onewheeldave

No. I stated the fact that vegetable oil didn't exist, cos it didn't. How you think any human being capable of operating a keyboard could believe that vegetable oils, by which I'm assuming you mean the fats naturally occuring in plants, didn't exist, is astounding. ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 15:38 ---------- Cyanide in the quantities consumed in apple pips, clearly is not highly poisonous, as, otherwise, I'd have been poisoned. Extract it and condense it, and it's deadly. Vegetable fats in the quantities found in plants, clearly is not poisonous (as otherwise, lots of us would be dead). Extract them and condense them, and then you've got vegetable oil, which I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, because, just cos somethings safe in trace amounts in it's natural place, doesn't mean it's not toxic when extracted and condensed.

And you're clearly OK with strawman arguments Essentially I'm totally OK with laws that protect against assault/rape/burglary. When it comes to laws that are stupid/harmful/unfair, such as those that penalise cannabis users, then I'm not OK with them. Hopefully that makes things clear?

I'm very aware that low fat 'foods' have sugar mixed in (as well as vegetable oils and a host of other dodgy ingredients). Hence why I've never eaten processed low fat 'foods'. If people want to eat such stuff, they should either, IMO, eat naturally low fat food (eg an apple, potato etc, etc), or, just eat the proper food full fat version of whatever they're after (eg, full fat yoghurt). But, that's a separate issue from the fact that vegetable oils are routinely put into processed 'food'. There are ways around some of it- for example, if anyone fancies a tasty biscuit but doesn't want them laced with vegetable oils, many brands of shortbread, unlike almost all other biscuits, are made with butter (do check the ingredients though, as even this traditional biscuit sometimes has veg oils substituted). For bread, you're stuffed, despite extensive research, as far as I can tell, no major brand in the supermarkets uses butter for it's fats- only various vegetable oils. (Anyone who knows different, do let me know). Though, for flatbreads/wraps, some of the wraps sold in asian stores use no oil/butter/fats whatsoever.

The reasons I don't campaign for change include- 1. the immense amount of personal time and work it requires 2. absolute lack of faith in changing the system by playing it's little games and 'doing things the proper way' 3. the fact that, certainly when it comes to cannabis and TV licensing, there have been many well coordinated and focused campaigns running over the past several decades- without success Plus, the fact that the govt sacked it's own drug advisors when their research indicated that cannabis should be decriminalised/made legal, is kind of the final nail in the coffin.

I don't obey laws I think are wrong. I think more people should do the same. Equally, by compliers funding the corrupt BBC, they are harming the sensible non-compliers who, for good reason, are not propping up the BBC, and, as a consequence, are labeled as 'dishonest'. Indirectly, they also contribute to a climate where sensible users of cannabis to manage health conditions (conditions where other, legal drugs are far less effective and have worse side effects) are imprisoned and labeled as criminals. These things work both ways.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Anyone who eats a typical diet of processed food. Vegetable oils are added, in large amounts to breads, biscuits, cakes, crisps, packed ready meals etc, etc. You're correct- I erred. Olive oil has been around longer than 200 years. And, if I were to ever consume vegetable oil, cold pressed extra virgin olive oil would be my preference (obviously, olive oil extracted chemically would have the same issues as other veg oils). Practically speaking though, anyone using the stuff should be aware of the 'counterfeit olive oil' issue, as it's estimated that over 50% of extra virgin olive oil is now fake, including, and, especially, the high quality brands. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=counterfeit+olive+oil&oq=counterfeit+olive+oil&aqs=chrome..69i57.5991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 It's only the last century where vegetable fats/oils have been consumed in the massive quantities we see today. Due, in large part, to our medical systems demonisation of saturated fats (butter/lard etc) as 'unhealthy'. Not only have many died (provenly) through being persuaded to consume deadly trans fats (now illegal in many countries and appearing much less in all foods, as they are now known to be toxic) that were common in margarines till recently, but many consume vegetable oils in place of butter etc. Of course, 2 recent metastudies have concluded that there is no evidence that saturated fats are actually bad for health, so maybe expect a possible reversal of that advice over the coming decade. It's interesting to note that, as the medical profession demonised saturated fats and the public followed the advice (and, to an extent, were forced to do so, as supermarkets took up the cause and made it difficult to find full fat versions of some foods, instead stocking the shelves with adulterated 'low fat' yoghurts/spreads and packing vegetable oils into produce previously made with butter) the heart disease/diabetes/chronic illnesses, far from taking the expected nose dive, actually increased to epidemic proportions. Their epic rise matching the fall in butter/saturated fat consumption and rise in vegetable oils (the 'healthy fats'). Now correlation is not causation, and I'm not saying vegetable oils are the cause. But, then again, I'm not going to wait decades for double blind scientific testing to clear or condemn- that system has been trying to establish whether saturated fats are deadly/ok/good for over a century now, and still has not decided (though many, many studies show such fats are bad, and many, amny other studies show the complete opposite). Having concluded the orthodox medical testing system is corrupt and inept, I'll take note of the above correlation, plus a few common sense facts, such as, if a 'food' didn't exist for all but 200 years of human evolution, then, there's room for serious doubt that humans have evolved to be able to eat the stuff. And my sincere advice to anyone worried about the state of our nations health, is to do the same. If you want to use fats in your cooking, I recommend butter. I'm not saying it's good for you (though it may be), I really have no idea, no one does. But, humans have eaten it for millenia, including many populations far healthier (in terms of heart disease/cancer/diabetes) than ours. I am actually pretty certain that, in small amounts, it'll do no harm (as with most food toxins, if the amounts are small, the body deals with it) and almost certainly far healthier than using bottled vegetable oils. The main thing though, is eat real food- plants, fruits, vegetables, in their natural form. Avoid all processed 'foods' (supermarket ready meals etc. If you want to eat meat, buy real meat (personally I'd eat it in small quantities only). Ready meals have contents sourced from, often, several different countries, mashed into gloop that's been sitting around and oxidising for who knows how long. Then it has various vegetable oils mixed in. Given that we recently found that what we though was beef was actually horse meat, do we really trust the food industry to be honest with how long those bits of gloop have been in storeage, or how long the oils have been sat oxidising?? Whereas, when you buy a brocoli, a lettuce, a potato- you can much better see what you're getting. Buy real food, eat it, be healthy.

Yeah- you put it like that as an isolated case, it seems to make sense. Thing is though- that's the working model for all charites- the old style ones of people in it for the cause, rather than the cash, just can't operate anymore. Now it's all high paid CEOs, running teams of chuggers, out harrassing and deceiving people into handing over bank/direct debit details. To the point where cynicism towards charity is at an all time high- more and more of the public are becoming aware that each chugger, and, all the way up the ladder via the team leaders, the managers and, ultimately, the CEOs themselves, are all raking in their cut. Till what actually goes to the cause, is something like 2-5% of what is handed over.

Really :huh: Well dude, you know what- watching TV without a licence is also "a sort of grey area where they are also not considered to be criminal offences". Problem solved, well done In contrast, when I see some idiot piloting a metal box with their mobile in hand, I think- that moron could easily kill someone, and, IMO, they should be locked up and/or banned. The consequences of license evasion are never fatal. It's consequences that determine the morality of an act. Shame the law rarely reflects that.

Is imprisoning thousands of single mothers OK? No ones condoning assault/arson/breaking and entering. They're condoning not paying the license fee. If this is such an issue, why not make TVs available that can only pick up stations other than the BBC? That could have been done decades ago, and I'm sure that many people would be quite happy to have had the option for watching ITV/CH 4 for free, without the BBC insisting that you had to pay for their 'service', even if you were happy to just watch the others.

I do assume a basic level of intelligence when I post. But, for those lacking it, I'll add- make sure you've got your net curtains up I'm not a thief. My only TV is an old analogue one which I use for DVDs. Once they scrapped the analogue signal I couldn't be bothered messing around with digital, as it clearly, to me, was inferior. Now, if watching TV without a license is illegal- then I guess those who do so are breaking the law. To me- no problem: a lot of laws are, IMO, stupid. And, I know a lot of very good, very moral people, who, for example, use cannabis, and, IMO, suffer unfair persecution because of it. They're breaking the law, but, IMO, are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Same with anyone with the intelligence to not pay the BBC their toll. In my eyes, the BBC are deeply immoral, with a long track record of deception, lies, dodgy business practices and harrassment of the vulnerable. Now I know that, when the beeb comes calling, the thing to do is scrap their threatening letters, and, shut the door on any inspectors- say nothing, shut the door. If they have a problem with that, they can come back with the police and a search warrant But, that won't happen. Even though I don't have a TV that receives broadcasts, I do exactly the same, cos I think they are scum and wish to do nothing that will help them with their investigations. For those who do watch broadcasts, I'll happily spread the word about how to deal with the BBC- they may be breaking the law, I don't care. Cos the BBC have happily imprisoned thousand of single mothers and ran a decade long campaign of intimidation and deception, and that ****** me off way more than licence evaders breaking the law.

Bizarre. And, a total strawman. There's zero suggestion from me or enyone else that the fats in vegetables are problematic- they are in trace amounts and the human body has been consuming them through it's entire evolutionary history. Extracting them and bunging out bottles of the stuff is far from trace amounts, as well as involving lots of toxic chemicals, plus of course, adding chemical deoderiser at the end to mask the horrific taste/smell. Vegetable oil (i.e. the stuff from bottles put into virtually all processed foods these days, as opposed to vegetable fats (naturally occuring in trace amounts in plants) has appeared in the human 'food' supply only in the past 200 years- never, prior to that, did a human, or any animal, encounter vegetable oil. Similarly, I tend when eating apples, to consume the core and pips. Those pips contain trace amounts of cyanide. I'm alive, healthy and well after eating many apple cores and pips. If I took a swig from a bottle of cyanide extracted chemically from a large amount of pips, I suspect I wouldn't be doing so well When you look at a bottle of vegetable oil, you're seeing highly condensed oil from several hundred kg of plants. To consume anything close to the amount of fats you get from vegetable oil, by eating the plants with the trace amounts of vegetable fats in them, would be totally impossible.

Yes. Mr Mcdougal in the article was totally open- he's estimated the time scale and lists his assumptions/reasons. He is, after all, a doctor- an expert in health, and, just like an expert on tyres could make a reasonable estimate of milage/conditions looking at a tyre, it seems reasonable that an expert in health could use their knowledge to come up with estimates as to tumor progression. Certainly all the flak thrown at Jobs choice of diet is equally without actual evidence. And any health expert claiming different estimates of the tumor progression is in the same boat in terms of actual evidence.

In what respect (regarding trans fats)? ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 08:45 ---------- No-ones saying otherwise. However, vegetable oils are clearly not necessary, given that they've only existed for little over 200 years, and humanity has existed very happily over the vast majority of its time here without them (getting it's fat requirements from, for example, saturated fats from meat/animal produce). And there are plenty of people on 80-10-10/vegan/fruitarian diets who clearly get all the fats they need from the low levels of fats naturally occuring in fruits/vegetables- without using vegetable oils (which those on 80-10-10 specifically avoid, as they believe them to be toxic).

Those prosecuted are those who don't understand the law i.e. those who believe the intimidatory tactics used by doorstep tv licence workers and actually let them in their house to check. Single mothers have traditionally been the prime victims, and many have been imprisoned over the past few decades- http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html In contrast, anyone who watches TV without a license, and, who does understand that no tv license person has any right to enter your home, and who simply shuts the door on them; will not get prosecuted. The reason the BBC are wanting to tax everyone (regardless of whether they watch BBC broadcasts) is because more and more people are becoming aware that buying a license is optional.

Just done a bit of googling and found I'm far from the only person who's extremely suspicious of vegetable oils/fats. Both these links pretty much sum up the reasons I think vegetable oils/fats could be very damaging for health. Here's a youtube vid- or, for those who prefer to read- http://wellnessmama.com/2193/never-eat-vegetable-oil/

Like I mentioned before- Here's Dr John Mcdougals take on Steve jobs cancer- https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/nov/jobs.htm He's a doctor who knows about these things and he estimates 20+ years, and, goes into detail about how he came to that conclusion. ---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 19:25 ---------- Radical? It's a low fat vegan/close to vegan diet of real food (i.e. vegetables/fruit with minimal or no processed 'food')- despite a track record of curing type II diabetes, the orthodox medical establishment seems either unaware of it, or, believes that it's too 'radical' for patients to follow, despite the fact that millions of people routinely eat that way every day of their life. There are also claims of success with type II diabetes from the paleo/primal camp, despite the fact that those diets are far from low fat and embrace meat (albeit grass fed organic meat). Worth mentioning that results seem to last only as long as patients stick to the diet, unlike those who go the low fat near vegan route. What both those seemingly opposing diets do have in common, of course, is that they exclude processed 'foods' (supermarket packaged junk) as well as fats/oils extracted from vegetables/plants i.e. the 'healthy oils' the medical establishment has been pushing everyone to consume for the past 4 decades.

Cyclists riding on pavements are fine- just like cars driving on roads are fine. Cyclists bombing around like maniacs and crashing into things on pavements are not fine, just as cars bombing around like maniacs and crashing into things on roads are not fine. ---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 08:30 ---------- At last- someone else who understands that the cause of our conjested, clogged up road system is excessive numbers of motor vehicles! Next time a car driver is feeling 'held up' by a cyclist, just ask why you can't overtake- is it really the cyclist in front, or are you conveniently missing the fact that the opposite lane is chock full of oncoming cars, and/or both sides of both lines are blocked by lines of bumper-to-bumper parked cars?

Any chance you get take a voice recorder and record this meeting? Then put it on the internet and link to it, so those of us who can't make it can access it? That would also be usefull for any ensuing debate that takes place on here, as any claims made in the discussion about what was/wasn't said at the meet could be easily checked.

He lived 20 years with pancreatic cancer, without any conventional treatment (surgery/chemo/radiotherapy)- suggesting something about his lifestyle was actually pretty good. Nevertheless, he's a qualified doctor of long standing with, a good track record of curing his patients with dietary interventions (along with weaning them off long term drugs like statins etc). He promotes a plant based low-fat diet due to the huge amount of evidence and scientific nutritional studies that indicate it's efficacy. I'll admit that there's also plenty of evidence and scientific nutritional studies showing the exact opposite as well- but that's the state of nutritional scientific research at the moment, and a reason why I personally don't place too much stock in any of it: when large numbers of equally qualified nutritional 'experts' in 2 camps argue for logically contradictory conclusions, to me, that's a sure sign that somethings deeply flawed in the system. You, however, presumably place great stock in scientific studies run by 'experts', so you'll presumably understand why Dr McDougal is so swayed by them. As are Drs Ornish (responsible for treating Ex-president Clinton when he had several heart bypass ops- by putting him on a dietary intervention (low fat vegan) and getting him off statins) and Dr Caldwell Esselstyn. As are Dr Gregor (of nutritionfacts.org- a repository of references to vast amounts of studies and scientific evidence in favour of plant based low fat low animal produce diets) and many other qualifed MDs influenced by the evidence.

Healthy living and healthy eating simply lower the odds of getting cancer- there's no way to guarantee not getting it. Here's Dr John Mcdougals take on Steve jobs cancer- https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/nov/jobs.htm Not that it is that relevant to the aformentioned that that the medical profession, for whatever reason, routinely answers patients requests for statisitical info about chemo by quoting misleading and confusing 'relative risk' stats.

No No No Yes

I've got no more idea than you what medical professionals tend to do. I am aware that many doctors are now refusing to undergo, for example, colonoscopies (and recommending their patients also refuse) due to the fact that actual evidence shows the risks to far outweigh the considerable risks. Yet the profession as a whole, continues to endeavour to persuade vulnerable, scared patients into undergoing the procedure. I can give you names of respected and established doctors who consider statins to, in most cases, cause more harm than good. Meanwhile the medical profession as a whole continues to dish them out like smarties (along with antidepressants and several other profitable pharmacutical products). When it comes to cancer, I don't know what medical professionals do when it affects them- in my previous posts I was more concerned about the average non-medical professional, as they clearly will tend to have no grasp on what the 'relative risk' actually is, nor will they likely receive an explanation from their doctor. They will thus likely make a decision that, if they did know what relative risk actually was, they quite possibly would not have made.

And yet more than 50% of the UK population favour a review of the current drug laws. So a review of drug laws clearly wouldn't be political suicide. Yet no review seems to be forthcoming As for legalising drugs, given the overwhelming actual evidence showing the pros of it, a political marketing campaign based on pushing out that evidence could be quite plausible. ---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 17:36 ---------- I'm saying that the statistics about the 'benefits' of chemo (and several other medical procedures) are routinely over sold to vulnerable patients. For whatever reasons, the medical establishment clearly wants patients to undergo chemotherapy, when, if the facts concerning it's efficacy were presented without the distortion of 'relative risk', many of those patients would be turning it down. If the absolute benefits equate to a 1% better chance of survival, why be quoting 50%- as a 'relative risk' 50% is technically accurate, but clearly it's pretty misleading. As the quoted research shows, the patients are generally wanting the actual facts, not the 'relative risk'. The average cancer victim is probably too scared and vulnerable to be embarking on a study of convoluted statistical theory before they can make their decision- why not just give them the simple truth, which is that, in that case, taking the chemo (and all it's side effects) will give them a 1% better chance of surviving over a given period?

A lot of the stats given to patients regarding chemotherapy are deliberately skewed to make it seem considerably more effective than it actually is i.e. by using stats based on 'relative risk'. Often survival rates for those on chemo vs those not on it, can be 1 or 2% in terms of absolute risk- that exact same date when translated into relative risk (as is usually the case when it's communicated to actual patients) could be 50% http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/21/23/4263.long &, from http://www.icnr.com/articles/ischemotherapyeffective.html