The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

If you care anything about your health, you'll learn how to cook.

Or live with someone who can and will. Restaurant and take out food is
designed for the most appeal at the least cost and nutrition is a
distant consideration, (as it is for most customers) and if nutrition
is taken into consideration it's usually incorrectly applied.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Few of the chemicals have been in use for decades. There have been
chemicals where it took decades to figure out they were harmful. Even
chemicals as simple as the element mercury and the mineral asbestos took
decades to figure out they were harmful.

Oh, yes. They used to spay the street by my families house with used
transformer oils, just full of polychlorinated biphenyls .

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

On Jun 1, 7:00*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
I gave you the link to summaries from the two studies.

There were no links.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254

"Original Article
Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects
Results

Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the
conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle
intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever."

In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific"
studies conducted today. *It's basically a deceitful advertisement for
surgical intervention.

Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies
are crap. It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like
claiming that common food additives are dangerous, but HIV
is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS. In other
words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the
bizarre, kook fringes.

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


There were no links.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254

"Original Article
Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects
Results

Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the
conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle
intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever."

In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific"
studies conducted today. *It's basically a deceitful advertisement for
surgical intervention.

Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies
are crap.

That's because they are! Entire books have been written about the
abysmal condition of science today, and the shoddy ways that studies
are put together.

And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to
do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted
the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't
possibly have read it.

It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the
favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight
loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures."

What a maroon.

It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like
claiming that common food additives are dangerous,

That's because many of them are!

but HIV
is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS.

That's because it doesn't.

In other
words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the
bizarre, kook fringes.

You wouldn't know valid science if it bit you in the ass, Trader.

I asked James why he was here, and he didn't know.

I don't know why you're here, either. You don't really seem sold on
low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and
analyzing a study.

You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll.

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

On 02/06/2012 12:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


There were no links.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254

"Original Article
Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects
Results

Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the
conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle
intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever."

In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific"
studies conducted today. It's basically a deceitful advertisement for
surgical intervention.

Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies
are crap.

That's because they are! Entire books have been written about the
abysmal condition of science today, and the shoddy ways that studies
are put together.

And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to
do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted
the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't
possibly have read it.

It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the
favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight
loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures."

What a maroon.

It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like
claiming that common food additives are dangerous,

That's because many of them are!

but HIV
is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS.

That's because it doesn't.

In other
words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the
bizarre, kook fringes.

You wouldn't know valid science if it bit you in the ass, Trader.

I asked James why he was here, and he didn't know.

Why are you here?


I don't know why you're here, either. You don't really seem sold on
low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and
analyzing a study.

You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll.

Asshole.



--
-jw

On Jun 2, 11:35*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:46 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
There were no links.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254

"Original Article
Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects
Results

Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the
conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle
intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever."

In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific"
studies conducted today. *It's basically a deceitful advertisement for
surgical intervention.

Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies
are crap.

That's because they are! Entire books have been written about the
abysmal condition of science today, and the shoddy ways that studies
are put together.

And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to
do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted
the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't
possibly have read it.

It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the
favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight
loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures."

I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery
doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet.
The study shows exactly that. Now, you're trying to muddle
that into the reversal of diabetes that is seen in bariatric
patients. James first brought this up. It was discussed.
The researchers working on it say they don't know what's
causing it, that's why they are doing the research. I was
OK with that. So was James. Doug also was in favor of
research to find out what's going on. YOU on the other hand
told us all that it's simply due to LC period. So, again, it's YOU
making
the claims. You seem to believe LC is such a holy grail
that you can just say it cures anything and we should all
just accept it. It doesn't work that way. It's up to
YOU to provide the evidence.

In this case, you can start with the most critical piece
which is essential to your claim having any validity. And
that is to show us that these bariatric patients are even
on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 10 years after surgery when the
diabetes reversal continues. I've asked
for this about 6 times now and all we have a

crickets.....





What a maroon.

It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like
claiming that common food additives are dangerous,

That's because many of them are!

but HIV
is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS.

That's because it doesn't.

In other
words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the
bizarre, kook fringes.

You wouldn't know valid science if it bit you in the ass, Trader.

I asked James why he was here, and he didn't know.

I don't know why you're here, either.

I'm here to help seperate fact from outrageous nonsense
presented as fact. Outrageous nonsense like HIV
is harmless, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I think people
should know the loon science you believe in so that
they can fairly evaluate your recommendations and
what you say is the truth. I say someone so foolish
as to claim that AIDS can be cured with diet isn't
to be trusted with any claims regarding science,
medicine, LC or anything else.



You don't really seem sold on
low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and
analyzing a study.

I believe in LC. It's just that I'm not about to lie and make claims
for what it can do without regard for the facts. For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. You can't
even show us that these patients are on a LC diet at 1, 2,
5 and 10 years when the reversal is still in effect. And
that's because they are typically not. It's unfounded huge
leaps leaps like this that result in loony views, like HIV
doesn't cause AIDS.




You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll.

Asshole.

--
Dogman


Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a
troll. Have you seen a single person here agree with your
AIDS lunacy? And throwing in the vulgarity doesn't do
anything to help with your credibility. Your getting demolished
for making up crap, so you switch to cursing. For the record
I've been here for over a decade. Long before you ever
showed up.

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:33:13 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to
do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted
the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't
possibly have read it.

It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the
favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight
loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures."

I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery
doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet.

That's another straw (not that you'd know a straw man from a snow
man).

The study shows exactly that.

The study shows nothing of the sort! It doesn't even compare the
treated group to a low-carb diet group!

Are you blind, or just really are this stupid?

The researchers working on it say they don't know what's
causing it, that's why they are doing the research.

Then why lie about it?! Do you think your lies are as invisible as the
link you supposedly provided?

I was OK with that. So was James.

But the two of you are BOZOS! Neither of you can read a scientific
study and actually understand it. It's "Dumb and Dumber" with you two.

Doug also was in favor of
research to find out what's going on.

Me too, provided it's meaningful research, and not just more PR
psychobabble.

YOU on the other hand
told us all that it's simply due to LC period.

I said that's what I *think* it's due to, because no one can explain
this so-called "mysterious" effect you keep talking about. And that I
would stick with Ockham's Razor in the meantime, because I don't
believe in "mysterious" effects.

You seem to believe LC is such a holy grail
that you can just say it cures anything

That's yet another straw man! You now own the world record!

I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the
science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures
"anything."

You can't argue with the things I actually say, so you makes **** up
and argue against that. How ethical of you!

In this case, you can start with the most critical piece
which is essential to your claim having any validity. And
that is to show us that these bariatric patients are even
on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 10 years after surgery when the
diabetes reversal continues. I've asked
for this about 6 times now and all we have a

Straw man!
Straw man!
Straw man!

[...]
I don't know why you're here, either.

I'm here to help seperate fact from outrageous nonsense
presented as fact.

Do you have a secret plan to start doing that in the future? Because
I haven't seen any of that happen yet.

Outrageous nonsense like HIV
is harmless, HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

They aren't lies, and I've posted links to the many doctors and
scientists who back me up. And the science that backs them up.

And for you to be taking this so personnally means only one thing to
me: you have AIDS. And are probably taking AIDS drugs.

You think they're saving your life, but what they're actually doing is
killing you slowly.

You don't really seem sold on
low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and
analyzing a study.

I believe in LC. It's just that I'm not about to lie and make claims
for what it can do without regard for the facts.

I don't believe you.

For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients.

I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever
said anything like those words.

There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's
been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it
offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as
strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't
even be explained!), and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB
surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said,
that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with
any of that.

You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll.

Asshole.

--
Dogman


Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a
troll. Have you seen a single person here agree with your
AIDS lunacy?

I'm not trying to convince anyone, not even you. It's a very complex
subject, and takes a lot of study to fully understand the subject. But
if you want to keep bringing it up, ad nauseam, I'm going to rebut
you.

For someone who can't even make heads or tails of that "study" you
provided on gastric bypass surgery, you should probably stick to
reading Marvel comic books, otherwise your head might expload.

And yeah, I do think you've become, or always were, a troll.

And throwing in the vulgarity doesn't do
anything to help with your credibility.

Feel lucky that I'm not in a position to throw anything else.

Your getting demolished for making up crap,

I'll let others decide for themselves.

so you switch to cursing.

I switch to cursing because sometimes it's necessary to call a spade a
spade.

Asshole.

For the record
I've been here for over a decade. Long before you ever
showed up.

BFD. So you're a 10 year old troll.

And an 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

On Jun 2, 1:19*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:33:13 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to
do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted
the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't
possibly have read it.

It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the
favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight
loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures."

I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery
doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet.

