PDA

View Full Version : Re: What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly


Will Brink
March 12th 07, 01:57 PM
In article om>,
"Tunderbar" > wrote:

> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
> raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> oils.
>
> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?

Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
claim.


>
> TC

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Tunderbar
March 12th 07, 02:04 PM
On Mar 12, 7:57 am, (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> > oils.
>
> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
> claim.
>
>
>
> > TC
>
> --
> Will @www.BrinkZone.com
>
> "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream.

1) Animal fats are evil

and

2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
stuff since sliced bread.

So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can
you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause
all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
better? Huh?

TC

David Cohen
March 12th 07, 02:47 PM
"Tunderbar" > wrote
> (Will Brink) wrote:
>> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
>> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
>> > oils.
>>
>> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>>
>> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
>> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
>> claim.
>>
> Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream.
>
> 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> and
>
> 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
> stuff since sliced bread.
>
> So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
> are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
> one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
> picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
> you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can
> you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause
> all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> better? Huh?

I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. He
was simply asking you to defend your position.

Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.

Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.

David

David Cohen
March 12th 07, 02:49 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote
> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
>> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
>> raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
>> oils.
>>
>> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
> claim.

Try telling that to the theists.

Oh, wait, you've done that before. Have they sent you any evidence for the
existence of God yet?

David

Tunderbar
March 12th 07, 03:35 PM
On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen" > wrote:
> "Tunderbar" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > (Will Brink) wrote:
> >> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
> >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> >> > oils.
>
> >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
> >> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
> >> claim.
>
> > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream.
>
> > 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> > and
>
> > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
> > stuff since sliced bread.
>
> > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
> > are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
> > one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
> > picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
> > you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can
> > you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause
> > all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > better? Huh?
>
> I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. He
> was simply asking you to defend your position.
>
> Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
>
> Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
>
> David- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the mainstream
paradigm to actually support their supposedly proven theories on fats.
Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his cherry picking 7 countries study.
Show me he was right. Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are
healthier than properly raised animal fats.

The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal fats, are
bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are healthier. If you
believe that, then show me the data to support it.

TC

Will Brink
March 12th 07, 03:54 PM
In article om>,
"Tunderbar" > wrote:

>
> Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream.

It does not run counter for those who have bothered to look at the research.

>
> 1) Animal fats are evil

And we know that's simply not true.

>
> and
>
> 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
> stuff since sliced bread.

That too is not true


>
> So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
> are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
> one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
> picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
> you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right?

Again, I don't have to. The burden of proof is on those who make the
claim. Thus, you need to supply data or other worthy info that supports
your position that animals fats are not unhealthy and vegetable oils are
not a fountain of youth.


> you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause
> all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> better? Huh?

What is your background to decide if what I supply is "definitive"?

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Will Brink
March 12th 07, 03:57 PM
In article t>, "David
Cohen" > wrote:

>
> I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. He
> was simply asking you to defend your position.
>
> Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
>
> Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.

Exactly. It's irrelevant whether or not I agree with him.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Will Brink
March 12th 07, 03:58 PM
In article t>, "David
Cohen" > wrote:

> "Will Brink" > wrote
> > "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> >
> >> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
> >> raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> >> oils.
> >>
> >> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
> >
> > Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
> > supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
> > claim.
>
> Try telling that to the theists.
>
> Oh, wait, you've done that before. Have they sent you any evidence for the
> existence of God yet?

Of course not, as there is none to be had. Now if that damn burning bush
in my yard would STFU I could get back to work...

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Hobbes
March 12th 07, 04:01 PM
In article . com>,
"Tunderbar" > wrote:

> On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen" > wrote:
> > "Tunderbar" > wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > (Will Brink) wrote:
> > >> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
> > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> > >> > oils.
> >
> > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
> >
> > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
> > >> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
> > >> claim.
> >
> > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream.
> >
> > > 1) Animal fats are evil
> >
> > > and
> >
> > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
> > > stuff since sliced bread.
> >
> > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
> > > are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
> > > one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
> > > picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
> > > you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can
> > > you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause
> > > all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > > better? Huh?
> >
> > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. He
> > was simply asking you to defend your position.
> >
> > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
> >
> > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
> >
> > David- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the mainstream
> paradigm to actually support their supposedly proven theories on fats.
> Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his cherry picking 7 countries study.
> Show me he was right. Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are
> healthier than properly raised animal fats.
>
> The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal fats, are
> bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are healthier. If you
> believe that, then show me the data to support it.

It isn't at all the current belief among expert nutrionists.

And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.

--
Keith

Tunderbar
March 12th 07, 04:48 PM
On Mar 12, 11:01 am, Hobbes > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen" > wrote:
> > > "Tunderbar" > wrote
>
> > > > (Will Brink) wrote:
> > > >> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
> > > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> > > >> > oils.
>
> > > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> > > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to
> > > >> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the
> > > >> claim.
>
> > > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream.
>
> > > > 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> > > > and
>
> > > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
> > > > stuff since sliced bread.
>
> > > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
> > > > are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
> > > > one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
> > > > picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
> > > > you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can
> > > > you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause
> > > > all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > > > better? Huh?
>
> > > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. He
> > > was simply asking you to defend your position.
>
> > > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
>
> > > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
>
> > > David- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the mainstream
> > paradigm to actually support their supposedly proven theories on fats.
> > Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his cherry picking 7 countries study.
> > Show me he was right. Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are
> > healthier than properly raised animal fats.
>
> > The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal fats, are
> > bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are healthier. If you
> > believe that, then show me the data to support it.
>
> It isn't at all the current belief among expert nutrionists.
>
> And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.
>
> --
> Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one
research paper, one news report.

Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of
grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free
range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO
hormones.

Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in our
diets.

TC

Hobbes
March 12th 07, 05:16 PM
In article . com>,
"Tunderbar" > wrote:

> On Mar 12, 11:01 am, Hobbes > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen" > wrote:
> > > > "Tunderbar" > wrote
> >
> > > > > (Will Brink) wrote:
> > > > >> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
> > > > >> > properly
> > > > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> > > > >> > oils.
> >
> > > > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
> >
> > > > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you
> > > > >> need to
> > > > >> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> claim.
> >
> > > > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the
> > > > > mainstream.
> >
> > > > > 1) Animal fats are evil
> >
> > > > > and
> >
> > > > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
> > > > > stuff since sliced bread.
> >
> > > > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
> > > > > are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
> > > > > one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
> > > > > picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
> > > > > you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can
> > > > > you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats
> > > > > cause
> > > > > all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > > > > better? Huh?
> >
> > > > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you.
> > > > He
> > > > was simply asking you to defend your position.
> >
> > > > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
> >
> > > > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
> >
> > > > David- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the mainstream
> > > paradigm to actually support their supposedly proven theories on fats.
> > > Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his cherry picking 7 countries study.
> > > Show me he was right. Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are
> > > healthier than properly raised animal fats.
> >
> > > The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal fats, are
> > > bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are healthier. If you
> > > believe that, then show me the data to support it.
> >
> > It isn't at all the current belief among expert nutrionists.
> >
> > And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.
> >
> > --
> > Keith- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
> that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
> fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one
> research paper, one news report.

"highly refined vegetable oils" was your quote. Many vegetable oils
(such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not highly refined.

--
Keith

JMW
March 12th 07, 05:45 PM
"Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
>Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of
>grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free
>range space.

It appears that you fail to recognize the real estate issues involved.

Start raising all of them that way, and there's going to be a lot less
meat to go around. It'll be pretty pricey, too.

Will Brink
March 12th 07, 05:52 PM
In article . com>,
"Tunderbar" > wrote:

> Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
> that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
> fats and more vegetable oils.

I know a bunch of them.Guess you need to get out more often. I realize
this "more grass fed animals less processed veg oils" is news to you, but
it's not to others.

> Show me one article, one quote, one
> research paper, one news report.

So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs asking others
to do it for you.

>
> Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of
> grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free
> range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO
> hormones.

And your point is? Old news here.

>
> Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in our
> diets.

Brilliant. Now support the above as you keep asking others to do.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Tunderbar
March 12th 07, 05:59 PM
On Mar 12, 12:45 pm, JMW > wrote:
> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> >Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of
> >grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free
> >range space.
>
> It appears that you fail to recognize the real estate issues involved.
>
> Start raising all of them that way, and there's going to be a lot less
> meat to go around. It'll be pretty pricey, too.

Actually there is a lot of marginal farmland that is ideal for raising
cattle on or for growing forage crops which is currently being used to
raise rather poor crops of grains. The market is skewed towards
growing grains for human food. And regardless, the topic is not about
sustainability. It is about which is healthier, good animal fats or
poor vegetable oils.

TC

Szczepan Bialek
March 12th 07, 06:08 PM
"Tunderbar"
>> > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
>> > > >> > properly
>> > > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed
>> > > >> > vegetable
>> > > >> > oils.

Now, after long discussion (especially after Rons description) you can
delete "from properly raised animals". Animals and plants are now at the
same level.
The last nail from me. Margarines were healthy (in that class) for two
hundert years (200 years) and suddenly become unhealthy. The reason is
known. Before margarine was made of BEEF fat (animal fat). Now it is made
mainly from vegatable oils. Margarine will be again healthy if be made from
animals (normally raised) fat.

> Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
> that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
> fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one
> research paper, one news report.

All old papers do it. They are in power. Evolution is so slow that result
from last centuary will be valid 1000years.
>
> Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of
> grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free
> range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO
> hormones.

Such impossible requirements give your opponents argumment that todays oils
are better than todays animals fat. BUT IT IS NOT TRUE.
S*

Tunderbar
March 12th 07, 06:14 PM
On Mar 12, 12:16 pm, Hobbes > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 11:01 am, Hobbes > wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
>
> > > "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen" > wrote:
> > > > > "Tunderbar" > wrote
>
> > > > > > (Will Brink) wrote:
> > > > > >> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > > > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
> > > > > >> > properly
> > > > > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> > > > > >> > oils.
>
> > > > > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> > > > > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you
> > > > > >> need to
> > > > > >> supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> claim.
>
> > > > > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the
> > > > > > mainstream.
>
> > > > > > 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> > > > > > and
>
> > > > > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest
> > > > > > stuff since sliced bread.
>
> > > > > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that
> > > > > > are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no
> > > > > > one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry-
> > > > > > picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about
> > > > > > you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can
> > > > > > you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats
> > > > > > cause
> > > > > > all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > > > > > better? Huh?
>
> > > > > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you.
> > > > > He
> > > > > was simply asking you to defend your position.
>
> > > > > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
>
> > > > > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
>
> > > > > David- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the mainstream
> > > > paradigm to actually support their supposedly proven theories on fats.
> > > > Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his cherry picking 7 countries study.
> > > > Show me he was right. Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are
> > > > healthier than properly raised animal fats.
>
> > > > The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal fats, are
> > > > bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are healthier. If you
> > > > believe that, then show me the data to support it.
>
> > > It isn't at all the current belief among expert nutrionists.
>
> > > And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.
>
> > > --
> > > Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
> > that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
> > fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one
> > research paper, one news report.
>
> "highly refined vegetable oils" was your quote. Many vegetable oils
> (such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not highly refined.
>
> --
> Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Many vegetable oils (such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not highly
refined."

Many??????? One is many???? Is two a plethora??? Then three must be a
myriad. Many, my arse!!!

All vegetable oils, except for *one* - cold-pressed extra virgin olive
oil, in the market today, including modern coconut oils are very
highly processed.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s11-1.pdf

http://www.canola-council.org/meal3.html

Once processed, they 've lost all their useful food value. Might as
well use them for automotive lubricant or fuel for their absolute lack
of food value.

Yet, virtually every doctor, nutritionist and researcher just loves
the stuff. And apparently you believe this as well, since you so
bravely stepped forward to defend them.

TC

Tunderbar
March 12th 07, 06:24 PM
On Mar 12, 12:52 pm, (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
> > that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
> > fats and more vegetable oils.
>
> I know a bunch of them.Guess you need to get out more often. I realize
> this "more grass fed animals less processed veg oils" is news to you, but
> it's not to others.

Oh you know some do you? Is that why you failed to give me even one
name?

So you agree with my statement, why are you disputing it?

>
> > Show me one article, one quote, one
> > research paper, one news report.
>
> So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs asking others
> to do it for you.

Back at 'cha, boomer. Remember my original post? I present a statement
and ask people to dispute it. That involves provide references, cites,
factual and/or logical statements, etc. If you are incapable of
replying in such a manner as to respond to the post, why are you
wasting my time? Is it laziness or ignorance? Or both?

I have done my research. My research tells me that vegetable oils are
pretty much all overly-processed nutrient-deficient fake crap food.
But most doctors, nutritionists, and you apparently, would have us
believe that animal fats are bad and vegetable oils are the nectar of
the gods. Are you going to show me what this is based on? Or are you
just going to throw stones in a glass house?

If you're just going to make smart ass comments and refuse to state
your case, then go elsewhere and waste someone else's time.

>
>
>
> > Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of
> > grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free
> > range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO
> > hormones.
>
> And your point is? Old news here.

Then shut the f**k up. We agree. What the hell is *your* point?

>
>
>
> > Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in our
> > diets.
>
> Brilliant. Now support the above as you keep asking others to do.
>
> --
> Will @www.BrinkZone.com

You seem to not understand the English language very well.

TC

Tunderbar
March 12th 07, 06:34 PM
On Mar 12, 1:08 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" > wrote:
> "Tunderbar"
>
> >> > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
> >> > > >> > properly
> >> > > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed
> >> > > >> > vegetable
> >> > > >> > oils.
>
> Now, after long discussion (especially after Rons description) you can
> delete "from properly raised animals". Animals and plants are now at the
> same level.

Not quite at the *same* levels, IMHO. Even poor examples of animal fat
is better than the best examples of vegetable fats (excluding EVOO).

> The last nail from me. Margarines were healthy (in that class) for two
> hundert years (200 years) and suddenly become unhealthy. The reason is
> known. Before margarine was made of BEEF fat (animal fat). Now it is made
> mainly from vegatable oils. Margarine will be again healthy if be made from
> animals (normally raised) fat.

Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
hydrogen and colourants.

>
> > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
> > that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
> > fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one
> > research paper, one news report.
>
> All old papers do it. They are in power. Evolution is so slow that result
> from last centuary will be valid 1000years.
>
>
>
> > Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of
> > grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free
> > range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO
> > hormones.
>
> Such impossible requirements give your opponents argumment that todays oils
> are better than todays animals fat. BUT IT IS NOT TRUE.
> S*

In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef or dairy animals.

I can easily get good, and relatively inexpensive beef, pork and
chicken that matches my requirements. And if consumers insist on it,
the producers will provide it.

TC

Will Brink
March 12th 07, 08:42 PM
In article m>,
"Tunderbar" > wrote:

> On Mar 12, 12:52 pm, (Will Brink) wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> > "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher
> > > that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal
> > > fats and more vegetable oils.
> >
> > I know a bunch of them.Guess you need to get out more often. I realize
> > this "more grass fed animals less processed veg oils" is news to you, but
> > it's not to others.
>
> Oh you know some do you? Is that why you failed to give me even one
> name?
>
> So you agree with my statement, why are you disputing it?
>
> >
> > > Show me one article, one quote, one
> > > research paper, one news report.
> >
> > So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs asking others
> > to do it for you.
>
> Back at 'cha, boomer. Remember my original post?

Where you make no sense and show a total lack of any science training? Yes.

>I present a statement
> and ask people to dispute it. That involves provide references, cites,
> factual and/or logical statements, etc.

Which you have not done.

(ignorance of basic nutrtional science snipped)

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

throatslasher
March 13th 07, 01:49 AM
On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> hydrogen...

Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
highly flammable sodium.

Sir Jackery
March 13th 07, 03:17 AM
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:

> On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
>> hydrogen...
>
> Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> highly flammable sodium.

No, it's non toxic chloride and inert Na+ both have a noble gas valence
configuration.

--Sir Jackery

Szczepan Białek
March 13th 07, 09:18 AM
"DZ" > wrote
...
> Tunderbar > wrote:
>> In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef
>
> Is your beef with vegetable oils about just refining/processing, or is
> it also about a higher degree of unsaturation that results in higher
> rates of a free radical formation? I actually think there is some
> truth to the later. There is some cancer research, but I also recall
> recent observations on negative correlations of life span (across
> various species) with the degree of cell membrane unsaturation and the
> length of the unsaturated fatty chain.
>
> Unfortunately, when people take that to extreme (like Dr. Montygram,
> PhD about things "on the molecular level"), and stop taking the
> dangerous and the "so called" EFAs completely, their brain fills up
> with the omega-9 mead acid mixed with coconut oil.

It is not good go from one extreme (EFAs) to another (saturated) especially
when the both are wrong. Only animal fats (and fresh olive oil made in
farmer house) have the proper proportions.
>
> Next, they stop responding to most external stimuli and post form
> letters to usenet inviting to read their "free website" (still signed
> by a pseudonym) about the dangers of EFAs.
>
> Kind of a trap, really, when the coconut takes over. You'd have to
> force-feed them salmon for a year, and only then be able to try to
> convince them that it was not such a good idea.
>
> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a seemingly high
> number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream"
> views about the role of HIV in the development of AIDS? If I'm not
> mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS (or that
> it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think the HIV
> researchers are comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what - are
> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the
> likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?

I do not know. But I have remembered that at beginning of "vegetable oil
era" they were imported to Poland and for this reason they were very
expensive. I could not effort it. But almost all my friend who afford
(mainly husbands of MDs) dead about fifty. Why only men? At that time butter
was allowed only for children. As mom looking after children they eat the
same (butter). For men was healthy margarine.
S*

Tunderbar
March 13th 07, 02:51 PM
On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ >
wrote:
> Tunderbar > wrote:
> > In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef
>
> Is your beef with vegetable oils about just refining/processing, or is

BINGO. We have a winner. That is exactly my point.

> it also about a higher degree of unsaturation that results in higher
> rates of a free radical formation? I actually think there is some
> truth to the later. There is some cancer research, but I also recall
> recent observations on negative correlations of life span (across
> various species) with the degree of cell membrane unsaturation and the
> length of the unsaturated fatty chain.
>
> Unfortunately, when people take that to extreme (like Dr. Montygram,
> PhD about things "on the molecular level"), and stop taking the
> dangerous and the "so called" EFAs completely, their brain fills up
> with the omega-9 mead acid mixed with coconut oil.
>
> Next, they stop responding to most external stimuli and post form
> letters to usenet inviting to read their "free website" (still signed
> by a pseudonym) about the dangers of EFAs.
>
> Kind of a trap, really, when the coconut takes over. You'd have to
> force-feed them salmon for a year, and only then be able to try to
> convince them that it was not such a good idea.
>
> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a seemingly high
> number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream"
> views about the role of HIV in the development of AIDS? If I'm
not

A good bull**** detection facility?

> mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS (or that
> it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think the HIV
> researchers are comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what - are

1) Those virologists who are in a position to question the HIV/AIDS
paradigm have found that to do so is career suicide. Let's just say
that they watch what they say. There may only be a few hundred
virologists in the world who are qualified enough in the field to
express themselves on the subject.

2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have to accept
what the authorities present as fact. The vast majority of medical and
research people are not educated enough in the field of virology to
question what they are told.


> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the
> likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?

The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions. And for a
paradigm to survive it must survive harsh exposure to these hard
questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard questions, it fails as
a paradigm.

HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone
questioning the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The
shrillness against HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening. There has not been
an open scientific debate in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It was announced
at a press conference and we are compelled to accept it, period. In
fact, the findings announced at the press conference claiming that HIV
cause AIDS, has never been publiched. Ever. There is no published
study that shows that HIV causes AIDS.

Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the cause of
AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part of the factor. Or
it may not be. We don't know because billions and billions have been
spent on studying the HIV virus and nothing else.

TC

Tunderbar
March 13th 07, 02:56 PM
On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> > hydrogen...
>
> Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> highly flammable sodium.

Your point is.......?????

Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the final
product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes it worse.

The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid.

TC

throatslasher
March 13th 07, 03:14 PM
On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> > > hydrogen...
>
> > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> > highly flammable sodium.
>
> Your point is.......?????
>
> Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the final
> product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes it worse.
>
> The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid.

Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and colourants"
is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added hydrogen just like
splenda has chlorine. You are either intentionally misleading others
by overselling your case or you just don't have a clue what you're
talking about.

throatslasher
March 13th 07, 03:15 PM
On Mar 12, 7:17 pm, Sir Jackery > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> >> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> >> hydrogen...
>
> > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> > highly flammable sodium.
>
> No, it's non toxic chloride and inert Na+ both have a noble gas valence
> configuration.

No kidding, Sherlock.

Tunderbar
March 13th 07, 03:18 PM
On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher"
> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> > > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> > > > hydrogen...
>
> > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> > > highly flammable sodium.
>
> > Your point is.......?????
>
> > Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the final
> > product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes it worse.
>
> > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid.
>
> Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and colourants"
> is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added hydrogen just like
> splenda has chlorine. You are either intentionally misleading others
> by overselling your case or you just don't have a clue what you're
> talking about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It does not matter. We all know that hydrogenation converts at least
some of the oils into trans-fats. Then factor in the fact that the
original vegetable oil is highly processed crap and bereft of
nutrition, and you know that margarine is crap.

TC

throatslasher
March 13th 07, 03:28 PM
On Mar 13, 7:18 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> > > > > hydrogen...
>
> > > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> > > > highly flammable sodium.
>
> > > Your point is.......?????
>
> > > Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the final
> > > product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes it worse.
>
> > > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid.
>
> > Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and colourants"
> > is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added hydrogen just like
> > splenda has chlorine. You are either intentionally misleading others
> > by overselling your case or you just don't have a clue what you're
> > talking about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It does not matter. We all know that hydrogenation converts at least
> some of the oils into trans-fats. Then factor in the fact that the
> original vegetable oil is highly processed crap and bereft of
> nutrition, and you know that margarine is crap.

I don't *care*. I just saw that you said something dumb and I thought
I'd call you on it.

Tom Anderson
March 13th 07, 05:11 PM
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Tunderbar wrote:

> On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ >
> wrote:
>
>> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a seemingly high
>> number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream"
>> views about the role of HIV in the development of AIDS?
>
> A good bull**** detection facility?

A high level of crankdom?

>> If i'm not mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS
>> (or that it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think
>> the HIV researchers are comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what
>> - are
>
> 1) Those virologists who are in a position to question the HIV/AIDS
> paradigm have found that to do so is career suicide. Let's just say that
> they watch what they say.

Not in itself evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You could say the same
about chemists who question the atomic theory, for instance.

> There may only be a few hundred virologists in the world who are
> qualified enough in the field to express themselves on the subject.

I would guess it's more in the thousands. Unless your criteria for
'qualified enough' are rather stricter than mine.

> 2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have to accept
> what the authorities present as fact. The vast majority of medical and
> research people are not educated enough in the field of virology to
> question what they are told.

True, but again, irrelevant.

>> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the
>> likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?
>
> The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions. And for a
> paradigm to survive it must survive harsh exposure to these hard
> questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard questions, it fails as a
> paradigm.

Quite so. Can you point to any hard questions to which the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis has failed to stand up? And by 'hard questions', i mean
'experiments'.

> HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone questioning
> the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The shrillness against
> HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening. There has not been an open scientific
> debate in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It was announced at a press conference
> and we are compelled to accept it, period.

I think that's a bit strong. There's a colossal amount of data linking HIV
and AIDS, in general and in detail. You can't point to a single paper at
the dawn of the field that establishes it conclusively, but that doesn't
matter; biology's often like that.

> In fact, the findings announced at the press conference claiming that
> HIV cause AIDS, has never been publiched. Ever.

Hang on, are you talking about the famous press conference held in 1984 at
which the US secretary of health announced Gallo's identification of HIV
as the cause of AIDS? If so, i'm afraid you're quite wrong - there were
four papers published back-to-back in Science:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6200935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6200936
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6200937
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6324345

You can argue about whether these papers are any good or not, but you can
hardly claim that they were never published. Ever.

> There is no published study that shows that HIV causes AIDS.

Taking a really strict line on what showing that an agent causes a disease
means, I believe this is true. I wish it were otherwise, but i think
getting ethical approval for it would be pretty tricky.

You can infect apes with HIV, though, and they get AIDS. Presumably that's
no good?

> Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the cause of
> AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part of the factor. Or it
> may not be. We don't know because billions and billions have been spent
> on studying the HIV virus and nothing else.

And as a result, we do now have HIV-oriented treatments which ameliorate
and slow down the progress of AIDS. Pretty good for an unsubstantiated
hypothesis!

tom

--
Fitter, Happier, More Productive.

Tunderbar
March 13th 07, 06:23 PM
On Mar 13, 12:11 pm, Tom Anderson > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Tunderbar wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ >
> > wrote:
>
> >> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a seemingly high
> >> number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream"
> >> views about the role of HIV in the development of AIDS?
>
> > A good bull**** detection facility?
>
> A high level of crankdom?
>
> >> If i'm not mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS
> >> (or that it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think
> >> the HIV researchers are comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what
> >> - are
>
> > 1) Those virologists who are in a position to question the HIV/AIDS
> > paradigm have found that to do so is career suicide. Let's just say that
> > they watch what they say.
>
> Not in itself evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You could say the same
> about chemists who question the atomic theory, for instance.
>
> > There may only be a few hundred virologists in the world who are
> > qualified enough in the field to express themselves on the subject.
>
> I would guess it's more in the thousands. Unless your criteria for
> 'qualified enough' are rather stricter than mine.
>
> > 2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have to accept
> > what the authorities present as fact. The vast majority of medical and
> > research people are not educated enough in the field of virology to
> > question what they are told.
>
> True, but again, irrelevant.
>
> >> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the
> >> likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?
>
> > The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions. And for a
> > paradigm to survive it must survive harsh exposure to these hard
> > questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard questions, it fails as a
> > paradigm.
>
> Quite so. Can you point to any hard questions to which the HIV/AIDS
> hypothesis has failed to stand up? And by 'hard questions', i mean
> 'experiments'.

None have been funded. But here are a couple of questions. Why has HIV/
AIDS not gone much further than the originally identified high-risk
groups? A virus is supposed to non-risk-group limited entity. Where is
the vaccine? It was predicted in 18 months after the press conference.
Why do some with HIV never develop the disease? And why are there
people with AIDS symptoms and no HIV positivity? Why has the virus not
been properly isolated?

>
> > HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone questioning
> > the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The shrillness against
> > HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening. There has not been an open scientific
> > debate in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It was announced at a press conference
> > and we are compelled to accept it, period.
>
> I think that's a bit strong. There's a colossal amount of data linking HIV
> and AIDS, in general and in detail. You can't point to a single paper at
> the dawn of the field that establishes it conclusively, but that doesn't
> matter; biology's often like that.

There is no study published that specifically finds that HIV is the
cause of AIDS. Period. If it exists, cite it. There was a press
conference claiming this but no science published. Cite it.

>
> > In fact, the findings announced at the press conference claiming that
> > HIV cause AIDS, has never been publiched. Ever.
>
> Hang on, are you talking about the famous press conference held in 1984 at
> which the US secretary of health announced Gallo's identification of HIV
> as the cause of AIDS? If so, i'm afraid you're quite wrong - there were
> four papers published back-to-back in Science:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&...
>
> You can argue about whether these papers are any good or not, but you can
> hardly claim that they were never published. Ever.
>
> > There is no published study that shows that HIV causes AIDS.
>
> Taking a really strict line on what showing that an agent causes a disease
> means, I believe this is true. I wish it were otherwise, but i think
> getting ethical approval for it would be pretty tricky.
>
> You can infect apes with HIV, though, and they get AIDS. Presumably that's
> no good?

Not HIV. Supposedly a simian HIV virus. Not HIV.

>
> > Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the cause of
> > AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part of the factor. Or it
> > may not be. We don't know because billions and billions have been spent
> > on studying the HIV virus and nothing else.
>
> And as a result, we do now have HIV-oriented treatments which ameliorate
> and slow down the progress of AIDS. Pretty good for an unsubstantiated
> hypothesis!
>
> tom
>
> --
> Fitter, Happier, More Productive.

Why do we have a drug cocktail whose side effects mimic the exact
progress of AIDS? AZT. So when we start treating with other less toxic
drug cocktails, victims..... errrrr, patients survive longer therefore
the "disease" is slowed down. The whole statistical side of the HIV/
AIDS paradigm is absolutely rife with number fudging and statistical
numbers juggling. Definitions are changed and expanded to increase the
apparent patient population. The numbers used in the HIV/AIDS field
are a frikkin' joke.

HIV/AIDS supporters have changed and fudged numbers, methodologies,
long held virology rules, tracking methods, and language to accomodate
the whole improbable silly idea. People with HIV who don't get the
disease are called non-progressors or long-term non-progressors,
people aithout HIV positivity with AIDS symptoms aren't sufferring
from AIDS.

The term "non-progressor" was concocted to specifically denote an HIV
patient who does not develop the disease within the predicted
timeframe, and that timeframe went from originally 18 months to
several years to a decade and a half to the current 15 to indefinite
number of year.

Pretty sad all around. The whole science has become a sad shell game
of rhetoric, accusations, statistics, ever changing definitions,
number fudging, and, of course, massive personal and corporate
profits.

Meanwhile, HIV hasn't been isolated, no vaccine is in sight,
victims... errrr, patients are fed deadly drug cocktails and
researchers are making billions by doing research that goes nowhere.
And drug companies are selling their wares at tens of thousands of
dollars per year per victim.... errrrr, patient. And more billions are
being made by Gallo et. al. for their useless non-specific tests
wothout any semblance of a gold standard for comparison.

TC

Will Brink
March 13th 07, 09:07 PM
In article om>,
"throatslasher" > wrote:

> On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> > > > hydrogen...
> >
> > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> > > highly flammable sodium.
> >
> > Your point is.......?????
> >
> > Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the final
> > product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes it worse.
> >
> > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid.
>
> Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and colourants"
> is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added hydrogen just like
> splenda has chlorine. You are either intentionally misleading others
> by overselling your case or you just don't have a clue what you're
> talking about.

I suspect it's both.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

Tunderbar
March 14th 07, 02:22 AM
On Mar 13, 10:28 am, "throatslasher"
> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:18 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like
> > > > > > hydrogen...
>
> > > > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and
> > > > > highly flammable sodium.
>
> > > > Your point is.......?????
>
> > > > Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the final
> > > > product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes it worse.
>
> > > > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid.
>
> > > Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and colourants"
> > > is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added hydrogen just like
> > > splenda has chlorine. You are either intentionally misleading others
> > > by overselling your case or you just don't have a clue what you're
> > > talking about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It does not matter. We all know that hydrogenation converts at least
> > some of the oils into trans-fats. Then factor in the fact that the
> > original vegetable oil is highly processed crap and bereft of
> > nutrition, and you know that margarine is crap.
>
> I don't *care*. I just saw that you said something dumb and I thought
> I'd call you on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Then gfy.

Tom Anderson
March 14th 07, 10:14 PM
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Tunderbar wrote:

> On Mar 13, 12:11 pm, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Tunderbar wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a seemingly high
>>>> number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream"
>>>> views about the role of HIV in the development of AIDS?
>>>
>>> The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions. And for a
>>> paradigm to survive it must survive harsh exposure to these hard
>>> questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard questions, it fails as
>>> a paradigm.
>>
>> Quite so. Can you point to any hard questions to which the HIV/AIDS
>> hypothesis has failed to stand up? And by 'hard questions', i mean
>> 'experiments'.
>
> None have been funded.

So there aren't any? I accept that it's very hard for HIV/AIDS deniers to
get funding, but that doesn't change the fact that these hard questions
you mention haven't been asked. I'm not saying that this proves the
mainstream right - just that HIV/AIDS deniers haven't proven the
mainstream wrong.

> But here are a couple of questions. Why has HIV/ AIDS not gone much
> further than the originally identified high-risk groups? A virus is
> supposed to non-risk-group limited entity.

Er, no - that's precisely what 'risk group' means! HIV will infect pretty
much anyone, but not everyone has the same chance of being exposed to it.
That said, in much of Africa, there isn't a risk group much more specific
than 'sexually active people plus babies of such'.

> Where is the vaccine? It was predicted in 18 months after the press
> conference.

Ha! Scientists are good at discoveries, and rather less good at
predictions. I don't think you can take the failure of that particular one
as evidence of the irrelevance of HIV; of the hubris of scientists, it is
rather good evidence.

Personally, i don't think there's much chance of a vaccine. There's simply
too much antigenic variability in the virus to have an immunogen that will
elicit a response that's effective against the range of strains seen in
the wild.

But there *are* people out there with humoral and T-cell responses that
persistently suppress HIV, so there is a ray of hope. There was an
interesting paper in Nature quite recently detailing what seems to be an
invariant structure in HIV that can be targeted by antibodies, which
should be effective against all strains:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17301785

but it's hard to see how to make a vaccine that will deliver that result
reliably.

> Why do some with HIV never develop the disease?

Er, because they have an immune system? HIV is only a virus, not a magical
demon; it is possible for the body to fight it off on its own, even if
it's not likely.

> And why are there people with AIDS symptoms and no HIV positivity?

A combination of crappy testing and other diseases which can cause
immunodeficiency, i suspect; without knowing about individual cases, i
can't say for sure. It's quite clear that the overwhelming majority of
AIDS patients are positive for HIV, though; i don't think a few exceptions
can be taken as proof that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is wrong.

> Why has the virus not been properly isolated?

What? In what way has it not been properly isolated? A colleague of mine
has a cryostore full of little tubes that say otherwise!

>>> HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone questioning
>>> the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The shrillness against
>>> HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening. There has not been an open scientific
>>> debate in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It was announced at a press conference
>>> and we are compelled to accept it, period.
>>
>> I think that's a bit strong. There's a colossal amount of data linking HIV
>> and AIDS, in general and in detail. You can't point to a single paper at
>> the dawn of the field that establishes it conclusively, but that doesn't
>> matter; biology's often like that.
>
> There is no study published that specifically finds that HIV is the
> cause of AIDS. Period. If it exists, cite it.

So, studies showing that when you put HIV into someone, they usually get
AIDS. I'd say there were at least three good lines of evidence here.

Firstly, blood and plasma transfusions where the material had HIV in it;
we know that transfusions of uninfected material don't cause AIDS, so i'd
say we can conclude that it was the HIV that led to the AIDS. For example,
in this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8193497&dopt=Abstract

Secondly, infections of scientists and medics working with HIV. Working in
a lab or hospital does not of itself seem to cause AIDS, at least in my
experience, so the people in white coats who have developed AIDS after
being exposed to HIV would seem to be evidence of the link from HIV to
AIDS. See under:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/bp_hiv_hp_with.html

That, of course, is a CDC publication, not a 'proper' paper; i think
needlestick transmission is something which is now common enough that it's
not actually worth publishing papers on it. So, feel free to ignore this
evidence if you require a proper paper.

Thirdly, twin studies. HIV infection can be passed from mother to child,
but it isn't totally efficient - there are cases where you have identical
twins, one of whom is HIV positive, and one negative. In these cases, the
positive twin goes on to get AIDS, and the other doesn't. The twins have
been in an identical environment up to that point, so it's hard to see
what could cause one to get AIDS and not the other apart from the HIV. For
example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3012996&dopt=Abstract

I have to sympathize with you over the evidence here, though - there
basically hasn't been much interest in publishing lots of iron-clad
studies showing that HIV causes AIDS, since most scientists in the field
feel it's adequately established, and that they have better things to do.
In terms of getting results that will actually help people, i think this
is the right thing to have done, but clearly, in terms of making you
happy, it's not.

> There was a press conference claiming this but no science published.
> Cite it.

I did that below - do me the courtesy of reading what i write before
replying to it.

>>> There is no published study that shows that HIV causes AIDS.
>>
>> Taking a really strict line on what showing that an agent causes a disease
>> means, I believe this is true. I wish it were otherwise, but i think
>> getting ethical approval for it would be pretty tricky.
>>
>> You can infect apes with HIV, though, and they get AIDS. Presumably that's
>> no good?
>
> Not HIV.

Yes, HIV, in chimps:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=9094687
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10979899

Admittedly not efficiently, though - HIV will infect chimpanzees quite
well, but very rarely lead to immunodeficiency. There is a long and
fascinating literature on this, and what it boils down to is the not
entirely shocking observation that successful parasites don't actually
cause damage to their primary hosts. HIV is a simian virus that's crossed
over to us, and hasn't adapted itself to keep a low profile yet.

Also, HIV-2 in baboons, although i don't think that's as interesting,
since HIV-2 is not a major human pathogen:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9625420&dopt=Abstract

Also, quite weird, but you can make a mouse in which the mouse immune
system is knocked out, and a human one sort of transplanted in:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8515816&dopt=Abstract

Every single cell in their immune system is of human origin, and HIV gives
them AIDS.

> Supposedly a simian HIV virus. Not HIV.

Oh, completely irrelevant then.

There are a number of lentiviruses, across a number of species, where
infection leads to immunosuppression. Do you think all these are made up
too, with the sheep, rabbits, etc in question suffering from overdoses of
AZT or whatever, or do you just think that HIV is different for some
reason?

> Why do we have a drug cocktail whose side effects mimic the exact
> progress of AIDS? AZT.

No, sorry, bull****. Or are you going to cite a study showing that AZT
causes severe, long-term, essentially irreversible immunosuppression?

If so, this will come as interesting news to all those people in Africa
with AIDS; they must have taken AZT without realising it!

> So when we start treating with other less toxic drug cocktails,
> victims..... errrrr, patients survive longer therefore the "disease" is
> slowed down.

Yes. Quite so - and it all tallies nicely with measurements of viral load
and emergence of escape mutations. Your point is?

> The whole statistical side of the HIV/ AIDS paradigm is absolutely rife
> with number fudging and statistical numbers juggling. Definitions are
> changed and expanded to increase the apparent patient population. The
> numbers used in the HIV/AIDS field are a frikkin' joke.
>
> HIV/AIDS supporters have changed and fudged numbers, methodologies, long
> held virology rules, tracking methods, and language to accomodate the
> whole improbable silly idea.

Since we're in a citing mood, i take it you're going to cite some evidence
for that?

> People with HIV who don't get the disease are called non-progressors or
> long-term non-progressors, people aithout HIV positivity with AIDS
> symptoms aren't sufferring from AIDS.
>
> The term "non-progressor" was concocted to specifically denote an HIV
> patient who does not develop the disease within the predicted timeframe,
> and that timeframe went from originally 18 months to several years to a
> decade and a half to the current 15 to indefinite number of year.

Yes. This is called 'revising the hypothesis', and it's something that
scientists are allowed to do. We'd love to be able to give you certain,
complete truth from the get-go, but that's not the business we're in.

Particularly if you listen to what scientists say at press conferences and
in articles for magazines, etc - those are opinions, not proper science.
Scientists are, sadly, human like everyone else.

> Pretty sad all around. The whole science has become a sad shell game of
> rhetoric, accusations, statistics, ever changing definitions, number
> fudging, and, of course, massive personal and corporate profits.

And lots and lots of HIV-positive people living longer and healthier lives
than before. Sounds good to me!

tom

--
Axaxaxas Mlo

Enrico C
March 15th 07, 04:36 PM
On 12 Mar 2007 07:04:59 -0700, Tunderbar wrote:

> Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right?
[...]


From a review of "Dr Atkins' Health Revolution"
[...]
| A common myth about Dr. Atkins that could stand some clearing up is that
| he advocates a strict homeopathic system of medical care and an
| unbalanced meat-only diet. These misconceptions can be corrected by
| reading the first few chapters. Atkins actually gives well-reasoned
| explanations of his philosophy of Complementary medicine, an approach
| that stresses prevention via good dietary habits, vitamin supplements
| and exercise, then homeopathic and vitamin remedies when there is a
| problem, and finally traditional medicine when all else fails (Yeah,
| he's a quack all right!). Without going into the details and logistics
| here, I was impressed with how logical and simple to apply this system
| is.
[...]
http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Atkins-Health-Revolution-Complementary/dp/055328360X