Dr Jack Kruse's explanation of what CFS is

[keenly]

@keenly Complete scientifically illiterate nonsense. The only positive is that the fundamental physics and biology are so completely and utterly implausible that CFS sufferers will reject such ridiculous and bizzare nonsence.

Sorry @keenly , come out of the dark and into the Photons

Why are you replying as if I wrote it? Those are Jack's words. Read his book.

 

[Wonko]

@Wonko This is what I do, I sit out in my garden all day barefoot. Here are studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3265077/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378297/

I do feel better but it's hard to pin it on grounding when so many other variables change from being outside.

@adreno It's not me copy pasting stuff thats someone else. Most of it is too deep for me and I do not understand it.

I shall post about EMF if you want and you can tell me if you agree or not.

As far as I understand, nnEMF from phones/wifi/etc does not cause direct damage to DNA, therefore people think it is safe. However they may well cause damage by activating voltage gated calcium channels, causing calcium to flood into cell/mito and this causes lots of nitric oxide which leads to lots of ROS/NOS which causes cell damage and this can lead to all sorts of ill effects. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

That's more reasonable, not by any means saying it's correct, I'm not qualified to, but at least it isn't 18th century pseudoscience (although it may be 21st century.....)

What you can't do is fix this sort of, hypothetical, issue by simply shining a light on it or grounding.

 

[adreno]

Most of it is too deep for me and I do not understand it.

Well, there you go. I don't understand it either. That's because it is incohegent nonsense. And we cannot debate something that is not even understandable.

EMF in itself probably isn't healthy. But I don't buy the idea that it is a cause of ME/CFS. And so far, there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

 

[sb4]

What you can't do is fix this sort of, hypothetical, issue by simply shining a light on it or grounding.

This may not be a fix for everyone, but I suspect it will help most people with this disease. For Jack to be saying this stuff and studies backing him up I don't think its fair to call him a quack and mock people as others have done, for trying this stuff and finding it works, at least without explaining why its nonsense.

 

[keenly]

That's more reasonable, not by any means saying it's correct, I'm not qualified to, but at least it isn't 18th century pseuodscience (although it may be 21st century.....)

What you can't do is fix this sort of, hypothetical, issue by simply shining a light on it or grounding.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521096400.pdf

https://www.emfanalysis.com/research/

Study the science.

Get back to nature.

 

[Wonko]

This may not be a fix for everyone, but I suspect it will help most people with this disease. For Jack to be saying this stuff and studies backing him up I don't think its fair to call him a quack and mock people as others have done, for trying this stuff and finding it works, at least without explaining why its nonsense.

On what basis do you think/suspect this?

 

[sb4]

Well, there you go. I don't understand it either. That's because it is incohegent nonsense. And we cannot debate something that is not even understandable.

EMF in itself probably isn't healthy. But I don't buy the idea that it is a cause of ME/CFS. And so far, there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

I don't think jack has said emf is the sole cause of CFS, just a contributing factor.

If I try a whole bunch of things and one particular source keeps giving me small but significant improvements, whereas the others fair far worse. Doesnt it make sense for me to listen to why this source says these things work? When this same source is proving to be ahead of the curve in many things, does it not make sense I give his ideas a fair shoot. Now if the ideas are very complex such that I have only a limited understanding, do I just give up on them as soon as someone says they are gibberish, or do I give them a fair defense as best I am able. To give them defense I need to recieve actual criticism of the ideas.

 

[sb4]

On what basis do you think/suspect this?

CFS/etc has been shown to have inflammatory problems, immune cytokine abnormalities, etc. If grounding has been shown to help reduce inflamation, it will go some way to addressing these problems. Just as red light has been shown to help mitochondria which are not functioning right in this disease.

 

[adreno]

To give them defense I need to recieve actual criticism of the ideas.

No, you need to understand the ideas first before you can defend them.

 

[Wonko]

But what he is saying is scientifically illiterate, gibberish. Straight out of low budget 70's and 80's sci fi.

I can quite understand that if it seems to work for you why you would believe it, but simply because something works doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is valid, this is how religions and cults start.

In my case, because on occasion I seem to have a very low metabolic rate, eating more than 800kcal a day makes me pile on weight, it was suggested I might have a thyroid problem. So I obtained and started taking NDT, the results were amazing, it didn't do anything regarding my M.E. but it fixed a whole load of secondary issues that had built up over the years/decades making life even more miserable that I had assumed were part of M.E.

