Well, thank you for the replies... maybe I should just pray....and the cold will go away

Raschaverak wrote:

Well, thank you for the replies... maybe I should just pray....and the cold will go away

I know this is common sense but, sleep a lot, drink a lot of fluids and vitamin C. I rarely get colds or viruses but whenever I get them, it's either bad or small. It usual goes away within 1 week and within 2 weeks, it's completely out my system.

Last edited by ta12121 (2011 December 03, 1:35 am)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/319070.stm
So, basically, masturbating or having sex a lot will boost your immune system? Just sayin'

exrulez wrote:

I also barely get any colds or sick.
And when I do I get fixed in less than 2 days

- Drink lots of fluits
- Avoid processed foods , fast food
- Sleep if possible
- Wear a surgery mask (they sell em cheap at walmart).
Japanese people do it a lot. It helps you keep moisture in your throat, so it doesn't get irritated and you heal faster. You'll look weird in the US but tell em "I'm trying not to get germs on you"...
- Avoid AC or wear a mask when you are in an area with AC
- Wear warm clothes. Your body uses nerve energy to keep you warm, if it's trying to use too much nerve energy to keep your body at a stable temperature, you'll heal slower.
- If possible avoid medicine. The cold is the medicine! Your body is trying to heal itself
and if you use medicine to block the simptoms of healing it will take longer.
- Avoid dairy. Dairy is highly mucus producing and it will take you longer to heal while on it.
- Avoid cold drinks and take warm drinks. Just a personal preference here but i find it highly effective.
- Take vitamin C high foods.

Good luck

Thank you for the info! Although the question in my case is not how to get out of the cold fast, but rather how to avoid it alltogether

yudantaiteki wrote:

The things about dairy, cold symptoms, and AC are myths.  commoncold.org has links to scientific studies showing that.  The idea that cold symptoms help you get over the cold is a common belief, but it probably causes people to suffer more than they should during a cold.

An interesting link. Also, I think, after reading the site - and based on that, that introvert people should be more healthy in this respect - since they have less contact with their environment, let it be social, or non-social. I am an introvert and still get a cold all the time...so does this make the theory non-valid? Or maybe because extrovert people have more contact with the environment, their immune system is stronger thus not so sensitive to the common cold...who knows... Anyone any thoughts on this? I'm under the impression that everything is connected with everything - wait isn't there a philosophy for that already? What's it called again?

Last edited by Raschaverak (2011 December 04, 8:47 am)

chamcham wrote:

Oh, and if you haven't done so, WASH all your vegetables when you get
home. People have been touching your veggies at the supermarket (when
they are picking fruits and veggies). You have NO IDEA where their hands
have been. Wash everything with hot water thoroughly.

I wouldn't say that's a good plan... as heat can breed bacteria in food, whatever bacteria that is already on that vegetable is going to multiply if it's not hot enough to cook it out. So, if it's a cucumber, for example, and you're going to eat it raw in a salad, you'll be adding more bacteria to your cucumber by cleaning it in hot water.

Of course, it's much worse with meat, so it's also a bad idea to do something like thaw out a bag of frozen meat in a sink full of hot water.

Last edited by Nuriko (2011 December 04, 4:06 pm)

Javizy with the sense of thinking out of the box which is necessary in an age where the mainstream doesn't get the optimal results. 

“At the University of Arizona, a 2007 study found that the average desktop has...400 times more than the average toilet seat.”(Chicago Tribune)

Maybe this should teach us that if our table has so much bacteria on it AND we don't get sick that often, then sickness isn't about bacteria as much as it's about what's going on in your own body with respect to the way it counters the pathogens and psychologically with stress.. Think about all the handles touched, your keyboard, money, and kissing. Think about the low education / low morality/concern of people preparing your foods when you eat out.  There are germs everywhere, stop fearing them. learn to live symbiotically with them like we evolved to do.  If anything this article allows me to be dirtier! and boy am I, only washing my hands with water, washing dishes with water, washing my cutting board and knife once a week (only veges though, not that extreme yet). i don't suggest ppl follow my example, just know there's probably ppl worse than me who don't get that sick either (like my ex roommate who taught me to stop worrying so much)
 
if it were really about germs, this guy should be DEAD (really interesting video!)(go to 3:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abg8l2Zs7d8
and his followers who practice this raw meat eating and raw milk drinking should be repeatedly infecting themselves and should be heavily ill too.  Clearly they all are not dying and many ppl enjoy and thrive on their raw foods filled with good bacteria, so why does the FDA continue to make raids on these small producers of wholesome food. Are they blind? or is something else going on?

(economic answer/aside: big corporations aka producers of processed bad food are in bed with the govt. at the beginning of the 20th century, before the regulatory agencies were devised, big corporations were losing market share to a number of small competing companies. These large companies knew economics so they intelligently lobbied for the creation of these federal regulators because they knew there are economies of scale in filling out paperwork and dealing with bureuacracy. Thus the small companies had a tougher time doing business when they were focused on inefficiently dealing with bureaucracy. in addition normal capture theory says that the bigger corporations could always offer higher wages to the federal regulators to turn them into internal consultants than the gov't could so it gave the regulators less incentive to be harsher on the companies they regulated.)

anyway check out le milieu interieur, claude bernard (father of homeostasis), and antoine bechamp to see a history of research suppressed and see how politics plays into what becomes mainstream (cough* pasteur)


@Raschaverak
we've mentioned before and will continue to suggest you research nutrition and stress.  for me at least it's extremely liberating even though it's so complex and still causes its share of confusion.  it doesn't surprise me that you're sick often on account of your depression.

I think nadiatims advice was generally on the mark but add LOVE to that list:
plenty of sleep.
Generally not being stressed/exhausted. So long exhausting gym routines are probably bad.
Eating a lot fruit/vegetables.
Plenty of water.
Occasional sunlight.
Fresh air.

elhnad wrote:

...the sense of thinking out of the box which is necessary in an age where the mainstream doesn't get the optimal results.

You mean... just making up random stuff?  Sounds helpful.  (I'm not accusing Javizy of that, I'm saying it sounds like that's what you're promoting)

Your history is way off too.  You really think that federal regulations concerning food in America were the product of big companies trying to beat out smaller competition?  (Or, if not, what country are you talking about?)

In fact, early federal regulation in America concerning food and product safety were the result of a lot of good people sticking their neck out for consumers who were getting mucked over.  Until 1938 they were still selling mascara in America that caused blindness (Lash Lure), and a tonic drink that had radium in it (Radithor).  The later actually caused radiation poisoning and at least one notable fatality.

Last edited by Tzadeck (2011 December 05, 12:52 am)

Ah, I didn't mean to say that that's what Javizy did.  I mean to say that you sound like you're promoting wishy-washy bullcrap health stuff when you recommend "thinking outside of the box."  I'm not actually saying that's what you're meaning to say, but your statement seems a bit inappropriate in a field that is full of quackery that goes back as far as written history.

We had something like a free market in America, and at that time companies were ******* over consumers left and right.  I just gave two examples... 

A free market maximizes profit, not consumer health.

(Didn't watch your video, it's late.  Maybe I'll have time later in the week?  I'm pretty busy til Sunday)

Tzadeck,
you are right that a free market maximises profits, but that doesn't mean that it can't promote health at the same time. I suggest you give some more time to the studies of numerous economists in the free market school who address the concern of how profit maximization can increase health.  Maybe they're wrong but understanding their position is very interesting educational endeavor. Also they address how gov't does less to promote health by shifting incentives of companies to engage in more dangerous activities.
but alas, we are getting off topic

the last video i linked was just repeating whatever i said, to show the sources of my info.

elhnad wrote:

Tzadeck,
you are right that a free market maximises profits, but that doesn't mean that it can't promote health at the same time.

