> You must either A) work for a pharmaceutical company or B) be completely > brainwashed by them. To say T2 is *not* curable, is a complete falsehood. > I assumed your were a physician. I can see this is not true or you would > see this in your own patients. *My* doctor is one of my own colleagues > who has the same experiences with T2 patients. Most cases are totally > curable. There are some FEW exceptions. We generally don't see those.
Wendell, sadly, it is YOU that is seriously brainwashed. T2 diabetes is *NOT* at present time curable in any way shape or form. Those who claim to be cured, are only controlled. If they go back to the same lifestyle they had previously before being diagnosed then their higher glucose would return. Medications for diabetes do not mask symptoms, they help lower glucose levels which is the only way to stop symptoms.
> T2 diabetes is *NOT* at present time curable in any way shape or form. > Those who claim to be cured, are only controlled. If they go back to > the same lifestyle they had previously before being diagnosed then their > higher glucose would return.
So what is the difference between taking a medication continuously and permanently, and changing your lifestyle continuously and permanently? You aren't claiming that any medication will fix T2 diabetes after a one-time limited course, are you? (That's what most people understand by "cure" - the kind of response you get to antibiotics for an acute infection).
> Medications for diabetes do not mask symptoms, they help lower glucose > levels which is the only way to stop symptoms.
Are you claiming that changing diet does NOT lower glucose levels?
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ==== Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557 CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts ****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:38:20 -0500, Steve Hopkins wrote: > "Sue Mullen" <kjmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:4af431cb$1@news.x-privat.org... >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:57:33 +0100, BDR529 wrote:
>>> You're right, Wendell T Stamps was the newbie, not Wendy Baker of >>> course. I owe you a blow job.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:07:02 -0500, Sue Mullen wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:38:20 -0500, Steve Hopkins wrote:
>>> "Sue Mullen" <kjmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:4af431cb$1@news.x-privat.org... >>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:57:33 +0100, BDR529 wrote:
>>>>> You're right, Wendell T Stamps was the newbie, not Wendy Baker of >>>>> course. I owe you a blow job.
>>>> Get a room. >>>> -- >>>> sue
>>> Hey sue, jealous eh?Give me a rim job?
>> No.
> Sue and Steve, what are the chances you could take your sexual > playground out of SCM?
Oh no, Sue and Steve keep it here. Compared to most of the BS of Chung and his brown-nosed disciple and all the other trolls and religious nuts, yours is far more down to earth.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:41:05 -0600, MoSn wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:08:17 -0600, MU wrote > (in article <hd1e51$ri...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:07:02 -0500, Sue Mullen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:38:20 -0500, Steve Hopkins wrote:
>>>> "Sue Mullen" <kjmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:4af431cb$1@news.x-privat.org... >>>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:57:33 +0100, BDR529 wrote:
>>>>>> You're right, Wendell T Stamps was the newbie, not Wendy Baker of >>>>>> course. I owe you a blow job.
>>>>> Get a room. >>>>> -- >>>>> sue
>>>> Hey sue, jealous eh? Give me a rim job?
>>> No.
>> Sue and Steve, what are the chances you could take your sexual >> playground out of SCM?
> Oh no, Sue and Steve keep it here. Compared to most of the BS of Chung and > his brown-nosed disciple and all the other trolls and religious nuts, yours > is far more down to earth.
Thanx, sooooooo wanna blow job or are you of age? -- sue
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:18:18 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>MU schrieb:
>>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:35:17 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>>>MU schrieb:
>>>>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:17:18 -0600, Michael wrote:
>>>>>>Many others here are able to control their BG with a much less severe >>>>>>diet. I like decaffeinated black coffee. I cannot drink it because it >>>>>>elevates my BG. I have no idea why. Just different body chemistry.
>>>>>>The lesson I have learned here is to test, test, and test some more. >>>>>>Always eat to the meter. The foods that we can and cannot eat are >>>>>>different for everyone.
