 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2007What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly
What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable oils. Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement? TC TC: I think I could cook the fat using certain techniques that are common and make the fat unhealthy, though not necessarily as bad as highly refined and highly polyunsaturated oils. Obviously, if the person or animal ate a diet rich in antioxidants, this might negate the problems. However, if we took that fat and cooked it until it was most unhealthy (steaming might do this), then fed it at 30% daily calories to someone whose diet was devoid of antioxidant-rich foods, it might make sense to call it "contextually unhealthy" at that point, for example. > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable > oils. > > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement? In a book about chemistry of food one can find out that animal fats are made from fresh raw material (live). Raw materials for vegetable oils may be partially rotten and for this oils must be refined. So you are right. S* > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable > oils. > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement? Which fatty acids do you consider to be the most healthy and which are the least healthy? Are you addressing CVD, cancers, or some other medical ailments? -- Ron "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in part: >> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly >> raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Are you addressing CVD, cancers, or some other medical ailments? Indeed, and why the effort to distinguish desirability of animal vs vegetable, anyway? We are omnivores, after all. Less processed is more like the food during the evolution of our genome, whether animal or vegetable. It is healthier. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu Which vegetable oils would not be highly processed? TC > > "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in dark glass) is not highly processed. Fish oil eaten as part of the fish (which has been fished and not farmed like alaska sockeye salmon) is not a highly processed oil. What do you think of eating these? I seldom eat animal flesh but would if I could afford game meat or meat from animals that were allowed to eat their natural diet and were not pumped full of hormones and antibiotics. Dolores > > > "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in dark glass) is > not highly processed. That is one vegetable oil that is not highly processed. Any more? > Fish oil eaten as part of the fish (which has > been fished and not farmed like alaska sockeye salmon) is not a highly > processed oil. What do you think of eating these? Fish oils are excellent animal sourced fats. > I seldom eat > animal flesh but would if I could afford game meat or meat from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Interesting assumption that all farmed animals are "pumped full of hormones and antibiotics". Kinda shows a bias there. TC >> First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in dark glass) is >> not highly processed. > > That is one vegetable oil that is not highly processed. Any more? It it not easy to make vegetable oil that is not highly processed because " In a book about chemistry of food one can find out that animal fats are > made from fresh raw material (live). Raw materials for vegetable oils may > be partially rotten and for this the oils must be refined." S* > >> First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in dark glass) is > >> not highly processed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > S* I agree. Vegetable oils, (other than extra virgin olive oil and possibly coconut oil), are very poor foods having required a great deal of processing to become even somewhat edible with very questionable nutritional profiles. Most vegetable oils are rancid and have to be chemically treated to remove the smell and taste before they can be marketed. While animal sourced fats require little or no processing to be extremely palatable and extremely nutritious. Pork fat rules. Real whole fresh milk and butter and cheeses from grass fed cows is an incredible food. Fish fats are great nutritionally. Tallow is great for deep frying and is nutritious. Etc. TC " <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote news:1173462699.168639.88980@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com... >> >> First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in dark glass) is >> >> not highly processed. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > incredible food. Fish fats are great nutritionally. Tallow is great > for deep frying and is nutritious. Etc. Thanks for writting what I want (my English). It neccesery to add that before "vegetable oils era" we have used olive oil in form pasterised olive juce (for salad). Next appeared refined oils. Most people were sure that it means "filtered". But it is the proces similar to used in processing of canal fats (to make soap). In your words: they "are rancid and have to be chemically treated to remove the smell and taste before they can be marketed." S* > I agree. Vegetable oils, (other than extra virgin olive oil and > possibly coconut oil), are very poor foods having required a great > deal of processing to become even somewhat edible with very > questionable nutritional profiles. The key to quality vegetable oil is expeller-pressed extraction. > Most vegetable oils are rancid and > have to be chemically treated to remove the smell and taste before > they can be marketed. Ever see the inside of a meat packing plant? > While animal sourced fats require little or no processing to be > extremely palatable and extremely nutritious. Pork fat rules. > Real whole fresh milk Has a lot of growth hormones and fat necessary to make baby cows quickly become big cows. > and butter and cheeses from grass fed cows is an incredible food. I would go very sparingly. Way too many calories that would be better spent eating more fruits and veggies. > Fish fats are great nutritionally. An important source of the _polyunsaturated_ fat known as omega-3 fatty acid. > Tallow is great for deep frying and is nutritious. Etc. Deep frying what? Too many calories. I like my 30" waist. Patrick "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote in part: >> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >TC I'm not disputing your original statement, just expressing frustration with the pointless contrast of vegetable with meat. To get the least processed vegetable oils, eat organic avocadoes, peanuts, almonds, walnuts, olives, etc., etc. To get the least processed animal fats, eat meat from naturally raised animals, wild-caught fish and game. No difference. You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say, "animal fats from properly raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable oils." For a level playing field, compare a slab of naturally produced lard with a bottle of extra virgin olive oil. Or, compare bacon drippings from nitrate-laden, smoked bacon from industrially-raised pigs with industrially manufactured soybean oil. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My point is that the blanket all around recommendations by the mainstream is for any and all vegetable oils to replace any and all animal fats in the diet. All vegetable oil in the supermarket (other than evoo or possibly coconut oil), is highly processed and nutritionally suspect. And, as an aside to your comment, you cannot fry an egg in peanuts or in organic avocados. TC "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote in part: >> You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say, "animal fats from >> properly raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> -- >> Jim Chinnis >My point is that the blanket all around recommendations by the >mainstream is for any and all vegetable oils to replace any and all >animal fats in the diet. I don't think there is a "mainstream" view exactly. There's a fair amount of disagreement. And a lot of the science doesn't agree with either the researchers conclusions or the journalists' stories. And most nutritionists don't advise using highly saturated vegetable oils. >All vegetable oil in the supermarket (other than evoo or possibly >coconut oil), is highly processed and nutritionally suspect. I think I agree with that. >And, as an aside to your comment, you cannot fry an egg in peanuts or >in organic avocados. You can't fry an egg in a T-bone steak, either. If you want fat to fry in, you're going to have to do *some* processing of either an animal or plant-based food to get the fat. You can use lard, bacon drippings (my favorite), or olive oil. But none of those are exactly whole foods. The processing involved in cutting fat off of a slab of bacon or squeezing olives is similar, really. You are just choosing to use a part of the whole food for a particular purpose. Animal or plant...either way. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > All vegetable oil in the supermarket (other than evoo or possibly > coconut oil), is highly processed and nutritionally suspect. I don't think so after reading: "Most commercial grade coconut oils are made from copra. Copra is basically the dried kernel (meat) of the coconut. It can be made by: smoke drying, sun drying, or kiln drying , or derivatives or a combination of these three. If standard copra is used as a starting material, the unrefined coconut oil extracted from copra is not suitable for consumption and must be purified, that is refined. This is because the way most copra is dried is not sanitary. The standard end product made from copra is RBD coconut oil. RBD stands for refined, bleached, and deodorized. High heat is used to deodorize the oil, and the oil is typically filtered through (bleaching) clays to remove impurities. Sodium hydroxide is generally used to remove free fatty acids and prolong shelf life. This is the most common way to mass-produce coconut oil. The older way of producing refined coconut oil was through physical/mechanical refining (see Tropical Traditions Expeller Pressed Coconut Oil.). More modern methods also use chemical solvents to extract all the oil from the copra for higher yields. RBD oil is also sometimes hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated. This happens mostly in tropical climates, since the natural melting point of coconut oil is about 76 degrees F, and already naturally a solid in most colder climates. Since coconut oil is mostly saturated, there is little unsaturated oil left to hydrogenate. Hydrogenated oils contain trans fatty acids." -- Ron "Jim Chinnis" > You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say, "animal fats from > properly raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > industrially > manufactured soybean oil. In the both cases the winner is animal fat for the reason described by Ron. But now is to late to analyse it. In the future all oils will be biofuel. S* "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in part: > "Jim Chinnis" >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >In the both cases the winner is animal fat for the reason described by Ron. I don't agree. But it looks like we are talking about frying, and about fats for frying. I don't see why lard is healthier than extra-virgin olive oil. >But now is to late to analyse it. In the future all oils will be biofuel. I agree with that! It's interesting to contemplate what will happen to the price of staples here in the US, like Ding-Dongs, Coca-Cola, etc. as the price of the corn used for making them rises ever higher. Maybe the obesity and diabetes epidemics will end. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > fats > for frying. I don't see why lard is healthier than extra-virgin olive oil. Because it is very easy to ensure the fresh raw material for lard and practically impossible for oil. In mass production no Cinderellas to pick up partially rotted grains. I assume that we are talking about oils in a shop. Oil made in farmer house is like orange juce made in your house. But oil in a shop is like juce in a shop. The healthies food is served to ill and children. I do not know what Italian people serve for such (butter or olive). >>But now is to late to analyse it. In the future all oils will be biofuel. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > used for making them rises ever higher. Maybe the obesity and diabetes > epidemics will end. According me the most important factor is fat. People grasp staples when in the dishes is too less of fat (main source of calories). Some grasp alcohol. Obesity and diabetes epidemics will end when MDs understand that animal fats are NOT BAD. But now is time to analise which carbs are healthy. Cats make sugar and fat from protein. But we have ten fingers to pick up green grains (dry are not edible), sprouted grains, berries and so on. Probably we should to eat carbs. But which and how much. S* > Indeed, and why the effort to distinguish desirability of animal vs > vegetable, anyway? We are omnivores, after all. We are omnivores like a bear. But after winter when a bear is weak it eats mainly dead animals graved in snow. Our old proverb says "Farmer eats a hen when it is ill or when he is ill. So when one is ill it is better to forget about omnivores and eat the animal products (and some plants which contain "animal starch" or with fine grains - this to Susan) S* "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote: > "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote > news:1173306511.579294.90990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be partially rotten and for this oils must be refined. So you are right. > S* > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable > oils. > > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement? Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so you need to supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. > TC  SignatureWill @ www.BrinkZone.com "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural > In article <1173306511.579294.90...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream. 1) Animal fats are evil and 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest stuff since sliced bread. So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry- picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are better? Huh? TC > willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote: >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are > better? Huh? I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. He was simply asking you to defend your position. Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion. Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim. David > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the mainstream paradigm to actually support their supposedly proven theories on fats. Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his cherry picking 7 countries study. Show me he was right. Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are healthier than properly raised animal fats. The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal fats, are bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are healthier. If you believe that, then show me the data to support it. TC > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly > > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed vegetable [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are healthier. If you > believe that, then show me the data to support it. It isn't at all the current belief among expert nutrionists. And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat. SignatureKeith > In article <1173713747.743531.309...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one research paper, one news report. Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO hormones. Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in our diets. TC > > In article <1173713747.743531.309...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one > research paper, one news report. "highly refined vegetable oils" was your quote. Many vegetable oils (such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not highly refined. SignatureKeith > In article <1173718100.350133.298...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "Many vegetable oils (such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not highly refined." Many??????? One is many???? Is two a plethora??? Then three must be a myriad. Many, my arse!!! All vegetable oils, except for *one* - cold-pressed extra virgin olive oil, in the market today, including modern coconut oils are very highly processed. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s11-1.pdf http://www.canola-council.org/meal3.html Once processed, they 've lost all their useful food value. Might as well use them for automotive lubricant or fuel for their absolute lack of food value. Yet, virtually every doctor, nutritionist and researcher just loves the stuff. And apparently you believe this as well, since you so bravely stepped forward to defend them. TC >Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of >grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free >range space. It appears that you fail to recognize the real estate issues involved. Start raising all of them that way, and there's going to be a lot less meat to go around. It'll be pretty pricey, too. > >Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of > >grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Start raising all of them that way, and there's going to be a lot less > meat to go around. It'll be pretty pricey, too. Actually there is a lot of marginal farmland that is ideal for raising cattle on or for growing forage crops which is currently being used to raise rather poor crops of grains. The market is skewed towards growing grains for human food. And regardless, the topic is not about sustainability. It is about which is healthier, good animal fats or poor vegetable oils. TC > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher > that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal > fats and more vegetable oils. I know a bunch of them.Guess you need to get out more often. I realize this "more grass fed animals less processed veg oils" is news to you, but it's not to others. > Show me one article, one quote, one > research paper, one news report. So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs asking others to do it for you. > Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of > grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free > range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO > hormones. And your point is? Old news here. > Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in our > diets. Brilliant. Now support the above as you keep asking others to do. SignatureWill @ www.BrinkZone.com "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural > In article <1173718100.350133.298...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this "more grass fed animals less processed veg oils" is news to you, but > it's not to others. Oh you know some do you? Is that why you failed to give me even one name? So you agree with my statement, why are you disputing it? > > Show me one article, one quote, one > > research paper, one news report. > > So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs asking others > to do it for you. Back at 'cha, boomer. Remember my original post? I present a statement and ask people to dispute it. That involves provide references, cites, factual and/or logical statements, etc. If you are incapable of replying in such a manner as to respond to the post, why are you wasting my time? Is it laziness or ignorance? Or both? I have done my research. My research tells me that vegetable oils are pretty much all overly-processed nutrient-deficient fake crap food. But most doctors, nutritionists, and you apparently, would have us believe that animal fats are bad and vegetable oils are the nectar of the gods. Are you going to show me what this is based on? Or are you just going to throw stones in a glass house? If you're just going to make smart a.s comments and refuse to state your case, then go elsewhere and waste someone else's time. > > Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of > > grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free > > range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO > > hormones. > > And your point is? Old news here. Then shut the f**k up. We agree. What the hell is *your* point? > > Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in our > > diets. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Will @www.BrinkZone.com You seem to not understand the English language very well. TC > > In article <1173718100.350133.298...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Back at 'cha, boomer. Remember my original post? Where you make no sense and show a total lack of any science training? Yes. >I present a statement > and ask people to dispute it. That involves provide references, cites, > factual and/or logical statements, etc. Which you have not done. (ignorance of basic nutrtional science snipped) SignatureWill @ www.BrinkZone.com "It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural "Tunderbar" >> > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from >> > > >> > properly >> > > >> > raised animals are much healthier than highly processed >> > > >> > vegetable >> > > >> > oils. Now, after long discussion (especially after Rons description) you can delete "from properly raised animals". Animals and plants are now at the same level. The last nail from me. Margarines were healthy (in that class) for two hundert years (200 years) and suddenly become unhealthy. The reason is known. Before margarine was made of BEEF fat (animal fat). Now it is made mainly from vegatable oils. Margarine will be again healthy if be made from animals (normally raised) fat. > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher > that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal > fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one article, one quote, one > research paper, one news report. All old papers do it. They are in power. Evolution is so slow that result from last centuary will be valid 1000years. > Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts of > grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of access to free > range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones. And I mean NO > hormones. Such impossible requirements give your opponents argumment that todays oils are better than todays animals fat. BUT IT IS NOT TRUE. S* > "Tunderbar" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > delete "from properly raised animals". Animals and plants are now at the > same level. Not quite at the *same* levels, IMHO. Even poor examples of animal fat is better than the best examples of vegetable fats (excluding EVOO). > The last nail from me. Margarines were healthy (in that class) for two > hundert years (200 years) and suddenly become unhealthy. The reason is > known. Before margarine was made of BEEF fat (animal fat). Now it is made > mainly from vegatable oils. Margarine will be again healthy if be made from > animals (normally raised) fat. Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like hydrogen and colourants. > > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or researcher > > that does not subscribe to the general notion of eating less animal [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are better than todays animals fat. BUT IT IS NOT TRUE. > S* In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef or dairy animals. I can easily get good, and relatively inexpensive beef, pork and chicken that matches my requirements. And if consumers insist on it, the producers will provide it. TC > In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef Is your beef with vegetable oils about just refining/processing, or is it also about a higher degree of unsaturation that results in higher rates of a free radical formation? I actually think there is some truth to the later. There is some cancer research, but I also recall recent observations on negative correlations of life span (across various species) with the degree of cell membrane unsaturation and the length of the unsaturated fatty chain. Unfortunately, when people take that to extreme (like Dr. Montygram, PhD about things "on the molecular level"), and stop taking the dangerous and the "so called" EFAs completely, their brain fills up with the omega-9 mead acid mixed with coconut oil. Next, they stop responding to most external stimuli and post form letters to usenet inviting to read their "free website" (still signed by a pseudonym) about the dangers of EFAs. Kind of a trap, really, when the coconut takes over. You'd have to force-feed them salmon for a year, and only then be able to try to convince them that it was not such a good idea. I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a seemingly high number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream" views about the role of HIV in the development of AIDS? If I'm not mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS (or that it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think the HIV researchers are comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what - are they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils? >> In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > dangerous and the "so called" EFAs completely, their brain fills up > with the omega-9 mead acid mixed with coconut oil. It is not good go from one extreme (EFAs) to another (saturated) especially when the both are wrong. Only animal fats (and fresh olive oil made in farmer house) have the proper proportions. > Next, they stop responding to most external stimuli and post form > letters to usenet inviting to read their "free website" (still signed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the > likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils? I do not know. But I have remembered that at beginning of "vegetable oil era" they were imported to Poland and for this reason they were very expensive. I could not effort it. But almost all my friend who afford (mainly husbands of MDs) dead about fifty. Why only men? At that time butter was allowed only for children. As mom looking after children they eat the same (butter). For men was healthy margarine. S* Szczepan BiaЁek <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote: >> Why is there a seemingly high number of people in sci.med.nutrition >> group with "non-mainstream" views about the role of HIV in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I do not know. Do you mean that you remain firmly agnostic on the issue of HIV role in AIDS? On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ <3...@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> wrote: > > In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef > > Is your beef with vegetable oils about just refining/processing, or is BINGO. We have a winner. That is exactly my point. > it also about a higher degree of unsaturation that results in higher > rates of a free radical formation? I actually think there is some [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream" > views about the role of HIV in the development of AIDS? If I'm not A good bullshit detection facility? > mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS (or that > it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think the HIV > researchers are comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what - are 1) Those virologists who are in a position to question the HIV/AIDS paradigm have found that to do so is career suicide. Let's just say that they watch what they say. There may only be a few hundred virologists in the world who are qualified enough in the field to express themselves on the subject. 2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have to accept what the authorities present as fact. The vast majority of medical and research people are not educated enough in the field of virology to question what they are told. > they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the > likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils? The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions. And for a paradigm to survive it must survive harsh exposure to these hard questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard questions, it fails as a paradigm. HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone questioning the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The shrillness against HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening. There has not been an open scientific debate in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It was announced at a press conference and we are compelled to accept it, period. In fact, the findings announced at the press conference claiming that HIV cause AIDS, has never been publiched. Ever. There is no published study that shows that HIV causes AIDS. Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the cause of AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part of the factor. Or it may not be. We don't know because billions and billions have been spent on studying the HIV virus and nothing else. TC > On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ <3...@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A good bullshit detection facility? A high level of crankdom? >> If i'm not mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS >> (or that it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > paradigm have found that to do so is career suicide. Let's just say that > they watch what they say. Not in itself evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You could say the same about chemists who question the atomic theory, for instance. > There may only be a few hundred virologists in the world who are > qualified enough in the field to express themselves on the subject. I would guess it's more in the thousands. Unless your criteria for 'qualified enough' are rather stricter than mine. > 2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have to accept > what the authorities present as fact. The vast majority of medical and > research people are not educated enough in the field of virology to > question what they are told. True, but again, irrelevant. >> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the >> likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard questions, it fails as a > paradigm. Quite so. Can you point to any hard questions to which the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has failed to stand up? And by 'hard questions', i mean 'experiments'. > HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone questioning > the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The shrillness against > HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening. There has not been an open scientific > debate in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It was announced at a press conference > and we are compelled to accept it, period. I think that's a bit strong. There's a colossal amount of data linking HIV and AIDS, in general and in detail. You can't point to a single paper at the dawn of the field that establishes it conclusively, but that doesn't matter; biology's often like that. > In fact, the findings announced at the press conference claiming that > HIV cause AIDS, has never been publiched. Ever. Hang on, are you talking about the famous press conference held in 1984 at which the US secretary of health announced Gallo's identification of HIV as the cause of AIDS? If so, i'm afraid you're quite wrong - there were four papers published back-to-back in Science: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=6200935 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=6200936 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=6200937 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=6324345 You can argue about whether these papers are any good or not, but you can hardly claim that they were never published. Ever. > There is no published study that shows that HIV causes AIDS. Taking a really strict line on what showing that an agent causes a disease means, I believe this is true. I wish it were otherwise, but i think getting ethical approval for it would be pretty tricky. You can infect apes with HIV, though, and they get AIDS. Presumably that's no good? > Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the cause of > AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part of the factor. Or it > may not be. We don't know because billions and billions have been spent > on studying the HIV virus and nothing else. And as a result, we do now have HIV-oriented treatments which ameliorate and slow down the progress of AIDS. Pretty good for an unsubstantiated hypothesis! tom SignatureFitter, Happier, More Productive. > > On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ <3...@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > hypothesis has failed to stand up? And by 'hard questions', i mean > 'experiments'. None have been funded. But here are a couple of questions. Why has HIV/ AIDS not gone much further than the originally identified high-risk groups? A virus is supposed to non-risk-group limited entity. Where is the vaccine? It was predicted in 18 months after the press conference. Why do some with HIV never develop the disease? And why are there people with AIDS symptoms and no HIV positivity? Why has the virus not been properly isolated? > > HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone questioning > > the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The shrillness against [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the dawn of the field that establishes it conclusively, but that doesn't > matter; biology's often like that. There is no study published that specifically finds that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Period. If it exists, cite it. There was a press conference claiming this but no science published. Cite it. > > In fact, the findings announced at the press conference claiming that > > HIV cause AIDS, has never been publiched. Ever. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You can infect apes with HIV, though, and they get AIDS. Presumably that's > no good? Not HIV. Supposedly a simian HIV virus. Not HIV. > > Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the cause of > > AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part of the factor. Or it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Fitter, Happier, More Productive. Why do we have a drug cocktail whose side effects mimic the exact progress of AIDS? AZT. So when we start treating with other less toxic drug cocktails, victims..... errrrr, patients survive longer therefore the "disease" is slowed down. The whole statistical side of the HIV/ AIDS paradigm is absolutely rife with number fudging and statistical numbers juggling. Definitions are changed and expanded to increase the apparent patient population. The numbers used in the HIV/AIDS field are a frikkin' joke. HIV/AIDS supporters have changed and fudged numbers, methodologies, long held virology rules, tracking methods, and language to accomodate the whole improbable silly idea. People with HIV who don't get the disease are called non-progressors or long-term non-progressors, people aithout HIV positivity with AIDS symptoms aren't sufferring from AIDS. The term "non-progressor" was concocted to specifically denote an HIV patient who does not develop the disease within the predicted timeframe, and that timeframe went from originally 18 months to several years to a decade and a half to the current 15 to indefinite number of year. Pretty sad all around. The whole science has become a sad shell game of rhetoric, accusations, statistics, ever changing definitions, number fudging, and, of course, massive personal and corporate profits. Meanwhile, HIV hasn't been isolated, no vaccine is in sight, victims... errrr, patients are fed deadly drug cocktails and researchers are making billions by doing research that goes nowhere. And drug companies are selling their wares at tens of thousands of dollars per year per victim.... errrrr, patient. And more billions are being made by Gallo et. al. for their useless non-specific tests wothout any semblance of a gold standard for comparison. TC >>> On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ <3...@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > None have been funded. So there aren't any? I accept that it's very hard for HIV/AIDS deniers to get funding, but that doesn't change the fact that these hard questions you mention haven't been asked. I'm not saying that this proves the mainstream right - just that HIV/AIDS deniers haven't proven the mainstream wrong. > But here are a couple of questions. Why has HIV/ AIDS not gone much > further than the originally identified high-risk groups? A virus is > supposed to non-risk-group limited entity. Er, no - that's precisely what 'risk group' means! HIV will infect pretty much anyone, but not everyone has the same chance of being exposed to it. That said, in much of Africa, there isn't a risk group much more specific than 'sexually active people plus babies of such'. > Where is the vaccine? It was predicted in 18 months after the press > conference. Ha! Scientists are good at discoveries, and rather less good at predictions. I don't think you can take the failure of that particular one as evidence of the irrelevance of HIV; of the hubris of scientists, it is rather good evidence. Personally, i don't think there's much chance of a vaccine. There's simply too much antigenic variability in the virus to have an immunogen that will elicit a response that's effective against the range of strains seen in the wild. But there *are* people out there with humoral and T-cell responses that persistently suppress HIV, so there is a ray of hope. There was an interesting paper in Nature quite recently detailing what seems to be an invariant structure in HIV that can be targeted by antibodies, which should be effective against all strains: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=17301785 but it's hard to see how to make a vaccine that will deliver that result reliably. > Why do some with HIV never develop the disease? Er, because they have an immune system? HIV is only a virus, not a magical demon; it is possible for the body to fight it off on its own, even if it's not likely. > And why are there people with AIDS symptoms and no HIV positivity? A combination of crappy testing and other diseases which can cause immunodeficiency, i suspect; without knowing about individual cases, i can't say for sure. It's quite clear that the overwhelming majority of AIDS patients are positive for HIV, though; i don't think a few exceptions can be taken as proof that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is wrong. > Why has the virus not been properly isolated? What? In what way has it not been properly isolated? A colleague of mine has a cryostore full of little tubes that say otherwise! >>> HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone questioning >>> the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately. The shrillness against [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There is no study published that specifically finds that HIV is the > cause of AIDS. Period. If it exists, cite it. So, studies showing that when you put HIV into someone, they usually get AIDS. I'd say there were at least three good lines of evidence here. Firstly, blood and plasma transfusions where the material had HIV in it; we know that transfusions of uninfected material don't cause AIDS, so i'd say we can conclude that it was the HIV that led to the AIDS. For example, in this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8 193497&dopt=Abstract Secondly, infections of scientists and medics working with HIV. Working in a lab or hospital does not of itself seem to cause AIDS, at least in my experience, so the people in white coats who have developed AIDS after being exposed to HIV would seem to be evidence of the link from HIV to AIDS. See under: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/bp_hiv_hp_with.html That, of course, is a CDC publication, not a 'proper' paper; i think needlestick transmission is something which is now common enough that it's not actually worth publishing papers on it. So, feel free to ignore this evidence if you require a proper paper. Thirdly, twin studies. HIV infection can be passed from mother to child, but it isn't totally efficient - there are cases where you have identical twins, one of whom is HIV positive, and one negative. In these cases, the positive twin goes on to get AIDS, and the other doesn't. The twins have been in an identical environment up to that point, so it's hard to see what could cause one to get AIDS and not the other apart from the HIV. For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3 012996&dopt=Abstract I have to sympathize with you over the evidence here, though - there basically hasn't been much interest in publishing lots of iron-clad studies showing that HIV causes AIDS, since most scientists in the field feel it's adequately established, and that they have better things to do. In terms of getting results that will actually help people, i think this is the right thing to have done, but clearly, in terms of making you happy, it's not. > There was a press conference claiming this but no science published. > Cite it. I did that below - do me the courtesy of reading what i write before replying to it. >>> There is no published study that shows that HIV causes AIDS. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not HIV. Yes, HIV, in chimps: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=9094687 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=10979899 Admittedly not efficiently, though - HIV will infect chimpanzees quite well, but very rarely lead to immunodeficiency. There is a long and fascinating literature on this, and what it boils down to is the not entirely shocking observation that successful parasites don't actually cause damage to their primary hosts. HIV is a simian virus that's crossed over to us, and hasn't adapted itself to keep a low profile yet. Also, HIV-2 in baboons, although i don't think that's as interesting, since HIV-2 is not a major human pathogen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9 625420&dopt=Abstract Also, quite weird, but you can make a mouse in which the mouse immune system is knocked out, and a human one sort of transplanted in: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8 515816&dopt=Abstract Every single cell in their immune system is of human origin, and HIV gives them AIDS. > Supposedly a simian HIV virus. Not HIV. Oh, completely irrelevant then. There are a number of lentiviruses, across a number of species, where infection leads to immunosuppression. Do you think all these are made up too, with the sheep, rabbits, etc in question suffering from overdoses of AZT or whatever, or do you just think that HIV is different for some reason? > Why do we have a drug cocktail whose side effects mimic the exact > progress of AIDS? AZT. No, sorry, bullshit. Or are you going to cite a study showing that AZT causes severe, long-term, essentially irreversible immunosuppression? If so, this will come as interesting news to all those people in Africa with AIDS; they must have taken AZT without realising it! > So when we start treating with other less toxic drug cocktails, > victims..... errrrr, patients survive longer therefore the "disease" is > slowed down. Yes. Quite so - and it all tallies nicely with measurements of viral load and emergence of escape mutations. Your point is? > The whole statistical side of the HIV/ AIDS paradigm is absolutely rife > with number fudging and statistical numbers juggling. Definitions are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > held virology rules, tracking methods, and language to accomodate the > whole improbable silly idea. Since we're in a citing mood, i take it you're going to cite some evidence for that? > People with HIV who don't get the disease are called non-progressors or > long-term non-progressors, people aithout HIV positivity with AIDS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and that timeframe went from originally 18 months to several years to a > decade and a half to the current 15 to indefinite number of year. Yes. This is called 'revising the hypothesis', and it's something that scientists are allowed to do. We'd love to be able to give you certain, complete truth from the get-go, but that's not the business we're in. Particularly if you listen to what scientists say at press conferences and in articles for magazines, etc - those are opinions, not proper science. Scientists are, sadly, human like everyone else. > Pretty sad all around. The whole science has become a sad shell game of > rhetoric, accusations, statistics, ever changing definitions, number > fudging, and, of course, massive personal and corporate profits. And lots and lots of HIV-positive people living longer and healthier lives than before. Sounds good to me! tom SignatureAxaxaxas Mlo > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like > hydrogen... Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and highly flammable sodium. >> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like >> hydrogen... > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and > highly flammable sodium. No, it's non toxic chloride and inert Na+ both have a noble gas valence configuration. --Sir Jackery > >> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like > >> hydrogen... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, it's non toxic chloride and inert Na+ both have a noble gas valence > configuration. No kidding, Sherlock. On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher" <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus additives like > > hydrogen... > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine and > highly flammable sodium. Your point is.......????? Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the final product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes it worse. The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid. TC > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not downright stupid. Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and colourants" is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added hydrogen just like splenda has chlorine. You are either intentionally misleading others by overselling your case or you just don't have a clue what you're talking about. On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher" <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher" > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It does not matter. We all know that hydrogenation converts at least some of the oils into trans-fats. Then factor in the fact that the original vegetable oil is highly processed crap and bereft of nutrition, and you know that margarine is crap. TC > On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher" > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > original vegetable oil is highly processed crap and bereft of > nutrition, and you know that margarine is crap. I don't *care*. I just saw that you said something dumb and I thought I'd call you on it. On Mar 13, 10:28 am, "throatslasher" <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Then gfy. > > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher" > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > by overselling your case or you just don't have a clue what you're > talking about. I suspect it's both. SignatureWill @ www.BrinkZone.com "It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. He > was simply asking you to defend your position. > > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion. > > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim. Exactly. It's irrelevant whether or not I agree with him. SignatureWill @ www.BrinkZone.com "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the mainstream. It does not run counter for those who have bothered to look at the research. > 1) Animal fats are evil And we know that's simply not true. > and > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the healthiest > stuff since sliced bread. That too is not true > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two claims that > are expoused by virtually all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no > one has stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry- > picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about > you? Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Again, I don't have to. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Thus, you need to supply data or other worthy info that supports your position that animals fats are not unhealthy and vegetable oils are not a fountain of youth. > you show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats cause > all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are > better? Huh? What is your background to decide if what I supply is "definitive"? SignatureWill @ www.BrinkZone.com "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural > Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? [...] From a review of "Dr Atkins' Health Revolution" [...] | A common myth about Dr. Atkins that could stand some clearing up is that | he advocates a strict homeopathic system of medical care and an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | here, I was impressed with how logical and simple to apply this system | is. [...] http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Atkins-Health-Revolution-Complementary/dp/055328360X > "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > supply the support first. The burden of proof is on those who make the > claim. Try telling that to the theists. Oh, wait, you've done that before. Have they sent you any evidence for the existence of God yet? David > > "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, wait, you've done that before. Have they sent you any evidence for the > existence of God yet? Of course not, as there is none to be had. Now if that damn burning bush in my yard would STFU I could get back to work... SignatureWill @ www.BrinkZone.com "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.