Do I have a thyroid issue?, No. Why did NDT make such a difference? No idea, I'm glad it did but it wasn't directly thyroid related.

I recently discovered TMG helps me with PEM, cutting it down to a day or so, am I deficient TMG? Probably not in the sense most people would think. What I think is, the upstream processes from DMG aren't working properly (DMG being the upstream breakdown product of TMG and its limiter) so because of this my body doesn't make much TMG, supplementation with TMG temporarily gives more energy, but leads to even more, unprocessable DMG.

A side effect of DMG is it makes me behave as if I'm angry (at best, the more of it there is the more it turns into psychotic rage), when I'm not angry - because I'm not feeling angry it's almost impossible to control until something is happening - my actions are the cue something is wrong, not the emotion or the thoughts preceding action. So I can't really use TMG, even though it's very helpful on a personal level.

Am I even in the ball park with my thoughts on this? I doubt it. It works as an explanation for me, but to anyone who understands such things it's probably scientifically illiterate gibberish.

My point may be that simply because something works doesn't mean the theory behind it is valid, in any way, if it works for you, use it, until it causes more problems than it solves, at which point............

 

[sb4]

No, you need to understand the ideas first before you can defend them.

I do understand, just not very deeply. Now if your criticism is in my understanding I can rebutt, if not I take it into consideration as I expand my knowledge of these ideas.

Eg if you were to say nnEMF is wrong because the papers that say vgcc are effected are wrong and here is why, then I would have to take into consideration that what I am basing my ideas on could be faulty and therefore I would persue your idea and if you were right I would have been helped.

 

[sb4]

@Wonko Just because it works does not mean the theory behind it is correct, I am aware of this. But I have heard no other reasonable explanations of why it works that tie into all the other things that I have found to have worked together. So am I to immidiately dismiss it because it sounds like a bad 70s sci fi? OR am I to go and look at referenced papers and other sources and see if it stacks up?

I only have a very basic understanding of how computers work. Does this mean when I read the physics behind it and dont understand it, that the theory is bunk and I should listen to someone who says its bunk but doesnt explain beyond that?

 

[Wonko]

@sb4

LOL

Prior to my brain decaying I did have an understanding of how computers worked, I designed chips in the 80's and 90's, I designed and built embedded systems in the 2000s, I tested, broke and designed smartcard based video security systems.

I can tell you without hesitation that the theories behind all of our, modern, electronic technology is bunk, hokum, gibberish. In my case the best way to understand something is to try and break it and see if it breaks the way it's supposed to. I believe CERN is all about this as well

(It's yet another case of the theory being good enough, for now, that's a long way from being right - and the difference makes all of our technological wizardry very very vulnerable to events outside of expectation)

 

[adreno]

Eg if you were to say nnEMF is wrong because the papers that say vgcc are effected are wrong and here is why,

You say you are defending Kruse's ideas, but keep reducing it to the health effects of EMF. Now, if you want a debate about EMF there are plenty of studies on this that you can read, reference and discuss. Then people would have a serious starting point for discussion. But Kruse's "ideas" are not confined to EMF. They are some vague ramblings about piezoelectric energy getting trapped in DHA and distributed through collagen networks and what not. This is all hokum, and no basis for debate.

 

[lansbergen]

You shouldn't need my or anyone's validation if you strongly believe and feel you're getting better following his suggestions

Yep

 

[lansbergen]

The whole idea that people aren't "grounded" and this is causing them health issues is, nonsense,

Animals do not wear socks and shoes and they have four feet. But none the less they get sick.

 

[lansbergen]

Just as red light has been shown to help mitochondria which are not functioning right in this disease.

But I function better with blue light

 

[Wonko]

CFS/etc has been shown to have inflammatory problems, immune cytokine abnormalities, etc. If grounding has been shown to help reduce inflamation, it will go some way to addressing these problems. Just as red light has been shown to help mitochondria which are not functioning right in this disease.

I'm not sure it has been, not to the satisfaction of virtually everyone else anyway, as far as I know all that's been shown is these factors MIGHT be related to some subsets of pwME. Yes as a pwME likely in one of these subsets I believe that inflammation is a factor, but that's hardly the same thing as it having been shown.

I'm not aware of any studies which prove grounding reduces inflammation, what type of inflammation do they claim to reduce, or just a general, non specific, inflammation? How did they determine this? What steps were taken to determine that grounding wasn't just reducing inflammation markers instead of actually reducing inflammation etc. (I don't see how there could be any such studies as where would they get any form of control from?)

Red light helps which mitochondria? There are, apparently, many different types (edit- of mitochondria). Was this observation made on mitochondria from pwME, from which bit of a pwME were they obtained (biopsy, of what?, blood etc.), were they in serum, or isolated, how was it determined the mitochondrial function improved? etc. etc.

edit - e.g. it has also been reported that our mitochondria "may" actually produce more ATP than normal, that there may be nothing whatsoever wrong with them, as several studies suggest.

It's equally possible that, even if the observation that red light helps mitochondrial function, assuming this is a valid hypothesis, is correct, that the red light is affecting something else that is affecting something else, that's affecting yet something else, that's affecting yet another something else, that indirectly affects mitochondrial efficiency.

 

[keenly]

Animals do not wear socks and shoes and they have four feet. But none the less they get sick.

Around nnEMF THEY

But what he is saying is scientifically illiterate, gibberish. Straight out of low budget 70's and 80's sci fi.

I can quite understand that if it seems to work for you why you would believe it, but simply because something works doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is valid, this is how religions and cults start.

In my case, because on occasion I seem to have a very low metabolic rate, eating more than 800kcal a day makes me pile on weight, it was suggested I might have a thyroid problem. So I obtained and started taking NDT, the results were amazing, it didn't do anything regarding my M.E. but it fixed a whole load of secondary issues that had built up over the years/decades making life even more miserable that I had assumed were part of M.E.

Do I have a thyroid issue?, No. Why did NDT make such a difference? No idea, I'm glad it did but it wasn't directly thyroid related.

I recently discovered TMG helps me with PEM, cutting it down to a day or so, am I deficient TMG? Probably not in the sense most people would think. What I think is, the upstream processes from DMG aren't working properly (DMG being the upstream breakdown product of TMG and its limiter) so because of this my body doesn't make much TMG, supplementation with TMG temporarily gives more energy, but leads to even more, unprocessable DMG.

A side effect of DMG is it makes me behave as if I'm angry (at best, the more of it there is the more it turns into psychotic rage), when I'm not angry - because I'm not feeling angry it's almost impossible to control until something is happening - my actions are the cue something is wrong, not the emotion or the thoughts preceding action. So I can't really use TMG, even though it's very helpful on a personal level.

Am I even in the ball park with my thoughts on this? I doubt it. It works as an explanation for me, but to anyone who understands such things it's probably scientifically illiterate gibberish.

My point may be that simply because something works doesn't mean the theory behind it is valid, in any way, if it works for you, use it, until it causes more problems than it solves, at which point............

Like what?

nnEMF causes calcium efflux?

We need UV light?

Have you read all the blogs or one article?

 

[sb4]

@Wonko As far as I am aware the mechanisms for red lights affect on mito are not controversial. Cytchrome C Oxidase absorbs in 600-1000nm light, this knocks off any nitric oxide sitting there and allows oxygen to takes it's place = increased atp function.

I was not aware that some of us produce too much ATP but I'm pretty sure some of produce too little, the red light would help with this and by the way that is only one way it helps.

As far as I am aware grounding reduces inflammation in general, probably takes longer or doesnt effect hard to reach areas but the studies show positive effects on inflammatory cytokines and inflammation in general.

"Grounding reduces pain and alters the numbers of circulating neutrophils and lymphocytes, and also affects various circulating chemical factors related to inflammation." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378297/

"Earthing or grounding increased zeta potentials in all samples by an average of 2.70 and significantly reduced RBC aggregation."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576907/

@adreno I only bring up EMF because I was asked to produce a topic and defend it. I would like to hear criticisms of Jacks Ideas because I think he has been wrong in the past but doesnt like to admit it. But I need to hear the criticisms, not just saying its nonsense.

The collagen thing as far as I understand is because collagen is hydrophilic, and ol Gerry Pollack thinks that when hydrophilic surfaces come into contact with water in small spaces, an exclusion zone is built by the light/emf hitting the water. Essentially the water charge seperates into h3O2, and h3O. The h3o2 is negatively charged and held together in a gel like latice. The h+ and h3O+ are positively charged. Perhaps information/energy can be used here by protonicity. Perhaps enzymes can use these free protons to preform proton tunneling needed to do certain reactions. Perhaps the energy captured by DHA can be passed through the negative charge built up around collagen. Maybe this works through doping / semiconduction.

I say perhaps because I am still trying to understand this.