Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Options
Replies
-
Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.27 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.
Understand the context: that post wasn't directed at OP. It was directed at someone else in the conversation who had declared that he was deliberately using insults and being rude to others.
If you're wanting to call out vitriol, that's something to consider.10 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.
I feel like you need to stay out of the debate section. It's not for you.12 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.- We have not been insulting the OP, we have been giving her the opinions she literally asked for, and debating with each other.
- You are responding personally to a post that wasn't directed at you.
- As far as vitriol, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that an outside observer would tag your posts here as some of the most bitter and critically personal in this thread.
- If you have trouble keeping track of who the OP is, and who replies are directed to, perhaps a far-ranging debate on the internet is not the best venue for you? I do sometimes forget who started some of these threads in the first place myself, but when that happens I try to remove myself from the debate so I don't end up arguing with the wrong people against something no one said.
12 - We have not been insulting the OP, we have been giving her the opinions she literally asked for, and debating with each other.
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You personally haven't been insulted. Your positions have.
You on the other hand have resorted to making personal attacks on the people you're talking to rather than the positions they're taking.
There's a difference.14 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.
If you defend the OPs right to curiosity, which she displayed by posting here asking for advice and thoughts on the "school" she was/is attending, then why is it wrong for people to respond to that curiosity? We can't always be told what we want to hear or believe.8 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.
Just going to drop this here.
http://mindfulnessremedy.com/taking-responsibility-emotional-reactions
Also this
https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/30/we-are-responsible-for-our-own-feelings/
And a picture for the visual folks.
11 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.
I feel like you need to stay out of the debate section. It's not for you.
A pre-requisite to posting in any debate forum should be to read said thread from the beginning...8 -
Good Morning russelljam08,
"Arguing against CICO is like jumping off a building to argue against gravity. You'll lose every time.
I am guessing you're not a highly educated person, and low on the economic ladder(usually this kind of person likes to absolve personal accountability and responsibility, ie it is not MY fault it is someone or something else's fault). Keep believing in magic............I am sure all your dreams will come true.............................someday"
I'm sure you are correct.
In Australia I work in government finance at an entry level of $34 per hour.
Not much, I know, but I hope to improve.
And, I am only in my first year of my doctorate after a degree and a masters.
Again, I am trying to improve.
Don't confuse Simple Writing with Being Simple.
If nastiness and ignorance of others were dollars, I am sure you'd be a wealthy man of Trumpian Proportions.
(There, russelljam08...I mentioned you by name. Now sit back and wait for all your personal likes to come flooding in.)
Cheers from Downunder.20 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
@MikePfirrman thanks for the current medical link. It seems some may be posting using dated medical sources perhaps. I know my autoimmune issues started to resolve in just 30 days after I cut out all added sugar and all forms of all grains Oct 2014.
Like me three years ago some still do not want to accept their health issues may be from the way they eat. A leaky gut can lead to premature death I now understand. What I was eating clearly was a cause of my failing health since three years later after stopping sugar and grains cold turkey my health continues to improve.
I still question everything, even if from a Holistic doc. All sometimes we have to go on is how our own bodies react and the information we find on our own. Even Holistic docs will use people with chronic conditions as cash cows.
I was involved years ago with some Algae to biofuel start-ups. One of the companies that I was trying to steal people from was the Algae start-up that created Astaxanthin. Back then, they really didn't know how good of a supplement it was. It's since blown up to be huge. I knew it was a super carotenoid. That's it. I gave it to a dog of mine that was slowly dying from Prednisone he had to take for really bad genetic hip dysplasia. When this dog was 2, I was told we'd be lucky if he lived till 8. He ended up living to be age 12. For the last 3 years of his life, the vet had him on heavy prednisone for pain. I gave him Astaxanthin regulary. The vet could not understand, for the life of him, why his liver enzyme counts were always (until near the end) so good. Just last year, there was a study pointing to Astaxanthin being a really good potential liver therapy for those with bad enzyme counts from too many prescriptions. I have no regrets about giving that dog a supplement I thought might help him. Same with my wife. I'll help myself or those I love anytime when medical science has not caught up yet.
Most Holistic therapies have no money to support their research. There is just simply nuggets you have to pick and choose. It's pathetic that our government can't support more research for the common good and leaves it up to the pharmaceutical companies to pay for all the R&D. When that happens (most of the time), the research we see is cherry picked and favorable to expensive drug intervention.
France's Meterone just declared that France will ban Round-Up within 2 years. I guess their scientists are seeing things that our American scientists aren't seeing. Anthony Samsel / Stephanie Seneff (the two MIT researchers that have put together a lot of information on how potentially bad Round-Up is) are being attacked by Monsanto (and many paid professional writers) as whackos. They never seem to attack the science, but the individuals. There is a ton of money going into discrediting/condemning these two. When you really look at what they've put out (along with Seralini from France, who won a libel suit against Monsanto in Europe), there's a lot of smoke out there. Perhaps why Monsanto is being sold to Bayer?? Only scientists near retirement take on Monsanto. They know if they do, it can kill your career (Monsanto is so powerful in the US).
Thanks for the Round up update
N=1 results mainly all that matters me when me is the ONE.
20 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Good Morning russelljam08,
"Arguing against CICO is like jumping off a building to argue against gravity. You'll lose every time.
I am guessing you're not a highly educated person, and low on the economic ladder(usually this kind of person likes to absolve personal accountability and responsibility, ie it is not MY fault it is someone or something else's fault). Keep believing in magic............I am sure all your dreams will come true.............................someday"
I'm sure you are correct.
In Australia I work in government finance at an entry level of $34 per hour.
Not much, I know, but I hope to improve.
And, I am only in my first year of my doctorate after a degree and a masters.
Again, I am trying to improve.
Don't confuse Simple Writing with Being Simple.
If nastiness and ignorance of others were dollars, I am sure you'd be a wealthy man of Trumpian Proportions.
(There, russelljam08...I mentioned you by name. Now sit back and wait for all your personal likes to come flooding in.)
Cheers from Downunder.
LOL Doctorate sure buddy sure, you can't even understand basic laws of physics, math, nor can you produce any evidence to back up your "theories". LOL
1. Doesn't understand BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL physics and math
2. Doctoral student
Pick one9 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh
Okay...I defend the OP's right to curiosity and her willingness to start a journey towards knowledge.
If she is sincere, her intellectual travels will start somewhere and then, hopefully, if she's not cowed by insults, she may travel to proper and true and verifiable Science.
You Woo-Sayers and Nay-Sayers need to consider your vitriol towards others and think about how you crush hopes and dreams of knowledge and the path to attaining it.
Please.
OP says "is my school teaching nonsense and ripping me off?" Most people: "yeah, seems likely. Consider going to an accredited school that teaches science."
You: "It is wrong to answer that question as OP has a right to curiosity" (except about what people might really think about the question she asked, I guess. "How dare you suggest to OP that there are better schools to study science and satisfy her curiosity. If we just ignore her question or tell her that it's great, everything is great, maybe she will eventually -- after wasting a bunch of time and money -- decide to study science from a legitimate, credible school."
Seriously?
Or if you think I am misreading you, please clarify.10 -
[/quote]
Thanks for the Round up update
N=1 results mainly all that matters me when me is the ONE.[/quote]
Lovely and Respect to you.
Now, All Together Now...in Unison...
"I am an Individual! Go My Team Me! I'm just like Everyone Else and My Story is your Story!!
You cannot have your story because you are wrong.
Go Team Me.
Who is with me???"
*crickets...*
20 -
Yawn, I've seen better trolling from amateur fishermen15
-
Is it possible that NotEmphatic's first language isn't English? That might explain the disconnect between what is posted in this thread and what he is understanding others to say.3
-
Is it possible that NotEmphatic's first language isn't English? That might explain the disconnect between what is posted in this thread and what he is understanding others to say.
I don't think a non English speaker would use a word like emphatic in their screen name though I suppose it's possible. I also considered he is new to forums in general. Either that or he's having fun with us.2 -
-
bummer0
-
Is it possible that NotEmphatic's first language isn't English? That might explain the disconnect between what is posted in this thread and what he is understanding others to say.
I don't think a non English speaker would use a word like emphatic in their screen name though I suppose it's possible. I also considered he is new to forums in general. Either that or he's having fun with us.
I think you're right. The last post of his sounds more like a stereotypical Australian man which means the former posts were deliberately misleading.3 -
Well I want to thank you all for the last ten pages.
Awake in pain and the pain killers not helping but reading this helped take my mind off it.
Alternative medicine maybe 11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions