About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On 5/7/2012 12:48 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Dogman wrote:
James wrote:

Even so, the percentage of those who defy mainstream science, and turn out
to have been right, is very low.

Actually it's pretty high.

Actually it is pretty low.

Reading the quack watch list three are a lot more than low carb. The
percentage here is low as well.

Anecdotal evidence is fun. My brother is a verterinarian. The
colloidal mineral movement was started by a veterinarian according to
the quack watch list. My brother just my parents to take colloidal
minerals. The result was they appeared and acted a decade younger.
Some of this quackery stuff works for some people. It's how they get
popular.

That's what the scientific method is all about, in fact. Questioning
conventional wisdom. Trying to falsify a theory or hypothesis.

Correct. A good theory will survive attacks.

And bad theories have little to work with other than attacking the
alternative. The low fat advocates are gradually learning exactly how
weak their stance has been. They missed the selection bias issue. It's
easy to find people who thrive on low fat. It's easier to find people
who are damaged by low fat.

When you hear scientists saying that there's a "consensus," it's a
clue that they aren't really scientists.

False. Scientist often are in majority agreement about their theories
exactly because they have been well tested and survived many
falsifying attempts. What else would you expect them to do in such a
case?

Thomas Kuhne "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The strength of
the concensus is always highest when it's disproved. It has to work
that way because occasionally a science comes along that is just plain
fact that will never get overturned. We now have photographs of atoms.

This means that the concensus is what an economist would call a
"trailing indicator". The concensus in favor of low fat has been
declining for a long time. People finally started noticing how many
people are hurt by the endless pressure to low fat.

This does not mean the all scientific consensuses are false. Sometimes
a consensus is false but science is self correcting. Eventually the
truth is discovered.

On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, 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.

That's only one reason why low carbers have stopped worrying abut the
endless statements that high fat "might" cause problems. Not one case
has been produced of low carb meduim protein high fat causing problems.

The kidney issue is better than Dr A claimed. There have been people
with prior kidney damaged who improved from low carbing. Not a risk I
personally would have taken but it does happen.

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.

I am open to evidence to the contrary.

On May 7, 12:48*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2012 07:34:05 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

I think at this point, Dogman you've proved yourself a loon.
You claim that anyone involved with biology, viruses, etc
knows that viruses can't cause cancer? * Good grief dude.
There's a whole branch of science devoted to that very
subject. *Hundreds of thousands of scientists working on
oncoviruses to PREVENT disease. *I suppose you'll
explain that away with another conspiracy theory.

But they haven't prevented any, so that should be a clue, shouldn't
it?

They only haven't prevented cancer if we believe you.
And prevention was not your main claim. You claimed
that viruses cannot cause cancer period. That is contradicted
by tons of research. Research that would only be denied
by a loon. Let's see. You deny that:

The medical establisment prevents disease.
AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.
Viruses can cause cancer.

Want to add to the list? 911? The holocaust?




There are hundreds of scientists working on "catastropic global
warming," and they all have to cheat, lie, distort, exaggerate, etc.
to keep their $$$ ship afloat. See: Climategate.

Of course, you probably believe in catastropic global warming, too,
right?

I thought so.

Spend some time on these web sites, and see how that affects your
thinking:

Climate Depothttp://www.climatedepot.com/

Watt's Up With Thathttp://wattsupwiththat.com/

No, I'm not gonna change topics for your convenience.
You've tried that before. It won't work.




You're sounding like the imbecile Duesenberg, who to
this day still claims AIDS isn't caused by the HIV virus, but
instead by recreational drug use. *No way to convince
him either.

It's Duesberg, not Duesenbereg, and he's a real scientist. And one of
the best.

Read his book, "Inventing the AIDS Virus," and find out for yourself.

But the HIV scam is precisely where this crap all started. *It allowed
scientists to blame all kinds of diseases on mostly harmless viruses
and retroviruses because of the presence of antibodies, and rake in
billions of dollars on phony cures, vaccinations, drugs, etc.

--
Dogman


Any respect I had for you here went out the window with this
post. Let's summarize just two of the totally ridiculous things
you believe:

A - Viruses can't cause cancer

B - Duesburg is right that AIDS is caused by drug use and
not by the HIV virus.

Sorry, but you are indeed a moron. That AIDS is a scam and
caused by drug use, not HIV is so overwhelming known to be
pure crap that it's not even worth discussing. There is
a MOUNTAIN of evidence that says Duesburg is a moron.
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.

Same thing with the fact that viruses can cause cancer.
It's well proven. We even vaccinate cats against the
lukemia virus. I suppose that's just a big conspiracy too.

Sorry, but after this sad string of posts, your credibility is
now below ZERO.

