Idiot with high cholesterol that sued Atkins, looses

Hollywood wrote:
Jbuch wrote:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York federal judge on Monday tossed out a
lawsuit by a Florida man against the company behind the Atkins low-carb
diet that alleged it caused his cholesterol to skyrocket and
necessitated an angioplasty.

***

The diet consists of only "advice and ideas" that are protected by the
First Amendment, Chin wrote.

***

This is an interesting opinion and we might see a lot of reference to
this in the future. Specifically, going the other way, with people
perhaps suing the ADA for their years of recommendations increasing the
severity of diabetes and dependance on insulin. Their "diabetic diet"
might just be merely "advice and ideas" that are protected by the First
Amendment.

While I would not like to have seen some version of "science court" go
on in Judge Chin's courtroom, I would rather the suit be dismissed on
grounds more like: "At no point were you actually following the
recommendations of the book, since you were chugging cheesecakes and
salami without eating 2+1 cups of vegetables or doing exercise, both of
which are essential parts of the diet put forward in Dr. Atkins' Diet,
so no dice, you pay for your own angioplasty." That type of finding
would be a better finding for the community as it would discourage
frivolous lawsuits while still leaving liability in place for bad
dietary plans.

Good for the Center though.

-Hollywood


I too would not like to see the ADA get such a "get out of lawsuit" card
as might result from a "freedom of speech" finding.

On the other hand, investment newsletters are covered by "freedom of
speech" findings, except for circumstances where there is any kind of
"kickback" between the stock issuers and the authors of the newsletter.
In effect, compensated "touting" of stock.

[I know this from research done as a result of a friend proposing that
we could write a financial newsletter based on some "theories" he had
used to make investment income - during the frantic and hot late 1990's.
I called the SEC and talked to a staff member, who directed me to
reading materials on their website.]

No one forces you to follow the stock recommendations, even though you
bought the newsletter of investment advice.

No one forces you to follow the Atkins diet, even though you bought the
Atkins book of diet advice.

I see, unfortunately, the ADA getting off Scott Free from any charges of
faulty advice - based on "freedom of speech" type arguments as above.



--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

The only reason he is an idiot is that he fell for such a stupid
diet.. anyone with half a brain would realize how unhealthy and
disgusting the Atkins diet is... But its no use talking to a lardy
like you... please eat a tub of lard or two tonight .. you might luck
out tonight and get a stroke!


Curt wrote:
He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins diet and sued. The
judge threw it out. The Judge said the book is just a plan to a low carb
diet. What I want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one possibly get
high cholesterol when properly doing a low carb diet. I do not believe
it is possible.

Jbuch wrote:
Curt wrote:

He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins diet and sued. The
judge threw it out. The Judge said the book is just a plan to a low carb
diet. What I want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one possibly get
high cholesterol when properly doing a low carb diet. I do not believe
it is possible.

The man was admittedly eating mainly pastrami and cheesecake. After just
two months, his cholesterol shot up to an unhealthy 230 from a low 146,
according to the suit.

In other words he wasn't even remotely on Atkins. Tons of people
claim to be on Atkins but aren't. There are even people who post that
they follow the book to a T but when questioned they are far from
following the directions.

So if I *don't* follow the USDA food pyramid and I get sick, do I get
to sue the USDA? If I *don't* follow the AHA diet recommendations
and I come down with heart disease, do I get to follow the AHA?

I'm with Hollywood. The court screwed up on it's stance. It should
have dismissed the case because he never followed the directions
and therefor was suing the wrong folks. If he found some diet plan
that urged him to eat pastrami and cheesecake but no veggies or
exercise, that's who he should have filed against.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com
:: Jbuch wrote:
::: Curt wrote:
:::
:::: He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins
:::: diet and sued. The judge threw it out. The Judge said
:::: the book is just a plan to a low carb diet. What I
:::: want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one possibly
:::: get high cholesterol when properly doing a low carb
:::: diet. I do not believe it is possible.
:::
::: The man was admittedly eating mainly pastrami and
::: cheesecake. After just two months, his cholesterol shot
::: up to an unhealthy 230 from a low 146, according to the
::: suit.
::
:: In other words he wasn't even remotely on Atkins. Tons
:: of people claim to be on Atkins but aren't. There are
:: even people who post that they follow the book to a T
:: but when questioned they are far from following the
:: directions.
::
:: So if I *don't* follow the USDA food pyramid and I get
:: sick, do I get to sue the USDA? If I *don't* follow the
:: AHA diet recommendations and I come down with heart
:: disease, do I get to follow the AHA?
::
:: I'm with Hollywood. The court screwed up on it's
:: stance. It should have dismissed the case because he
:: never followed the directions
:: and therefor was suing the wrong folks. If he found
:: some diet plan that urged him to eat pastrami and
:: cheesecake but no veggies or exercise, that's who he
:: should have filed against.

So, which version of the book do you guys think the court should have read
to arrive at it's conclusion?

Just curious, is all....

Jbuch wrote:
Hollywood wrote:

Jbuch wrote:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York federal judge on Monday tossed out a
lawsuit by a Florida man against the company behind the Atkins low-carb
diet that alleged it caused his cholesterol to skyrocket and
necessitated an angioplasty.


***

The diet consists of only "advice and ideas" that are protected by the
First Amendment, Chin wrote.


***

This is an interesting opinion and we might see a lot of reference to
this in the future. Specifically, going the other way, with people
perhaps suing the ADA for their years of recommendations increasing the
severity of diabetes and dependance on insulin. Their "diabetic diet"
might just be merely "advice and ideas" that are protected by the First
Amendment.

While I would not like to have seen some version of "science court" go
on in Judge Chin's courtroom, I would rather the suit be dismissed on
grounds more like: "At no point were you actually following the
recommendations of the book, since you were chugging cheesecakes and
salami without eating 2+1 cups of vegetables or doing exercise, both of
which are essential parts of the diet put forward in Dr. Atkins' Diet,
so no dice, you pay for your own angioplasty." That type of finding
would be a better finding for the community as it would discourage
frivolous lawsuits while still leaving liability in place for bad
dietary plans.
Good for the Center though.
-Hollywood


I too would not like to see the ADA get such a "get out of lawsuit" card
as might result from a "freedom of speech" finding.

On the other hand, investment newsletters are covered by "freedom of
speech" findings, except for circumstances where there is any kind of
"kickback" between the stock issuers and the authors of the newsletter.
In effect, compensated "touting" of stock.

[I know this from research done as a result of a friend proposing that
we could write a financial newsletter based on some "theories" he had
used to make investment income - during the frantic and hot late 1990's.
I called the SEC and talked to a staff member, who directed me to
reading materials on their website.]

No one forces you to follow the stock recommendations, even though you
bought the newsletter of investment advice.

No one forces you to follow the Atkins diet, even though you bought the
Atkins book of diet advice.

I see, unfortunately, the ADA getting off Scott Free from any charges of
faulty advice - based on "freedom of speech" type arguments as above.




Perhaps the inherent conflicts of interest between the food industry and
ADA could be intrepreted as being "kickbacks" (donations) as in the
financial newsletter rulings, except those Securities regulations
probably have nothing to do with the issue of "advice" before the
Supreme Court.

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com
:: Jbuch wrote:
::: Curt wrote:
:::
:::: He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins
:::: diet and sued. The judge threw it out. The Judge said
:::: the book is just a plan to a low carb diet. What I
:::: want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one possibly
:::: get high cholesterol when properly doing a low carb
:::: diet. I do not believe it is possible.
:::
::: The man was admittedly eating mainly pastrami and
::: cheesecake. After just two months, his cholesterol shot
::: up to an unhealthy 230 from a low 146, according to the
::: suit.
::
:: In other words he wasn't even remotely on Atkins. Tons
:: of people claim to be on Atkins but aren't. There are
:: even people who post that they follow the book to a T
:: but when questioned they are far from following the
:: directions.
::
:: So if I *don't* follow the USDA food pyramid and I get
:: sick, do I get to sue the USDA? If I *don't* follow the
:: AHA diet recommendations and I come down with heart
:: disease, do I get to follow the AHA?
::
:: I'm with Hollywood. The court screwed up on it's
:: stance. It should have dismissed the case because he
:: never followed the directions
:: and therefor was suing the wrong folks. If he found
:: some diet plan that urged him to eat pastrami and
:: cheesecake but no veggies or exercise, that's who he
:: should have filed against.

So, which version of the book do you guys think the court should have read
to arrive at it's conclusion?

Just curious, is all....



Good point.

Yeah, the 1970's edition might be said to favor pepperoni and no
vegetables, at least.

Not sure about the cheesecake.

Maybe we should ask for the cheesecake recipe before we come to a
conclusion as it might have qualified under the first edition of the
Atkins plan.

As a matter of ordinary course, the Supreme Court tries to find a legal
remedy which used precedents of some kind, and not to unnecessarily
create new legal principles on the spot.

Therefore, following their version of "legal common sense", there are
disconnects with "people's everyday common sense", as in the above postings.

Jim

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

"Jbuch" wrote in message

:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
::: oups.com
::::: Jbuch wrote:
:::::: Curt wrote:
::::::
::::::: He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins
::::::: diet and sued. The judge threw it out. The Judge
::::::: said the book is just a plan to a low carb diet.
::::::: What I want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one
::::::: possibly get high cholesterol when properly doing a
::::::: low carb diet. I do not believe it is possible.
::::::
:::::: The man was admittedly eating mainly pastrami and
:::::: cheesecake. After just two months, his cholesterol
:::::: shot up to an unhealthy 230 from a low 146,
:::::: according to the suit.
:::::
::::: In other words he wasn't even remotely on Atkins.
::::: Tons of people claim to be on Atkins but aren't.
::::: There are even people who post that they follow the
::::: book to a T but when questioned they are far from
::::: following the directions.
:::::
::::: So if I *don't* follow the USDA food pyramid and I get
::::: sick, do I get to sue the USDA? If I *don't* follow
::::: the AHA diet recommendations and I come down with
::::: heart disease, do I get to follow the AHA?
:::::
::::: I'm with Hollywood. The court screwed up on it's
::::: stance. It should have dismissed the case because he
::::: never followed the directions
::::: and therefor was suing the wrong folks. If he found
::::: some diet plan that urged him to eat pastrami and
::::: cheesecake but no veggies or exercise, that's who he
::::: should have filed against.
:::
::: So, which version of the book do you guys think the
::: court should have read to arrive at it's conclusion?
:::
::: Just curious, is all....
:::
:::
::
:: Good point.
::
:: Yeah, the 1970's edition might be said to favor
:: pepperoni and no vegetables, at least.
::
:: Not sure about the cheesecake.
::
:: Maybe we should ask for the cheesecake recipe before we
:: come to a conclusion as it might have qualified under
:: the first edition of the
:: Atkins plan.
::
:: As a matter of ordinary course, the Supreme Court tries
:: to find a legal remedy which used precedents of some
:: kind, and not to unnecessarily
:: create new legal principles on the spot.
::
:: Therefore, following their version of "legal common
:: sense", there are disconnects with "people's everyday
:: common sense", as in the above postings.

And that's a good thing because "common sense" usually isn't too good.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Jbuch wrote:
Curt wrote:

He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins diet and sued. The
judge threw it out. The Judge said the book is just a plan to a low carb
diet. What I want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one possibly get
high cholesterol when properly doing a low carb diet. I do not believe
it is possible.

The man was admittedly eating mainly pastrami and cheesecake. After just
two months, his cholesterol shot up to an unhealthy 230 from a low 146,
according to the suit.

In other words he wasn't even remotely on Atkins. Tons of people
claim to be on Atkins but aren't. There are even people who post that
they follow the book to a T but when questioned they are far from
following the directions.

So if I *don't* follow the USDA food pyramid and I get sick, do I get
to sue the USDA? If I *don't* follow the AHA diet recommendations
and I come down with heart disease, do I get to follow the AHA?

I'm with Hollywood. The court screwed up on it's stance. It should
have dismissed the case because he never followed the directions
and therefor was suing the wrong folks. If he found some diet plan
that urged him to eat pastrami and cheesecake but no veggies or
exercise, that's who he should have filed against.

It has been a long time since I have read the book, but doesn't it even
have an, albeit small, section about a certain percentage of the
population may have a negative cholesterol or cardiovascular risk from
the diet? IIRC the book also makes a statement about how there is now
way to know if you are one of those people without getting tested and
makes the recommendation for such testing? If the book does contain
verbiage to this effect, couldn't this be grounds to reject the claim?

Personally, I agree Doug and Hollywood as to why the case should have
been thrown out.

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jbuch" wrote in message

:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
::: oups.com
::::: Jbuch wrote:
:::::: Curt wrote:
::::::
::::::: He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins
::::::: diet and sued. The judge threw it out. The Judge
::::::: said the book is just a plan to a low carb diet.
::::::: What I want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one
::::::: possibly get high cholesterol when properly doing a
::::::: low carb diet. I do not believe it is possible.
::::::
:::::: The man was admittedly eating mainly pastrami and
:::::: cheesecake. After just two months, his cholesterol
:::::: shot up to an unhealthy 230 from a low 146,
:::::: according to the suit.
:::::
::::: In other words he wasn't even remotely on Atkins.
::::: Tons of people claim to be on Atkins but aren't.
::::: There are even people who post that they follow the
::::: book to a T but when questioned they are far from
::::: following the directions.
:::::
::::: So if I *don't* follow the USDA food pyramid and I get
::::: sick, do I get to sue the USDA? If I *don't* follow
::::: the AHA diet recommendations and I come down with
::::: heart disease, do I get to follow the AHA?
:::::
::::: I'm with Hollywood. The court screwed up on it's
::::: stance. It should have dismissed the case because he
::::: never followed the directions
::::: and therefor was suing the wrong folks. If he found
::::: some diet plan that urged him to eat pastrami and
::::: cheesecake but no veggies or exercise, that's who he
::::: should have filed against.
:::
::: So, which version of the book do you guys think the
::: court should have read to arrive at it's conclusion?
:::
::: Just curious, is all....
:::
:::
::
:: Good point.
::
:: Yeah, the 1970's edition might be said to favor
:: pepperoni and no vegetables, at least.
::
:: Not sure about the cheesecake.
::
:: Maybe we should ask for the cheesecake recipe before we
:: come to a conclusion as it might have qualified under
:: the first edition of the
:: Atkins plan.
::
:: As a matter of ordinary course, the Supreme Court tries
:: to find a legal remedy which used precedents of some
:: kind, and not to unnecessarily
:: create new legal principles on the spot.
::
:: Therefore, following their version of "legal common
:: sense", there are disconnects with "people's everyday
:: common sense", as in the above postings.

And that's a good thing because "common sense" usually isn't too good.


About the most enduring and negative aspect of "common sense" was
Aristotelian physics.

Two of the postualates were "common sense" ...
1) The natural state of material things is to be at rest.
2) The velocity of an object is proportional to the force acting upon it.

He also defined the uniform motion of the stars and planets as being
determined by the Gods.

In addition, Aristotle was above "manual experimentation", so he never
did or had done for him any experiments, believing in the power of the
logical mind.

It took about 1500 years to break the "common sense" of Aristotle,
partly because of his "great reputation" and how many doggedly followed
such a famous mind.

Newton's first two laws.... in the 1600's BC:
1) An object in uniform motion will stay in uniform motion unless acted
upon by external forces.

2) The force applied to an object is proportional to the rate of change
of momentum (mass times velocity). OR F=Ma.

So, Newton explicity discarded the basis of Aristotilian physics which
was based on "common sense".

"Common sense" is often "common self delusions".





--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:54:57 GMT, Curt wrote:

He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins diet and sued. The
judge threw it out. The Judge said the book is just a plan to a low carb
diet. What I want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one possibly get
high cholesterol when properly doing a low carb diet. I do not believe
it is possible.

Why do you call him and idiot. Atkins SHOULD be sued, sued more, and
sued again, until they finally collapse and shut down. This company
is killing thousands of people every year. They all deserve to end up
living in poverty for their crimes and I wish them all an eternity in
HELL.