>>>>>Point being, once you have found that overconsuming food in general or >>>>>foods in particular, don't overconsume.
>>>>>Again, the basis for the 2 PD Diet.
>>>>Isn't the official party line these days that the 2 PD is an approach >>>>and not a diet?
>>>I don't know, I don't belong to any "party".
>>>YMMV.
>>Oh, sorry. I forgot that the 2-PD approach only has two believers. Yeah, >>that certainly wouldn't qualify as a party.
> Wrong again
Oh, are you three or even four?
> but you knew that because you have followed Chung and I > arond like a little lapdog for a decade now.
> Why lie? Everyone knows when yu do so why do it?
I remember well Dr. Chungs claim that more than 600000 people are using his approach without a single failure. Unfortunately, as far as I know, he has never provided any sort of evidence for this claim and I am not prepared to accept this absurd claim at face value.
> That's because you're a self centered git with absolutely no peripheral > vision whatsoever. Running the risk of shattering your credibility > and usurping your OWN authority by getting your hand caught in that > particular lying cookie jar would be the text book definition of > negligence, dereliction of duty, and a grossly deficient IQ.
> The only person overlooking reality is you. You have to if you want to > prop up your foil beanie theories.
>>>>Don't overconsume.
>>>>No, that it is not the basis of the 2 PD diet or approach.
>>>Well, you're having a really bad day, T-Bone, that most certainly is the >>>basis of the 2PD
>>No, it's not.
>>HTH,
>>Thorsten
> Considering that Chung and I were the first tointroduce the 2PD to > Usenet, USA and the world. I suppose that a *strooooooooooong* case > could be made that you are talking out your butt and we are talking from > the Author's view.
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:26:27 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote:
[...] >>which is not the same, particularly if >>those large meals are only eaten occasionally.
> Ah so overconsumption is *never* one meal.
> Bzzzzzzzzt.
> Wrong. One, many, several...all in context, T-Bone.
The context being that the OP usually eats "like a mouse" as he states himself. You have to pay attention. So overall there is hardly any overconsumption.
>>Second, as I wrote before, healthy people don't have a blood pressure of >>190/105 or 200/105 just because they ate a large meal.
> Really, how lucid of you.
>>So the OP faces a >>medical problem.
> Caused by his overconsumption.
No.
>>He may be able to avoid the high blood pressure after >>large meals by avoiding large meals,
> duh
>>but he will likely have high blood >>pressure in other situations as well.
>>Thorsten
> You have no way of knowing that, what a load you are.
Neither have you a way of knowing that this is not the case. But his doctor may know more about this and may have had his reasons why he put the OP on medication.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:36:01 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote: > MU schrieb: >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:26:27 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote:
> [...] >>>which is not the same, particularly if >>>those large meals are only eaten occasionally.
>> Ah so overconsumption is *never* one meal.
>> Bzzzzzzzzt.
>> Wrong. One, many, several...all in context, T-Bone.
> The context being that the OP usually eats "like a mouse" as he states > himself. You have to pay attention. So overall there is hardly any > overconsumption.
This reading w/ comprehension thing, it's dragging you down, T-Bone.
To quote: "My blood pressure used to go from normal range of 120/70 up to 190/105 after eating large *meals*.
Overconsumption any way you cut it or wish to spin it.
>>>Second, as I wrote before, healthy people don't have a blood pressure of >>>190/105 or 200/105 just because they ate a large meal.
>> Really, how lucid of you.
>>>So the OP faces a >>>medical problem.
>> Caused by his overconsumption.
> No.
By his own definition and report, once again
To quote: "My blood pressure used to go from normal range of 120/70 up to 190/105 after eating large meals. It would take an hour to three hours for it to come back down."
This is painful for you.
>>>He may be able to avoid the high blood pressure after >>>large meals by avoiding large meals,
>> duh
>>>but he will likely have high blood >>>pressure in other situations as well.
>>>Thorsten
>> You have no way of knowing that, what a load you are.
> Neither have you a way of knowing that this is not the case.
But I'm not the one who made the claim, you are. Spin it, T-Bone, it still isn't getting any better for you.
>But his > doctor may know more about this and may have had his reasons why he put > the OP on medication.
> Thorsten
duh.
You're an ass but I feel in the giving mood so.............
I have some helpful information for you.
There are exactly two categories of people who might read any article you post. The first group comprises those who know you're a liar, spin doctor, speaker of the obvious, and a waffling blitherer. The second includes only those who have never heard of you..
Your spins and incoherent nonsense just give the first group an opportunity to laugh at you, and any of the second group who see that crap will immediately migrate to the first.
If you want to maintain as good an image as possible, your best bet?
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:28:08 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote: > MU schrieb: >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:18:18 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>>MU schrieb:
>>>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:35:17 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>>>>MU schrieb:
>>>>>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:17:18 -0600, Michael wrote:
>>>>>>>Many others here are able to control their BG with a much less severe >>>>>>>diet. I like decaffeinated black coffee. I cannot drink it because it >>>>>>>elevates my BG. I have no idea why. Just different body chemistry.
>>>>>>>The lesson I have learned here is to test, test, and test some more. >>>>>>>Always eat to the meter. The foods that we can and cannot eat are >>>>>>>different for everyone.
>>>>>>Point being, once you have found that overconsuming food in general or >>>>>>foods in particular, don't overconsume.
>>>>>>Again, the basis for the 2 PD Diet.
>>>>>Isn't the official party line these days that the 2 PD is an approach >>>>>and not a diet?
>>>>I don't know, I don't belong to any "party".
>>>>YMMV.
>>>Oh, sorry. I forgot that the 2-PD approach only has two believers. Yeah, >>>that certainly wouldn't qualify as a party.
>> Wrong again
> Oh, are you three or even four?
>> but you knew that because you have followed Chung and I >> arond like a little lapdog for a decade now.
>> Why lie? Everyone knows when yu do so why do it?
> I remember well Dr.......<snipped spin and diversion>
There you go again, T-Bone, the non answer answer.
<remainder of T-Bone spin doctoring and blithering edited out for its complete uselessness>
Sue Mullen wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:25:24 +0100, BDR529 wrote:
>> Sue Mullen wrote: >>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:57:33 +0100, BDR529 wrote:
>>>> You're right, Wendell T Stamps was the newbie, not Wendy Baker of >>>> course. I owe you a blow job. >>> Get a room. >> This is a genuine nutcracker.
>> Q
> nutcracker haha not bad for a slimey troll.
Three scientists in heaven.
A mathematician, a physicist and a geologist sit in a car that is involved in a terrible accident. They all die and appear in front of Saint Peterus. He is now faced with the difficult task of deciding whether they should be allowed in heaven, and the following discussion takes place.
Saint Peterus asks the physicist `How was the world created?' The physicist answers that he believes that everything was created in a single big bang. `What did you say?' said Peterus `Ok, excuse me' said the physicist `It was created in six days and on the seventh there was only a small tremor'. Good, said Saint Peterus, the angels played, Heavens went open and the physicist entered.
Now Saint Peterus had to decide about the geologist and asked him: `who parted the Dead Sea?' `Well' said the geologist, `Nowadays we believe in plate tectonics, it is a very likely cause for the Dead Sea to open sir'. `What? What?' Petrus shouted, and the geologist became somewhat nervous. `Ok, sir, actually it was Mozes who did it and maybe he was helped by some minor crustal motions.' `Good! good!' said Saint Peterus, the angels played, Heavens went open and now also the geologist entered.
Finally Saint Peterus had to decide about the mathematician which he asked: `What did Eve respond to Adam in Genesis?' And now the trouble began, the poor mathematician had no clue and decided to ask the geologist and the physician who after all made it to heaven. `Hey geologist: do you know what Eve said?' `I have no clue, sorry' was the answer. `Hey physicist, I always helped you solving all your problems, do you know the answer?' `Sorry, too difficult for me!' replied the physicist.
