Natural remedies for the flu and boosting immunity

Angela Rodriguez2 said:You’re using the word "predisposed"?

Look, just because someone has a genetic predisposition doesn't mean they're automatically doomed to get a disease... the actual deciding factor is whether they actually become overweight or not. And once they do, everyone starts pointing fingers at genetics like it's some kind of scapegoat—it isn't! It's their lifestyle and their trash diet. I mean, I think that's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain, right? If someone is overweight, something is clearly wrong with their habits. 😢

It's honestly like when people claim someone's left leg hurts just because they're old... meanwhile, their right leg is the exact same age and feels perfectly fine... 😁

Pure nonsense, seriously.

Trust me, Type 2 diabetes is all about those genes. If you don't have the genetic makeup for it, you could spend your entire life weighing 280 pounds at 5'7", and you still won't develop diabetes. You might end up with a million other issues, sure, but not diabetes.

rustymoose54 said:just talking nonsense...

In case you didn't catch that, we're talking about MacGregor here.

He's basically been spouting total nonsense for almost a year now, right? ;=

rustymoose54 said:just talking nonsense.

trust me, type 2 diabetes is all about genetics. if you don't have the genetic predisposition for it, you could weigh 280 lbs at 5'7" your entire life and never develop diabetes. you might deal with plenty of other issues, but not diabetes.

Okay, sure, genetics creates a certain predisposition—but if that 280lb person actually weighed, say, 180lbs, that predisposition might never actually turn into a disease. You get what I'm saying? Or do you still think I'm just "talking nonsense"?

Two overweight people who both weigh 280lbs can be in completely different health states. For instance, Person A might have tried ten different diets, triggering metabolic shifts that finally activated those dormant genes—while Person B just eats whatever and never thinks about dieting, so they haven't triggered any sudden changes in their metabolism, leaving their body in a much better state of balance.

Does that make sense? .. 😉

Angela Rodriguez2 said:Okay, sure, that’s possible—genetics sets the stage for a predisposition—but if that 280lb person of yours actually weighed, say, 170 or 180lbs, that predisposition would never have spiraled into an actual disease. You get what I'm saying? Or do you still think I'm just "talking absolute nonsense"?

Look, two overweight people both weighing 280lbs can be in totally different health boats. Take Person A, who's cycled through ten different fad diets... all those crazy shifts might have triggered some metabolic chaos that finally pushed those dormant diabetes genes into overdrive. Meanwhile, Person B? They just chill, never even thought about dieting, never messed with their metabolism, so their body stays in a weird kind of equilibrium that actually works better for their overall health...

Do you see the point now?.. 😉

Of course you're still talking nonsense, but honestly, man, that seems to be your whole job description at this point.

You claimed genetics plays zero role in Type 2, then when I told you that was dead wrong, you just kept rambling... so I doubled down and said genetics is absolutely essential for Type 2 development. Now you're trying to use this specific example to wiggle out of it, but you're failing miserably and you're completely off base.

Basically, if you take two overweight people living the exact same lifestyle and eating the exact same stuff for years, one will develop Type 2 diabetes and the other won't. Why? Because the first one carries the specific gene cluster responsible for triggering it, and the second one doesn't.

That doesn't mean the second person is going to be some picture of perfect health, obviously... but they aren't going to get diabetes. ☕

Seriously, don't feed the troll, please. You know better than anyone that you aren't going to change their mind—it’s just not going to happen—and there's zero chance you'll teach them anything new either. They're just going to keep doing their own thing regardless, so honestly... don't even bother trying...

rustymoose54 said:Of course you're still arguing—honestly, it's basically in your job description at this point.

You claimed genetics don't play a role in Type 2, which I told you was wrong. Then you just kept pushing back, so I explained again that genetics are absolutely essential to how Type 2 develops. You tried to pivot with an example to dodge the point, but it didn't work and was totally off base.

Basically, if you take two overweight people living the exact same lifestyle and eating the same food for years, one might develop Type 2 diabetes while the other doesn't. It comes down to the first person having the specific genetic markers for it, while the second one simply doesn't.

That doesn't mean the second person stays perfectly healthy, obviously—but they won't get diabetes. ☕

I said:
"If we were talking about Type 1, I’d be right there with you, but for Type 2, genetics is really just about what's on the kitchen table—it's the same unhealthy food and habits passed down from parents to kids, whether they realize they're doing it or not."

