Dr Jack Kruse's explanation of what CFS is

[keenly]

I don't read Jack Kruse and the most I know about his ideas I read here on this thread.

Coincidentally, recently I was studying about degradation of Riboflavin by blue light (which is serious scientific stuff), and connected a lot of dots of my helath decline with the purchase of a 50" plasma TV set + wi-fi at home combined with an old cordless phone set use (worse than cell phone).

I was so intrigued back then as to why the new TV set would cause so much eye-strain and fatigue, and many years later I found out about the same effect by my computer wi-fi and the the old cordless phone set. I found out about EMF through some semi/full-quack websites and experienced great relief by throwing out the cordless phones both at home and at work. Supplementing magnesium eliminated my EMF sensitivity though.

But never realized about the blue light connection until a couple of weeks ago when I was re-exposed to a strong blue light device that instantly caused the skin on my face to look like this. I only realized the connection with B2 when I tried to up my T4 replacement and got the same skin problem again, leading me to research about B2 deficiency. That is when I found out about the blue light connection. Supplementing Riboflavin (+cofactors) at bedtime healed my skin and improved sleep and energy (no need to up T4 replacement anymore).

Yep, you already have the general idea then.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...radicals_from_riboflavin_on_E_coli_DNA_damage

 

[Basilico]

True, yet billions do and very few of them develop fibromyalgia. Therefore, it is not the cause, because if it were, there would be billions of people in the world with fibromyalgia.

Still waiting for a response to this.

You say that Jack Kruse is right...so please tell me what this section means...Life uses the highest grade of energy?

Still waiting for a response to this.



[QUOTE="keenly, post: 860784, member: 203"]Jack knows more than 99% of doctors on the planet
[url]https://www.jackkruse.com/blog-index/[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="keenly, post: 861596, member: 203"] The irony is palpable. Nobody has a cure for anybody else. [/QUOTE]

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the term 'irony' because it actually applies to your responses. One minute you are claiming that JK knows more than almost every other doctor on the planet and that listening to his interviews will change everyone's lives, and that JK's dictates about eating fish and avoiding blue light ARE cures. Next minute you're claiming no one has a cure for anybody else. [B]Which is it?
[/B]

[QUOTE="keenly, post: 861596, member: 203"]
YOU are angry and ranting, not me. I do not give a shit if you think Jack knows nothing. Drop the hostility. I am fanatical about no person on Earth.
[/QUOTE]

This goes back to a previous comment I made about how you are consistently attempting to redirect rather than genuinely engage with people. I think it is pretty clear that I am not responding in a hostile way. Your attempt to accuse me of being the hostile one is another of your classic redirection attempts. I have given you several concrete examples of your fanatical behavior. Saying that you're not fanatical doesn't make it so. Like I said twice already, you have every right to follow whatever guru you want.

I am very happy to discuss actual JK ideas with you, but nothing in your responses gives me the impression you WANT to have a legitimate discussion about the ideas. So unless you have something to add that isn't a redirection or an insult, I will be not responding to this thread because it's not worth my time.


***Just FYI, I followed JK recommendations 5 years ago, because I though he had some interesting things to say about them. Specifically what I did was Intermittent Fasting and Cold Thermogenesis. The Intermittent Fasting wreaked serious damage on my GI system, I had IBS-C which was in remission at the time, but the IF made all hell break lose. It took me many months to recover from it and to this day I have to eat small frequent meals because eating too much at once tends to cause problems. Never had problems with eating big meals before doing IF. The CT was completely neutral - it did not bring any of the benefits it supposedly should have, but it also did not create any detrimental problems. So I gave up on it after many months.

I'm sharing this with you to show that I am no stranger to JK and [B]I have already done most of what he recommends[/B]. It either made no difference, or at worst created problems. His ideas are not ALL bad (though to be fair, most are not his ideas to begin with) but they are not a cure for anything.

 

[Mohawk1995]

It seems that when your scientific or medical career is over because your mind is no longer the sharp tool it used to be, you can always make money by impressing the gullible public with some "word salad" pseudoscientific concoctions, comprising random terms strung together in a way that impresses the scientifically illiterate.

Although I don't think that Dr Lerner had the cure for everyone, he was 82 years old and still seeing patients when our son saw him. He was strongly opinionated, but was not developing more ways to make money. He was still seeing and treating individual patients. What he offered as treatment helped our son immensely. Would I still respect him even if it didn't...yes because he was definitely in it to help people up until his last breath. We need to have more like him who in the twilight of their career are still working with individual people to help them. We are grateful for what he did for us.

He was definitely not flashy either, but that does not mean that someone who has a large ego doesn't have answers. Don't know about Jack Kruse. Never met him.

 

[TiredSam]

He can be obnoxious and has a large ego but for all you saying he is a quack, the proof is in the pudding.

There is even more proof in a few thousand randomised double-blinded placebo controlled puddings.

