You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's wild claims about
his cholesterol levels. I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
integrity that you'd urge him to come clean. You said that my skepticism about
the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem,"
but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud.

He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he
now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol,
at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he
has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his
anecdotal claims? By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times
(and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof"
for many of your own claims. I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.

Coleman said:
> So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?

I replied:

First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.

I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's
yours?
-- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2

Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new
website to prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing
liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or
testiLYING.

Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc
fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but
raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your
previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy
and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such
a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
credit, not raw food.

Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his
claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove
his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all
his other distortions of his health (we also know now that he is B12 and D
deficient), and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one
about his cholesterol. I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus." This deserves an answer.

usual suspect wrote:
> You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's wild claims
> about his cholesterol levels. I'd hoped you were serious enough and had
> enough integrity

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Good one!

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's

As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health matters,
unless asked to of course. Of course you have no such decency.

> wild claims about his cholesterol levels.

Ipse dixit. John has given me no reason to doubt his word, unlike you.

> I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
> integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.

You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.

> You said that my skepticism about
> the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem,"

It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites posted, nor any of his material.

> but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud.

You wish. YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.

> He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he
> now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol,
> at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he
> has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his
> anecdotal claims?

I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote. Neither do you. You're grasping.

> By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times
> (and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof"
> for many of your own claims.

And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific resource, so it is.

> I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.

Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort yourself out, kiddo.

> Coleman said:
> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?
>
> I replied:
>
> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
>
> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's
> yours?
> -- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2
>
> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new
> website to prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing
> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or
> testiLYING.

Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging storm for all we care.

> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc
> fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but
> raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your
> previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
> amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy
> and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such
> a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
> credit, not raw food.

I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
serum cholesterol levels, beyond different quantities of dietary
macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production, precipitated
by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )

['Cooked food passes through the digestive tract more slowly
than raw food, tends to ferment, and throws poisons back into
the body. [..] Of course, it is important to have fiber in the diet
to scrub the colon walls clean, but even more important are the
enzymes which will allow proper digestion and assimilation of
vital nutrients. Cooked food often passes into the bloodstream
as unsplit molecules that are deposited, as waste, in various
parts of the body. [..] Raw foods do not produce this reaction.
All raw foods contain exactly the right enzymes required to split
every last molecule into the basic building blocks of metabolism:
Amino acids (from protein), glucose (from complex carbohydrates)
and essential fatty acids (from unsaturated vegetable fats). '
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/rawfood.htm]

> Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his
> claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove
> his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all
> his other distortions of his health

You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're projecting.

> (we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),

How do you know that?

> and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one
> about his cholesterol.

Ipse dixit.

> I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
> as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."

And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in the future.

> This deserves an answer.

What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread, 'usual'?
http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr...ermit.esat.net

It deserves an answer from you.

pearl wrote:
>>You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's
>
> As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health matters,
> unless asked to of course. Of course you have no such decency.

He, like other charlatans who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty
ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his posts already provided.

>>wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
>
> Ipse dixit.

Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that his cholesterol was "a
shade over 2[00]." He claimed last week that it had been over twice that high --
which is a level of cholesterol that is very rare and is usually accompanied by
a variety of visible symptoms, including yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm

> John has given me no reason to doubt his word, unlike you.

This is an instance where you should ask him to support his word. He made his
claims voluntarily, and offered them as evidence that his diet is beneficial. I
*don't* take his word for it. I can't. I've dealt with too many people with FH
and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to know that diet alone does
nothing to change it.

>>I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
>>integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
>
> You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.

No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert. One of your primary
sources has made some claims which are incongruent with medical science. He made
his claims voluntarily and in the context of being "proof" about his diet's
benefits. He really should prove it with factual evidence, not just "take my
word for it" -- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."

>>You said that my skepticism about
>>the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem,"
>
> It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites posted,

Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself. Why did he not
respond with any proofs other than a regurgitation of what he heard, second hand
no less, about a racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked what
Ehret's educational background was in, and what he was "professor" of. The best
he could do was say something to the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret"
after he'd been referring to him incessantly.

> nor any of his material.

I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so dispirited that he
announced he was killfiling me.

>>but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud.
>
> You wish.

He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't been heard from since.

> YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.

Never.

>>He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he
>>now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol,
>>at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he
>>has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his
>>anecdotal claims?
>
> I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.

Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again, Lesley. Take a look at the
case studies of people with cholesterol in excess of 300.

> Neither do you. You're grasping.

I have every reason in the world to doubt that his cholesterol was *ever* above
400, much less above 240.

>>By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times
>>(and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof"
>>for many of your own claims.
>
> And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific resource, so it is.

It's as flaky as he is.

>>I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
>
> Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort yourself out, kiddo.

Superior knowledge? Of what subject?

>>Coleman said:
>> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?
>>
>>I replied:
>>
>> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
>>
>> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's
>> yours?
>> -- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2
>>
>> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new
>> website to prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing
>> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or
>> testiLYING.
>
> Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging storm for all we care.

Feel the love. Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his claims, which he made
in public and voluntarily?

>> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc
>> fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but
>> raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your
>> previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
>> amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy
>> and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such
>> a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
>> credit, not raw food.
>
> I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
> but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
> serum cholesterol levels,

That's an understatement. That's not just a large change, it's of such a
magnitude that he'd deserve status of a case study in one of the cardiology
journals. People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's even more
rare when their cholesterol is lowered to "normal" levels. His claim of it being
*over 400* puts him off the bloody ****ing chart. Do you not understand that?

> beyond different quantities of dietary
> macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
> disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production, precipitated
> by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
> versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
> ('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
> cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
> disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
> http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )

Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration, more like it.

<...>
>>Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his
>>claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove
>>his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all
>>his other distortions of his health
>
> You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're projecting.

I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.

>>(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
>
> How do you know that?

His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can search his posts there
and read for yourself.

>>and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one
>>about his cholesterol.
>
> Ipse dixit.

Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a liar, a fraud.

>>I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
>>as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
>
> And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in the future.

As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only fitting that you cite
him and his exaggerated claims.

>>This deserves an answer.
>
> What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread, 'usual'?
> http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr...ermit.esat.net
>
> It deserves an answer from you.

No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a response.

pearl wrote:
<...>
> I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
> but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
> serum cholesterol levels, beyond different quantities of dietary
> macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
> disorder affecting indigenous

ENDOGENOUS. Dipshit.

> cholesterol production, precipitated
> by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
> versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
> ('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
> cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
> disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
> http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )
<...>

usual suspect wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
>
>> I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
>> but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
>> serum cholesterol levels, beyond different quantities of dietary
>> macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
>> disorder affecting indigenous
>
>
> ENDOGENOUS. Dipshit.

Haw haw haw! What did you expect from a whore/foot
masseuse?

>
>> cholesterol production, precipitated

"precipitated" - haw haw haw! What a ****ing bonehead!

>> by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
>> versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
>> ('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
>> cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
>> disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
>> http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )

Lesley has ZERO education or expertise in anything to
do with health. She has never attended university,
didn't even do biology in whatever sort of post
elementary schooling she began (and didn't finish), and
she doesn't have any idea what she's talking about.
That's why she's so scattershot.

My cholesterol was assessed by the Hammersmith Hospital and advised to me in
person before the end of the study. This was after about 10 years as a
regular cooked vegan and 2 years on a high raw diet.

TC was 3.61, HDL-c 1.21 and LDL-c 2.14. All within "normal" ranges and
within the ranges reported for the other vegans in the group.

Last year I got results from a new study at Kings College London on vegans
and omnivores that I was a subject in. The results were TC 2.4, HDL-c 1 and
LDL-c 1. A far better result and similar to ones found in Dr Dean Ornishes
program.

The drop can easily be explained by removal of saturated and processed fats
from my diet.

John

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's
> >
> > As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health matters,
> > unless asked to of course. Of course you have no such decency.
>
> He, like other charlatans

Liar.

> who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty

Ipse dixit.

> ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his posts already provided.

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

> >>wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that his cholesterol was "a
> shade over 2[00]." He claimed last week that it had been over twice that high --
> which is a level of cholesterol that is very rare and is usually accompanied by
> a variety of visible symptoms, including yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
> http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm

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

And who wrote; "..the genes don't affect every generation
the same way, and many people never know they have it until
they go to the doctor and get a very high cholesterol reading.
Since testing isn't mandatory, many people never know they
have any underlying issue -- hereditary or otherwise -- until it's
a very big problem." - usual suspect 2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST

> > John has given me no reason to doubt his word, unlike you.
>
> This is an instance where you should ask him to support his word. He made his
> claims voluntarily, and offered them as evidence that his diet is beneficial.

"a shade over 2[00]" is still high. Were he going to fib about it,
wouldn't he have said that the present level was lower than that?

> I *don't* take his word for it. I can't.

So don't. Who cares.

> I've dealt with too many people with FH

In what capacity exactly?

> and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to know that diet alone does
> nothing to change it.

Wrong. See;.
'A dietary portfolio approach to cholesterol reduction: combined
effects of plant sterols, vegetable proteins, and viscous fibers in
hypercholesterolemia. ....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

> >>I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
> >>integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
> >
> > You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
>
> No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert.

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

> One of your primary
> sources has made some claims which are incongruent with medical science.

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

> He made
> his claims voluntarily and in the context of being "proof" about his diet's
> benefits. He really should prove it with factual evidence, not just "take my
> word for it" -- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."

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

> >>You said that my skepticism about
> >>the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem,"
> >
> > It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites posted,
>
> Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself. Why did he not
> respond with any proofs other than a regurgitation of what he heard, second hand
> no less, about a racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked what
> Ehret's educational background was in, and what he was "professor" of. The best
> he could do was say something to the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret"
> after he'd been referring to him incessantly.

Are you really surprised, considering your nasty persecutory character
and dishonesty, that no-one is interested in discussing anything with you?
You shouldn't be.

> > nor any of his material.
>
> I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so dispirited that he
> announced he was killfiling me.

You're delusional. It's more than likely that he became disgusted with you.

> >>but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud.
> >
> > You wish.
>
> He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't been heard from since.

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

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

Liar.

> >>He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he
> >>now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol,
> >>at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he
> >>has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his
> >>anecdotal claims?
> >
> > I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.
>
> Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again, Lesley. Take a look at the
> case studies of people with cholesterol in excess of 300.

Have you seen JC's medical portfolio? No.

> > Neither do you. You're grasping.
>
> I have every reason in the world to doubt that his cholesterol was *ever* above
> 400, much less above 240.

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

> >>By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times
> >>(and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof"
> >>for many of your own claims.
> >
> > And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific resource, so it is.
>
> It's as flaky as he is.

Your ignorant, warped opinion.

> >>I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
> >
> > Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort yourself out, kiddo.
>
> Superior knowledge? Of what subject?

Nutrition and biochemistry for starters.

> >>Coleman said:
> >> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?
> >>
> >>I replied:
> >>
> >> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
> >>
> >> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's
> >> yours?
> >> -- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2
> >>
> >> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new
> >> website to prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing
> >> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or
> >> testiLYING.
> >
> > Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging storm for all we care.
>
> Feel the love.

I have no love for you.

> Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his claims, which he made
> in public and voluntarily?

Why should I be afraid? I don't doubt his word, is why.

> >> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc
> >> fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but
> >> raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your
> >> previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
> >> amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy
> >> and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such
> >> a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
> >> credit, not raw food.
> >
> > I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
> > but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
> > serum cholesterol levels,
>
> That's an understatement. That's not just a large change, it's of such a
> magnitude that he'd deserve status of a case study in one of the cardiology
> journals.

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

> People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's even more
> rare when their cholesterol is lowered to "normal" levels. His claim of it being
> *over 400* puts him off the bloody ****ing chart. Do you not understand that?

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

> > beyond different quantities of dietary
> > macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
> > disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production, precipitated
> > by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
> > versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
> > ('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
> > cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
> > disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
> > http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )
>
> Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration, more like it.

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

> <...>
> >>Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his
> >>claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove
> >>his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all
> >>his other distortions of his health
> >
> > You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're projecting.
>
> I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.

You've brought your stupid dishonesty into it, twister.

> >>(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
> >
> > How do you know that?
>
> His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can search his posts there
> and read for yourself.

You lied.

> >>and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one
> >>about his cholesterol.
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a liar, a fraud.

No. You're the liar and fraud.

> >>I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
> >>as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
> >
> > And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in the future.
>
> As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only fitting that you cite
> him and his exaggerated claims.

Ipse dixit and false, liar.

> >>This deserves an answer.
> >
> > What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread, 'usual'?
> > http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr...ermit.esat.net
> >
> > It deserves an answer from you.
>
> No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a response.

You're rotten to the core.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>> I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
>>> but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
>>> serum cholesterol levels, beyond different quantities of dietary
>>> macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
>>> disorder affecting indigenous
>>
>> ENDOGENOUS. Dipshit.
>
> Haw haw haw! What did you expect from a whore/foot masseuse?

Not even *that* little, really.

>>> cholesterol production, precipitated
>
> "precipitated" - haw haw haw! What a ****ing bonehead!
>
>>> by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
>>> versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
>>> ('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
>>> cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
>>> disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
>>> http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )
>
> Lesley has ZERO education or expertise in anything to do with health.
> She has never attended university, didn't even do biology in whatever
> sort of post elementary schooling she began (and didn't finish), and she
> doesn't have any idea what she's talking about. That's why she's so
> scattershot.

I'm not convinced she went beyond elementary school. Her "see below" link was to
yet another personal website which recites the same BS from Larry Forti's and
John Coleman's sites. One difference (though I haven't searched either of those
sites for this topic, lol) is that "Shirley" recommends *urine* as a healing
agent. Among her anecdotes about the medical use of urine was this gem:
Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News, October 16, 1992:
"In Egypt, rescue workers found a 37-year-old man alive in earthquake
rubble. He survived almost 82 hours by drinking his own urine. His wife,
daughter and mother would not and they died."
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/urine.htm

Worse, though, are when specific medical claims are made, such as in this quote
from a ****-drinker:
"For almost the entire course of the 20th century, unknown to the
public, doctors and medical researchers have been proving in both
laboratory and clinical testing that our own urine is an enormous source
of vital nutrients, vitamins, hormones, enzymes and critical antibodies
that cannot be duplicated or derived from any other source. They use
urine for healing cancer, heart disease, allergies, auto-immune
diseases, diabetes, asthma, infertility, infections, wounds and on and
on -- yet we're taught that urine is a toxic waste product. This
discrepancy between the medical truth and the public information
regarding urine is ludicrous and, as the news releases you've just read
demonstrate, can mean the difference between life and death to you and
to your loved ones." Martha Christy

Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage, Zapper, homeopathy, etc. I
suspect she's also a ****er.

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health matters,
>>>unless asked to of course. Of course you have no such decency.
>>
>>He, like other charlatans
>
> Liar.

He's the king of all charlatans. Princess.

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

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

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

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

>>>>wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit.
>>
>>Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that his cholesterol was "a
>>shade over 2[00]." He claimed last week that it had been over twice that high --
>>which is a level of cholesterol that is very rare and is usually accompanied by
>>a variety of visible symptoms, including yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
>>http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm
>
> You should have guessed from those levels that there was
> probably an underlying condition present.

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

> And who wrote; "..the genes don't affect every generation
> the same way, and many people never know they have it until
> they go to the doctor and get a very high cholesterol reading.
> Since testing isn't mandatory, many people never know they
> have any underlying issue -- hereditary or otherwise -- until it's
> a very big problem." - usual suspect 2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST
>
>>>John has given me no reason to doubt his word, unlike you.
>>
>>This is an instance where you should ask him to support his word. He made his
>>claims voluntarily, and offered them as evidence that his diet is beneficial.
>
> "a shade over 2[00]" is still high. Were he going to fib about it,
> wouldn't he have said that the present level was lower than that?
>
>>I *don't* take his word for it. I can't.
>
> So don't. Who cares.
>
>>I've dealt with too many people with FH
>
> In what capacity exactly?

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

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

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

>>>>I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
>>>>integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
>>>
>>>You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
>>
>>No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert.
>
> Not at all. I think I'm still in first grade, and this is life-long learning.

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

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

No, he is. And so are you.

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

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

>>He made
>>his claims voluntarily and in the context of being "proof" about his diet's
>>benefits. He really should prove it with factual evidence, not just "take my
>>word for it" -- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."
>
> This is a discussion forum, not a court of law, 'suspect'.

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

>>>>You said that my skepticism about
>>>>the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem,"
>>>
>>>It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites posted,
>>
>>Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself. Why did he not
>>respond with any proofs other than a regurgitation of what he heard, second hand
>>no less, about a racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked what
>>Ehret's educational background was in, and what he was "professor" of. The best
>>he could do was say something to the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret"
>>after he'd been referring to him incessantly.
>
> Are you really surprised, considering your nasty persecutory character
> and dishonesty, that no-one is interested in discussing anything with you?

Yes!

> You shouldn't be.

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

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

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

>>>>but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud.
>>>
>>>You wish.
>>
>>He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't been heard from since.
>
> He probably has better things to do than play with creeps like you.

Like fabricating more bullshit for his website?

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

Nope.

>>>>He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he
>>>>now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol,
>>>>at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he
>>>>has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his
>>>>anecdotal claims?
>>>
>>>I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.
>>
>>Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again, Lesley. Take a look at the
>>case studies of people with cholesterol in excess of 300.
>
> Have you seen JC's medical portfolio? No.

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

>>>Neither do you. You're grasping.
>>
>>I have every reason in the world to doubt that his cholesterol was *ever* above
>>400, much less above 240.
>
> No you don't. If he were going to lie about it, he'd have made
> the range less extreme and lower. You're an idiot, 'suspect'.

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

>>>>By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times
>>>>(and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof"
>>>>for many of your own claims.
>>>
>>>And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific resource, so it is.
>>
>>It's as flaky as he is.
>
> Your ignorant, warped opinion.

My opinion is neither ignorant nor warped.

>>>>I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
>>>
>>>Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort yourself out, kiddo.
>>
>>Superior knowledge? Of what subject?
>
> Nutrition and biochemistry for starters.

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

>>>>Coleman said:
>>>> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?
>>>>
>>>>I replied:
>>>>
>>>> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
>>>>
>>>> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's
>>>> yours?
>>>> -- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new
>>>> website to prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing
>>>> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or
>>>> testiLYING.
>>>
>>>Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging storm for all we care.
>>
>>Feel the love.
>
> I have no love for you.

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

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

You should.

>>>> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc
>>>> fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but
>>>> raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your
>>>> previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
>>>> amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy
>>>> and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such
>>>> a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
>>>> credit, not raw food.
>>>
>>>I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
>>>but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
>>>serum cholesterol levels,
>>
>>That's an understatement. That's not just a large change, it's of such a
>>magnitude that he'd deserve status of a case study in one of the cardiology
>>journals.
>
> 'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by
> 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks)
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

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

>>People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's even more
>>rare when their cholesterol is lowered to "normal" levels. His claim of it being
>>*over 400* puts him off the bloody ****ing chart. Do you not understand that?
>
> 'Familial type III hyperlipoproteinemia is suggested by elevations
> in both TG and cholesterol, to similar extent that is plasma cholesterol
> and triglyceride of 400 mg/dl often provide a clue for the diagnosis
> (Wolfgang et al., 1989).'
> http://healthcare.jeeran.com/publicat/phd/dyslipo.html

Exactly!

>>>beyond different quantities of dietary
>>>macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
>>>disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production, precipitated
>>>by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
>>>versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
>>>('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
>>>cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
>>>disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
>>>http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )
>>
>>Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration, more like it.
>
> Ad hominem.

Nope.

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

Your, not you're. Anyway, prove it.

>><...>
>>
>>>>Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his
>>>>claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove
>>>>his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all
>>>>his other distortions of his health
>>>
>>>You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're projecting.
>>
>>I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.
>
> You've brought your stupid dishonesty into it, twister.

Nope.

>>>>(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
>>>
>>>How do you know that?
>>
>>His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can search his posts there
>>and read for yourself.
>
> You lied.

About what?

>>>>and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one
>>>>about his cholesterol.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit.
>>
>>Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a liar, a fraud.
>
> No. You're the liar and fraud.

Prove it.

>>>>I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
>>>>as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
>>>
>>>And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in the future.
>>
>>As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only fitting that you cite
>>him and his exaggerated claims.
>
> Ipse dixit

Nope.

> and false, liar.

What's false about it?

>>>>This deserves an answer.
>>>
>>>What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread, 'usual'?
>>>http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr...ermit.esat.net
>>>
>>>It deserves an answer from you.
>>
>>No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a response.
>
> You're rotten to the core.

No, I'm sweeeeeeeeet to the bone.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
<snip>

Useless Object wrote:-

<snip>


> Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage, Zapper, homeopathy,
etc. I
> suspect she's also a ****er.


I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for better stuff than
this.

Ray wrote:

>>Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage, Zapper, homeopathy,
> etc. I
>>suspect she's also a ****er.
>
> I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for better stuff than
> this.

How about this one then...

Lesley: How about a 10" metal pipe forced down your throat and two lbs
of food pumped in?

suspect: You've had 10" down your throat. You tell us what it's like.
http://snipurl.com/6kz9

John Coleman wrote:

> My cholesterol was assessed by the Hammersmith Hospital and advised to me in
> person before the end of the study. This was after about 10 years as a
> regular cooked vegan and 2 years on a high raw diet.

So you were vegan for at least 12 years for the time in question.

<...>
> The drop can easily be explained by removal of saturated and processed fats
> from my diet.

What kind of saturated fats were you eating on a vegan diet? What kind of
processed fats?

I never said my cholesterol was over 400, that was my last B12 check.

John C

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Ray wrote:
>
> >>Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage, Zapper,
homeopathy,
> > etc. I
> >>suspect she's also a ****er.
> >
> > I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for better stuff
than
> > this.
>
> How about this one then...
>
> Lesley: How about a 10" metal pipe forced down your throat and two lbs
> of food pumped in?
>
> suspect: You've had 10" down your throat. You tell us what it's like.

> http://snipurl.com/6kz9

You dererved that on two counts.

(a) Your fixation with animal abuse which you promote at every verse end.

(b) Your abusive personal posts to Pearl.

You are a 'stinker' with no respect.
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> > I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
> > but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
> > serum cholesterol levels, beyond different quantities of dietary
> > macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
> > disorder affecting indigenous
>
> ENDOGENOUS.

A flub. I know what both 'indigenous' and 'endogenous' mean.

'Bodies produce (endogenous) uric acid through the breakdown
of purine bases, which is why most mammals produce uricase. ..'
talk.politics.animals - 13 Jan 2002 by Lotus

'The genocidal colonisation of the Americas
also featured the replacement of indigenous people with profitable animals ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian- 13 Sep 2002 by Lotus

> Dipshit.

Fool.

> > cholesterol production, precipitated
> > by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
> > versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
> > ('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
> > cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
> > disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
> > http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )
> <...>
>

"Jonathan Ball" >
> has ZERO education or expertise in anything to do with health.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>>As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health matters,
> >>>unless asked to of course. Of course you have no such decency.
> >>
> >>He, like other charlatans
> >
> > Liar.
>
> He's the king of all charlatans. Princess.

You're the knave of liars. Jack.

> >>who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> Review the posts I linked. He *does* use personal experience to validate his
> kooky

Ipse dixit.

> diet.
>
> >>ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his posts already provided.
> >
> > What he posted was in the context of an attempted discussion with you.
> > Normal, decent people don't take some personal information and post
> > it to another group, demanding that some third-party comment on it.
>
> I'll remember that next time you and Dreck lift my quotes from AFV.

Can you bring an example of my doing that?

> >>>>wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
> >>>
> >>>Ipse dixit.
> >>
> >>Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that his cholesterol was "a
> >>shade over 2[00]." He claimed last week that it had been over twice that high --
> >>which is a level of cholesterol that is very rare and is usually accompanied by
> >>a variety of visible symptoms, including yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
> >>http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm
> >
> > You should have guessed from those levels that there was
> > probably an underlying condition present.
>
> Such conditions are often organic.

So why did you lunge at JC on account of his serum cholesterol levels?
Had you had been discussing this with JC in a courteous manner you
may have found out a lot more, even learned something highly valuable.

> Diet would have no effect.

That's a patently false claim, and you now definitely know it..

'A dietary portfolio approach to cholesterol reduction: combined
effects of plant sterols, vegetable proteins, and viscous fibers in
hypercholesterolemia.
....
The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by
29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I'd demand an upgrade from your controllers, if I were you.

> > And who wrote; "..the genes don't affect every generation
> > the same way, and many people never know they have it until
> > they go to the doctor and get a very high cholesterol reading.
> > Since testing isn't mandatory, many people never know they
> > have any underlying issue -- hereditary or otherwise -- until it's
> > a very big problem." - usual suspect 2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST
> >
> >>>John has given me no reason to doubt his word, unlike you.
> >>
> >>This is an instance where you should ask him to support his word. He made his
> >>claims voluntarily, and offered them as evidence that his diet is beneficial.
> >
> > "a shade over 2[00]" is still high. Were he going to fib about it,
> > wouldn't he have said that the present level was lower than that?
> >
> >>I *don't* take his word for it. I can't.
> >
> > So don't. Who cares.
> >
> >>I've dealt with too many people with FH
> >
> > In what capacity exactly?
>
> Several capacities, most recently as a hospice volunteer.

Doing what exactly?

> Some larger hospitals
> have entire wards filled with such patients, and those wards are often called
> names like "the pumpkin patch."

"..the genes don't affect every generation the same way, and many
people never know they have it until they go to the doctor and get
a very high cholesterol reading. Since testing isn't mandatory, many
people never know they have any underlying issue -- hereditary or
otherwise -- until it's a very big problem." - usual suspect
2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST

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

'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol
by 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001)

> and then compare your twit's

Feel the love.

> claims about a reduction

50%

> *twice* the magnitude of that found in that particular
> study.

There was 58% of his change, due to the diet, in *two weeks*.
JC has been following his diet for a lot longer than that, right?

> As I said, his claims are incongruent with existing data and noteworthy
> enough for him to be considered for a case study.

Ipse dixit, although more research along these lines is welcome.

> >>>>I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
> >>>>integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
> >>>
> >>>You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
> >>
> >>No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert.
> >
> > Not at all. I think I'm still in first grade, and this is life-long learning.
>
> I beg to differ on one point: you've failed kindergarten.

Beg away.

> >>One of your primary
> >>sources has made some claims which are incongruent with medical science.
> >
> > You're full of it.
>
> No, he is. And so are you.

No, you are.

> > Normally you'd be jumping up and down yapping
> > on about conditions in which serum cholesterol levels are affected-
> > anything but diet. Now, suddenly, it's all about diet?
>
> *His* claims are based on his diet. Solely. Read the posts at AFV and see for
> yourself.

He wrote about the effects of his diet, and nothing more.
Finding the levels to be high, you could have asked why.
Instead, you chose to attack him, and harass me, moron.

> >>He made
> >>his claims voluntarily and in the context of being "proof" about his diet's
> >>benefits. He really should prove it with factual evidence, not just "take my
> >>word for it" -- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."
> >
> > This is a discussion forum, not a court of law, 'suspect'.
>
> His claims are pretty wild

No, they are not.

> and you use him as a source in this "discussion forum."

Sure do.

> >>>>You said that my skepticism about
> >>>>the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem,"
> >>>
> >>>It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites posted,
> >>
> >>Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself. Why did he not
> >>respond with any proofs other than a regurgitation of what he heard, second hand
> >>no less, about a racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked what
> >>Ehret's educational background was in, and what he was "professor" of. The best
> >>he could do was say something to the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret"
> >>after he'd been referring to him incessantly.
> >
> > Are you really surprised, considering your nasty persecutory character
> > and dishonesty, that no-one is interested in discussing anything with you?
>
> Yes!
>
> > You shouldn't be.
>
> Plenty people discuss stuff with me. Including you, love. :-)

Slimy git.

> >>>nor any of his material.
> >>
> >>I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so dispirited that he
> >>announced he was killfiling me.
> >
> > You're delusional. It's more than likely that he became disgusted with you.
>
> Nope. He didn't like being asked to support his exaggerated claims.

He was clearly disgusted by you, liar.

> >>>>but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud.
> >>>
> >>>You wish.
> >>
> >>He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't been heard from since.
> >
> > He probably has better things to do than play with creeps like you.
>
> Like fabricating more bullshit for his website?

You're the fabricator of bullshit, jackass.

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

Liar.

> >>>>He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he
> >>>>now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol,
> >>>>at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he
> >>>>has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his
> >>>>anecdotal claims?
> >>>
> >>>I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.
> >>
> >>Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again, Lesley. Take a look at the
> >>case studies of people with cholesterol in excess of 300.
> >
> > Have you seen JC's medical portfolio? No.
>
> I would like to see it,

A bit late for that.

> since he's made some exaggerated claims about it.

Ipse dixit.

> >>>Neither do you. You're grasping.
> >>
> >>I have every reason in the world to doubt that his cholesterol was *ever* above
> >>400, much less above 240.
> >
> > No you don't. If he were going to lie about it, he'd have made
> > the range less extreme and lower. You're an idiot, 'suspect'.
>
> He made the range what he did.

For some know-it-all troll like you to froth and fume all over, yes?

> Nobody put words in his septic mouth.

The septic mouth is yours.

> >>>>By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times
> >>>>(and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof"
> >>>>for many of your own claims.
> >>>
> >>>And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific resource, so it is.
> >>
> >>It's as flaky as he is.
> >
> > Your ignorant, warped opinion.
>
> My opinion is neither ignorant nor warped.

It appears to be both. Then again, this could all just be a sick game to you.

> >>>>I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
> >>>
> >>>Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort yourself out, kiddo.
> >>
> >>Superior knowledge? Of what subject?
> >
> > Nutrition and biochemistry for starters.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

> >>>>Coleman said:
> >>>> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?
> >>>>
> >>>>I replied:
> >>>>
> >>>> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's
> >>>> yours?
> >>>> -- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new
> >>>> website to prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing
> >>>> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or
> >>>> testiLYING.
> >>>
> >>>Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging storm for all we care.
> >>
> >>Feel the love.
> >
> > I have no love for you.
>
> Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, I thought you loved everyone and everything.

Sorry.

> Oh yeah, I never gave you €20. Hard for you to love me without getting paid first.

'usual suspect's world. How sad. And seedy.

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

I've no reason to.

> >>>> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc
> >>>> fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but
> >>>> raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your
> >>>> previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
> >>>> amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy
> >>>> and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such
> >>>> a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
> >>>> credit, not raw food.
> >>>
> >>>I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed either,
> >>>but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a large change in
> >>>serum cholesterol levels,
> >>
> >>That's an understatement. That's not just a large change, it's of such a
> >>magnitude that he'd deserve status of a case study in one of the cardiology
> >>journals.
> >
> > 'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by
> > 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks)
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
>
> And his claim was "> 50%". IOW, 172% of the average in that study.

The average in the study was a reduction of 29%. JC's was
~50%. IOW, ~11% more than the *two weeks* on the diet.

> Pretty ****ing *UN*believable.

You're figures are, trashboy.

> >>People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's even more
> >>rare when their cholesterol is lowered to "normal" levels. His claim of it being
> >>*over 400* puts him off the bloody ****ing chart. Do you not understand that?
> >
> > 'Familial type III hyperlipoproteinemia is suggested by elevations
> > in both TG and cholesterol, to similar extent that is plasma cholesterol
> > and triglyceride of 400 mg/dl often provide a clue for the diagnosis
> > (Wolfgang et al., 1989).'
> > http://healthcare.jeeran.com/publicat/phd/dyslipo.html
>
> Exactly!

And this doesn't possibly apply, how?

> >>>beyond different quantities of dietary
> >>>macro-nutrient constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
> >>>disorder affecting endogenous* cholesterol production, precipitated *(sc)
> >>>by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice-
> >>>versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
> >>>('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
> >>>cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
> >>>disease · underactive thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism '
> >>>http://health.discovery.com/diseases...opedia/30.html )
> >>
> >>Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration, more like it.
> >
> > Ad hominem.
>
> Nope.

Totally. It's all you've ever had, loser.

> > You're argument is false from top to bottom, liar.
>
> Your, not you're. Anyway, prove it.

Done.

> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his
> >>>>claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove
> >>>>his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all
> >>>>his other distortions of his health
> >>>
> >>>You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're projecting.
> >>
> >>I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.
> >
> > You've brought your stupid dishonesty into it, twister.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

> >>>>(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
> >>>
> >>>How do you know that?
> >>
> >>His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can search his posts there
> >>and read for yourself.
> >
> > You lied.
>
> About what?

Here, about him being B12 deficient.

> >>>>and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one
> >>>>about his cholesterol.
> >>>
> >>>Ipse dixit.
> >>
> >>Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a liar, a fraud.
> >
> > No. You're the liar and fraud.
>
> Prove it.

Done.

> >>>>I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
> >>>>as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
> >>>
> >>>And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in the future.
> >>
> >>As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only fitting that you cite
> >>him and his exaggerated claims.
> >
> > Ipse dixit
>
> Nope.

Ipse dixit.

> > and false, liar.
>
> What's false about it?

All of it. You.

> >>>>This deserves an answer.
> >>>
> >>>What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread, 'usual'?
> >>>http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr...ermit.esat.net
> >>>
> >>>It deserves an answer from you.
> >>
> >>No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a response.
> >
> > You're rotten to the core.
>
> No, I'm sweeeeeeeeet to the bone.

That post *demands* an answer from you, gnat.

"pearl" > wrote in message news:...
<..>
> > > 'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by
> > > 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks)
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
> >
> > And his claim was "> 50%". IOW, 172% of the average in that study.
>
> The average in the study was a reduction of 29%. JC's was
> ~50%. IOW, ~11% more than the *two weeks* on the diet.

Correction. That should of course be 21%, not 11%. Still.

Here's another relevant study abstract;

Metabolism 1997 May;46(5):530-7
Effect of a diet high in vegetables, fruit, and nuts on serum lipids.
Jenkins DJ, Popovich DG, Kendall CW, Vidgen E, Tariq N,
Ransom TP, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Mehling CC, Boctor DL,
Bolognesi C, Huang J, Patten R.
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center, Division
of Endocrinology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

We assessed the effect of a diet high in leafy and green vegetables,
fruit, and nuts on serum lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
Ten healthy volunteers (seven men and three women aged 33 +/- 4
years [mean +/- SEM]; body mass index, 23 +/- 1 kg/m2) consumed
their habitual diet (control diet, 29% +/- 2% fat calories) and a diet
consisting largely of leafy and other low-calorie vegetables, fruit, and
nuts (vegetable diet, 25% +/- 3% fat calories) for two 2-week periods
in a randomized crossover design. After 2 weeks on the vegetable diet,
lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease were significantly reduced
by comparison with the control diet (low-density lipoprotein [LDL]
cholesterol, 33% +/- 4%, P < .001; ratio of total to high-density
lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, 21% +/- 4%, P X .001; apolipoprotein
[apo] B:A-I, 23% +/- 2%, P < .001; and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)],
24% +/- 9%, P = .031). The reduction in apo B was related to
increased intakes of soluble fiber (r = .84, P = .003) and vegetable
protein (r = -.65, P = .041). On the vegetable compared with the
control diet, the reduction in total serum cholesterol was 34% to 49%
greater than would be predicted by differences in dietary fat and
cholesterol. A diet consisting largely of low-calorie vegetables and
fruit and nuts markedly reduced lipid risk factors for cardiovascular
disease. Several aspects of such diets, which may have been consumed
early in human evolution, have implications for cardiovascular disease
prevention.'

Publication Types: Clinical trial Randomized controlled trial
PMID: 9160820 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote in message news:...
> <..>
> > > > 'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by
> > > > 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks)
> > > >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
> > >
> > > And his claim was "> 50%". IOW, 172% of the average in that study.
> >
> > The average in the study was a reduction of 29%. JC's was
> > ~50%. IOW, ~11% more than the *two weeks* on the diet.
>
> Correction. That should of course be 21%, not 11%. Still.

Another thing. It was an average 29% reduction in LDL, but,
-50% _total_ cholesterol. Meaning that JC's LDL was reduced
by even more than 50%. Nonetheless, beyond an initial reduction
due to a change in diet, you need to take into account improved
liver function over time (as I've indicated in my first post on this).

Emphasis (*) added to the following;

> Here's another relevant study abstract;
>
> Metabolism 1997 May;46(5):530-7
> Effect of a diet high in vegetables, fruit, and nuts on serum lipids.
> Jenkins DJ, Popovich DG, Kendall CW, Vidgen E, Tariq N,
> Ransom TP, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Mehling CC, Boctor DL,
> Bolognesi C, Huang J, Patten R.
> Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center, Division
> of Endocrinology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
>
> We assessed the effect of a diet high in leafy and green vegetables,
> fruit, and nuts on serum lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
> Ten healthy volunteers (seven men and three women aged 33 +/- 4
> years [mean +/- SEM]; body mass index, 23 +/- 1 kg/m2) consumed
> their habitual diet (control diet, 29% +/- 2% fat calories) and a diet
> consisting largely of leafy and other low-calorie vegetables, fruit, and
> nuts (vegetable diet, 25% +/- 3% fat calories) for two 2-week periods
> in a randomized crossover design. After 2 weeks on the vegetable diet,
> lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease were significantly reduced
> by comparison with the control diet (low-density lipoprotein [LDL]
> cholesterol, 33% +/- 4%, P < .001; ratio of total to high-density
> lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, 21% +/- 4%, P X .001; apolipoprotein
> [apo] B:A-I, 23% +/- 2%, P < .001; and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)],
> 24% +/- 9%, P = .031). The reduction in apo B was related to
> increased intakes of soluble fiber (r = .84, P = .003) and vegetable
> protein (r = -.65, P = .041). On the vegetable compared with the
> control diet, *the reduction in total serum cholesterol was 34% to 49%
> greater than would be predicted by differences in dietary fat and
> cholesterol.* A diet consisting largely of low-calorie vegetables and
> fruit and nuts markedly reduced lipid risk factors for cardiovascular
> disease. Several aspects of such diets, which may have been consumed
> early in human evolution, have implications for cardiovascular disease
> prevention.'
>
> Publication Types: Clinical trial Randomized controlled trial
> PMID: 9160820 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

How would you explain that greater than would be predicted
difference, usual suspect?

Take your time.

[my last post for today]

"usual suspect" knows so little about cholesterol that he doesn't understand
that we use mmol/L in the UK and not mg/dL as in the USA - hence all his
obnoxious blithering is based on ignorance.

When I say LDL-c = 1, that is about 39 in the USA. When I say my TC is about
2 (actually it is 2.4) I DO NOT mean 200, and hence his confusion in
believing it was originally 400. DUH.

In the UK "omnivores" averaged LDL-c = 3.41 mmol/L in one study, their TC
was just over 200. Vegans in the same study had TC 4.41 mmol/L, about 172.
My TC is about 93 mg/dL. It does not go much lower than that normally.

I just dug out my very last bloods and the TC was not so good at 2.7, but I
didn't get a breakdown and not a fasting measure either, so I don't use that
figure. I hope that clears this up.

John C

Ray wrote:
>>>>Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage, Zapper,
> homeopathy,
>>>etc. I
>>>>suspect she's also a ****er.
>>>
>>>I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for better stuff
> than
>>>this.
>>
>>How about this one then...
>>
>>Lesley: How about a 10" metal pipe forced down your throat and two lbs
>>of food pumped in?
>>
>>suspect: You've had 10" down your throat. You tell us what it's like.
>>http://snipurl.com/6kz9
>
> You dererved that on two counts.
>
> (a) Your fixation with animal abuse which you promote at every verse end.

No, I don't. There's a big difference between acceptable means of food
production and beating the shit out of a poor dog with a broomstick. You've
admitted that SPECIFIC slaughter practices you oppose are immaterial to the fact
that you oppose ALL slaughter for food.

> (b) Your abusive personal posts to Pearl.

I've dealt with her as she's dealt with me. See some of the posts from last week
in which I tried to deal kindly with her. I withheld a lot despite her nasty
attitude towards me.

> You are a 'stinker' with no respect.

Coming from an inebriated old curmudgeon like you, I'll take that as a compliment.