what they eat", even "how they eat it" and especially "why they eat it" (period essential and ethical if it is for Janic and his fight in favor of the animal cause, even if not a fight of himself ...)

Error of interpretation, I am not FOR the animal cause, but FOR the human cause which passes ALSO by the animal cause. For the food mode I have already answered it, for those who are interested in it.

Janic wrote:
On the other hand, in a specific field I dispute the non-experimental points of view which are based on a priori or yes say! I therefore invite those who are interested in the subject, to learn from sources rather than pseudo studies made by characters ignorant of the subject or opposed to it.

ahahah this one is very good. Janic would be well inspired to apply HIS remarks to himself and to the ideolo-dogmatic doctrine VG to which he still frequently refers!

Rather indicate YOUR sources which are based on real experience, then we will see if it is dogmatic or not.

[Obamot]

As hack pointed out, I'm open to

Do not understand? ( ) Is Bidouille here "Info requester" or occasionally opportunistically erected by Janic as an "expert" to mediate the debate? ^^

Which shows that we do not have the same reading,

Aaah! I should have put "That it had been erected on occasion by Janic in an opportunistic manner". How would it have been better and clearer?

but it is at [hack] to answer them. Above he did not express a theory, but his experience as you have yours

Ok, Janic wants yet call on Fred "to arbitrate", so be it! Having left all the assumptions open: I am very comfortable with this

And that does not take anything away from the bottom. Since it should be noted that Janic is the legitimate recipient of these remarks, since it must be admitted that he is their "ideological depository".

With Janic, we've been playing it Dupont-Dupont for several years now [...] which proves that we are not necessarily trying to come to an agreement since we have each understood what were the limits of the other (hihihihi!).

fortunately there are differences, it avoids unique points of view!

Yes, that's why we continue to appreciate each other!

Rather indicate YOUR sources which are based on real experience, then we will see if it is dogmatic or not.

Ah but it is rather Janic who never indicates his sources, under the pretext that the studies on which he could possibly base himself to validate his assertions would not exist (and this for various pretexts, also a little ideological)!

Because on MY side, I take everything! There is no reason not to take any study, as long as you make the correct interpretation! So if you want a study, you would have to tell me exactly which one! Regarding my hobby: the new placebo / nocébo approach, I have already disclosed my sources (RTS.CH UNIGE.CH etc)

[bidouille23]

bonsoir,

It's party time in the village ...

It is better not to stick a label on people's heads, it avoids misunderstandings;) ...

I wasn't erected by anyone or anyone except for myself (this may seem selfish but it doesn't have it;), you have to start changing your world so that the other yourself understands that he can also do it, and at least wonders if he could not be not wise to do it ... sometimes it goes in the right direction sometimes not, the trick is to understand at the end the error is used for that ...).

So I don't want to arbitrate anything at all, I admit that I didn't get through the 10 years of conversations between you, I also admit that I don't have only that to do;) ...

It is therefore not for me a question of being for or against or with someone more than with another, but to speak in an understandable way, if all the readers (if there are any;)) must read 10 years of messages to understand all the subtlety of which you are a know obamot user (see nothing wrong or reproach on the contrary, it's all to your honor to remember), well I think that no one 'will understand nothing ...
It's like when you make a presentation, whatever level it is, you have to put it in the frame, in the context and explain ...
These explanations which for you will only be harsh, will be for those who have not read "the tarpaulin" before "the harp" (;)), will not understand taste ....

Hence my question, quite naive or stupid, simple etc whatever the qualifier (it doesn't matter if I am esteemed or underestimated I don't care that does not change my life at all ), why are you really beating yourself up ??? (I do not pause or trap or imply or anything it's a simple question that is intended for you to clarify or simplify my understanding if you prefer, if you see a trap, it is not my doing .)

For the reason, for the good of all (if you have any that all want the good that you want to bring them;), as much as mine and that of janic or anybody for that matter, "all" is a utopia, that's why there are still disagreements (to say that it is so much better that there are points of contention is another subject) ...

