Indian paradox

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Well, we have French and Spanish paradox, what about Indian paradox?

http://tinyurl.com/7yf6b

"The anthropometry, lipid profile and dietary characteristics of 114
patients with chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) were evaluated.

"The mean dietary fat consumption was only 22% of total calories. Of
this, SFA was 7.5%, MUFA was 7.5% and PUFA was 7%. Only 14% patients
were consuming more than 30% percent calories in the form of fats. The
mean cholesterol intake was only 31 mg/day. No patient was taking more
than 200 mg of cholesterol per day. Only 7% of patients were consuming
more than 100 mg/day of cholesterol. The daily fibre intake was 48 + 32
grams.

"The popular misconception that coronary atherosclerosis is a disease of
affluence and indulgence, needs to be critically re-examined. Despite
the lower body weights and higher prevalence of vegetarianism in India
as compared to the West, coronary atherosclerosis is widely present in
our country.

Any plans to write "3 countries study" ? 🙂

Mirek

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

Wonder if anyone has looked at homocysteine levels here. Deficiencies
in vitamins B6 and B12 are common in vegetarians and can elevate
homocysteine levels. Folic acid intake is probably OK on a veg diet if
leafy greens are consumed although many so called vegetarians live
mostly on grain products.

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Well, we have French and Spanish paradox, what about Indian paradox?

http://tinyurl.com/7yf6b

"The anthropometry, lipid profile and dietary characteristics of 114
patients with chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) were evaluated.

"The mean dietary fat consumption was only 22% of total calories. Of
this, SFA was 7.5%, MUFA was 7.5% and PUFA was 7%. Only 14% patients
were consuming more than 30% percent calories in the form of fats. The
mean cholesterol intake was only 31 mg/day. No patient was taking more
than 200 mg of cholesterol per day. Only 7% of patients were consuming
more than 100 mg/day of cholesterol. The daily fibre intake was 48 + 32
grams.

"The popular misconception that coronary atherosclerosis is a disease of
affluence and indulgence, needs to be critically re-examined. Despite
the lower body weights and higher prevalence of vegetarianism in India
as compared to the West, coronary atherosclerosis is widely present in
our country.

Any plans to write "3 countries study" ? 🙂

Mirek

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Well, we have French and Spanish paradox, what about Indian paradox?

http://tinyurl.com/7yf6b

"The anthropometry, lipid profile and dietary characteristics of 114
patients with chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) were evaluated.

"The mean dietary fat consumption was only 22% of total calories. Of
this, SFA was 7.5%, MUFA was 7.5% and PUFA was 7%. Only 14% patients
were consuming more than 30% percent calories in the form of fats. The
mean cholesterol intake was only 31 mg/day. No patient was taking more
than 200 mg of cholesterol per day. Only 7% of patients were consuming
more than 100 mg/day of cholesterol. The daily fibre intake was 48 + 32
grams.

"The popular misconception that coronary atherosclerosis is a disease of
affluence and indulgence, needs to be critically re-examined. Despite
the lower body weights and higher prevalence of vegetarianism in India
as compared to the West, coronary atherosclerosis is widely present in
our country.

Any plans to write "3 countries study" ? 🙂

Mirek

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

Yes but its funny how people ignore this fact just as they ignore
healthy high fat eating populations. Anything that does not fit into
their flawed preconceived notions is disregarded. Definitely not real
science. The fact is there is no "paradox" either way. There is
simply poor understanding of the situation. There is only a paradox
to those who are wrong in their ideas. The fact that they have
paradoxes on both ends of their ridiculous theories is proof enough
that they are completely wrong.

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

Studies have shown that vegetarian diets get the better hand only in
western, industrialized countries. The Indian kitchen is not known for
its health benefits. On reason might be that people can't afford to
eat such a variety of foods as the vegetarians in developed countries
can. Also the hot climate combined with lack of refridgerating
equipment has limited the possibility to use fresh, raw foods in
cooking. A vegetarian diet that is based on the use of white rice,
dahls (lentils) and white bread and little cooked vegetables is too
unbalanced.

Jan

"Jan" <[email hidden]> píse v diskusním príspevku
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

Studies have shown that vegetarian diets get the better hand only in
western, industrialized countries. The Indian kitchen is not known for
its health benefits. On reason might be that people can't afford to
eat such a variety of foods as the vegetarians in developed countries
can. Also the hot climate combined with lack of refridgerating
equipment has limited the possibility to use fresh, raw foods in
cooking. A vegetarian diet that is based on the use of white rice,
dahls (lentils) and white bread and little cooked vegetables is too
unbalanced.

I agree. But the real reason why I posted about India is to show how
inconclusive are large scale population studies.

In 7 countries study, fat was positively associated with coronary. Now I
show here example of 3 countries with exactly oposite situation as an
indication that there possibly is _might_ be something wrong with the
fat-disease theory....

As long as I can remember, nobody even bothered to explain chronic
diseases in classical fat consumption studies by another factors. But
any time there is some situation where fat is high and chronic disease
low or vice versa, "explanation" is always at the hand.

Mirek

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

Studies have shown that vegetarian diets get the better hand only in
western, industrialized countries. The Indian kitchen is not known for
its health benefits. On reason might be that people can't afford to
eat such a variety of foods as the vegetarians in developed countries
can. Also the hot climate combined with lack of refridgerating
equipment has limited the possibility to use fresh, raw foods in
cooking. A vegetarian diet that is based on the use of white rice,
dahls (lentils) and white bread and little cooked vegetables is too
unbalanced.

Jan

If we apply your narrow minded logic to this picture we could say
vegetarian diets are in fact the cause heart disease. that is EXACTLY
what you are doing when you say meat/animal fat diet is the cause. Do
you really not understand that? Do you even connect the dots of what
you are saying. Do you realize the biased unscientific nature of your
statements and assumptions? The way you brush off something like this
as nothing without, by the way, giving the reason for such
extaordinary rates of heart disease? Even when these people have
three times the rate of heart disease as unhealthy WESTERN meat eating
populations (forget about HEALTHY meat eating populations, this is 3
times more than WESTERN diets) despite the fact they eat almost no
meat and animal fat which you claim is the major cause of heart
disease!?? do you just make up things as you go? You can not have it
both ways. Think about the logic of what you are saying. animal
protein/fat is bad and causes heart disease. Vegetarian diet is the
most healthy. It does not matter that there are populations that eat
most of their diet as meat and fat(the supposed cause of heart
disease) and have very little heart disease and it also does not
matter that there are mostly vegetarian populations that eat very
little meat and fat (again the supposed cause of heart disease) and
have 3 times the heart disease as the unhealthy western meat eating
populations. (which means it is several times more than that versus
healthy meat/fat eating populations). Yet meat/fat is the cause of
heart disease?? I know maybe they just need to drink more wine like
the French!!

(Wolfbrother) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

Studies have shown that vegetarian diets get the better hand only in
western, industrialized countries. The Indian kitchen is not known for
its health benefits. On reason might be that people can't afford to
eat such a variety of foods as the vegetarians in developed countries
can. Also the hot climate combined with lack of refridgerating
equipment has limited the possibility to use fresh, raw foods in
cooking. A vegetarian diet that is based on the use of white rice,
dahls (lentils) and white bread and little cooked vegetables is too
unbalanced.

Jan

If we apply your narrow minded logic to this picture we could say
vegetarian diets are in fact the cause heart disease. that is EXACTLY
what you are doing when you say meat/animal fat diet is the cause.

(...)

Quoted message said:

Even when these people have
three times the rate of heart disease as unhealthy WESTERN meat eating
populations (forget about HEALTHY meat eating populations, this is 3
times more than WESTERN diets) despite the fact they eat almost no
meat and animal fat which you claim is the major cause of heart
disease!??

You are partly right, Wolfbother (unintentional slip 🙂). Bad fats and
meat are not the only cause of heart disease. There are other factors
also. Among other things are (to name just few):
- eating too much refined carbs which creates insuline resistance in
the long run
- central body obesity
- too little folic acid, B6 or B12 intake which elevates the
homocysteine levels which in turn is an independent factor of heart
disease
- lack of protective antioxidants and phytochemicals like lycopene,
selenium, bioflavonoids etc.
- lack of exercise
- lack of good fats (e.g. omega-3)
- stress at workplace (men)
- lack of harmony in family relationships (women)

Although the vegetarian diets may promote heart disease in India the
same is not true in developed countries, quite the contrary. In
developed countries vegetarian diets are specifically an effect way to
prevent ischemic heart disease. And ischemic heart disease makes the
most of cardiovascular mortality. There is no doubt about that, this
is one of the clearest findings in the studies of vegetarian diets in
the West. But the opposite may be true in India.
I think that we should really focus on the protective role of
phytochemicals in food. As far as I know the Indian vegetarian diets
do not provide a wide range of different phytochemicals. Also the
quality of cooking fats is not good. In India _ghee_ - clarified
butter - is traditionally used in cooking - one further example that
saturated fat from milk is not healthy.

Jan

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(Wolfbrother) said:

Quoted message said:

>
> CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
> meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
> they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.
>
> TC

Studies have shown that vegetarian diets get the better hand only in
western, industrialized countries. The Indian kitchen is not known for
its health benefits. On reason might be that people can't afford to
eat such a variety of foods as the vegetarians in developed countries
can. Also the hot climate combined with lack of refridgerating
equipment has limited the possibility to use fresh, raw foods in
cooking. A vegetarian diet that is based on the use of white rice,
dahls (lentils) and white bread and little cooked vegetables is too
unbalanced.

Jan

If we apply your narrow minded logic to this picture we could say
vegetarian diets are in fact the cause heart disease. that is EXACTLY
what you are doing when you say meat/animal fat diet is the cause.

(...)

Quoted message said:

Even when these people have
three times the rate of heart disease as unhealthy WESTERN meat eating
populations (forget about HEALTHY meat eating populations, this is 3
times more than WESTERN diets) despite the fact they eat almost no
meat and animal fat which you claim is the major cause of heart
disease!??

You are partly right, Wolfbother (unintentional slip 🙂). Bad fats and
meat are not the only cause of heart disease. There are other factors
also. Among other things are (to name just few):
- eating too much refined carbs which creates insuline resistance in
the long run
- central body obesity
- too little folic acid, B6 or B12 intake which elevates the
homocysteine levels which in turn is an independent factor of heart
disease
- lack of protective antioxidants and phytochemicals like lycopene,
selenium, bioflavonoids etc.
- lack of exercise
- lack of good fats (e.g. omega-3)
- stress at workplace (men)
- lack of harmony in family relationships (women)

Although the vegetarian diets may promote heart disease in India the
same is not true in developed countries, quite the contrary. In
developed countries vegetarian diets are specifically an effect way to
prevent ischemic heart disease. And ischemic heart disease makes the
most of cardiovascular mortality. There is no doubt about that, this
is one of the clearest findings in the studies of vegetarian diets in
the West. But the opposite may be true in India.
I think that we should really focus on the protective role of
phytochemicals in food. As far as I know the Indian vegetarian diets
do not provide a wide range of different phytochemicals. Also the
quality of cooking fats is not good. In India _ghee_ - clarified
butter - is traditionally used in cooking - one further example that
saturated fat from milk is not healthy.

Jan

You are delusional. We are talking about 3 times the rate of heart
disease. You obviously do not comprehend the significance of that.
Your refusal to comprehend the FACTS that animal fats are not bad is
also very uninformed on your part and you have no business making any
kinds of absurd claims or recommendations about healthy diets with
such lack of knowlage and understanding. It is ridiculous the way you
continue to demonize animal fats over and over without a shred of real
evidence and dispite all the overwhelming facts that exist proving
animal fats to be not only not dangerous but very healthy. You refuse
to adress the very ORIGINES of the anti-saturated/animal fat campaign
and what elements were behind it. It is simply amazing the way you
ignore reality. Tell me are you an animal rights extremist of some
sort because your biased and blind views show through clearly and that
would certainly explain them.

Quoted message said:

quality of cooking fats is not good. In India _ghee_ - clarified
butter - is traditionally used in cooking - one further example that
saturated fat from milk is not healthy.

It was traditionaly used in cooking. Then it was considered unhealthy
and replaced by "healthy" and cheaper vegetable based fats. Current
situation is influenced more by PUFA than ghee. (That is not to say that
ghee was super healthy thing, I just wanted to clarify that it is not
used anymore).

