Maggie's Farm

Scores of people have reversed serious disease with diet, dumbass. Of them, diabetes is probably the most common and understood.

Yeah, I know; somehow their real-world result doesn't rise to the level of opinion. Funny how the guy purporting to explain things psychologically would project "magic" onto others in order to make the point. Such as it is.

As tedious as that is, Windy, I'll say only that I hope you can somehow see it for what it is, which is an assumption hung on semantics, a falsehood, a false conclusion, an anecdote of one, a bald-faced conflation, and your usual preposterous conclusion thereby.

Yes, I'm quite aware of your remarkable ability both cast opinions and refuse facts when they're objectively applied. So why do it again.

On the other hand, if you want to get into this with some degree of serious curiosity and open-mindedness, do so. But don't lead with all the blind assertions.

Wait, you mean you have an opinion again? No way.

It's amazing how you can be outed as a kook and then turn right around and inside an hour commit all those obvious errors all over again. You're immune not only to the facts of the topic, but even to the observed fact that your approach to it depends on so much intellectual dishonesty.

And the funniest thing is that tying you up in complete knots about it is as guaranteed as it is predictable. I don't even have the heart. Enjoy your six tubes of Oreos.

And by the way we had this dumb argument before, at your behest. And like before I'll wrap you up in knots with a simple question: Are these genetics of yours not culturally, nutritionally tied to local diet? Hmmm? Is the human physiognomy inherently bulletproof? And before you spou toff some nonsense, let me tell you that I'm a cancer survivor, only not of the kind you associate with the word. And I know precisely how I got it (and how it's in remission) for two reasons: I know the conditions explicitly and I bothered to consult with the highest specialists in the field. Guess what. The corollary is 100% and it's also completely opposed to all the conventional wisdom.

Now you don't have to go to that kind of extreme to refute the rubbish you spout about cancer as a generalized group, assuming that alone doesn't blow out your argument. Which it does.

Here's another random head scratcher for you. Be careful how flippantly you toss off Cornell, Oxford, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine plus 40 years of biomedical research.

Maybe even you can finally see the link between your "genetics" and impact on the DNA.

"I would respond to any argument or point that you made but you didn't make one..."

Actually, that's no longer true.

Answer my question. Is the human genome utterly bullletproof, Windy?

No, I don't confirm an idiotic bias Googling-It because I'm not an idiot. That's you idiotically projecting.

I follow the research. Obviously I have the sense to gather information and make logical conclusions. You, being obtuse, arrogant, and ignorant, repeat yourself a hundred times, as if that enormous idiotic opinion constituted reality. Then you veer off into direct attacks, which is to confirm that idiocy.

Your three idiotic points are as as idiotic as your idiotic projection that you know someone else's rationale, their findings, the broader objective reality, whatever. You're too intellectually dishonest to see how that's you projecting that gigantic idiotic egotistical opinion of yours all over again, as if it wasn't already apparent.

When I continually ridicule your idiotic opinion, do you somehow idiotically take that as you haven't shouted loud enough?

Meanwhile, there isn't one example, ever in this miserable little blog, of you looking objectively at how idiotic your opinion on this is, of you looking into another view objectively, or in this topic, you not lying. Claiming I'm lobbing YouTube at you as a proof is as idiotic as you idiotically lobbing your idiotic opinion back continually as if it were. Only an idiot would miss how idiotic that is.

What you're doing is adopting the precise idiocy that the AGW idiots do - you project and you split. That's lying of the highest order. And it's idiotic. For as high as you hold your idiotic megaphone you'd think you even knew what that was. Nah. Too idiotic.

Answer my question. Is the human genome utterly bullletproof, Windy?

Liar.

“Is the human genome utterly bulletproof?”

Impossible to know what you are asking. I very open ended question to which any answer could be interpreted to be the wrong answer. Be specific. What, exactly, are you asking?

I think you know. And I think you're lying. Your opinion appears to be that man is a unique, cohesive, whole species and race unable to be affected by environment, which naturally fundamentally or even primarily includes diet. To take you at your word implies that man both arose from apes, presumably, but has absolutely no susceptibility to environment, environment naturally including diet.

I think you know this is the end point of your endless assertions about about genetics, one you know will trap the argument. Yet this genetic malleability is as apparent as it is studied - man is a highly modifiable species, which is why race exists. It's even the unspoken core of your argument against it, if you'd care to think it through.

“You, being obtuse, arrogant, and ignorant, repeat yourself a hundred times”

Yes, because my focus on this is narrow and I choose to stay on subject.

You create the subject, Windy, making that a lie. Your focus is indeed that narrow. This is because you're being intellectual dishonest and refusing good information you know will refute your narrowness.

The "subject", as you put it - to use the example of the other robot in these pages perpetually telling the folks kicking its rhetorical butt for it what they should really be on about - is forever according to that piece of intellectual dishonesty, whatever you spontaneously say it is. That is dishonest. I think you know it is dishonest but it's what you have.

So every time you stray off subject (which is of course every time you respond) I come back to the same thing.

And that is a lie. I'm on subject, obviously, if you'd care to just go back up-thread to the beginning. What you're trying to say is you don;'t like where it went and you don't like that it's always cornering you.

Then, when pressed to make sense of your enormous, idiotic opinion, you refuse. When presented with objective information that refutes you, you deflect and deny. Putting that back on your target, as you just have, is also a lie.

“Your three idiotic points are as as idiotic as your...”

yada, yada, yada. I get it. You don’t want to address what I said you simply want to win an argument.

Your three points are a reiteration of your idiotic opinion, obviously, which is why you continually post them and it. There's no basis there, so naturally you just leave it lying there while refusing to address what the topic really is, which is if diet has an impact on health or if health is, as you say, all genetic. So that's dishonest yet again; a lie.

“When I continually ridicule your idiotic opinion, do you somehow idiotically take that as you haven't shouted loud enough?”

No. I take that as you having some serious personality issues.

Coming from an evident egotistical blowhard who finally finds himself up his own creek, that would be a deflection away from your failures, another lie. And a transparent one.

If I have caused you medical problems and/or if you are off your meds I apologize. I originally believed I was talking with someone rational. My mistake.

Also intellectually dishonest - here you pose, appealing to appearances and to that obviously false canard you invented. I'm not a child, Windard. This isn't the first time I've seen this, either here or in life in general. The pattern is always clear. You're deflecting. That's a lie.

“Meanwhile, there isn't one example, ever in this miserable little blog, of you looking objectively at how idiotic your opinion”

Yada, yada, yada (more desperate calls for help) yada, yada, yada.

Not hardly. Normals have natural reactions to idiotic lying. Mine is one. You've put yourself where you are, not I.

“What you're doing is adopting the precise idiocy that the AGW idiots do”

Yada, yada, yada (continuing desperate calls for help and attention) yada, yada, yada…

More intellectual dishonesty. You're out of gas, Windy, which explains the capitulating yadda yadding. You are exactly, precisely using the standard tactics AGW zealots do, which is to jump up a false science, project against your various windmills, and use psychological splitting about the differences between us. This is all lying.

Years ago I learned that narcissists have two primary defenses: Dishonesty and appealing to appearances, which is just another type of dishonesty. They invariably turn reality around and, using various obvious deflections, projections, and lies, reframe any particular encounter so that they can claim a victory that boosts their esteem. There's virtually nothing they'd not do to reach this precarious vantage. It's what they do.



I haven't the slightest idea who you are, but when you comport yourself the way you generally do, and when you try that shoe-on-the-other-foot ploy you just did, I can't help but be reminded of what I've witnessed a couple other times in life, with each of them coming along as if to confirm the textbook theory. It's boringly consistent, predictable even.

Don't be quite so flippant throwing out those base-level internet defenses, Windard, the one about the other guy being off meds or the transparent appeal to mental instability. When you accuse someone of mental disorder or instability after the frequency of your own dishonesty, it neither bears up nor does it fail to reflect badly on you yourself.

If you had an interest in the general topic of diet and health none of your trademark tactic would ever appear. And in the end, neither would you come off as exactly what you tried to conjure up about someone else without cause, reason, or success.

This site is amazing. From the dolts that believe - for it is an act of faith - that bacon is healthy and nothing you eat - beyond some vague "moderation" - is harmful comes the seasoned advice that the logical extension of this is that other people who have yards of data on nutrition and health must be into "magic".

If bacon and butter is healthy, how is decades of research that clearly shows a link between diet and disease - ergo, between diet and health, which is not magic - null? You can't have it both ways.

While I suppose proving the case would be less than easy, I'd laugh if you got a nice fat tort for harm. Because if anyone takes you literally, that's what you're doing. Are you a licensed nutritionist? Dietary scientist?

You're requoting the top gloss of a press release - and as we all know, press releases are funded by lying special interests. I hear it here all the time, except now. You're also reversing yourself on government health advisory: this time it seems you want to believe it and so it's settled science. That's two inconsistencies and one solid rhetorical fallacy.

Put another way, I welcome carnists to provide their research data on the purported health benefits strictly of animal fat, especially charred and/or as a staple - in other words, not as the simple function of ketogenic weight loss. Data reinforcing the plant diet is all over (and owing to the bias, I gave up linking it here. I also invite readers here who climb on this bandwagon to list the essential ingredients in flesh and heme and lactate that they can't get in plants. I ask only to challenge the assumption that meat, milk, and eggs are healthy. They're traditional, and there is a difference.)

Moreover, tell me how your projecting "magic" onto a huge cohort who've reversed their declining health with the plant diet consciously over months in what you say is a superstition doesn't need any such data? The data is on the side of those case histories, not in this settled science slogan (that you've rhetorically borrowed from AGW hysterics).

Are you aware of these survivor histories? Have you met or interviewed any of them? What authority do you then have to purportedly debunk them with a couple pieces of bad rhetoric? Is that responsible?

What you're all doing is confirming your bias. You have a lifestyle predilection you're trying to anchor by ginning up weasel words like magic and fad and, ironically, "settled science".

You can take it as you wish: Either you're contradicting yourself logically or you're abusing science or you're projecting. As it turns out, you're doing all three, which is shame because that constitutes a pretty significant disservice to people who see you as authorities which is also evidently as you want to be seen.

(What's also amusing is how MF regular Windy projects things better than most, at least one of which above alights on original MF commentary. I refer to the magical properties of new-found OCD gym-work as a way to improve the sex lives G-d intends as part of a proper, leisure lifestyle. Somehow that's not magic but people who've reversed their terminal illnesses by reforning their diet is...)

At least have the sense to include a moderated view, Bliss. Nobody's promoting magic food. That's you projecting like a leftist confronted with a lifestyle assumption that makes you uncomfortable. Or in your case, arrogant and ignorant.

http://www.aicr.org/about/advocacy/the-china-study.html

I linked that because it's a fantastically easily-found, random view that acknowledges one aspect of plant diet advocacy but doesn't actually promote it. It even disagrees with it, meaning it flies in the face of Bliss's nonsense while never veering off into that land of hysteria thing one always risks when confudabulating you jeenyuses.

You did note my moderated view, right? And yet somehow you got all up at arms over your own bizarre interpretation of the content.

I hope you recognize your own list for what it is. But in the event you need to be led to the inevitable, try a diet of sugar, salt, milk, and presumably, ketosis and see how your health fares.

But then that's me addressing your fallacy: that the AICR represents what I'm aiming at when it doesn't, which is simply to refute the idiocy that goes on around here so you bias merchants can confirm your bias. Which you just did.

Wow that's dim. Does your position really depend on noise like that? Because if it does...

What I said was try a diet of sugar, salt and milk ... and see how you do. This is because a diet insufficient in actual nutrition will, in the western motif, absolutely raise serious disease as a significant statistical reality. Does that mean sugar, salt and milk cause cancer? You tell me.

Does a plant based diet seriously, statistically lower those diseases? Why yes it does, again as a statistical, recorded, historical and cultural fact. I just told you; see the difference?

Which leads us to: ever wonder what that data says? Ever go looking for it? Ever reconsider the illogical hoops you have to jump through to believe what you do, more or less fact-free?

So tell me, does that make radishes magic? Because bias-confirming lifestyling types like to throw that around in order to keep all that dirt in the air and have their little ongoing chuckle about all the hippie vegans and other crystal-tinkling Buddhist armpit hair-types you people like to project and split over.

You figure I should offer my own anecdotes? No really, do you feel entitled to books of material from people who know quite a bit more than you before you'll offer them a chair at your little cultural soire?

And ketosis? Ketosis is what happens when you try your little sugar, salt, and burger diet, and in some of your cases, willfully and intentionally. Nice try. Was than an intentional intentional deflection or do you actually think that way? Funny, BD just posted how his malnourished health is so perfect that his rock-ribbed bacon-eating self got to cut his blood pressure meds in half and stay on the Lipitor.

You figure I should tell you how I take neither and never have? (How I'm not in ketosis to stay slim or how age for age I could have buried BD in weights, as in tens of thousands of tons of weights? What do those anecdotes do for us, anyway? Answer: they show our ignorance. So get back to the material. Or maybe I should address that part to Windy. Apologies, SweetPea.)

You people. See, that's your position, which is no position at all.

I already knew you got nothing. But as grasping as that was, maybe you and Windy need to get a room.

From my link to Windy, above. This should appeal to inquiring skeptics.



In some of those cases the link is clear, others not at all. But when promoting a perceived status quo - an AGW-like "settled science" - you might want to apply the same skepticism and inquisitiveness to something so close to your health and well-being than to take your cues from things that only make you feel a certain way about yourself, and rather unconsciously at that.

No Bob, that's just me reversing the same exact smarter-than-thou, leftist-like smugness that circulates through blogs like this daily as justification to ridicule anything the local tribal thinking wants to ridicule. Go ahead, find ten largely cultural non-issues of the day, find a bunch of tribal rightists, and apply the identical metric, which is that if it's funded by even the appearances of special interest it's automatically corrupted.

I can find you a dozen of those a day hawked by rightists who know everything but who actually have no clue. It's how your lot lost this nation, or at least a large part of it.

As for your other empty assertion, no, eggs aren't even remotely "incredibly nutrient dense". That's actually you buying into the marketing of the last thirty years. Since that's a lie, the egg people were even forced to stop with the false advertising. Nature's Perfect Food just isn't the chicken egg you have to modify hens to lay daily to get your fix of.

The vast nutrition density of animal products is absolutely a rote myth. Not only is it debunked, as proof you can't name those "nutrients". You can't even name the medical condition you'd purport comes from not consuming them. That's because it doesn't exist except as a vague passed-on anecdote without a source or as a standard garden variety cultural myth.

Have you looked into the careful records of the Okinawan? No, they aren't vegans, but they are long-lived for a reason. Same hold for other isolated communities and none of them are Adkins zealots or other Carls Jr. luvin' food faddists. (This one always trips your friend Windy up, but that's because he's being intellectually dishonest and he's projecting and splitting. You're just misinformed.)

Lastly, I like your reverse David and Goliath myth about the mighty hippie sprouts lobby overwhelming the miniscule cattle industry in roughly 50 out of 50 states over the last century and a half. Because that makes all kind of sense.



Be smart. Don't be a tool.

You're meandering, Bob, and it's not logical per the train of thought we're on. You're grasping.

But let's go there. What's the largest population on earth, Bob? You tell me. And where was the largest study of diet and health conducted? And what did it correlate and find?

From there, tell me what earth's human blue zones are.*

You people have lost your own plot. You're actually saying anything that comes to mind to actually deny that diet affects health.

"Your" still in the weeds, Bob. Why? Is health related to diet or is health not related to diet? Are you refuting the science? (I hate that argument but here it's suitable because it is known and it is documented and it is completely logical.)

The point is that cohorts respond to environment and environment hinges on diet. Health is strongly correlated to diet and you're having to go to an extreme not to make a rational point but to take a complete flyer against one. That's bias.

Doesn't surprise me you have to resort to a fallacy followed by an anecdote followed by false framing.

You're biased. You don't care enough about the subject to look into it and you don't care you're biased. You're just confirming yourself by whatever means you can.

And Bob? You're the faddist. You and all the lifestyle-signalling types who will go to any length to defend a favorite habit they never reconsidered but that's put the western world at the top of major disease statistics. Spare me the fallacious justifying nonsense about lifespan and malnutrition; I'm not comparing the US to sub-Saharan Africa.

When you do you look as much a kook as when you name-call smarter and more honest people than you faddists. How is that? because you haven't the sense to realize that your particular western dietetic drift hasn't the slightest to do with your vaunted ancestors and their equally non-existent carnivore physiognomies. You're not a tiger, tiger. You're an ape and you eat leaves and shoots, not Buffaloed Pecker Wings.

Your SuPerTriPleFaTzBurgZ three times a week and your nightly Oreos and your homogenized-antibioticed-milk-protein myth are the fad. Get a clue.

Bob: People with fantastic health can't possibly get it by diet. Insufficient sample group! Research lies! No science!

Ten: Except it's a researched fact found in many places on Earth.

Bob: Well, would other life expectancy rise if their diet were duplicated?

Ten: It's a researched fact found in many places on Earth. What do you think, Bob?

Bob: Bad research by a faddist! Fallacy! Unrelated anecdote!

Ten: You're the faddist, Bob, and you don't even know the historical carnist diet you incorrectly think informs yours. Enjoy your Whoppers, you leaf-eating descendant of chimps. Why do you think major disease is so widespread in the west when there are scores of researched cohorts who don't suffer it and live decades longer? And I'm not talking about the third world.

Bob: The third world dies from caught diseases all the time! Cancer and heart failure are strictly related to old age!

Ten: Whatever, Bob. Enjoy your endless diversions and your triple-sized fries. The facts are there if you want to see them.

Incidentally, Allison is just a culture-signaller, the pseudo-traditionalist's variant of virtue signalling. That article is so packed with contradiction, assumption, projection, and downright fallacy it's hard to know where to begin.

But she'll always have a market.

So no, it's not a "good" article. By any logical metric, it's a bias confirmation.