"Just because someone has a predisposition doesn't mean it's a guaranteed ticket to getting sick... the real deciding factor is whether they become overweight or not. Once that happens, everyone starts blaming genetics, but it isn't the culprit—it's their habits and poor diet. I think that's pretty clear to everyone; if someone is overweight, something is clearly out of balance."

If you have two people who both eat poorly and weigh 280 lbs, and one has diabetes while the other doesn't, sure, maybe there's a "genetic predisposition" involved—but that's not the whole story. The simple fact that one person might have cycled through various diets while the other hasn't changes the entire equation.

I know people who dealt with Type 2—my mom had blood sugar levels in the 500s and my daughter hit 400, and they both managed to get things under control just by fixing their diet. Even if they shared the same genes, those genes aren't the *only* requirement for the disease to show up—other factors have to align too. Period.

Angela Rodriguez2 said:I know people who dealt with Type II diabetes—my mom had blood sugar levels at 28 and my daughter was at 20—and they both managed to get it under control just by fixing their diet. Even if they shared the same genetics, that’s not the ONLY factor in developing diabetes (there are other conditions that have to line up, too). PERIOD.

In that specific scenario, those "other factors" were basically eating junk food at the same kitchen table—just bad habits being passed down from a "smart" mom to her daughter. 😉

I was reading this fascinating health book called "Your Body is Crying Out for Water," and it makes some pretty striking points:

- It's a simple truth—dehydration can actually make you sick. We still don't fully grasp how much damage occurs when we fail to meet our body's daily water requirements.

- Chronic cellular dehydration leads to painful, premature death. For a long time, its early symptoms were just dismissed as mysterious illnesses with no clear cause.

- Even today, many medical experts don't quite grasp the vital role water plays in the human body.

- Medication usually just masks the symptoms—it isn't really designed to cure the degenerative issues occurring within the body itself.

The discussion here centered on dehydration and water intake, but the reality is that we still have so much to learn about metabolic shifts caused by nutrient deficiencies from a poor, unbalanced diet. Taking a proactive approach—making sure all essential nutrients are met every single day—has shown incredible real-world results, and science is finally starting to catch up and explain why. 🙂

Honestly, I know too many people who managed their Type 2 diabetes through these methods to doubt the theory—at the end of the day, real-life results are the only thing that matters.

Look...
Regarding the whole "it's all genetically predetermined" thing—I am never buying that. And anyone out there trying to sell you on that idea? I’ll always wonder exactly how much they're being paid to spout those lies.

The thing is,
if diabetes were truly a genetic predisposition, just think about what that would mean for natural selection in the human race over the last few hundred thousand years.
Just imagine how many people back before we even had writing would have died from hyperglycemia whenever they ate a little too much? Would those people have just died off, leaving room for everyone else with healthy genes? If this whole theory were actually true, there wouldn't simply be people walking around today with genes for pancreatic disease...

They would have gone extinct.

Secondly...
doctors—and look, I’m being blunt here—in most cases, they’re just plain wrong. They honestly don't have a clue, even though I suppose I should congratulate them on spending x years in med school. But they get paid big time to peddle misinformation.
By 2050 at the latest, it’s predicted that 50% of the population in Europe will have some kind of allergy to something...
And then, oh sure, they'll "discover" a genetic therapy for it (followed by the side effects, then drugs for the side effects...)

And why is that happening?
Because we eat processed junk, live in concrete jungles, and stuff like that.

See...
My family is from the countryside...
And ragweed grows like crazy out there... yet nobody ever sneezed or anything because of it. Now, here we are, acting like it's killing us...
If that were really the case, those people would have gone extinct long ago. In x instances throughout history, while hunting mammoths or hiding from a saber-toothed tiger or a bear, someone would have started sneezing because they ducked into a bush full of ragweed... and then they would've been eaten alive.

Anyway, you can go to the pharmacy and buy "Silicon Valley" supplements, and they cost a fortune...
And what is it? It's just the silicon we all ate plenty of as kids when we were playing in the sandbox...
Or those "Pectin" tablets... what is that? Just dried apple peel that people swallow because they think it's good for them...

Basically... there wouldn't be any diabetes or anything like it if we just lived normally and ate normally... and for the record, I don't work for anyone, and I'm not out here selling anybody's products...

Kyle Nelson2 said:man...
look, this whole "it's all in your genes" thing? I'm just not buying it. Honestly, whenever I hear people peddling that line, my first thought is always—how much are they getting paid to spout that nonsense?

