cistanche_enjoyer

I work for a state-owned financial institution in the EU and the conditions are pretty good: 30 days of paid leave, paid health insurance, great salary (for being entry level), flexible working time (I’m only expected to be available from 10:00 to 16:00, the rest of the 8 hours I can work whenever I want), job feels exciting and meaningful (cybersecurity). However, I’m still not so sure how to feel about the fact that I’m in the end a slave to my boss (she is an amazing and compassionate person btw) and don’t have full freedom. Also I have to interact with some colleagues I don’t really like, but nothing too bad or abusive. Would it be really bad to compromise on this for all the above? Spirituality is one of my top values and I don’t feel it clashes with my job, as I can do spiritual work on the weekends and holidays (which I have a lot).

It seems that for most tumors, it is just pure bad luck. Our cells are constantly dividing and copying DNA. Occasionally, by pure chance, mistakes happen in important genes that control cell growth. Most get fixed but a few don’t. Over years, if enough of the “wrong” genes are hit, a cell can turn cancerous. Bad diet, phone/wifi, negative emotions, stress etc. have all been disproven as direct causes of cancer. But this is the mainstream science view, and we know it can be limited sometimes. Do you believe there is also a spiritual component to it? Something like paying karma from a past life? Or your higher self actually “wanting” this experience to grow through suffering?

Thanks @Malkom this was very useful, I think I found my answer. Getting cancer boils down to bad luck, BUT you can control how much bad luck. If you live a healthy, toxin-free life, probably 0.001% of getting cancer in your life. If you do shit like smoking drinking eating mcdonalds etc, it can rise to 0.2% let’s say. Now my question was, why is there still that 0.001%? And I think we can leave that up to God

Hey guys, sorry for posting AI but I think that when it comes to health, it is one of the few cases where AI can be very useful and less biased than any human. So I asked Gemini 3 Pro (currently the best AI on the market) and this is the full analysis: This assessment examines the risks of modern seed oils (industrial vegetable oils like soybean, corn, canola, sunflower, and cottonseed) through a critical lens, questioning standard nutritional guidelines and analyzing potential biases in the data. The Core Conflict: Orthodoxy vs. Chemistry Mainstream nutritional organizations (like the AHA) generally categorize seed oils as "heart-healthy" because they lower LDL cholesterol. However, a critical risk assessment requires looking beyond a single surrogate marker (LDL) and examining biochemistry (how these molecules act in the body) and toxicology (what happens when they are heated). I. The Risk of Heat: Thermal Instability & Toxicity The most chemically verifiable risk of seed oils arises when they are heated. This is not a matter of opinion, but of organic chemistry. 1. The Chemistry of Instability Seed oils are primarily composed of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFAs), specifically Linoleic Acid. * Structure: PUFAs contain multiple double bonds (C=C). Each double bond is a weak link that is highly reactive to oxygen and heat. * The Result: When heated (frying, sautéing, baking), these bonds break down rapidly, a process called oxidation. 2. Toxic Byproducts (Aldehydes) When oxidized, seed oils degrade into Lipid Oxidation Products (LOPs). The most concerning are \alpha,\beta-unsaturated aldehydes, specifically: * 4-HNE (4-Hydroxynonenal): A known cytotoxic and mutagenic compound. It creates oxidative stress that damages DNA and proteins. * The Risk: Studies show that even at standard frying temperatures, seed oils generate significant amounts of 4-HNE. In contrast, saturated fats (butter, coconut oil) and monounsaturated fats (olive oil) produce very low levels of these toxins because they have fewer or no double bonds. > Critical Note on "Smoke Point": Marketing often touts the high "smoke point" of refined seed oils as a safety feature. This is misleading. An oil can be undergoing massive oxidative degradation and producing toxic aldehydes before it smokes. Oxidative stability—not smoke point—is the true measure of cooking safety. > II. The Biological Risk: The Omega-6 Imbalance Humans evolved on a diet with a roughly 1:1 ratio of Omega-6 (pro-inflammatory) to Omega-3 (anti-inflammatory) fatty acids. The modern diet, driven by industrial seed oils, has shifted this ratio to approximately 15:1 or 20:1. 1. The Inflammation Pathway * Linoleic Acid (LA): The primary Omega-6 in seed oils. * Mechanism: LA accumulates in human fat tissue (adipose). In the body, it can convert to Arachidonic Acid, a precursor to pro-inflammatory eicosanoids. * The Consequence: Chronic, low-grade systemic inflammation is a root cause of modern metabolic diseases (obesity, diabetes, heart disease). Critics argue that the massive influx of dietary LA fuels this fire. 2. Adipose Tissue Accumulation Studies analyzing human fat tissue show a dramatic increase in Linoleic Acid concentration over the last century—rising from ~8% in 1959 to ~21% in 2008. We are literally chemically different than our ancestors. III. Critical Examination of Data Validity & Bias Why do health authorities still recommend these oils? A critical review reveals flaws in the data and potential conflicts of interest. 1. The "Buried" Data (Minnesota & Sydney Studies) For decades, the "Diet-Heart Hypothesis" (saturated fat bad, seed oil good) relied on the idea that lowering cholesterol reduces death. However, two massive randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenged this, but their full data was unpublished for decades. * Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968–73): Recovered data published in 2016 showed that while corn oil did lower cholesterol, it did not lower mortality. In fact, for every 30 mg/dL drop in cholesterol, there was a 22% higher risk of death in older adults. * Sydney Diet Heart Study (1966–73): Recovered data showed that the group replacing saturated fat with safflower oil had a 62% higher risk of death from all causes compared to the control group. 2. The Problem with Epidemiology (Healthy User Bias) Most studies supporting seed oils are observational epidemiology, not experiments. They rely on surveys. * The Bias: In the last 40 years, health-conscious people were told to eat seed oils and avoid butter. Therefore, people who eat seed oils also tend to smoke less, exercise more, and eat more vegetables. * The Illusion: The data makes seed oils look healthy, but it is often measuring the "Healthy User" effect. Conversely, people who stuck to butter in the 90s/00s often ignored other health advice, making butter look artificially dangerous. 3. Industrial Processing Unlike "virgin" oils (olive, avocado, coconut) which are mechanically pressed, seed oils require industrial chemical refining: * Hexane Extraction: Seeds are bathed in petroleum solvents (hexane) to extract oil. * Deodorization: The oil is heated to high temperatures to remove bad smells (created by the extraction process), which ironically induces the formation of a small amount of Trans Fats essentially inside the factory. IV. Summary Risk Assessment | Feature | Modern Seed Oils (Soy, Corn, Canola) | Traditional Fats (Butter, Tallow, Olive) | |---|---|---| | Oxidative Stability | Low (Highly unstable) | High (Stable) | | Cooking Risk | High (Forms Aldehydes/4-HNE) | Low (Resists oxidation) | | Inflammation | High (High Omega-6 load) | Neutral/Low | | Processing | Industrial (Hexane, Bleaching) | Mechanical/Natural | | Data reliability | Mixed (Relies on Epidemiology/LDL) | Strong (Ancestral/Historical Safety) | Verdict & Next Step The risk of consuming modern seed oils, particularly when heated, is significant due to the formation of toxic byproducts and the biological burden of excess Omega-6. The data supporting their safety often relies on short-term markers (cholesterol) while ignoring long-term mortality data (Minnesota/Sydney trials) and toxicological chemistry. Recommendation: * Eliminate: Industrial seed oils for cooking (Soybean, Corn, Canola, Sunflower, Safflower). * Replace with: * For High Heat: Ghee, Tallow, Avocado Oil (refined but monounsaturated), or Coconut Oil. * For Low Heat/Raw: Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Butter. * Scrutinize: Processed foods (chips, dressings, mayo) which are the primary delivery mechanism for oxidized Omega-6.

There are tons of people who are constantly under stress, eat garbage, etc. and they never get cancer. Even individual genetics account for a very small factor of cancers (you can google the studies). Then someone who lived well, ate nutritious foods, avoided toxins, gets diagnosed with brain tumor out of the blue. Why is that? Is it really just bad luck?

Where can we watch it?

The first one yes, the others were added by AI and I didn’t double check FYI, but they seem reliable

