Message Number: SG8448 | New FHL Archives Search
From: sukiec@optonline.net
Date: 2004-04-02 05:47:09 UTC
Subject: RE: Carbs and wild mustelids
To: ferrethealth@smartgroups.com
Message-ID: <1494111.1080884829336.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>

It is always important to remember what we do know, what is hypothetical and what is guessed, and to try to know the differences.

That said, yes, definitely act upon whatever seems to best level of data to you (anyone) at any time.

Just remember the differences. I have seen so many people who assumed that late alter (with a difference of a few months) would mean that they would not run into adrenal growths, only to have just as many of them as before. Now, it is always possible that later alters with more time whole than those half year spans or so would differ from early alters, or even that the rate is somewhat improved -- just not to the degree expected so it isn't showing up as clearly over a range of households as expected. My point is that a lot of folks set strong store by that and then really felt that they'd taken a body punch when it didn't pan out as well as expected.

There may be a similar tendency to so badly want reductions in starch or sugar intake to make a difference in insulinoma that we can at times forget that what we may see as results might be as good as hoped (Hooray), or that there might be a difference only with a marked reduction in intake, or that there might be a difference only to a point with reductions beyond that not having an effect, or someother limited configuration.

So, whatever a person decides, for your own emotional protections do not expect a magic bullet. It might happen and that would be cool and ultimately would benefit all, but in kindess to yourself whenever trying something for which there is little data, err on the side of being cautious in terms of expectations, because it can be hard to be disppointed, but it alternatively can feel really great to be pleasantly surprised.