On May 7, 12:44*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:30 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

James Warren wrote:

LC implies high fat.

The arithmatic is simple how it works out that way.

Yep.



There might actually be long term bad effects from a
high fat diet.

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.

I think it's obvious that you haven't paid much attention to
any studies of anything that have already been done.
Otherwise you wouldn't have the naive notion that one
more study is going to settle anything, especially one as
complex as the human diet and it's long term effects on health.

I guarantee if one more study was done, you'd be right
here bitching about how it leaves so many questions
unanswered. You remind me of a friend. With any
decision, like buying something,
he has to generate spreadsheets in 6 dimensions,
analyzing everything and anything. He bothers folks to
death with questions, complains that they don;t
respond to all his detailed questions for more data.
And in the end he doesn't buy anything.

On May 7, 12:40*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:25 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:





James Warren wrote:

So am I. I think the study is long overdue considering how much is at stake.
If the high carb diet, low fat diet that has been pushed for 30-40 years is
really bad for the health of the country then it is about time we find out
for sure.

The epidemic of obesity that started when the push for low fat started
is obvious. *The problem is obvious does not equal true and correlation
does not equal causation. *The trend of supersizing also happened during
that time. *But by the time the epidemic of obesity was undeniable and
the time correlation with the start of the low fat push was obvious -
the studies started in the 1990s and have continued ever since.

If LC can fix some of those health problems it is high time we
find out that for sure too. These are not the only contenders. They should
all be rigorously tested. How on earth can doing this be a bad idea?

For a couple of decades study after study has come out showing the
benefits of low carbing over low fatting. *It is easy to find some
people who benefit from low fat plans. *It is easier to find many people
who do worse on low fat. *Any study that shows one of the two ways is
always better is going to be nonsense. *Studies that show wh'at better
for many, those studies have been coming in year after year. *Just start
reading.

Oh I have read several. They are not exactly overwhelming in their
results and many are not especially well done. The evidence they
provide is clearly not strong enough to reverse 40 years of practice.
Why not design and carry out a large enough study to address the
major points of concern in all the major contenders? The "best"
diet might in fact depend on one's ancestral history. We can find
out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Unbelievably naive. Like one more study is going to conclusively
settle anything with regard to diet and long term health.

wrote in message
...

I guarantee if one more study was done, you'd be right
here bitching about how it leaves so many questions
unanswered. You remind me of a friend. With any
decision, like buying something,
he has to generate spreadsheets in 6 dimensions,
analyzing everything and anything. He bothers folks to
death with questions, complains that they don;t
respond to all his detailed questions for more data.
And in the end he doesn't buy anything.

========

LOL, I think we might have the same friend.

Cheri

On May 7, 12:36*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2012 07:26:50 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On May 6, 8:50*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:16:17 -0300, James Warren

wrote:
Some are, like Gardisil, but they know it doesn't prevent anything,
and it surely doesn't prevent cervical cancer.

Please tell us how you know this?

Because anyone who's ever done any research on, or studied, viruses
knows that viruses, virtually by definition, kill cells. Cancer cells
are cells that multiply uncontrollably. So to suggest that a virus can
create cancer cells is essentially heresy. Either it kills cells, or
it creates cells, but it can't do both.

So now you're a viral expert too? *Good grief, why do
you want to make an ass of yourself here? * It's well known
that viruses can cause certain forms of cancer in
humans and animals. *There is a whole branch of
biology devoted to it. * My cat gets vaccinated against
the leukemia virus. *I suppose that's a big conspiracy
too because you claim it just can't be....

*“One-third of all leukemic cats have never been infected by FeLV; the
same proportion as
among healthy cats. Two-thirds of all cats on the outside eventually
catch FeLV, quickly and permanently
neutralizing the infections with their natural immune systems. Thus
most cats already have natural immunity
against the virus through natural infection. Leukemia is extremely
rare, appearing in only 4 out of 10,000 cats
each year. Rather than being an infectious disease, its more likely an
acute immune deficiency [from toxemia or
chronic malnourishment]. And a vaccine can do nothing against a virus
that becomes latent anyway.” Tell this
to your veterinarian the next time he tries to scare you into
vaccinating Whiskers. [Author’s note—At least
some cat owners have already discovered the “cure” for Feline
Leukemia: switch from processed food to raw
protein. Carnivorous animals require an uncooked protein diet
consisting of raw meat, fish, and/or egg yolks. A
cat that is diagnosed with Feline Leukemia placed on such a diet will
stop coughing and wasting away, and will
gain weight inside of two weeks. Using toxic medications and vaccines
will only reduce your cat’s life
expectancy, thereby “confirming” your vet’s claim that FeLV is a
slow-acting killer virus. Preventing your cat
from sleeping on the T.V. or clock radio might also be a good idea.
Electromagnetic frequencies have been
implicated in some diseases. But whether infected cats should come
near him should not be a concern, because
the mere presence of FeLV—like all other viruses—is at most, just a
consequence of disease, and not the
cause.]

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?

Kid gets blood transfusion. Blood came from person
with HIV virus. Kid now has AIDS and HIV virus. No
evidence the kid evey used drugs. 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?

On Mon, 7 May 2012 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
They only haven't prevented cancer if we believe you.

Actually, they haven't prevented cancer, whether you believe me or
not.

I've rarely seen one person commit so many logical fallacies in such a
short time.

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.

Research that would only be denied
by a loon.

Calling me names doesn't bother me at all. It says much more about you
than it does me.

Let's see. You deny that:

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.

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

Viruses can cause cancer.

No, they can't, and I've already explained why they can't.

Want to add to the list?

There's a long list, I assure you, but one thing at a time.

There are hundreds of scientists working on "catastropic global
warming," and they all have to cheat, lie, distort, exaggerate, etc.
to keep their $$$ ship afloat. See: Climategate.

Of course, you probably believe in catastropic global warming, too,
right?

I thought so.

Spend some time on these web sites, and see how that affects your
thinking:

Climate Depothttp://www.climatedepot.com/

Watt's Up With Thathttp://wattsupwiththat.com/

No, I'm not gonna change topics for your convenience.
You've tried that before. It won't work.

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.

And, of course, it's okay for you to bring up topics like 9/11 and the
Holocaust, but not me. Riiiiiight.

You're sounding like the imbecile Duesenberg, who to
this day still claims AIDS isn't caused by the HIV virus, but
instead by recreational drug use. *No way to convince
him either.

It's Duesberg, not Duesenbereg, and he's a real scientist. And one of
the best.

Read his book, "Inventing the AIDS Virus," and find out for yourself.

But the HIV scam is precisely where this crap all started. *It allowed
scientists to blame all kinds of diseases on mostly harmless viruses
and retroviruses because of the presence of antibodies, and rake in
billions of dollars on phony cures, vaccinations, drugs, etc.

--
Dogman


Any respect I had for you here went out the window

Yet somehow I'll survive.

with this
post. Let's summarize just two of the totally ridiculous things
you believe:

A - Viruses can't cause cancer

Check.

B - Duesburg is right that AIDS is caused by drug use and
not by the HIV virus.

That's not the whole of it, but it'sd close enough for government
work. You would never read his book anyway, so...

Sorry, but you are indeed a moron.

That just cuts me to the quick, Trader, coming from such a luminary as
yourself.

That AIDS is a scam and
caused by drug use, not HIV is so overwhelming known to be
pure crap that it's not even worth discussing. There is
a MOUNTAIN of evidence that says Duesburg is a moron.

I'm flettered to be placed in the company of such a great scientist!

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/...olved-species/

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.

Read his book.

Same thing with the fact that viruses can cause cancer.
It's well proven.

No, it's not. Just the opposite.

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

"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 4:02 PM, wrote:
On May 7, 12:44 pm, James wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:30 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

James Warren wrote:

LC implies high fat.

The arithmatic is simple how it works out that way.

Yep.



There might actually be long term bad effects from a
high fat diet.

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.

I think it's obvious that you haven't paid much attention to
any studies of anything that have already been done.

I didn't find them convincing enough and neither did the medical
establishment apparently.

Otherwise you wouldn't have the naive notion that one
more study is going to settle anything, especially one as
complex as the human diet and it's long term effects on health.

I guarantee if one more study was done, you'd be right
here bitching about how it leaves so many questions

Why do you say I'm bitching? I can't see how gathering more data
can be a bad thing even if, as you say, it still leaves some
questions unanswered.

unanswered. You remind me of a friend. With any
decision, like buying something,
he has to generate spreadsheets in 6 dimensions,
analyzing everything and anything. He bothers folks to
death with questions, complains that they don;t
respond to all his detailed questions for more data.
And in the end he doesn't buy anything.

But now he is considerably more knowledgeable than before.

On 5/7/2012 4:08 PM, Cheri wrote:
wrote in message ...

I guarantee if one more study was done, you'd be right
here bitching about how it leaves so many questions
unanswered. You remind me of a friend. With any
decision, like buying something,
he has to generate spreadsheets in 6 dimensions,
analyzing everything and anything. He bothers folks to
death with questions, complains that they don;t
respond to all his detailed questions for more data.
And in the end he doesn't buy anything.

========

LOL, I think we might have the same friend.

Cheri

Is this group strictly for cheer leading then?