This Ingredient Leaves Advertisers STUNNED!

Right now, in your pantry, you have an ingredient than can make slugs melt.

It’s the combination of a highly-reactive, unstable metal, and an element that is one electron away from lethal chlorine gas.

This ingredient can raise blood pressure in humans, making it dangerous to those with heart disease, high cholesterol, and those at risk of stroke.

This ingredient can kill you.

However, we also need this ingredient to live.

What is this ingredient? It is salt.

And that is exactly why this ingredient leaves advertisers stunned. Because I can make just about anything sound horrifying, like a controversy, or the Illuminati of supplements if I happen to word it in such a manner. And these advertisers happen to know that. They use this exact method to try to get your attention so you’ll buy their product.

Right now you probably also have an ingredient in your pantry or cupboard that can kill your pet cats or dogs. That ingredient is chocolate. Pets cannot process it. Yet many people eat it quite regularly. Do you think twice about it? Probably not. Should you? Probably not. But when I make the direct link that it can kill your pets, do you begin to doubt that chocolate is healthy, even for a fraction of a second? Possibly. That is exactly the lies and manipulation these ads try to coerce you with.

Did you know, even drinking too much water, too quickly can kill you? And it can kill you in a matter of hours. So, using that logic .. theoretically water can be more lethal for you than fast food, in an immediate manner. Are you scared to drink water? No. Should you be? Absolutely not.

So why do people believe in that sort of advertising? Because they want miracles. Miracles that don’t exist. They want purity. The epitome of health. The epitome that doesn’t exist yet, because everyone is different, and has different dietary needs. Yet people don’t know that, so they keep believing these blanket terms that are just confusing them about their food choices.

This is why we should believe in moderation. However, should moderation include handfuls of the latest supplements touted on some sort of TV show that just wants to make money? (I’m looking at a certain doctor here, mayhaps one better left in the Wizard of Oz, if you know what I’m saying). Should moderation include reading every website blindly, believing that absolutely everything is harmful to you?

No.

What is harmful to you, may not be harmful to me. What is harmful to me, may not be harmful to you. I mean, I could go ahead and tell everyone to avoid penicillin because I’m allergic to it, it harms me, and therefore it must be bad. But that’s a complete and utter lie. Penicillin is not bad for some people. For some people, it is the first line of treatment.

So theoretically, you can take green coffee bean if you want to. I mean, studies have had to be retracted because they’re probably bullshit, and the beans can be tainted with penicillumso it’s probably not the best idea for me .. but if you believe it works, free country, right? And maybe one day the evidence might change, and more studies might come out. So who knows?

Setting the bullshit aside, there does not exist a supplement that can raise your metabolism more than a few percent without risk of killing you. That doesn’t mean that they result in certain death (ECA stacks — ephedrine, caffeine, and aspirin — may raise your metabolism up to 10%, and are vastly used by bodybuilders .. however, they have also killed people who were not careful about over-consumption or overexertion), but in some cases, they do, such as the DNP I just linked in this sentence; that can raise your metabolism a whopping 50%, but has most certainly killed people. If a website or TV show cited it as a miraculous dietary aid today (which it was believed to be in 1938 until it was pulled off the shelf a year later, yet people are still obtaining it, using it, and dying) — bragging about its miraculous ability to increase your metabolism more than any other substance, and its way of seemingly melting fat (leaving out the part that it literally causes your cells to overheat themselves to death in the meantime) .. how many people do you think would probably buy it? My guess would be millions.

That doesn’t mean you can’t raise your metabolism naturally, the hard way — aka proper diet, exercise, spicy foods, lifting weights and having a high muscle mass, etc. That just means that this isn’t what most people want to hear. That’s why clickbait exists. That’s why people order these shitty, sketchy products from these shitty, sketchy websites. The same people also go to these shitty, sketchy websites for food recommendations.

So people are against GMO’s, gluten, and pesticides, but they will unknowingly take capsules full of weed-killer (exactly what DNP is made for), ordering them off of third-party websites as a weight-loss aid. Where do we find the balance?

Certainly not all clickbait is bad. Heck, science even does it from time to time (well, news websites do it about science .. there could be a small link to something in a cancer study and on the news it’ll say ‘New Cancer Cure Found at ____ University!’). It’s all about views, really. But that doesn’t mean you should believe everything you read. Even if it has a catchy title. Because they’re probably just doing it for money (read: ads), not science. Even if it has some science-y stuff in it. A lot of advertisers will sponsor a small-scale study just to link to as ‘proof’, even though the results are likely entirely skewed. Such as the green coffee bean study I linked above.

What separates the fact from the bullshit? Time. There has always been diet aids, but they are forever changing. Green tea has been out there a long time, and has a lot of evidence that it may work. So the longer something is out there, the more likely it will get more studies which have more things in common, to help sort the wild bullshit claims from the concrete evidence that occurs more and more often. And who knows, maybe that green coffee bean will have more valid claims linked to it one day.

And once you finally see these advertisers repeating their claims more and more (hint: many won’t, because they still want your attention), such as trans fat being bad for you .. well, they might actually be right for once. But that’s probably because they’re parroting information for a decade ago.

That’s ads for you.

Is your favourite health blogger or website promoting disordered thinking?

There are a lot of health food websites and blogs out there these days, and with that comes both new information and misinformation. Short of realizing that some of these folk are commanding death threats towards corporations such as Starbucks and Monsanto, how exactly do you tell?

1. Threats. If you have to threaten someone to get your point across; that is extortion, not information. If somebody disagrees with you (and decides to, say, vaccinate their children or something) and you feel the need to threaten them or wish harm upon them or their child, that is disordered thinking. You might want to re-check your sources and get a level head before going onward with your debate. It is good to be passionate about something; but being passionate to the point of irrationally threatening someone is beyond healthy, and unfortunately, all too common on the internet in this day and age.

2. Cult-ism. Now, in extreme cases, cult-ism and threats tie together. If somebody decides to stop eating vegan or vegetarian, for example, and someone begins wishing death upon them, that is cult-ism, and the perpetrator is likely feeling threatened that the ‘offending party’ is leaving their ‘group’ or ‘niche’, and thus begins to threaten them. However, this is an extreme example. You may see this happening in politics all the time (people threatening those who are liberals, conservatives, pro-choice, etc.). Does that mean politics are a bunch of tiny cults? Well, maybe.

3. Fear-mongering. When you come out of any website feeling frightened about food or medicine, that is because of fear manipulation, not education. When you are educated about something, you may feel inclined to change your point of view on something. However, when someone is trying to guilt you (a.k.a. threatening that vaccines will give your child autism) when there is no evidence for it, then they are trying to strike fear into your heart to manipulate your point of view.

There are indeed realistic things to be afraid of (such as inactivity causing risk of heart disease); but you will find these things in studies, not a blog or news article willing to manipulate data for hits.

4. Lack of critical thinking. As mentioned in #3, sometimes people claim stuff without a lot of thought behind it. When you see a health article or blog that says something to the extent of, “Artificial sweeteners are bad bad bad bad!” without any studies or proof linked to it, then there is no reason for it to be taken seriously. A good example of this is the ‘gluten sensitive’ fallacy. Many health-food pages will gladly link you to a list of 100 or more ‘symptoms’ of gluten sensitivity .. however, there is often no proof that any of these symptoms are actually linked to dietary sensitivity. This can lead to a lot of people going on a gluten-free diet for no reason at all which can actually be unhealthy for you (and reading the comments on that article, it seems to circle right back to ‘cult status’ argument). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not discrediting the existence of gluten-sensitivity and celiac disease, or the benefits of reducing refined grains .. I’m merely pointing out that if someone tries to ‘diagnose’ you online, there is no way to be certain you actually have it.

5. Exaggeration. I’m sure you’ve seen this one happen before. One study gets published, and then the entire scientific, news-journalism, and blogosphere blows up about it. This can be both good — say the study has merit and free press leads to donations that can aid further research. Or it can be bad, in the case of the single study that came out linking vaccines to autism; which people still believe 16 years later.

6. Buzz-words. When a website, blog, or product promises that you’ll lose 10lbs in 3 days, or that it’s a ‘secret your _____ (doctor, dermatologist, etc.) doesn’t want you to know about’, or uses the word ‘miracle’ too many times — they’re trying to sell a product to you, not educate you. In real, non-biased studies, you’ll find that those words hardly ever appear. Because the physical, chemical, and hormonal make-up of each individual person can vary so dramatically, it is often unlikely you will get the exact same results as someone else. You might get similar results to someone who has similar traits as you — similar weight, activity level, body fat content, muscle mass, etc. — but there is no guarantee. You might think there’s no harm in trying, but then again ..

7. Lying. One of my favourite comic book characters is the ‘lying cat’ in the comic book series ‘Saga’. It meowls out the word ‘lying’ whenever someone is, well, lying. Sadly, the lying cat doesn’t actually exist, so there are still a lot of people who lie. Especially about things that may or may not be good for you. For some, lying is a harsh word, and they are simply misinformed. For others, they are blatantly lying, they know it, and they keep lying. This is often revealed by the overuse of buzz-words, lack of evidence, exaggeration, fear mongering, and hiding of information. How can you tell someone is lying? Well, you can’t. However, Google Scholar contains a search bar for many studies about people’s claims these days. How can you tell someone on Google Scholar is lying? It’s a trademarked, company-funded study for a product, with lots of buzz-words calling it a ‘miracle’. That, or the control/sample size is very small, while the claims are very big. This isn’t a sure-fire way to tell if someone is lying or not. However, it’s better to try to find the evidence to back up their claims, than to believe absolutely everything you see or hear (imagine if people went around believing absolutely everything that happens in ‘Weekly World News’! You remember that paper, don’t you? The one that claimed the existence of ‘bat-boy’?). At least then you can learn something new in the meantime, and be better educated for the next time it happens.

There are a few other things I have left out, such as labelling (calling things ‘Big Pharma’ or ‘Monsatan’ in order to try to stir up fear or hatred of a corporation or company), and paranoia (believing that every streak in the sky is a ‘chemtrail’, for example) — but those things are both blatantly obvious, and another conspiracy theory, for another time. I hope that you have learned things from this post, and while somewhat controversial, that you will stay with me to learn more things in the future. Oh yeah, by the way — do not be scared to be critical about my blog, too. In a conductive manner, that is. If you’re going to spit poison saying that gluten and vaccines have killed your family and that I’m the devil .. I will probably be sad, but those are things I have heard before, and have enough evidence not to believe. However, if you kindly link me to another study that has any of the following: large sample size, is not on a biased website or one that can’t have certain valid credibility like ‘natural news’, youtube, or a Facebook meme; and is placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed, or double-blind .. then I will probably be more inclined to believe you, and will likely enjoy friendly debate if any happens to ensue.

Until next time, internet friends!