@DavidPS

Thanks David. Looks interesting, but very deep and I wish my mind can ensure the onslaught of very unfamiliar words when reading on immunity down to deep levels.

I am reminded of what Peat had said before about T cells- that if you have a good T-cell response, you really won't need to rely on B-cells for immune protection as much. It is like saying a B-cell response is optional when T-cells are involved in the response. I remember talking or writing about this at the start of the CoVID years. And in the ensuing two years marked with headlines about COVID, all I could hear was centered on B-cell immunity, centered on viral therapeutics.

The funny thing is that the elephant in the room was always being ignored, in the absence of mention of the T-cells, such that it's importance was relegated to that of a bit player, inconsequential to improving our body's response to the putative virus.

Seems to me that beefing up the thymus gland should be the main topic of the COVID response. The question of the day.

@Johann2547 said in Thymus health:

And IIRC theanine is beneficial for the thymus.

interesting thread. makes me think the thymus, being where t cells mature, gets to have a sizable impact on how our immunity functions, or dysfunctions

For one, it dampens the inflammatory response of the innate immune system, characterized by the heavy involvement of neutrophils and macrophages where phagocytic activity can result in a large amount of collateral peripheral tissue damage from spillover ROS.

And given that the lack to T cells can result in B cells exerting more immune response, the tendency of B cells to generate autoimmune responses is also problematic.

Seems to me that ensuring we have a healthy thymus favoring the calming and moderating influenxe of T cells is not a small matter, and that metabolic health, where the stress hormone has to be kept to a minimum level of production and influence can never be stressed, pun not intended, enough.

I can't help but think of metabolic health being as impactful on our immunity, and this is is but just one example of Ray's dictum that metabolic health drives all other aspects of health in us.

I know I have a very rudimentary understanding of immunity, and I'm just giving an immaturely formed rambling of what I can gather from the musings of @mauritio and @cs3000 and @DavidPS

Please let me know how far off I am and what more you can detract and add to it

@Mauritio

There are diffusers that only use the oil

@Butter-Girl

Well said. I can't add much to what you said.

@RandomUser I only began to use 8hrs/day but it was to counteract carbon monoxide that is causing lungs to inflame and to get watery and edematous.

prior to this, at 2 hrs per day, got to alkalize my acidic ecf so I could make antimicrobial treatments using turpentine and essential oil (aromatherapy) more potent. As I prefer these over antibiotics.

@dapose
A 5lb tank would last me 2 months of use using it at 8 hrs a day. It cost me only $4 to have it refilled in Manila at a CO2 factory thatosrly serves the needs of soda concentrate users at restaurants and beer on tap

@gg12

I don't know if you can find Dr. Mercola and Strong Sista's videos on how bad PUFA is.

I prefer Strong Sista's as Dr. Mercola is getting old and he is starting to wonder off the subject or ger too detailed, and unaware he has lost the audience.

@Sippy @Mossy thanks.

@Mossy said in is 0.768 ppm lead for ceylon cinnamon too high?:

@sneedful said in is 0.768 ppm lead for ceylon cinnamon too high?:

they powder it themselves in USA and i doubt they are using a machine with lead so it is probably naturally occuring lead from Sri Lanka

This is a good question and timely for me. I've been attempting to get spices and herbs with as little contamination as possible, and I'm finding that this is not easy to do, especially for Ceylon cinnamon. If what I'm finding is correct, Ceylon, of all cinnamon, is currently not even available without contamination:

https://www.mamavation.com/food/cinnamon-lead-cadmium-glyphosate.html

I realize you have to take these reports with a grain of salt, as there can be contributing factors that don't allow for the whole picture or even an accurate picture.

If the cinnamon here refers to the bark, I doubt the lead would be coming from the bark itself. As before lead could get into the bark, it would be filtered off my the xylem of the true and the lead would stay in the center of the tree trunk. The bark is the farthest from the center of the tree, where the xylem is, so it should be free from lead or whatever contamination.

If ever there is lead contamination, it should be coming from the processing of the cinnamon bark after it has been harvested from the tree.

@Corngold said in Clearing up the Confusion about Oxalate Lists:

@yerrag

I don't know, yerrag. He did hours of shows with Roddy & Dinkov, where they got in the weeds in terms of politics, finance, conspiracy, and other "fear-mongering" for lack of a batter term.

All I'm saying is I remember this stuff, "Forks Over Knives," Michael Pollan, and the big food/health complex existing for years before like 2020.

I believe he did mention it a few times, or commented on it or similar Chinese studies.

https://bioenergetic.life/?q=china+study

Anyways, it's just strange to me, given that I would expect him to want to defend meat and dairy, generally, and possibly find where the study went wrong in their assumptions (if it did!). I wonder if soy feed is the culprit as far as how pork and cows are being fed. The overconsumption of protein cuts and dairy could in fact be bad. But, the study was in 1983.

I wonder if the areas in question were electrified yet following Firstenberg's observations of electricity and cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. But, once again, I sense that pufa oil and soy feed, rural diets, and electricity are all acting in concert around the time of the study.

This paper seems to have some info on rural electrification of China.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7134604/

I don't expect Peat to dip his toes into every nook and cranny. Just too many bugs and vermins to be dealing with. Best to narrow one's scope, and that's what Peat has done. You can't be Atlas and carry all the world in your shoulder. Still, even by narrowing his scope, his message easily gets watered down.

He hates behind defined and pigeonholed by the term Ray Peat Diet because that has the connotations of a one size fit all approach, and he loathes such an approach because context is key.

I think he isn't one to want his brand diluted by being just like the others who lack his coherence in messaging.