FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » cardiology
Coffee and Heart Problems
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 950 [14248 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 948, 949, 950 Next
Author Message
Hawki63
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease Reply with quote

Quote:
Subject: Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease
From: "montygram" nazztrader@lycos.com
Date: 2/1/2005 12:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <1107290595.437259.201260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

The "HIV
test" is for HIV antibodies, which means it's been neutralized by th

body,

interesting theory...but not accurate

the initial HIV test is indeed an antibody test...

if positive it is followed by PCR....which can actually count viral
particles...called "viral load"....which is also used to follow reactions to
antivirals...

Quote:
s, which,
like chemotherapy, will just prolong a life a few years at best (and
often cause a ton of pain and suffering:

and of course you have experience in treating such people...NOT....

hmmm...how long has Magic Johnson been positive?? about 15 years I
believe...and he took antivirals...funny that


hawki.....
Back to top
Roman Bystrianyk
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 454

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease Reply with quote

"All reported types of coffee (instant coffee, brewed coffee,
Greek-type coffee, cappuccino, or filtered coffee) were adjusted for 1
cup coffee (150 mL) and caffeine concentrations of 28 mg/cup."

I am sorry I only have a hard copy of the study. Some excerpts are
located here:
http://www.healthsentinel.com/briefs.php?id=035&title=Coffee&selected_id=21&event=briefs_print_list_item
Back to top
Sharon Hope
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: More statin adverse effects to become obvious? Reply with quote

"Paul E. Lehmann" <plehmann@fred.net> wrote in message
news:1101bpfpvrnmjde@corp.supernews.com...
Quote:
Sharon Hope wrote:

.............

They're making progress. The NIH investigators, as of yesterday, can no
longer take 400% over their NIH salary in cash and stock options from the
company whose drug they are evaluating for FDA approval.

What's next? Maybe the FDA might start enforcing safety of approved
drugs......


When I was working for the National Weather Service, a friend of mine (a
computer programmer) left the Weather Service and took a job (as computer
programmer) with the FDA. He was forced to get rid of all his pharma
stocks that he owned.

This is really amazing since then (about 5 years ago) - and probably even
now, scientists could / can work for the FDA, leave the government and go
to work for the Pharma industry and return to work for the FDA. It is a
revolving door in which scientist can leave the government, work on drugs
in the private sector and then come back to the FDA and fast track the
very
drugs their company was working on. They can then go back to the private
sector and continue to repeat this cycle indefinitely. They enforce
conflict of interest policies for their technical people but not the top
"Professionals".

Yeah, the LA Times did a story on the NIH a few years ago - named names and
showed photos of NIH managers in charge of drug trials where people died,
and more died after they recommended approval to the FDA - and the story
also detailed the big bucks and stock options these same NIH managers
received from the company that produced the drug they were investigating.


BTW, the NIH principal investigator for the Statin Study accepts absolutely
nothing from the pharm cos - not even the statins for the study. There are
ethical NIH investigators.

Now that the NIH is changing their ethics policy, there will be more.
Back to top
Uncle Dave
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Beer Reply with quote

Whoa! Regarding non-alcoholic beer; after being diagnosed as Type 1
in January 2005, I went from 4-6 12oz cans of Natural Ice (higher in
alcoholic content than most domestics in the U.S.) every day for a
good 20 years to either the same (or frequently more) cans of either
O'Douls or Old Milwaukee Non-Alcoholic beer every day.

Both of them (the non-alcoholics) say they have around 12 or 13 grams
of carbs but have virtually ZERO impact on my blood sugar. Seriously,
every time I would factor them in to my insulin dose, I would go hypo
and end up at 40 or 50 or so, and end up eating sugar or glucose
tablets in a panic, and generally freak out anyone in the immediate
vicinity.

btw, I should mention that I'm about 5' 9" tall and weigh in between
140 and 150 pounds.

Has anyone out there had similar experiences?

(To this day, I'm still amazed that I made the transition to
non-alcoholic beer with no withdrawal symptoms, other than some
insomnia initially!)



Uncle Dave
opvoiceman@nospamyahoo.com
Back to top
Mark Thorson
medicine forum addict


Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: THE GREATEST VITAMIN SCAM IN THE WORLD Reply with quote

Quoting from:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lapre.html

Don Lapre is a fast-talking character who has been selling
"get rich" opportunities for many years. His infomercials describe
how, while living in a "tiny one-bedroom apartment, "he
became a millionaire by placing hundreds of "tiny little ads" in
newspapers. Doug Grant is a "nutritionist" who claims to have
vast experience in advising people about health and fitness.
Recently, they teamed up to promote "The Greatest Vitamin
in the World," which Grant reportedly formulated and Lapre is
marketing through infomercials and Web sites. This article
analyzes their current sales pitch and explains why we believe you
should ignore their advice.
Back to top
montygram
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 825

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: HIV (Was Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease) Reply with quote

More erroneous nonsense from MattLB, as one might
expect. And it occurs at a perfect time, because
finally I was able to locate my copy of Bioenergetics (1957),
written by the Nobel Prize winning scientist
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi. On page 80, he writes: "In a way, Na+ is bigger
than K+ because its nucleus is less screened by an
electron shell, leaving outward forces unbalanced, which leads to the
formation of a
bigger hydrate envelope."

Thus, MattLB once again demonstrates his scientific ignorance. His
exact, claim, from several
months ago (you can search in the archives for it - use MattLB sodium
potassium, was:

"I directly refuted his [Ling's] erroneous claim that
potassium ions were smaller
than sodium ones."

Interestingly, Szent-Gyorgyi cited some of Ling's
experiments in his books, whereas you, MattLB, only
cite the textbook dogma, or do a quick search on
google, then cite a study that is irrelevant or that
actually contradicts your points.

Now for his recent displays of ignorance:

MattLB: "Eventually all the T-helper cells are
destroyed and the
immune system is crippled."

If this actually occurred, I would have no reason to
quarrel with existing notions, but you need to provide
a scientific study that demonstrates this. I, as
always, say that if you want to make an extraordinary
claim, you need to have clear, direct evidence. All
the HIV=AIDS=death hypothesis scientists admit that
there is only a correlation, and not direct evidence
(except perhaps for Ho's claim, which is so laughable
that even the true believers chuckle at it because
they can't help themselves). Gallo, in his own book,
admitted that the correlation is about the same for other viruses, such
as CMV, as it is for HIV,
and those viruses can do some
serious damage, unlike HIV. HIV infects a tiny amount
of these cells, but not nearly enough to do even minor
damage to the immune system. I've cited many studies
that demonstrate that "AIDS" is just too much
production of PGE2 (due to various stressors that cause biochemical
changes that are designed to deal with short term stress, but when the
stress is chronic, the system is "overloaded," in a sense, and the body
suffers - this is the basis of so-called chronic diseases), and anyone
who wants can go to
pubmed.com and search for HIV PGE2 or AIDS PGE2 and
see for himself. I'd rather be infected with HIV than
the common cold, and if you truly believed in what you
are saying, you'd take me up on my offer. Email me
the name of your attorney, after telling him what you
want to do (written agreement), and I'll contact
him/her and we'll set this up. If you are correct,
you will make more than $50,000 very soon, but if not,
I'll take you for $35,000 a year for decades. Put
your money where your mouth is or shut up, because
you're not citing any studies, just spewing lies that
don't even make any sense scientifically on any level.


MattLB: "Something you repeatedly fail to do with your
"theories"."

As I've said over and over again, none of these
"theories" are mine, though I wish they were (because that would mean
I'm a great scientist), but the
point is that I'm not making any claims, just pointing
to what the evidence suggests, whereas you are making
nonsensical claims and not citing evidence. If HIV
worked the way you say, there is no explanation for
why the period between infection and development of
"AIDS" has increased. First, it was about a year,
then it kept progressing (according to the "experts"),
until now, when it's around a dozen years or more. If
they were correct with their claims (and your
explanation of the basic claim is the earliest and
most crude - few of the true believers are arguing
this now), there is no explanation for this, since it
fails to account for why there are so many HIV
infected people (not taking medication) and so few
AIDS cases. Indeed, extrapolating from the statistics
would mean that the "latency period" (or whatever
wonderful phrase they are using these days) in nations
like the USA is around 30 to 40 years, if not more.

I'd like like to see someone just define what "AIDS" is with scientific
specifity - something that has yet to be done. And as for those Africa
claims - almost anything a
person dies from in some parts of Africa gets
categorized as AIDS. The most recent, obnoxious
incident of this was the death of Mandela's son.
Mandela insists it was "AIDS" and yet the hospital
says it was pancreatic cancer - a very specific
condition that no "experts" has ever claimed is
related to AIDS. But today nearly everything is
"AIDS" if you have a few HIV antibodies (even if you
have done massive amounts of IV drugs and wiped out
your immune system in the exact same way so many HIV
antibody negative folks have for years) because the
"antiviral" drugs industry wants to continue to make
big bucks poisoning people, and the scientists who put
their asses on the line with their moronic claims do
not want to look like the fools that they are.

MattLB: "The sound advice is from the person who
thinks he won't get infected by
HIV if he eats lots of coconut oil is it?"

I am aware that your reading comprehension skills are
quite poor, but clearly I never claimed that coconut
oil would always prevent HIV infection, or even that
it could once. What I did say is that if you take me
up on my offer, I will eat plenty of coconut product
because it is like biochemical armor. Viruses,
bacteria, yeast, fungi cannot do much to you if your
body is packed with saturated fatty acids. Even you
must know that saturated fatty acids are an
anti-growth substance, unlike polyunsaturated fatty
acids. Biochemical activity is required for the
"bugs" to harms you, and saturated fatty acids prevent
this, which, ironically, has been cited as a reason
why "saturated fat is bad" by those deluded
"scientists" who apparently have nothing better to do.
A full grown adult who does not want to become
pregnant has nothing to fear from a food that millions
of people have and are using as a dietary staple for
generations, with little incidence of "chronic
disease." In fact, in research for my upcoming book,
I examined the cancer rates for various nations, and
if you compare the USA to France, Sri Lanka, and the
Philippines, you can see how much higher almost all
the cancer rates are in the USA compared to those
Asian nations, whereas France is generally
considerably lower in most cancers, though not as much
as the Asian nations. But you keep consuming your
"essential fatty acids," MattLB - you've got those
"lipid bilayers" to protect (but just keep in mind
that I never said that there were no fatty acids
present, just that they don't hold the cell together
or perform transport functions - as in jello, the
structural proteins do - the experiments are
unequivocal, but that never stopped you from making a
fool of yourself, has it?). The HIV=AIDS=death claim
is perhaps the most ludicrous one made in the attempt
to staunch "chronic disease" in a way similar to those
employed against infectious diseases, and I am glad
you are demonstrating how little you know by
associating yourself with the crudest and most
laughable version of it. Peter Duesberg was
challenged to infect himself, and I do not know what
the status of that challenge is (I think Rasnick
challenged somebody to take the antivirals after he
allows himself to be infected with HIV), but with my
challenge you lose money, whereas according to you,
I'd lose my life. I put my life and all of my assets
on the line, whereas you have so little confidence in
your understanding of the evidence that you fear
losing some cash.