`Boy, that is really a hard one!' the mathematician mumbled. Saint Peterus replied: `An excellent answer' the angels played, Heavens opened, and the mathematician joined his fellows.
Q
-- Type-2 diabetes since July 2009, 1000 mg/day metformin, BMI 26.3
"The only way to reverse/cure type-2 diabetes is by losing the VAT:"
All humans have vat, including the poster. It is normal and plays an important role in metabolism. As with many things it is when vat is in excess of the normal range does it pose a potential problem.
Vat is not alone the cause nor the lack of same the "cure" of diabetes.
The many reasons why the poster should think so and the flaws of fact and logic it presents have in past been provided him in detail.
Ignore it. Lose weight and vat will also be reduced. Exercise first and selectively reduces excess vat before weight loss and in combination works best.
There is at present no '"cure" for diabetes, one can only at best reverse symptoms with the underlying pathology remaining.
ver...@gefinden.com wrote: > "The only way to reverse/cure type-2 diabetes is by losing the VAT:"
> All humans have vat, including the poster. It is normal and plays an > important role in metabolism. As with many things it is when vat is in > excess of the normal range does it pose a potential problem.
> Vat is not alone the cause nor the lack of same the "cure" of diabetes.
> The many reasons why the poster should think so and the flaws of fact > and logic it presents have in past been provided him in detail.
> Ignore it. Lose weight and vat will also be reduced. Exercise first > and selectively reduces excess vat before weight loss and in combination > works best.
> There is at present no '"cure" for diabetes, one can only at best > reverse symptoms with the underlying pathology remaining.
You mean, if I lose weight then I pay less tax?
q
-- Type-2 diabetes since July 2009, 1000 mg/day metformin, BMI 26.3
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:03:50 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote: > MU schrieb: > [...]
>> If you want to maintain as good an image as possible, your best bet?
>> Shut up.
> Why don't you take your own advise if have to contribute nothing but > insults?
> HTH,
> Thorsten
Oh there you go again, snipping and diverting while I slice you and your arguments to pieces, T-Bone. Why not plainly admit you jumped into the middle of a discussion, posted a bunch of meaningless garbage, I called you out for it, you went into an egotistical tizzy whereupon MU cut your proverbial-Usenet legs out from under you.
You are an idiot clicking your heels together and wishing something were true. And a liar who would rather play kiddy games than face facts.
Now, you attack like a rabid Muppet on crack in your flailing of arms you are trying your best to hide that are a stone hypocrite. You have zero credibility after this discussion.
It's clear as a bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and defend them or deflect them when exposed. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.
Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:06:03 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote: > MU schrieb:
> [...]
>> There you go again, T-Bone, the non answer answer.
> Not the answer you liked, I take it, which is why you felt forced to > snip it. Afraid of facing the truth, are you?
> Thorsten
No, no answer at all. I am trying to be nice to you and cut your tripe but, oh my, you keep dropping your pants in public and I am going to have to whack your pee-pee yet again.
From this revealing thread which displays you coming apart at the seams from simple, calm questioning, unable to clearly state your case, ignoring the primary question of the OP and all of MUs, and inability to even answer back without maximum blustery hot air and hand waving, all without actually saying anything, it does not bode well for you to ever approach good standing again. Possibly you could care less.
Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good idea, and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly, you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.
Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's useful to the cardiological and diabetic communities, and implementing it.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:06:03 +0100, Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>MU schrieb:
>>[...]
>>>There you go again, T-Bone, the non answer answer.
>>Not the answer you liked, I take it, which is why you felt forced to >>snip it. Afraid of facing the truth, are you?
>>Thorsten
[...] > Possibly you could care less.
I fact, I couldn't care less about your opinion about me, I just consider the source. Interestingly, the reverse does not seem to be the case, because otherwise you wouldn't go on and on and on with your rantings about my alleged shortcomings.
|