Just thought someone should also mention that sunbathing causes skin-cancer. It did with me anyway, according to the nice chap who chopped it out of my face. Something about lifetime exposure to the sun being a big risk factor. I'm now testing this theory with a collection of a few thousand randomised double-blinded placebo controlled hats.

 

[Alvin2]

you can always make money get votes by impressing the gullible public with some "word salad" pseudoscientific concoctions, comprising random terms strung together in a way that impresses the scientifically illiterate voters.

This is how politics works

 

[Sushi]

I'm now testing this theory with a collection of a few thousand randomised double-blinded placebo controlled hats.

Ha, ha! I also had skin cancer "chopped" out of my face from cumulative sun exposure.

 

[adreno]

No cancer for me yet, but too much sunlight ( half an hour or so) makes me crash. UV light also triggers ROS.

 

[sb4]

@TiredSam I don't know what caused your skin cancer. Maybe it was the sun, maybe something else (artificial light?). There have however been studies showing decreased skin cancer in those who work outside. "As sun exposure in the U.S. has DECREASED by 90% during the last century, melanoma incidence has INCREASED BY 3,000%."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5129901/
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/414333
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-06-23-vitamin-d-deaths_N.htm

 

[erin]

I'm very sorry that you had skin cancer @TiredSam.

Sun exposure does not cause skin cancer to many people in this world. It is a risk to some people but to say "sun exposure causes skin cancer" is a sweeping statement and it is misleading.

Past 7 years I sunbathe for average 5-6 hours a day for 5 - 6 months every day. I consider myself that I'm living only those times. My energy levels improve to 85%. I'm still good a month and a bit after, but end of November I get real bad health until mid-May. Energy levels drop to a 40% where I'm housebound. I can not imagine living without sunbathing anymore. It is essential for me. I am sun-powered.

I never had any skin problems so far, actually my existing horrid skin conditions improve with the sun bathing on the above months I mentioned. And I DO NOT use any sun screen! I seem to be allergic to them. I only use hemp or coconut oil on my skin. I can not use soaps except pure olive oil soap.

Since Iast year, I connect to my modem with a cable not via wifi. I don't watch TV ever. Modest lighting at night and not stay up for long hours helps.

This is only my experience, I'm not generalizing it. Not a statement, not be the case for others. However, I can't help feeling defensive of sun exposure as I have benefited hugely from it. I get upset when I hear sentences like sun exposure=skin cancer, I don't understand the scaremongering. Sun light is most natural beautiful thing that we have.

All I'm trying to achieve is not to be housebound, I state again I don't know the dr, never watch or read his stuff. To be honest I'd rather be able to go to beach and spend my day there.

"The sun is for everyone, the beach is for those who deserve it."
City of God.

 

[TiredSam]

@TiredSam I don't know what caused your skin cancer. Maybe it was the sun, maybe something else (artificial light?).

It was the sun. I am very fair-skinned and spent my childhood in the 70s exposing myself to sun unprotected at every opportunity (typical English behaviour at the time). The doctors at the National Center for Tumour Diseases were quite sure about this, I assume on the basis of the thousands of patients (puddings?) they see and the research that they do. It also accords with the advice I get from my skin doctor, who I see every six months.

Sun exposure does not cause skin cancer to many people in this world. It is a risk to some people but to say "sun exposure causes skin cancer" is a sweeping statement and it is misleading.

Ok, sun exposure can increase the risk of skin cancer for some people. I thought that as nobody had mentioned it in the first 4 pages of this thread and that sun-bathing was being recommended (sweepingly or otherwise, I dunno) without mention of the risks, I should point them out.

Past 7 years I sunbathe for average 5-6 hours a day for 5 - 6 months every day. I consider myself that I'm living only those times. My energy levels improve to 85%. I'm still good a month and a bit after, but end of November I get real bad health until mid-May. Energy levels drop to a 40% where I'm housebound. I can not imagine living without sunbathing anymore. It is essential for me. I am sun-powered.

That's great, and I'm glad you've found a way to get some improvement. I would like to be able to lie in the sun too, it would do wonders for my vitamin D levels, but the risk to my skin is one I'm not prepared to take.

Past 7 years I sunbathe for average 5-6 hours a day for 5 - 6 months every day. I consider myself that I'm living only those times.

My sister-in-law has smoked 40 a day for the last 25 years and she's fine too.

And I DO NOT use any sun screen!

I know you aren't generalizing or giving advice, but still, that statement really should come with a health warning.

I get upset when I hear sentences like sun exposure=skin cancer, I don't understand the scaremongering.

I don't think labelling views you don't agree with as "scaremongering" is helpful.

Sun light is most natural beautiful thing that we have.

In 7 billion years the sun is going to explode and kill us all. It will be a natural event, and probably very beautiful.

