27 Apr 2018

Antioxidant suplements: Another myth?


Hello everyone, and Sarah,As asked, yesterday, I am going to give some data from the web to defende theory that, like in many other subjects, we have accepted the wrong theories about antioxidants (supplementation) and, obviously, I have not found the paper work I read months ago about that research in Germany.


The most powerful antioxidant NAC is also mentioned by the German group (of course we bennefit from even if there was no antioxidant power in it):"The most impacienting is that the researchers did not observe any assossiation between aging and the general increasing of the oxydants In the organism. The group did not find any evidence supporting the so talked hypothesys that the lifetime of an organism is limited by the production of damaging oxydants." Affirms the German Institut"The only specie oxygen reactive increasin (oxidative stress) was found in the cells of the intestine. But, not even, animals that lived longer, had an encrement in the oxidants  even more accelerated compared to the placebo ones. Those ones that lived shorter, had smaller oxydant index.Many things that we observed in the animals, with the help of biosersors, were surprised for us. It sounds like many of the conclusions obtained in "studies" (Cientific studies made in propaganda and marketing office - I would say) with isolated cells simpply can not be transfered to a living organism." Summarize Dr. Thobbias DickBiosensors are genes that the Cientists introduced from the genetiic material of fly. These biosensors are specific for a number of oxidants, and point the oxydative stress status of every cell relessing a luminous signal, on time and during the whole lifetime of the subject.To exclude any doubts, the Cientists used NAC, to fed the animals, and they até a lot of the supplement, again, the effect was surprising, being exactly the opposite of what was so said. It was not just that the Cientists did not find any evidencie of the reduction of the oxidants, after ingestiOn of the NAC supp. But the antioxidants caused an increase in the oxidants in many tissues of the body.Like I said once, nearly all we know, is not more than cientific fraud, and Its been a while I got that. That is why I believed in the old MMS Humbles as against the system. "They" are putting many people in prision around the world for SAVING LIVES POLITICALLY INCORRECTLY."The more we know, the more we know we don't know - and perhaps, for some, the less you wanna know."

My key takeaway from that article was: "Antioxidants are also critical to good health and help reduce the effects of other types of damage that can occur on a cellular level and contribute to neurologic diseases like MS," Cassard said. "Whether the nutritional differences that we identified in the study are a cause of MS or a result of having it is not yet clear."

The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems. Mohandas Gandhi

Seriously, Wouldn't it be a joke to see These kind of studies since they don't even know why "MS" exist?It is upsetting but makes laugh now. It is certain that a body invaded by Cpn will produce more free radicalS as a result of the oxidative stresss to try to fix what is wrong. And that higher release of hypoclhorous acid (yes, oxygen, hydrogen etc) will, together with the Cpn, deplete antioxidants. But that Does not mean you need to help the bacteria by antioxidant supplementation, unless you are killing it at the same time, like NAC in a CAP, which is not the case of 99% of all "MS" people - I guess we are not much more than 1% of all patients On earth who know the cause of it. I guess.We should know what side we are on, to be quiet frank. These useless studies custed a few MIlLLION DOLLARS that they keep burning and keeping people ignorant, like I was a while ago, or all of us."The more we know, the we know we don't know."