Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
|
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
katie wrote:
> an interesting article: > > http://www.ivu.org/history/native_americans.html It's also misleading. I'm part Comanche (Penateka, which means "honey eater"). The article says Comanches didn't start living nomadic lifestyles until Europeans arrived. This isn't true. Comanches had been roaming southward long before Europeans arrived. Comanches were nomadic Shoshone tribes ("bands" is more appropriate). The article also says Comanches and others didn't hunt much before Europeans arrived. This, too, is untrue. The role of the bison in Plains Indian life was significant, particularly among nomadic tribes. Hunting and gathering was a very large part of Indian life, especially among nomadic tribes like Comanches. It's hard to be a nomad and also have a garden. Finally, the article mentions Squanto. He taught the Pilgrims to plant corn by using fish as fertilizer. Squanto was no vegetarian. The Pilgrims' first Thanksgiving was not a vegetarian feast, either, as some morons suggest. Here are the two contemporary sources existant. First, Edward Winslow's note dated December 12, 1621: Our corn [i.e., wheat] did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty. The second is from William Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation. They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercising in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports. Note that the meat items were fowl (ducks and geese), wild turkey, five deer, and fish (bass and cod). Note also some of the vegetables (peas) weren't even gathered. Stop revising history and start accepting the truth. The truth may hurt, but never as much as lies. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > katie wrote: > > an interesting article: > > > > http://www.ivu.org/history/native_americans.html > > It's also misleading. I'm part Comanche (Penateka, which means "honey eater"). > The article says Comanches didn't start living nomadic lifestyles until > Europeans arrived. This isn't true. Comanches had been roaming southward long > before Europeans arrived. Comanches were nomadic Shoshone tribes ("bands" is > more appropriate). > > The article also says Comanches and others didn't hunt much before Europeans > arrived. This, too, is untrue. The role of the bison in Plains Indian life was > significant, particularly among nomadic tribes. Hunting and gathering was a very > large part of Indian life, especially among nomadic tribes like Comanches. It's > hard to be a nomad and also have a garden. > > Finally, the article mentions Squanto. He taught the Pilgrims to plant corn by > using fish as fertilizer. Squanto was no vegetarian. The Pilgrims' first > Thanksgiving was not a vegetarian feast, either, as some morons suggest. Here > are the two contemporary sources existant. First, Edward Winslow's note dated > December 12, 1621: > > Our corn [i.e., wheat] did prove well, and God be praised, we > had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent > good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they > were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but > the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten > in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might > after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered > the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much > fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a > week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our > arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest > their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for > three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and > killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and > bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And > although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time > with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want > that we often wish you partakers of our plenty. > > The second is from William Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation. > They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to > fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well > recovered in health and strength and had all things in good > plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, > others were exercising in fishing, about cod and bass and other > fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had > their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began > to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this > place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased > by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of > wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. > Besides they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now > since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many > afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their > friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports. > > Note that the meat items were fowl (ducks and geese), wild turkey, five deer, > and fish (bass and cod). Note also some of the vegetables (peas) weren't even > gathered. > > Stop revising history and start accepting the truth. The truth may hurt, but > never as much as lies. hey, i'm not revising history. just found an interesting article on a topic that i have little knowledge about (native american food&culture history) and decided to post it. if you want to talk about revising history and accepting the truth, why don't you take it up with the article's author? |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
The original peoples of what is now called North America were not healthy on
their cultural diet of dead animals and cooked foods. They got colds and other common ailments of civilised man and developed herbal "remedies" for them. They did not understand health or how to be healthy, if they did, they would not get ill and need remedies. Thousands of these people died of infectious disease needlessy because of their ignorance of how to heal and live healthily. I have never had a cold or flu or any of the common ailments suffered by civilised peoples and their toxic diets since I went raw 7 year ago. I have no need of medicines, herbal or otherwise. This is the natural way. John C |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
> The original peoples of what is now called North America were not healthy on > their cultural diet of dead animals and cooked foods. They got colds and > other common ailments of civilised man and developed herbal "remedies" for > them. They did not understand health or how to be healthy, if they did, they > would not get ill and need remedies. Thousands of these people died of > infectious disease needlessy because of their ignorance of how to heal and > live healthily. Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal? > I have never had a cold or flu or any of the common ailments suffered by > civilised peoples and their toxic diets since I went raw 7 year ago. I have > no need of medicines, herbal or otherwise. Post hoc fallacy. > This is the natural way. Taking vitamin pills to make up for your dietary deficiencies is NOT natural. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
> The original peoples of what is now called North America were not healthy on > their cultural diet of dead animals and cooked foods. Prove it. > > I have never had a cold or flu or any of the common ailments suffered by > civilised peoples and their toxic diets since I went raw 7 year ago. I have > no need of medicines, herbal or otherwise. This is the natural way. Ipse dixit. You idiot polemicist. "Beyond polemics", indeed. Don't make us puke. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> Prove it.
"Native American medicine" look it up on google Medicine is used to treat SICK PEOPLE & most native traditions have very bizarre and elaborate rituals surrounding disease and often develop paranoic false delusions about "evil spirits", and Native Americans are one such group. I would say their paranoid delusions alone are a mental illness. If you have evidence they were healthy then you post that. > Ipse dixit. Stop writing this nonsense, and say something intelligent instead. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, then read a book until you learn something useful. John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal?
this thread is about health and illness, not mortality > Post hoc fallacy. no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret - science is about theories that can be confirmed by observation > Taking vitamin pills to make up for your dietary deficiencies is NOT natural. the biochemistry cares not one hoot if the B12 is from a pill or a bug or a piece of faeces - it is all B12, and our nature requires that stuff - however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>Prove it. > > > "Native American medicine" look it up on google I said YOU prove it. Don't tell me to do your homework. You made a claim; support your claim, or admit you can't. > > Medicine is used to treat SICK PEOPLE Prove *that*, too. > & most native traditions have very > bizarre and elaborate rituals surrounding disease and often develop paranoic > false delusions about "evil spirits", and Native Americans are one such > group. I would say their paranoid delusions alone are a mental illness. > > If you have evidence they were healthy then you post that. > > >>Ipse dixit. > > > Stop writing this nonsense It's not nonsense. You're making an unsupported claim - "it's the natural way" - and refusing to back it up. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal? > > > this thread is about health and illness, not mortality > > >>Post hoc fallacy. > > > no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret - science > is about theories that can be confirmed by observation There is no science, only a very obvious _post hoc_ fallacy: because you allege you haven't had colds or flu since adopting a raw-foods diet 7 years ago, you claim the diet caused it. That's classic _post hoc_ fallacious thinking. You have no peer-reviewed research to back up your assertion that following a foods diet improves health. > > >>Taking vitamin pills to make up for your dietary deficiencies is NOT natural. > > the biochemistry cares not one hoot if the B12 is from a pill or a bug or a > piece of faeces - it is all B12 It's not raw foods when it's a pill. > however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy Ipse dixit, and false. B12 is B12, and meat is not intrinsically unhealthful. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal? > > > this thread is about health and illness, not mortality > > >>Post hoc fallacy. > > > no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret - science > is about theories that can be confirmed by observation Arnold Ehret was no scientist, he was a racist quack, who wrote, among other horseshit, The white race is an unnatural, sick pathological race. First, the colored skin pigment is lacking, due to a lack of coloring mineral salts. Secondly, the blood is continually overfilled by white corpuscles, mucus, and waste with white color, therefore the white appearance of his entire body... The skin pores of the white man are constipated by white, dry mucus...his entire system is filled up and filled out with it. It's no wonder that he looks white, pale and anemic. Everybody knows that an extreme case of paleness is a bad sign. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal? > > this thread is about health and illness, not mortality > > > Post hoc fallacy. > > no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret - science > is about theories that can be confirmed by observation > > > Taking vitamin pills to make up for your dietary deficiencies is NOT > natural. > > the biochemistry cares not one hoot if the B12 is from a pill or a bug or a > piece of faeces - it is all B12, ====================== That wasn't the point. If you consider it unnatural for man to kill and eat meat, then it's far more unnatural to pump oil out of the ground, ship it around the world enhancing the profits of the petro-chemical industry, so that the pharmaceutical industry then can make big batches of pills and containers to then re-ship around the world. It's not the B12 in question, it's the processes whereby you get enough of it. The 'vegan' process of getting b12 is not natural. and our nature requires that stuff - > however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy ======================== But wait, b12 is b12 is b12. How can the b12 from meat be unhealthy? Now, make up your mind, either all b12 is the same, or somehow some of it isn't. > > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal? > > this thread is about health and illness, not mortality You made a claim about mortality: Thousands of these people died of infectious disease needlessy because of their ignorance of how to heal and live healthily. Are you mortal or not? If you die, can we assume that you died of your "ignorance of how to heal and live healthily"? >>Post hoc fallacy. > > no Yes, in its classic form. You wrote: I have never had a cold or flu or any of the common ailments suffered by civilised peoples and their toxic diets since I went raw 7 year ago. Your claim is that your diet caused illness and disease. > a result confirmed by many raw foodists Anecdotal evidence, not from a scientific study utilizing controls. > and documented by Ehret - Ehret's writings touch on metaphysics, not science. And as someone has already kindly pointed out, he was a racist. BTW, what was his educational background and of what academic pursuit was he professor? > science > is about theories that can be confirmed by observation You do not comprehend the scientific method. If you did, you would not have named Ehret as a source. >>Taking vitamin pills to make up for your dietary deficiencies is NOT > natural. > > the biochemistry cares not one hoot if the B12 is from a pill or a bug or a > piece of faeces - it is all B12, and our nature requires that stuff - > however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy What makes B12 from meat or dairy less healthy or desirable than from eating a pile of bullshit, as you seem wont to do? |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> There is no science, only a very obvious _post hoc_
> fallacy: because you allege you haven't had colds or > flu since adopting a raw-foods diet 7 years ago, you > claim the diet caused it. That's classic _post hoc_ > fallacious thinking. It is not. I am an obsessive skeptic, and after a while I went back to eating cooked and processed pseudo foods, I soon started to feel more lethargic and congested. Obviously I hastily reversed course. Similarly when going from vegetarian to vegan I noticed the number of "colds" decreased from 4+ per year to onlt 1-2. Of course there may have been other changes in environment that helped, but I could not see anything other than diet that coudl be so dramatic. When I read other books and testimonies confirming the finding, then the hypothesis is sufficient strong to be acceptable as a fact. > You have no peer-reviewed > research to back up your assertion that following a > foods diet improves health. I don't need to wait for it, I do my own research! > It's not raw foods when it's a pill. It consists of elemental substances which occur naturally the same way in nature. > intrinsically unhealthful. Then why are there so many biological mechanisms to protect creatures from some of the chemicals and pathogens in it? John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> Arnold Ehret was no scientist, he was a racist quack,
> who wrote, among other horseshit, You are right, he was no scientist. But even if a "racist quack" does a good experiment and reports it correctly, he is still right. Similarly one can make some valid observations but create a hypothesis for them based on false assumptions. The white does man often looks a bit of a mess, it's been spotted by quite a few other so called "races". John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>There is no science, only a very obvious _post hoc_ >>fallacy: because you allege you haven't had colds or >>flu since adopting a raw-foods diet 7 years ago, you >>claim the diet caused it. That's classic _post hoc_ >>fallacious thinking. > > > It is not. Yes, it most certainly is. You can point to NO *VERIFIED* causative mechanism in a so-called "raw" diet that would prevent illness. > I am an obsessive skeptic, and after a while I went back to > eating cooked and processed pseudo foods, I soon started to feel more > lethargic and congested. Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN! You *do* realize that no one believes you anyway, don't you? > Obviously I hastily reversed course. Similarly when > going from vegetarian to vegan I noticed the number of "colds" decreased > from 4+ per year to onlt 1-2. _Post hoc_ fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any causation; you are merely inferring it, FALLACIOUSLY. > Of course there may have been other changes in > environment that helped, but I could not see anything other than diet that > coudl be so dramatic. 1. You are not a disinterested observer. 2. You did not follow any scientific method. 3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary investigation. > When I read other books and testimonies confirming the > finding, ....all of which ALSO commit the _post hoc_ fallacy... > then the hypothesis is sufficient strong to be acceptable as a > fact. Absolutely wrong, and laughable. You are seeing what you want to see. You are not a scientific observer. > > >> You have no peer-reviewed >>research to back up your assertion that following a >>foods diet improves health. > > > I don't need to wait for it, I do my own research! You have not conducted anything worthy of the name "research", and what you did has not been peer-reviewed. You are a polemicist, John. > > >>It's not raw foods when it's a pill. > > > It consists of elemental substances which occur naturally the same way in > nature. It's not raw foods, John. > > >>intrinsically unhealthful. > > > Then why are there so many biological mechanisms to protect creatures from > some of the chemicals and pathogens in it? That's highly unethical and dishonest of you to snip out the context, John. Here's the *real* exchange, before you deliberately and unethicaly mangled it: Unethical John Coleman: however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy Woods: Ipse dixit, and false. B12 is B12, and meat is not intrinsically unhealthful. First, why did you deliberately and dishonestly mangle it, John? Second, your question is actually begging the question, and mischaracterizes these alleged "biological mechanisms", and assumes as fact one of your demonstrably WRONG beliefs, that humans are "naturally" frugivores (or whatever you're calling them this week). To the extent that these "mechanisms" exist, they exist to deal with all kinds of pathogens and chemicals, not just those found in or on meat. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
>If you die, can we assume that you died of your > "ignorance of how to heal and live healthily"? If I died of a preventable illness yes. > Anecdotal evidence, not from a scientific study utilizing controls. sometimes "anecdotes" are right > Ehret's writings touch on metaphysics, not science. And as someone has already > kindly pointed out, he was a racist. Even some scientists are racists, so what. > BTW, what was his educational background > and of what academic pursuit was he professor? Do you actually imagine that only people with PhDs discover anything useful? Some of the best discoveries of man did not come from academics. > You do not comprehend the scientific method. If you did, you would not have > named Ehret as a source. His simple "method" discovered a fact that anyone can validate for themselves. > What makes B12 from meat or dairy less healthy or desirable than from eating a > pile of bullshit, as you seem wont to do? cholesterol, saturated fats, trans fats, heme iron, BSE, hyterocyclic amines, numerous epidemiological studies etc.. and it stinks and nausiates me John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>Arnold Ehret was no scientist, he was a racist quack, >>who wrote, among other horseshit, The white race is an unnatural, sick pathological race. First, the colored skin pigment is lacking, due to a lack of coloring mineral salts. Secondly, the blood is continually overfilled by white corpuscles, mucus, and waste with white color, therefore the white appearance of his entire body... The skin pores of the white man are constipated by white, dry mucus...his entire system is filled up and filled out with it. It's no wonder that he looks white, pale and anemic. Everybody knows that an extreme case of paleness is a bad sign. LEAVE the horseshit in, John. There was no legitimate rhetorical purpose served in cutting it out; you cut it out because you're embarrassed to be a slavish follower of a crackpot. > > > You are right, he was no scientist. Then you should be highly skeptical of everything he writes that pretends to be a scientific finding. > But even if a "racist quack" does a good > experiment and reports it correctly, ....which he didn't do... > he is still right. Similarly one can > make some valid observations but create a hypothesis for them based on false > assumptions. > > The white does man often looks a bit of a mess, it's been spotted by quite a > few other so called "races". It's all racist quackery and pseudo-scientific gibberish. Sane people don't believe any of it. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> Yes, it most certainly is. You can point to NO
> *VERIFIED* causative mechanism in a so-called "raw" > diet that would prevent illness. You have pointed to no data that indicates we inherently get ill. Once you stop making yourself sick with the cultural dietary error, the body simply gets well and stays like that, as it does in all other species most of the time. > Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN! simple cause and effect - I did not believe myself ill > You *do* realize that no one believes you anyway, don't > you? I didn't know you read everyones mind. > _Post hoc_ fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any > causation; you are merely inferring it, FALLACIOUSLY. All "causations" are "inferred". > 1. You are not a disinterested observer. true, what scientist is? > 2. You did not follow any scientific method. I removed the suspected causative element, then returned it and observed the results. That is a basic form of science. Now, as for some well controlled confirmation from some academics, I admit we don't have that. But since most of them work for the chemical industry, I double we shall have that. But who cares, it is an accepted foundation of evolutionary biology that we are adapted to the environments of our ancestors. > 3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary > investigation. rubbish, I am the ideal observer - only I experience my daily reality every day, anyone else only gets a sample > Absolutely wrong, and laughable. You are seeing what > you want to see. You are not a scientific observer. I have a good understanding of scientific principles. > You have not conducted anything worthy of the name > "research", and what you did has not been > peer-reviewed. You are a polemicist, John. Irrespective, I am correct. People like you have damned all sorts of correct hypothesis and then were proven wrong later. You are so skeptical that you have become incapable of entertaining a new hypothesis - that excludes you from any real scientific credibility. John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> LEAVE the horseshit in, John. There was no legitimate
> rhetorical purpose served in cutting it out; you cut it > out because you're embarrassed to be a slavish follower > of a crackpot. Perhaps you really do think you can read everyones mind and pretend they are as shallow and obnoxious as you. Ehret was somewhat ignorant, fine. I don't follow his ways at all. And I have never even read his damn book, a friend told me about it, so how did you have me figured as a "follower". You just had to jerk off before you knew any facts because you are so prejudiced. Your volume of prejudice precludes you from useful reasonsing. Professor Ehret allegedly received his degrees at the age of 21, I bet that makes him smarter than you. Ehret was a white German anyway, so you cannot possibly call him racist with credibility - perhaps you could call him an "inverted racist"? http://www.rawfood.com/ehret.html Learn the facts before you insult someone unjustly like that. John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>Yes, it most certainly is. You can point to NO >>*VERIFIED* causative mechanism in a so-called "raw" >>diet that would prevent illness. > > > You have pointed to no data that indicates we inherently get ill. I wasn't asked to do so, and it's not my burden anyway. What's wrong with you? > Once you stop making yourself sick with the cultural dietary error, Ipse dixit. > the body simply > gets well and stays like that, as it does in all other species most of the > time. Ipse dixit. > > >>Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN! > > > simple cause and effect No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you tried. > - I did not believe myself ill > > >>You *do* realize that no one believes you anyway, don't >>you? > > > I didn't know you read everyones mind. I don't, and don't need to do. > > >>_Post hoc_ fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any >>causation; you are merely inferring it, FALLACIOUSLY. > > > All "causations" are "inferred". Your inference is fallacious, and you can't elaborate on any mechanism. You are committing *classic* _post hoc_ fallacious reasoning. > > >>1. You are not a disinterested observer. > > > true, what scientist is? You don't even try to be. > > >>2. You did not follow any scientific method. > > > I removed the suspected causative element, No. You haven't shown how or why it might be causative. You are driven by ideology: you have an ideological need to claim that what humans have done since before they first emerged as a species is "unnatural", thus "bad". You are passing NORMATIVE judgments about "nature", without even having properly identified what nature is. > then returned it and observed the > results. That is a basic form of science. Now, as for some well controlled > confirmation from some academics, I admit we don't have that. But since most > of them work for the chemical industry, I double we shall have that. But who > cares, it is an accepted foundation of evolutionary biology that we are > adapted to the environments of our ancestors. > > >>3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary >>investigation. > > > rubbish, I am the ideal observer You have no competence WHATEVER in any of the relevant sciences. > > >>Absolutely wrong, and laughable. You are seeing what >>you want to see. You are not a scientific observer. > > > I have a good understanding of scientific principles. I doubt that. You have no training in any formal science. > > >>You have not conducted anything worthy of the name >>"research", and what you did has not been >>peer-reviewed. You are a polemicist, John. > > > Irrespective, I am correct. Ipse dixit. False, too. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>If you die, can we assume that you died of your >>"ignorance of how to heal and live healthily"? > > If I died of a preventable illness yes. Cholera is preventable. So is salmonella and E coli. All three with great frequency infect those who eat raw produce. >>Anecdotal evidence, not from a scientific study utilizing controls. > > sometimes "anecdotes" are right But they are *not* science. >>Ehret's writings touch on metaphysics, not science. And as someone has > already >>kindly pointed out, he was a racist. > > Even some scientists are racists, so what. Ehret was not a scientist. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the fact that Ehret's works touched on metaphysics rather than science. His racism, though, did permeate his metaphysical views which you've adopted as "science." >>BTW, what was his educational background >>and of what academic pursuit was he professor? > > Do you actually imagine that only people with PhDs discover anything useful? > Some of the best discoveries of man did not come from academics. That isn't the issue. I just want everyone who reads our little exchanges to understand whom Arnold Ehret was and what he taught. Answer my question. >>You do not comprehend the scientific method. If you did, you would not > have >>named Ehret as a source. > > His simple "method" Was not scientific. > discovered a fact No, it's not a fact. > that anyone can validate for > themselves. Ipse dixit. >>What makes B12 from meat or dairy less healthy or desirable than from > eating a >>pile of bullshit, as you seem wont to do? > > cholesterol, Serum cholesterol is overwhelmingly a factor of endogenous factors, not diet. Some dietary cholesterol, such as that from cold water fish, is healthful and helps reduce LDL. > saturated fats, Not all meat is high in saturated fats. What is wrong with getting B12 from lean meats? > trans fats, Not found in meat or dairy, dumb ass. Transfats are found in hydrogenated VEGETABLE oils. You ****ing DOPE. > heme iron, More easily absorbed than non-heme. Dietary factors that can reduce non-heme iron absorption include phytates (found in grains, legumes, and rice); soy protein and soy fiber; oxalates (found in spinach); and tannic acid (found in teas and coffee). Calcium (found in dairy products) can reduce the absorption of both non-heme and heme iron (1). http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/InfoSheets/iron.htm And before you make claims about vitamin C and non-heme absorption: Effect of ascorbic acid intake on nonheme-iron absorption from a complete diet.... CONCLUSIONS: The facilitating effect of vitamin C on iron absorption from a complete diet is far less pronounced than that from single meals. These findings may explain why several prior studies did not show a significant effect on iron status of prolonged supplementation with vitamin C. http://tinyurl.com/wwpr What benefits absorption of non-heme? Try meat. In one study, non-heme iron was absorbed more easily in the presence of heme iron from meat. The study showed that just eating 50 or 75 grams (about an eighth of a pound) of pork increased nonheme absorption by 44% to 57% (respectively on 50g and 75g trials). http://tinyurl.com/x8b2 > BSE, Very rare, and even more rare when one doesn't eat mince or other ground products. > hyterocyclic amines, Heterocyclic, you moron. And you still have no clue about HCAs. You throw the phrase around as a catch-all, when the issue is quite minor. > numerous epidemiological studies etc.. Oh, perhaps you should consider the epidemiological data about raw, unpasteurized produce and juices. Those make more people sick each year than meat and dairy do. > and it stinks Fresh meat does not stink. > and nausiates me Psychosomatic (heavy emphasis on PSYCHO). |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
The orthorexic John Coleman wrote:
>>LEAVE the horseshit in, John. There was no legitimate >>rhetorical purpose served in cutting it out; you cut it >>out because you're embarrassed to be a slavish follower >>of a crackpot. > > > Perhaps you really do think you can read everyones mind and pretend they are > as shallow and obnoxious as you. I just want you to stop with the unethical editing, Orthorexic John, and also stop removing the name of the person to whom you're replying. It shouldn't be so hard for you to be more ethical. > > Ehret was somewhat ignorant, fine. I don't follow his ways at all. And I > have never even read his damn book, a friend told me about it, so how did > you have me figured as a "follower". Because you cited him, and because you follow a so-called "raw diet" regime, and he was one of the first to advocate it. You may have begun your descent into orthorexia ignorant of Ehret, but you learned of him and cited him. > You just had to jerk off before you > knew any facts because you are so prejudiced. Oh, now the thin veneer of civility slides right off you. Nice. > Your volume of prejudice > precludes you from useful reasonsing. Professor Ehret I thought you admitted he was no scientist?! Why are you now emphasizing his academic credentials, when they undoubtedly are not related to his blathering about diet? > allegedly received his > degrees at the age of 21, I bet that makes him smarter than you. Allegedly, it might. It's also irrelevant. Lots of very smart people get things very wrong because of fundamental flaws in their reasoning ability. He was one. > > Ehret was a white German anyway, so you cannot possibly call him racist with > credibility - perhaps you could call him an "inverted racist"? That's not unknown. Read Tom Wolfe's outstanding book, "Radical Chic / Mau-mauing the Flack-Catchers". |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you
> tried. The cause of the common cold is consumption of processed, refined, or otherwise concentrated foods - or as Ehret put it "mucus forming foods". > I don't, and don't need to do. this contradicts your prior false claim that "no one" believes me. > Your inference is fallacious, and you can't elaborate > on any mechanism. You are committing *classic* _post > hoc_ fallacious reasoning. Darwin could not elaborate on any mechanism for inheritance, his theory was still good enough. All scientific theories go through stages of development. None are born perfect, go study some real science. However, I do have an idea of how certain foods may promote the mucus syndrome that leads to a "common cold". It may have to do with undigested particles in certain foods passing eventually into the lymphatic system, and then onto some surfaces of the body where they cause reactions leading to inflammation and thus mucus formation. In other words, mechanical irritation. > You don't even try to be. Now how do you know that? You don't have access to my private thoughts. I could have been trying for years to think of alternative explanations, or reasons I may get my observations wrong. Nowadays I only have to eat more than a few nuts, or a some dried flax crackers and I get some mucus within a few minutes. It happens that fast now. > No. You haven't shown how or why it might be > causative. This is quite irrelivant. One can postulate a valid cause/effect theory without knowing a mechanism, or anything about science. I don't need to know the many phsyical laws relating to electronics to figure out that hitting the "on" button makes the damn thing work. > You are driven by ideology: I have no interest in any ideology of any sort what so ever, and detest ideology of any kind. I gave up doing dogma before I was 25, and approached life with an experimental method 7 years ago. That is how I managed to get this far out from the crowd. > ideological need to claim that what humans have done > since before they first emerged as a species is A "species" is a taxanomic category created by humans - it is a fixed and abstract form with no basis in reality. Humans did not "emerge as a species", we (still) evolve through gradual change like anything else. > "unnatural", thus "bad". You are passing NORMATIVE > judgments about "nature", without even having properly > identified what nature is. We evolved naturally until we first had a state of mind where we began to experiment in such a way as to alter our environment in ways that are not in the interest of our survival. Most creatures, the "natural" ones, perform behaviour that is in the interest of their welfare and survival. Cultural humans are doing precisely the opposite. Humans evolve mind instead, and that sets its own, independant of survival, destructive path of progress. > You have no competence WHATEVER in any of the relevant > sciences. Now how do you know that? There are just so many mind readers on this list. > I doubt that. You have no training in any formal science. You truly are a mind reader - do you also read palms? You are some kind of psychic? One thing a good scientist never does is presume to know. John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> 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. We are talking about the testimonies of many people. Ehret also did crude trials of his system on others and got the same effect. That diet is a factor in common cold causation is not disputed by scientific medicine BTW, although there are many other factors that are part of the overall picture. > You are the former but not the latter. You are quite gullible. ahah, another mind reading expert, throw away your chrystal ball > 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. > 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. 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. > 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. You are talking about a very thorough method, that is good science, but even simple methods applied systematically can pick out causation. > By you, but not by educated people familiar with the scientific method. yes, most people can fairly remain doubtful > 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 > 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... John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> > I don't follow his ways at all.
> > YOU cited him, numbnuts. so what, I could cite Adolf Hitler and not eat his diet > OOOOOOOOOOH... I see. So this is all third-hand sourcing of yours. Very > interesting that you throw out sources without actually knowing a damn thing > about it or the author. Only what I have read from various abstracts and discussions. > Maybe it's your admission that you throw out (any!!!!!!) sources supportive of > your view without any actual familiarity with them. without any actual familiarity??? I am familiar with his concepts, and their flaws. > Face it, you're on a faddish > bandwagon No sir, raw food eating is what ALL other species do - there is no "fad". Culture is the fad, the failure - the "cult". > now we have an admission that you rely on Ehret through hearsay. THAT, and that > ALONE, makes you a follower. What a ****ing joke! To follow suggests blind faith. To suggest a person is a follower is to intimate you read their private thoughts. Put away your crystal ball. > Are you sure your biases, based on following the hearsay of others, isn't > leading you to that state yourself? Ehret's ideas are reproduced all over the web in bits and pieces, however that is not my original source. J |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> The orthorexic John Coleman wrote:
"Orthorexia Nervosa", is that a scientific concept, or a dumb name for people unfortunate to be ignorant enough to starve themselves? Anyway, why should I "name" someone who insults and characatures me? And I thought on a ng people can follow this thread back if they want the pain. > Allegedly, it might. It's also irrelevant. Lots of > very smart people get things very wrong because of > fundamental flaws in their reasoning ability. He was one. and you another > That's not unknown. Read Tom Wolfe's outstanding book, > "Radical Chic / Mau-mauing the Flack-Catchers". Plenty of folk mock their own race, usually they are not considered racist, some even make a career of it. This is just another of your pointless distractions J |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
> Gullible people like you may buy into Ehret's pseudoscience and even adopt
a > subtle form of Ehret's racist views, but his works lack any scientific merit. yes, they lack any merit by modern standards, and were poor even by his own time - but he was still on the right tracks John |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
usual suspect>
> Cholera is preventable. So is salmonella and E coli. All three with great > frequency infect those who eat raw produce. raw meat maybe > No, it's not a fact. not a _widely accepted_ fact > Serum cholesterol is overwhelmingly a factor of endogenous factors, not diet. So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet? How come vegans have lower cholesterol than "omnivores". Obviously diet is a big factor. "Although saturated fat is the main dietary culprit that raises LDL, trans fat and dietary cholesterol also contribute significantly." http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html > Some dietary cholesterol, such as that from cold water fish, is healthful and > helps reduce LDL. My LDL is 1, what is the LDL of a fish eater? > Not all meat is high in saturated fats. What is wrong with getting B12 from lean > meats? heme iron , HCAs, the waste, it tastes and smells gross > Not found in meat or dairy, dumb ass. Transfats are found in hydrogenated > VEGETABLE oils. You ****ing DOPE. nope, found in meat and dairy as well http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html please don't lecture on food science, or indeed science > More easily absorbed than non-heme. yes and a pro oxidant implicated in many degenerative diseases http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp?pg=iron > from single meals. These findings may explain why several prior > studies did not show a significant effect on iron status of > prolonged supplementation with vitamin C. adding vitamin C to the diet is part of many national programs to increase iron uptake and is effective in vegetarian diets > What benefits absorption of non-heme? Try meat. You don't need heme iron, no one does. > Heterocyclic, you moron. And you still have no clue about HCAs. You throw the > phrase around as a catch-all, when the issue is quite minor. HCAs are implicated in cancer, not very minor. > Fresh meat does not stink. true, the cooking makes it gross, but then you need that to make it less of a health risk > Psychosomatic (heavy emphasis on PSYCHO). Look you've posted serious factual errors in this one. Why don't you find somewhere else where it is easier for you to maintain cred? Your consistent posting of factual errors, propaganda and insults means I am blocking your address. J |
|
|||
|
|||
what's the matter john? isn't b12, b12 anymore?
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal? > > this thread is about health and illness, not mortality > > > Post hoc fallacy. > > no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret - science > is about theories that can be confirmed by observation > > > Taking vitamin pills to make up for your dietary deficiencies is NOT > natural. > > the biochemistry cares not one hoot if the B12 is from a pill or a bug or a > piece of faeces - it is all B12, ====================== That wasn't the point. If you consider it unnatural for man to kill and eat meat, then it's far more unnatural to pump oil out of the ground, ship it around the world enhancing the profits of the petro-chemical industry, so that the pharmaceutical industry then can make big batches of pills and containers to then re-ship around the world. It's not the B12 in question, it's the processes whereby you get enough of it. The 'vegan' process of getting b12 is not natural. and our nature requires that stuff - > however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy > ======================== But wait, b12 is b12 is b12. How can the b12 from meat be unhealthy? Now, make up your mind, either all b12 is the same, or somehow some of it isn't. > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
Orthorexic John Coleman wrote:
>>No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you >>tried. > > > The cause of the common cold is consumption of processed, refined, or > otherwise concentrated foods - or as Ehret put it "mucus forming foods". Ipse dixit, and wrong. Doctors and other CREDENTIALED medical researchers - that excludes you - say the common cold is caused by rhinoviruses. If a rhinovirus gets into your nasal passages and begins reproducing, you will get a cold. YOU get colds, Orthorexic John - stop lying about it. > > >>I don't, and don't need to do. > > > this contradicts your prior false claim that "no one" believes me. False. > > >>Your inference is fallacious, and you can't elaborate >>on any mechanism. You are committing *classic* _post >>hoc_ fallacious reasoning. > > > Darwin could not elaborate on any mechanism for inheritance, That's false. > his theory was > still good enough. All scientific theories go through stages of development. Not that YOU'D know - you don't know any truly scientific theories, preferring to dwell in the land of pure ideology. > None are born perfect, go study some real science. You go do it. I have done already, and it's obvious you never have. > However, I do have an > idea of how certain foods may promote the mucus syndrome that leads to a > "common cold". No, you don't. > >>You don't even try to be. > > > Now how do you know that? You don't have access to my private thoughts. Actually, I do: you reveal them here. >>No. You haven't shown how or why it might be >>causative. > > > This is quite irrelivant. It's the ONLY relevant thing, you idiot. We are ADDRESSING causation, fool. > > >> You are driven by ideology: > > > I have no interest in any ideology of any sort what so ever, and detest > ideology of any kind. That's a lie. Your entire belief system about food and "natural" diet IS ideology. > > >>ideological need to claim that what humans have done >>since before they first emerged as a species is > > > A "species" is a taxanomic category created by humans - it is a fixed and > abstract form with no basis in reality. It does have a basis in reality, Orthorexic John: Humans are real, and humans rationally have devised "species" as an explanatory tool. "Species" is real. > Humans did not "emerge as a species", The sciences of zoology, anthropology, biology and genetics dispute you. As you have no training in any of those, I'll go with the Ph.D.s in those fields, who find "species" to be a useful concept. You are incompetent. > we (still) evolve through gradual change like anything else. > > >>"unnatural", thus "bad". You are passing NORMATIVE >>judgments about "nature", without even having properly >>identified what nature is. > > > We evolved naturally until we first had a state of mind where we began to > experiment in such a way as to alter our environment in ways that are not in > the interest of our survival. Most creatures, the "natural" ones, perform > behaviour that is in the interest of their welfare and survival. Cultural > humans are doing precisely the opposite. Ipse dixit, and wrong. You are merely restating that which you are tasked to prove. You are failing. > > >>You have no competence WHATEVER in any of the relevant >>sciences. > > > Now how do you know that? We ALL know it. You have no competence in any of the relevant sciences. Please feel free to trot out your credentials, WITH names and phone numbers of responsible persons at the accredited universities where you took your degrees. > > >>I doubt that. You have no training in any formal science. > > > You truly are a mind reader No, Orthorexic John. I'm just very, very good at spotting charlatans and flim-flam artists. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
Orthorexic John Coleman wrote:
>>>I don't follow his ways at all. >> >>YOU cited him, numbnuts. > > > so what, I could cite Adolf Hitler and not eat his diet You cited Ehret because you DO eat his diet, idiot. > > >>OOOOOOOOOOH... I see. So this is all third-hand sourcing of yours. Very >>interesting that you throw out sources without actually knowing a damn >>thing about it or the author. > > > Only what I have read from various abstracts and discussions. Liar. > > >>Maybe it's your admission that you throw out (any!!!!!!) sources supportive of >>your view without any actual familiarity with them. > > > without any actual familiarity??? I am familiar with his concepts, and their > flaws. You've read him. > > >>Face it, you're on a faddish bandwagon > > > No sir, raw food eating is what ALL other species do argumentum ad numerum > > >>now we have an admission that you rely on Ehret through hearsay. THAT, and >>that ALONE, makes you a follower. What a ****ing joke! > > > To follow suggests blind faith. To suggest a person is a follower is to > intimate you read their private thoughts. Put away your crystal ball. Drop your accusations of mindreading, Orthorexic John; they're going nowhere. We know what you think because you tell us. Oh, you don't believe you're telling us, but you are; believe me, you are. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
I just want you to stop with the unethical editing,
Orthorexic John, and also stop removing the name of the person to whom you're replying. It shouldn't be so hard for you to be more ethical. John Coleman wrote: >>The orthorexic John Coleman wrote: > > > "Orthorexia Nervosa", is that a scientific concept, Yes. > or a dumb name for > people unfortunate to be ignorant enough to starve themselves? Anyway, why > should I "name" someone who insults and characatures me? And I thought on a > ng people can follow this thread back if they want the pain. > > >>Allegedly, it might. It's also irrelevant. Lots of >>very smart people get things very wrong because of >>fundamental flaws in their reasoning ability. He was one. > > > and you another Nope. I'm not advancing any theory. I'm showing that you are a blind, ignorant follower of a crackpot's discredited "theories". > > >>That's not unknown. Read Tom Wolfe's outstanding book, >>"Radical Chic / Mau-mauing the Flack-Catchers". > > > Plenty of folk mock their own race, usually they are not considered racist "racist" simply means seeing things as being caused by race that are not. Ehret was a racist. I suspect you are, too. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you >>tried. > > The cause of the common cold is consumption of processed, refined, or > otherwise concentrated foods - Prove it. > or as Ehret put it "mucus forming foods". Ehret didn't know shit, and you've already admitted you haven't actually read his works yourself. Nitwit. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
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. > 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. > Ehret also did crude > trials of his system on others and got the same effect. You've not even read his works. 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. > 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. >>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
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. > |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
usual suspect wrote:
> Orthorexic John Coleman wrote: > >> 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. My diet varies but little. I eat meat in moderation, very little dairy, starches, vegetables, and some (probably not enough) fruit. I drink lots of coffee, some beer and wine, the very rare soda. Some years I get several colds; other years I don't get any. In the early 1990s I got enough colds that a then-girlfriend thought I was basically "sickly" (despite getting on my bicycle and riding in and finishing the Solvang Century with no training whatever.) From 1996 up to about 2000 I think I had maybe one cold. I have no idea what caused the difference, except that I ditched that toxic girlfriend. A diet that is unbalanced and doesn't provide what are recognized to be important, if not essential, nutrients will probably make one more susceptible to colds; that doesn't mean it "causes" colds. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>> 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. > > My diet varies but little. I eat meat in moderation, very little dairy, > starches, vegetables, and some (probably not enough) fruit. I drink > lots of coffee, some beer and wine, the very rare soda. Some years I > get several colds; other years I don't get any. There are a lot of possible explanations, including already having antibodies for prevailing bugs, stress, etc. Your experience may change a bit when your son starts school and brings home new bugs from his classmates. > In the early 1990s I > got enough colds that a then-girlfriend thought I was basically "sickly" > (despite getting on my bicycle and riding in and finishing the Solvang > Century with no training whatever.) I'm impressed. > From 1996 up to about 2000 I think > I had maybe one cold. I have no idea what caused the difference, except > that I ditched that toxic girlfriend. Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any, or even if you perceived it as a stressful relationship (a lot of people do feel better after dumping Mr or Miss Wrong). It's also possible she was a Typhoid Mary of sorts, especially if she worked around sickly people herself. > A diet that is unbalanced and doesn't provide what are recognized to be > important, if not essential, nutrients will probably make one more > susceptible to colds; that doesn't mean it "causes" colds. Correct. Coleman, though, will only dodge around that as he's already done by stating that there are other factors. What a dumb ****. |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
John Coleman wrote:
>>>I don't follow his ways at all. >> >>YOU cited him, numbnuts. > > so what, I could cite Adolf Hitler and not eat his diet You already do. Hitler was vegetarian. >>OOOOOOOOOOH... I see. So this is all third-hand sourcing of yours. Very >>interesting that you throw out sources without actually knowing a damn > thing >>about it or the author. > > Only what I have read from various abstracts and discussions. Don't you think you need more than abstracts (nothing but brief summaries; the devil's always in the details) or second-hand banter from discussions? >>Maybe it's your admission that you throw out (any!!!!!!) sources > supportive of >>your view without any actual familiarity with them. > > without any actual familiarity??? Yes. > I am familiar with his concepts, Vaguely, and second-hand. > and their flaws. Also from second-hand discussion? >>Face it, you're on a faddish >>bandwagon > > No sir, raw food eating is what ALL other species do - Operative word: OTHER. You're not a koala or a panda. You're human. Our species has some genetic disposition (via natural selection) toward cooked food. Your lineage traces back through folks who cooked their food, not through raw foodists. That's why your bloodwork and urine are shitty so you have to take supplements. > there is no "fad". That is all it is. You might have an argument if you'd descended directly from raw food eaters. You did not. > Culture is the fad, the failure - the "cult". Not at all. You're ignoring nature and evolution. >>now we have an admission that you rely on Ehret through hearsay. THAT, and > that >>ALONE, makes you a follower. What a ****ing joke! > > To follow suggests blind faith. Exactly! That's what you have! > To suggest a person is a follower is to > intimate you read their private thoughts. That doesn't follow. I base my claim on your own admissions about Ehret and your shortcomings in medical tests. > Put away your crystal ball. I don't need one to understand you. >>Are you sure your biases, based on following the hearsay of others, isn't >>leading you to that state yourself? > > Ehret's ideas are reproduced all over the web in bits and pieces, > however that is not my original source. Your entire loony notion about your dietary paradigm is made up of bits and pieces. How fitting! |
|
|||
|
|||
native americans and vegetarianism
usual suspect wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>>> 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. >> >> >> My diet varies but little. I eat meat in moderation, very little >> dairy, starches, vegetables, and some (probably not enough) fruit. I >> drink lots of coffee, some beer and wine, the very rare soda. Some >> years I get several colds; other years I don't get any. > > > There are a lot of possible explanations, including already having > antibodies for prevailing bugs, stress, etc. Your experience may change > a bit when your son starts school and brings home new bugs from his > classmates. I expect it to change :-( I was aware of the phenomenon decades ago. It further refutes Orthorexic John's bogus claim: the parents' diets don't change when their kids begin going to (and bringing illnesses home from) school. > >> In the early 1990s I got enough colds that a then-girlfriend thought I >> was basically "sickly" (despite getting on my bicycle and riding in >> and finishing the Solvang Century with no training whatever.) > > > I'm impressed. I didn't ride it in a very good time, and the following year, with a moderate amount of training, I shaved over an hour and a half off the riding time. The point was, on just a plain-ol' Californian diet, and despite getting my share of colds, I could just "do it". The following year, on the same diet but with some training, I "did it" even better. Orthorexic John doesn't know what he's talking about. > >> From 1996 up to about 2000 I think I had maybe one cold. I have no >> idea what caused the difference, except that I ditched that toxic >> girlfriend. > > > Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any, Truckloads. > or even if > you perceived it as a stressful relationship Very. > (a lot of people do feel > better after dumping Mr or Miss Wrong). It's also possible she was a > Typhoid Mary of sorts, especially if she worked around sickly people > herself. Mostly she didn't work. That was a big part of the problem; way more to it that preceded my foolish involvement with her. > >> A diet that is unbalanced and doesn't provide what are recognized to >> be important, if not essential, nutrients will probably make one more >> susceptible to colds; that doesn't mean it "causes" colds. > > > Correct. Coleman, though, will only dodge around that as he's already > done by stating that there are other factors. What a dumb ****. I don't know if orthorexia causes dumb-****edness or is a symptom of it, but for sure there's a relationship. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
vegie/native balancing | Vegan | |||
A Few Native American Recipes | Recipes (moderated) | |||
Native Cuisine Coming To PBS | General Cooking | |||
Native Cuisine Coming To PBS | Historic | |||
Native Cuisine Coming To PBS | Mexican Cooking |