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.

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.

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

On 5/7/2012 5:48 PM, wrote:
On May 7, 3:31 pm, 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.



Noevidence 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.

On this, at least, we can agree.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.