Leo Must Complete a Long Dry Fast to Be Healed From His Illness

[something_else]

On 20/08/2026 at 11:14 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Bruh how do antibiotics work then? It kills your body (the microbial part of it)

They mostly leave human cells alone. They fuck with your gut biome a bit, but that's it. The risk/reward ratio is worth it because the alternative is death or severe infection. The same cannot be said for dry fasting.

On 20/08/2026 at 11:14 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Chemotherapy the same.

Again, it's targeted at the cancer and your body is just collateral. In this case the risk/reward ratio is worth it because, again, the alternative is death. 

On 20/08/2026 at 11:14 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Drug addicts who fall so deep into the darkest depths of depravity where they realize at the very last step that if they don't turn around they will literally die, some of them completely turn their life around.

Yea, but it's better to just not become a drug addict in the first place and then you don't need to experience rock bottom to redeem yourself. Most of the drug addicts who reach rock bottom end up dead. Recovery from that point is not a certainty, it's an exception.

On 20/08/2026 at 11:14 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Short bursts of extreme but controlled physical exertion and muscular rupturing (during exercise) unlock genes that change your body, making your body bigger and stronger.

This is breaking your body in a way it's designed to be broken. Your body is designed to build muscles to increase strength when necessary. Your body is not designed to recover stronger from dry fasting. Again, if it were, then sub-saharan Africa would contain some of the healthiest people in the world, yet it doesn't.

All of these are examples of false equivalence.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, something_else said:

They mostly leave human cells alone. They fuck with your gut biome a bit, but that's it.

Yet there is short-term and/or long-term damage. I know somebody who knows somebody who allegedly developed Celiac's disease after an antibiotic treatment. A cohort study found a correlation that would support this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30836095/

 

2 hours ago, something_else said:

Again, it's targeted at the cancer and your body is just collateral. In this case the risk/reward ratio is worth it because, again, the alternative is death. 

Yet there is short-term and/or long-term damage. "How chemotherapy damages the central nervous system" — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2397491/

 

2 hours ago, something_else said:

Yea, but it's better to just not become a drug addict in the first place and then you don't need to experience rock bottom to redeem yourself. Most of the drug addicts who reach rock bottom end up dead. Recovery from that point is not a certainty, it's an exception.

The point is not that you should. The point is it does happen.

 

2 hours ago, something_else said:

This is breaking your body in a way it's designed to be broken. Your body is designed to build muscles to increase strength when necessary. Your body is not designed to recover stronger from dry fasting. Again, if it were, then sub-saharan Africa would contain some of the healthiest people in the world, yet it doesn't.

All of these are examples of false equivalence.

All examples are false equivalence. The important part of the equivalence is that there are things that do damage or reduce functioning in the short-term (and perhaps sometimes even in the long-term in some ways), that are often unsustainable in the long-term, and that when taken short-term, they can lead to improvements in functioning over time.

And perhaps even if dry fasting does lead to long-term damage (like chemotherapy), if you have a very debilitating disease and there is a chance that dry fasting could cure it, maybe the trade-off is worth it?

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard