 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2007A cure for diabetes from 1806?
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC13560998&id=Oq7U1wafWIUC&pg=RA2... Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal - Page 16 1806 He prescribed a bunch of medicines and of greater importance: "...laid no restriction upon his diet, except forbearance from vegetables." In those days that would be a meat only diet. Vegetables generally would mean all plant-sourced food including grains. Could this be the first recorded real-life application of a low-carb diet that successfully reversed the symptoms of diabetes T2? Similar to Dr Bernstein's Diabetes Solution. **** More cases confirming animal diet success in treating Diabetes T2 in 1807. MEDICAL REPORTS OF CASES AND EXPERIMENTS - Page 68 by SAMUEL ARGENT BARDSLEY, M.D. - 1807 http://books.google.com/books?vid=0AimAHLiS4A3uCqE&id=U3EFAAAAQAAJ&pg... *** An entire book on the subject of diabetes T2 and a successful cure. http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC14855255&id=0d1_snt4ivYC&pg=PA4... On diabetes, and its successful treatment By John Mussendine Camplin, James Grey Glover The treatment? Animal foods and no grains. *** I hope the links work. TC One point: a successul treatment is not the same thing as a cure. :: http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC13560998&id=Oq7U1wafWIUC&pg=RA2... :: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] :: :: TC What do you call it when all the symptoms dissappear? TC > One point: a successul treatment is not the same thing as a cure. > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > :: > :: TC control. :: What do you call it when all the symptoms dissappear? :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] ::: ::: tunder...@hotmail.com wrote:::http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC13560998&id=Oq7U1wafWIUC&pg=RA2... ::::: Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal - Page 16 ::::: 1806 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] ::::: MEDICAL REPORTS OF CASES AND EXPERIMENTS - Page 68 ::::: by SAMUEL ARGENT BARDSLEY, M.D. - 1807 http://books.google.com/books?vid=0AimAHLiS4A3uCqE&id=U3EFAAAAQAAJ&pg... ::::: *** ::::: ::::: An entire book on the subject of diabetes T2 and a successful ::::: cure. http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC14855255&id=0d1_snt4ivYC&pg=PA4... ::::: On diabetes, and its successful treatment By John Mussendine ::::: Camplin, James Grey Glover [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] ::::: ::::: TC LOL, for sure...because as soon as you go back to your old eating habits, we're talking hours here in many cases, the symptoms reappear. Cheri >control. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >:: On Jan 27, 7:18 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: >::: One point: a successul treatment is not the same thing as a cure. : control. I think people are splitting hairs on control vs cure. I've heard this arguement way to many times. If people want to think they are cured or controlled, who cares. You could throw this arguement into a lot of dieases. My ex-mother-in-law had lung cancer and the doctors did their voodoo, got rid of the cancer (18 years). Was she not cured or is she just controlled? She took up smoking again and guess what, it's back. Sorry but if my symptoms go away and I'm not on meds, I'll stick with "I'm cured". JMHO ::: What do you call it when all the symptoms dissappear? ::: ::: TC "I think people are splitting hairs on control vs cure. I've heard this arguement way to many times. If people want to think they are cured or controlled, who cares. You could throw this arguement into a lot of dieases. My ex-mother-in-law had lung cancer and the doctors did their voodoo, got rid of the cancer (18 years). Was she not cured or is she just controlled? She took up smoking again and guess what, it's back." If one has controled aids is one cured of the hiv virus? Cancer is cured when after five years all physical and biochemical signs of it have not reapeared. Control in cancer means stopping he size and spread of a tumor but it is still there. Cancer, even of a different type, can reoccur after the first was cured. In this case there is another factor at play. The original poster wants to assert that increased carb intake is the cause of diabetes and lowered carb intake cures it. He is not correct. If one who is controlled by carb moderation once again increases carb intake into the range of others who don't have diabetes and will never do so, their secondary symptoms of the metabolic disorder that was there all along will at once reappear. No cure happened at all, just like the case of aids where symptoms and death would result if controls were removed. Herbes can not be cured, the virus always remains even when controlled and sometimes flares up, tb can be cured because the microbe causing it is destroyed by drugs. ::: control. :: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: Sorry but if my symptoms go away and I'm not on meds, I'll stick :: with "I'm cured". JMHO You're entitled to your opinion....but people who control symptoms are doing just that...and as soon as you get sloppy, symptoms return. To my mind, that's not a cure.... ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: ::::: What do you call it when all the symptoms dissappear? ::::: ::::: TC "What do you call it when all the symptoms dissappear?" Good control, not cure. A simple glucose test will reveal instantly the underlying metabolic disorder of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when secondary symptoms can be controled or reversed to some degree the underlying metabolic disorder remains. A simple glucose test will demonstrate this instantly. On Jan 27, 9:23 am, p...@consult.net wrote: > There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when secondary > symptoms can be controled or reversed to some degree the underlying > metabolic disorder remains. A simple glucose test will demonstrate this > instantly. Proof? Or are you just posting more fraudulent crap under another alias? TC "> There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when secondary > symptoms can be controled or reversed to some degree the underlying > metabolic disorder remains. A simple glucose test will demonstrate this > instantly. "Proof?" Some things are so elemental as not to require "proof", such as when aids is controled stopping the controls will result in death. Control in diabetes means to better balance the available insulin to the glucose intake so as to reach an overall glucose level goal. With the very best control insulin production does not increase as that is a function of beta cell mass which is greatly reduced even in a controlled diabetic. Control can over time reduce insulin resistence in cells which makes what is there more effective. This is the fundimental basis for the dr. bernstein approach to create this balance. However the available insulin is still far below what a non-diabetic has. Consuming the same amount of glucose a non-diabetic does on a routine daily basis would instantly upset the balance of even the best controled diabet because the insulin side of the equation remains lower then the non-diabetic. Very soon the overall glucose level goals would be exceeded constantly to those levels before control. Decreasing glucose intake does not replace beta cell mass. In fact it can even decrease it more but that is another much detailed story. :: "> There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when :: secondary [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: "Proof?" There obviously isn't any need to prove there is no cure now or in the past. Perhaps one day in the future there may be. We can remain hopeful for that. Any reasonably intelligent person can see that controling the symptoms is not the same thing as being rid of the disease. :: Some things are so elemental as not to require "proof", such as when :: aids is controled stopping the controls will result in death. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: In fact it can even decrease it more but that is another much :: detailed story. > p...@consult.net wrote::: "> There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when > :: secondary [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Any reasonably intelligent person can see that controling the symptoms is > not the same thing as being rid of the disease. What if the person is clear of symptoms for 6 months? One year? Two years? 5 years? For the rest of his/her life? What if insulin sensitivity returns to normal? What if the postpriandal curve returns to normal? "Cure" or "sucessful treatment", I don't give a rats a.s what you call it. the fact is that there has been plenty of case reports proving that restricting refined carbs reverses, at least to some degree, the symptoms of diabetes T2. Dr Bernstein applies these treatments successfully on an ongoing basis in the real world. And for any medical advanced degree pinhead, or the ADA for that matter, to suggest that the correct mode of treatment is that patients make no attempt to control carb intake whatsoever and to rely strictly on in$ulin $hots and blood gluco$e lowering med$ is absolutely frikkin' criminal. You want evidenced based medicine, then pay attention to the f.cking evidence. Too many advanced degree pinheads conveniently ignore the real-life, in the field, practitioners' case reports and substitute their own book learned rationalizations instead. They ignore the reality and substitute their own for no other reason than they think they know everything there is to know from books, from their comfortable university offices. That has been going on since at least the turn of the 19th century, as per my first posting. There is a technical terms for these idiots, they are called slow adopters. And 200 years is pretty f.cking slow. And criminal considering the dying and the suffering that this pathetic chronic close-mindedness and slow-adoption is causing in the real world. TC > :: Some things are so elemental as not to require "proof", such as when > :: aids is controled stopping the controls will result in death. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > :: In fact it can even decrease it more but that is another much > :: detailed story. : > p...@consult.net wrote::: "> There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when You guys will never agree on if the glass is half-full or half-empty. Some people will say it's a cure and some will say it's just under control. It's not worth going to battle over. > : > p...@consult.net wrote::: "> There is no cure for diabetes, now or in > the past. Even when > > You guys will never agree on if the glass is half-full or half-empty. Some > people will say it's a cure and some will say it's just under control. > It's not worth going to battle over. Amend that to state that some people do not understand what "cure" means, and I agree. "What if the person is clear of symptoms for 6 months? One year? Two years? 5 years? For the rest of his/her life? What if insulin sensitivity returns to normal? What if the postpriandal curve returns to normal? "Cure" or "sucessful treatment", I don't give a rats a.s what you call it. the fact is that there has been plenty of case reports proving that restricting refined carbs reverses, at least to some degree, the symptoms of diabetes T2. Dr Bernstein applies these treatments successfully on an ongoing basis in the real world." Any restatement or different slicing and dicing of the basic facts changes nothing. Control in a diabetic is not cure, as was illustrated in the previous reference to the balance process between available insulin and glucose intake. A diabetic just can not produce enough insulin to bring that balance into the normal non-diabetic range. There are other features besides balance but this alone is enough to show why control of glucose levels is not cure for what is a metabolic disorder that remains there all the time. : "What if the person is clear of symptoms for 6 months? One year? Two : years? 5 years? For the rest of his/her life? What if insulin [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : control of glucose levels is not cure for what is a metabolic disorder : that remains there all the time. It's your option to see the glass as half-empty. "It's your option to see the glass as half-empty." Please forgive my bluntness. At least half of beta cells are dead in a diabetic at diagnosis and continue to decrease until control slows the death rate, some research suggests it continues even then. Those that remain can not produce enough insulin quickly enough to control even moderate levels of glucose even in the very best controlled diabetic. That is the 800 pound gorilla that just will not disappear with any best restatement of the presence or not of secondary symptoms. Only by balancing the available insulin with glucose levels can the beast be quieted, but it is your house guest if you like it or not for the rest of your life. Call it half macaroni if you wish but there it is. : A diabetic just can not produce enough : insulin to bring that balance into the normal non-diabetic range. Not completely true. A long time Type 2 diabetic may or may not have enough insulin. But Type 2 is defined as cells not being able to transport the insulin in the body, therefore more and more insulin is usually being made. Give any Type 2 a C-Peptide test and you can bet 90% have an over abundance of insulin instead of a lack of. If you're talking about Type 1's then yes, there is a definate lack of insulin in the body, but type 1's also 99% of the time lack Insulin resistance and have no trouble with excess body weight and can easily lose with a decrease in food and/or increase of exericse. At diagnosis it is thought that as much as 50 percent of beta cell mass is gone. While the remaining mass can produce insulin it is not enough to overcome cell resistance, as you mention, and to move blood glucose into cells even without the resistance to avoid a post meal peak and delay in the glucose level coming back down. It is this loss of control in dealing with glucose for lack of enough insulin that is the somewhat arbitrary measure of diabetes. In the gray area before and even as cell mass first starts to decrease large amounts of insulin do occur. The so called first phase insulin response which happens regardless of resistance and occurs within minutes of eating is absent. This happens before beta cell mass starts to decrease because the beta cells no longer respond effectively to glucose soon enough. This means that the main release of insulin is delayed for about an hour and then it is a lower then normal release and is forced to continue longer even if resistance were absent. Compared to a non-diabetic the total insulin that can be produced and the sppeed of response for what can be produced is lower in frank diabetes when the gray area is clearly in the past. At diagnosis it is thought most have been diabetic for at least 5 years or in the latter stages of prediabetes until symptoms start to appear or glucose levels too high are caught in a routine screening. All of this means that even if by magic resistance could be changed back to normal levels that diabetes would still remain as would be measured by post meal glucose swings for lack of enough insulin at the right time even for moderate amounts of glucose. This is where the balance comes and can only be achieved by reducing the glucose side of the equation even when resistance is mostly controled. Those who keep thight enough control no longer have any resistance to speak of as can be measured by testing. Diabetes remains however because of the small production of insulin at the right times as above. : A diabetic just can not produce enough : insulin to bring that balance into the normal non-diabetic range. "Not completely true. A long time Type 2 diabetic may or may not have enough insulin. But Type 2 is defined as cells not being able to transport the insulin in the body, therefore more and more insulin is usually being made. Give any Type 2 a C-Peptide test and you can bet 90% have an over abundance of insulin instead of a lack of. If you're talking about Type 1's then yes, there is a definate lack of insulin in the body, but type 1's also 99% of the time lack Insulin resistance and have no trouble with excess body weight and can easily lose with a decrease in food and/or increase of exericse." > :: "> There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when > :: secondary [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Any reasonably intelligent person can see that controling the symptoms is > not the same thing as being rid of the disease. Many alcoholics will stay clean and sober for decades. Yet, they insist that they are not cured, but are still alcoholics. Indeed, if they partake of alcohol in a steady fashion, they quickly revert to their former behavior. So, it makes sense for the claim that they are still alcoholics. In the paper cited, the author says several times that when he reverts to his former ways of eating, the obvious symptoms of diabetes returned with regularity. So, the author was "cured" of diabetes about as well as alcoholics get "cured" of alcoholism. In both cases, eating or drinking as before results in the bad lifestyle consequences of the "disease". "Cured" of diabetes would be the ability to eat "average" amounts of insulin demanding foods without any health consequences. The author of the paper shows that the "cure" fails to perform in that manner. I think the focus of calling this a "cure" is more emotional than it is logical. And it turns the wonderful accomplishment of finding this scientific treasure into a childish wishlist goal instead. On Jan 28, 2:06 pm, p...@consult.net wrote: > "> There is no cure for diabetes, now or in the past. Even when > secondary [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Some things are so elemental as not to require "proof", such as when > aids is controled stopping the controls will result in death. I'll accept your concession on this point. You were wrong and I was right. > Control in diabetes means to better balance the available insulin to the > glucose intake so as to reach an overall glucose level goal. With the Control in diabetes T2 is to stop overconsumption of carbohydrates and the subsequent chronic high blood glucose levels which in turn ends the need for the pancreas to chronically overproduce insulin thereby relieving the receptors from the constant onslaught of massive amounts of insulin and giving them a chance to recover and be repaired by the natural healing powers of the human body. You are aware that the body is self-healing are you not? > very best control insulin production does not increase as that is a > function of beta cell mass which is greatly reduced even in a controlled > diabetic. Control can over time reduce insulin resistence in cells > which makes what is there more effective. This is the fundimental basis > for the dr. bernstein approach to create this balance. Dietary and carb control lessens the impact on beta cells and on the receptors and returns the entire endocrine system back to normal ranges, allowing the beta cells and the receptors to repair. The only variable now is whether or not the years of abnormally high carb consumption and the years of chronically high insulin production has done any irreversible damage. If it has then no, there will be no "cure: effected, if there is permanent damage sustained, then we have a successful treatment with some lasting damage. > However the available insulin is still far below what a non-diabetic > has. Consuming the same amount of glucose Not necessarily. Give it time and the situation will improve depending on any permanent damage to the beta cells. Catch it early enough in a young enough patient and the body can repair itself to a great degree. a non-diabetic does on a > routine daily basis would instantly upset the balance of even the best > controled diabet because the insulin side of the equation remains lower > then the non-diabetic. Very soon the overall glucose level goals would > be exceeded constantly to those levels before control. Decreasing > glucose intake does not replace beta cell mass. In fact it can even > decrease it more but that is another much detailed story. See, where you go wrong is with the labels. You assume that a person is diabetic or is not diabetic. Any halfway intelligent person will understand that it isn't nearly that black and white. There are degrees of diabetes, ranging from barely perceptible symptoms of metabolic syndrome to pre-diabetes to diabetes T2 to insulin dependent diabetes from diabetes T2. You can't make sweeping statements that *none* of these people are curable. Many will be, for all intents and purposes, completely curable. A good number of them at the worse extreme of the condition will have irreversible damage to their receptors and/or beta cells, these will not be "curable", but they can be successfully treated as much as realistically possible, not with insulin injections and bg lowering meds but with a carbs restricted diet. But the point of this entire thread is not to debate curability but to simply show that the medical profession has let down millions of those they claim to be able to treat. For 200 years they've been made aware of a treatment modality that has been shown on numerous occasions and in many cases to be an effective treatment. Yet, they chose to ignore it. Why? Because they have an advanced degree rational argument out of a textbook that gives them the arrogance to ignore real-world evidence. Tell me about how you are right because you base your opinions on "evidence-based" medicine again and how I base my opinions of hearsay and quackery. I need another good laugh. Evidence-based medicine my a.s. People like you should be shot in the streets and made examples of. How's that for a dangling participle. Did they teach you what that is at Carnegie Mellon Mass-Brainwashing University? TC "I'll accept your concession on this point. You were wrong and I was right. > Control in diabetes means to better balance the available insulin to the > glucose intake so as to reach an overall glucose level goal. With the Control in diabetes T2 is to stop overconsumption of carbohydrates and the subsequent chronic high blood glucose levels which in turn ends the need for the pancreas to chronically overproduce insulin thereby relieving the receptors from the constant onslaught of massive amounts of insulin and giving them a chance to recover and be repaired by the natural healing powers of the human body. You are aware that the body is self-healing are you not? there is at present no known way to cause beta cell expansion in a frank diabetic. It is the goal of much research only at this point. Even stopping 100 percent all carb intake would not cause beta cell increase. We need go no farther with this level of opinion. Carbs do not cause diabetes and consuming few or no carbs does not "cure" it period. snip "Tell me about how you are right because you base your opinions on "evidence-based" medicine again and how I base my opinions of hearsay and quackery. I need another good laugh." If you wish, ditto. On Jan 29, 9:47 am, p...@consult.net wrote: > "I'll accept your concession on this point. You were wrong and I was > right. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > not cause diabetes and consuming few or no carbs does not "cure" it > period. Proof? Put up or shut up. You keep yapping but all I hear is noise. Show me proof that dietary carbs does not impact on insulin levels, beta cells injury and receptor injury and that restricting carbs does not improve the condition. For once, show me something other than a smart-assed comment or a blithe opinion. TC > snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you wish, ditto. > there is at present no known way to cause beta cell expansion in a frank > diabetic. It is the goal of much research only at this point. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not cause diabetes and consuming few or no carbs does not "cure" it > period. Proof? Put up or shut up. You keep yapping but all I hear is noise. 'Regulation of Pancreatic Beta-Cell Mass' Physiol Rev. 2005 Oct;85(4):1255-70. From the abstract: " Beta-cell mass regulation represents a critical issue for understanding diabetes, a disease characterized by a near-absolute (type 1) or relative (type 2) deficiency in the number of pancreatic^ beta cells. The number of islet beta cells present at birth is mainly generated by the proliferation and differentiation of pancreatic progenitor cells, a process called neogenesis. Shortly after birth, beta-cell neogenesis stops and a small proportion of cycling beta cells can still expand the cell number to compensate for increased insulin demands, albeit at a slow rate. The low capacity for self-replication in the adult is too limited to result in a significant regeneration following extensive tissue injury. Likewise, chronically increased metabolic^ demands can lead to beta-cell failure to compensate." With a diabetic having at diagnosis an estimated 50 percent of beta cell death that continues, the above shows that even if the death could be stopped instantly beta cell mass increase to normal amounts do not happen. The bulk of the article is exploring the ways beta cells might be caused to increase using externally applied hormones etc. that are known to have cell proliferation effects. On Jan 29, 12:56 pm, p...@consult.net wrote: > > there is at present no known way to cause beta cell expansion in a > frank [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > be caused to increase using externally applied hormones etc. that are > known to have cell proliferation effects. So the medically confirmed diabetic T2 has permanent damage to b cells. He will never have 100% normal function. But he will have significanty improved symptoms with proper diet. And anyone not having sufferred such damage and is on his way to a diabetes or a pre- diabetes or a metabolic syndrome diagnosis can be helped significantly and may even be cured. You are still only playing semantics. I say regardless of the damage, low carb will improve the condition significantly and will stop further damage. And those with little or no permanently damage can reverse other tissue damage due to elevated blood glucose and insulin. There is more damage than just the b cells. Elevated bgs and insulin damages the blood vessels thruout the body and various organs and cells as well. Much of that damage can be reversed or stopped in its tracks by proper diet and the time needed for the body to heal. TC :: On Jan 29, 12:56 pm, p...@consult.net wrote: :::: there is at present no known way to cause beta cell expansion in a [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] :: So the medically confirmed diabetic T2 has permanent damage to b :: cells. He will never have 100% normal function. You made no such distinction at the beginning of this thread. You're simply "morphing" your argument now. So obviously this T2 will never be cured of diabetes. Thank you. :: But he will have :: significanty improved symptoms with proper diet. Good that you finally agree. :: And anyone not :: having sufferred such damage As in a non-diabetic. :: and is on his way to a diabetes or a :: pre- diabetes or a metabolic syndrome diagnosis can be helped :: significantly and may even be cured. He's not cured if he hasn't suffered any dysfunction. I doubt many of us who use LC have a problem with using it in the fight to avoid becoming diabetic. Of course, I 've heard claims of people who still became diabetic even after switching to LC. :: You are still only playing semantics. I say regardless of the damage, :: low carb will improve the condition significantly and will stop :: further damage. We don't need you to tell us this because many of us live this everyday. :: And those with little or no permanently damage can :: reverse other tissue damage due to elevated blood glucose and :: insulin. This is your mindnumbing rant here, as you're not a scientist or a doctor of any kind, though you claim to have spent thousands of hours in the library reading textbooks. Those with little or no permanent damage don't have much ot fix, right? :: There is more damage than just the b cells. Elevated bgs and insulin :: damages the blood vessels thruout the body and various organs and :: cells as well. Much of that damage can be reversed or stopped in its :: tracks by proper diet and the time needed for the body to heal. The word according to Dr. TC to whom we should all listen.... "So the medically confirmed diabetic T2 has permanent damage to b cells. He will never have 100% normal function. But he will have significanty improved symptoms with proper diet. And anyone not having sufferred such damage and is on his way to a diabetes or a pre- diabetes or a metabolic syndrome diagnosis can be helped significantly and may even be cured. You are still only playing semantics. I say regardless of the damage, low carb will improve the condition significantly and will stop further damage. And those with little or no permanently damage can reverse other tissue damage due to elevated blood glucose and insulin." Obfuscation, minimizing, and tap dancing, tactics now familiar and expected. You requested proof and it was supplied to show your claim that control will result in beta cells "healing themselves" and increase of beta cell mass was not valid. Much of above I had already said in other words, happy you can now reflect same more accurately. Carb intake is not the cause of diabetes and few or no carb intake will not cure it or improve beta cell mass period. Balancing available insulin with glucose intake can aid in control along with whatever other treatments that aid in doing so. That is the dr. bernstein approach, an evidence based scientific approach and he never claims "cure" but as best controlled as possible because he too knows what you were claiming can not be supported by the evidence. :: But the point of this entire thread is not to debate curability but :: to simply show that the medical profession has let down millions of :: those they claim to be able to treat. For 200 years they've been :: made aware of a treatment modality that has been shown on numerous :: occasions and in many cases to be an effective treatment. Yet, they :: chose to ignore it. I agree with this. Most of the rest of what you said is your own nonsense, TC. You seem to simpy hate people tho have "advanced degrees", too. That's sad because that's not the reason with why the medical community has done such a poor job. Why? Because they have an advanced degree :: rational argument out of a textbook that gives them the arrogance to :: ignore real-world evidence. Again, this has little to do with it. They may be arrogance and ignoring real-world evidence, but it has nothing to do with "advance degree rational argument out of a textbook". You spewing nonsense. :: Tell me about how you are right because you base your opinions on :: "evidence-based" medicine again and how I base my opinions of hearsay :: and quackery. I need another good laugh. :: :: Evidence-based medicine my a.s. People like you should be shot in the :: streets and made examples of. Nonsense. How's that for a dangling participle. :: Did they teach you what that is at Carnegie Mellon Mass-Brainwashing :: University? Anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously brainwashed. Yep. > :: But the point of this entire thread is not to debate curability but > :: to simply show that the medical profession has let down millions of > :: those they claim to be able to treat. For 200 years they've been > :: made aware of a treatment modality that has been shown on numerous > :: occasions and in many cases to be an effective treatment. Yet, they > :: chose to ignore it. tunderbar: It hasn't been 0ver 200 years.... Read your own reference. 1855 published in Medico-Chirurgical Transactions of Royal Medical/ Chirurgical Society 1844 Recognized the disease and obtained treatment recommendations 1858 Published the first edition as a book for wider circulation 1860 Wrote preface for the second edition of the book for wider circulation. 1861 Printer's date for publication of the second edition. --------------------------------------------------------- You do real sloppy work as a phony researcher. You make false claims as a result. ----------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps you also missed the near coincidence of the dates of this "low carb" diet for diabetes and the original Banting publication of the "low carb" diet for obesity in 1863... Banting (1863)wrote a small booklet entitled "Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public which advocated avoiding starch and sugar. He had lost 45 pounds on a diet of lean meat, dry toast, soft boiled eggs and a few drinks a day, but ended up his only customer. Virtually all of this first edition was given away. During the 1844 to 1863 period, there ware multiple instances of advocacy of Meat but No Starch styles of eating for some aspects of health. ................................................................ > I agree with this. Most of the rest of what you said is your own nonsense, > TC. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously brainwashed. Yep. This is a sad discussion. What's lost in all technical blabbery is the insight that the original post had a very good point about a LC solution for diabetes patients. Please don't use the group for such exchange. > This is a sad discussion. > What's lost in all technical blabbery is the > insight that the original post had a very good > point about a LC solution for diabetes patients. > Please don't use the group for such exchange. Well, thank you very much. I thought it was a darned good point too. Don't worry about those guys. I find it entertaining to see what ridiculous points they bring up to distract from the real points being made. I expect these food industry trolls to trash anything I say and all it does is confirm and strengthen my arguments. You know that anything that brings these rats out from under their rocks has to be close to the truth. They don't like simple clear points of facts that show up the current mainstream paradigms to be the fraud that it is. I know that people like you read what I write and see some little nuggets of wisdom in it. And the more the trolls trash it, the longer my posts sit where others can see and read them. And the sillier their arguments, and they are all silly to some degree, the more my points make sense. Their counter-points make my points seem like pure genius by comparison. TC :: On Feb 22, 10:03 pm, "H.L" <H...@aracer.com> wrote: ::: This is a sad discussion. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :: :: TC Are you drunk or what? > :: On Feb 22, 10:03 pm, "H.L" <H...@aracer.com> wrote: > ::: This is a sad discussion. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > :: I know that people like you read what I write and see some little > :: nuggets of wisdom in it. Minuscule is a better word than little here. Infinitesmal may be overdoing it. > :: And the more the trolls trash it, the longer > :: my posts sit where others can see and read them. And the sillier [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Are you drunk or what? Well, I think it is "or what". And has been for a long time. :: This is a sad discussion. :: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the :: insight that the original post had a very good :: point about a LC solution for diabetes patients. :: Please don't use the group for such exchange. What you don't seem to get is that some of us have been using LC for control of diabetes for a long time - hence we know the issues involved. We can use the group for whatever in the hell we want, and that mostly accurate information. Telling someone who has diabetes that they are cured is scary, scary business. > :: This is a sad discussion. > :: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > accurate information. Telling someone who has diabetes that they are cured > is scary, scary business. Well said. |:: This is a sad discussion. |:: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] |accurate information. Telling someone who has diabetes that they are cured |is scary, scary business. Yep, some people are just plain ignorant and don't know the difference. I moved a new city a few months ago and started going to a new doctor. On the initial forms that I filled out I checked that I was diabetic. But when my first blood tests for this doc came back she said that I was NOT diabetic: My FBG was 78 and my HbA1C was 5.1 I guess it would be easy for me to believe that I am not diabetic based on this doctor's statement ... but I KNOW that if I were to go off of my low carb WOE that my A1C would shoot up along with the FBG. The bottom line is that a low-carb diet controls the diabetes, but does not cure it. There's a big difference. If I were cured I could eat whatever I wanted without having to worry about my blood sugar swinging up and down again. But this is not the case. My choices are to continue with a lifelong low-carb plan, or to take diabetic medications I choose the former. I don't even have to eat extreme low-carb, just maintenance levels in order to keep my blood sugar at normal levels. : |:: This is a sad discussion. : |:: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : But when my first blood tests for this doc came back she said that I : was NOT diabetic: My FBG was 78 and my HbA1C was 5.1 : I guess it would be easy for me to believe that I am not diabetic : based on this doctor's statement ... but I KNOW that if I were to go : off of my low carb WOE that my A1C would shoot up along with the FBG. Some would say they are "cured" if they were in your shoes, and I don't have a problem with that. I have gotten a few sinus infections if I spend a week or more at the casinos(smoke,dust,etc...). My doc give me antibiotics and it goes away(CURED), but if I go back(to my old ways so to speak) It sometimes comes back . : The bottom line is that a low-carb diet controls the diabetes, but : does not cure it. There's a big difference. If I were cured I could [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : I don't even have to eat extreme low-carb, just maintenance levels in : order to keep my blood sugar at normal levels. Have you bothered to take a glucose tolerance test lately? I've been working on my diabetes and I'm off the medication(Actos) after a year. At some point I will take a GTT to see where I'm at. Who knows maybe I'll pass the darn thing. From my point of view, if I don't have symtoms, I'm cured. I still low-carb as I like the lifestyle it gives me. Maybe it's just me, but I've always had a positive attitude on everything I've done. If you don't think you can beat it(diabetes), you never will. JMHO  SignatureLow-carb Exercise Well, YMMV! There is NO perfect-for-everyone way of doing it... I just heard about Dr. Neal Barnard and his book on reversing Type-2, yadda yadda. (http://www.nealbarnard.org/diabetes_book.htm) The treatment? Go Vegan! NO animal foods or fats. He's been doing studies plus funding from NIH and his work was published by the ADA last year... Anyway, again, YMMV! (Didn't mean to throw a bucket of water on anyone's enthusiasm. Much. ) :-) Steve <snip> > "...laid no restriction upon his diet, except forbearance from > vegetables." > > In those days that would be a meat only diet. Vegetables generally > would mean all plant-sourced food including grains. <snip> > On diabetes, and its successful treatment By John Mussendine Camplin, > James Grey Glover > > The treatment? Animal foods and no grains. > > TC > Well, YMMV! There is NO perfect-for-everyone way of doing it... I just > heard about Dr. Neal Barnard and his book on reversing Type-2, yadda yadda. > > (http://www.nealbarnard.org/diabetes_book.htm) Neal Barnard has no training in nutrition. He is a non-practicing psychiatrist and a an animal rights activist with an anti-animal-food agenda. He's shacked up with Ingrid Newkirk, the head of PETA which financially supports Barnards group PCRM. Both groups supports violent terroristic animal rights activists and groups. > The treatment? Go Vegan! NO animal foods or fats. > > He's been doing studies plus funding from NIH and his work was published by > the ADA last year... He is completely unqualified to do reasearch in nurition. Just goes to show how porous the scientific publication system is. > Anyway, again, YMMV! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve Don't worry. you haven't thrown any water on anything. Just a bunch of animal rights bullshit. TC > <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169866926.851108.79500@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com... > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > TC- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - >> Well, YMMV! There is NO perfect-for-everyone way of doing it... I just >> heard about Dr. Neal Barnard and his book on reversing Type-2, yadda [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > financially supports Barnards group PCRM. Both groups supports violent > terroristic animal rights activists and groups. Thanks for the heads up. > Don't worry. you haven't thrown any water on anything. Just a bunch of > animal rights bullshit. > > TC LOL Steve |
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
|
©2009 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.