• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The Guardian


Please re read the post in question.
I did not call you a hypocrite.
I said that that your posting style risked looking like hypocrisy.
There is a very clear distinction.

And, as always, I remind everyone of the forum rules.
Personal attacks are against the forum rules.
So are personal attacks framed as accusations of personal attacks.

If you think that my post insulted you, then you should have hit the Report button, so that the combined moderation team could consider the situation.

As the reported person I would not be involved in that discussion.

You can still report my post, if you wish.

I will quote it below, for ease of reference.

 
Indy51 said:
More on the EAT-Lancet consortium:

https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053-the-eat-lancet-commission-s-controversial-campaign.html
Click to expand...
This is an interesting article, but i am afraid that to me it comes across as a conspiracy theorist treatise. It may well be true, but as it talks about people and organisations that I have never heard of, I am unable to pass judgement on it.

All I can say is that whoever is behind the movement we see in action, they have a shedload of money to throw at it, enough to purchase scientific studies that they want to see and the media outlets to evangelise with. IMO they certainly have enough to buy silence. So if this article you post here is even partway close to the truth then they would make sure that it gets suppressed since they do not like being exposed. Bit like the theories over the Illuminati that circulated some years ago.

Considering the apparent high level of penetration, i.e. WHO, EU, governments, universities etc then we are certainly expecting some form of consortium with power to administer the activity, but whether it is as described in your post or someone else, then I remain unresolved on.
 
Will we still be able to follow a carnivore diet in 10 years time?
 
Just to clarify one point - not nitpicking at anyone in particular - the commonly accepted definition of an “essential” nutrient is one that is required to support life. Without which we will die quite quickly. Fatty acids and amino acids being the obvious examples. In my opinion, based on my research, there is no carbohydrate that fits this description. If humans required carbohydrate in order to thrive, our evolutionary stream would have frozen over millions of years ago during the first winter in the northern hemisphere after Adam and Eve got married. We wouldn’t be having this conversation.

To the best of my knowledge, it has been scientifically proven that humans can thrive without carbohydrate, and therefore fibre. That doesn’t mean there are no benefits in some individuals, or even entire populations, but it does mean that one cannot conflate low-carb with low-fibre and premature death. Which is exactly what all these studies and pieces are attempting to assert.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guzzler said:
This presentation does not directly concern the OP but it is pertinent (and timely) as it concerns epidemiology and CoI. Less than 18 minutes of common sense.

Click to expand...
Very relevant to our discussions.
 
bulkbiker said:
The Guardian is almost 100% behind the vegan WFPB agenda mainly down to George Monbiot I fear...
Click to expand...

Trust is broken.

Little wonder the disconnect between Elite and Commoner has grown so much in recent years.

I grew up with blind faith in the medical profession.

In 2018 I was shocked sober.

I filled the prescription for statins so as not to be red flagged or even booted from medical office but promptly flushed them.
 
2019 MSM Definition definitions

1. Fad Diet: one that threatens Pharma & Food Industry

2. Eco Friendly: Vegan

3. Climate Change (formerly “global warming”): Vegan

4. Far Right Terrorists: Vegan rejectors

5. Tolerance: Tyranny, imposition

6. “Best Practice”: best practice for Pharma, Food Industry & Medical establishment

7. Low Risk Medication: high profit & dangerous side effects

8. Registered Dietician: Obese pontificator Shilling for job security

9. Diabetes Expert: Rx pusher

10. Expert Scientist: funded studies

11. “Settled” Science: results so weak that healthy scientific scrutiny must be squashed

12. “Moderation”: high sugars

13. “Balanced Diet”: foods guaranteed to benefit your doctor, pharmacist, Diabetes and Food Industry while harming patients

14. Scare Mongering: do the opposite to benefit health.

15. “Health Extremist”: one who takes control of his or her own health & that of their children

16. “Flu Epidemic” (CDC, US): inflated stats designed to insulate and enriched govt agency heads by sitting on the boards of Pharma


Name calling: “we can’t answer your common sense response”
All humorous exaggerations but it’s based on current events.
 



Jim

I love vegetables but am open to several possibilities. In spite of great health results there are still issues where I wonder if my vegetables are to blame.

A. Where I was born & live: should I only eat them in season?

B. Our $ competition with genetic modification, poor soil management, pesticides...damaged.

In late summer/early Fall, we only ate local farm produced vegetables. We (my wife & I) both report feeling better than versus now.

C. Simply, I don’t need them

Since embracing natural fat, I rarely snack & have not struggled w hunger.

With veggies flown in, I’ve found that after a salad and veggies w meals, it’s closer to the hunger every 2 hours that we had not experienced before.

I have been a “meat & potatoes & vegetables” eater my entire life...until I learned I was Type 2.

It’s unfamiliar to look at a plate without variety (anyone else?)

Recently we had steak plus sausage. I’ve added some small seafood too. I got some variety w/o adding carbs

I think I’m going to lay off veggies for a month & see if my stomach improves & even a few more lbs drop off.

I’d like to drop 10lbs though BF calculator using sex, age, height, weight, waist & neck circumference has me less than 15%.

Yet w BMI, I am just barely out of overweight category.

I welcome thoughts, criticism & recommendations from all

Personal experiences of others is inspiring.
 

Whatever works for you and keeps you healthy. You seem to have your head screwed on so I’m sure you don’t need the likes of The Guardian to ensure you get all your nutrients, and I’m quite sure you don’t necessarily need vegetables in order to get them. I’m not immediately aware of any food sources that contain a specific micronutrient that you can’t also get from somewhere else.
 
Jim Lahey said:
it has been scientifically proven that humans can thrive without carbohydrate, and therefore fibre
Click to expand...
As I said before, we do not need the glucose from carbohydrates, that says nothing about the need for fibre.
 
Mr_Pot said:
As I said before, we do not need the glucose from carbohydrates, that says nothing about the need for fibre.
Click to expand...

I subscribe to the idea that we do not need carbohydrate therefore we do not need fibre but I don’t wish to labour that point

I personally get tons of the stuff from green vegetables, but I don’t believe it’s absolutely necessary for good health. The micronutrients that some fibre-containing foods offer us are a different matter of course, but anyone who is well informed on proper nutrition will know where to get them from. They don’t need Boseley and her motley crew standing in judgement.

I know this is not your view necessarily, but this whole notion that low carb eaters are reckless fools that need mainstream press to tell them what to eat is preposterous. As I’ve said before, it’s my view that most of us in the LCHF world will take great pride in proper nutrition. It would be interesting to compare arterial calcification scans between a handful of carnivores and the holier-than-thou health & fitness editing staff at The Guardian.
 
bulkbiker said:
And Marco Springmann.. he of the veganism will "save" hundreds of thousands of lives and "we need a meat tax"...
Click to expand...
I have now checked up on about half the named authors of the EAT Lancet report, and the majority are either vegan or vegetarian, and only one seems to be non veggie. There is totally no way that this body is ever going to produce an 'independant research paper'.

This collaboration proves that the Lancet is now Vegan, as several of the names are either Lancet staff or Lancet auhors. There is one declared Eco Activist from Beirut. There is one Green Revolutionary from Pretoria. Most have published anti meat papers in their own names before this collaboration.
 

They are taking over the world.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
They are taking over the world.
Click to expand...
Yes I think they would. It seems to be their agenda in no uncertain terms. They feel the need for control. Nothing to do with the animals, its just a power grab,
 
Guzzler said:
Are you really trying to stifle debate by pulling rank?
Click to expand...
No, but any scientist would find the dismissal of an entire field of science as hocus pocus highly insulting, particularly when this critique appears to come from a person without any apparent scientific background (I admit I could be very wrong about this).
It seems particularly fitting of this forum that this sentiment attracts more agreement than criticism.
Science is not a matter of opinion, where you can choose what to believe based on personal preference. Any opinion can be found somewhere in print or online. More weight is given to certain well qualified researchers because the scientific community recognises their skills and experience. It is not a global conspiracy to make people either eat processed food, become vegan, or become diabetic (all of which I have seen expressed on this forum).
 

You don't just pick which 'experts' to believe, you weigh the evidence that they provide, not their opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…