Why Did "Aids Baby" Eliza Jane Really Die?

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
JanD wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range." Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at keeping
it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative." They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say, produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical
corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical
thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


I'm rubbing my forehead in what amounts to mild dismay at your
depressingly obtuse approach to discussion.

Yes, I said the above, but did you notice the very next sentence?



Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.


NOT a cure. You are using my statement that it *isn't* a cure to
somehow bolster your argument that there *is* a cure for diabetes.

Am I the only one mystified by this bizarre doublespeak?



The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive attention
to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases
gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin injections
in
the end.


I have to disagree. If an obese, sedentary Type II diabetic changes
those factors for good, they will probably not progress to insulin
dependence. But the changes have to be permanent or, like my
acquaintance, the diabetes will recur.


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant. But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening (usually
type-I).


NO!


Actually, YES! Pancreatic transplants have occurred, and they "cure"
diabetes, but at the expense of lifelong dependence on anti-rejection
drugs.

Mark, MD


There's real hope for a "prosthetic pancreas," i.e.: a computer-controlled
homeostatic insulin pump. Insulin pumps exist already, but a pump that
actually measures the blood sugar at frequent intervals and administers an
appropriate dose of insulin in real time is under development. The patient
would only have to refill the reservoir every few months. The surgery to
implant the pump is minor, and no anti-rejection drugs are necessary. And
the technology works for both type-I and type-II disease.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD(ishonest) wrote:
"HCN" wrote in message
. ..

"cathyb" wrote in message
groups.com...

JanD wrote:

...snip....

Since testing positive in 1992, Christine has lived without illness or

AIDS

medications and is the mother of two exceptionally healthy children,

both

born with no medical interventions.


Poor Rosalind.

Gee... why does this look familiar? Oh, wait.. I know! I posted it a
almost a week ago! Check it out:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e1e2810972d8c7



Obviously JanD dismissed it as a "lie", only to post it HERSELF!!!!!!
(is
that enough exclamation marks?)

But when I posted I was called a "liar"...


OOOPPPPSSSS. Now, how do you suppose HCN would know that, since he
claims to
have me killfiled?!?!

Maybe because HCN reads others posts who quote you. IIRC at one time you
claimed to have me and others killfiled, but you still responded to us
when others quoted us.

Exactly.

Plus, since my laptop is in the shop I must post from a very flakey 6 year
old Win-98 laptop that has a tenuous connection to the wireless network (its
hardwire network connection hasn't worked in 4 years) -- even though it is
10 feet away from the transmitter... I sometimes check out
http://groups.google.com . Of course ANYone would have known that since I
used a groups.google link in my post.





Imagine that...whining about what you yourself did....

As a matter of FACT, *I* did NOT call YOU a liar, HCN!!!!!! (is that
enough
exclamation marks?)

NOW, who is lying?!?! (is that enough question marks + exclamation
marks?)

until SHE posts it on Usenet... calling herself one of the of only two
who
tell the truth....

Now, now, HCN, do tell the *whole* truth*

http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5

THE ONLY TWO HONEST PEOPLE IN THE THREAD WERE IIENA AND MYSELF.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Ain't hypocrisy grand?


Ain't it awful when LIARS are caught!!!!

[snip Rosalind crap]

Perhaps HCN isn't aware, I don't read her crap.


Even though JanD seems to respond to me... yet I have never ever responded
directly to her.



One of the reasons I killfiled Jan Drew


(2222 funny, he claims too, and then claims, I called him a liar, of
course
that was a made up LIE)

and Ilena Rose is because of this.

Ho hum.


For some reason Jan thinks that a child who is dead is "exceptionally
healthy".


What a load of crap.

[snip more of same]

"Rich" wrote in message
...

"JanD" wrote in message
news:fUnnf.622634$_o.125740@attbi_s71...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote

[snip]

Snipping does not remove the truth:

Dumber than a box of rocks shows he is a liar again.


ROTFL! If YOU were smarter than a box of rocks, you would realize that you
just made the argument that snipping DOES remove the truth.

Poor Rich.

Actually, Mark posting again shows his repeated lies.

Anything to say about those lies huh, Rich?

Edited for focus

Remember, last year Hulda's Henchmen agreed that they could not
prove her claims.

I see Mark is repeating this LIE.


He can NOT show where they did any such thing.


Because he made up this LIE.



http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/02230...tip0223051.pdf


Hulda's Henchmen have agreed that she is practicing quackery and that they
cannot legally sell her crap in the United States.


The word *quackery* is NOT used.


LIE #1.


In the US. is NOT listed.


LIE #2.


There was NO agreement that anyone could not prove any claim


LIE #3.


I don't suppose, you can see any lies there?







--Rich

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
JanD wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range." Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at keeping
it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative." They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say, produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical
corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical
thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


I'm rubbing my forehead in what amounts to mild dismay at your
depressingly obtuse approach to discussion.

Why are you rubbing your head doc, remember you have already classified me
as illiterate?

Trying to make points with Rich, doc?



Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.




NOT a cure. You are using my statement that it *isn't* a cure to
somehow bolster your argument that there *is* a cure for diabetes.

That't it! That's it!

I used your statement to bolster my argument that I have put forth all over
the place about a *cure* for diabetes!

Let's see.

Now where was that?

Am I the only one mystified by this bizarre doublespeak?

Oh, of course not, I am mystified also!

Where is this bizarre doublespeak?

Where is this that I spoke of a *cure* for diabetes?

Help me out here, doc.

I just can't remember. Do show me.

Now don't forget to answer.





The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive attention
to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases
gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin injections
in
the end.


I have to disagree. If an obese, sedentary Type II diabetic changes
those factors for good, they will probably not progress to insulin
dependence. But the changes have to be permanent or, like my
acquaintance, the diabetes will recur.


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant. But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening (usually
type-I).


NO!


Actually, YES! Pancreatic transplants have occurred, and they "cure"
diabetes, but at the expense of lifelong dependence on anti-rejection
drugs.

Mark, MD

Actually, if diet and routine moderate exercise are followed that is NOT
necessary!

Is that correct, doc?

One big problem for the implantable all-in-one sensor and
pump/reservoir systems is that a fibrinous capsule eventually grows
around the sensor. Well, it grows around all of it, but when this
sheath grows around the sensor, the accurate measurement of blood
glucose is perturbed and the system quits working at optimum.

They've been working on it for quite some time, and I'm confident that
it'll be workable someday, but it's going to take a while.

One interim solution might be an internal pump coupled to an external
glucose monitor. However frequently one wants to stick one's
finger/forearm/etc., you do so. Then the data is fed to the pump's
computer, and the appropriate dose of insulin is administered. Of
course, this would only work while you're awake, and if you were really
diligent about *frequent* monitoring, you'd wind up with a zillion
little pinpricks all over your body, but it's an intriguing idea.

Oh yeah! I almost forgot to stay on topic. Ummm...Baby Eliza Jane
died because her mother is an idiot. Al-Bayati wouldn't know an
autopsy if he fell facefirst into it. And Jan will argue against *any*
point a so-called "conventional medicine" proponent makes.

Here's an idea! How about all us EOM types start saying that the sun
rises in the east! If we say it enough, Jan is bound to eventually
call us all liars and argue that it comes upward from the South Pole!
This'll be neat.

Mark, MD

"HCN" wrote in message
. ..

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD(ishonest) wrote:
"HCN" wrote in message
. ..

"cathyb" wrote in message
groups.com...

JanD wrote:

...snip....

Since testing positive in 1992, Christine has lived without illness
or

AIDS

medications and is the mother of two exceptionally healthy children,

both

born with no medical interventions.


Poor Rosalind.

Gee... why does this look familiar? Oh, wait.. I know! I posted it a
almost a week ago! Check it out:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e1e2810972d8c7



Obviously JanD dismissed it as a "lie", only to post it HERSELF!!!!!!
(is
that enough exclamation marks?)

But when I posted I was called a "liar"...


OOOPPPPSSSS. Now, how do you suppose HCN would know that, since he
claims to
have me killfiled?!?!

Maybe because HCN reads others posts who quote you. IIRC at one time you
claimed to have me and others killfiled, but you still responded to us
when others quoted us.

Exactly.

EXACTLY NOT.

I DID NOT CALL HCN A LIAR.

He did read this post. He saw I did not call him a liar. He KNOWS he LIED.



Plus, since my laptop is in the shop I must post from a very flakey 6 year
old Win-98 laptop that has a tenuous connection to the wireless network
(its
hardwire network connection hasn't worked in 4 years) -- even though it is
10 feet away from the transmitter... I sometimes check out
http://groups.google.com . Of course ANYone would have known that since I
used a groups.google link in my post.





Imagine that...whining about what you yourself did....

As a matter of FACT, *I* did NOT call YOU a liar, HCN!!!!!! (is that
enough
exclamation marks?)

NOW, who is lying?!?! (is that enough question marks + exclamation
marks?)

until SHE posts it on Usenet... calling herself one of the of only two
who
tell the truth....

Now, now, HCN, do tell the *whole* truth*

http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5

THE ONLY TWO HONEST PEOPLE IN THE THREAD WERE IIENA AND MYSELF.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Ain't hypocrisy grand?


Ain't it awful when LIARS are caught!!!!

[snip Rosalind crap]

Perhaps HCN isn't aware, I don't read her crap.


Even though JanD seems to respond to me... yet I have never ever responded
directly to her.


And you didn't respond to the points in this post! YOU know you did NOT tell
the whole truth,

YOU know Orac is a LIAR.

YOU know Mark Probert is a LIAR.


One of the reasons I killfiled Jan Drew


(2222 funny, he claims too, and then claims, I called him a liar, of
course
that was a made up LIE)

and Ilena Rose is because of this.

Ho hum.


For some reason Jan thinks that a child who is dead is "exceptionally
healthy".

ABSURD!


What a load of crap.

[snip more of same]

JanD wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
JanD wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range." Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at keeping
it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative." They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say, produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical
corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical
thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


I'm rubbing my forehead in what amounts to mild dismay at your
depressingly obtuse approach to discussion.

Why are you rubbing your head doc, remember you have already classified me
as illiterate?

Trying to make points with Rich, doc?



Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.




NOT a cure. You are using my statement that it *isn't* a cure to
somehow bolster your argument that there *is* a cure for diabetes.

That't it! That's it!

I used your statement to bolster my argument that I have put forth all over
the place about a *cure* for diabetes!

Let's see.

Now where was that?


(I love it when you look like a dolt. Not that it's hard to find, but
when you ask a snotty question and leave yourself open for a slam dunk,
it's just so delicious!)

In an earlier exchange with Peter Bowditch, he said:

"Jan, I have an incurable disease" in reference to his recently
revealed Type II diabetes.

You replied:

"NO YOU DO NOT"

....thereby implying that Type II diabetes is indeed curable. I pointed
out that it is *treatable*, but not curable. And you used a quote of
mine to somehow back up your apparent claim that Type II diabetes is
not incurable...but you continued to quote the part where I said it
*isn't* curable.


Am I the only one mystified by this bizarre doublespeak?

Oh, of course not, I am mystified also!

Where is this bizarre doublespeak?


"Type II diabetes is too curable! Just look at this quote where a
doctor says it isn't curable, but it is treatable!"


Where is this that I spoke of a *cure* for diabetes?


You never outlined a cure, but you did insist to Peter Bowditch that
his disease *wasn't* incurable.


Help me out here, doc.

I just can't remember. Do show me.


Did it. See above.


Now don't forget to answer.


Did it. See above.






The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive attention
to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases
gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin injections
in
the end.


I have to disagree. If an obese, sedentary Type II diabetic changes
those factors for good, they will probably not progress to insulin
dependence. But the changes have to be permanent or, like my
acquaintance, the diabetes will recur.


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant. But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening (usually
type-I).


NO!


Actually, YES! Pancreatic transplants have occurred, and they "cure"
diabetes, but at the expense of lifelong dependence on anti-rejection
drugs.

Mark, MD

Actually, if diet and routine moderate exercise are followed that is NOT
necessary!

Is that correct, doc?


Correct-a-mundo. If diet and exercise (and weight loss) are observed,
you have initiated a *treatment* for Type II diabetes...but not a
"cure". Learn the difference, babe...it's an important one.

Mark, MD

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
JanD wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
JanD wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range."
Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at
keeping
it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay
special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative."
They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say,
produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical
corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy
that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical
thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


I'm rubbing my forehead in what amounts to mild dismay at your
depressingly obtuse approach to discussion.

Why are you rubbing your head doc, remember you have already classified
me
as illiterate?

Trying to make points with Rich, doc?



Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.




NOT a cure. You are using my statement that it *isn't* a cure to
somehow bolster your argument that there *is* a cure for diabetes.

That't it! That's it!

I used your statement to bolster my argument that I have put forth all
over
the place about a *cure* for diabetes!

Let's see.

Now where was that?


(I love it when you look like a dolt.

Right back at cha.

You looked like one, when in fact you said:

Hulda DOES claim to be able to cure cancer with her Zapper.


Not that it's hard to find, but
when you ask a snotty question

Oh my, just exactly what part of:

Now where was that?

Do you find *snotty*?

and leave yourself open for a slam dunk,
it's just so delicious!)

My, my you are wierd.

In an earlier exchange with Peter Bowditch, he said:

"Jan, I have an incurable disease" in reference to his recently
revealed Type II diabetes.

You replied:

"NO YOU DO NOT"

...thereby implying that Type II diabetes is indeed curable.

OOOPPPPSSSSS.

YOUR twisting of *implying* will NOT work.

The FACT is, nowhere have I ever that there is a *cure* for diabetes.


I pointed
out that it is *treatable*, but not curable. And you used a quote of
mine to somehow back up your apparent claim that Type II diabetes is
not incurable..

Well, no I did no such thing. Peter had mentioned, that alt. practitioners
did know about nutrition.

I suggested, he start there, and told him what works, does work. At NO time
did I ever make any claims, period.

Then you made your post.

..but you continued to quote the part where I said it
*isn't* curable.

Wrong.

Go back up and look.


Am I the only one mystified by this bizarre doublespeak?

Oh, of course not, I am mystified also!

Where is this bizarre doublespeak?


"Type II diabetes is too curable! Just look at this quote where a
doctor says it isn't curable, but it is treatable!"


Where is this that I spoke of a *cure* for diabetes?


You never outlined a cure, but you did insist to Peter Bowditch that
his disease *wasn't* incurable.

NO, I did NOT insist!

Help me out here, doc.

I just can't remember. Do show me.


Did it. See above.

NO, you did NOT.

You twisted it into *implied*

Now don't forget to answer.


Did it. See above.

Did NOT, see above.

I meant, Peter was NOT going to die!

Nowhere did I say there was a *cure* for diabetes.






The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive
attention
to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases
gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin
injections
in
the end.


I have to disagree. If an obese, sedentary Type II diabetic changes
those factors for good, they will probably not progress to insulin
dependence. But the changes have to be permanent or, like my
acquaintance, the diabetes will recur.


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant.
But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a
great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening
(usually
type-I).


NO!


Actually, YES! Pancreatic transplants have occurred, and they "cure"
diabetes, but at the expense of lifelong dependence on anti-rejection
drugs.

Mark, MD

Actually, if diet and routine moderate exercise are followed that is NOT
necessary!

Is that correct, doc?


Correct-a-mundo. If diet and exercise (and weight loss) are observed,
you have initiated a *treatment* for Type II diabetes...but not a
"cure". Learn the difference, babe...it's an important one.

Mark, MD

Thank you, I know the difference, babe.

Peter: "Jan, I have an incurable disease." (referencing Peter's Type
II diabetes)

Jan: "NO, you DO NOT."

Somehow, Jan turns this into a denial that she ever implied that Type
II diabetes is curable. Obfuscation at its Special Olympics best...
(unless Jan is saying that Peter lied about having Type II diabetes)

Mark, MD

P.S. I'm sorry if my comparison to the Special Olympics has insulted
any Special Olympians. I have known and worked with many of these fine
individuals, and I'm sorry if I have sullied their good names and
reputations by bringing Jan Drew's name into even tangential contact
with them.

P.P.S. Jan, have you gotten into contact with Dr. Bennett's residency
program director yet?

JanD wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
JanD wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
JanD wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range."
Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at
keeping
it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay
special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative."
They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say,
produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical
corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy
that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical
thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


I'm rubbing my forehead in what amounts to mild dismay at your
depressingly obtuse approach to discussion.

Why are you rubbing your head doc, remember you have already classified
me
as illiterate?

Trying to make points with Rich, doc?



Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.




NOT a cure. You are using my statement that it *isn't* a cure to
somehow bolster your argument that there *is* a cure for diabetes.

That't it! That's it!

I used your statement to bolster my argument that I have put forth all
over
the place about a *cure* for diabetes!

Let's see.

Now where was that?


(I love it when you look like a dolt.

Right back at cha.

You looked like one, when in fact you said:

Hulda DOES claim to be able to cure cancer with her Zapper.


Not that it's hard to find, but
when you ask a snotty question

Oh my, just exactly what part of:

Now where was that?

Do you find *snotty*?

and leave yourself open for a slam dunk,
it's just so delicious!)

My, my you are wierd.

In an earlier exchange with Peter Bowditch, he said:

"Jan, I have an incurable disease" in reference to his recently
revealed Type II diabetes.

You replied:

"NO YOU DO NOT"

...thereby implying that Type II diabetes is indeed curable.

OOOPPPPSSSSS.

YOUR twisting of *implying* will NOT work.

The FACT is, nowhere have I ever that there is a *cure* for diabetes.

Jan's right. She didn't imply it. She said it straight out.

Someone said it was incurable. She said it wasn't. Now she's lying.

" Jan, I have an incurable disease.

NO. you do NOT. "




I pointed
out that it is *treatable*, but not curable. And you used a quote of
mine to somehow back up your apparent claim that Type II diabetes is
not incurable..

Well, no I did no such thing. Peter had mentioned, that alt. practitioners
did know about nutrition.

I suggested, he start there, and told him what works, does work. At NO time
did I ever make any claims, period.

Then you made your post.

.but you continued to quote the part where I said it
*isn't* curable.

Wrong.

Go back up and look.


Am I the only one mystified by this bizarre doublespeak?

Oh, of course not, I am mystified also!

Where is this bizarre doublespeak?


"Type II diabetes is too curable! Just look at this quote where a
doctor says it isn't curable, but it is treatable!"


Where is this that I spoke of a *cure* for diabetes?


You never outlined a cure, but you did insist to Peter Bowditch that
his disease *wasn't* incurable.


NO, I did NOT insist!

" Jan, I have an incurable disease.

NO. you do NOT."



Help me out here, doc.

I just can't remember. Do show me.


Did it. See above.

NO, you did NOT.

You twisted it into *implied*

Now don't forget to answer.


Did it. See above.

Did NOT, see above.

I meant, Peter was NOT going to die!

Gosh; that'll be a first.


Nowhere did I say there was a *cure* for diabetes.

" Jan, I have an incurable disease.

NO. you do NOT."









The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive
attention
to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases
gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin
injections
in
the end.


I have to disagree. If an obese, sedentary Type II diabetic changes
those factors for good, they will probably not progress to insulin
dependence. But the changes have to be permanent or, like my
acquaintance, the diabetes will recur.


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant.
But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a
great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening
(usually
type-I).


NO!


Actually, YES! Pancreatic transplants have occurred, and they "cure"
diabetes, but at the expense of lifelong dependence on anti-rejection
drugs.

Mark, MD

Actually, if diet and routine moderate exercise are followed that is NOT
necessary!

Is that correct, doc?


Correct-a-mundo. If diet and exercise (and weight loss) are observed,
you have initiated a *treatment* for Type II diabetes...but not a
"cure". Learn the difference, babe...it's an important one.

Mark, MD

Thank you, I know the difference, babe.

Evidently you do not, bint.