Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

AIDS, Anthrax, Atkins....Scarlett A's Part II

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Steve Randy Shilts  Bayt - 27 Jun 2004 22:32 GMT
Preface: I am no longer reading one-line brain dead responses from
people trying to keep me from saving the lives of millions of people
being brainwashed into believing Atkins. For 35 years of public
warnings against Atkins-like diets can't be ignored by one-line brain
dead comments. Any comments or desperate arguments should be e-mailed
to me and if not completely stupid will be considered for future
Atkins bashing.

STEVE BAYT
(Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)

        So, last time I gave some highlights of 30 books with
publishers not financially connected to Atkins describing the lethal
nature of what I am calling THE ATKINS DEATH SENTENCE, as opposed to
the Atkins Diet. The word Diet implies something that is good.

          Yet, for 35 years every health, fitness and medical
organization has unquestionably called Atkins high fat/high
protein/low-to no- carb approach the worst idea ever marketed. In 35
years there has yet to be any non-paid mass communication encouraging
people to do The Atkins Death Sentence. Not one doctor or entity not
being financially connected to Atkins has ever done anything but
condem and warn against Atkins.

          While The Homeland Security Department is guarding against
political terrorism. Atkins has engaging in health terrorism protected
by The First Amendment-using Free Speech to cascade what many, have
called for decades, a potential health crisis if ever mass marketed.

        The list of fatal problems associated with Atkins can be
summarized on page 65 of THE DIET ADVISOR published by Health Magazine
(parent company: TIme Inc. )As can other low carb diets be analyzed
throughout the rest of the book.

         Due to the extensive undeniable scientific evidence that my
so-called title ATKINS DEATH SENTENCE is appropriate, the question
becomes what should individuals do who have been brainwashed by Atkins
marketing.

           Similar to how from 1981-1986 most People With AIDS
(PWA's) couldn't get, or continue with Health Coverage or get or
maintain Life Insurance. So to will Atkins followers have trouble
getting coverage. For Health Insurance companies don't legally have to
pay for medical conditions self-induced by stupidity. A majority of
health insurance companies won't cover smoking related causes as they
didn't cover such treatments for PWA's  AZT and HIV cocktails.

           It will be very unlikely someone with a 130 Cholesterol
level when they start with a Health Insurance, goes on Atkins at time
of coverage commencement, raises their Cholesterol to the 300 range,
suffers kidney damage, brain damage due to the Atkins protein level
along with all the other hundreds of possible health problems, will
not have their coverage cancelled.

             For Insurance companies will notice what treatments are
being pursued and come up with common demonators that the insured is
probably on Atkins.

          Health Insurance companies before AIDS related Laws, would
use computers in what was called THE INTRANET to track medical
treatments of particular patients. Because homosexual sex is
considered such a high-risk activity- those who did not disclose their
lifestyle when applying for coverage had their policies cancelled for
fraud.
Some who found out they were HIV positive then got insurance were
convicted.

        An Atkins person who despite all medical certainty of health
consequences is lured by the advertising-as were homosexuals lured by
bathhouses-and doesn't disclose they are on the Atkins Death Sentence
could face civil litigation and criminal prosecution for failure to
disclose either a pre-existing condition or high risk activity.

          And of course,  no one who has Health Coverage should
contact their insurance agent and ask them point blank if being on
Atkins would effect their premiums or if the drugs and operations in
the future will be covered. For there is caller-ID and other ways
Insurance companies can sick blood-sucking lawyers to find any way to
not pay benefits.

            As for Life Insurance implications on benefactors of
those on Atkins, the law presently would require your carrier to pay
off the policy. For as of now it would be unlikely that Atkins could
be legally declared suicide.

             Here's the scenario for what could happen, either on
CSI, Cold Case, Crossing Jordan or in the real world.

             Someone after years of feeling life isn't worth living
but would like to do something for a loved one takes out a Life
Insurance policy. They don't want to put anyone in harm of being
charged with murder-or have the policyholder's murderer tell
investigators of being paid to kill the holder.

             The depressed policyholder decides to go on Atkins after
reading the hundreds of books describing its programs eventual fatal
end. If they follow Atkins they won't live very much longer, lose some
weight during the Induction phase- and appear normal to friens they
don't want to worry.

             The Atkins policyholder figures it will take about 2-4
years until they suffer a heart attack, kidney breakdown, coma or
death. So, there is time for their life to get better. For at any time
within 3 or so years on Atkins they can stop and live a healthy life.

              After about 4 years nothing is any better, it's even
worse. They have been fired many times, can't get a job, have been
divorced many times, is living off welfare. So, the 4-year Atkins
policyholder finds a nice running course where no one will be around
to call 911.  They wait until some Wagnerian weather to attempt a run.
After about a mile of trying to run with 4 years of toxic levels of
fat, cholesterol and protein they suffer a heart attack.

              The official cause of death is Heart Attack albeit it
was more suicide which would prevent the benefactor from Insurance
proceeds. The Insurance company might conduct an investigation. For if
they are faced with paying off a $2 million policy even $20,000 or so
to find out why a person who eats an Atkins diet would try running
would be of minimal cost.

              Maybe while the insurance company is investigating why
someone with a plus 300 cholesterol level would be out running, they
find out the deceased was on Atkins. The insurance company gets
suspicious. They do a background and discover divorces, firings,
bankruptcy etc.  They find upon subpoena thousands of articles about
Atkins health consequences in the deceased apartment along with a
computer's cookies filled with health sites on My Favorite Places.

((((((((((((If anyone is thinking about doing this, then get immediate
psychological, and financial help.   If anyone is thinking about
submitting this as a story for CSI, Crossing Jordan, Cold Case or any
other dramatic production. I WILL SUE for theft of intellectual
property and donate the proceeds to some AIDS, Homeless, Pet Shelter
organization and PCRM)))))))))

               The insurance company then finds a deceased journal
along with  Cholesterol test strips from years ago. The journal has
research about how un-healthy Atkins can make someone. And the
inevitable heart attack after years on Atkins.

              The Insurance Company, after a few months, concludes
the deceased intentionally knew Atkins was indeed a death sentence. It
is also suspicious that the deceased never sought the extensive
medical treatments that could have prevented the heart attack.

               They then disagree with the coroner and call the
deceased having died due to suicide. The benefactor gets nothing and
the deceased becomes one of about a million Americans who die every
year due to the lifestyle promoted by Atkins.

            The insurance company agent who has read this posting on
google then seeks to reward me for saving them $2 million. At which
point I tell them to write a check to an organization of any of the
above causes.

             IN THE NEXT ARTICLE. Which will be published probably
some time by 7:30 p.m.EDT June 30th  but no sooner then 7:30 p.m EDT
June 29th I. will discuss the effects on the First Amendment, THE FTC,
FCC And FDA which are caused by the Atkins Death Sentence.

Love Means Never Having To Say. You're Sorry.

STEVE BAYT
marengo - 27 Jun 2004 23:04 GMT
Steve Randy Shilts Bayt wrote:
| Preface: I am no longer reading one-line brain dead responses from
| people trying to keep me from saving the lives of millions of people
| being brainwashed into believing Atkins.

And I am no longer reading volumes of drivel from a moronic hypocritical
pea-brain ignorant idiot vegan with his own agenda.
Signature

Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

TaliesinSoft - 27 Jun 2004 23:28 GMT
What is so sad and so unfortunate is that so often newsgroup disagreements,
instead of being healthy debates, turn into name calling, often laced with
profanity, shouting matches. Many of us come to learn, and stepping into a
mire of mudslinging does nothing to help us achieve that end.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"
marengo - 27 Jun 2004 23:49 GMT
| What is so sad and so unfortunate is that so often newsgroup
| disagreements, instead of being healthy debates, turn into name
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
|
| "My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"

That's why I've killfiled him.  You cannot have an intellectual discourse
with an intellectually dishonest individual.  He gave himself away when he
inadvertently mentioned the PCRM, the front organization for PETA.  Instead
of stating that he represents an anti-meat eating animal rights
organization, he slings lies, half-truths, innuendo and completely
foundless, unproven (unprovable) accusations as if they were "fact."

If he were a real man with real intellect he would have stated up front that
he represents PETA, and would have gone on to say why he believes that
humans should not eat meat.  Instead he mistakenly assumes that by taking
the negative approach and bashing Atkins he can sway people into not eating
meat.  He must really think that no one would be able to see through his
oh-so-obvious agenda.

It's sad, really.  It must suck being him.
Signature

Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

David Johnston - 28 Jun 2004 04:19 GMT
>What is so sad and so unfortunate is that so often newsgroup disagreements,
>instead of being healthy debates, turn into name calling, often laced with
>profanity, shouting matches. Many of us come to learn,

Did you not notice that the rants are being crossposted to
rec.arts.tv?  Nobody on rec.arts.tv comes there to learn about the
atkins diet or vegetarianism.  He's being an a.shole.
TaliesinSoft - 28 Jun 2004 04:46 GMT
> Did you not notice that the rants are being crossposted to rec.arts.tv?  
> Nobody on rec.arts.tv comes there to learn about the atkins diet or
> vegetarianism.  He's being an a.shole.  

Actually I didn't notice the "rec.arts.tv" crossposting. That aside, I feel
the most effective strategy to discourage someone from posting what one
thinks of as gibberish is to just ignore it.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"
Mr. 4X - 08 Jul 2004 21:47 GMT
> What is so sad and so unfortunate is that so often newsgroup
> disagreements, instead of being healthy debates, turn into name
> calling, often laced with profanity, shouting matches.

I doubt that it can be different if there is only ONE kook or some kind
of fanatic involved.

> Many of us come to learn, and stepping into a
> mire of mudslinging does nothing to help us achieve that end.
>
> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>
> "My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"
Cubit - 28 Jun 2004 00:03 GMT
Do you also advocate blood letting, the use of leeches, circumcision, and
mustard plaster?

40 years ago studies that showed high carbs cause CHD were ambiguos.  The
doctors picked fat as the culprit without discerning evidence.
Doug Freyburger - 28 Jun 2004 20:28 GMT
> Preface: I am no longer reading one-line brain dead responses from
> people trying to keep me from saving the lives of millions of people
> being brainwashed into believing Atkins.

Then few will read your multi-page drivel because it's clear that
all you are interested in is spreading propaganda not debating
actual results.

> For 35 years of public warnings against Atkins-like diets can't be
> ignored ...

Nor could a century of blood-letting but eventually the medical
establishment figured out it was wrong.  The low fat phase only
lasted under half that long.  It's called progress.

The problem with the low fat idea is that it has been viewed as
one-size-fits-all.  Nothing is a panacea.  Folks should try low
fat and see if it works for them personally.  If it does stick
with it.  If it doesn't try something else.  Personal customization
to figure out what does work.
Chet Hayes - 29 Jun 2004 12:56 GMT
I especially like the nonsense about people being criminally
prosecuted or sued for failing to disclose "high risk behavior" when
getting health insurance.  I've filled out many health insurance forms
in my day, and while they do ask about pre-existing conditions,
treatments, etc. I've never seen one ask about high risk behavior, or
what one eats.

What a complete fool.
Bob (this one) - 29 Jun 2004 20:17 GMT
> I've filled out many health insurance forms in my day, and while
> they do ask about pre-existing conditions, treatments, etc. I've
> never seen one ask about high risk behavior, or what one eats.

Then you're not a pilot, skydiver or race driver.

Pastorio
David Wright - 30 Jun 2004 02:26 GMT
>I especially like the nonsense about people being criminally
>prosecuted or sued for failing to disclose "high risk behavior" when
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>What a complete fool.

Good point.  And the insurance companies' idea of what constitutes
"high risk behavior" is very strange.  I once had company-provided
accidental death & dismemberment insurance, and the *only* thing
that wasn't covered was an injury sustained while flying a light
aircraft.  (I can't remember if it also applied if you were a
passenger.)

I particularly resented that one, since I was still an active pilot at
the time.  You were covered if you rode motorcycles without a helmet,
went free climbing up El Capitan, or went over Niagara Falls in a
barrel, but those flying machines, man, they're dangerous.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
      "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
          were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)
Chet Hayes - 30 Jun 2004 12:50 GMT
> >I especially like the nonsense about people being criminally
> >prosecuted or sued for failing to disclose "high risk behavior" when
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
>            were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)

You and Bob are confusing health insurance with life insurance and
accidental death/dismemberment insurance.  It is normal for a life
insurance company to ask about high risk behaviors, but not for health
insurance.

I don't know where you guys live, but here in NJ health insurance
companies cannot refuse to take anyone and the rate is not based on
lifestyle or occupation.  The only thing they can do is to exclude
payment for pre-existing medical problems for one year.  And I assume
you've heard of federal law, like HIPA?
David Wright - 01 Jul 2004 02:59 GMT
>> >I especially like the nonsense about people being criminally
>> >prosecuted or sued for failing to disclose "high risk behavior" when
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>You and Bob are confusing health insurance with life insurance and
>accidental death/dismemberment insurance.  

I said "insurance companies" and I said "accidental death and
dismemberment."  While I may not have restricted myself to the topic
of life insurance, I am not confusing anything and I'd appreciate it
if you'd avoid erroneous accusations.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
      "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
          were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)
Chet Hayes - 01 Jul 2004 12:42 GMT
> I said "insurance companies" and I said "accidental death and
> dismemberment."  While I may not have restricted myself to the topic
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
>            were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Yes, I know what you said.  In the thread, your post followed this
from Bob:

Chet Hayes wrote:

> I've filled out many health insurance forms in my day, and while
> they do ask about pre-existing conditions, treatments, etc. I've
> never seen one ask about high risk behavior, or what one eats.

Then you're not a pilot, skydiver or race driver.

Pastorio

Bob clearly was claiming that health insurance companies routinely ask
information about high risk behavior and that I didn't know what I was
talking about.  Your next post followed his and started with "good
point."  It looked like you were agreeing with him, which apparently
you don't.
Bob (this one) - 01 Jul 2004 21:32 GMT
>>I said "insurance companies" and I said "accidental death and
>>dismemberment."  While I may not have restricted myself to the topic
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Bob clearly was claiming that health insurance companies routinely ask
> information about high risk behavior

I applied for health insurance a few weeks ago and these were specific
areas I was asked about.

Pastorio
Chet Hayes - 02 Jul 2004 14:02 GMT
> >>I said "insurance companies" and I said "accidental death and
> >>dismemberment."  While I may not have restricted myself to the topic
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Pastorio

That's interesting.  Which company was it?  I've had coverage with
Cigna and Blue Cross Blue Shield, neither of those asked any of those
questions.  In NJ, they basicly have to take anyone at the same rate
regardless of life style, occupation, etc.  The only thing they can do
is exclude pre-existing conditions for one year.
marengo - 03 Jul 2004 03:36 GMT
|||| I said "insurance companies" and I said "accidental death and
|||| dismemberment."  While I may not have restricted myself to the
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
| regardless of life style, occupation, etc.  The only thing they can do
| is exclude pre-existing conditions for one year.

You do realize that New Jersey is by far an exception?   That state's 1992
Healthcare "reform" made national news with its socialized health insurance
policies.  I don't know of any other states that have such a policy
ensurance equal coverage for every man, woman and child at the same rate
regardless of health history.

North Carolina, home of our esteemed U.S. Senator/Presidential Candidate
John Edwards, has an agreement with Blue Cross/Blue Shield requiring
coverage for everyone in the state.  Here's the catch:  You have gto fill
out a four-page medical and personal history questionnaire, and can be flat
turned down for pre-existing conditions.  And even if you're not turned down
they can charge whatever they want with no cap.  What a joke!  I got so
angry when I would hear Senator Edwards preaching about Universal Healthcare
in his Presidential campaign.  The company I worked for did not offer health
insurance (also not necessary in NC) so I applied for the state's "Preferred
Blue" insurance.  I was flat  turned down as "uninsurable" by BC/BS at
first.  After much correspondence with my state legislators and the state
Attorney General's office, BC/BS finally agreed to provide me with
coverage -- for an impossible $990.00/month premium.  I would have had a
good laugh it were not so serious a situation. (I've since moved to another
state and have great health insurance through my employer's plan now).

Just making the point that it is simply  not true that people cannot be
turned down for health insurance, only have pre-existing conditions
excluded.  It's entirely a state-by-state thing int he U.S.  That's why we
are badly in need of  federally-mandated Universal Healthcare reform in this
country, modeled  after a plan like those in New Jersey or California.

IMHO
Signature

Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

 
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



©2012 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.