 

[sb4]

It was the sun. I am very fair-skinned and spent my childhood in the 70s exposing myself to sun unprotected at every opportunity (typical English behaviour at the time). The doctors at the National Center for Tumour Diseases were quite sure about this, I assume on the basis of the thousands of patients (puddings?) they see and the research that they do. It also accords with the advice I get from my skin doctor, who I see every six months.

Yes but I am unsure how big a role the sun is vs other factors. Some things just don't add up for me. 100years ago people spent 95% of the day outdoors, now its 5%. So that is 19x more time outside, half of that would have UV so 10x. No suncream or sun glasses back then. So if they were getting at least 10x as much exposure back then, why weren't they getting 10x more skin cancer, or getting skin cancer 10x faster. Maybe this is bad maths but if the average age of getting skin cancer is say 50 now, shouldn't it have been 5yo 100 years ago?

Also why are office workers 4x more likely to get skin cancer than outdoor workers? Could it be the office workers are exposing there skin to an altered spectrum -> excessive blue -> higher mitochondrial heteroplasmy -> more skin cancer, higher emf -> excess calcium influx -> warbugg metabolism -> cancer?

I think there is more to the story than simply the sun being harmful...

 

[Valentijn]

It's not controversial that sun exposure drastically increases the risk of skin cancer. The mechanism is pretty straight-forward - radiation causes damage to the DNA of some cells, which results in mutations. When those mutations result in uncontrolled growth of cells, it's cancer.

These processes are very well researched and understood.

 

[sb4]

@Valentijn I understand the mechanisms in which UV can cause cancer however I don't think that necessarily means sun causes cancer.

We weren't people dying of melanoma more 100 years ago than today? It can't just be that their life expectancy was lower as they were recieving FAR more sun to compensate...

 

[Valentijn]

We weren't people dying of melanoma more 100 years ago than today? It can't just be that their life expectancy was lower as they were recieving FAR more sun to compensate...

People weren't getting mole checks 100 years ago, and I doubt skin cancer was well enough understood at the time to be attributed as the cause of death. Nor were diseases being tracked.

A major factor is the recent Caucasian colonization of sunnier climates. Skin cancer is especially problematic in Australia and New Zealand - far more than in Africa, where evolution has provided more protection.

 

[sb4]

People weren't getting mole checks 100 years ago, and I doubt skin cancer was well enough understood at the time to be attributed as the cause of death. Nor were diseases being tracked.

I understand this argument however I think that even 100 years ago, doctors would be able to see that something was wrong with the skin in those that died, no? It would go some ways to explaining it, but not enough IMO. If people were spending ~19x more time outdoors with no sunscreen/glasses, then shouldn't they have 19x more dna damage. Wouldn't the docs even back then have been able to piece this together. It surely would have been an epidemic, if thats the right word.

A major factor is the recent Caucasian colonization of sunnier climates. Skin cancer is especially problematic in Australia and New Zealand - far more than in Africa, where evolution has provided more protection.

Yes, this is true however it bares the question why did evolution evolve us white skin if it would lead us to be killed faster? Wouldn't the black skin tribes have dominated in norther climates OR is it that the skin got lighter to allow more light through which resulted in white people being healthier in low sun climates?

Yes Australia this is a big problem although it's complicated. You have white skin types N. European in near equator weather, on top of that you have thinner ozone layer / donut hole allowing more uv to penetrate. Add to this sun screen with estrogen / mitochondria toxins getting in the skin cells and blood and excess blue light destroying mito and non emf and I think we are closer to the reason why AUS is a big problem.

 

[Mij]

It's interesting reading all the experiences regarding sun bathing. I try to sit out for 15 minutes every day just to get vitamin D. The sun saps my energy and inflames my glands (mostly ears) but in part could be due to allergies too,

I feel best and have more energy from September 'til April when the temperatures are colder.

 

[Mrs Sowester]

@sb4 the ozone layer depletion within the last 100years explains that. As does immigration of paler skinned people to hotter climates.

 

[sb4]

@sb4 the ozone layer depletion within the last 100years explains that. As does immigration of paler skinned people to hotter climates.

I understand ozone depletion doing something also pale skin people in hot climates. However I doubt it's the only factor, or even a main one. The UV is max 8 in the UK. What would it have been without ozone depletion? I cannot imagine it being significantly lower, or at least enough to explain the increase in melanoma nor does tthis explain why outdoors workers are less likely to get skin cancer than indoors. I thought this was mainly AUS problem.

 

[Gondwanaland]

It's interesting reading all the experiences regarding sun bathing. I try to sit out for 15 minutes every day just to get vitamin D. The sun saps my energy and inflames my glands (mostly ears) but in part could be due to allergies too,

Likewise. Producing sulfated vit D seems to be very draining.

 

[Sidereal]

Nothing makes me quite as rapidly fatigued and feeling ill as direct sunlight exposure. I actually find it as draining as indoor exercise even though I might be sitting completely still. 10-15 minutes of UV is enough to make me feel drained for hours. It used to crash me for days afterwards when I was severe.