"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> 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.
You're the knave of liars. Jack.
> >>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
Ipse dixit.
> 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.
Can you bring an example of my doing that?
> >>>>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.
So why did you lunge at JC on account of his serum cholesterol levels?
Had you had been discussing this with JC in a courteous manner you
may have found out a lot more, even learned something highly valuable.
> Diet would have no effect.
That's a patently false claim, and you now definitely know it..
'A dietary portfolio approach to cholesterol reduction: combined
effects of plant sterols, vegetable proteins, and viscous fibers in
hypercholesterolemia.
....
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
I'd demand an upgrade from your controllers, if I were you.
> > 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.
Doing what exactly?
> Some larger hospitals
> have entire wards filled with such patients, and those wards are often called
> names like "the pumpkin patch."
"..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
> >>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,
'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol
by 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001)
> and then compare your twit's
Feel the love.
> claims about a reduction
50%
> *twice* the magnitude of that found in that particular
> study.
There was 58% of his change, due to the diet, in *two weeks*.
JC has been following his diet for a lot longer than that, right?
> As I said, his claims are incongruent with existing data and noteworthy
> enough for him to be considered for a case study.
Ipse dixit, although more research along these lines is welcome.
> >>>>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.
Beg away.
> >>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.
No, you are.
> > 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 wrote about the effects of his diet, and nothing more.
Finding the levels to be high, you could have asked why.
Instead, you chose to attack him, and harass me, moron.
> >>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
No, they are not.
> and you use him as a source in this "discussion forum."
Sure do.
> >>>>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. :-)
Slimy git.
> >>>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.
He was clearly disgusted by you, liar.
> >>>>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're the fabricator of bullshit, jackass.
> >>> YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.
> >>
> >>Never.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> Nope.
Liar.
> >>>>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,
A bit late for that.
> since he's made some exaggerated claims about it.
Ipse dixit.
> >>>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.
For some know-it-all troll like you to froth and fume all over, yes?
> Nobody put words in his septic mouth.
The septic mouth is yours.
> >>>>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.
It appears to be both. Then again, this could all just be a sick game to you.
> >>>>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!!!!!!!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
> >>>>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.
Sorry.
> Oh yeah, I never gave you €20. Hard for you to love me without getting paid first.
'usual suspect's world. How sad. And seedy.
> >>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.
I've no reason to.
> >>>> 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.
The average in the study was a reduction of 29%. JC's was
~50%. IOW, ~11% more than the *two weeks* on the diet.
> Pretty ****ing *UN*believable.
You're figures are, trashboy.
> >>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!
And this doesn't possibly apply, how?
> >>>beyond different quantities of dietary
> >>>macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
> >>>disorder affecting endogenous* cholesterol production, precipitated *(sc)
> >>>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.
Totally. It's all you've ever had, loser.
> > You're argument is false from top to bottom, liar.
>
> Your, not you're. Anyway, prove it.
Done.
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>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.
Yep.
> >>>>(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?
Here, about him being B12 deficient.
> >>>>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.
Done.
> >>>>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.
Ipse dixit.
> > and false, liar.
>
> What's false about it?
All of it. You.
> >>>>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.
That post *demands* an answer from you, gnat.