Fasting on Yom Kippur

[email hidden] (Dan) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

For my whole life people have been telling me confidently that fasting on the Jewish holiday of
Yom Kippur (when no food OR water is consumed for appx 24 hours) is healthy! They vaguely refer to
a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving your stomach a "rest".

It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with NO water) would be decidedly UNhealthy.

What is the current medical view on this subject?

That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is neither medically harmful nor medically
beneficial. Those vague benefits you talk about are basically spiritual, not physiological (of
course, if one routinely overeats to the point of feeling bloated and sluggish, there will be
physiological reasons behind a feeling of increased well-being from not doing it for a day. These
are similar to the physiological benefits that someone who routinely hits himself on the head with a
hammer would experience if he took a break from it).

Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with pop-med notions of "detoxification."

There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term euphoriant effect, which apparently
becomes quite a problem in people with eating disorders. But that's hardly a major problem with a
one-day fast.

Thanks Eric!

I just found this page: ivillage.com0,,242253 4387,00.htmlOpen ↗
rrivalSA=1&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=6265659

What do you think? I think she is talking about the consequences of a longer fast... but I'm
not sure....

Dan

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Dan) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

For my whole life people have been telling me confidently that fasting on the Jewish holiday of
Yom Kippur (when no food OR water is consumed for appx 24 hours) is healthy! They vaguely refer
to a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving your stomach a "rest".

It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with NO water) would be decidedly
UNhealthy.

What is the current medical view on this subject?

That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is neither medically harmful nor medically
beneficial. Those vague benefits you talk about are basically spiritual, not physiological (of
course, if one routinely overeats to the point of feeling bloated and sluggish, there will be
physiological reasons behind a feeling of increased well-being from not doing it for a day. These
are similar to the physiological benefits that someone who routinely hits himself on the head with
a hammer would experience if he took a break from it).

Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with pop-med notions of "detoxification."

There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term euphoriant effect, which apparently
becomes quite a problem in people with eating disorders. But that's hardly a major problem with a
one-day fast.

"Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks Eric!

I just found this page:

ivillage.com0,,242253 4387,00.htmlOpen ↗
ap=1&pba=adid=6265659

Quoted message said:

What do you think? I think she is talking about the consequences of a longer fast... but I'm not
sure....

She doesn't know what she is talking about. But she is talking about fasting for several days, not
one. People get gastrointestinal diseases (vomiting + Diarrhea) that last a few days, then start
eating again. As long as they drink, there is no harm done.

So I beleive that fasting for 24 hours won't hurt a bit.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Dan

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Dan) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

For my whole life people have been telling me confidently that fasting on the Jewish holiday
of Yom Kippur (when no food OR water is consumed for appx 24 hours) is healthy! They vaguely
refer to a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving your stomach a "rest".

It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with NO water) would be decidedly
UNhealthy.

What is the current medical view on this subject?

That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is neither medically harmful nor medically
beneficial. Those vague benefits you talk about

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

basically spiritual, not physiological (of course, if one routinely overeats to the point of
feeling bloated and sluggish, there will be physiological reasons behind a feeling of increased
well-being from not doing it for a day. These are similar to the physiological benefits

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone who routinely hits himself on the head with a hammer would experience if he took a break
from it).

Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with pop-med notions

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"detoxification."

There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term euphoriant

effect,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which apparently becomes quite a problem in people with eating

disorders.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that's hardly a major problem with a one-day fast.

Jeff,

Thanks for your response... but my friend's assertion was not only that fasting is not unhealthy...
but actually has some health benefits! What do you think?

Dan

PS Why don't you think the woman knows what she's talking about?

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks Eric!

I just found this page:

ivillage.com0,,242253 4387,00.htmlOpen ↗
eqCap=1&pba=adid=6265659

Quoted message said:

What do you think? I think she is talking about the consequences of a longer fast... but I'm not
sure....

She doesn't know what she is talking about. But she is talking about fasting for several days, not
one. People get gastrointestinal diseases (vomiting + Diarrhea) that last a few days, then start
eating again. As long as they drink, there is no harm done.

So I beleive that fasting for 24 hours won't hurt a bit.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Dan

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Dan) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

> For my whole life people have been telling me confidently that fasting on the Jewish holiday
> of Yom Kippur (when no food OR water is consumed for appx 24 hours) is healthy! They vaguely
> refer to a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving your stomach a "rest".
>
> It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with NO water) would be decidedly
> UNhealthy.
>
> What is the current medical view on this subject?

That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is neither medically harmful nor medically
beneficial. Those vague benefits you talk about

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

basically spiritual, not physiological (of course, if one routinely overeats to the point of
feeling bloated and sluggish, there will be physiological reasons behind a feeling of
increased well-being from not doing it for a day. These are similar to the physiological
benefits

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone who routinely hits himself on the head with a hammer would experience if he took a
break from it).

Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with pop-med notions

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"detoxification."

There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term euphoriant

effect,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which apparently becomes quite a problem in people with eating

disorders.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that's hardly a major problem with a one-day fast.

"Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff,

Thanks for your response... but my friend's assertion was not only that fasting is not
unhealthy... but actually has some health benefits! What do you think?

I don't think fasting has any health benefits. It can disturb bowel function (nothing to [censored] out,
but bowel function usually is not badly disturbed, so you miss a [censored]) and can cause blood sugar to
go down (esp. for people with diabetes on meds). I don't think the risks are that great, though.

I don't think fasting is good for you. There are better ways to lose weight. And it does not cleanse
the body of anything. So I don't see any health benefits.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Dan

PS Why don't you think the woman knows what she's talking about?

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks Eric!

I just found this page:

ivillage.com0,,242253 4387,00.htmlOpen ↗
ap=1&pba=adid=6265659

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What do you think? I think she is talking about the consequences of a longer fast... but I'm
not sure....

She doesn't know what she is talking about. But she is talking about

fasting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for several days, not one. People get gastrointestinal diseases

(vomiting +

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Diarrhea) that last a few days, then start eating again. As long as they drink, there is no
harm done.

So I beleive that fasting for 24 hours won't hurt a bit.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Dan

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] (Dan) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:
>
> > For my whole life people have been telling me confidently that

fasting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (when no food OR water is

consumed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > for appx 24 hours) is healthy! They vaguely refer to a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving
> > your stomach a "rest".
> >
> > It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with NO

water)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > would be decidedly UNhealthy.
> >
> > What is the current medical view on this subject?
>
> That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is neither

medically

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> harmful nor medically beneficial. Those vague benefits you talk

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are

Quoted message said:

> basically spiritual, not physiological (of course, if one routinely overeats to the point of
> feeling bloated and sluggish, there will be physiological reasons behind a feeling of
> increased well-being from

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> doing it for a day. These are similar to the physiological benefits

that

Quoted message said:

> someone who routinely hits himself on the head with a hammer would experience if he took a
> break from it).
>
> Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with pop-med

notions

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

> "detoxification."
>
> There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term euphoriant

effect,

Quoted message said:

> which apparently becomes quite a problem in people with eating

disorders.

Quoted message said:

> But that's hardly a major problem with a one-day fast.

Jeff <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

I don't think fasting has any health benefits. It can disturb bowel function (nothing to [censored]
out, but bowel function usually is not badly disturbed, so you miss a [censored]) and can cause blood
sugar to go down (esp. for people with diabetes on meds). I don't think the risks are that
great, though.

I don't think fasting is good for you. There are better ways to lose weight. And it does not
cleanse the body of anything. So I don't see any health benefits.

Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life - since it results in calorie restriction.

``Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth and life span in rats.''

The mean life span of the EOD group represented an 83% increase over that of the AL group.''

- timtyler.orgpmidOpen ↗

There are many other studies along similar lines.

The evidence is overwhelming - regular fasting reduces mortality, and prolongs life - probably by
causing an overall reduction in calorie intake.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life - since it results in calorie
restriction.

``Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth and life span in rats.''

Humans are not rats! Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

"Malnourished and starving people are not good candidates for spontaneous healing. ... More common
reasons for insufficient metabolic energy are inadequate diets, impaired digestions, and improper
breathinga, all of which are within your control." -- Andrew Weil, MD in _Spontaneous Healing_

I agree with Dr. Weil on this issue. CR activities depress the immune system of the human
body. Skinny people are in a very bad position when it comes to surviving chemotherapy or any
major illness.

Educate yourself on the facts, Tyler. Search in medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss
of lean body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia.

The pictures of people practicing CR are nothing but pictures of walking skeletons!!!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comtutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comOpen ↗ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
change your life.

John 'the Man said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

First of all, Mr. Gohde. You're overdue for a lesson in personal courtesy and respect. You're also
overdue for a lesson in Usenet courtesy. Five crossposts are excessive, especially given your high
ratio of invective and vain boasting to actual scientific content.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life - since it results in calorie
restriction.

``Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth and life span in rats.''

Gohde:

Quoted message said:

Humans are not rats! Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

Your own behavior refutes your argument and fosters a bull market for the studies of ethologists.

Quoted message said:

"Malnourished and starving people are not good candidates for spontaneous healing. ... More common
reasons for insufficient metabolic energy are inadequate diets, impaired digestions, and improper
breathinga, all of which are within your control." -- Andrew Weil, MD in _Spontaneous Healing_

Quoted message said:

I agree with Dr. Weil on this issue. CR activities depress the immune system of the human body.

CR practitioners are not malnourished.

Quoted message said:

Skinny people are in a very bad position when it comes to surviving chemotherapy or any
major illness.

The medical evidence strongly indicates that skinny people are much less likely than fat people to
contract cancer in the first place.

Quoted message said:

Educate yourself on the facts, Tyler.

More rudeness and projection of your own deficits, Mr. Gohde.

[Followup set to alt.duck.quack.quack.quack.]
---
Richard Schulman Remove antispamming "-xyz" for email reply

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

CR practitioners are not malnourished.

Yeah, ... Sure, Right! They are just walking skeletons!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Skinny people are in a very bad position when it comes to surviving chemotherapy or any major
illness.

Quoted message said:

The medical evidence strongly indicates that skinny people are much less likely than fat people to
contract cancer in the first place.

You have to die of something, Schulman, so that means cancer. Just thought that you might want
to know. 🙂

Quoted message said:

More rudeness and projection of your own deficits, Mr. Gohde.

Humans are not rats! Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

"Malnourished and starving people are not good candidates for spontaneous healing. ... More common
reasons for insufficient metabolic energy are inadequate diets, impaired digestions, and improper
breathinga, all of which are within your control." -- Andrew Weil, MD in _Spontaneous Healing_

I agree with Dr. Weil on this issue. CR activities depress the immune system of the human
body. Skinny people are in a very bad position when it comes to surviving chemotherapy or any
major illness.

Educate yourself on the facts, Schulman. Search in medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting,
loss of lean body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia.

The pictures of people practicing CR are nothing but pictures of walking skeletons!!!

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biomedical model of natural health.
Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition (food.naturalhealthperspective.comfood.naturalhealthperspective.comOpen ↗) is now with
more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

CR practitioners are not malnourished.

The biggest bunch of crock being pushed with absolutely no evidence is that skinny is healthy.

Walking skeletons are *not* healthy. Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly overweight is
good, too. Searching in medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass or
sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia provides the proof.

Of course, it is best, if you are muscular rather than fat.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comtutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comOpen ↗ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
change your life.

John 'the Man said:

The biggest bunch of crock being pushed with absolutely no evidence is that skinny is healthy.

Your idea of skinny seems to be someone in the advanced sector with anorexia, or a starving peasant
in a famine-stricken sub-Saharan country. Of course, these individuals aren't healthy! They're
malnourished. It's easier to be malnourished when one is thin than otherwise, simply because food
intake is lower. But skinny is healthy when one has a balanced diet emphasizing energy-dense foods.

Quoted message said:

The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly overweight is
good, too.

You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25 ("slightly overweight"😉 is good. The evidence
doesn't support this claim. For males above a BMI of 24, mortality rises, according to the appended
Norwegian study. (There's another issue raised in this study that needs to be discussed, but I'll
save it for a subsequent post)"

Epidemiology. 2003 May;14(3):293-9.

Height and body mass index in relation to total mortality.

Engeland A, Bjorge T, Selmer RM, Tverdal A.

Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway.
[email hidden]

BACKGROUND: The relation between body mass index (BMI) and mortality is not clear in the
literature. An inverse relation between height and mortality has been suggested. We explore
these relations in a very large cohort in Norway. METHODS: We studied two million men and women,
age 20-74 years, who were measured during 1963-2000. These persons were followed for an average
of 22.1 years. We used Cox proportional hazard models in the analyses. Also, the optimal BMI
(the BMI at the time of measurement that was subsequently related to the lowest mortality) was
estimated. RESULTS: Over the study period, 723,000 deaths were registered. The relative risk of
death by BMI showed a J- or U-shaped curve, with the lowest rates of death at BMI between 22.5
and 25.0. In men, the optimal BMI increased from 21.6 when measured at age 20-29 to 24.0 when
measured at age 70-74. In women, the optimal BMI was consistently higher, increasing from 22.2
to 25.7. Mortality decreased with increased height in men; in women, mortality decreased with
height only up to heights of about 160-164 cm and then increased among the tallest women.
CONCLUSIONS: The relation between BMI and mortality was J- or U-shaped, with the "optimal" BMI

men and in women up to a height of 165 cm.

PMID: 12859029 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
---
Richard Schulman Remove antispamming "-xyz" for email reply

John 'the Man' <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

CR practitioners are not malnourished.

The biggest bunch of crock being pushed with absolutely no evidence is that skinny is healthy.

Walking skeletons are *not* healthy. Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly overweight
is good, too. Searching in medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass
or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia provides the proof.

Of course, it is best, if you are muscular rather than fat.

Depends on whether you can tell the diference between mean life span and maximum life span.

Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, it is best, if you are muscular rather than fat.

Quoted message said:

Depends on whether you can tell the diference between mean life span and maximum life span.

Did you hear the one about RK?

He thinks that he is going to live past the age of 120!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

He thinks that we should take his nutty CR claims seriously, because they all are going to live past
the age of 120. Frankly, I think that qualifies him for the funny farm. 🙁

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Maybe somebody should let RK in on the joke?

"... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25 ("slightly overweight"😉 is good. The evidence
doesn't support this claim. For males above a BMI of 24, mortality rises, according to the appended
Norwegian study.

You are assuming that everyone is fat, but I certainly am not.

Skinny people don't have any muscle mass. And, no research study has ever looked at *only* people
with excellent muscle mass. And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift weights and engage
in body building.

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comtutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comOpen ↗ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
change your life.

John 'the Man' <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25 ("slightly overweight"😉 is good. The evidence
doesn't support this claim. For males above a BMI of 24, mortality rises, according to the
appended Norwegian study.

You are assuming that everyone is fat, but I certainly am not.

Skinny people don't have any muscle mass. And, no research study has ever looked at *only* people
with excellent muscle mass. And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift weights and
engage in body building.

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you're barking-mad.

John 'the Man said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an automated adolescent formula like
the above is clearly not interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for anything other
than a clown.

R.S.:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25 ("slightly overweight"😉 is good. The evidence
doesn't support this claim. For males above a BMI of 24, mortality rises, according to the
appended Norwegian study.

John, 'the Man':

Quoted message said:

You are assuming that everyone is fat, but I certainly am not.

I made no such assumption. You don't seem to read, much less assimilate, what other people are
saying in attempting to communicate with you. What you did say, however, is that "The ideal body
weight is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly overweight is good, too."

Quoted message said:

Skinny people don't have any muscle mass.

You need to go to more ballets and watch more marathons. Suggestion: the NY Marathon is coming
up. Have a look at all these "walking skeletons" (in your terminology) photographed at a
recent marathon:

nycmarathon.orgindex.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

And, no research study has ever looked at *only* people with excellent muscle mass.

Well, what are you waiting for? Maybe Governor-elect Schwarzenegger will give you a research grant.
But scientific research is one thing, and immature claims without evidence is another. I'm
especially disgusted by your failure to have read and responded to the refereed Norwegian study I
provided in my last post. When evidence is presented that casts doubt on one's claim that "slightly
overweight is good," a serious person -- a grownup -- will either accept the refuting evidence or
present a reasonable critique of it. You did neither. You just ignored the evidence, created a straw
man, and continued your clowning.

Quoted message said:

And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift weights and engage in body building.

More clowning.

Quoted message said:

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

And yet more immature clowning. Grow up, John, misnamed 'the Man.'
---
Richard Schulman Remove antispamming "-xyz" for email reply

Richard Schulman said:

First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an automated adolescent formula like
the above is clearly not interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for anything other
than a clown.

If you intend to engage John in a considered debate of his assertions, make sure that you have extra
time. You will waste a lot of it or as much as you choose to invest in him.

If you have been only recently subjected to John's blather, you might yet have the impression that
some expression of interest on your part will persuade him to engage in meaningful dialogue. You
are mistaken.

John repeatedly demonstrates himself to be either hopelessly addled or willfully ignorant of the
topics of which he speaks, and his only real expressions of quasi-original thought are
pre-adolescent verbal abuses aimed at anyone redirecting him. Sadly, even these are a poor excuse
for reasoned responses.

Engage him, and he will respond with asinine comments and affected laughter. Question him, and he
may either ignore you, respond with non sequitors and baseless rebuttal, or accuse you of
unreasonable bias. Tell him he is wrong, and he will throw intellectual feces at the forum until you
reach the only effective solution. Ignore him.

Unfortunately, even scrupulous disregard of John raises issues, since absence of rebuke frees him
for what he really wants. He wants to be seen as a knowledgeable guide in your forum, which he will
use to push his health care views as though educated on the topic. Ignoring him licenses him to
talk, though he is a clear example of who should not.

@~

Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you're barking-mad.

Ah! The Academic mind at work. 🙁)

Yeah, ... Sure, Right! Science Geeks always know best. 🙁

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift weights and engage in body building.

Quoted message said:

More clowning.

I will repeat it again for the benefit of the intellectually challenge science geeks on these ngs.

Rats don't lift weights and engage in body building.

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