If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 5/7/2012 5:27 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:24:26 -0300, James Warren wrote: On 5/7/2012 4:37 PM, Dogman wrote: On Mon, 07 May 2012 16:21:32 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] Is this group strictly for cheer leading then? Absolutely not, James. But repeating the same old, same old, ad nauseam, has a tendency to grate on nerves. You've made your point - we need more research. We can always use more research. I think everyone here agrees with you on that, but what people are trying to get across to you (mostly unsuccessfully) is that we already have enough research to make an informed decision. Personanlly feel free to wait around for more, of course, but don't wait too long, or you likely won't be around to see it. So can we give that part a rest? So it IS for cheer leading then. Do you really believe that's what I meant, James? If so, you are indeed becoming a TROLL. So into the bozo bin you go! Bub bye! I think I have just been honored. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On May 7, 3:31*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2012 12:12:32 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/pdf/DUESBERG.pdf Ditto FIV, or "feline AIDS." You can choose to believe this, or not, your choice. -- Dogman- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why would I or any rational person belive anything from the quack Duesberg that denies HIV is responsible for AIDS and that it's instead caused by recreational drug use? Well, one reason would be that he's right. Another reason might be that you are actually interested in finding out the truth. *Another might be that you're intellectually curious. *But it's obvious that you care for none of that. No, I just have no patience with 911 deniers, holocaust deniers, flat earth folks, and AIDS deniers. The evidence that HIV causes AIDS is irrefutable. The fool Duesburg was running around in the 80s claiming that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use. Even then his arguments made little sense. Since then, real science has passed him by including the irrefutable fact that drugs that specifically target the HIV virus work. Perhaps you haven't followed the nightly news where people are no longer dying right and left. I can only imagine the things you probably said to people when they first tried to tell you about Dr. Atkins, and the low-carb diet. "Those morons!", right? No, because unlike AIDS deniers, Atkins made logical sense and had a convincing case. Duesburg and your arguments are a joke. Kid gets blood transfusion. *Blood came from person with HIV virus. *Kid now has AIDS and HIV virus. No, he may (or may not, because the tests are totally unrealiable) have ANTIBODIES to HIV. Since you apparently have no clue what the difference between viruses and antibodies are, I have no clue? The kids were dying from AIDS. The actual HIV virus was isolated from their blood. You can't transmit a disease with antibodies. It's transmitted with live virus. No evidence the kid evey used drugs. But he will now, when they start giving him deadly and toxic CHAIN TERMINATING drugs. Which will eventually kill him. You really are a total ignoramus. People were dying BEFORE we had the AIDS drugs. Those drugs were developed knowing the specific virus and finding drugs that bind to it and prevent replication. They work. People are no longer dying a year or two after diagnosis. Now they are living long lives with undetectable or near undetectable viral levles. That's right, VIRAL levels. Now it would be one hell of a coincidence if the drugs that were developed knowing the specific structure of the HIV virus just happened to prevent full on AIDS if AIDS were due to something other than the hiv virus. Do you know what AZT is? Do you know what it was designed to do? Look it up. You have plenty of cases of that, plus others, like Arthur Ashe that clearly contracted HIV from blood transfusions. They have even tracked the DNA of the freaking virus back to identify which host it came from. *What world do you live in? This one, but I don't just automatically believe things that people tell me. As a skeptic, I do my own due diligence, and I weigh all of the evidence available to me, just not the evidence from one side. Read Duesberg's book. And stop being such an ass. I'll leave it for others to figure out who the ass is. I'm waiting for a single other person to chime in and support your AIDS/hiv denial. Again, after these posts your credibility is gone. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On Mon, 7 May 2012 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] And prevention was not your main claim. *You claimed that viruses cannot cause cancer period. *That is contradicted by tons of research. There are "tons of research" that support the catastopic global warming meme, but it's still mostly BOGUS research. Unfortunately global warming has nothing to do with your claims about medicine, viruses and AIDS. Are you familiar with the word "analogy," Trader? [...] The medical establisment prevents disease. I've never said that. *That's a straw man, and it's not surprising that someone like you has to resort to strawmen. You said the medical establishment has "so little interest in preventing disease". Then use my words, not yours. The $$ in the medical establishment devoted to disease prevention each year is huge. The vaccines we have today as a result is staggering. Yes, and they do some good. But many of the recent ones do not. They are a waste of money. A lot of that funding is not from the drug companies or any for profit institutions. No, it's almost all from the drug companies. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus. Yes, I do. *And so do many scientists and doctors, even a couple of Nobel Laureates:http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php Yes you do what? If you han't snipped off this part, you'd have your answer: Let's see. You deny that: Believe that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus? You're amazing in your ignorance of science and fancy for conspiracy theories. Yada yada yada. Same old, same old. Viruses can cause cancer. No, they can't, and I've already explained why they can't. Of course and we should believe you, not a whole branch of science devoted to oncoviruses, right? No, what you should so, as I've explained ad nauseum, is to do some actual research of your own. PS: There are no oncoviruses, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. [...] Yes, I can see that you have difficulkty focusing on just one topic, much less two or three, no matter how closely they may be linked. Only a loon would link global warming with AIDS. The similarities of BAD SCIENCE in both areas is simply amazing. The way they try to cover it up, get caught red-handed, and get right back to it. Because they can always count on people like you, the incurious, the gullible, the naive. [...] I'm flettered to be placed in the company of such a great scientist! Look fool. If you don't believe the overwhelming evidence where people with no drug use history have been infected with HIV by blood, sex, etc with a partner known to have HIV, then how about this. We had people dying from AIDS right and left. Then the virus that causes it was discovered. Then understanding that specific retrovirus, drugs were found that act on parts of that specific virus. They target the HIV virus and stop it from replicating. No, they didn't. They targeted all the cells in the human body, eventually killing the host. That's what CHAIN TERMINATING drugs do. They kill cells. All cells, every kind of cell. You can look it up. Those drugs started coming out and the death rate declined. Today with a combination of those drugs, people are living for decades with AIDS, instead of dying. And the reason they're living longer is that they're just killing them slower, with less powerful drugs, less dosage, etc. Their viral loads are measured and the virus has been suppressed to undetectable or near undetectable levels and they are healthy. They'd be just as healthy if they just quit taking these drugs, and cleaning up their lifestyles. When his "aneuploidy" theory of cancer proves out, think back to this very moment, when you called him a moron:http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/...ewly-evolved-s... Just simple things, like the fact that perfectly healthy people ranging from grandmas to kids have contracted HIV from blood transfusions alone is enough to tell anyone with a brain that Duesburg is a fool. They did not contract HIV, they acquired ANTIBODIES to HIV. WTF? The virus has been isolated from people with AIDS. That is how it was found in the first place. The standard test is for antibodies, but the actual virus has been taken from countless people with AIDS. And that's when they start to give them deadly and toxic CHAIN TERMINATING drugs, which eventually kill them. Read his book. I'd no sooner waste my time of that jerk than on a holocaust denier or a flat earth fool. That's what I figured, but sometimes one can't lead a horse to water. Same thing with the fact that viruses can cause cancer. It's well proven. No, it's not. *Just the opposite. Only in your upside down world. And in the world of real molecular and cell biologists. We even vaccinate cats against the lukemia virus. And just as needlessly. Sorry, but after this sad string of posts, your credibility is now below ZERO. Thank you! *Again, coming from you, that's a great honor! -- Dogman Sad, so sad. I think after this no one in this group will have any respect left for you. And that's okay, too! But since we're beating a dead horse now, and probably boring people to death, unless you have something new to add to this discussion, and it's not repetitive gobbledy gook, as is your wont, I'm done talking about AIDS. You have an inalienable right to remain an ignorant, gullible, incurious person, and I'd fight to the death to protect your right to remain that way! -- 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 |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On Mon, 7 May 2012 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Well, one reason would be that he's right. Another reason might be that you are actually interested in finding out the truth. *Another might be that you're intellectually curious. *But it's obvious that you care for none of that. No, I just have no patience with 911 deniers, holocaust deniers, flat earth folks, and AIDS deniers. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anyone on this planet who denies the existence of AIDS. Please stop using straw men. It just makes you look amateurish. The evidence that HIV causes AIDS is irrefutable. No, it's not. And if you read Duesberg's book, you'll see that it isn't. The fool Duesburg was running around in the 80s claiming that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use. No, he didn't. That's just part of it. Even then his arguments made little sense. For any argument to make sense, one must have at least a modicum of intelligence and critical thinking tools. You may be lacking in those departments. Since then, real science has passed him by including the irrefutable fact that drugs that specifically target the HIV virus work. Perhaps you haven't followed the nightly news where people are no longer dying right and left. As I've tried to explain to you, they're dying slower, but dying nonetheless. That's not an accident. Why kill off your best customers earlier than necessary? $$$$$$$ Ka-ching! I can only imagine the things you probably said to people when they first tried to tell you about Dr. Atkins, and the low-carb diet. "Those morons!", right? No, because unlike AIDS deniers, Atkins made logical sense and had a convincing case. Duesburg and your arguments are a joke. Okay, if you say so, my little one-trick pony. Kid gets blood transfusion. *Blood came from person with HIV virus. *Kid now has AIDS and HIV virus. No, he may (or may not, because the tests are totally unrealiable) have ANTIBODIES to HIV. Since you apparently have no clue what the difference between viruses and antibodies are, I have no clue? The kids were dying from AIDS. The actual HIV virus was isolated from their blood. What kind of people get blood tranfusions? Very sick people, right? And probably people with weak, compromised immune systems. So why in the world would you ever think it's a good idea to give deadly, highly toxic drugs like AZT (which KILL all cells!) to someone who's already sick, and has a weakened immune system? You can't transmit a disease with antibodies. It's transmitted with live virus. You can transmit antibodies via a blood transfusion, through sex, through an exchange of needles, bodily fluids, etc. And then have ELISA and Western Blot tests show that you, too, have antibodies to HIV. Miraculously, No evidence the kid evey used drugs. But he will now, when they start giving him deadly and toxic CHAIN TERMINATING drugs. Which will eventually kill him. You really are a total ignoramus. People were dying BEFORE we had the AIDS drugs. Yes, from abusing recreational drugs, drinking, taking numerous antibiotics prophylactically, snorting amyl nitrates, not getting any sleep, etc. In essence, destroying their immune systems. Those things were all representative of the original GRID cases. Then they decided to kill those poor schmucks even faster, by giving them drugs like AZT, which originally was a drug designed to treat cancer. Why would anyone in his or her right mind think that giving a cancer drug (long-term, no less!) would help extend the lives of people already dying from a lack of a functioning immune system? Really, it boggles the mind. Those drugs were developed knowing the specific virus and finding drugs that bind to it and prevent replication. Oh, please, read the book. It will answer all of your questions, and more. Do you know what AZT is? Do you know what it was designed to do? Look it up. You have plenty of cases of that, plus others, like Arthur Ashe that clearly contracted HIV from blood transfusions. They have even tracked the DNA of the freaking virus back to identify which host it came from. *What world do you live in? This one, but I don't just automatically believe things that people tell me. As a skeptic, I do my own due diligence, and I weigh all of the evidence available to me, just not the evidence from one side. Read Duesberg's book. And stop being such an ass. I'll leave it for others to figure out who the ass is. Me too! But it may take some time. I'm waiting for a single other person to chime in and support your AIDS/hiv denial. They would, I bet, if they'd just do their due diligence. Reading Duesberg's book is a good start in that direction. Again, after these posts your credibility is gone. That's okay. I'll live. -- 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 |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: Dogman wrote: James wrote: I drink 2-3 diet drinks per week and will continue to do so until I see evidence of harm. It's just a hunch, but I don't think any kind of evidence would be good enough for you, because you're probably already addicted. Addicted to what? Surely not artificial sweeteners. The idea that X can't be addictive or harmful has been applied to grains at least as far back as ancient Greece. It's false as my mild wheat intolerance demonstrates and there are people with far worse symptoms than mine. Putting artificial sweeteners in as the X does not change the falsity of claims that they can't be addictive. Claims that they are addictive can be shown by supplying someone who gets withdrawal symptoms like my wife. Claims that *you* are addicted is a much stronger claim. "It's just a hunch" in this case. Yuo can prove to yourself by eliminate-and-challenge or not. Your choice. At this point you likely don't have a drive to do so. I suggest that the more you feel resistance to doing so the more value you'll have from trying it. Say you object to going without artificial sweeteners? Is that objection emotional or is it based on the weakness of the evidence for addiction? What are you on about here? Are you suggesting that my 2-3 aspartame drinks per week constitutes an addiction? Dogman suggested that you might be. You seemed to indicate you thought it to be impossible. I pointed out it is quite possible and that how likely it is is correlated with the degree of emotion in any negative assertion on your part in advance of trying to find out for certain. As for your tests such as the eliminate-and-challenge test, it would be more convincing if the test could be blinded. The mind can be very suggestible. Uh huh. You appear to believe others more than you believe experimental data from yourself. Have fun with that. Data from your own body is the best type of data for yourself. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Might. The "big fat lie" has been around for decades and yet this word is always in there. Why? Because any scientist worth his salt knows how weak the evidence is. Low carbers have no problems with the amount of fat in their diets. It is only people on high carb diets who have problems with the amount of fat in their diet. Reducing fat is only one of the ways to address that combination. The disagreements are about the kinds of fats. I think that a good study can clarify this. There are many small studies with small power that show weakly significant effects. These are not especially convincing. Types of fatty acids have been a part of plenty of low carb plans for a couple of decades. Science has been evolving on the topic and those plans that are kept up to date on the author's web sites have evolved to match. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: Kidney damage is a risk of a high protean diet that has little carbs or fat. Add some carbs or fat, preferably fat, and the risk is minimized. In the 1970s when his first book became so popular the AMA tried to pull Dr A's medical license over the kidney damage issue. His defense was simple - Show him even one case of anyone without any previously existing kidney damage who suffered kidney damage while following the directions in his book. Dr A died waiting for the AMA to offer up even one case. He died with his license. They never produced a single case. LC and high fat go together. I don't think that will cause any problems. A poster, I forget who, said that LC did not necessarily mean high fat. If a diet is both low carb and low fat then it necessarily must be nearly all protean. I believe, without checking, that the literature will support the idea that an all protean diet may cause kidney damage. Sure, yet check the slice of your post I retained above. I am open to evidence to the contrary. Back in the 1970s there were low carb high protein low fat plans that did cause health problems. It's not a good way when taken to extremes. Going with chicken breast is probably not going to lead you to an extreme. The extremes used concentrated protein powders. South Beach Diet says it's okay to eat lean meats. I don't recall any cases of health problems caused by anyone who followed the directions for that plan. Mostly if you want less fat it works okay to trade a calorie of fat for a calorie of protein. There are limits so just don't get extreme about it. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 07/05/2012 6:42 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: Dogman wrote: James wrote: I drink 2-3 diet drinks per week and will continue to do so until I see evidence of harm. It's just a hunch, but I don't think any kind of evidence would be good enough for you, because you're probably already addicted. Addicted to what? Surely not artificial sweeteners. The idea that X can't be addictive or harmful has been applied to grains at least as far back as ancient Greece. It's false as my mild wheat intolerance demonstrates and there are people with far worse symptoms than mine. Putting artificial sweeteners in as the X does not change the falsity of claims that they can't be addictive. Claims that they are addictive can be shown by supplying someone who gets withdrawal symptoms like my wife. Claims that *you* are addicted is a much stronger claim. "It's just a hunch" in this case. Yuo can prove to yourself by eliminate-and-challenge or not. Your choice. At this point you likely don't have a drive to do so. I suggest that the more you feel resistance to doing so the more value you'll have from trying it. Say you object to going without artificial sweeteners? Is that objection emotional or is it based on the weakness of the evidence for addiction? What are you on about here? Are you suggesting that my 2-3 aspartame drinks per week constitutes an addiction? Dogman suggested that you might be. You seemed to indicate you thought it to be impossible. I pointed out it is quite possible and that how likely it is is correlated with the degree of emotion in any negative assertion on your part in advance of trying to find out for certain. Google artificial sweeteners addiction. Of the few dozen hits on the first few pages which are the most credible? None looked credible to me. As for your tests such as the eliminate-and-challenge test, it would be more convincing if the test could be blinded. The mind can be very suggestible. Uh huh. You appear to believe others more than you believe experimental data from yourself. Have fun with that. Data from your own body is the best type of data for yourself. The easiest person to fool is oneself. Personal experience is unreliable. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 07/05/2012 6:44 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Might. The "big fat lie" has been around for decades and yet this word is always in there. Why? Because any scientist worth his salt knows how weak the evidence is. Low carbers have no problems with the amount of fat in their diets. It is only people on high carb diets who have problems with the amount of fat in their diet. Reducing fat is only one of the ways to address that combination. The disagreements are about the kinds of fats. I think that a good study can clarify this. There are many small studies with small power that show weakly significant effects. These are not especially convincing. Types of fatty acids have been a part of plenty of low carb plans for a couple of decades. Science has been evolving on the topic and those plans that are kept up to date on the author's web sites have evolved to match. I haven't been to the Atkin's wedsite. I wouldn't expect entirely impartial information there. It is best to look at the contrairians and see how good their case is. I have read Taubes though. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Supplemental Natural Diet Support | Meeks | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | May 28th, 2008 01:44 PM |
Looking for a few friendly faces | justme | General Discussion | 4 | August 12th, 2006 05:46 PM |
Chicken recipes that are WW friendly AND kid friendly | Julia | Weightwatchers | 32 | March 10th, 2006 02:08 PM |
Friendly Server who really tried.... | Pat | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | October 5th, 2004 08:12 PM |
Induction-friendly gum? | Mo Geffer | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | September 8th, 2004 09:39 PM |