General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

this deserves an answer, pearl

Usual Suspect · 2004-05-23T23:46:00+00:00

You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's wild claims about his cholesterol levels. I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough integrity that you'd urge him to come clean. You said that my skepticism about the information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad hominem," but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been exposed as a fraud. He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]," and he now claims his raw diet caused a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol, at some point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know he has none. Don't you want your source of so much information to prove his anecdotal claims? By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times (and that doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof" for many of your own claims. I think you need to address Coleman and his situation. So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet? I replied: First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400. I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's yours? -- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2 Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or testiLYING. Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc fallacy. I don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but raw food alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your previous diet included *large* amounts (and they would be excessive amounts to raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy and trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the credit, not raw food. Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal info) to support his claims about raw diets. As one of his supporters, you should ask him to prove his claims about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about all his other distortions of his health (we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient), and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like his one about his cholesterol. I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus." This deserves an answer.

Started by Usual Suspect · 23 May 2004 · Last activity 23 May 2004 · 20 posts · 628 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postthis deserves an answer, pearlUsual Suspect · 23 May 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #20Usual Suspect · 23 May 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 23 May 2004
Last activity: 23 May 2004
Original author: Usual Suspect
Posts: 20
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 628
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #1

You've not said a word about the stuff relating to Coleman's
wild claims about his cholesterol levels. I'd hoped you were
serious enough and had enough integrity that you'd urge him
to come clean. You said that my skepticism about the
information you cited from his vegan motorcyclist website
was "ad hominem," but I wonder if you still think so now
that he's been exposed as a fraud.
He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade
over 2[00]," and he now claims his raw diet caused a drop of
over half. That means his cholesterol, at some point in
time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I know
he has none. Don't you want your source of so much
information to prove his anecdotal claims? By my count,
you've cited Coleman's old site over 150 times (and that
doesn't include any possible redirects using tinyurl, etc.)
as "proof" for many of your own claims. I think you need to
address Coleman and his situation.
Coleman said:
So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a
raw diet?
I replied:
First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over
2, what's yours? -- Orthorexic John Coleman,
snipurl.com6gj2
Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results
on your new
liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm
of testifying or testiLYING.
Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it
remains a post hoc fallacy. I don't know what your diet
was like before you changed, but raw food alone
wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If
your previous diet included *large* amounts (and they
would be excessive amounts to raise your cholesterol
that high) saturated fat from dairy and trans-fats from
processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand such a
drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and otherwise
-- gets the credit, not raw food.
Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal
info) to support his claims about raw diets. As one of his
supporters, you should ask him to prove his claims about
his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about
all his other distortions of his health (we also know now
that he is B12 and D deficient), and promise to cease
making outlandish health claims like his one about his
cholesterol. I counted some 75 hits for his site searching
your posts as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus." This
deserves an answer.

Report
Jonathan Ball
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #2

usual suspect said:
You've not said a word about the stuff relating to
Coleman's wild claims about his cholesterol levels. I'd
hoped you were serious enough and had enough integrity
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Good one!

Report
Pearl
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #3

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
You've not said a word about the stuff relating to
Coleman's
As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health
matters, unless asked to of course. Of course you have no
such decency.
Quoted message said:
wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
Ipse dixit. John has given me no reason to doubt his word,
unlike you.
Quoted message said:
I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough integrity
that you'd urge him to come clean.
You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
Quoted message said:
You said that my skepticism about the information you
cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad
hominem,"
It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites posted,
nor any of his material.
Quoted message said:
but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been
exposed as a fraud.
You wish. YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR,
REPEATEDLY.
Quoted message said:
He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade
over 2[00]," and he now claims his raw diet caused a drop
of over half. That means his cholesterol, at some point in
time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I
know he has none. Don't you want your source of so much
information to prove his anecdotal claims?
I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote. Neither do you.
You're grasping.
Quoted message said:
By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150
times (and that doesn't include any possible
redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof" for many of
your own claims.
And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific
resource, so it is.
Quoted message said:
I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort yourself
out, kiddo.
Quoted message said:
Coleman said:
So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a
raw diet?
I replied:
First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade
over 2, what's yours? -- Orthorexic John Coleman,
snipurl.com6gj2
Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results
on your new
Quoted message said:
liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm
of testifying or testiLYING.
Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging
storm for all we care.
Quoted message said:
Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it
remains a post hoc fallacy. I don't know what your
diet was like before you changed, but raw food alone
wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If
your previous diet included *large* amounts (and they
would be excessive amounts to raise your cholesterol
that high) saturated fat from dairy and trans-fats
from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand
such a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and
otherwise -- gets the credit, not raw food.
I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed
either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a
large change in serum cholesterol levels, beyond different
quantities of dietary macro-nutrient constituents, -
possibly predisposition to a liver disorder affecting
indigenous cholesterol production, precipitated by the
strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and vice- versa
-- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function.
('These health conditions may increase a person's risk for
high cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney
disease · liver disease · underactive thyroid gland, called
hypothyroidism ' health.discovery.comdiseasesandcon
d/encyclopedia/30.html )
['Cooked food passes through the digestive tract more slowly
than raw food, tends to ferment, and throws poisons back
into the body. [..] Of course, it is important to have fiber
in the diet to scrub the colon walls clean, but even more
important are the enzymes which will allow proper digestion
and assimilation of vital nutrients. Cooked food often
passes into the bloodstream as unsplit molecules that are
deposited, as waste, in various parts of the body. [..] Raw
foods do not produce this reaction. All raw foods contain
exactly the right enzymes required to split every last
molecule into the basic building blocks of metabolism: Amino
acids (from protein), glucose (from complex carbohydrates)
and essential fatty acids (from unsaturated vegetable fats).
' "]http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/rawfood.htm]
Quoted message said:
Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal
info) to support his claims about raw diets. As one of his
supporters, you should ask him to prove his claims about
his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about
all his other distortions of his health
You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're
projecting.
Quoted message said:
(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
How do you know that?
Quoted message said:
and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like
his one about his cholesterol.
Ipse dixit.
Quoted message said:
I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in
the future.
Quoted message said:
This deserves an answer.
What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread, 'usual'?
google.iegroups
8&selm=c8cue6%24hvd%241%40kermit.esat.net
It deserves an answer from you.

