Salt Debate (WAS: Salt: It does a body no good)

[Guest guest]

Elchanan,

 

Apparently the salt issue is a matter of opinion that is not consistent

among either the authorities or the medical community (allopathic or

naturopathic). I appreciate your concern and information, but I'll stick

with my own findings.

 

Of course, like anything, too much is not good for you. However, we should

remember that we aren't the only animals that eat salt (though some of us

are choosing not to, that's true! haha). Predators get salt from eating

meat (it's in the blood of other animals), and, because plants do not

contain much salt, grazing animals seek out natural deposits of salt (known

as " salt-licks " , which are now manufactured and provided for domestic herds

of cattle and horses, or for deer).

 

In addition, the directive to " Stop performing uninformed self-diagnosis "

may well apply to some, but not all.

There are many of us, myself included, who are working closely with someone

(in my case, an MD that is also a practicing holistic doctor and well-versed

in nutrition) and not simply randomly choosing articles, blogs and/or e-mail

rants on the Internet from which to make judgments about our own health.

 

I think everyone here is wise enough to know not to take the opinions/advice

of any one contributor (or the collective, for that matter) without checking

the information for themselves, and running it by a qualified* physician to

be sure.

 

Suzy

 

*Qualified is a judgement call, obviously. In my opinion, most allopathic

doctors are NOT qualified in areas of nutrition and disease prevention.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> In addition, the directive to " Stop performing uninformed self-diagnosis "

> may well apply to some, but not all.

>

> Suzy

 

Suzy, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. I think that

the key word

Elchanan used here is " uninformed " -- so why do you think that doesn't apply to

everyone?

To me, it was like saying, " Stop running across the freeway without looking " .

 

I am curious as to what you meant because it sounded like great advice to me --

why

would anyone want to " diagnose " a condition they *think* they have without all

the

information? I have read some other horrifying information about salt -- so bad

that I will

never touch salt again. One of the article's main points concerning salt was to

look how it

corrodes everything it comes in contact with -- then what might it be doing to

your body

inside? Scary, if you ask me. Yes, I know that humans have created salt licks

for animals,

but just possibly, could that be because of our mis-guided information regarding

the

healthy benefits of salt? We have been wrong on other things before about the

body, about

our environment, about whether the Earth was round or flat. It's just possible

that the

mainstream could also be wrong about salt being healthy for animals. It's

certainly not

healthy for snails, eh?

 

I would also add that there is not one other person on this earth who is better

at judging

what you are doing with your diet than YOU. We all have the ability to try

things and see

what works for us. Why people have been bullied into believing that a doctor can

better

direct their health than they can is beyond my comprehension. Well, just my 2

cents!

(Dr.) Melanie Burtis

[Guest guest]

Hi Melanie,

 

I wasn't saying that the directive was bad advice. I thought it was very

good advice. However, it sounded as if it was given in response to the

" uninformed " opinions about salt that were being discussed. Perhaps I was

entirely wrong and simply misunderstood that the advice was offered " in

general " rather than relative to the discussion.

This kind of misinterpretation is common in e-mails (as we've discussed

before).

 

I think it is excellent advice to not perform uninformed self-diagnosis.

 

Suzy

 

 

On 8/14/06, melanieburtis <melanieburtis wrote:

>

>

> > In addition, the directive to " Stop performing uninformed

> self-diagnosis "

> > may well apply to some, but not all.

> >

> > Suzy

>

> Suzy, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. I think

> that the key word

> Elchanan used here is " uninformed " -- so why do you think that doesn't

> apply to everyone?

> To me, it was like saying, " Stop running across the freeway without

> looking " .

>

> I am curious as to what you meant because it sounded like great advice to

> me -- why

> would anyone want to " diagnose " a condition they *think* they have without

> all the

> information? I have read some other horrifying information about salt --

> so bad that I will

> never touch salt again. One of the article's main points concerning salt

> was to look how it

> corrodes everything it comes in contact with -- then what might it be

> doing to your body

> inside? Scary, if you ask me. Yes, I know that humans have created salt

> licks for animals,

> but just possibly, could that be because of our mis-guided information

> regarding the

> healthy benefits of salt? We have been wrong on other things before about

> the body, about

> our environment, about whether the Earth was round or flat. It's just

> possible that the

> mainstream could also be wrong about salt being healthy for animals. It's

> certainly not

> healthy for snails, eh?

>

> I would also add that there is not one other person on this earth who is

> better at judging

> what you are doing with your diet than YOU. We all have the ability to try

> things and see

> what works for us. Why people have been bullied into believing that a

> doctor can better

> direct their health than they can is beyond my comprehension. Well, just

> my 2 cents!

> (Dr.) Melanie Burtis

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Hi Melanie,

>

> I wasn't saying that the directive was bad advice. I thought it was very

> good advice. However, it sounded as if it was given in response to the

> " uninformed " opinions about salt that were being discussed. Perhaps I was

> entirely wrong and simply misunderstood that the advice was offered " in

> general " rather than relative to the discussion.

> This kind of misinterpretation is common in e-mails (as we've discussed

> before).

>

> I think it is excellent advice to not perform uninformed self-diagnosis.

>

> Suzy

 

 

LOL!!! OK, thanks Suzy. I'm sitting here chuckling -- maybe you are right in

your

interpretation. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. YES, it is very

hard to use e-mail the

way we would in a normal conversation.

Thanks!

Melanie