Anyway so far in all that I could read of janic's comments, I mostly agree because somewhere thinking the same thing (and I must say that I think I have evolved into a simplification of the "problems" which tends towards the vision that janic already has, without wanting to resemble him, it only happens that my conclusions join his as we go along on certain points), and my conclusions I also form them by dint of personal experience and observations on the ground, from which I try to draw reasoning, which will remain my own but in no case fixed ad vitam etam, these are temporary conclusions which "me" allow me to live at best the present moment in my current context .


To come back to food because the subject is there, I do not see in what to say that if we continue to consume so much meat the surface of the earth will not be enough any more to produce what we consume, than the vegetable which we need will be consumed by animals, that we will therefore have to appeal to "science" to produce more (gmos and angrais here we are), than consumed in a certain form, the plant is enough to bring us what we need, and that 'food must therefore be replaced at its proper level: a level which, if I am not mistaken at present, is at the level of consumption (we are constantly talking about consumption of meat, vegetables, cereals, etc.), but shouldn't we rather talk about use? yes we should use food to maintain our body and thereby take care of our home, and therefore logically take care of everyone we live in ... is it a mistake?

I am not for stopping hunters or carnivores, I am still today eater of fish and shellfish, but I do so because for the moment I am still able to kill fish and be aware that when I eat an oyster it is alive ... If it is done in conscience that is fine with me;) ...

This is saying little by little my underwater hunter's spirit is diminishing, and seeing that I can do without eating such a living being, there will come a time when I could no longer eat them because they are no longer capable of killing. You follow me ? any carnivore in my eyes should be able to kill at least once the animal it is going to eat, kill the pig, the cow, the rabbit the hen, empty it of its entrails, butcher it and finally chop it into pieces?

The question is simple but yet rarely broached, we prefer to go to the mouthful, to take pieces that no longer have the shape that will remind us of the life that gave them.

therefore I am not for the animal cause either, depending on the situation the animal must be eaten in order to give its energy to our own internal animal which asks to survive.

It is not extremist, it is a questioning of what we have learned or not learned, it is a questioning that dates back to our first hunter-gatherer-fisherman ancestor, a questioning of the history that has played its part in our understanding of what food is and what it is for.
To finish when you base yourself on "scientific" theories, I allow myself to try to see on what are based his theory which in general result itself from the bases above mentioned very old ...
and it is not because the same error has been made for 10 thousand years that it is not, the thing is, however, that denying a certain basis breaks not a problem but an infinity of new ones problems, it is therefore easier to keep certain bases for certain people, under penalty of a past for a "mad" "reactionary" "utopian" and all the other qualifiers that you will want to put there.

Conclusion, I still do not see a doctrine, but an ideology of course, that of respect for life, personal and for every being whatsoever (this also affects therefore to almost or outright "religious" beliefs that we are own ) .

So I'm going to be super extreme for this conclusion: let's go even further after veganism why not try respirianism in this case the problems will be quickly resolved, but to do this we must "believe" and to believe we must understand and therefore adhere to 100% without failing, and come back to all our learning our "culture" our path of societal development , our history and our industrialization etc etc etc ..

Assessment as long as we believe in conscience doing well is that it is the case, if for some reason x or Y we do not want to listen to the latter then it may be that there is a problem. This is how I see it ... I "simply" try to become aware of myself and the world in which I live by trying not to give any more advice but by speaking only so that everyone draws their own conclusion which will suit them. and will allow him to live in his present state (it is not won at all ) ...

I don't know if I was very clear, I don't think the subject touches on so much that it would take me a year and the linguistic means (and the concepts clear) to express my thoughts (which will therefore change. I will need one more every passing year;)) ... I summarize: Everything is ONE for us to materialize and find the path that will lead us to the full awareness of what we are doing at every moment as much in thought that in deed (it's a bit of a search for nirvana) ...

but all this is basically blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Obamot]

You're right on a lot of points ... Such as the need to "simplify the message"

why are you pack really ?

Honestly I don't kick myself every morning (and therefore do not suffer, nor seek to suffer or make others suffer ^^). Not this type of Manichean issue in my repertoire. ;)

Then come the questions: are we useful to others, and above all "do we live consciously», Except that there, one can hardly have a say on the others!

[Janic]

hack hello
you explained yourself very well!