Edward and Gabriel

[burtlancast]

Au fait, Burt, j'allais oublier....le mot "discours" en français s'écrit bien avec un "s", c'est un mot singulier invariable...donc la présence du "s" dans l'accord des deux adjectifs suivants est falcultatif....Allez , courage, mon ami, les fautes c'est comme les thérapies alternatives c'est souvent pénible...A l'avenir, n'utilises plus le correcteur de fautes sous Word, hein?
Et "n'hésites" s'écrit également avec un "s" puisque dans cette tournure le pronom sous-entendu c'est "toi" donc "tu".....sans rancunes mon ami?

Nope,

"n'hésites" is in the imperatif form in your sentence, thus the "s" needs to go away (http://www.wordreference.com/conj/FrVer ... C3%A9siter)

And if you choose to use the singular form of "discours", then your syntax becomes "un discours stérile et insultant"...

You seem to be the kind of ignorant and arrogant individual, so common in the medical profession, so i'm afraid it's truly of a waste of time (and forum space) to respond to you...
Au revoir...

 

[Wilfrid]

Au fait, Burt, j'allais oublier....le mot "discours" en français s'écrit bien avec un "s", c'est un mot singulier invariable...donc la présence du "s" dans l'accord des deux adjectifs suivants est falcultatif....Allez , courage, mon ami, les fautes c'est comme les thérapies alternatives c'est souvent pénible...A l'avenir, n'utilises plus le correcteur de fautes sous Word, hein?
Et "n'hésites" s'écrit également avec un "s" puisque dans cette tournure le pronom sous-entendu c'est "toi" donc "tu".....sans rancunes mon ami?

Nope,

"n'hésites" is in the imperatif form in your sentence, thus the "s" needs to go away (http://www.wordreference.com/conj/FrVer ... C3%A9siter)

And if you choose to use the singular form of "discours", then your syntax becomes "un discours stérile et insultant"...

You seem to be the kind of ignorant and arrogant individual, so common in the medical profession, so i'm afraid it's truly of a waste of time (and forum space) to respond to you...
Au revoir...

Burt, mon ami,

Ne me dis pas au revoir....
Being an ignorant and arrogant individual don't bother me as long as I can learn from you and your incredible knowledge ....
So I'm gonna stay here for a while, just to hear what you have to say about those fabulous alternative therapies. You're my hero, Burt, and I hope that all the other members will soon give you the reputation you really deserve because you are one of the last true health renegade and I love that.
:)
Au fait, pour combler mon ignorance personnelle, peux-tu mettre en ligne les liens où tu as vu que les fromagers français utilisent le lait de type A2 pour faire leur fromage?

 

[jaguar43]

I didn't mind Edward's posts. Gabriel had a bit of interesting info mixed with awful advice and typical medical propaganda. I don't mind Gabriel's gone. What I noticed though is that nobody posts anymore. There are very few new posts every day.

Hi j,

Probably because for most people, there is now not so much interest to get useful information here anymore.
Ray's info on his website is more than enough,no? If no debate or other opinion against Peat's view is allowed then....it's sad, because, I thought that the ultimate goal of this forum was to discuss, of course, everything Ray peat, what's working and what's not (and why?). So, if all of Ray's recommendation are perfect, then, no need to share or post anything, the easiest way to get intel is raypeat.com.
I think that's in part the reason why some people who used to post here are now probably posting more on peatarian.com.

The funny thing is Ray Peat isn't against low carb. If he was, then he would talk so neutrally about the eskimos.

 

[juanitacarlos]

The funny thing is Ray Peat isn't against low carb. If he was, then he would talk so neutrally about the eskimos.

That's a good point. I remember him saying (maybe in a Rubin interview) that a diet of equal amounts carb, fats, protein would be good. 2% milk is almost equal in levels of CFP. I personally would struggle to eat that much protein. And I would want more carbs.

 

[jaguar43]

The funny thing is Ray Peat isn't against low carb. If he was, then he would talk so neutrally about the eskimos.

That's a good point. I remember him saying (maybe in a Rubin interview) that a diet of equal amounts carb, fats, protein would be good. 2% milk is almost equal in levels of CFP. I personally would struggle to eat that much protein. And I would want more carbs.

They get enough energy metabolism from eating the whole animal. Low carb diets are poorly planed.

The dietary hormones are probably responsible for the high metabolic rates of eskimos too, except in that case glands,skin, and brains are regularly eaten.....though eskimos are unique in traditionally, a pure meat diet.

page 119 generative energy.

 

[burtlancast]

This is for people like jag2594 believing Burzynski is mainstream:
here's an 1988 talkshow where Burzynski presents 4 cured patients, all with anti-neoplastons and NO chemo or radiation

[BBvideo 560,340:1dyas3o5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOBr9tbYzlA[/BBvideo]

[BBvideo 560,340:1dyas3o5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6Vql749To[/BBvideo]

[BBvideo 560,340:1dyas3o5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LG8J4KoSfs[/BBvideo]

 

[jyb]

The dietary hormones are probably responsible for the high metabolic rates of eskimos too, except in that case glands,skin, and brains are regularly eaten.....though eskimos are unique in traditionally, a pure meat diet.

It's something I don't really understand. It's like saying, you have a diet of higher fat that is not conducive to high metabolic rate, but you add in a few hormones and its fixed. But if the fat diet provided enough energy, why do these hormone naturally decline in the first place? How can hormones compensate for an energy problem?

I think Edward must have a good explanation for this, because his posts have hinted about good thyroid not being incompatible with higher fat ratio.

 

[jaguar43]

The dietary hormones are probably responsible for the high metabolic rates of eskimos too, except in that case glands,skin, and brains are regularly eaten.....though eskimos are unique in traditionally, a pure meat diet.

It's something I don't really understand. It's like saying, you have a diet of higher fat that is not conducive to high metabolic rate, but you add in a few hormones and its fixed. But if the fat diet provided enough energy, why do these hormone naturally decline in the first place? How can hormones compensate for an energy problem?

I think Edward must have a good explanation for this, because his posts have hinted about good thyroid not being incompatible with higher fat ratio.

Its not a few hormones. They eat every organ in the animal. Which has a variety of compounds that help your metabolic rate.

 

[jaguar43]

This is for people like jag2594 believing Burzynski is mainstream:
here's an 1988 talkshow where Burzynski presents 4 cured patients, all with anti-neoplastons and NO chemo or radiation

[BBvideo 560,340:3dlc53n1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOBr9tbYzlA[/BBvideo]

[BBvideo 560,340:3dlc53n1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6Vql749To[/BBvideo]

[BBvideo 560,340:3dlc53n1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LG8J4KoSfs[/BBvideo]

Wrong, they say they use chemo in this video.

[BBvideo 560,340:3dlc53n1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXf7r4VBDgk&list=PLE3256EDD7D15EFA5[/BBvideo]

Do you understand that Genetic determinism is mainstream ?

 

[Wilfrid]

Burt, my lord,

Can I post this link too?

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/11/ ... ic-record/

It's seems that those people are not going to make it on youtube.....
By the way, I did a quick search for " Burzys**t " (..my broken english....) on Ray's website....
I could not find anything...
Is someone here can tell me what's this incredible therapy has to do with Ray's work?
If not, please, my lord, enlighten me....

 

[burtlancast]

Wrong, they say they use chemo in this video.

[BBvideo 560,340:2g3tbg8k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXf7r4VBDgk&list=PLE3256EDD7D15EFA5[/BBvideo]

Do you understand that Genetic determinism is mainstream ?

For anyone interested in the Burzynski therapy, please don't pay attention to this poster' lies.

The video talks about identifying the different genes implicated in cancer and then applying the corresponding gene therapy substances.
It's a personalized approach unheard of in conventional cancer therapy.

Burzynki's antineoplastons are molecular switches able to turn off tumors, independently of the immune system. He explains everybody has different genes implicated in the same type of cancer, and he tries to identify them and then applies the corresponding antineoplastons.

His son does talk for about 2 seconds in the video about them using conventional chemo, but it's in the framework of specific gene targeting, not as a broad spectrum cell killer.
Very often, antineoplastons are able to accomplish the job by themselves, and no other substance is needed.

The poster has completely misrepresented the video's content.

 

[jaguar43]

For anyone interested in the Burzynski therapy, please don't pay attention to this poster' lies.

The video talks about identifying the different genes implicated in cancer and then applying the corresponding gene therapy substances.
It's a personalized approach unheard of in conventional cancer therapy.

Burzynki's antineoplastons are molecular switches able to turn off tumors, independently of the immune system. He explains everybody has different genes implicated in the same type of cancer, and he tries to identify them and then applies the corresponding antineoplastons.

His son does talk for about 2 seconds in the video about them using conventional chemo, but it's in the framework of specific gene targeting, not as a broad spectrum cell killer.
Very often, antineoplastons are able to accomplish the job by themselves, and no other substance is needed.

The poster has completely misrepresented the video's content.

Do you not understand genetic dogma vs inheritance of acquired characteristics ? Let me test you, which one does Ray believe in ?

You understand that antineoplastons is chemotherapy right ? It is a byproduct of the orphan drug buhenyl. I thought you said they used it supplementary ? You never said the antineoplastons was actually a chemotherapy. Do you research, or just talk ?

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/ar ... iveid=3849

No worries, I am sure many others will follow or ideas

30000 iu vitamin e for crohn's. Almost laughable

Larges dosage of vitamin C ( it worked for pauling. But not his wife ?)

The devil in the milk ?? The good a2 will triumph the evil a1.

Lets insult the minorities on this forum and promote the political ideas of the racist Edward Griffin.

Charlie should have banned you and your "orthodox" ideas a long time ago.

 

[Wilfrid]

Burt, my lord,

I will save you time (and forum space, by the way....).
If anyone here have a great interest for non-mainstream propaganda and super healing alternatives theories, just go ahead and buy the book " Texbook of Nutritional Medicine " by Melvyn R. Werbach. My lord, this book is worth reading,no?
I think, in fact, it's one of the most valuable book on the subject which is highly recommended by one of the most "brilliant brain" in the world, Dr Andrew Saul.

http://www.doctoryourself.com/werbach.html

Let's have a quick inside look of the book,....hum,voyons,voyons...Oh,yes...the story with the woman curing herself with high dose vitamin E for her crohn's....bottom of the page 283 and top of the page 284 ( Chapter on Crohn's disease) but...wait...yes,yes,she used massive dose of D alpha tocopherol ( so far, we don't know if it was a "dry" form, and which one..., or a combination of multiple tocopherols...but who cares,huh?....Ah,no,no,no wait...may be she was using the alpha-tocopherylquinone?...ah,no...that's the guy with ulcerative colitis on page 704 and...oh,puis zut....Everyone here should buy the book,no? Lots of non-mainstream intel inside.) If someone's here, besides you,my lord..., is wondering if I have this wonderful piece of s**t at home, I do and I even read it.
Etes- vous fier de moi, mon seigneur?
So back to vitamin C....I probably made a syntax mistake when I asked Ray what to do when people , when sick, can not tolerate even fully ripened fruits to get vitamin C, let's have a closer look to Ray's answer...
" Ray,
Do people, when sick or severly ill ( like having crohn's for example), need to take supplemental vitamin C?
No.
Meat and milk are very good source of vitamin C."
So, it's seems that Ray himself is not buying the high vitamin C "cure all" theory.
And let's focus, just for a second, that's high dose vitamin C " could possibly " interfere with copper metabolism, which is for RP an important mineral for the production of the Cytochrome C oxidase...So, if I have a quick a look at the bottom of the page 260 of " Handbook of vitamins, minerals and hormones, second edition, by Roman J.Kutsky,Ph.D ( sorry,my lord, this book was probably written by an endoctrinated Dr. but still it's one of the few books that Ray recommends me to always have on hand....),...hum,hum, voyons...yes,I got it...vitamin C do antagonize copper metabolism with high dosage!!
Should I continue???
I hope that's the above text does not bother you my lord.
I didn't want to hurt you, I'm just a jealous guy.

A bientôt,...

 

[SAFarmer]

I'm not here to discuss cancer therapies using unconventional methods outside Ray Peat's work.
I hereby vote publicly to remove Burtlancast from the forum as well. If Gabriel and Edward had to go, then so can he.

 

[Wilfrid]

Mulburt, my lord ( as you can see, I managed to do a modest knee between your name and Mulder, ( the guy in X-Files..you get it,right?) not as bad as Wilfrog,no?)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with SAFarmer on this one.

A bientôt,....

 

[gretchen]

I remember a few of Edwards's posts from when he first started posting. He seemed like just another super enthusiastic Peat follower, very "sciency" and informed-- nothing to get upset about.

I think at least part of the problem with this forum is the way A1 cow's milk goes unchallenged. A lot of you would do well to reconsider it. As well as opening your mind to other theories....and learning to respect others.

However, otoh, this is Charlie's forum, and he has stated his rules- no debate, only discussion... and mostly only of RP ideas and nothing else so..... we should go along with it although it does seem to downgrade the forum somewhat and also seems to be against the spirit of RP. The absence of debate surely is leading this forum towards more and more consensus thinking which is boring... as others have mentioned.

 

[Wilfrid]

@gretchen,

Fair enough.

 

[tailypoe3]

Well I'm just a lurker but I liked the unique atmosphere of this forum because a lot of people here, like myself, have tried many different things in an attempt to heal from unresolved health issues...and we ended up here because those things failed.

Ray Peat's advice is meant to be taken in context, which a few people may have forgotten. That is what I think Edward and Gabriel were trying to remind people-that "dogmatic" thinking ignores this, and ignoring evidence just results in more failure.

Finding quality articles such as Edward posted requires a lot of intelligence and dedication, and he shared them with us for free so that other possibilities can be considered instead of mindlessly following out of date studies. It boggles my mind that he was banned-what a great way to thank him.

 

[narouz]

Ray Peat's advice is meant to be taken in context, which a few people may have forgotten. That is what I think Edward and Gabriel were trying to remind people-that "dogmatic" thinking ignores this, and ignoring evidence just results in more failure.

Reminding readers of (1) the Importance of Context and (2) the Dangers of Dogma in Peat interpretation--I wouldn't imagine that would be the reason for the bannings.

Those are probably the two most time-honoured, frequently recycled, and widely applauded rituals on this board! Heroically denouncing "dogma" is a treasured and relentlessly enjoyed theme here, and readers also have an insatiable appetite for all high-minded recitations that "context is everything."

So I can't see how expressing those two extremely popular kind of views would cause E&G's exile. On the contrary, such expressions indicate a strong conformity with board values.

In addition to aggressively recycling those tropes, Edward would sometimes offer penetrating moral upbraidings in the form of Nietzsche quotations. I found these particularly helpful, as they reminded me of my unworthiness.

So...the reason for the bannings must lie elsewhere.

 

[tailypoe3]

Narouz, that is my point exactly. Did you read the blog post containing the original message with the reasons for being banned? I have no idea about Gabriel, but it was implied that Edward was creating too many posts in opposition to Ray Peat and "that those type of discussions should be taken elsewhere as this is not the proper forum to continuously initiate such discussion."

My original post was referring to the moderators decision. It seems that banning him would only be warranted if Edward posts were intended to be hostile, which-gauging also by the majority's response here-doesn't seem to be the case. I agree with you that considering this, the reason for the banning SHOULD lie elsewhere, because it doesn't make sense, however according to the moderator himself, that is his reason.