Then the group of skeptics would certainly be quieted, and I would too.
Doubt that.
They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will thank you for that. Or, give me something with which I can prove them to be wrong. They thrive because no one challenges them. The propositions forwarded by the skeptics have been ignored. In time their viewpoint may become held as truth. Please challenge them on our behalf or admit you have nothing with which to challenge even one of their assertions. The lack of challenge supports the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Then the group of skeptics would certainly be quieted, and I would too.
Doubt that.
They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will thank you for that.
Doubt that too. See Chef Pastorio in the 2PD discussions.
Quoted message said:
Or, give me something with which I can prove them to be wrong. They thrive because no one challenges them. The propositions forwarded by the skeptics have been ignored.
Not really.
Quoted message said:
In time their viewpoint may become held as truth.
Not based on the preponderance of clinical data.
Quoted message said:
Please challenge them on our behalf or admit you have nothing with which to challenge even one of their assertions.
Consider my response(s) to your posts as that challenge.
Quoted message said:
The lack of challenge supports the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Then the > group of skeptics would certainly be quieted, > and I would too.
Doubt that.
They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will thank you for that.
Doubt that too. See Chef Pastorio in the 2PD discussions.
Nice try.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Or, give me something with which I can prove them to be wrong. They thrive because no one challenges them. The propositions forwarded by the skeptics have been ignored.
Not really.
Then hold them to account for their writings, their teachings. Not just for yourself but for the benefit of your profession and mankind.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
In time their viewpoint may become held as truth.
Not based on the preponderance of clinical data.
Only based on the preponderance of clinical data generated by people indifferent to the outcome, the results.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Please challenge them on our behalf or admit you have nothing with which to challenge even one of their assertions.
Consider my response(s) to your posts as that challenge.
Please give me something other than "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said ...."
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The lack of challenge supports the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
I see you are up to your same old tripe. IF you ACTUALLY want to LEARN something then you COULD have a discussion where you don't change the subject and answer the other's points!
You either have an agenda and therefore intentionally ignore data and retorts or are too ignorant to understand. You have yet to respond directly to ANYTHING I have said and I suspect you pull the same [censored] in all your threads.
Please show me ,of the dozens and dozens of current peer reviewed literature, one study where there is a drop in total LDL that has either a negative or no affect on heart mortality or morbidity.
You are always asking for the proof. How about you either putting up or shutting up?
"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Then the group of skeptics would certainly be quieted, and I would too.
Doubt that.
They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will thank you for that. Or, give me something with which I can prove them to be wrong. They thrive because no one challenges them. The propositions forwarded by the skeptics have been ignored. In time their viewpoint may become held as truth. Please challenge them on our behalf or admit you have nothing with which to challenge even one of their assertions. The lack of challenge supports the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
If you find it impossible to be polite, at least help Dr. Chung with some scientific support.
You had been invited to critique the skeptics about a month ago but have, as yet, failed to indicate one flaw in their writings.
Why not try to help out with some positive findings to support your point of view?
A.L.
Patrick Ford said:
I see you are up to your same old tripe. IF you ACTUALLY want to LEARN something then you COULD have a discussion where you don't change the subject and answer the other's points!
You either have an agenda and therefore intentionally ignore data and retorts or are too ignorant to understand. You have yet to respond directly to ANYTHING I have said and I suspect you pull the same [censored] in all your threads.
Please show me ,of the dozens and dozens of current peer reviewed literature, one study where there is a drop in total LDL that has either a negative or no affect on heart mortality or morbidity.
You are always asking for the proof. How about you either putting up or shutting up?
"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Then the > group of skeptics would certainly be quieted, > and I would too.
Doubt that.
They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will thank you for that. Or, give me something with which I can prove them to be wrong. They thrive because no one challenges them. The propositions forwarded by the skeptics have been ignored. In time their viewpoint may become held as truth. Please challenge them on our behalf or admit you have nothing with which to challenge even one of their assertions. The lack of challenge supports the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
