re: "first getting worse before you can get better", I wanna pick you guys' brain a little bit. I've been doubting this saying lately... cause how do you know if sth is harming you in order to help you later on, as opposed to just plain harming you? with the cat's claw in my case, I was just getting sicker and sicker, and lowering the dose didn't really have any effect. (btw I took the cat's claw for four months, which I think is a pretty good stretch of time)
especially with the whole Naviaux study, and Davis and Naviaux stating all these things about how using antivirals might give some people temporary relief but is gonna hurt us in the long run.
Cat's claw is a natural antiviral so following their hypothesis that would mean that any positive effects you get from cat's claw are secondary to what's actually wrong, and will be putting extra stress on the mitochondria which in their theory will eventually delay our getting better.
I am not stating this as fact, would just like to hear some of your views about this. How do you know the difference between 'worse first, then better' vs. just plain harming yourself?
especially with the whole Naviaux study, and Davis and Naviaux stating all these things about how using antivirals might give some people temporary relief but is gonna hurt us in the long run.
Cat's claw is a natural antiviral so following their hypothesis that would mean that any positive effects you get from cat's claw are secondary to what's actually wrong, and will be putting extra stress on the mitochondria which in their theory will eventually delay our getting better.
I am not stating this as fact, would just like to hear some of your views about this. How do you know the difference between 'worse first, then better' vs. just plain harming yourself?