Look, you can choose whatever fairy tale you want to believe, but I *know*—and I’m not just talking about my own opinion here, I mean actual professionals in the biomedical sciences—that there's a specific set of genes that basically act as a prerequisite for type 2 diabetes to even show up in the first place. 🙂

Look, I totally respect where you're coming from, but I just wanted to point out one little thing here:

Kyle Nelson2 said:my folks are from the countryside..
and ragweed grows like crazy out there... and nobody ever sneezed or anything because of it. Now it's like we're all dying from it...
well, if that were actually true, those people would've gone extinct ages ago—like, imagine being out hunting mammoths or hiding from a saber-toothed tiger or a bear, and suddenly you start sneezing because you ducked into a bush full of ragweed... and then you just get eaten..

Ragweed is actually a plant that's native to North America. You can check the details on this link:
It made its way over to the States back in 1941, but it didn't really start spreading aggressively until the '80s. That’s basically why so many people are allergic now—evolutionarily speaking, Americans are used to the pollen, but people in Europe aren't, and the stuff has been spreading at a terrifying speed over the last couple of decades...

Yeah...
What about things like pigs, ticks, and stuff like that?
They've been living right alongside us forever...

As for ragweed, I have no clue where it actually came from... I asked some old-timers about it and they just told me it’s always been around...

Besides that, I'm talking about how half the population is going to be allergic to everything, when back in the day, allergies weren't even a known thing. Why is that?

Regarding diabetes, I remember watching this segment on "60 Minutes" where they had a specialist on. He claimed obesity was the main culprit because it increases the actual number of cells in your body, so the insulin has to produce more and more until it just burns out...

Well, I've read enough to know that when you gain fat, the number of cells doesn't actually increase; they just "swell up." So, his whole theory is kind of bunk...
I mean, I'm no expert, but when some supposedly "distinguished" specialist says something wrong on national TV, who's the crazy one then?

We all carry recessive genes for all sorts of diseases, that's no secret...
It'll be real interesting when the big pharma companies start rolling out gene therapies that cost like $100,000 or more per treatment... man, that's a hell of a lot of money...

Kyle Nelson2 said:blah blah blah...

So, regarding diabetes—I remember watching this segment on "60 Minutes" about it, where they had some supposed expert claiming obesity is the main culprit because it supposedly increases your actual cell count, forcing your pancreas to work overtime until it just burns out...

But look, I’ve read enough online to know that when you gain weight, you aren't actually growing more cells; they just get bigger, so that whole theory is total garbage...
I mean, I'm no doctor, but when some big-shot specialist gets things dead wrong on national TV, you gotta wonder who's actually tripping here, right?

1. People who carry the genetic markers for Type 2 diabetes will almost certainly develop it if they overeat.

2. People who DON'T have those specific genes won't develop it, even if they eat way too much.

3. Keeping a decent weight is the best way to prevent Type 2 diabetes—mostly because none of us really know if we're carrying those genes or not.

So, please, just accept this simple reality: you can't catch Type 2 diabetes if you don't have the genetic predisposition, no matter how unhealthy your lifestyle is. That doesn't make it anyone's "fault" if they do get sick—it's just a lucky break for the others who can gorge themselves and stay fine. In other words, you can keep going on your crusade against overweight people, blaming them for causing their own illnesses... but some people just didn't get lucky with their DNA, whatever... 😉

Alright, seriously, can someone please explain how dust allergies even work? Like, how does it make sense for 50% of the population to be allergic to something? It sounds ridiculous.

And when it comes to diabetes, I bet they'll just come up with all sorts of new nonsense later on.😉

rustymoose54 said:1. People who HAVE the genes for type 2 diabetes will definitely develop it if they overeat.

2. People who DON'T have the genes for type 2 diabetes WON'T develop it EVEN IF they overeat.

3. Maintaining a normal weight is the best way to prevent type 2 diabetes (since we don't know if we carry the genes or not).

So, please just accept this simple fact: you can't get type 2 diabetes unless you carry certain genes, no matter how unhealthy you live or eat. That doesn't make the "sin" of those who actually got sick any less—it's just a lucky break for the others who gorge themselves but stay fine. In other words, you can keep going on your crusade against fat people; most of them caused their own illness. Plus, they just didn't get lucky with their genetics, whatever. 😉

Look... I don't know if you're actually an expert on diabetes stuff...
but I watched this guy on TV who was...
and he was saying something else entirely... and that other thing was wrong...

So...
you tell me who's actually right here...

Kyle Nelson2 said:look...
...
basically,
if diabetes is genetic, think about what kind of natural selection that would have been for the human race over hundreds of thousands of years?
Think about how many people back before writing existed would have died from hyperglycemia just by eating a bit too much? Would those people have died off, leaving room for those with healthy genes? If all that were true, we wouldn't simply have people with genes for diabetes today...

they would've gone extinct...

I won't argue with that... but today we know that diabetes actually played a PROTECTIVE role during evolution. It basically allowed people who didn't have a constant food supply to prevent the sugar in their blood from being dumped (and burned up) into their cells. That way, people who only ate every other day—maybe they caught a quail... or found some nutritious root—could feast and store that energy...

When you take someone with that genetic makeup and drop them into an environment full of bags of chips and cans of Coca-Cola, you get a mismatch... 😬

It's similar to sickle cell anemia—common in the Mediterranean and Middle East—which offers some protection against the more severe consequences of malaria. In the exact same geographic regions where malaria is widespread, you find people with sickle cell. Now... once we wipe out malaria, or when a Black person moves to North America, we forget about the malaria part and wonder why they have sickle cell. Why? Because sickle cell is what saved them a long time ago through evolution...🙂

Kyle Nelson2 said:yeah...
what about dust, mites, and stuff?
they've been living with us forever...

Not really. I mean, can you actually picture a caveman sitting in a cave surrounded by dust? Or mites?

If anything, they were probably crawling with parasites. 😬

Sure, maybe some dust from moisture leaking through the cave walls. And mites? Probably. They live on dead skin cells. But most mites today thrive in quiet, suburban bedrooms where nothing moves—not even a cat or a mouse, let alone a draft from a farmhouse window...

And then there’s the big question: why are we all so allergic to everything now? It seems like because we're obsessed with avoiding infections these days—washing our hands constantly, using disposable wipes, washing brand-new clothes before wearing them, or sanitizing a baby's toy after it hits the floor—our immune systems have lost the plot. There's nothing left to fight, so it starts attacking random, harmless things. There are theories that autoimmune diseases are spiking lately specifically because our immune systems are basically bored to death in our "sterile" modern society.

Kyle Nelson2 said:look... I don't know if you're actually an expert on diabetes stuff...
but I was watching this guy on TV who is...
and he was saying something else entirely... and he totally missed the mark...

so...
now you tell me—who's actually getting it right here?

Yeah, the guy you saw was Dr. Zeljko Metelko, the director over at the university clinic in Philly. He was arguing that obesity is the main driver behind the rise (and probably a full-blown epidemic soon) of type 2 diabetes.

Just keep in mind that his point doesn't clash with the fact that you still need certain genes to trigger type 2 diabetes. 😉

Think about it: if that weren't true, then EVERY single overweight person would have it.

placidfox55 said:I don't want to stir the pot here... but there's this idea now that diabetes actually served a PROTECTIVE role through evolution. Basically, for people who didn't have constant access to food, it prevented the sugar in their blood from being immediately dumped into their cells. That way, those folks who only ate once every couple of days—maybe they caught a quail or stumbled upon some nutrient-rich root—could feast and then store that energy for later...

When you take someone with that kind of genetic makeup and drop them into an environment overflowing with bags of chips and cans of Coca-Cola, you get a total system failure... 😬

I don't get it..
How can you say it had a protective function during evolution? Shouldn't excess glucose just be converted into glycogen?
If it supposedly had a protective role historically, what does that even mean? Like, if a guy overindulged once, would all that extra sugar just stay stuck in his system... as sugar deposits in his arteries? 😉
Assuming he wouldn't just die from hyperglycemia first.

Taroth said:don't get it..
What do you mean by it having a protective function through evolution? Shouldn't excess glucose just be converted into glycogen?
If this was a survival mechanism throughout history, what does that actually look like? Like, if some guy overindulged once, would all that extra sugar just sit there as deposits in his arteries? 😉
Assuming he didn't drop dead from hyperglycemia first.

Hardly anyone dies from hyperglycemia. That’s usually Type 1 diabetics slipping into a diabetic coma.

A diabetic with high blood sugar will eventually deal with vascular complications and might kick the bucket in their early 40s or 50s—which, honestly, is plenty of time to ensure the next generation survives. 😉 😎

With Type 2 diabetes, the reduced insulin secretion basically allows sugar to slowly seep into the cells. This helps them survive those rare, massive feasts—think about an ancestor catching a large animal every few days and then just snacking on berries or roots in between.

Anyway, don't take my word for it. Go dig up some papers and prove me wrong. 😎