For those interested, I'll respond to any scientific challenge to this
email, meaning I need evidence cited. If I'm wrong about something,
I'll admit it, as I've done in the past here. Unlike MattLB and so
many others who post here, I'm only interested in the physical reality,
not in supporting dogma (for whatever reason).


1957
80, he writes: "In a way, Na+ is bigger than K+ because its nucleus is
less screened by an
electron shell, leaving outward forces unbalanced, which leads to the
formation of a
bigger hydrate envelope."

Do you enjoy being wrong all the time and then trying to "fudge" your
way out of it,
MattLB, because that is the way it appears? If you want a scientific
debate, present some
science. If you believe yourself to be some sort of Pope of Science,
then at least be
honest about it and tell everyone that you expect to be obeyed without
question, due to
your diving infallibility. Otherwise, you're just making a fool of
yourself to anyone who
know an iota of scientific methodology.

For those who want to know more of this debate (including more of my
scientific
citations) search in this newsgroup for montygram HIV AIDS and choose
the entry
that is listed.

In his Virus Hunting book (1991), he writes on page 288: "The
correlation is almost as
good."
Back to top
montygram
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 825

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease Reply with quote

You talk about how important it is to be "serious," yet you respond
with my request for literature citations with "laugh out loud?"

Nice, real nice. Now on to the study you cite. It is pathetic, to say
the least.

HIV is never a problem in the first place, so whether it "rebounds" or
not is irrelevant. But of course if you severely poison your body, you
will also disrupt viral replication.

Where is the evidence that HIV is doing extreme and irreparable harm to
the human body?

And why does HIV come out of hiding when it supposedly does, now that
Ho's nonsense has been placed in the circular file (even the true
believers acknowledge this - I've cited those references here before)?

Now the interesting question here, to any real scientists, is "what is
going on here," because physiological changes have taken place.

Did any of these "patients" feel better on the "therapy?" Who knows? -
the researchers apparently don't care at all about that little detail

If their bodies were teeming with bacteria, fungi, yeast, and viruses
(some of which doing real harm), the antivirals (or highly toxic
substances, which is a better way of describing them), might very well
show "positive" results, though such results would likely be consistent
with the old saying, "the operation was a great success, but the
patient died."

What exactly do the changes that occurred have to do with human health?
Again, who know? - there is incredible variety in terms of what is
considered "normal" or "healthy."

Did you know that people were qualifying for life insurance for many
years with the same "markers" of "AIDS" (and still do), but if you have
antibodies to this harmless virus, you are told that you will die with
several years.

The psychological stress of that proclamation likely is enough to make
many people very ill, because as scientists have documented,
psychological stress can cause more harm than many kinds of physical
injury.

But you can take a small bow here, because you've demonstrated - with
this study - how bankrupt "AIDS science" is now.

They are just playing around with the so-called markers instead of
trying to find something that will restore health.

They tell people they are going to die, yet there is no evidence for
this claim - only those who have damaged their bodies in known ways are
dying.

It is true that many people want to hide what they've done to
themselves, and feel pity for themselves - those are the true
self-destructive types.

And I truly feel sorry for them - they deserve a national health care
plan that really cares for people, psychologically as well as
physically.

But the evidence that is reducible to biochemistry, biophysics, or
physiology all points in the direction of HIV being a harmless virus
that is incapable of damaging a person under any circumstances.

I'm surprised you didn't cite Ho's old stuff, since that seems really
enticing to those who don't know much about science, but realize that
there needs to be a mechanism of some sort that connects HIV to actual
injury (in other words, this is attractive to those who are doing a
little thinking).

The reason some "dissidents" have died is one, because many people die
prematurely of all kinds of things (like Mandela's son), or two,
because they didn't know what kind of damage they were doing to
themselves by doing things that everyone takes for granted, but that
will kill off those who have stressed their bodies more than "normal"
people, whether it's by IV drugs, other drugs, various infections, low
stomach acid, or something else.

After reviewing the cancer statistics for Sri Lanka, a very poor nation
with a sub-par health care system, and comparing them to US statistics,
it's clear that they are doing something right and we are doing
something very wrong.

How is it possible that they have so little cancer (as well as heart
disease), and yet they are supposedly doining just about everything
wrong (according to our "experts")?

When you look at the HIV/AIDS studies, you discover that the
polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic acid (or its metabolites, which
are expressed in larger amounts in those who eat lots of polyusaturated
and who are badly stressed), once again, seems to be a major factor, if
not the most important factor.

The Sri Lankans use coconut oil as their primary fat source, whereas
Americans eat rancid fats all the time (or fats that go rancid inside
the body very quickly).

Even the latest Alzheimer's Disease research directly implicates the
metabolites of arachidonic acid. Again, just go do a search for
isoprostanes on pubmed.

The only thing really surprising is how many scientists don't want to
take an unbiased look at the actual evidence.

When one does, it's all very clear - no need to cite studies that say
nothing.

The kinds of emotion-laden responses to my request for evidence that
demonstrates a clear mechanism and serious damage illustrates how much
this "issue" is no longer in the realm of science for most people,
including those who call themselves scientists.

Duesberg made at least one very good argument (though he may not have
realized all the implications) when he talked of the importance of
"biochemical activity," because too much of it (even just too much
arachidonic acid in your cells in combination with a specific stressor,
for example, a bicyclist getting testicular cancer) can do all kinds of
incredible damage to your body.

It's like putting rocket fuel in your car, and one thing most "AIDS
patients" have in common is that they've put too much stress on their
bodies in specific ways.

The elderly, in fact, have similar weakened immune systems. The old
saying, "I'd rather burn out than fade away," seems to be quite
appropriate here. Why people think they can do anything to their
bodies and expect no consequences is beyond me.

I even did this, though inadvertently, by eating too much
anti-nutritional food (that the "experts" said was so incredibly
healthy) and giving myself a wasting disorder that some of the
"experts" I consulted thought it looked very much like "AIDS."

We've all got all kinds of "bugs" inside us, many of which can do
serious harm if our "immune systems" are weakened. Are you aware of
the literature on the harm CMV can do to humans?

Why would you treat someone with poisons if they have no symptoms?
"Bugs" either are doing harm or they are not - this is so basic, it's
beyond pathetic that one needs to say this in the year 2005.

An interesting question is, what is "AIDS" at this point (except a term
surrounded by stories)? The idea that part of the biochemical
reactions that are referred to as "the immune system" can become
disrupted by stressors is basically common sense.

The problem is that this is not sufficient to justify the political and
economic interests that quickly came to dominate the scene.

It's unfortunate that you don't realize how you're being misled by the
folks behind these interests (assuming that you're not one of them),
but if you want to stand in the way of science, you need to be taken to
task for this.

At this point, I really wish someone would take me up on my offer - but
you are gutless losers, which is why you're killing people with poisons
instead of just treating the stressor mechanisms when (and if) symptoms
actually occur.

Have you even read the growing scientific literature on how dangerous
the "cocktail therapy" is (and how it can "mimic AIDS")?

One just needs to avoid stressors, but that's easier said than done
with the powers that be promoting one of the worst stressors as
"essential fatty acids."

I regained my health by doing my own unbiased research, and so for me
as for those who are told they have "AIDS," it seems to be a matter of
"live and learn, or don't and die."
Back to top
Robert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1700

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease Reply with quote

The opinions expressed below are of someone who has never seen, diagnosed or
treated someone with AIDS.
To say that is stress induced when stress has been here from the beginning
of time is just not aware of the numbers and the type of conditions
associated AIDS.

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1107500718.408124.273390@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
You talk about how important it is to be "serious," yet you respond
with my request for literature citations with "laugh out loud?"

Nice, real nice. Now on to the study you cite. It is pathetic, to say
the least.

HIV is never a problem in the first place, so whether it "rebounds" or
not is irrelevant. But of course if you severely poison your body, you
will also disrupt viral replication.

Where is the evidence that HIV is doing extreme and irreparable harm to
the human body?

And why does HIV come out of hiding when it supposedly does, now that
Ho's nonsense has been placed in the circular file (even the true
believers acknowledge this - I've cited those references here before)?

Now the interesting question here, to any real scientists, is "what is
going on here," because physiological changes have taken place.

Did any of these "patients" feel better on the "therapy?" Who knows? -
the researchers apparently don't care at all about that little detail

If their bodies were teeming with bacteria, fungi, yeast, and viruses
(some of which doing real harm), the antivirals (or highly toxic
substances, which is a better way of describing them), might very well
show "positive" results, though such results would likely be consistent
with the old saying, "the operation was a great success, but the
patient died."

What exactly do the changes that occurred have to do with human health?
Again, who know? - there is incredible variety in terms of what is
considered "normal" or "healthy."

Did you know that people were qualifying for life insurance for many
years with the same "markers" of "AIDS" (and still do), but if you have
antibodies to this harmless virus, you are told that you will die with
several years.

The psychological stress of that proclamation likely is enough to make
many people very ill, because as scientists have documented,
psychological stress can cause more harm than many kinds of physical
injury.

But you can take a small bow here, because you've demonstrated - with
this study - how bankrupt "AIDS science" is now.

They are just playing around with the so-called markers instead of
trying to find something that will restore health.

They tell people they are going to die, yet there is no evidence for
this claim - only those who have damaged their bodies in known ways are
dying.

It is true that many people want to hide what they've done to
themselves, and feel pity for themselves - those are the true
self-destructive types.

And I truly feel sorry for them - they deserve a national health care
plan that really cares for people, psychologically as well as
physically.

But the evidence that is reducible to biochemistry, biophysics, or
physiology all points in the direction of HIV being a harmless virus
that is incapable of damaging a person under any circumstances.

I'm surprised you didn't cite Ho's old stuff, since that seems really
enticing to those who don't know much about science, but realize that
there needs to be a mechanism of some sort that connects HIV to actual
injury (in other words, this is attractive to those who are doing a
little thinking).

The reason some "dissidents" have died is one, because many people die
prematurely of all kinds of things (like Mandela's son), or two,
because they didn't know what kind of damage they were doing to
themselves by doing things that everyone takes for granted, but that
will kill off those who have stressed their bodies more than "normal"
people, whether it's by IV drugs, other drugs, various infections, low
stomach acid, or something else.

After reviewing the cancer statistics for Sri Lanka, a very poor nation
with a sub-par health care system, and comparing them to US statistics,
it's clear that they are doing something right and we are doing
something very wrong.

How is it possible that they have so little cancer (as well as heart
disease), and yet they are supposedly doining just about everything
wrong (according to our "experts")?