It depends on the situation.  Absent any sort of regulation, the free market would still pretty quickly punish a company that released a pill that killed 50% of the people within a week of taking it.  However, the free market is much less able to deal with long-term effects of food or medicines.

I don't think drug or food companies have pitchforks and horns and are intentionally doing whatever they can to hurt people as long as it makes them money, but they will generally take short-term profits even at the possible long-term expense of people's health.  So McDonalds has a pretty strong vested interest in making sure their burgers don't have E Coli or such, but their profit-related interest in getting rid of trans fats is nowhere near as strong.

Not to mention that a lot of food-related stuff is very ideological and often not really based on science on either side.  For instance, nobody really disagrees that a loaf of white Wonder bread has very little nutritional benefit to it.  But there's not a whole lot of science to support the extreme claims that scaremongers like Michael Pollen or Robert Atkins peddle in their books.

Last edited by yudantaiteki (2011 December 06, 5:42 am)

yudantaiteki
good points, i agree that the free market isn't the best in dealing with long term effects of decisions, but I argue the govt dominated sphere is even less able to deal with longterm effects. the gov't doesn't know better than anyone else what is defined as true health. because they have no pressure to work as hard as ppl in the private sphere, they're lazier and more spendthrift. they know they can always tax more to get more funding.  it's worse to have someone like the gov't act like the reliable parent since time and time again, they've been shown to be wrong and when they're wrong they affect more ppl and they are slower to change their ways. When you have competition and when ppl do a bad job (at a restaurant) or make wrong decisions (hedge funds), unless they react quick enough, they go bankrupt, because ppl vote with their dollars everyday.   When you have lots of little companies competing for your dollar, it's a lot harder to create hidden alliances, and they're all going to try to beat each other out, producing a superior product.  but as  i mention in the capture theory above, a govt is easily prone to bribery by the gigantic corporations they're supposed to be regulating.

Ppl assume that we need FDA, USDA to protect our food sources, but they don't understand in a free market several private regulatory companies (think consumer reports but better) would arise to take their place.  I love working with Fedex, i hate dealing with USPS.  and because there's competition, private regulators would strive to inform as correct as possible since doing so gains client base. If you recommend an action and it makes ppl sick, you're going to lose money, but the opposite happens with the gov't; the worse your dept, the more funding you get. And then they use this money to try to get more draconian laws to try to control more thiings.  Over time in a free market you can collect good widespread data to better determine long term effects, rather than having a central body that sticks to their dogma and suppresses contradictory information.
I can link and talk all day on failures of the our current medical paradigm. If i need to clarify with a specific example, I will but i'll just stop there since more isn't better and any amount i write will be prone to attack by Tzadeck lol

@Raschaverak, listening to a few of Walter Block's lectures converted me real fast. He's  a very pleasant and entertaining presenter.  you may have to listen to his other introductory lectures to get an understanding of the difference betw the govt and the free market as I may not have done a good job. here's his one on health economics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPgVWb683v8  not his best but tackles specific topics

The point is there will be choices and nothing is done by the force of guns and imprisonment.  You might have death from ppl doing stupid activities, but over time the providers of these dumb activiites would probably lose money if research showed it to be bad.  but this would be better than blindly relying on a central body prone to errors and bribery (pharmaceuticals vioxx, military complex).  While our medicine and technology has become more "advanced", The AMA has done a wonderful job to stop the rising heart disease and cancer epidemic (about half a million a year; cdc.gov), and it does a great job stopping the estimated 100,000 deaths each year due to nonerror, adverse effects of medications (JAMA) I assure you ppl would become smarter, more cautious and wary of activities they engage in instead of having a mass blind faith.


nadiatims,
good point as well, culture is very important in getting ppl to choose differently, and if the best information is presented, which it will if ppl are competing, it can help move that culture towards better choices.