That's another straw (not that you'd know a straw man from a snow
man).


It clearly shows that bariatric surgery has an excellent long
term success rates in these patients and that dieting does not.

Still waiting for your study, reference, anything that says
bariatric patients are on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5, 10 years after
surgery when the reversal of diabetes is still present.

Or an explanation of how the same effect is seen in
normal weight diabetic rats.




The study shows exactly that.

The study shows nothing of the sort! It doesn't even compare the
treated group to a low-carb diet group!


I never said it did. YOU are the one making the claim that the
reversal of diabetes in bariatric patients is due to them being on
LC. You can't even show that they are on LC at 1, 2, 5, 10 years
after surgery. I simply said:

A - I don't believe most bariatric patients are on a LC
diet 1+ years after surgery.

B - You have zero proof that they are

C - So therefore, your claim that the reversal of diabetes in these
patients is due to LC is totally unfounded.

D - The long term success rate for most people on any diet is poor.

E - The long term success rate for bariatric surgery for the people
who undergo it is high. (study provided)




Are you blind, or just really are this stupid?

The researchers working on it say they don't know what's
causing it, that's why they are doing the research.

Then why lie about it?! Do you think your lies are as invisible as the
link you supposedly provided?

YOU are the one lying. YOU claimed that the reversal of diabetes is
due to LC. Without the patients even being on LC at 1, 2 5, 10 years.
Now, that's some miracle of LC, eh?






I was OK with that. *So was James.

But the two of you are BOZOS! Neither of you can read a scientific
study and actually understand it. It's "Dumb and Dumber" with you two.


Sure. This coming from the guy who says:

HIV is a harmless virus
Food additives though are dangerous
HIV doesn't cause AIDS
AIDS is caused by poor diet, poor sanitation, lack of sleep
AIDS can be cured by diet.
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer
No virus can cause cancer
Prions don't exist
Mad Cow isn't caused by prions.

Anything new we can add to the list of your special science
today?





Doug also was in favor of
research to find out what's going on.

Me too, provided it's meaningful research, and not just more PR
psychobabble.

YOU on the other hand
told us all that it's simply due to LC period.

I said that's what I *think* it's due to, because no one can explain
this so-called "mysterious" effect you keep talking about.


No, this is what you actually said right from the start:

"What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)?
They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets.
There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "


Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown
to be eating a LC diet, then I would say the effects are indeed
mysterious, even if one were to accept the other premise in
your argument. Researches think they are mysterious too.
Only you, who quickly jumps to conclusions without regard
for the facts, says that you know exactly what is going on.

Then you quickly added to the nonsense by this exchange:

Me:
"Nor with the false comparison of a fat fast to the
diet of post bariatric surgery patients. "

Dogman:
"What's "false" about it? "

What is false about it is that the bariatric surgery patients
are NOT on a fat fast 1, 2, 5, 10 years after surgery when
the reversal of diabetes continues. Capiche?



And that I
would stick with Ockham's Razor in the meantime, because I don't
believe in "mysterious" effects.


No, you just believe in mysterious junk science and use it at will
to try to explain anything you like. But real mysteries that
researchers
are interested in, those you can just explain away.




You seem to believe LC is such a holy grail
that you can just say it cures anything

That's yet another straw man! You now own the world record!

I say when you claim LC is responsible for reversal of diabetes
in bariatric patients 1, 2, 5, 10 years after surgery when there is
no evidence they are on LC, that's saying LC is a miracle. It
would have to be to have such powers.



I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the
science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures
"anything."


You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of
diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. Even though there is
no evidence those patients are on LC.




You can't argue with the things I actually say, so you makes **** up
and argue against that. How ethical of you!

You just can't stand the truth.




In this case, you can start with the most critical piece
which is essential to your claim having any validity. *And
that is to show us that these bariatric patients are even
on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 10 years after surgery when the
diabetes reversal continues. * I've asked
for this about 6 times now and all we have a

Straw man!
Straw man!
Straw man!


Sure, because you have NOTHING to back up the above claim.




Outrageous nonsense like HIV
is harmless, HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

They aren't lies, and I've posted links to the many doctors and
scientists who back me up. And the science that backs them up.

Yes, the many are the .01% kook fringe. And even then, you have
to cut and paste, selectively quote from 25 years ago, to try to
cobble
your denialist case. Take one little piece from one guy, and when
that
blows up because he has other positions that are 180 degrees from
your beliefs and others that are beyond bizarre, then you chuck him
by the wayside. And then you
claim that someone else brought him up, not you, eg what you did
with Montagnier. Meanwhile ignore the 99.99% of the scientific
community and mountains of evidence that disagrees. Classic
denialist, conspiracy theorist behavior.




And for you to be taking this so personnally means only one thing to
me: you have AIDS. And are probably taking AIDS drugs.

I suppose if a person speaks out the truth about apartheid, they
must be black too, right? And if one speaks the truth about the
holocaust, it can only be because they are a Jew?

But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are.
It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it
would have no place in the discussion.






You don't really seem sold on
low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and
analyzing a study.

I believe in LC. *It's just that I'm not about to lie and make claims
for what it can do without regard for the facts.

I don't believe you.

For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients.

I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever
said anything like those words.


Dogman in his own words:

"What's so "mysterious" about them?
"They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. "
"There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "
"And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. "

Me:
"In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part
of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain
the long term reversal of diabetes.

Dogman:
"Low-carb explains it. "


When can I expect that check?






There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's
been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it
offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as
strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't
even be explained!),

Just another attempt at redirection. The issue was never that LC
was mysterious. The mysterious part was the reversal of diabetes
in bariatric patients. Patients where there is no evidence that long
term
they are on LC.





and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB
surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said,
that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with
any of that.

No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. And you can't
show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should
not try LC or any other diet first. I'm all in favor of that.






You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll.

Asshole.

--
Dogman




Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a
troll. *Have you seen a single person here agree with your
AIDS lunacy?

I'm not trying to convince anyone, not even you.


Then why do you keep posting here and spewing vulgarity like
a volcano?

On Jun 3, 10:44*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:21:45 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery
doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet.

That's another straw (not that you'd know a straw man from a snow
man).
It clearly shows that bariatric surgery has an excellent long
term success rates in these patients and that dieting does not.

It clearly does not, since a large percentage of the non-surgical
group wasn't even put on a diet!

The study shows exactly that.

The study shows nothing of the sort! It doesn't even compare the
treated group to a low-carb diet group!
I never said it did.

But that's what I said!

You're arguing against another straw man!





I was OK with that. *So was James.

But the two of you are BOZOS! Neither of you can read a scientific
study and actually understand it. It's "Dumb and Dumber" with you two.

Sure. *This coming from the guy who says:

HIV is a harmless virus
Food additives though are dangerous
HIV doesn't cause AIDS
AIDS is caused by poor diet, poor sanitation, lack of sleep
AIDS can be cured by diet.
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer
No virus can cause cancer
Prions don't exist
Mad Cow isn't caused by prions.

Anything new we can add to the list of your special science
today?

Sure, Trader! I think the folks might like to know a few things about
you, too! *For example:

That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even
prions.

Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which
is
consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community.



That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their
customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios.


Never said it.




That doctors, scientists and everyone else who wears a white smock,
just like the Koran says, speak the word of Allah, and should never be
questioned.

Never said it. Never mentioned religion. Are you equally
bigotted against Muslims? Must be, otherwise why are you going there?
What do Muslims have to do with any of this?
Tell us more please.





That you attended Troll School for almost 10 years, and graduated
Minime Cum Laude.

That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can
"mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want.

Never said that or anything even close, liar.



That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors
and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and
vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies.

Never said that either.



That it's a waste of time to read the list of ingredients on food
packages because companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg's, General
Mills, ADM, Cargill, etc., would never add anything to their foods
that was bad for our health.


Never said that either.



That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb & Dumber," along
with James Warren.

That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying
instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this. First AIDS victims,
then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. Who else is on your hate list?




If there's anything you felt I left out, Trader, just let me know!

[...]

YOU on the other hand
told us all that it's simply due to LC period.

I said that's what I *think* it's due to, because no one can explain
this so-called "mysterious" effect you keep talking about.

No, this is what you actually said right from the start:

"What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)?
They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets.
There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "

Yes, exactly!

So, make up your mind. Either your attribute the mysterious reversal
of
diabetes in bariatric patients to LC or you don't. First you did.
Then you
claimed that you didn't. Now here you are clearly claiming it yet
again.




Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown
to be eating a LC diet,

And when will *that* study be forthcoming?

It's already been done because YOU can't show that these
patients were on LC at 1, 2, 5, 10 years and there is no reason
to believe the are. So, where is YOUR study. Oh, that's right,
you don't have one. Only pure speculation presented as fact.
Then you say you didn't say it. Then you claim it yet again.
Go figure.





And that I
would stick with Ockham's Razor in the meantime, because I don't
believe in "mysterious" effects.
No, you just believe in mysterious junk science and use it at will
to try to explain anything you like. * But real mysteries that
researchers are interested in, those you can just explain away.

By default, I don't believe in anything that's "mysterious."

I believe in The Scientific Method.

Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words,
not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal
navel-gazing, not science.


The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain
anything. They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research
to figure out what is going on. YOU, on the other hand, claim you
know what's going on and it's LC. That would be pretty amazing,
because
there is zero evidence these bariatric patients are on LC at 1, 2, 10
years when the reversal of diabetes continues. Capiche?




[...]

I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the
science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures
"anything."
You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of
diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. * Even though there is
no evidence those patients are on LC.

And there's no evidence they aren't!


See, again, this is not how it works. YOU are making the specific
claim
that LC is responsible. IT's up to YOU to show that those patients
are
on LC at 1, 2, 10 years. Can you? You can't come up with anything
that
shows that a bariatric patient is typically on LC in that timeframe
because
they are not.





[...]

And for you to be taking this so personnally means only one thing to
me: you have AIDS. And are probably taking AIDS drugs.

I suppose if a person speaks out the truth about apartheid, they
must be black too, right? * And if one speaks the truth about the
holocaust, it can only be because they are a Jew?

But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too
personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it.

If I'm obsessed, what about you? You're still here arguing that HIV
doesn't cause AIDS and God knows what else after telling us 20 posts
ago that you were done. Yet, folks are supposed to read something
into my participation, but not the same thing into YOUR participation?



But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are.
It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it
would have no place in the discussion.

I hold *you* in contempt, whether you have AIDS or not. Period.

Not that you'd know the difference.


I do know the difference. And the fact that you've dragged Muslims
and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from. It's been
obvious to me for some time. By now it should be obvious to everyone.
You're a bigot.





For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients.

I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever
said anything like those words.

Dogman in his own words:

"What's so "mysterious" about them?
"They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. "
"There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "
"And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. "

Me:
"In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part
of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain
the long term reversal of diabetes.

Dogman:
"Low-carb explains it. "

When can I expect that check?

As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't!


Wow, there's a surprise.



But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never
"get it."

THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK!

Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC?
No one. The issue was that
researchers are trying to find out why bariatric surgery patients have
a
reversal of diabetes. Capiche? Researchers don't know why.
I don't claim to know
why. YOU CLAIMED IT WAS DUE TO LC, WHEN THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE these patients are even on LC at 1, 5, 10 years after
surgery when the diabetes continues to be gone.




LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS
SURGERY DOES!

Even if that's true, it does not show how gastric surgery patients who
are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes. Also, from the diabetics
here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not
happen with days.




There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's
been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it
offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as
strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't
even be explained!),

Just another attempt at redirection. *The issue was never that LC
was mysterious.

My point is, why do you beleieve so strongly in something you call
"mysterious" when you have something that's not mysterious at all to
believe in?


I don't believe in something mysterious. I only say that researchers
say
it's mysterious. And that they are looking into what may cause it.
YOU are the one claiming you know what;s causing it and that's LC,
without any evidence that the patients are on LC. See the difference?
One is open minded. One is a twisted need to try to make the
situation
fit your own wild assumptions.



See: Ockham's Razor.

and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB
surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said,
that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with
any of that.

No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. *And you can't
show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should
not try LC or any other diet first. *I'm all in favor of that.

Then why are you arguing with Doug and I???

I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche?




Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a
troll. *Have you seen a single person here agree with your
AIDS lunacy?

Frankly, I've never seen anyone disagree with it, either.

That's a lie. James Warren disagreed with your AIDS denialist
nonsense. So did Doug.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


[...]
That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even
prions.

Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which
is
consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community.

The existence of "prions" is accepted only by the people who are
funded for studying prions. There is no test for prions, and it's
anti-science rubbish to even suggest that a protein can become
infectious.

That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their
customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios.

Never said it.

You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have
nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like
you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al.

That doctors, scientists and everyone else who wears a white smock,
just like the Koran says, speak the word of Allah, and should never be
questioned.

Never said it. Never mentioned religion. Are you equally
bigotted against Muslims? Must be, otherwise why are you going there?

1. Because I wanted to. 2. It's a good analogy.

What do Muslims have to do with any of this?

Because the Koran is considered infallible, according to Islam; and to
you, doctors, scientists, and drug companies are infallible.

a·nal·o·gy

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a
comparison may be based

Got it now?

That you attended Troll School for almost 10 years, and graduated
Minime Cum Laude.

That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can
"mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want.

Never said that or anything even close, liar.

You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while
at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the
same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest
they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work,
too.

That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors
and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and
vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies.

Never said that either.

You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the
conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional
wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history.

That's the sign of a stupid mind.

That it's a waste of time to read the list of ingredients on food
packages because companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg's, General
Mills, ADM, Cargill, etc., would never add anything to their foods
that was bad for our health.

Never said that either.

You've implied that people shouldn't be concerned about the list of
ingredients on fast foods like KFC, supposedly because people are
living longer today than in the past.

That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb & Dumber," along
with James Warren.

That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying
instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this.

Why? He seems exactly like the kind of person that you would look to
for guidance on the issues.

First AIDS victims,
then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. Who else is on your hate list?

Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the
typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they
must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent
any actual discussion.

[...]
"What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)?
They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets.
There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "

Yes, exactly!

So, make up your mind.

I just did. And for the umpteenth time.

Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown
to be eating a LC diet,

And when will *that* study be forthcoming?

It's already been done

Then put up or shut up!

Asshole

[...]
By default, I don't believe in anything that's "mysterious."

I believe in The Scientific Method.

Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words,
not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal
navel-gazing, not science.

The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain
anything.

No, you are!

They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research
to figure out what is going on.

Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! We
promise!

I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the
science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures
"anything."
You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of
diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. * Even though there is
no evidence those patients are on LC.

And there's no evidence they aren't!

See, again, this is not how it works.

The literature is littered with studies that show low-carb eating can
reverse diabetes (which I've provided links to), and HOW it goes about
it.

But for gastric bypass surgery? Not so much.

It's just too damn "mysterious."

But they're still working on it!

{...]
But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too
personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it.

If I'm obsessed, what about you?

I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings.

It's a "cause and effect" ("causality") thing.

Look it up.

But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are.
It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it
would have no place in the discussion.

I hold *you* in contempt, whether you have AIDS or not. Period.

Not that you'd know the difference.

I do know the difference.

Put up or shut up!

And the fact that you've dragged Muslims
and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from.

I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it.

It's been
obvious to me for some time. By now it should be obvious to everyone.
You're a bigot.

Yes! I hate stupid assholes!

For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients.

I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever
said anything like those words.

Dogman in his own words:

"What's so "mysterious" about them?
"They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. "
"There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "
"And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. "

Me:
"In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part
of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain
the long term reversal of diabetes.

Dogman:
"Low-carb explains it. "

When can I expect that check?

As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't!

Wow, there's a surprise.

It was no surprise to me, because I know what I said.

But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never
"get it."

THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK!

Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC?

That was a simple declarative sentence.

I'm having great difficulty getting you to understand anything more
difficult that, so...

LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS
SURGERY DOES!

Even if that's true,

It is.

it does not show how gastric surgery patients who
are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes.

Nor are there any studies to prove it.

Also, from the diabetics
here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not
happen with days.

It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet.

But carb restriction, especially when coupled with calorie
restriction, can. Will it do that for everyone? Probably not.

There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's
been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it
offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as
strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't
even be explained!),

Just another attempt at redirection. *The issue was never that LC
was mysterious.

My point is, why do you beleieve so strongly in something you call
"mysterious" when you have something that's not mysterious at all to
believe in?

I don't believe in something mysterious.

Yes you do. You believe in the mysterious effects of gastric bypass
surgery, even though no one can explain it. You've probably said it a
dozen times by now.

See: Ockham's Razor.

and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB
surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said,
that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with
any of that.

No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. *And you can't
show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should
not try LC or any other diet first. *I'm all in favor of that.

Then why are you arguing with Doug and I???

I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche?

Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him
whether you know it or not.

Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a
troll. *Have you seen a single person here agree with your
AIDS lunacy?

Frankly, I've never seen anyone disagree with it, either.

That's a lie. James Warren disagreed with your AIDS denialist
nonsense.

James doubts it (but then he doubts everything!), but he doesn't know
anything about it.

So did Doug.

Doug appears to be smart enough to hedge his bet, by saying he would
try to avoid the risk factors noted by Duesberg.

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