pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>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
>
> Liar.

He's the king of all charlatans. Princess.

>>who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty
>
> Ipse dixit.

Review the posts I linked. He *does* use personal experience to validate his
kooky diet.

>>ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his posts already provided.
>
> What he posted was in the context of an attempted discussion with you.
> Normal, decent people don't take some personal information and post
> it to another group, demanding that some third-party comment on it.

I'll remember that next time you and Dreck lift my quotes from AFV.

>>>>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
>
> You should have guessed from those levels that there was
> probably an underlying condition present.

Such conditions are often organic. Diet would have no effect.

> And who wrote; "..the genes don't affect every generation
> the same way, and many people never know they have it until
> they go to the doctor and get a very high cholesterol reading.
> Since testing isn't mandatory, many people never know they
> have any underlying issue -- hereditary or otherwise -- until it's
> a very big problem." - usual suspect 2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST
>
>>>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.
>
> "a shade over 2[00]" is still high. Were he going to fib about it,
> wouldn't he have said that the present level was lower than that?
>
>>I *don't* take his word for it. I can't.
>
> So don't. Who cares.
>
>>I've dealt with too many people with FH
>
> In what capacity exactly?

Several capacities, most recently as a hospice volunteer. Some larger hospitals
have entire wards filled with such patients, and those wards are often called
names like "the pumpkin patch."

>>and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to know that diet alone does
>>nothing to change it.
>
> Wrong. See;.
> 'A dietary portfolio approach to cholesterol reduction: combined
> effects of plant sterols, vegetable proteins, and viscous fibers in
> hypercholesterolemia. ....
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Look at the ranges of difference in LDL reduction, and then compare your twit's
claims about a reduction *twice* the magnitude of that found in that particular
study. As I said, his claims are incongruent with existing data and noteworthy
enough for him to be considered for a case study.

>>>>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.
>
> Not at all. I think I'm still in first grade, and this is life-long learning.

I beg to differ on one point: you've failed kindergarten.

>>One of your primary
>>sources has made some claims which are incongruent with medical science.
>
> You're full of it.

No, he is. And so are you.

> Normally you'd be jumping up and down yapping
> on about conditions in which serum cholesterol levels are affected-
> anything but diet. Now, suddenly, it's all about diet?

*His* claims are based on his diet. Solely. Read the posts at AFV and see for
yourself.

>>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."
>
> This is a discussion forum, not a court of law, 'suspect'.

His claims are pretty wild and you use him as a source in this "discussion forum."

>>>>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.
>
> Are you really surprised, considering your nasty persecutory character
> and dishonesty, that no-one is interested in discussing anything with you?

Yes!

> You shouldn't be.

Plenty people discuss stuff with me. Including you, love. :-)

>>>nor any of his material.
>>
>>I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so dispirited that he
>>announced he was killfiling me.
>
> You're delusional. It's more than likely that he became disgusted with you.

Nope. He didn't like being asked to support his exaggerated claims.

>>>>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.
>
> He probably has better things to do than play with creeps like you.

Like fabricating more bullshit for his website?

>>> YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.
>>
>>Never.
>
> Liar.

Nope.

>>>>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.
>
> Have you seen JC's medical portfolio? No.

I would like to see it, since he's made some exaggerated claims about it.

>>>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.
>
> No you don't. If he were going to lie about it, he'd have made
> the range less extreme and lower. You're an idiot, 'suspect'.

He made the range what he did. Nobody put words in his septic mouth.

>>>>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.
>
> Your ignorant, warped opinion.

My opinion is neither ignorant nor warped.

>>>>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?
>
> Nutrition and biochemistry for starters.

BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>>>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.
>
> I have no love for you.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, I thought you loved everyone and everything.
Oh yeah, I never gave you €20. Hard for you to love me without getting paid first.

>>Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his claims, which he made
>>in public and voluntarily?
>
> Why should I be afraid? I don't doubt his word, is why.

You should.

>>>> 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.
>
> 'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by
> 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks)
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

And his claim was "> 50%". IOW, 172% of the average in that study. Pretty
****ing *UN*believable.

>>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?
>
> 'Familial type III hyperlipoproteinemia is suggested by elevations
> in both TG and cholesterol, to similar extent that is plasma cholesterol
> and triglyceride of 400 mg/dl often provide a clue for the diagnosis
> (Wolfgang et al., 1989).'
> http://healthcare.jeeran.com/publicat/phd/dyslipo.html

Exactly!

>>>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.
>
> Ad hominem.

Nope.

> You're argument is false from top to bottom, liar.

Your, not you're. Anyway, prove 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.
>
> You've brought your stupid dishonesty into it, twister.

Nope.

>>>>(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.
>
> You lied.

About what?

>>>>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.
>
> No. You're the liar and fraud.

Prove it.

>>>>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.
>
> Ipse dixit

Nope.

> and false, liar.

What's false about it?

>>>>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.
>
> You're rotten to the core.

No, I'm sweeeeeeeeet to the bone.