usual suspect wrote:

> John Coleman wrote:
>
>>> It is. Your testimony doesn't diminish the fact, it only confirms it.
>>
>>
>> If we were just talking about my testimony, I would agree, but we are
>> not.
>
>
> It is anecdotal, not scientific. It is just your testimony.

More like his testi-lying.

>
>> We are talking about the testimonies of many people.
>
>
> Anecdotes are not scientific. It is just testimony. A mile-high pile of
> anecdotal testimony is not scientific, it's still anecdotal.

I forget who first said it: "The plural of 'anecdote'
is not 'data'."

Orthorexic John has no data.

>
>> Ehret also did crude
>> trials of his system on others and got the same effect.
>
>
> You've not even read his works.

He's lying. He has read Ehret.

> Stop spreading your bullshit hearsay.
> Ehret was a crank. So are you.
>
>> That diet is a
>> factor in common cold causation is not disputed by scientific medicine
>
>
> Prove it.

Heh heh heh...Anyway, "is a factor" is not the same as
"causes".

>
>> BTW,
>> although there are many other factors that are part of the overall
>> picture.
>
>
> Damn right there are, like contact with the virus which causes it.
>
>>> You are the former but not the latter. You are quite gullible.
>>
>>
>> ahah, another mind reading expert, throw away your chrystal ball
>
>
> You are gullible, and no crystal ball was needed to figure that out.

He's worse than gullible. He is deliberately stupid.
He *embraces* crackpot ideas precisely because they are
crackpot ideas.

>
>>> Since you failed to account for anything else, why base it upon diet? We
>>
>> already
>>
>>> have your answer:
>>
>>
>> Tell us why you don't think crummy diets contribute to the common cold.
>
>
> Your claim wasn't about generically "crummy" diets. People who eat junk
> foods are acquire illnesses, no doubt. So do people who eat healthful
> diets. I know people who eat meat and consume dairy and wheat --
> so-called mucus-forming foods according to you and Ehret -- but who are
> seldom if ever ill. I know raw vegans who are always suffering from
> something, including occasional bouts of food poisoning. Your thesis is
> ****ed by science and by anecdotes.
>
>>> You're a drama queen, no doubt, but this was hardly a scientific
>>
>> experiment AND
>>
>>> you failed to weed out extraneous variables which may have been fully or
>>> partially responsible for any changes.
>>
>>
>> Of course you are right, there are many variables involved, I did not
>> just
>> change diet alone.
>
>
> Yet you attribute diet for all or most benefit. Why?
>
>> There was a feature on the common cold on TV recently,
>> the Dr. mentioned a list of over 8 contributing factors. They even had
>> a guy
>> on who never had a cold in over 8 years. He was not a raw foodist either.
>
>
> So your theory is ****ed.
>
>>> Exogenous sources do not confirm intuitive findings. That is NOT the
>>
>> scientific
>>
>>> method, Coleman -- it's the opposite.
>>
>>
>> It depends by what you mean by scientific method.
>
>
> How many scientific methods are there?
>
>> You are talking about a
>> very thorough method, that is good science, but even simple methods
>> applied
>> systematically can pick out causation.
>
>
> Ipse dixit. Simpler methods, such as your own, are prone to bias,
> especially when you're both the observer and the subject.
>
>>> By you, but not by educated people familiar with the scientific method.
>>
>>
>> yes, most people can fairly remain doubtful
>
>
> Especially given the parameters of your self-reported findings.
>
>>> No, you do not. It's not research. Your expermentation on yourself has
>>
>> nothing
>>
>>> to do with the scientific method, as noted above.
>>
>>
>> again, depends on what you call method
>
>
> How many are there?
>
>>> It's unnatural. See other thread for my response about why your use of
>>
>> pills is
>>
>>> medicinal.
>>
>>
>> raw food is unnatural?? well I'll take a look at that thread...
>
>
> A 100% raw diet is unnatural for humans.
>