On Jun 18, 5:11*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:19:27 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger





wrote:
Dogman wrote:

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ariatric-surge....

"In a last ditch effort to lose weight, roughly 113,000 people subject
themselves to bariatric surgeries such as stomach banding and gastric
bypass every year in the United States. But some of those patients may
be trading pounds for an alcohol problem, according to a new study
presented today at the annual meeting of the American Society for
Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in San Diego, and published by the
Journal of the American Medical Association."

I wonder at causation versus correlation. *Sugar and alcohol are both
addictive. *Ho wmany of these people, freed from sugar addiction, moved
on to the next addiction in line. *As such I do not consider this
damning news.

Damning? No.

Worrisome? Yes.

--
Dogman


See, here's another good example of how you think
and how the conclusion comes before any facts.
In this case, you post about a study where a minor
negative effect is seen in bariatric surgery patients,
ie they appear to have an increased risk of
having problems with alcohol. You don't make
any conclusion regarding the cause, not even
speculation to what might be the cause.

Yet in another thread, when the discussion was
the fact that these bariatric patients also have an
immediate and permanent reversal of diabetes,
why you KNEW for a fact that it was due to LC.
So, a huge positive effect and according to you
it's a fact it MUST be due to LC and nothing else.
That despite the fact that researchers are just
beginnning to try to figure out what is really going
on. No need, they should just ask you, because
you say it has to be due to LC.
Despite zero evidence that these bariatric patients
are even on a LC diet 1, 2,
10 years AFTER surgery, when the diabetes
reversal continues.

Yet, when a minor, possible negative effect is
shown in one study, you don't attribute THAT
to LC. And that is because you already have
a totally preconceived way of looking at things
and the facts and research be damned. Anything
that agrees with your preconceived notions gets
recorded. And other studies, mountains of
evidence, or in this case, the fact that the patients
are NOT even on LC, well that gets discarded.

And that is a very dangerous way of looking at
things. In the long run, it leads to very bad results.
Just ask the families of all your dead AIDS denialist
friends who ame to the faulty conclusion that HIV isn't the
cause of AIDS and that HIV is harmless. They
refused AIDS drugs and now they are DEAD.