The Poisons in Your Food

[Sinister]

Nah, I shut down your misstatements thoroughly.

This is a demonstration that you're only posting as a reaction, and not actually reading or comprehending what's being said. I never made any statements against what you've presented aside from differentiating between what you keep calling "fact" that aren't actual facts.

That's not a misstatement. It's a clarification of terms. You wouldn't appear to know a fact if it cooked and ate you.

You also ignore the fact that all these things you're hurling have been debated before, and refuse to venture to see that outcome for yourself. From the onset, your mind was made up, and yet accuse others of being closed-minded. People might actually be inclined to listen to you, or have constructive debate with you if you didn't come off like a scorned girlfriend. You've insinuated that Sherdog posters must inherently be dumb (which includes yourself, as here you are, on Sherdog), retarded, closed-minded, and unable to comprehend. That being the case, I don't see any need for further input from you if you think so low of the people you're attempting to sway.

 

[ics39]

This is a demonstration that you're only posting as a reaction, and not actually reading or comprehending what's being said. I never made any statements against what you've presented aside from differentiating between what you keep calling "fact" that aren't actual facts.

That's not a misstatement. It's a clarification of terms. You wouldn't appear to know a fact if it cooked and ate you.

You also ignore the fact that all these things you're hurling have been debated before, and refuse to venture to see that outcome for yourself. From the onset, your mind was made up, and yet accuse others of being closed-minded. People might actually be inclined to listen to you, or have constructive debate with you if you didn't come off like a scorned girlfriend. You've insinuated that Sherdog posters must inherently be dumb (which includes yourself, as here you are, on Sherdog), retarded, closed-minded, and unable to comprehend. That being the case, I don't see any need for further input from you if you think so low of the people you're attempting to sway.

Wow, a retard with zero reading comprehension skills trying to be condescending! Sherdog never fails to disappoint :icon_lol:

Now to thoroughly own you yet again...

1) Fact | Define Fact at Dictionary.com

"A truth known by actual experience or observation". Hence, the FACTS I posted.

You might want to know the definition of words your claiming other to not know the meaning of. It will make you look less stupid (or not, because it would make your posts less entertaining, so that's a minus).

2) Where did I state that ALL Sherdog posters were dumb? Yes, I called you a moron (the "walk like a duck" works here), but I provided links for the non-retarded posters as well...which there are some of, granted not anywhere near the majority.

3) Why do you ASSume (again, someone that's not an idiot wouldn't do this) that I am trying to "sway" anyone? :icon_lol:

I do not claim to be the smartest person here, or know all the answers. I have done some research, just like others have. I have been debunked and disproven many times on many forums, and have only benefited from that, but that was by people who had functioning brains, not like you, who cannot support anything you post with FACTS. Maybe others can, if the research to disprove what I have posted actually exists, I'd be happy to learn from it.

OWNAGE complete, thanks for the laughs buddy!

More links for the non-tards, who can feel free to find evidence to refute any of the following on dairy causing a wide range of diseases...

Lactose maldigestion and calcium from dairy products

How Milk Causes Osteoporosis

Milk and other dietary influences on coronary hear... [Altern Med Rev. 1998] - PubMed result

An ecologic study of dietary links to prostate can... [Altern Med Rev. 1999] - PubMed result

Is milk responsible for male reproductive disorder... [Med Hypotheses. 2001] - PubMed result

Milk consumption, lactose and copper in the aetiol... [Med Hypotheses. 1988] - PubMed result

 

[Sinister]

Wow. Where to begin?

You've insinuated in an earlier post that no Sherdog poster should or could know more than any source you've cited. Implying that they're also not going to know more than yourself, since you're deeming yourself to be thoroughly owning everyone who speaks against you, also resorting to name-calling.

A fact is something proven by repetition. The things you're linking are not studies, they're observational interpretations of studies (and in some cases, only the abstracs/conclusions of those studies). Observations are inherently flawed due to a lack of accounting for confounding variables, less-likely to be accounted for if all you're doing is citing information that agrees with your purpose. Furthermore, many of them are argumentative, or only demonstrated by references to an occurrence in small portions of the population. This tactic of swarming the thread with information will always have such flaws, making it pretty clear you've never read the information yourself as an observer, questioning whether or not it is indeed flawed.

Thus, you have no real idea if anything you're putting forth here is actually fact or not. Taking personal swipes at myself, or anyone else here doesn't change that.

You're definitely attempting to sway people, I don't know how you could claim otherwise. You continually address the "non-tards"...none of whom seem to be here.

Furthermore, you're not reading the thread. You never called me a moron, until this last post. So again proving the unraveling of this nonsensical tirade you're on where you can barely keep your story straight outside of repeating that cooked food is bad. Which you guess is true, because a few people seem to agree with you and thanks to the internet, you can stand on their shoulders and preach. However, some consensus doesn't equate to being absolutely correct, nor does having a few letter after your name equate to being reasonable and rational.

 

[CeleresVerraden]

outta curiosity ics39, if your intent is to spread your information as fact and have people believe what you're saying, why do you insist on acting like a superiorist know-it-all and call everyone retards? i don't know about most people, but if guy A. said to me "i read studies here, here, and here <insert links> that show cow milk is bad in several ways, i don't know that you should be trusting what you've been reading." and guy B. said "you're an idiot. here here and here say you're wrong, go be smart for once." i'd listen to guy a.

oh, and by the way, how can casein cause cancer if human milk is 60% whey 40% casein?

 

[JSchick]

I believe the argument against casein is not an argument against casein itself, per se, but rather against the casein found in most grocery stores, coming from factory farms. I personally try to avoid animal products produced in an unhealthy environment, such as one where the cows are kept in small lots and fed a diet of corn and grains rather than their natural diets of grass and hay. The difference, I believe, is in the trace vitamins and enzymes that the animals absorb through a natural diet of grass and it can have very tangible results:

Corn Fed Cattle: Bigger Cows, Bigger E. coli Threat, More Foodborne Illness - NBA FOODAdvocate

This result was also mentioned in "Food, Inc" for what it's worth. I know one other potential health problem with milk products is the very high calcium content- because calcium and vitamin D metabolize with the same enzyme, maintaining high levels of calcium can depress your absorption of vitamin D, which has many immune system and general health effects.

 

[Ironpants]

Just a though here but... do you guys think that the bone density and skeletal muscle growth attributed with high consumption of milk is from the trace steriods? I remember my uncle once saying that milk has a considerable amount of steroids in it because that was how the industry made the cows grow faster.

 

[Sinister]

I don't know about steroids lending to bone growth. GH could, but we'd all have acromegaly if that was going on.

 

[chetthejet**]

So, do you avoid all food that's been seasoned? Or just food seasoned with compounds with multisyllabic names? How long does the name have to be before you dismiss something as 'bad'?

Season your food yes ,Just not with MSG. MSG is nasty stuff it makes you feel hungry when your not. So if you are trying not to look like a Sumo this is a problem. USE SEA SALT or KOSHER SALT.

 

[Sinister]

There's no such thing as feeling hungry "when you're not." Either you're hungry, or you aren't. Just want to clear that up because it's misleading. If a person perceives hunger, there have to be other mechanisms going on that coincide with that (specifically insulin/cortisol activity, and mobilization/immobilization of glucose or lipids, as well as breakdown and assimilation of protein/amino acids). Hunger isn't purely an emotional or mental state with no root in biological function.

 

[fittafeis]

Wow, a retard with zero reading comprehension skills trying to be condescending! Sherdog never fails to disappoint :icon_lol:

I don't know who the idiot here is.
You post some inconclusive studies to back up some pretty absurd claims. Half did not even include further summaries, just the abstract. If you have paid for access for the full studies with conclusions, please link the results and enlighten us. As for the ones with full info they are question raising at best, far from conclusive.
You then go on to blatantly insulting someone rather than supporting your argument in the discussion.
That person also happened to be a respected poster on the forum.
That person also happens to be a moderator who could and should ban you for being a troll/moron.

You're not exactly radiating intelligence.

 

[ics39]

I don't know who the idiot here is.
You post some inconclusive studies to back up some pretty absurd claims. Half did not even include further summaries, just the abstract. If you have paid for access for the full studies with conclusions, please link the results and enlighten us. As for the ones with full info they are question raising at best, far from conclusive.
You then go on to blatantly insulting someone rather than supporting your argument in the discussion.
That person also happened to be a respected poster on the forum.
That person also happens to be a moderator who could and should ban you for being a troll/moron.

You're not exactly radiating intelligence.

I was actually the only one of us that supported my argument. He posted links which I responded to with links CLEARLY debunking those.

I might be wrong, but all the evidence (in this thread anyway) proves me right.

Other than the poster who responded with intelligence (and a source), actually adding to the discussion about the additives/chemicals/steroids etc, whereas you two have just shown your idiocy.

I'd like to see the conclusive studies on the "absurd" opinions you guys are pushing.

Again, just because my views are not commonly accepted doesn't make it any more absurd than people thinking the world was round (although they were criticized and opposed heavily as well). It takes time for the dumber people to accept what the smarter ones have already accepted...history has proven this time and time again.

And I'm not that smart...that's why you guys are retards. There are plenty of people smarter than me (like the ones actually doing the studies and having a great amount of knowledge in all areas of biochemistry).

 

[ics39]

Wow. Where to begin?

You've insinuated in an earlier post that no Sherdog poster should or could know more than any source you've cited. Implying that they're also not going to know more than yourself, since you're deeming yourself to be thoroughly owning everyone who speaks against you, also resorting to name-calling.

A fact is something proven by repetition. The things you're linking are not studies, they're observational interpretations of studies (and in some cases, only the abstracs/conclusions of those studies). Observations are inherently flawed due to a lack of accounting for confounding variables, less-likely to be accounted for if all you're doing is citing information that agrees with your purpose. Furthermore, many of them are argumentative, or only demonstrated by references to an occurrence in small portions of the population. This tactic of swarming the thread with information will always have such flaws, making it pretty clear you've never read the information yourself as an observer, questioning whether or not it is indeed flawed.

Thus, you have no real idea if anything you're putting forth here is actually fact or not. Taking personal swipes at myself, or anyone else here doesn't change that.

You're definitely attempting to sway people, I don't know how you could claim otherwise. You continually address the "non-tards"...none of whom seem to be here.

Furthermore, you're not reading the thread. You never called me a moron, until this last post. So again proving the unraveling of this nonsensical tirade you're on where you can barely keep your story straight outside of repeating that cooked food is bad. Which you guess is true, because a few people seem to agree with you and thanks to the internet, you can stand on their shoulders and preach. However, some consensus doesn't equate to being absolutely correct, nor does having a few letter after your name equate to being reasonable and rational.

Your incorrect assessment of my intentions only prove your stupidity further.

And you continuing to speak for me (about what I do, read, understand, etc) only proves your retardation even further. You have no clue about any of these things but continue to post about how I analyze data? That's a moronic thing to do. Why do you keep proving me correct? :icon_lol:

These might help before responding again: Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets

 

[ics39]

outta curiosity ics39, if your intent is to spread your information as fact and have people believe what you're saying, why do you insist on acting like a superiorist know-it-all and call everyone retards? i don't know about most people, but if guy A. said to me "i read studies here, here, and here <insert links> that show cow milk is bad in several ways, i don't know that you should be trusting what you've been reading." and guy B. said "you're an idiot. here here and here say you're wrong, go be smart for once." i'd listen to guy a.

oh, and by the way, how can casein cause cancer if human milk is 60% whey 40% casein?

This is not "my" information. The info I linked to is readily available for everyone to research on their own.

And why do you idiotically ASSume I insist on acting like a "superiorist" which is actually not a word...is Enlgish your first language?

I don't call everyone retards, only the retards (which if course there are many, don't worry you'll fit right in the majority as you clearly are looking for "a guy" to listen to rather than come to your own conclusions based on facts presented, which would actually involve brainpower).

As for human milk, it is only needed for infants (just like in nature, grown mammals do not drink milk), as the biochemistry of an infant is obviously (maybe not to you since you're asking) different than an adult. Babies actually NEED to grow...

Why does a grown adult need milk "to grow? :icon_lol:

That was the short answer, if you're special ed teacher is around, you can ask them to help you research the different types of molecular structures of casein (they are not the same in cows and humans), and the actual amount. There is 20x more casein in cow's milk. Also, other compounds are in different ratios in human milk compared to cow milk (human milk is digested a lot easier due to greater PUFAs). Cows have a 4-section stomach where most of the digestion takes place, and allows them to digest cow milk efficiently. Obviously humans do not...and it is much more difficult. Once you add pasteurization and homogenization, all the nutrients are destroyed. Not so, for an infant drinking RAW milk directly from the mother...

 

[ChainFlow]

Here's the debunking to your first link: Anti-Raw Bias on beyondveg.com Website Debunked

"Oh, they're biased! They probably call absolutely anyone who pokes holes in their arguments idiots and retards, and other such closed-minded nonsense!"

You, on the other hand... wait.

Aside from the joke, I don't see any actual rebuttal of their writing. Just an accusation of bias. That does not constitute a logical rebuttal.

As for the second link, how are those OPINIONS more valid than anything else I posted. They are derived from specific studies proving one thing or another, however you have yet to disprove any SPECIFIC FACTS I have posted. Where are the studies disproving CASEIN is in fact cancer-inducing? The criticisms on the China study are things that have nothing to do with this FACT.

Minger's statistical deconstruction of Campbell's claims are not "opinions" any more than his interpretations are. Actually less so, since they don't arbitrarily exclude inconvenient data. You can't hand-wave away inconvenient information and pretend that you're acting on the side of reason, whether you're a profiteer off of the vegan agenda or an overly confrontational forum zealot.

And what increases IGF-1? You guessed it! Casein (80% of cow protein is casein):
Effect of dietary proteins on insulin-like growth ... [Br J Nutr. 1992] - PubMed result

And that's not even getting into the aspect of antibiotics and other chemicals present in cow milk nowadays which are really detrimental to the immune system...

Whey has a protective effect against cancer. You can't look at chemicals in isolation of the natural delivery system. Giving a rat a megadose of the natural pesticides found in most fruit would kill it, but does that mean that raw fruit causes heart failure?

... does it?

 

[CeleresVerraden]

This is not "my" information. The info I linked to is readily available for everyone to research on their own.

it's the information you're using, makes no difference if i say it's your information or not, you understood what i was getting at and that's what matters.

And why do you idiotically ASSume I insist on acting like a "superiorist" which is actually not a word...is Enlgish your first language?

because you're calling people retards for being "wrong", which only people with superiority complexes do. and i say that's what you're being because you're being unnecessarily rude in a forum about people who are simply asking questions seeking answers, which again is something people with superiority complexes do. and yes, english is my first and only language, whether the word is made up is neither here nor there, it got the point across.

I don't call everyone retards, only the retards (which if course there are many, don't worry you'll fit right in the majority as you clearly are looking for "a guy" to listen to rather than come to your own conclusions based on facts presented, which would actually involve brainpower).

are you not "a guy" who's giving people things to listen to? when you think about it, your sources are no more reliable than anyone else's. they all come from the internet. there's 1,000,000 websites for and against human consumption of cow's milk, what makes milkrules.com: The Leading Milk Rule Site on the Net any more reliable than The Dairy Industry | PETA.org one study will show this, another will show that. why should i assume yours are the correct ones and not the other's, because you called them retards?

As for human milk, it is only needed for infants (just like in nature, grown mammals do not drink milk), as the biochemistry of an infant is obviously (maybe not to you since you're asking) different than an adult. Babies actually NEED to grow...

Why does a grown adult need milk "to grow? :icon_lol:

an adult doesn't need milk to grow. a baby doesn't need milk to grow. what we both need are calories and micros. now, mother's milk is biologically designed to be optimal calories and micros for the baby, but we feed babies canned pureed fruit and formula designed to imitate milk too, and they still grow. if a baby can grow on substitutes, why can't an adult?

-That was the short answer, if you're special ed teacher is around, you can ask them to help you research the- different types of molecular structures of casein (they are not the same in cows and humans), and the actual amount. There is 20x more casein in cow's milk. Also, other compounds are in different ratios in human milk compared to cow milk (human milk is digested a lot easier due to greater PUFAs). Cows have a 4-section stomach where most of the digestion takes place, and allows them to digest cow milk efficiently. Obviously humans do not...and it is much more difficult. Once you add pasteurization and homogenization, all the nutrients are destroyed. Not so, for an infant drinking RAW milk directly from the mother...

now, had you left out everything between hyphens, i would be more likely to take your "facts" seriously. you really make it hard to consider what you're saying a possibility simply by the way you're presenting yourself. if you go to a job interview and the boss says "nuculer" not "nuclear" do you ask if english is his first language? i imagine not since you want the job. you want us to believe what you're saying, why would you think it's a good idea to toss insults at us?

 

[ics39]

"Oh, they're biased! They probably call absolutely anyone who pokes holes in their arguments idiots and retards, and other such closed-minded nonsense!"

You, on the other hand... wait.

Aside from the joke, I don't see any actual rebuttal of their writing. Just an accusation of bias. That does not constitute a logical rebuttal.

Yeah, with sources like the The US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and the Oxford Dictionary Of Nutrition, that's really nonsense compared the OPINIONS listed in the article that was being debunked :icon_lol: You really are clueless...maybe Harvard studies are on the same level as the community college you flunked out of too...if you don't want to be called a retard why do you insist on presenting your so-called argument like one?

Minger's statistical deconstruction of Campbell's claims are not "opinions" any more than his interpretations are. Actually less so, since they don't arbitrarily exclude inconvenient data. You can't hand-wave away inconvenient information and pretend that you're acting on the side of reason, whether you're a profiteer off of the vegan agenda or an overly confrontational forum zealot.

I just look at everything objectively. I don't inherently believe anything...even now, despite all the studies pointing to cooked food being bad and raw food being far superior, exactly "how much" remains to be seen. Obviously its better to err on the side of caution and do your best to have as healthy a diet as possible to offset other factors of health that are much more difficult to control (air pollution, radiation, etc).

And isn't this exactly what you tards are doing..."hand-waving" away inconvenient info (or rather flat out IGNORING it since it proves you wrong)? You're a funny tard though, I gotta give you that, otherwise this wouldn't be as entertaining. :icon_lol:

Whey has a protective effect against cancer. You can't look at chemicals in isolation of the natural delivery system. Giving a rat a megadose of the natural pesticides found in most fruit would kill it, but does that mean that raw fruit causes heart failure?

... does it?

Care to back up your "why has a protective effect against cancer" from any reputable study...like a Harvard or national health institute like I posted? But not in isolation as you said...including CASEIN...?

Didn't think so...have fun in your delusions. Don't worry, with cancer rates coming up to 50% (must have nothing to do with the massive amounts of grain and dairy being consumed) you'll be able to run into the arms of your beloved FDA and big pharma soon enough.

 

[ics39]

it's the information you're using, makes no difference if i say it's your information or not, you understood what i was getting at and that's what matters.

because you're calling people retards for being "wrong", which only people with superiority complexes do. and i say that's what you're being because you're being unnecessarily rude in a forum about people who are simply asking questions seeking answers, which again is something people with superiority complexes do. and yes, english is my first and only language, whether the word is made up is neither here nor there, it got the point across.

I've know a few mentally handicapped people that made up words and still got their point across...what's your point with that? Just proving that even though you're retarded you can still get your point across? I was never disputing that....

If someone stated that a water molecule is made up of 3 hydrogen atoms and 3 oxygen atoms, I will point out that they are "wrong". Just like anyone with a basic level of intelligence could do. Nothing to do with a superiority complex...although your fixation with this complex is interesting...maybe you should look into psychological projection :icon_lol:

Much like when the sidereel moron posted this: "Milk, like all animal based foods, is a way of taking inaccessible nutrients and energy stored in a form we can't consume, and converting it into a form we can"

This is wrong (at least not right) until there is actual evidence of this. All the evidence points to the opposite (unless of course all the national health institutes, harvard, etc are all wrong and some random people on a message board are not).

are you not "a guy" who's giving people things to listen to? when you think about it, your sources are no more reliable than anyone else's. they all come from the internet. there's 1,000,000 websites for and against human consumption of cow's milk, what makes milkrules.com: The Leading Milk Rule Site on the Net any more reliable than The Dairy Industry | PETA.org one study will show this, another will show that. why should i assume yours are the correct ones and not the other's, because you called them retards?

I'm a guy posting information backed up by sources, like anyone else that is not a retard (obviously a lot of posters in the thread couldn't back up their points with ANY sources whatsover, a few posters managed some random sources not backed by LEGITIMATE studies).

an adult doesn't need milk to grow. a baby doesn't need milk to grow. what we both need are calories and micros. now, mother's milk is biologically designed to be optimal calories and micros for the baby, but we feed babies canned pureed fruit and formula designed to imitate milk too, and they still grow. if a baby can grow on substitutes, why can't an adult?

Someone can live on only junk food, does that mean they "should"? The conversation was never about what was possible...of course a portion of the population will not develop disease despite a horrible diet...just like there's a contingent of hardcore smokers that will not develop lung cancer or any other cancer. Did you understand ANYTHING posted here? :icon_lol:

now, had you left out everything between hyphens, i would be more likely to take your "facts" seriously. you really make it hard to consider what you're saying a possibility simply by the way you're presenting yourself. if you go to a job interview and the boss says "nuculer" not "nuclear" do you ask if english is his first language? i imagine not since you want the job. you want us to believe what you're saying, why would you think it's a good idea to toss insults at us?

Why?

1+1=2 moron.

Calling you a moron doesn't invalidate the FACTS posted before it.

I'm not certified to teach mentally disabled individuals, if certain posters just beg to be called morons, I will oblige. Others (even if their views are different than mine) I will not if they present their points intelligently (obviously not a lot of these types of posters).

The mere fact that some of the tards in this thread can't even comprehend this proves why they were called morons in the first place. Sure I can be super nice, and not objective, and not call an idiot an idiot, but that's less fun :icon_lol:

 

[immovablestone]

^ The only funny part of this debacle is how this goof hasn't even gotten dubs yet...

 

[Sinister]

People like this feed off of ANY attention. Be it positive or negative. As of the moment I view him like a crazy guy in a corner that people just kinda toss objects at randomly. Punishing the craziness in the corner (which include unprovoked outbursts of anger) is arbitrary. The best it would accomplish would be arming said crazy guy with the notion that perhaps he's being punished because he's the only correct person, and is trying to be held down by "the man." He's proven himself quite clearly incapable of taking a single iota of responsibility for any inappropriate behavior, or conceding that said behavior might be in-fact, inappropriate as opposed to "radical" or "passionate."

So, dubbing would be moot. And as opposed to banning, I think the first step is collective ignoring. Let him be by himself, arguing with the corner.

 

[HankScorpio]

it's best not to think about it.