On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:37:58 -0700 (PDT), "
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.

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.

That's not a minor problem!

You don't make
any conclusion regarding the cause, not even
speculation to what might be the cause.

Are you kidding me? I have to arrive at a conclusion, or speculate,
as to what might be the cause?

Where is that law written?

What freakin' planet are you from, asshole?

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.

Back to the straw men again? What a douche.

First, there is no "fact" that I'm aware of that bariatric bypass
patients achieve an immediate and permanent reversal of diabetes in
all patients (such as you are implying here). I did posit that LC
could do the same thing (and it can) in *many* people with diabetes.

Or are you denying that, Mr. Denialist?

So, a huge positive effect and according to you
it's a fact it MUST be due to LC and nothing else.

Again, that's not what I said. You just can't read for comprehension,
can you?

You talked of a "mysterious effect" that you couldn't explain, and I
said it could be due to them eating fewer carbs.

See the difference, asshole?

That despite the fact that researchers are just
beginnning to try to figure out what is really going
on.

Well, once they figure it out, I'm free to exercise my opinion of
what's going on. In fact, even after they figure it out, I'm still
free to exercise my opinion, no matter how many assholes like you I
happen to encounter while doing so.

Yet, when a minor, possible negative effect is
shown in one study, you don't attribute THAT
to LC.

And how exactly would a low carb diet be attributed to developing a
problem with alcohol?

And the next time you run into an alcoholic, be sure to tell him that
his problem is only a "minor" one, and to just get on with his life.

What an asshole!

Just ask the families of all your dead AIDS denialist
friends

Sure. Right after you ask the families of all those who have been
killed by AIDS drugs, long-term abuse of IV and other recreational
drugs, inhaling poippers, drinking heavily, suffering multiple STDs,
taking antibiotics prophylactically, eating poorly, getting no sleep,
practicing poor hygiene, etc., eventually destroying their immune
systems, why/how they came to the faulty conclusion that this kind of
lifestyle was conducive to living a long and healthy life, and why
they put their faith in Drug Pushers and AIDS, Inc.

Asshole.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman