pearl wrote:
>>You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's
>
> As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health matters,
> unless asked to of course. Of course you have no such decency.

He, like other charlatans who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty
ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his posts already provided.

>>wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
>
> Ipse dixit.

Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that his cholesterol was "a
shade over 2[00]." He claimed last week that it had been over twice that high --
which is a level of cholesterol that is very rare and is usually accompanied by
a variety of visible symptoms, including yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm

> John has given me no reason to doubt his word, unlike you.

This is an instance where you should ask him to support his word. He made his
claims voluntarily, and offered them as evidence that his diet is beneficial. I
*don't* take his word for it. I can't. I've dealt with too many people with FH
and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to know that diet alone does
nothing to change it.

>>I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
>>integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
>
> You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.

No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert. One of your primary
sources has made some claims which are incongruent with medical science. He made
his claims voluntarily and in the context of being "proof" about his diet's
benefits. He really should prove it with factual evidence, not just "take my
word for it" -- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."

>>You said that my skepticism about
>>the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem,"
>
> It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites posted,

Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself. Why did he not
respond with any proofs other than a regurgitation of what he heard, second hand
no less, about a racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked what
Ehret's educational background was in, and what he was "professor" of. The best
he could do was say something to the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret"
after he'd been referring to him incessantly.

> nor any of his material.

I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so dispirited that he
announced he was killfiling me.

>>but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud.
>
> You wish.

He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't been heard from since.

> YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.

Never.

>>He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he
>>now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol,
>>at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he
>>has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his
>>anecdotal claims?
>
> I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.

Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again, Lesley. Take a look at the
case studies of people with cholesterol in excess of 300.

> Neither do you. You're grasping.

I have every reason in the world to doubt that his cholesterol was *ever* above
400, much less above 240.

>>By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times
>>(and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof"
>>for many of your own claims.
>
> And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific resource, so it is.

It's as flaky as he is.

>>I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
>
> Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort yourself out, kiddo.

Superior knowledge? Of what subject?

>>Coleman said:
>> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?
>>
>>I replied:
>>
>> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
>>
>> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's
>> yours?
>> -- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2
>>
>> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new
>> website to prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing
>> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or
>> testiLYING.
>
> Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging storm for all we care.

Feel the love. Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his claims, which he made
in public and voluntarily?

>> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc
>> fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but
>> raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your
>> previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
>> amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy
>> and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such
>> a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
>> credit, not raw food.
>
> I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
> but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
> serum cholesterol levels,

That's an understatement. That's not just a large change, it's of such a
magnitude that he'd deserve status of a case study in one of the cardiology
journals. People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's even more
rare when their cholesterol is lowered to "normal" levels. His claim of it being
*over 400* puts him off the bloody ****ing chart. Do you not understand that?

> beyond different quantities of dietary
> macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
> disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production, precipitated
> by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
> versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
> ('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
> cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
> disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
> http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )

Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration, more like it.

<...>
>>Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his
>>claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove
>>his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all
>>his other distortions of his health
>
> You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're projecting.

I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.

>>(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
>
> How do you know that?

His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can search his posts there
and read for yourself.

>>and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one
>>about his cholesterol.
>
> Ipse dixit.

Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a liar, a fraud.

>>I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
>>as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
>
> And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in the future.

As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only fitting that you cite
him and his exaggerated claims.

>>This deserves an answer.
>
> What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread, 'usual'?
> http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr...ermit.esat.net
>
> It deserves an answer from you.

No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a response.