On Oct 7, 7:26*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by
recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science,
solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics?

You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted
about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission?

Gluten-free was only part of it, if you'd taken the time to read the
entire study.

One should not have to read an entire study to learn
that the diet they are talking about is not only gluten
free, but also LOW GLYCEMIC. Is that how the "scientifc
method" in your world works? That in the summary
you just talk about gluten? And as for reading the
entire study, I may be wrong, but I believe you have to
pay to access it.





They were trying to prove that a gluten-free diet wasn't
harmful to a NON-Celiac.

Sheesh.

That kind of article?

It wasn't an article. It was a study.




To this day, you don't seem to know the difference.

I don't know the difference?

See here is another fine example of your total inability
to comprehend "the scientific method". Here is the
link you posted, which you found via Dr. WheatBelly's
website, which seems to form the sole center of your
attention.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729336

That is NOT a study. It's a case report on ONE PATIENT.
The fact that you think it is a study speaks volumes.
And it also explains how you come to so many bizarre
conclusions. You don't even understand the difference
between a study and a case report on one patient.

Let me help you out. If they did a study with 100
similar diabetic patients, divided them into two groups, removed
only gluten from the diet of 50, replaced the gluten
products with similar refined carbs and then measured
the results, THAT would be a study of the effect of a
gluten-free diet.




That's because there's no there there.

And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else
you consider sound science, so they can figure you
out for the ignoramus that you are.

I'm not the one who relies on summaries, doesn't know what antibodies
are, thinks children as young as 12 years old should be given
Gardasil, thinks AZT is harmless, thinks everyone should avoid salt,
believes in Al Gore's version of "global warming," and thinks everyone
should just wait around for a "study" before doing anything.

You're not only an ignoramus, you're freakin' dangerous!

--


The above list of lies comes to you from the guy that is
an AIDS denialist and tells people HIV is harmless. That AIDS
is really caused by diet and lack of sleep. Everyone can
figure out who the one giving out dangerous advice here
really is.