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #4

pearl said:
Quoted message said:
You've not said a word about the stuff relating to
Coleman's
As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health
matters, unless asked to of course. Of course you have no
such decency.
He, like other charlatans who use personal experience to
vouch for their nutty ideas, volunteered the information.
See the links to his posts already provided.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
Ipse dixit.
Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that his
cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]." He claimed last week
that it had been over twice that high -- which is a level of
cholesterol that is very rare and is usually accompanied by
a variety of visible symptoms, including yellow-orange
xanthomas (skin tags).
emedicine.comtopic1072.htm
Quoted message said:
John has given me no reason to doubt his word, unlike you.
This is an instance where you should ask him to support his
word. He made his claims voluntarily, and offered them as
evidence that his diet is beneficial. I *don't* take his
word for it. I can't. I've dealt with too many people with
FH and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to
know that diet alone does nothing to change it.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough integrity
that you'd urge him to come clean.
You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert. One
of your primary sources has made some claims which are
incongruent with medical science. He made his claims
voluntarily and in the context of being "proof" about his
diet's benefits. He really should prove it with factual
evidence, not just "take my word for it" -- the real meaning
of "ipse dixit."
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
You said that my skepticism about the information you
cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad
hominem,"
It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites
posted,
Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself.
Why did he not respond with any proofs other than a
regurgitation of what he heard, second hand no less, about a
racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked what
Ehret's educational background was in, and what he was
"professor" of. The best he could do was say something to
the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret" after he'd
been referring to him incessantly.
Quoted message said:
nor any of his material.
I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so
dispirited that he announced he was killfiling me.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been
exposed as a fraud.
You wish.
He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't been
heard from since.
Quoted message said:
YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.
Never.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a shade
over 2[00]," and he now claims his raw diet caused a drop
of over half. That means his cholesterol, at some point in
time, was in excess of 400. I want to see proof, but I
know he has none. Don't you want your source of so much
information to prove his anecdotal claims?
I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.
Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again, Lesley.
Take a look at the case studies of people with cholesterol
in excess of 300.
Quoted message said:
Neither do you. You're grasping.
I have every reason in the world to doubt that his
cholesterol was *ever* above 400, much less above 240.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150
times (and that doesn't include any possible
redirects using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof" for many of
your own claims.
And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific
resource, so it is.
It's as flaky as he is.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort
yourself out, kiddo.
Superior knowledge? Of what subject?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Coleman said:
So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a
raw diet?
I replied:
First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.
I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade
over 2, what's yours? -- Orthorexic John Coleman,
snipurl.com6gj2
Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results
on your new
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm
of testifying or testiLYING.
Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging
storm for all we care.
Feel the love. Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his
claims, which he made in public and voluntarily?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it
remains a post hoc fallacy. I don't know what your
diet was like before you changed, but raw food alone
wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If
your previous diet included *large* amounts (and they
would be excessive amounts to raise your cholesterol
that high) saturated fat from dairy and trans-fats
from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand
such a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and
otherwise -- gets the credit, not raw food.
I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed
either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a
large change in serum cholesterol levels,
That's an understatement. That's not just a large change,
it's of such a magnitude that he'd deserve status of a case
study in one of the cardiology journals. People with
cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's even more rare
when their cholesterol is lowered to "normal" levels. His
claim of it being
Quoted message said:
beyond different quantities of dietary macro-nutrient
constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production,
precipitated by the strain from eating cooked foods (see
below) and vice- versa -- whole raw foods enabled
healthy proper liver function. ('These health conditions
may increase a person's risk for high cholesterol: ·
alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
disease · underactive thyroid gland, called
hypothyroidism ' health.discovery.comdiseasesan
dcond/encyclopedia/30.html )
Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration,
more like it.
<...>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal
info) to support his claims about raw diets. As one of his
supporters, you should ask him to prove his claims about
his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come clean about
all his other distortions of his health
You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're
projecting.
I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
How do you know that?
His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can
search his posts there and read for yourself.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
and promise to cease making outlandish health claims like
his one about his cholesterol.
Ipse dixit.
Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a
liar, a fraud.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in
the future.
As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only
fitting that you cite him and his exaggerated claims.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
This deserves an answer.
What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread,
'usual'? google.iegroups
8&selm=c8cue6%24hvd%241%40kermit.esat.net
It deserves an answer from you.
No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a
response.

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #5

pearl wrote: <...>
Quoted message said:
I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed
either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a
large change in serum cholesterol levels, beyond different
quantities of dietary macro-nutrient constituents, -
possibly predisposition to a liver disorder affecting
indigenous
ENDOGENOUS. Dipshit.
Quoted message said:
cholesterol production, precipitated by the strain from
eating cooked foods (see below) and vice- versa -- whole
raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function. ('These
health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease ·
liver disease · underactive thyroid gland, called
hypothyroidism ' health.discovery.comdiseasesandc
ond/encyclopedia/30.html )

<...

Report
John Coleman
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #6

My cholesterol was assessed by the Hammersmith Hospital and
advised to me in person before the end of the study. This
was after about 10 years as a regular cooked vegan and 2
years on a high raw diet.
TC was 3.61, HDL-c 1.21 and LDL-c 2.14. All within "normal"
ranges and within the ranges reported for the other vegans
in the group.
Last year I got results from a new study at Kings College
London on vegans and omnivores that I was a subject in.
The results were TC 2.4, HDL-c 1 and LDL-c 1. A far
better result and similar to ones found in Dr Dean
Ornishes program.
The drop can easily be explained by removal of saturated and
processed fats from my diet.
John

Report
Jonathan Ball
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #7

usual suspect said:
pearl wrote: <...>
Quoted message said:
I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed
either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a
large change in serum cholesterol levels, beyond
different quantities of dietary macro-nutrient
constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
disorder affecting indigenous
ENDOGENOUS. Dipshit.
Haw haw haw! What did you expect from a [censored]/foot masseuse?
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
cholesterol production, precipitated
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and
vice- versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper
liver function. ('These health conditions may increase a
person's risk for high cholesterol: · alcohol abuse ·
diabetes · kidney disease · liver disease · underactive
thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism ' health.dis-health.dis-
covery.com/diseasesandcond/encyclopedia/30.html )
Lesley has ZERO education or expertise in anything to do
with health. She has never attended university, didn't even
do biology in whatever sort of post elementary schooling she
began (and didn't finish), and she doesn't have any idea
what she's talking about. That's why she's so scattershot.

Report
Pearl
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #8

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
pearl said:
Quoted message said:
You've not said a word about the stuff relating to
Coleman's
As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health
matters, unless asked to of course. Of course you have
no such decency.
He, like other charlatans
Liar.
Quoted message said:
who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty
Ipse dixit.
Quoted message said:
ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his
posts already provided.
What he posted was in the context of an attempted discussion
with you. Normal, decent people don't take some personal
information and post it to another group, demanding that
some third-party comment on it.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
Ipse dixit.
Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that
his cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]." He claimed last
week that it had been over twice that high -- which is a
level of cholesterol that is very rare and is usually
accompanied by a variety of visible symptoms, including
yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
emedicine.comtopic1072.htm
You should have guessed from those levels that there was
probably an underlying condition present.
And who wrote; "..the genes don't affect every generation
the same way, and many people never know they have it until
they go to the doctor and get a very high cholesterol
reading. Since testing isn't mandatory, many people never
know they have any underlying issue -- hereditary or
otherwise -- until it's a very big problem." - usual suspect
2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
John has given me no reason to doubt his word,
unlike you.
This is an instance where you should ask him to support
his word. He made his claims voluntarily, and offered them
as evidence that his diet is beneficial.
"a shade over 2[00]" is still high. Were he going to fib
about it, wouldn't he have said that the present level was
lower than that?
Quoted message said:
I *don't* take his word for it. I can't.
So don't. Who cares.
Quoted message said:
I've dealt with too many people with FH
In what capacity exactly?
Quoted message said:
and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to
know that diet alone does nothing to change it.
Wrong. See;. 'A dietary portfolio approach to cholesterol
reduction: combined effects of plant sterols, vegetable
proteins, and viscous fibers in hypercholesterolemia. ....
ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi
db=PubMed&list_uids=12489074&dopt=Abstract
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert.
Not at all. I think I'm still in first grade, and this is
life-long learning.
Quoted message said:
One of your primary sources has made some claims which are
incongruent with medical science.
You're full of it. Normally you'd be jumping up and down
yapping on about conditions in which serum cholesterol
levels are affected- anything but diet. Now, suddenly, it's
all about diet?
Quoted message said:
He made his claims voluntarily and in the context of being
"proof" about his diet's benefits. He really should prove
it with factual evidence, not just "take my word for it"
-- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."
This is a discussion forum, not a court of law, 'suspect'.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
You said that my skepticism about the information you
cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad
hominem,"
It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites
posted,
Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself.
Why did he not respond with any proofs other than a
regurgitation of what he heard, second hand no less, about
a racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked
what Ehret's educational background was in, and what he
was "professor" of. The best he could do was say something
to the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret" after
he'd been referring to him incessantly.
Are you really surprised, considering your nasty persecutory
character and dishonesty, that no-one is interested in
discussing anything with you? You shouldn't be.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
nor any of his material.
I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so
dispirited that he announced he was killfiling me.
You're delusional. It's more than likely that he became
disgusted with you.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been
exposed as a fraud.
You wish.
He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't
been heard from since.
He probably has better things to do than play with
creeps like you.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.
Never.
Liar.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a
shade over 2[00]," and he now claims his raw diet caused
a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol, at some
point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see
proof, but I know he has none. Don't you want your
source of so much information to prove his anecdotal
claims?
I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.
Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again,
Lesley. Take a look at the case studies of people with
cholesterol in excess of 300.
Have you seen JC's medical portfolio? No.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Neither do you. You're grasping.
I have every reason in the world to doubt that his
cholesterol was *ever* above 400, much less above 240.
No you don't. If he were going to lie about it, he'd have
made the range less extreme and lower. You're an idiot,
'suspect'.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150
times (and that doesn't include any possible redirects
using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof" for many of your own
claims.
And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific
resource, so it is.
It's as flaky as he is.
Your ignorant, warped opinion.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort
yourself out, kiddo.
Superior knowledge? Of what subject?
Nutrition and biochemistry for starters.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Coleman said:
> So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a
> raw diet?
I replied:
First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over
400.
I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade
over 2, what's yours? -- Orthorexic John
Coleman, snipurl.com6gj2
Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol
results on your new
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the
realm of testifying or testiLYING.
Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging
storm for all we care.
Feel the love.
I have no love for you.
Quoted message said:
Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his claims, which
he made in public and voluntarily?
Why should I be afraid? I don't doubt his word, is why.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it
remains a post hoc fallacy. I don't know what your
diet was like before you changed, but raw food
alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum
cholesterol. If your previous diet included *large*
amounts (and they would be excessive amounts to
raise your cholesterol that high) saturated fat
from dairy and trans-fats from processed vegetarian
foods, then I'd understand such a drop. Losing the
saturated fat -- trans and otherwise -- gets the
credit, not raw food.
I don't know what his diet was like before it was
changed either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason
for such a large change in serum cholesterol levels,
That's an understatement. That's not just a large change,
it's of such a magnitude that he'd deserve status of a
case study in one of the cardiology journals.
'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-
cholesterol by
29.% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks) ncbi.nl-ncbi.nl-
m.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_-
uids=12489074&dopt=Abstract
Quoted message said:
People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's
even more rare when their cholesterol is lowered to
"normal" levels. His claim of it being
'Familial type III hyperlipoproteinemia is suggested by
elevations in both TG and cholesterol, to similar extent
that is plasma cholesterol and triglyceride of 400 mg/dl
often provide a clue for the diagnosis (Wolfgang et al.,
1989).'
healthcare.jeeran.comdyslipo.html
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
beyond different quantities of dietary macro-nutrient
constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production,
precipitated by the strain from eating cooked foods (see
below) and vice- versa -- whole raw foods enabled
healthy proper liver function. ('These health conditions
may increase a person's risk for high cholesterol: ·
alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
disease · underactive thyroid gland, called
hypothyroidism ' health.discovery.comdiseasesan
dcond/encyclopedia/30.html )
Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration, more
like it.
Ad hominem. You're argument is false from top to
bottom, liar.
Quoted message said:
<...>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal
info) to support his claims about raw diets. As one of
his supporters, you should ask him to prove his claims
about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come
clean about all his other distortions of his health
You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're
projecting.
I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.
You've brought your stupid dishonesty into it, twister.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
How do you know that?
His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can
search his posts there and read for yourself.
You lied.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
and promise to cease making outlandish health claims
like his one about his cholesterol.
Ipse dixit.
Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a liar,
a fraud.
No. You're the liar and fraud.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in
the future.
As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only
fitting that you cite him and his exaggerated claims.
Ipse dixit and false, liar.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
This deserves an answer.
What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread,
'usual'? google.iegroups
8&selm=c8cue6%24hvd%241%40kermit.esat.net
It deserves an answer from you.
No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a
response.
You're rotten to the core.

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #9

John Coleman said:
My cholesterol was assessed by the Hammersmith Hospital
and advised to me in person before the end of the study.
This was after about 10 years as a regular cooked vegan
and 2 years on a high raw diet.
So you were vegan for at least 12 years for the time
in question.
<...>
Quoted message said:
The drop can easily be explained by removal of saturated
and processed fats from my diet.
What kind of saturated fats were you eating on a vegan diet?
What kind of processed fats?

Report
Pearl
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #10

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
pearl wrote: <...>
Quoted message said:
I don't know what his diet was like before it was
changed either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason
for such a large change in serum cholesterol levels,
beyond different quantities of dietary macro-nutrient
constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
disorder affecting indigenous
ENDOGENOUS.
A flub. I know what both 'indigenous' and 'endogenous' mean.
'Bodies produce (endogenous) uric acid through the breakdown
of purine bases, which is why most mammals produce uricase.
..' talk.politics.animals - 13 Jan 2002 by Lotus
'The genocidal colonisation of the Americas also featured
the replacement of indigenous people with profitable animals
... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian- 13 Sep 2002 by Lotus
Quoted message said:
Dipshit.
Fool.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
cholesterol production, precipitated by the strain from
eating cooked foods (see below) and vice- versa -- whole
raw foods enabled healthy proper liver function. ('These
health conditions may increase a person's risk for high
cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease
· liver disease · underactive thyroid gland, called
hypothyroidism ' health.discovery.comdiseasesan
dcond/encyclopedia/30.html )

<...

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #11

Jonathan Ball said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I don't know what his diet was like before it was
changed either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason
for such a large change in serum cholesterol levels,
beyond different quantities of dietary macro-nutrient
constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
disorder affecting indigenous
ENDOGENOUS. Dipshit.
Haw haw haw! What did you expect from a [censored]/foot
masseuse?
Not even *that* little, really.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
cholesterol production, precipitated

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
by the strain from eating cooked foods (see below) and
vice- versa -- whole raw foods enabled healthy proper
liver function. ('These health conditions may increase a
person's risk for high cholesterol: · alcohol abuse ·
diabetes · kidney disease · liver disease · underactive
thyroid gland, called hypothyroidism ' health.di-health.di-
scovery.com/diseasesandcond/encyclopedia/30.html )
Lesley has ZERO education or expertise in anything to do
with health. She has never attended university, didn't
even do biology in whatever sort of post elementary
schooling she began (and didn't finish), and she doesn't
have any idea what she's talking about. That's why she's
so scattershot.
I'm not convinced she went beyond elementary school. Her
"see below" link was to yet another personal website which
recites the same BS from Larry Forti's and John Coleman's
sites. One difference (though I haven't searched either of
those sites for this topic, lol) is that "Shirley"
recommends *urine* as a healing agent. Among her anecdotes
about the medical use of urine was this gem: Tom Brokaw, NBC
Nightly News, October 16, 1992: "In Egypt, rescue workers
found a 37-year-old man alive in earthquake rubble. He
survived almost 82 hours by drinking his own urine. His
wife, daughter and mother would not and they died." shirleys-wellness-shirleys-wellness-
cafe.com/urine.htm
Worse, though, are when specific medical claims are made,
such as in this quote from a [censored]-drinker: "For almost the
entire course of the 20th century, unknown to the public,
doctors and medical researchers have been proving in both
laboratory and clinical testing that our own urine is an
enormous source of vital nutrients, vitamins, hormones,
enzymes and critical antibodies that cannot be duplicated or
derived from any other source. They use urine for healing
cancer, heart disease, allergies, auto-immune diseases,
diabetes, asthma, infertility, infections, wounds and on and
on -- yet we're taught that urine is a toxic waste product.
This discrepancy between the medical truth and the public
information regarding urine is ludicrous and, as the news
releases you've just read demonstrate, can mean the
difference between life and death to you and to your loved
ones." Martha Christy
Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage,
Zapper, homeopathy, etc. I suspect she's also a pisser.

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #12

pearl wrote: <...>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal* health
matters, unless asked to of course. Of course you have no
such decency.
He, like other charlatans
Liar.
He's the king of all charlatans. Princess.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty
Ipse dixit.
Review the posts I linked. He *does* use personal experience
to validate his kooky diet.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his
posts already provided.
What he posted was in the context of an attempted
discussion with you. Normal, decent people don't take some
personal information and post it to another group,
demanding that some third-party comment on it.
I'll remember that next time you and Dreck lift my
quotes from AFV.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
Ipse dixit.
Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that
his cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]." He claimed last
week that it had been over twice that high -- which is a
level of cholesterol that is very rare and is usually
accompanied by a variety of visible symptoms, including
yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
emedicine.comtopic1072.htm
You should have guessed from those levels that there was
probably an underlying condition present.
Such conditions are often organic. Diet would have no
effect.
Quoted message said:
And who wrote; "..the genes don't affect every generation
the same way, and many people never know they have it
until they go to the doctor and get a very high
cholesterol reading. Since testing isn't mandatory, many
people never know they have any underlying issue --
hereditary or otherwise -- until it's a very big problem."
- usual suspect 2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
John has given me no reason to doubt his word,
unlike you.
This is an instance where you should ask him to support
his word. He made his claims voluntarily, and offered them
as evidence that his diet is beneficial.
"a shade over 2[00]" is still high. Were he going to fib
about it, wouldn't he have said that the present level was
lower than that?
Quoted message said:
I *don't* take his word for it. I can't.
So don't. Who cares.
Quoted message said:
I've dealt with too many people with FH
In what capacity exactly?
Several capacities, most recently as a hospice volunteer.
Some larger hospitals have entire wards filled with such
patients, and those wards are often called names like "the
pumpkin patch."
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to
know that diet alone does nothing to change it.
Wrong. See;. 'A dietary portfolio approach to cholesterol
reduction: combined effects of plant sterols, vegetable
proteins, and viscous fibers in hypercholesterolemia. ....
ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi
e&db=PubMed&list_uids=12489074&dopt=Abstract
Look at the ranges of difference in LDL reduction, and then
compare your twit's claims about a reduction *twice* the
magnitude of that found in that particular study. As I said,
his claims are incongruent with existing data and noteworthy
enough for him to be considered for a case study.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
>integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert.
Not at all. I think I'm still in first grade, and this is
life-long learning.
I beg to differ on one point: you've failed kindergarten.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
One of your primary sources has made some claims which are
incongruent with medical science.
You're full of it.
No, he is. And so are you.
Quoted message said:
Normally you'd be jumping up and down yapping on about
conditions in which serum cholesterol levels are affected-
anything but diet. Now, suddenly, it's all about diet?
*His* claims are based on his diet. Solely. Read the posts
at AFV and see for yourself.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
He made his claims voluntarily and in the context of being
"proof" about his diet's benefits. He really should prove
it with factual evidence, not just "take my word for it"
-- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."
This is a discussion forum, not a court of law, 'suspect'.
His claims are pretty wild and you use him as a source in
this "discussion forum."
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>You said that my skepticism about the information you
>cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad
>hominem,"
It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites
posted,
Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for yourself.
Why did he not respond with any proofs other than a
regurgitation of what he heard, second hand no less, about
a racist metaphysician? He got very defensive when asked
what Ehret's educational background was in, and what he
was "professor" of. The best he could do was say something
to the effect of, "Well I don't even follow Ehret" after
he'd been referring to him incessantly.
Are you really surprised, considering your nasty
persecutory character and dishonesty, that no-one is
interested in discussing anything with you?
Yes!
Quoted message said:
You shouldn't be.
Plenty people discuss stuff with me. Including you, love.
:-)
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
nor any of his material.
I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so
dispirited that he announced he was killfiling me.
You're delusional. It's more than likely that he became
disgusted with you.
Nope. He didn't like being asked to support his
exaggerated claims.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been
>exposed as a fraud.
You wish.
He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't
been heard from since.
He probably has better things to do than play with creeps
like you.
Like fabricating more [censored] for his website?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.
Never.
Liar.
Nope.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a
>shade over 2[00]," and he now claims his raw diet caused
>a drop of over half. That means his cholesterol, at some
>point in time, was in excess of 400. I want to see
>proof, but I know he has none. Don't you want your
>source of so much information to prove his anecdotal
>claims?
I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.
Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again,
Lesley. Take a look at the case studies of people with
cholesterol in excess of 300.
Have you seen JC's medical portfolio? No.
I would like to see it, since he's made some exaggerated
claims about it.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Neither do you. You're grasping.
I have every reason in the world to doubt that his
cholesterol was *ever* above 400, much less above 240.
No you don't. If he were going to lie about it, he'd have
made the range less extreme and lower. You're an idiot,
'suspect'.
He made the range what he did. Nobody put words in his
septic mouth.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150
>times (and that doesn't include any possible redirects
>using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof" for many of your own
>claims.
And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific
resource, so it is.
It's as flaky as he is.
Your ignorant, warped opinion.
My opinion is neither ignorant nor warped.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort
yourself out, kiddo.
Superior knowledge? Of what subject?
Nutrition and biochemistry for starters.
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Coleman said:
> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a
> > raw diet?
>
>I replied:
>
> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over
> 400.
>
> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade
> over 2, what's yours? -- Orthorexic John
> Coleman, snipurl.com6gj2
>
> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol
> results on your new
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the
> realm of testifying or testiLYING.
Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging
storm for all we care.
Feel the love.
I have no love for you.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, I thought you loved
everyone and everything. Oh yeah, I never gave you €20. Hard
for you to love me without getting paid first.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his claims, which
he made in public and voluntarily?
Why should I be afraid? I don't doubt his word, is why.
You should.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it
> remains a post hoc fallacy. I don't know what your
> diet was like before you changed, but raw food alone
> wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If
> your previous diet included *large* amounts (and
> they would be excessive amounts to raise your
> cholesterol that high) saturated fat from dairy and
> trans-fats from processed vegetarian foods, then I'd
> understand such a drop. Losing the saturated fat --
> trans and otherwise -- gets the credit, not raw
> food.
I don't know what his diet was like before it was changed
either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason for such a
large change in serum cholesterol levels,
That's an understatement. That's not just a large change,
it's of such a magnitude that he'd deserve status of a
case study in one of the cardiology journals.
'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-
cholesterol by
29.% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks) ncbi.-ncbi.-
nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l-
ist_uids=12489074&dopt=Abstract
And his claim was "> 50%". IOW, 172% of the average in that
study. Pretty
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and it's
even more rare when their cholesterol is lowered to
"normal" levels. His claim of it being
Quoted message said:

'Familial type III hyperlipoproteinemia is suggested by
elevations in both TG and cholesterol, to similar extent
that is plasma cholesterol and triglyceride of 400 mg/dl
often provide a clue for the diagnosis (Wolfgang et al.,
1989).'
healthcare.jeeran.comdyslipo.html
Exactly!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
beyond different quantities of dietary macro-nutrient
constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
disorder affecting indigenous cholesterol production,
precipitated by the strain from eating cooked foods (see
below) and vice- versa -- whole raw foods enabled
healthy proper liver function. ('These health conditions
may increase a person's risk for high cholesterol: ·
alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney disease · liver
disease · underactive thyroid gland, called
hypothyroidism ' health.discovery.comdiseasesan
dcond/encyclopedia/30.html )
Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration, more
like it.
Ad hominem.
Nope.
Quoted message said:
You're argument is false from top to bottom, liar.
Your, not you're. Anyway, prove it.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
<...>
Quoted message said:
>Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal
>info) to support his claims about raw diets. As one of
>his supporters, you should ask him to prove his claims
>about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come
>clean about all his other distortions of his health
You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're
projecting.
I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.
You've brought your stupid dishonesty into it, twister.
Nope.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
How do you know that?
His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can
search his posts there and read for yourself.
You lied.
About what?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>and promise to cease making outlandish health claims
>like his one about his cholesterol.
Ipse dixit.
Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a liar,
a fraud.
No. You're the liar and fraud.
Prove it.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your posts
>as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in
the future.
As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only
fitting that you cite him and his exaggerated claims.
Ipse dixit
Nope.
Quoted message said:
and false, liar.
What's false about it?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>This deserves an answer.
What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread,
'usual'? google.iegroups
8&selm=c8cue6%24hvd%241%40kermit.esat.net
It deserves an answer from you.
No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a
response.
You're rotten to the core.
No, I'm sweeeeeeeeet to the bone.

Report
John Coleman
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #13

I never said my cholesterol was over 400, that was my last
B12 check.
John C

Report
Pearl
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #14

"Jonathan Ball" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
has ZERO education or expertise in anything to do
with health.

Report
Ray
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #15

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
Useless Object wrote:-
<snip>
Quoted message said:
Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage,
Zapper, homeopathy,

etc. I
Quoted message said:
suspect she's also a pisser.
I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for
better stuff than this.

Report
Pearl
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #16

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
pearl wrote: <...>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>As a rule I don't comment on someone's *personal*
>health matters, unless asked to of course. Of course
>you have no such decency.
He, like other charlatans
Liar.
He's the king of all charlatans. Princess.
You're the knave of liars. Jack.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
who use personal experience to vouch for their nutty
Ipse dixit.
Review the posts I linked. He *does* use personal
experience to validate his kooky
Ipse dixit.
Quoted message said:
diet.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
ideas, volunteered the information. See the links to his
posts already provided.
What he posted was in the context of an attempted
discussion with you. Normal, decent people don't take
some personal information and post it to another group,
demanding that some third-party comment on it.
I'll remember that next time you and Dreck lift my quotes
from AFV.
Can you bring an example of my doing that?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>wild claims about his cholesterol levels.
>
>Ipse dixit.
Not ipse dixit. He claimed less than two weeks ago that
his cholesterol was "a shade over 2[00]." He claimed
last week that it had been over twice that high -- which
is a level of cholesterol that is very rare and is
usually accompanied by a variety of visible symptoms,
including yellow-orange xanthomas (skin tags).
emedicine.comtopic1072.htm
You should have guessed from those levels that there was
probably an underlying condition present.
Such conditions are often organic.
So why did you lunge at JC on account of his serum
cholesterol levels? Had you had been discussing this with JC
in a courteous manner you may have found out a lot more,
even learned something highly valuable.
Quoted message said:
Diet would have no effect.
That's a patently false claim, and you now definitely know
it..
'A dietary portfolio approach to cholesterol reduction:
combined effects of plant sterols, vegetable proteins, and
viscous fibers in hypercholesterolemia. .... The diet
reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol by
29.% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks) ncbi.nl-ncbi.nl-
m.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_-
uids=12489074&dopt=Abstract
I'd demand an upgrade from your controllers, if I were you.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
And who wrote; "..the genes don't affect every
generation the same way, and many people never know they
have it until they go to the doctor and get a very high
cholesterol reading. Since testing isn't mandatory, many
people never know they have any underlying issue --
hereditary or otherwise -- until it's a very big
problem." - usual suspect 2003-10-27 16:53:03 PST
Quoted message said:
>John has given me no reason to doubt his word,
>unlike you.
This is an instance where you should ask him to support
his word. He made his claims voluntarily, and offered
them as evidence that his diet is beneficial.
"a shade over 2[00]" is still high. Were he going to fib
about it, wouldn't he have said that the present level
was lower than that?
Quoted message said:
I *don't* take his word for it. I can't.
So don't. Who cares.
Quoted message said:
I've dealt with too many people with FH
In what capacity exactly?
Several capacities, most recently as a hospice volunteer.
Doing what exactly?
Quoted message said:
Some larger hospitals have entire wards filled with such
patients, and those wards are often called names like "the
pumpkin patch."
"..the genes don't affect every generation the same way, and
many people never know they have it until they go to the
doctor and get a very high cholesterol reading. Since
testing isn't mandatory, many people never know they have
any underlying issue -- hereditary or otherwise -- until
it's a very big problem." - usual suspect 2003-10-27
16:53:03 PST
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
and seen the results of those levels of cholesterol to
know that diet alone does nothing to change it.
Wrong. See;. 'A dietary portfolio approach to
cholesterol reduction: combined effects of plant
sterols, vegetable proteins, and viscous fibers in
hypercholesterolemia. .... ncbi.nlm.nih.govncbi.nlm.nih.gov
entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1248-
9074&dopt=Abstract
Look at the ranges of difference in LDL reduction,
'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol
by 29.0% +/- 2.7% (P <.001)
Quoted message said:
and then compare your twit's
Feel the love.
Quoted message said:
claims about a reduction
50%
Quoted message said:
*twice* the magnitude of that found in that
particular study.
There was 58% of his change, due to the diet, in *two
weeks*. JC has been following his diet for a lot longer than
that, right?
Quoted message said:
As I said, his claims are incongruent with existing data
and noteworthy enough for him to be considered for a
case study.
Ipse dixit, although more research along these lines
is welcome.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>I'd hoped you were serious enough and had enough
>>integrity that you'd urge him to come clean.
>
>You're trying to mix it, snake. It won't work.
No, you consider yourself something of a medical expert.
Not at all. I think I'm still in first grade, and this
is life-long learning.
I beg to differ on one point: you've failed kindergarten.
Beg away.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
One of your primary sources has made some claims which
are incongruent with medical science.
You're full of it.
No, he is. And so are you.
No, you are.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Normally you'd be jumping up and down yapping on about
conditions in which serum cholesterol levels are affected-
anything but diet. Now, suddenly, it's all about diet?
*His* claims are based on his diet. Solely. Read the posts
at AFV and see for yourself.
He wrote about the effects of his diet, and nothing more.
Finding the levels to be high, you could have asked why.
Instead, you chose to attack him, and harass me, moron.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
He made his claims voluntarily and in the context of
being "proof" about his diet's benefits. He really
should prove it with factual evidence, not just "take my
word for it" -- the real meaning of "ipse dixit."
This is a discussion forum, not a court of law,
'suspect'.
His claims are pretty wild
No, they are not.
Quoted message said:
and you use him as a source in this "discussion forum."
Sure do.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>You said that my skepticism about the information you
>>cited from his vegan motorcyclist website was "ad
>>hominem,"
>
>It is. You've never been able to disprove the cites
>posted,
Perhaps you should read those threads at AFV for
yourself. Why did he not respond with any proofs other
than a regurgitation of what he heard, second hand no
less, about a racist metaphysician? He got very
defensive when asked what Ehret's educational background
was in, and what he was "professor" of. The best he
could do was say something to the effect of, "Well I
don't even follow Ehret" after he'd been referring to
him incessantly.
Are you really surprised, considering your nasty
persecutory character and dishonesty, that no-one is
interested in discussing anything with you?
Yes!
Quoted message said:
You shouldn't be.
Plenty people discuss stuff with me. Including you,
love. :-)
Slimy git.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>nor any of his material.
I demolished his thesis at AFV last week. He became so
dispirited that he announced he was killfiling me.
You're delusional. It's more than likely that he became
disgusted with you.
Nope. He didn't like being asked to support his
exaggerated claims.
He was clearly disgusted by you, liar.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>but I wonder if you still think so now that he's been
>>exposed as a fraud.
>
>You wish.
He has. He tucked his tail between his legs and hasn't
been heard from since.
He probably has better things to do than play with
creeps like you.
Like fabricating more [censored] for his website?
You're the fabricator of [censored], jackass.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> YOU have been exposed as a low-down LIAR, REPEATEDLY.
Never.
Liar.
Nope.
Liar.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>He told me before that his serum cholesterol was "a
>>shade over 2[00]," and he now claims his raw diet
>>caused a drop of over half. That means his
>>cholesterol, at some point in time, was in excess of
>>400. I want to see proof, but I know he has none.
>>Don't you want your source of so much information to
>>prove his anecdotal claims?
>
>I've no reason to disbelieve what he wrote.
Yes, you do. Read up on hypercholesterolemia again,
Lesley. Take a look at the case studies of people with
cholesterol in excess of 300.
Have you seen JC's medical portfolio? No.
I would like to see it,
A bit late for that.
Quoted message said:
since he's made some exaggerated claims about it.
Ipse dixit.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Neither do you. You're grasping.
I have every reason in the world to doubt that his
cholesterol was *ever* above 400, much less above 240.
No you don't. If he were going to lie about it, he'd
have made the range less extreme and lower. You're an
idiot, 'suspect'.
He made the range what he did.
For some know-it-all troll like you to froth and fume all
over, yes?
Quoted message said:
Nobody put words in his septic mouth.
The septic mouth is yours.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>By my count, you've cited Coleman's old site over 150
>>times (and that doesn't include any possible redirects
>>using tinyurl, etc.) as "proof" for many of your own
>>claims.
>
>And I will use it many times more, G-W. A terrific
>resource, so it is.
It's as flaky as he is.
Your ignorant, warped opinion.
My opinion is neither ignorant nor warped.
It appears to be both. Then again, this could all just be a
sick game to you.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>I think you need to address Coleman and his situation.
>
>Hah. You're jealous of his superior knowledge. Sort
>yourself out, kiddo.
Superior knowledge? Of what subject?
Nutrition and biochemistry for starters.
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>Coleman said:
>> > So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a
>> > raw diet?
>>
>>I replied:
>>
>> First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over
>> 400.
>>
>> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade
>> over 2, what's yours? -- Orthorexic John
>> Coleman, snipurl.com6gj2
>>
>> Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol
>> results on your new
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>> liar and all your anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the
>> realm of testifying or testiLYING.
>
>Pah. You, twister, can go climb a tall tree in a raging
>storm for all we care.
Feel the love.
I have no love for you.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, I thought you loved
everyone and everything.
Sorry.
Quoted message said:
Oh yeah, I never gave you €20. Hard for you to love me
without getting paid first.
'usual suspect's world. How sad. And seedy.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why are you afraid to ask him to prove his claims, which
he made in public and voluntarily?
Why should I be afraid? I don't doubt his word, is why.
You should.
I've no reason to.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>> Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it
>> remains a post hoc fallacy. I don't know what your
>> diet was like before you changed, but raw food
>> alone wouldn't cause such a drop in serum
>> cholesterol. If your previous diet included
>> *large* amounts (and they would be excessive
>> amounts to raise your cholesterol that high)
>> saturated fat from dairy and trans-fats from
>> processed vegetarian foods, then I'd understand
>> such a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and
>> otherwise -- gets the credit, not raw food.
>
>I don't know what his diet was like before it was
>changed either, but, to hazard a guess for the reason
>for such a large change in serum cholesterol levels,
That's an understatement. That's not just a large
change, it's of such a magnitude that he'd deserve
status of a case study in one of the cardiology
journals.
'The diet reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-
cholesterol by
29.% +/- 2.7% (P <.001) ' (in two weeks) ncb-ncb-
i.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubM-
ed&list_uids=12489074&dopt=Abstract
And his claim was "> 50%". IOW, 172% of the average in
that study.
The average in the study was a reduction of 29%. JC's was
~50%. IOW, ~11% more than the *two weeks* on the diet.
You're figures are, trashboy.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
People with cholesterol of over 300 are so rare, and
it's even more rare when their cholesterol is lowered to
"normal" levels. His claim of it being
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:

'Familial type III hyperlipoproteinemia is suggested by
elevations in both TG and cholesterol, to similar extent
that is plasma cholesterol and triglyceride of 400 mg/dl
often provide a clue for the diagnosis (Wolfgang et al.,
1989).'
healthcare.jeeran.comdyslipo.html
Exactly!
And this doesn't possibly apply, how?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>beyond different quantities of dietary macro-nutrient
>constituents, - possibly predisposition to a liver
>disorder affecting endogenous* cholesterol production,
>precipitated *(sc) by the strain from eating cooked
>foods (see below) and vice- versa -- whole raw foods
>enabled healthy proper liver function. ('These health
>conditions may increase a person's risk for high
>cholesterol: · alcohol abuse · diabetes · kidney
>disease · liver disease · underactive thyroid gland,
>called hypothyroidism ' health.discovery.comdi
>seasesandcond/encyclopedia/30.html )
Possibly a predisposition to deceit or exaggeration,
more like it.
Ad hominem.
Nope.
Totally. It's all you've ever had, loser.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
You're argument is false from top to bottom, liar.
Your, not you're. Anyway, prove it.
Done.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
<...>
>>Coleman uses his personal "testimony" (i.e., anecdotal
>>info) to support his claims about raw diets. As one of
>>his supporters, you should ask him to prove his claims
>>about his cholesterol or admit his brazen lies, come
>>clean about all his other distortions of his health
>
>You brazenly lie about everyone, and everything. You're
>projecting.
I've brought you the facts as they relate to his claims.
You've brought your stupid dishonesty into it, twister.
Nope.
Yep.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>(we also know now that he is B12 and D deficient),
>
>How do you know that?
His voluntary, unsolicited testimonials at AFV. You can
search his posts there and read for yourself.
You lied.
About what?
Here, about him being B12 deficient.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>and promise to cease making outlandish health claims
>>like his one about his cholesterol.
>
>Ipse dixit.
Study up on it, toots, and see for yourself. He's a
liar, a fraud.
No. You're the liar and fraud.
Prove it.
Done.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>I counted some 75 hits for his site searching your
>>posts as "pearl" and another 80 hits as "Lotus."
>
>And it's more than likely that there'll be many more in
>the future.
As long as you know now that he's a charlatan. It's only
fitting that you cite him and his exaggerated claims.
Ipse dixit
Nope.
Ipse dixit.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
and false, liar.
What's false about it?
All of it. You.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>This deserves an answer.
>
>What happened to the 'whose property is it' thread,
>'usual'? google.iegroups
>8&selm=c8cue6%24hvd%241%40kermit.esat.net
>
>It deserves an answer from you.
No, your loony conspiracy theories do not dignify a
response.
You're rotten to the core.
No, I'm sweeeeeeeeet to the bone.
That post *demands* an answer from you, gnat.

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #17

Ray said:
Quoted message said:
Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage,
Zapper, homeopathy,

etc. I
Quoted message said:
suspect she's also a pisser.
I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for
better stuff than this.
How about this one then...
Lesley: How about a 10" metal pipe forced down your
throat and two lbs of food pumped in?
suspect: You've had 10" down your throat. You tell
us what it's like. snipurl.com6kz9

Report
John Coleman
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #18

"usual suspect" knows so little about cholesterol that he
doesn't understand that we use mmol/L in the UK and not
mg/dL as in the USA - hence all his obnoxious blithering is
based on ignorance.
When I say LDL-c = 1, that is about 39 in the USA. When I
say my TC is about 2 (actually it is 2.4) I DO NOT mean
200, and hence his confusion in believing it was
originally 400. DUH.
In the UK "omnivores" averaged LDL-c = 3.41 mmol/L in one
study, their TC was just over 200. Vegans in the same study
had TC 4.41 mmol/L, about 172. My TC is about 93 mg/dL. It
does not go much lower than that normally.
I just dug out my very last bloods and the TC was not so
good at 2.7, but I didn't get a breakdown and not a fasting
measure either, so I don't use that figure. I hope that
clears this up.
John C

Report
Ray
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #19

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ray said:
Quoted message said:
Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage,
Zapper,

homeopathy,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
etc. I
Quoted message said:
suspect she's also a pisser.
I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for
better stuff

than
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
this.
How about this one then...
Lesley: How about a 10" metal pipe forced down your throat
and two lbs of food pumped in?
suspect: You've had 10" down your throat. You tell us what
it's like.
Quoted message said:
snipurl.com6kz9
You dererved that on two counts.
(a) Your fixation with animal abuse which you promote at
every verse end.
(b) Your abusive personal posts to Pearl.
You are a 'stinker' with no respect.

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #20

Ray said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Lesley has a lengthy list of cure-alls: foot massage,
>Zapper,

homeopathy,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
etc. I
>suspect she's also a pisser.
I've seen drunken teenagers kicked out of rough pubs for
better stuff

than
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
this.
How about this one then...
Lesley: How about a 10" metal pipe forced down your throat
and two lbs of food pumped in?
suspect: You've had 10" down your throat. You tell us what
it's like. snipurl.com6kz9
You dererved that on two counts.
(a) Your fixation with animal abuse which you promote at
every verse end.
No, I don't. There's a big difference between acceptable
means of food production and beating the [censored] out of a poor
dog with a broomstick. You've admitted that SPECIFIC
slaughter practices you oppose are immaterial to the fact
that you oppose ALL slaughter for food.
Quoted message said:
(b) Your abusive personal posts to Pearl.
I've dealt with her as she's dealt with me. See some of the
posts from last week in which I tried to deal kindly with
her. I withheld a lot despite her nasty attitude towards me.
Quoted message said:
You are a 'stinker' with no respect.
Coming from an inebriated old curmudgeon like you, I'll take
that as a compliment.

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread