A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 24th, 2012, 04:54 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Wed, 23 May 2012 06:32:59 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
You know when you'll read Duesberg's book? When one day, say, while
applying for a new life insurance policy, you're asked to take a blood
test, and then it comes back HIV+. *Then you'll read the book.


Not much chance of that.


You better hope so.


Those that believe the AIDS denialist nonsense supported by
the book, how do they fare?


I guess no one is allowed to die today, unless it's from "AIDS
complications."

Sheesh.

Did you watch the film I linked to about the many people who are still
alive today after testing positive for HIV, but have refused AIDS
drugs? Some for over 26 years?

I didn't think so.


--
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
  #82  
Old May 24th, 2012, 05:09 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Exactly - The big fat lie.

It might merely be a mistake.


Early on it would have been a mistake. Then the evidence started piling
up and the entrenchment progresssed.


Or a big fat goof up.


Validly called a goof up from around 1970 until around 1980. By then
the evidence that low fat is harmful at least as often as beneficial had
alreadu built up.

It's been a clear cut lie for a very long time. Advocates of fallen
theories tend to adhere to them for life so we're going to have those
low fat advocates out there spewing their lies for quite some time now.
  #83  
Old May 24th, 2012, 06:28 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 5/24/2012 1:09 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Exactly - The big fat lie.

It might merely be a mistake.

Early on it would have been a mistake. Then the evidence started piling
up and the entrenchment progresssed.


Or a big fat goof up.


Validly called a goof up from around 1970 until around 1980. By then
the evidence that low fat is harmful at least as often as beneficial had
alreadu built up.


Doubts were beginning to appear but not solid evidence against Low Fat.


It's been a clear cut lie for a very long time. Advocates of fallen
theories tend to adhere to them for life so we're going to have those
low fat advocates out there spewing their lies for quite some time now.


It has not been so clear as to remove all doubt. There is still the
unresolved issue of whether or not the established risk factors are
really risk factors. Until this is resolved most do not want to chance
doing things to risk worsening their lipid profiles. In fact, all diets
tested compare themselves to how well they affect lipid profiles, tacitly
assuming that lipid profiles are valid risk markers. As long as it can
be shown that Low Fat diets lower LDL cholesterol then changing it will
be difficult.
  #84  
Old May 25th, 2012, 03:19 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On May 24, 11:54*am, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 06:32:59 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

You know when you'll read Duesberg's book? When one day, say, while
applying for a new life insurance policy, you're asked to take a blood
test, and then it comes back HIV+. *Then you'll read the book.


Not much chance of that.


You better hope so.


Those that believe the AIDS denialist nonsense supported by
the book, how do they fare?


I guess no one is allowed to die today, unless it's from "AIDS
complications."

Sheesh.


The point is those denialist chose to treat their own AIDS
per the suggestions of denialists like you, eg with diet and
sleep instead of HIv druges. And they are dead. The survival
rate today for those on HIV drugs is excellent.

Where is the study showing that approach works? Hmmm?
Montagnier claims HIV can be eliminated from the body of
those infected via diet, sanitation and "oxidative stress relief".
Where is his study? Where are his patients?

On the other hand, we do have numerous studies that
show the current HIV drug protocol works. You can see
it directly in the drastically reduced death rates from AIDS
when those drugs are used. Now that's real science.




Did you watch the film I linked to about the many people who are still
alive today after testing positive for HIV, but have refused AIDS
drugs? Some for over 26 years?


Which proves nothing, because once infected with HIV the
time it takes to develop full blown AIDS can vary from a
few years to decades. A small percentage may not
developed AIDS after 26 years. It's possible some very
small percentage may never develop the full blown disease.
So what? It proves absolutely
nothing about HIV not being the cause of AIDS. There are
other diseases caused by viruses where the long term
outcome varies, hepatitis being one example.

It's just another example of denialists attempting to confuse
people with typical denialist, weird conspiracy theory type tactics.
Ignore the mountains of evidence and focus on the margins.






  #85  
Old May 25th, 2012, 03:25 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On May 24, 1:28*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 5/24/2012 1:09 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:





James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:


Exactly - The big fat lie.


It might merely be a mistake.


Early on it would have been a mistake. *Then the evidence started piling
up and the entrenchment progresssed.


Or a big fat goof up.


Validly called a goof up from around 1970 until around 1980. *By then
the evidence that low fat is harmful at least as often as beneficial had
alreadu built up.


Doubts were beginning to appear but not solid evidence against Low Fat.



It's been a clear cut lie for a very long time. *Advocates of fallen
theories tend to adhere to them for life so we're going to have those
low fat advocates out there spewing their lies for quite some time now.


It has not been so clear as to remove all doubt. There is still the
unresolved issue of whether or not the established risk factors are
really risk factors. Until this is resolved most do not want to chance
doing things to risk worsening their lipid profiles. In fact, all diets
tested compare themselves to how well they affect lipid profiles, tacitly
assuming that lipid profiles are valid risk markers. As long as it can
be shown that Low Fat diets lower LDL cholesterol then changing it will
be difficult.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


To believe it's all a deliberate lie you'd have to believe that
the vast majority of the medical establishment, researchers,
scientists, etc are all evil. I agree with you here James.
I think many of them are wrong too, but it's not a deliberate lie.
How
would one explain this vast conspiracy, with everyone from
ADA, NIH to your local doctors, nutritionists, university
professors, all being in on it?

The truth is that for the foreseable future there is always
going to be data on diet that can be interpreted in different
ways. Those that think the whole medical community is
lying, should call a hippie the next time they need treatment
or a drug.
  #86  
Old May 25th, 2012, 05:04 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Fri, 25 May 2012 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
The point is those denialist chose to treat their own AIDS


Yes, they do:

http://www.bluebell.de/englisch


--
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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eating slowly jjrb230 via WeightAdviser.com General Discussion 4 August 21st, 2006 06:30 PM
Slowly, slowly Alan Low Carbohydrate Diets 13 October 26th, 2005 02:49 PM
Shrinking slowly! sandy Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 October 9th, 2004 08:00 PM
Is low-carbing successful if you go slowly?? wilson Low Carbohydrate Diets 14 March 9th, 2004 01:49 AM
changing slowly Susan Jones-Anderson General Discussion 16 October 3rd, 2003 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.