When you look at the HIV/AIDS studies, you discover that the
polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic acid (or its metabolites, which
are expressed in larger amounts in those who eat lots of polyusaturated
and who are badly stressed), once again, seems to be a major factor, if
not the most important factor.

The Sri Lankans use coconut oil as their primary fat source, whereas
Americans eat rancid fats all the time (or fats that go rancid inside
the body very quickly).

Even the latest Alzheimer's Disease research directly implicates the
metabolites of arachidonic acid. Again, just go do a search for
isoprostanes on pubmed.

The only thing really surprising is how many scientists don't want to
take an unbiased look at the actual evidence.

When one does, it's all very clear - no need to cite studies that say
nothing.

The kinds of emotion-laden responses to my request for evidence that
demonstrates a clear mechanism and serious damage illustrates how much
this "issue" is no longer in the realm of science for most people,
including those who call themselves scientists.

Duesberg made at least one very good argument (though he may not have
realized all the implications) when he talked of the importance of
"biochemical activity," because too much of it (even just too much
arachidonic acid in your cells in combination with a specific stressor,
for example, a bicyclist getting testicular cancer) can do all kinds of
incredible damage to your body.

It's like putting rocket fuel in your car, and one thing most "AIDS
patients" have in common is that they've put too much stress on their
bodies in specific ways.

The elderly, in fact, have similar weakened immune systems. The old
saying, "I'd rather burn out than fade away," seems to be quite
appropriate here. Why people think they can do anything to their
bodies and expect no consequences is beyond me.

I even did this, though inadvertently, by eating too much
anti-nutritional food (that the "experts" said was so incredibly
healthy) and giving myself a wasting disorder that some of the
"experts" I consulted thought it looked very much like "AIDS."

We've all got all kinds of "bugs" inside us, many of which can do
serious harm if our "immune systems" are weakened. Are you aware of
the literature on the harm CMV can do to humans?

Why would you treat someone with poisons if they have no symptoms?
"Bugs" either are doing harm or they are not - this is so basic, it's
beyond pathetic that one needs to say this in the year 2005.

An interesting question is, what is "AIDS" at this point (except a term
surrounded by stories)? The idea that part of the biochemical
reactions that are referred to as "the immune system" can become
disrupted by stressors is basically common sense.

The problem is that this is not sufficient to justify the political and
economic interests that quickly came to dominate the scene.

It's unfortunate that you don't realize how you're being misled by the
folks behind these interests (assuming that you're not one of them),
but if you want to stand in the way of science, you need to be taken to
task for this.

At this point, I really wish someone would take me up on my offer - but
you are gutless losers, which is why you're killing people with poisons
instead of just treating the stressor mechanisms when (and if) symptoms
actually occur.

Have you even read the growing scientific literature on how dangerous
the "cocktail therapy" is (and how it can "mimic AIDS")?

One just needs to avoid stressors, but that's easier said than done
with the powers that be promoting one of the worst stressors as
"essential fatty acids."

I regained my health by doing my own unbiased research, and so for me
as for those who are told they have "AIDS," it seems to be a matter of
"live and learn, or don't and die."
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: HIV (Was Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease) Reply with quote

montygram wrote:
Quote:
More erroneous nonsense from MattLB, as one might
expect.

So you say, but like always you never specifically refute the
biochemistry, just wave your hands around saying it's all nonsense.

Quote:
And it occurs at a perfect time, because
finally I was able to locate my copy of Bioenergetics (1957),
written by the Nobel Prize winning scientist
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi. On page 80, he writes: "In a way, Na+ is
bigger
than K+ because its nucleus is less screened by an
electron shell, leaving outward forces unbalanced, which leads to the
formation of a
bigger hydrate envelope."

Thus, MattLB once again demonstrates his scientific ignorance. His
exact, claim, from several
months ago (you can search in the archives for it - use MattLB sodium
potassium, was:

"I directly refuted his [Ling's] erroneous claim that
potassium ions were smaller
than sodium ones."

Potassium ions *are* bigger than sodium ions, but sodium ions attract
more water molecules so their solvation sphere (them plus water) is
bigger.

Quote:
Interestingly, Szent-Gyorgyi cited some of Ling's
experiments in his books, whereas you, MattLB, only
cite the textbook dogma, or do a quick search on
google, then cite a study that is irrelevant or that
actually contradicts your points.

Now for his recent displays of ignorance:

MattLB: "Eventually all the T-helper cells are
destroyed and the
immune system is crippled."

If this actually occurred, I would have no reason to
quarrel with existing notions, but you need to provide
a scientific study that demonstrates this. I, as
always, say that if you want to make an extraordinary
claim, you need to have clear, direct evidence.

What's extraordinary about a virus killing the cells it infects? If the
cells killed are an essential component of the immune system then
what's extraordinary about the immune system getting worse (immune
deficiency)?

Isn't clinical diagnosis based on a measurement of blood T-helper
levels and if they're below certain level (in HIV+ people) AIDS is
suggested to be present? How more clear and direct is a five-fold
reduction in T-helper cells?

Quote:
MattLB: "The sound advice is from the person who
thinks he won't get infected by
HIV if he eats lots of coconut oil is it?"

I am aware that your reading comprehension skills are
quite poor, but clearly I never claimed that coconut
oil would always prevent HIV infection, or even that
it could once.

Your reading comprehension skills are clearly even worse as I said
"think" not "says" or "claims".

Quote:
What I did say is that if you take me
up on my offer, I will eat plenty of coconut product
because it is like biochemical armor.

Reference?

Quote:
Viruses,
bacteria, yeast, fungi cannot do much to you if your
body is packed with saturated fatty acids.

Reference?

So now you *are* saying you won't get infected by HIV because you're
packing your body with saturated fat (from coconut oil).

Quote:
Even you
must know that saturated fatty acids are an
anti-growth substance,

Reference? And what do you mean by "growth"? Bone growth? Muscle
growth? Hair growth? Tumour growth? A bit more precision needed.

Quote:
unlike polyunsaturated fatty
acids. Biochemical activity is required for the
"bugs" to harms you, and saturated fatty acids prevent
this, which, ironically, has been cited as a reason
why "saturated fat is bad" by those deluded
"scientists" who apparently have nothing better to do.
But you keep consuming your
"essential fatty acids," MattLB - you've got those
"lipid bilayers" to protect (but just keep in mind
that I never said that there were no fatty acids
present, just that they don't hold the cell together
or perform transport functions

Yeah, yeah I see you backtracking.

Quote:
- as in jello, the
structural proteins do - the experiments are
unequivocal, but that never stopped you from making a
fool of yourself, has it?).

Did you come up with that model of red cell ghosts yet?

Quote:
The HIV=AIDS=death claim
is perhaps the most ludicrous one made in the attempt
to staunch "chronic disease" in a way similar to those
employed against infectious diseases, and I am glad
you are demonstrating how little you know by
associating yourself with the crudest and most
laughable version of it.

See
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8638160

Notice that the amount of HIV virus in the blood was a better predictor
of getting AIDS than the state of the immune system. Ever hear of
Occam's Razor?

Quote:
Peter Duesberg was
challenged to infect himself, and I do not know what
the status of that challenge is (I think Rasnick
challenged somebody to take the antivirals after he
allows himself to be infected with HIV), but with my
challenge you lose money, whereas according to you,
I'd lose my life. I put my life and all of my assets
on the line, whereas you have so little confidence in
your understanding of the evidence that you fear
losing some cash.

I wouldn't ever entertain the thought of such a thing, particularly
with someone so clearly reckless.

Quote:
If you want a scientific
debate, present some
science.

I'll put this the other way. There is a specific biochemical trait
associated with resistance to HIV infection. People with this trait
don't get AIDS despite having diet/lifestyle very similar to those that
do. Assuming for the sake of argument they don't have hidden stockpiles
of coconut oil, what's your explanation for it? I'm assuming you know
what I'm talking about here since you claim to research thoroughly.

Quote:
If you believe yourself to be some sort of Pope of Science,

You're the one proclaiming miracles (Mead Acid and saturated fat). How
can I be some religious figure if I'm just pushing the standard
scientific dogma, as you keep asserting?

Quote:
then at least be
honest about it and tell everyone that you expect to be obeyed
without
question, due to
your diving infallibility.

Diving infallibility? That's a good one.

Quote:
Otherwise, you're just making a fool of
yourself to anyone who
know an iota of scientific methodology.

I hope your book has a proofreader.

MattLB
Back to top
montygram
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 825

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: HIV (Was Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease) Reply with quote

If you want to waste your time pointing out obvious typos, fine, but
I'm not interested in wasting my time on it.

"Notice that the amount of HIV virus in the blood was a better
predictor
of getting AIDS than the state of the immune system"

But what is "AIDS?" These 30 or so diseases are known and have been
around a long time. HIV is a moderately good marker, but nothing
special. Just like EBV. A few decades ago, few people had it, and
even today, those above a certain age have low levels. Because HIV is
so weak, it only infected those who did really stressful things to
themselves, which is why it appears to be a good marker for "AIDS."


"You're the one proclaiming miracles (Mead Acid and saturated fat)"

I'm not saying everyone can be "saved." Many people will continue to
stress their bodies even when they know they are about to die. Many of
them can't be helped. And there is no way to know what the threshold
is for any one individual beyond which they will succumb to a specific
"bug" that is inside most people (and with no symptoms).

One of the most reknowned fatty acids researchers in the world, Mary
Enig, has been working on "inhibiting HIV" with coconut, so again, I'm
not being original here, I'm just trying to get the word out, in a way
that makes sense, unlike the existing claims by our great "experts."
The HIV=AIDS=death notion is the worst example of their
misunderstanding and corruption.

And when a true believer challenges Peter Duesberg to infect himself
with HIV and he does not do it, this is taken as "proof" that the claim
is correct, but when I, also a scholar with a Ph.D. (and author of
several books), say that I am willing to take up that challenge, then
it's "reckless."

You've got a lot of nerve, I'll grant you that much.
Back to top
montygram
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 825

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: HIV (Was Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease) Reply with quote

As for your other points (now that I have more time to address them):

It was either you or Larry Hoover who argued (perhaps a year or so ago)
that eating mostly coconut oil as a fat source would not allow for
"growth," which is precisely the point, considering that if
you're already grown, the next step is a cancerous growth. You seem
to be totally unfamiliar with the literature on saturated fatty acids.
For example, there have been attempts to implicate SFAs as the cause of
type II diabetes (because, it's argued, they are present in large
amounts in "red meat," even though they are much present in much
higher amounts in coconut oil and palm kernel oil - yet those
consuming these oils as dietary staples have significantly lower rates
of type II diabetes). Thus, researchers who think themselves clever
put pancreatic beta cells in a petri dish with SFAs, and the cells go
aptopic. You can do a pubmed search for saturated aptopic or aptosis
if you want sources, but it appears you just want to be the scientific
equivalent of the troubled youth who goes around the neighborhood
placing glue in keyholes.

If you want to think that I claimed at some point that there are no
fatty acids of any kind at cell surfaces, then be my guest, but then
you are obligated to admit that the fatty acids there, whether in a
more or less lipid bilayer form (it makes no difference to the
important points), do not perform essential transport or structural
roles (and I quoted that textbook that stated that some cells must
endure tremendous shearing forces - that is how I am using the term
structural).

As for HIV causing AIDS: you are correct, in that if a person became
infected with HIV, then that person's T cells (CD4+ presumably) were
decimated by HIV, and then their immune systems became so weak that
opportunistic infections occurred, I would have no problem with the
claim. However, this does not happen. A good percentage of so-called
HIV positives who die of what is classified as AIDS do not have a T
cell deficiency, and many people not infected by HIV have very low T
cell levels, yet are healthy and live long lives. I guess you're not
aware of Ho's claim, but the funny thing about it is that it
demonstrated a total lack of medical understanding, in that if there
was an incredible war going on inside the bodies of those infected with
HIV (between the T cells and HIV) on a daily basis for years, those
people would not feel well, and would probably go into a coma within a
short period of time. Yet people can feel great for years, and most
HIV+s are in fact, fine (as long as they stay off the poisons,
otherwise known as cocktail therapy). Moreover, when Ho's math was
examined by mathematicians it was determined that there would have to
be more viral particles generated in one HIV+ person each day than
there are atoms in the entire universe. But if you want to associate
yourself with these kinds of ridiculous claims, by all means, go ahead
and make a fool of yourself, as you have so many times before.

Your understanding of science seems to have taken a big step backwards
lately. For example, after pointing out to you that your criticism of
Ling was inaccurate, you state that the sodium ion is not really larger
than the potassium ion, yet in the context of what Ling was arguing,
the sodium ion behaves in the body as if it were larger, and that is
the key point, because the transport of ion into and out of the cell
was at issue. Interestingly, your claims, which have no theoretical
basis, are not supported by real evidence, and usually make no sense,
nicely mirror the state of the biomedical establishment these days.

Since, like a tantrum prone child, you seem intent on always getting
the "last word," I will not respond to subsequent posts from you,
but if anyone else reading this needs clarification on some point, he
or she can feel free to post questions or comments here.
Back to top
montygram
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 825

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease Reply with quote

I am using the term stress in the medical sense, not the psychological,
though the importance of that has been demonstrated in recent studies.
Do you even know who Hans Selye is? Do you understand how stress
induces PLA2 and AA metabolization, and from there the damage things
like isoprostanes do? If no, you need to learn more about biochemistry
and physiology. If the true HIV believers admit that it is all
epidemiological, which means statistical correlation. Of course, there
would be such a correlation. You could correlate all kinds of things
that make no sense whatsoever, as any epidemiologist would readily
admit. HIV just happened to be found and was not known, and so got
blamed. It was a plausible notion at the time, one that should have
been investigated properly, but even you probably know that that was
not done in this case.
Back to top
Robert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1700

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease Reply with quote

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1107579595.727095.244010@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
I am using the term stress in the medical sense, not the psychological,

So medical stress is a newly acquired condition that never existed in the
past. The great death was only a psychological stressor and not a medical
one.

Quote:
though the importance of that has been demonstrated in recent studies.
Do you even know who Hans Selye is? Do you understand how stress
induces PLA2 and AA metabolization, and from there the damage things
like isoprostanes do? If no, you need to learn more about biochemistry

Let me quess, I can eliminate all that stress by eating coconuts.
without stress you would be dead.
Don't you know anything about biochemistry and physiology and the organ of
stress being the adnenal gland. Without the stress hormones you would be
dead as in Addisons disease. Didn't anyone teach you that.

Quote:
and physiology. If the true HIV believers admit that it is all
epidemiological, which means statistical correlation. Of course, there
would be such a correlation. You could correlate all kinds of things
that make no sense whatsoever, as any epidemiologist would readily
admit. HIV just happened to be found and was not known, and so got
blamed. It was a plausible notion at the time, one that should have
been investigated properly, but even you probably know that that was
not done in this case.

All I know is that people with AIDs were dying on the medical wards left and

right with classic AIDs related illnesses and now with the new meds you
hardly ever see those cases to the point where they become teaching cases.
People are alive today, and not by eating coconuts, but by the meds.
Back to top
Dr. Jai Maharaj
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 190

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: (",) NEAT MOVIE FLICK ! (it starts up quickly)(awesome introduction)... Reply with quote

In article <1107629032.035502.34070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
AttWireless_ATTW@yahoo.com posted:
Quote:

Please reply with your comments about the movie.

This video hosted by Dr. Maurice Rawlings,
a noted cardiologist, investigates life after
death and his experiences with patients
that actually saw 'the other side!'

http://www.tbn.org/films/videos/To_Hell_And_Back.ram

Is it safe to visit the above URL?

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: HIV (Was Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease) Reply with quote

montygram wrote:
Quote:
As for your other points (now that I have more time to address them):

I don't imagine you will, you'll just go off on one of your sermons
again.

Quote:
It was either you or Larry Hoover

It wasn't me.

Quote:
who argued (perhaps a year or so ago)
that eating mostly coconut oil as a fat source would not allow for
"growth," which is precisely the point, considering that if
you're already grown, the next step is a cancerous growth.

You're still not defining "growth". I even gave you a list to pick
from.

Quote:
You seem
to be totally unfamiliar with the literature on saturated fatty
acids.


Based on what? I made no comments about saturated fat, beyond
commenting on your view of it as "biological armour". How it can
simultaneously be armour and yet be something that has no structural
role, I don't know.

Quote:
For example, there have been attempts to implicate SFAs as the cause
of
type II diabetes (because, it's argued, they are present in large
amounts in "red meat," even though they are much present in much
higher amounts in coconut oil and palm kernel oil - yet those
consuming these oils as dietary staples have significantly lower
rates
of type II diabetes). Thus, researchers who think themselves clever
put pancreatic beta cells in a petri dish with SFAs, and the cells go
aptopic. You can do a pubmed search for saturated aptopic or aptosis
if you want sources, but it appears you just want to be the
scientific
equivalent of the troubled youth who goes around the neighborhood
placing glue in keyholes.

I've argued in the past (on s.m.n newsgroup) against the idea that
saturated fat causes diabetes, so your assumptions have led you wrong
again.

Quote:
If you want to think that I claimed at some point that there are no
fatty acids of any kind at cell surfaces, then be my guest, but then
you are obligated to admit that the fatty acids there, whether in a
more or less lipid bilayer form (it makes no difference to the
important points), do not perform essential transport or structural
roles (and I quoted that textbook that stated that some cells must
endure tremendous shearing forces - that is how I am using the term
structural).

So you finally admit that by structural you mean strong. Once again
I'll tell you that strength comes from the membrane skeleton, not from
the lipids. Stop clinging to your soap bubble idea. My (and teh
genereallly accepted view) of membranes can explin red cell ghosts. You
have persistently failed or refused to explain them with your/Ling's
theories. If a theory can't explain empirical observation you need a
new theory.

Quote:
As for HIV causing AIDS: you are correct, in that if a person became
infected with HIV, then that person's T cells (CD4+ presumably) were
decimated by HIV, and then their immune systems became so weak that
opportunistic infections occurred, I would have no problem with the
claim. However, this does not happen.

So why is is used as a clinical diagnosis?
http://yourmedicalsource.com/library/aids/ADS_symptoms.html

Quote:
A good percentage of so-called
HIV positives who die of what is classified as AIDS do not have a T
cell deficiency,

You seem to think you die of AIDS, as if it's a disease, a
misinterpretation I thought was ancient history. You die of whatever
you can't fight off, because your immune system's weakened.

Quote:
and many people not infected by HIV have very low T
cell levels, yet are healthy and live long lives.

Are you distinguishing between T-cell types here? How do you know
"many" people have this if they aren't ill and don't have HIV? Why did
they have a cell count done?

Quote:
I guess you're not
aware of Ho's claim,

No.

Quote:
but the funny thing about it is that it
demonstrated a total lack of medical understanding, in that if there
was an incredible war going on inside the bodies of those infected
with
HIV (between the T cells and HIV)

It's not a war. HIV kills the cells that tell the other T-cells to
fight a war. It's like a gun that only kills world leaders. No leaders,
no wars.

Quote:
on a daily basis for years, those
people would not feel well, and would probably go into a coma within
a
short period of time.

Go into a coma? Why? More baseless hyperbole, I suspect.

Quote:
Yet people can feel great for years, and most
HIV+s are in fact, fine (as long as they stay off the poisons,
otherwise known as cocktail therapy).

When in the latent period they feel fine. It's when their ability to
replace T-helper cells becomes outpaced by HIV destruction of them that
they start to notice.

Quote:
Moreover, when Ho's math was
examined by mathematicians it was determined that there would have to
be more viral particles generated in one HIV+ person each day than
there are atoms in the entire universe. But if you want to associate
yourself with these kinds of ridiculous claims, by all means, go
ahead
and make a fool of yourself, as you have so many times before.

So without anything you can specifically counter you have to make up
things for me to believe in and then attack these hypothetical beliefs.
You make yourself look foolish with that approach.

Quote:
Your understanding of science seems to have taken a big step
backwards
lately. For example, after pointing out to you that your criticism
of
Ling was inaccurate, you state that the sodium ion is not really
larger
than the potassium ion, yet in the context of what Ling was arguing,
the sodium ion behaves in the body as if it were larger, and that is
the key point, because the transport of ion into and out of the cell
was at issue. Interestingly, your claims, which have no theoretical
basis,

The theoretical basis of my argument is that sodium ions have a single
electron shell, whereas potassium ions have two electron shells and are
therefore bigger. Very basic chemistry. Potassium ions are also close
to twice as massive.

Quote:
are not supported by real evidence, and usually make no sense,
nicely mirror the state of the biomedical establishment these days.

Not making sense in your view of the world is not much of a criticism.

Quote:
Since, like a tantrum prone child, you seem intent on always getting
the "last word," I will not respond to subsequent posts from you,
but if anyone else reading this needs clarification on some point, he
or she can feel free to post questions or comments here.

Tantrum prone? I'm prone to challenge your dubious assertions, but
that's neither childish, nor a tantrum. Stamping your feet and saying
I'm not playing with you anymore is far closer to having a tantrum.

MattLB
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 950 [14248 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 948, 949, 950 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:17 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » cardiology
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Matters of the Heart TEX cardiology 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:15 am
No new posts Chronic Anxiety and Exercise, how does it effect the heart ? RichA cardiology 15 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:18 pm
No new posts Heart Block George cardiology 1 Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:16 pm
No new posts Guide to a healthy heart blackrotspon@yahoo.com cardiology 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:02 pm
No new posts Lifestyle trumps drugs for a healthy heart: study Roman Bystrianyk cardiology 9 Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:27 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0519s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0190s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]