Low-Fat Dairy Deters Diabetes

Quoted message said:

Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat

Quoted message said:

content reduced risk of developing diabetes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml

A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some
protective powers against diabetes too.

Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any
appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of
soda?

It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects from
diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined
carbs.

TC

Quoted message said:

Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat

Quoted message said:

content reduced risk of developing diabetes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml

A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some
protective powers against diabetes too.

Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any
appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of
soda?

It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects from
diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined
carbs.

TC

"TC" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower fat

Quoted message said:

content reduced risk of developing diabetes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml

A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some
protective powers against diabetes too.

Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any
appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of
soda?

Very probably so, at least with milk consumption.
Thats the catch with those food intake studies.. you just can't say
"selenium causes respiratory syndroms" out of something like that because
nobody actually eats iron, they eat foods containing it.. and those foods
are associated with a very distinctive pattern of additional food components
that may play the important part or actually be the cause.

Quoted message said:

It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects from
diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined
carbs.

TC

TC said:

Quoted message said:

Comparing dairy based foods with low or high fat content, a lower

fat

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

content reduced risk of developing diabetes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/health/main694201.shtml

A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some
protective powers against diabetes too.

Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any
appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of
soda?

It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects

from

Quoted message said:

diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing refined
carbs.

Correct; also dairy products have a low glycemic index, and diets
rich in such foods tend to lower the risk of diabetes and obesity
if they are also low in fat. It is likely that a high percentage of
people who eat lots od dairy products also consume other low gycemic
index foods. The study would have been more revealing if the weight of
the participants had also been taken into consideration.

"Correct; also dairy products have a low glycemic index, and diets
rich in such foods tend to lower the risk of diabetes and obesity
if they are also low in fat. It is likely that a high percentage of
people who eat lots od dairy products also consume other low gycemic
index foods. The study would have been more revealing if the weight of"

Gi is not relevant here. The question was that when people use milk
products which forms of them are related to lower risk and low fat was the
conclusion. Added fats tend to increase gi so the low fat forms might in
principle actually have a higher gi' without doing the tests of course.

It is not logical nor supported by evidence your conclusion about food
choices. Looking at the full news item, it is almost certain that weight
was a standard part of the data collected.

"A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some
protective powers against diabetes too."

Yes, it contains Chlorogenic Acid which is thought to modulate
incretin activity and better glucose control.

"Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any
appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of
soda?"

No, a failure of logic and absense of evidence.

"It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects
from diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing
refined carbs."

No evidence to support conclusion, 2/3 of obese people don't develope
diabetes and there is a "lean" category of people who do. The
diabetes question is far more complex then mere carbohydrate
consuption. The latest research is tending toward it as being a
genetic based disorder of fat metabolism which starts the cascade of
effects that lead to diabetes.

Quoted message said:

"A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some
protective powers against diabetes too."

Yes, it contains Chlorogenic Acid which is thought to modulate
incretin activity and better glucose control.

"Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any
appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of
soda?"

No, a failure of logic and absense of evidence.

"It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects
from diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing
refined carbs."

No evidence to support conclusion, 2/3 of obese people don't develope
diabetes and there is a "lean" category of people who do. The
diabetes question is far more complex then mere carbohydrate
consuption. The latest research is tending toward it as being a
genetic based disorder of fat metabolism which starts the cascade of
effects that lead to diabetes.

Why do we not ask an expert about carbs and diabetes? How about a Type
1 diabetic who almost died on the ADA diet and who now has a medical
practise and has *successfully* treated Type two diabetics for years
and years.

I'd trust him before I trust any researcher friggin' with test tubes or
surveys all day long.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316099066/qid=1115838417/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-7164220-6356113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving
Normal Blood Sugars Revised & Updated
by Richard K. Bernstein

Read the reviews.

His approach is to cut carbs. Cutting carbs makes it possible for
diabetics to control blood glucose levels with minimal insulin. And
cutting carbs will stop the progression of diabetes. In pre-diabetics
and metabolic-syndromes it can resolve all, if not most, of the
symptoms.

Let's see a doctor get the same results by increasing the consumption
of coffee or LOW FAT milk. That whole coffee or milk as a protector
from diabetes concept is pure un-adulterated [censored]. That you would
buy into it shows just how stupid educated people can be.

Not exposing ourselves to huge amounts of carbs is what protects us
from diabetes type 2.

TC

Quoted message said:

"A while ago a study was published that ascribed to coffee some
protective powers against diabetes too."

Yes, it contains Chlorogenic Acid which is thought to modulate
incretin activity and better glucose control.

"Is it not obvious that people who drink coffee or milk in any
appreciable amount will probably not also drink copious amounts of
soda?"

No, a failure of logic and absense of evidence.

"It isn't the fact that milk or coffee is in the diet that protects
from diabetes it is the absence of obesity and diabetes causing
refined carbs."

No evidence to support conclusion, 2/3 of obese people don't develope
diabetes and there is a "lean" category of people who do. The
diabetes question is far more complex then mere carbohydrate
consuption. The latest research is tending toward it as being a
genetic based disorder of fat metabolism which starts the cascade of
effects that lead to diabetes.

http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/food040429.htm

Study Blames Corn Syrup for Rise of Diabetes in US
posted 04/29/04
Corn syrup and other refined foods may be much to blame for the huge
increase in type-2 diabetes in the United States over the past few
decade.

A study of nearly 100 years of data on what Americans eat show a huge
increase in processed carbohydrates, especially corn syrup, and a large
drop in the amount of fiber from whole grains, fruits and vegetables.
It parallels a spike in the number of cases of type-2 diabetes, caused
by the body's increasing inability to properly metabolize sugars.

"We are seeing this big jump in the number of calories," that people
are eating, Dr. Lee Gross, a family physician at the Inter-Medic
Medical Group in North Port, Florida, who led the study, said in a
telephone interview. "We tried to break down where are these calories
coming from? We have heard everyone debating is it because of fat, is
it because of carbohydrate and it is not really clear," Gross added.

"This shows the increase in the past 20 years is almost exclusively
carbohydrates and certainly corn syrup consumption has increased
dramatically." Gross said he was not "picking on the corn syrup
industry," but added, "It is hard to ignore the fact that 20 percent of
our carbohydrates are coming from corn syrup -- 10 percent of our total
calories."

An estimated 16 million Americans have type-2 diabetes, the sixth
leading cause of death overall. And many studies have linked a high
intake of refined carbohydrates and other foods with a high "glycemic
index" with the development of diabetes.

Foods with a high glycemic index cause a spike in insulin production.
Many experts agree that, over time, repeatedly eating foods in this
pattern can cause insulin resistance, which in turn leads to diabetes.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Gross and
colleagues said they used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to show that people have
eaten about the same amount of carbohydrates a day on average -- 500
grams -- since 1909. But instead of whole grains and vegetables, people
are getting more and more of those carbs in the form of processed
grains and sugars -- most of all, in corn syrup, they said.

Gross, with colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health and the
CDC, found that starting in 1980, people started consuming steadily
more calories, with an average increase in total calories of 500
calories a day.

"Specifically, 428 calories (nearly 80 percent of the increase in total
energy) came from carbohydrates," they wrote. Gross said people are
probably not eating all those 500 calories. Some could be wasted. "It's
an estimate. It's hard to interpret," he said. But the trend was clear.
"During the same period, the prevalence of type-2 diabetes increased by
47 percent and the prevalence of obesity increased by 80 percent," they
wrote.

Audrae Erickson, President of the Corn Refiners Association, called the
report misleading.

"Diabetes rates are rising in many countries around the world that use
little or no high fructose corn syrup in foods and beverages, which
supports findings by the Centers for Disease Control and the American
Diabetes Association that the primary causes of diabetes are obesity,
advancing age and heredity," she said in a statement.
Dr. John White, Caloric Sweeteners Expert, on behalf of the Corn
Refiners Association states that " The authors have done a rigorous
job of reviewing food commodity availability data from 1909 to 1997.
Unfortunately, they lack basic knowledge about food commodities and
commit numerous and significant factual errors, including:

Incorrectly describing the composition of corn syrup. Corn syrups are a
family of liquid products containing a range of glucose
monosaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides;

Confusing corn syrup with high fructose corn syrup - the former
contains only free and bound glucose, the latter contains both glucose
and fructose;

Incorrectly describing the composition of high fructose corn syrup -
this product does not "largely consist of the monosaccharide fructose,"
rather it contains roughly equal amounts of glucose and fructose, as
does sucrose;

Failing to state that the consumption data attributed to high fructose
corn syrup actually represent total consumption data for all liquid
corn syrups and sweeteners - a family of products representing a wide
range of compositions and physical, functional and metabolic
properties;

Concerning metabolic results, high fructose corn syrup closely mirrors
sucrose; and

Incorrectly implying a distinction between sucrose and high fructose
corn syrup in insulin resistance, where none has ever been proven -
in fact, few studies have been conducted with high fructose corn syrup;
due to similarities in composition, it would be expected that high
fructose corn syrup would correlate strongly with sucrose.

Facts About High Fructose Corn Syrup

HFCS is virtually identical compositionally to table sugar;
HFCS and table sugar, both half fructose and half glucose, elicit a
similar glycemic response;
HFCS and table sugar are indistinguishable to the human body;
HFCS is a natural sweetener made from corn;
HFCS is safe to consume and can be part of a healthy, balanced diet.

Source: Diabetes In Control.com.

--

TC

http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/food040429.htm

Was offered in support of the claim that diabetes was caused by amounts of
carbohydrates consumed, especially corn derived fructose sweeteners.

This study falls far short as a definitive answer for causation when
compared to the research being done on the ultimate origins of diabetes.
To restate, it is widely thought to be a genetic based disorder of fat
metabolism leading to a cascade of effects leading to diabetes. Among
those effects, but no more important nor as a leading effect is the
consumption of carbohydrates and saturated fats which in turn cause even
more effects. In the above study this is confirmed, if one eats in excess
of energy needs and the cascade has started then concentrated fructose can
be a problem. This is not because of them being carbohydrates per sey but
because fructose has an even greater negative effect of causing far more
protein glycation then does other sugars and the glycation has a direct
effect on beta cell health. As said before, the diabetes question is very
complex and interrelated as to effect, and single narrow answers
fail almost at once when compared to the research.

I know of the good doc and have the first edition of his book and his work
is a fine example of science, not in contrast to it. His approach is for
diabetics and those on the way to becoming one. In the context of
previous posts, it is for those people who have diabetes and/or the
cascade leading to it in those genetically vulnerable. Because controling
glucose intake makes applying use of insulin much easier his work has
great merit. It does not support the idea that carbohydrates in the first
place causes diabetes. Those parts of the world traditionally with the
lowest diabetes rates are also some of the highest in carbohydrate
consumption. Again, applying narrow answers to a complex question is a
dead end in the face of the complexity of the problem biologically.
Appealing to his work is a bad case of apples and oranges as to the
ultimate cause of diabetes, once it developes it is a good approach to
controling insulin usage most effectively.

"Why do we not ask an expert about carbs and diabetes? How about a Type 1
diabetic who almost died on the ADA diet and who now has a medical
practise and has *successfully* treated Type two diabetics for years and
years.

I'd trust him before I trust any researcher friggin' with test tubes
orsurveys all day long.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316099066/qid=1115838417/sr=8-1/
ref=pd_csp_1/102-7164220-6356113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving
Normal Blood Sugars Revised & Updated
by Richard K. Bernstein

Read the reviews.

His approach is to cut carbs. Cutting carbs makes it possible for
diabetics to control blood glucose levels with minimal insulin. And
cutting carbs will stop the progression of diabetes. In pre-diabetics
and metabolic-syndromes it can resolve all, if not most, of the
symptoms.

Let's see a doctor get the same results by increasing the consumption
of coffee or LOW FAT milk. That whole coffee or milk as a protector
from diabetes concept is pure un-adulterated [censored]. That you would
buy into it shows just how stupid educated people can be."

Quoted message said:

I know of the good doc and have the first edition of his book and his

work

Quoted message said:

is a fine example of science, not in contrast to it. His approach is

for

Quoted message said:

diabetics and those on the way to becoming one. In the context of
previous posts, it is for those people who have diabetes and/or the
cascade leading to it in those genetically vulnerable. Because

controling

Quoted message said:

glucose intake makes applying use of insulin much easier his work has
great merit. It does not support the idea that carbohydrates in the

first

Quoted message said:

place causes diabetes.

That is exactly what it supports. Diabetes is an insulin
overproduction, insulin receptor destruction and eventually an insulin
depletion disease. Years of over-consumption of refined carbs leads to
chronic high blood glucose levels. The chronic high blood glucose
causes many degenerative conditions including blindness, poor
circulation etc, the hallmarks of diabetics. It also beats up the
insulin receptors to the point that they atrophy and die which causes
insulin resistance. When insulin resistance occurs, the body has to
produce massive amounts of insulin to achieve a "normal" response to
the insulin. Eventually the pancreas has produced a lifetimes worth of
insulin in a few short years of high-refined-carb consumption.

Controlling carbs will stop chronic blood glucose levels in ins tracks,
it will stop further damage, and in some cases reverse some of the
damage done by the previous chronic high blood glucose.

Quoted message said:

Those parts of the world traditionally with the
lowest diabetes rates are also some of the highest in carbohydrate
consumption.

[censored]. Show me any study that says that. Prove it.

Again, applying narrow answers to a complex question is a

Quoted message said:

dead end in the face of the complexity of the problem biologically.
Appealing to his work is a bad case of apples and oranges as to the
ultimate cause of diabetes, once it developes it is a good approach

to

Quoted message said:

controling insulin usage most effectively.

The hfcs using curve perfectly parallels the diabetes occurrence curve
with a 10 or 11 years lag. When the hfcs usage curve goes up the
diabetes occurence curve follws it about 10 or 11 years later.

It is a simple problem made more "complex" by the sugar industry, the
food industry and the pharmaceutical industry. For them, making this a
"complex" and mysterious disease is of the utmost importance.

http://www.diabetes.org/support-the-cause/our-national-corporate-sponsors.jsp

TC

TC said:

Quoted message said:

I know of the good doc and have the first edition of his book and

his

Quoted message said:

work

Quoted message said:

is a fine example of science, not in contrast to it. His approach

is

Quoted message said:

for

Quoted message said:

diabetics and those on the way to becoming one. In the context of
previous posts, it is for those people who have diabetes and/or the
cascade leading to it in those genetically vulnerable. Because

controling

Quoted message said:

glucose intake makes applying use of insulin much easier his work

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

great merit. It does not support the idea that carbohydrates in

the

Quoted message said:

first

Quoted message said:

place causes diabetes.

That is exactly what it supports. Diabetes is an insulin
overproduction, insulin receptor destruction and eventually an

insulin

Quoted message said:

depletion disease. Years of over-consumption of refined carbs leads

to

Quoted message said:

chronic high blood glucose levels. The chronic high blood glucose
causes many degenerative conditions including blindness, poor
circulation etc, the hallmarks of diabetics. It also beats up the
insulin receptors to the point that they atrophy and die which causes
insulin resistance. When insulin resistance occurs, the body has to
produce massive amounts of insulin to achieve a "normal" response to
the insulin. Eventually the pancreas has produced a lifetimes worth

of

Quoted message said:

insulin in a few short years of high-refined-carb consumption.

Controlling carbs will stop chronic blood glucose levels in ins

tracks,

Quoted message said:

it will stop further damage, and in some cases reverse some of the
damage done by the previous chronic high blood glucose.

Quoted message said:

Those parts of the world traditionally with the
lowest diabetes rates are also some of the highest in carbohydrate
consumption.

[censored]. Show me any study that says that. Prove it.

Again, applying narrow answers to a complex question is a

Quoted message said:

dead end in the face of the complexity of the problem biologically.
Appealing to his work is a bad case of apples and oranges as to the
ultimate cause of diabetes, once it developes it is a good approach

to

Quoted message said:

controling insulin usage most effectively.

The hfcs using curve perfectly parallels the diabetes occurrence

curve

Quoted message said:

with a 10 or 11 years lag. When the hfcs usage curve goes up the
diabetes occurence curve follws it about 10 or 11 years later.

It is a simple problem made more "complex" by the sugar industry, the
food industry and the pharmaceutical industry. For them, making this

a

Quoted message said:

"complex" and mysterious disease is of the utmost importance.

http://www.diabetes.org/support-the-cause/our-national-corporate-sponsors.jsp

Quoted message said:

TC

also check this out:

http://www.diabetes.org/support-the-cause/corporate-friends/Corporate-Recognition.jsp

TC

"That is exactly what it supports. Diabetes is an insulin
overproduction, insulin receptor destruction and eventually an insulin
depletion disease. Years of over-consumption of refined carbs leads to"

I have no desire to debate the point, his book is about treatment leading
to best use of insulin as a balance to diet. While better, the above
still assumes the origin being amount of carbohydrates eaten. Why can
most people eat as many as they choose and not become diabetic? The above
is missing many many steps of explanation reflecting the research of the
past 10 years. The "sugar causes diabetes" theory was abandoned long ago.
We must make cause and effect. The cascade of several factors started and
fed by their interaction involves saturated fats and glucose but to single
out the latter alone is to miss the mark of what is known now.

"[censored]. Show me any study that says that. Prove it."

I have no desire to respond to such, the information is well known and
widely available on the internet and easily found. More important is that
is known and accepted for a long time now among the researchers intrested
in the question of nutrition and diabetes. I would have thought that
anyone intrested in the question would know this by now? It appears that
polemic is the goal and not learning what is common knowledge if it might
contridict a fondly held belief.

"The hfcs using curve perfectly parallels the diabetes occurrence curve
with a 10 or 11 years lag. When the hfcs usage curve goes up the diabetes
occurence curve follws it about 10 or 11 years later. "

A confusion of cause and effect. If it is hfcs then it is not amount of
carbohydrates consumed? Elsewhere in the world sucrose is used and not
corn fructose and the rate of diabetes is growing. I provided a response
to the fructose question previously. It contributes to the cascade of
effects, it does not start the process.

Whatever is causing the increase in diabetes worldwide it is not amount of
carbohydrates consumed and proposing such a narrow theory can not be
sustained. May I suggest you review the online abstracts of the journals
"Diabetes" and "diabetes Care" for what research is now reflecting. Also
these medical related sites can be consulted:

http://www.medscape.com/pages/editorial/public/toc/index-diabetes

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com

Bty, the dear doc whose work you have misapplied contributes to the
latter.

..

I see no reason to continue. You are obviously uninformed on many key
areas of the research, misapply that little you know, and are unwilling to
inform yourself and choose polemics over logical and research supported
discussion. Opinion only goes so far and we have reached that point.
The entire area of "evil people doing evil things" as a conspiracy that
has been injected into the posts is a case in point and is irrelevant and
only reinforces my view as above.

Quoted message said:

"That is exactly what it supports. Diabetes is an insulin
overproduction, insulin receptor destruction and eventually an

insulin

Quoted message said:

depletion disease. Years of over-consumption of refined carbs leads

to"

Quoted message said:

I have no desire to debate the point, his book is about treatment

leading

Quoted message said:

to best use of insulin as a balance to diet. While better, the above

Quoted message said:

still assumes the origin being amount of carbohydrates eaten. Why

can

Quoted message said:

most people eat as many as they choose and not become diabetic?

There may be other lesser factors involved but the trend is
statistically clear that those who consume more sugars and refined
carbs will either become diabetic, or pre-diabetic or have metabolic
syndrome X to some degree or other. Remember, it isn't a simple matter
of "either you are diabetic or you are not", it is a matter of degree
of damage to the insulin receptors and the pancreas' ability to produce
insulin.

The above

Quoted message said:

is missing many many steps of explanation reflecting the research of

the

Quoted message said:

past 10 years. The "sugar causes diabetes" theory was abandoned long

ago.

Quoted message said:

We must make cause and effect. The cascade of several factors

started and

Quoted message said:

fed by their interaction involves saturated fats and glucose but to

single

Quoted message said:

out the latter alone is to miss the mark of what is known now.

The sugar causes diabetes was "abandoned" when the American Diabetes
Association started taking millions from the food and pharmaceutical
and sugar industries. And their position is amply "supported" by
studies funded by the same groups.

Quoted message said:

"[censored]. Show me any study that says that. Prove it."

I have no desire to respond to such, the information is well known

and

Quoted message said:

widely available on the internet and easily found. More important is

that

Quoted message said:

is known and accepted for a long time now among the researchers

intrested

Quoted message said:

in the question of nutrition and diabetes. I would have thought that
anyone intrested in the question would know this by now? It appears

that

Quoted message said:

polemic is the goal and not learning what is common knowledge if it

might

Quoted message said:

contridict a fondly held belief.

It has been accepted since the ADA started pushing their "We don't
really know what causes diabetes" [censored].

Quoted message said:

"The hfcs using curve perfectly parallels the diabetes occurrence

curve

Quoted message said:

with a 10 or 11 years lag. When the hfcs usage curve goes up the

diabetes

Quoted message said:

occurence curve follws it about 10 or 11 years later. "

A confusion of cause and effect. If it is hfcs then it is not amount

of

Quoted message said:

carbohydrates consumed? Elsewhere in the world sucrose is used and

not

Quoted message said:

corn fructose and the rate of diabetes is growing. I provided a

response

Quoted message said:

to the fructose question previously. It contributes to the cascade

of

Quoted message said:

effects, it does not start the process.

No confusion. There has been a slew of studies pointing to refined
carbs as the culprit, despite the objections of the ADA.

Here is one:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/5/774

***quote:
Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type
2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment1,2,3

Conclusions: Increasing intakes of refined carbohydrate (corn syrup)
concomitant with decreasing intakes of fiber paralleled the upward
trend in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes observed in the United
States during the 20th century.
unquote***

Took me all of 5 seconds to find that.

Quoted message said:

Whatever is causing the increase in diabetes worldwide it is not

amount of

Quoted message said:

carbohydrates consumed and proposing such a narrow theory can not be
sustained. May I suggest you review the online abstracts of the

journals

Quoted message said:

"Diabetes" and "diabetes Care" for what research is now reflecting.

Also

Quoted message said:

these medical related sites can be consulted:

http://www.medscape.com/pages/editorial/public/toc/index-diabetes

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com

Bty, the dear doc whose work you have misapplied contributes to the
latter.

.

The "Diabetes" and "diabetes Care" journals are owned by the food and
pharmaceutical industries. Read them all you want. I would not waste my
time.

TC

Quoted message said:

I see no reason to continue. You are obviously uninformed on many

key

Quoted message said:

areas of the research, misapply that little you know, and are

unwilling to

Quoted message said:

inform yourself and choose polemics over logical and research

supported

Quoted message said:

discussion. Opinion only goes so far and we have reached that point.

Quoted message said:

The entire area of "evil people doing evil things" as a conspiracy

that

Quoted message said:

has been injected into the posts is a case in point and is irrelevant

and

Quoted message said:

only reinforces my view as above.

I simple concession that you have learned something here and you must
now re-think your position would suffice.

TC

"I simple concession that you have learned something here and you must
now re-think your position would suffice."

My views remained unchanged by anything presented. It was known to me
before and the reasons it is a dead end likewise long before. In line with
my previous observation that polemic is more important then informed
discussion, one can now add irrelevant barbs to the other stack of
irrevelant conceptual duds previously offered. fini

Quoted message said:

"I simple concession that you have learned something here and you

must

Quoted message said:

now re-think your position would suffice."

My views remained unchanged by anything presented. It was known to

me

Quoted message said:

before and the reasons it is a dead end likewise long before. In line

with

Quoted message said:

my previous observation that polemic is more important then informed
discussion, one can now add irrelevant barbs to the other stack of
irrevelant conceptual duds previously offered. fini

My last observation. People who think they are so intelligent are apt
to believe anything they learn at an institution of higher learning
without any critical thinking on their part whatsoever. They learn well
how to be sheep and follow the crowd. It takes a particular genius to
understand that their view of the world is not set in stone as their
professors want to make it out to be. Learning "factual information" by
rote is not true intelligence.

TC

Quoted message said:

"I simple concession that you have learned something here and you

must

Quoted message said:

now re-think your position would suffice."

My views remained unchanged by anything presented. It was known to

me

Quoted message said:

before and the reasons it is a dead end likewise long before. In line

with

Quoted message said:

my previous observation that polemic is more important then informed
discussion, one can now add irrelevant barbs to the other stack of
irrevelant conceptual duds previously offered. fini

My last observation. People who think they are so intelligent are apt
to believe anything they learn at an institution of higher learning
without any critical thinking on their part whatsoever. They learn well
how to be sheep and follow the crowd. It takes a particular genius to
understand that their view of the world is not set in stone as their
professors want to make it out to be. Learning "factual information" by
rote is not true intelligence.

TC