I used AI to summarize (hope it doesn’t bother you): 1. Goodman et al. (2015) – Workshop summary on low-dose mixtures, published in Carcinogenesis (Oxford University Press, involving NCI, NIEHS, and IARC experts) Explicitly states: "Credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%." - Link: https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article/36/Suppl_1/S254/416815 (full text via PMC: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4566031/) This is one of the most direct citations tying WHO/IARC to this range. 2. President's Cancer Panel (2008–2009 Report: "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now") Critiques older estimates (e.g., Doll & Peto's ~2% for general pollution + 4% occupational) as "woefully out of date" and argues the true burden of environmentally induced cancer (broadly including chemicals, pollutants, occupational exposures, radiation, etc.) is grossly underestimated, implying a significantly higher fraction (while not pinning an exact number, it aligns with calls for recognizing 10–20%+ from broader environmental/occupational sources). - Full report: https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf 3. WHO's "Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments" reports (2006 & 2016 updates) Use a very broad definition of "environment" (air/soil/water pollution, UV/radiation, occupational risks, built environment, etc.) and estimate ~23–31% of overall disease burden (not cancer-specific) is environmentally attributable. For cancer specifically, subsets like air pollution or occupational risks contribute portions that, when aggregated broadly, support higher-end estimates in reviews. - 2016 report: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565196 4. Supporting reviews aligning with ~10–19% for broader environmental/occupational factors - Boffetta & Nyberg (2003, British Medical Bulletin): Estimates 5–15% for occupational + pollution exposures in developed countries. - Various country-specific updates (e.g., UK 2010: ~5–8% occupational + pollution; Denmark/Alberta similar) scale globally to support the range when including radiation/occupational.

They did some studies and turns out that this accounts only for a minor part of cancers. For example 10–20% of cancers worldwide are due to "environmental" factors, and this includes includes smoking cigarettes. It seems there’s a whole bunch of cancers such as brain tumor that cannot be connected to anything but bad luck. Or do you have some sources that contradict this?

For those that live in the EU, some time ago I contacted AlpenPower and they provided me with lab tests showing their Whey protein is pretty clean. It also tastes very good and it’s made from milk of healthy cows grazing on mountains Their website: https://www.alpenpower.com/

I discovered the power of my heart and experienced incredibly huge amounts of Love and Bliss. I gained the knowledge that this Love is always right here, in my center. While I still cannot fully access it at will when sober, just this knowledge makes my life better and fuller. Sometimes I just remember that I am surrounded by an ocean of Infinite Love and my heart just melts. It’s super cool

So when you experienced them, they momentarily came into our material reality? Or was it you that met them in their dimension?

I think it's just a matter of words and semantics, maybe one can have an experience of Love that is even higher than Bliss and Ecstasy. But in the end if we are talking about the same thing, words can never do it justice, they are just pointers

Is there really anything you want more than love? Why would you want millions of dollars, a beautiful girl, health, etc., but have no love? All those things have no value without love. Think about it, everything you do, deep down, is because you long for love.

Which stimulants?

In the alternative health space there seems to be a lot of hype about grounding/earthing. The idea is that you can get health benefits (anti inflammatory, anti stress, better blood flow) from being in electrical contact with the Earth’s surface (e.g. bare feet on the grass, or using a grounding mat). Have you ever tried it? Noticed any benefits?

So actually he only took the equivalent of 2.5g of shrooms

He’s taking it to study it for potential longevity benefits. Btw he’s gonna stream the whole experience starting today at 9.30am pacific haha

Yo he’s really gonna do 5g at once bro is crazy 😂

After watching the below video that Leo shared on his blog some time ago, I learned that there is a company that can organize everything for you to have a similar experience on a desert tropical island. It looks really cool but I'm not sure if it's worth it. Do you think one could grow from such an experience? Would you do it?

Did you see Matthew Walker’s recent transformation? He’s the famous sleep expert, but obviously he did something

I’m puzzled by the following two perspectives when it comes to compatibility in a romantic relationship: 1. If you’re spiritually developed, it means you have little to no ego, and hence you can be happy no matter the external circumstances. “The great way is easy for those with no preferences” as said Seng-t'san. 2. Authenticity is also important, and you are free to choose any experience that fits you best for this short time you are here on this planet. So, when suspecting incompatibility in a relationship, how do I know if it is coming from the ego (i.e., always wanting more, a prettier girl, bigger boobs, etc.), or if it is a conflict with the genuine expression of my authenticity?

Thanks for sharing your perspectives guys! One of the values I’m still a bit confused about is spirituality, which I value deeply. But does it really make sense to seek that value in your potential romantic partner? In the end, isn’t spirituality just about your direct relationship with God? Would be curious if you have some experiences to share about having a spiritual vs non-spiritual partner

Thanks Leo, you couldn’t have said it better. Now I don’t know if I should be happy because I finally understood this, or sad because the chances of finding a girl that would align with all my values is like 0.001% 🥲

When you die one day, you will merge with existence in a profound union of Infinite Love. And you will be able to stay there for eternity if you want. So what’s the rush? If you are on this planet right now, it’s probably because you want to explore all the possibilities of distortions in duality, which may include falling in love a woman. What do you really desire deep inside?