Dr David Tuller: Athlete Oonagh Cousins on the Lightning Process

[Countrygirl]

https://virology.ws/2024/06/21/tria...3D0xQN3l1bvePcbM_8_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw

Trial By Error: Athlete Oonagh Cousins on the Lightning Process​

Leave a Comment / By David Tuller / 21 June 2024

By David Tuller, DrPH

Oonagh Cousins, a world-class rower who once dreamed of representing Great Britain in the Olympics, got sick early in the pandemic and has been suffering from Long Covid ever since. Her story was first covered by the BBC in November, 2020. A BBC article last year covered how her condition had “crushed her Olympic dream.” Earlier this year, a BBC investigation of the woo-woo intervention called the Lightning Process also featured Cousins, who had tried it and believed it was “exploiting people,” as she told the reporters. I wanted to hear a bit more about Cousins’ experiences as well as what she’s up to now. We spoke earlier this week.

 

[wabi-sabi]

Wow, isn't she wonderful!

 

[kushami]

Too bad it’s legal in most countries to make unsubstantiated claims about treating illness … providing you are not a doctor.

(I know doctors sometimes do this too, but technically they can be prosecuted or struck off. Non-doctors are free to profit from false medical claims to their heart’s content.)

 

[Florida Guy]

Here, medical claims are investigated and cracked down on if false. The fda is almost worthless in protecting us from harmful chemicals in our food and environment but any medical claim for a supplement or device, treatment, etc gets full attention. Doctors and laymen both are prohibited from making false or unsubstantiated claims. Of course its rumored that if the right thing$ are offered to the fda officials, you might be able to put harmful chemicals in the food like msg, aspartame and many other things and maybe your fake device won't get banned immediately

 

[wabi-sabi]

The fda is almost worthless in protecting us from harmful chemicals in our food and environment but any medical claim for a supplement or device,

This isn't true. Consumers actively lobbied the FDA to prevent them regulating supplements the way they do medications. We got what we asked for!

 

[Florida Guy]

This isn't true. Consumers actively lobbied the FDA to prevent them regulating supplements the way they do medications. We got what we asked for!

Is aspartame a supplement? No, its a harmful chemical they allow in food. Anyone can find loads of info on the subject. One of its ingredients is methyl alcohol, a well known toxin. Many people have a bad reaction to it, it makes me sick

How many consumers asked the fda to please put this nasty chemical in the food supply? None, nobody wants it and they keep putting out propaganda like its perfectly harmless. Here is a link to a government study about neurological effects. There are many such articles, do a search

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28198207/

They let food companies put as much msg into their products as they wish. Did you or anyone you know ask them to do that? I sure didn't. The fda is compromised, their people get big payoffs from pharma industry to not be too harsh in the testing. The heads of fda have often found high paying jobs in the pharma industry they regulated after they leave

 

[JES]

Is aspartame a supplement? No, its a harmful chemical they allow in food. Anyone can find loads of info on the subject. One of its ingredients is methyl alcohol, a well known toxin. Many people have a bad reaction to it, it makes me sick

How many consumers asked the fda to please put this nasty chemical in the food supply? None, nobody wants it and they keep putting out propaganda like its perfectly harmless. Here is a link to a government study about neurological effects. There are many such articles, do a search

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28198207/

They let food companies put as much msg into their products as they wish. Did you or anyone you know ask them to do that? I sure didn't. The fda is compromised, their people get big payoffs from pharma industry to not be too harsh in the testing. The heads of fda have often found high paying jobs in the pharma industry they regulated after they leave

You can get some amounts of methanol even from consuming things like fruit. The amount matters to whether something is toxic or not as even too much water is toxic, to take it to the extreme.

I don't think anybody asked as such to put aspartame in products, but it's a matter of finding the least harmful sweetener. One non-diet coke contains up to ten teaspoons of added sugar - clearly not good. Then there are other sweeteners like sucralose that also come with their own issues. It seems aspartame is the sweetener that stimulates insulin production the least, so there's that as well. You don't want a sweetener that makes your body think it just took in a load of sugar and works your pancreas up for no good reason.

 

[lyran]

I don't think anybody asked as such to put aspartame in products, but it's a matter of finding the least harmful sweetener.

Stevia would be a better choice but I guess they haven't managed to get the taste right. There have been stevia versions of coca-cola and pepsi but they still have some sugar in them.

 

[hapl808]

I don't think anybody asked as such to put aspartame in products, but it's a matter of finding the least harmful sweetener. One non-diet coke contains up to ten teaspoons of added sugar - clearly not good. Then there are other sweeteners like sucralose that also come with their own issues. It seems aspartame is the sweetener that stimulates insulin production the least, so there's that as well. You don't want a sweetener that makes your body think it just took in a load of sugar and works your pancreas up for no good reason.

Although there were enough concerns about aspartame that it was going to be pulled from the market, and its manufacturer managed to lobby the incoming administration and reshuffled FDA to halt that withdrawal effort.

So there was someone pushing aspartame because they had billions riding on it. Personally, I'm not so sure the artificial sweeteners are any better than sugar - but pushing people to consume less is rarely a major corporate goal.

 

[Florida Guy]

I don't think anybody asked as such to put aspartame in products, but it's a matter of finding the least harmful sweetener. One non-diet coke contains up to ten teaspoons of added sugar - clearly not good. Then there are other sweeteners like sucralose that also come with their own issues. It seems aspartame is the sweetener that stimulates insulin production the least, so there's that as well. You don't want a sweetener that makes your body think it just took in a load of sugar and works your pancreas up for no good reason.

If its a question of whether sugar or aspartame is more dangerous, its clearly the aspartame. Did you read the link I gave? Sugar on the other hand is not good either, it puts on pounds and causes problems. Excess sugar should be avoided but I'll take a little bit of a natural product over an artificial chemical any day

Its only a difficult decision if you assume that people MUST have a sweet flavor in their food all the time and taking a risk of serious disease is a better choice. Here is a quote from the article for those who missed it

Aspartame (α-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine-o-methyl ester), an artificial sweetener, has been linked to behavioral and cognitive problems. Possible neurophysiological symptoms include learning problems, headache, seizure, migraines, irritable moods, anxiety, depression, and insomnia. The consumption of aspartame, unlike dietary protein, can elevate the levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid in the brain. These compounds can inhibit the synthesis and release of neurotransmitters, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which are known regulators of neurophysiological activity. Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brains vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health

Stevia would be a better choice but I guess they haven't managed to get the taste right. There have been stevia versions of coca-cola and pepsi but they still have some sugar in them.

The only thing those companies care about is selling a lot of their garbage products and making the most money. A large part of the blame falls on the consumer who buys the defective products and risks their health

The fda was supposed to protect the consumer because the manufacturers certainly won't. The fda was supposed to be incorruptible but we see fda heads being hired by big pharma at huge salaries after their term was over and after they helped big pharma get what it wanted

I don't see how anyone with a metabolic disease would want to take something that messes with their metabolism and could give worse problems. I get nausea that lasts a couple days if I eat any by mistake.