gastro ./ gastro enteritis
Instantly Avoid More Toxic Load To Your Body?
By Farrell Seah
A growing mountain of evidence from clinical trials and scientific studies continually reaffirms the benefits of colostrum supplementation in treating gastrointestinal disorders and improving the function of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.
From this research, we have learned that the perhaps the greatest benefit of colostrum supplementation lies in its ability to enhance the overall health and efficiency of the gut, and that enhanced gut efficiency can effectively control or resolve many gastrointestinal disorders. This is because a healthy gut can more efficiently transport nutrients throughout the body, and more effectively destroy harmful bacteria and other pathogens at their point of their entry, before they can proliferate or spread throughout the body.
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Colostrum is very effective at repairing damaged tissues in the intestines, directly impacting a particularly common gastrointestinal disorder called leaky gut syndrome. Caused by the chronic irritation and inflammation of the bowel lining, leaky gut syndrome is characterized by an increased permeability of the intestinal walls to large food molecules, viruses, bacteria, fungi, and toxins entering the gastrointestinal tract.
Leaky gut syndrome lies at the root of a long list of gastrointestinal disorders, immune disorders, and other illnesses—including mineral deficiencies, food allergies, autoimmune diseases, and weakened immunity. Colostrum supplementation can heal the intestinal lining and restore the immune system’s ability to fight pathogens in the gut, directly at their point of entrance into the body.
By bringing resolution to leaky gut syndrome in this way, the toxic load on the body and liver is reduced, nutritional uptake is enhanced, and immune responses associated with food allergies are minimized and often disappear entirely. These positive changes help to bring resolution to many other conditions
There's an ?E? there, not an ?O?
A few days ago Dan Lyke linked to a few posts of mine.
And then today,
I found Lobster's comment linking to a post of mine.
In both cases,
they gave my full name as ?Sean Connor.?
I know that ?Connor? is a popular spelling
for example: Chuck Connors or Connor Huff)
only my last name isn't ?Connor? but ?ConnEr?,
you know, like Sean Connery.
To help mitigate this misspelling in the future,
I made my name a bit more prominent on the blog.
Or at least I hope it's a bit more promiment.
]]>
Notes on blocking requests based on the HTTP protocol used
I'm still clearing out some links from last month,
just so you know.
?Selectively Disabling HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1?
(via Lobsters)
describes an experiment with disabling (or redirecting) requests made via HTTP/1.1,
as most of the traffic the author saw via HTTP/1.1 they classified as ?bad.?
I decided to check that against my own server?in fact,
I'm checking it against my blog specifically,
since it's the only dynamic site I'm serving up
(the rest are all static sites).
So,
how do requests to my blog stack up?
Requests per HTTP protocol
| protocol | count |
|---|
| HTTP/1.0 | 396 |
| HTTP/1.1 | 377647 |
| HTTP/2.0 | 180093 |
| Total | 558136 |
HTTP/1.0 is negligable,
and a breakdown of response codes show that these requests aren't even bad:
HTTP/1.0 request statuses
| response | count |
|---|
SUCCESS.OKAY | 371 |
REDIRECT.MOVEPERM | 13 |
REDIRECT.NOTMODIFIED | 8 |
CLIENT.UNAUTHORIZED | 4 |
The majority of requests are to my RSS feed.
There are a vanishingly small number of agents using HTTP/1.0,
at least from where I can see.
Around ? of my traffic is still HTTP/1.1:
HTTP/1.1 request statuses
| response | count |
|---|
SUCCESS.OKAY | 289181 |
SUCCESS.ACCEPTED | 2 |
SUCCESS.PARTIALCONTENT | 7 |
REDIRECT.MOVEPERM | 886 |
REDIRECT.NOTMODIFIED | 69299 |
CLIENT.BADREQ | 3 |
CLIENT.UNAUTHORIZED | 441 |
CLIENT.FORBIDDEN | 5 |
CLIENT.NOTFOUND | 13249 |
CLIENT.METHODNOTALLOWED | 19 |
CLIENT.GONE | 82 |
CLIENT.TOOMANYREQUESTS | 4211 |
SERVER.INTERNALERR | 261 |
SERVER.NOSERVICE | 1 |
And the results for HTTP/2.0:
HTTP/2.0 request statutes
| response | count |
|---|
SUCCESS.OKAY | 103472 |
SUCCESS.PARTIALCONTENT | 1496 |
REDIRECT.MOVEPERM | 5089 |
REDIRECT.NOTMODIFIED | 68966 |
CLIENT.BADREQ | 3 |
CLIENT.UNAUTHORIZED | 47 |
CLIENT.NOTFOUND | 902 |
CLIENT.METHODNOTALLOWED | 6 |
CLIENT.GONE | 36 |
CLIENT.TOOMANYREQUESTS | 25 |
SERVER.INTERNALERR | 51 |
About 4% of the HTTP/1.1 traffic is ?bad? in the ?client made an error? bad,
where as HTTP/2.0 only has ½% of such ?bad? traffic.
Feed readers are pretty much split 50/50 as per protocol,
and the rest?
I would have to do a deeper dive into it,
but I do note that there are significally more bad clients making too many requests (CLIENT.TOOMANYREQUESTS) with HTTP/1.1 than with HTTP/2.0.
The article concludes that blocking solely on HTTP/1.x is probably not worth it,
as there are other ways to block bad traffic.
In that light,
and with the results I have,
I don't think blocking HTTP/1.1 will work for me.
In contrast,
there's ?HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame,?
an article that explitely calls for the immediate removal of HTTP/1.1,
but unstated in that article is that the desync problem is more a problem of Enterprise based websites,
with lots of middleware boxes mucking with the request chain on a web-based application.
Based on that article,
I would think that if you are running an application-centric website,
then yes,
maybe blocking HTTP/1.x is a thing to do,
but if you are running a more document-centric website
(you know, the ?old, fun and funky web? from before 2005 or so)
then maybe blocking HTTP/2.0 is in order.
In fact,
I think that might be a decent idea?leave HTTP/1.x for those who want the old web
(or the ?smolweb?),
and HTTP/2.0 for the application web.
If you want to only browse the docweb and you get an 426 HTTP_UPGRADE,
then you know you can close the website and avoid downloading 50MB of Javascript to just read a few hundred words in text.
]]>
and gastrointestinal disorders as well, including irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, yeast infections, and Crohn’s disease.
Ulcers, Gastritis, and Gastric Cancer
Milk and other dairy products have for a long time been used to relieve the painful symptoms associated with ulcers and other advanced gastrointestinal disorders, but the reasons behind their effectiveness are only recently being revealed. We now know that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection (specifically, the Helicobacter pylori bacterium), and that antibodies in colostrum and other dairy products may actively prevent Helicobacter pylori from adhering to the gut, inhibiting its colonization along the stomach wall.
In addition, other bactericidal agents may be present in dairy colostrum and milk preparations that directly impact H. pylori. During the last few years, several studies have been conducted using colostrum supplementation in the treatment of gastritis, a gastrointestinal disorder considered to be a precursor to the development of stomach ulcers. These studies identified a glycoprotein in colostrum that is also active in preventing Helicobacter pylori from attaching to the stomach wall.
The results of these studies are very promising, and current research continues to investigate colostrum’s possible future role in the treatment of ulcers, gastritis, and gastric cancer. Article Source: http://www.articlemap.com Feel free to use this article with the author name and website included. Click Here to Find Out More About Bovine Colostrum At :www.BuyBovineColostrum.com
|