Mirek

[email hidden] (Wolfbrother) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Well, we have French and Spanish paradox, what about Indian paradox?

http://tinyurl.com/7yf6b

"The anthropometry, lipid profile and dietary characteristics of 114
patients with chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) were evaluated.

"The mean dietary fat consumption was only 22% of total calories. Of
this, SFA was 7.5%, MUFA was 7.5% and PUFA was 7%. Only 14% patients
were consuming more than 30% percent calories in the form of fats. The
mean cholesterol intake was only 31 mg/day. No patient was taking more
than 200 mg of cholesterol per day. Only 7% of patients were consuming
more than 100 mg/day of cholesterol. The daily fibre intake was 48 + 32
grams.

"The popular misconception that coronary atherosclerosis is a disease of
affluence and indulgence, needs to be critically re-examined. Despite
the lower body weights and higher prevalence of vegetarianism in India
as compared to the West, coronary atherosclerosis is widely present in
our country.

Any plans to write "3 countries study" ? 🙂

Mirek

CVD's in primarily vegetarian India are triple what they are in the
meat eating western world. CVD's are higher in vegetarian Hindus than
they are in meat eating Islamists living in the same areas of India.

TC

Yes but its funny how people ignore this fact just as they ignore
healthy high fat eating populations. Anything that does not fit into
their flawed preconceived notions is disregarded. Definitely not real
science. The fact is there is no "paradox" either way. There is
simply poor understanding of the situation. There is only a paradox
to those who are wrong in their ideas. The fact that they have
paradoxes on both ends of their ridiculous theories is proof enough
that they are completely wrong.

I am always completely amazed at how complicated nutrition becomes the
moment you start questioning some very basic beliefs of the "science".
The hallmark of real science is that when you find or discover the
basic truth and the basic principles of the science, everything seems
to fall into place clearly and simply. Any science that is so unclear,
complicated and confused is not much of a science. In nutrition it
seems that even gaping holes in their theories are ignored or
explained away in complicated and convoluted ways.

Weston Price found the truth. It is very simple. The key to optimum
health is in nutrition. The key to optimum nutrition is in the
freshness and the nutritional denseness of fresh foods. The closer to
the soil the better. Fresh meat, fat and milk from animals that eat
fresh, healthy grasses and clean natural foods from clean soil and
drink fresh clean water is extremely healthy. Whole food grains,
fruits and vegetables grown from healthy clean rich soils, eaten fresh
is extremely healthy.

The key to poor health is in poor nutrition. Poor nutrition comes from
eating manufactured, refined and stale foods. Poor fats are
hydrogenated and/or manufactured oils like shortening, margarine, most
newer vegetable oils, etc. Poor proteins are manufactured proteins
like soy. Then we get into the major manufactured food products:
carbs. Sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, RTE cereals, refined fours,
starchy binders, gluten, white pasta, cakes, cookies, soda, etc. These
are so far from being fresh and healthy that it is mind-boggling that
anyone would even consider any of these as remotely contibuting to
good health.

Even previously healthy foods have been rendered less healthy by added
manufacturing steps and long shipping and storage times. Fresh milk,
right from the cow, is extremely healthy. Yet we strip it of healthy
fats (1 and 2% milk)and heat it (pasteurization) to the point where it
loses most of its healthy properties. It is no longer a healthy food.
It becomes a shadow of its former self.

Fruits and vegetables have been genetically modified by selective
breeding or even genetic modification in the lab to, usually, increase
the sweetness to make it more saleable to the buying public. The extra
sweetness simply requires more vitamins to metabolize, thus the
overall end result is to deplete us of vitamins rather than providing
vitamins.

Todays corn is unrecognizable when compared to its original form as it
was as little as a few thousand years ago. It used to be a grass with
a head maybe one inch long with maybe a dozen or so tiny seeds. Today
it grows six feet high and each head has hundreds of large seeds. Not
exactly a product of nature. Same with most varieties of crops grown
in North America. Especially the grains.

And todays fruits and vegetables sit in transit and storage for
extended periods of time. The water soluble vitamins are at their
maximum only at the time of picking. After even 24 hours, much of the
vitamins are significantly diminished in quantity. After a week, might
as well eat cardboard. The nutritional value is severely depleted.

TC

On 6 Aug 2004 19:05:36 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)

Quoted message said:

Yes but its funny how people ignore this fact just as they ignore
healthy high fat eating populations. Anything that does not fit into
their flawed preconceived notions is disregarded. Definitely not real
science. The fact is there is no "paradox" either way. There is
simply poor understanding of the situation. There is only a paradox
to those who are wrong in their ideas. The fact that they have
paradoxes on both ends of their ridiculous theories is proof enough
that they are completely wrong.

Isn't it that obvious that any data that doesn't meet your conclusion is
flawed. Paradoxes are just anomolies that can be disregarded.

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I am always completely amazed at how complicated nutrition becomes the
moment you start questioning some very basic beliefs of the "science".
The hallmark of real science is that when you find or discover the
basic truth and the basic principles of the science, everything seems
to fall into place clearly and simply. Any science that is so unclear,
complicated and confused is not much of a science. In nutrition it
seems that even gaping holes in their theories are ignored or
explained away in complicated and convoluted ways.

Weston Price found the truth. It is very simple. The key to optimum
health is in nutrition. The key to optimum nutrition is in the
freshness and the nutritional denseness of fresh foods. The closer to
the soil the better. Fresh meat, fat and milk from animals that eat
fresh, healthy grasses and clean natural foods from clean soil and
drink fresh clean water is extremely healthy. Whole food grains,
fruits and vegetables grown from healthy clean rich soils, eaten fresh
is extremely healthy.

The key to poor health is in poor nutrition. Poor nutrition comes from
eating manufactured, refined and stale foods. Poor fats are
hydrogenated and/or manufactured oils like shortening, margarine, most
newer vegetable oils, etc. Poor proteins are manufactured proteins
like soy. Then we get into the major manufactured food products:
carbs. Sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, RTE cereals, refined fours,
starchy binders, gluten, white pasta, cakes, cookies, soda, etc. These
are so far from being fresh and healthy that it is mind-boggling that
anyone would even consider any of these as remotely contibuting to
good health.

Even previously healthy foods have been rendered less healthy by added
manufacturing steps and long shipping and storage times. Fresh milk,
right from the cow, is extremely healthy. Yet we strip it of healthy
fats (1 and 2% milk)and heat it (pasteurization) to the point where it
loses most of its healthy properties. It is no longer a healthy food.
It becomes a shadow of its former self.

Fruits and vegetables have been genetically modified by selective
breeding or even genetic modification in the lab to, usually, increase
the sweetness to make it more saleable to the buying public. The extra
sweetness simply requires more vitamins to metabolize, thus the
overall end result is to deplete us of vitamins rather than providing
vitamins.

Todays corn is unrecognizable when compared to its original form as it
was as little as a few thousand years ago. It used to be a grass with
a head maybe one inch long with maybe a dozen or so tiny seeds. Today
it grows six feet high and each head has hundreds of large seeds. Not
exactly a product of nature. Same with most varieties of crops grown
in North America. Especially the grains.

And todays fruits and vegetables sit in transit and storage for
extended periods of time. The water soluble vitamins are at their
maximum only at the time of picking. After even 24 hours, much of the
vitamins are significantly diminished in quantity. After a week, might
as well eat cardboard. The nutritional value is severely depleted.

TC

You bring up all the vital points that need to be considered when
analizing food habits and health of various populations. What is
amazing is that virtualy NONE of those things are even considered by
most people and instead they develope obscenely flawed ideas like
blaming butter! It would all be so silly if it was not so deadly. It
is even worse when ignorants who just do not know better keep spouting
out that corrupt industry spawned lie that butter(and all animal fat)
is bad. It is bad enough because butter is not only NOT bad, but what
makes it worse is that butter is an extremely healthy food and the
last thing people should be doing is avoiding it. That is why I wont
just stand by and let idiots demonize it without pointing out their
stupidity because it is harmful to those who believe them.

Robert Klute <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 6 Aug 2004 19:05:36 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)

Quoted message said:

Yes but its funny how people ignore this fact just as they ignore
healthy high fat eating populations. Anything that does not fit into
their flawed preconceived notions is disregarded. Definitely not real
science. The fact is there is no "paradox" either way. There is
simply poor understanding of the situation. There is only a paradox
to those who are wrong in their ideas. The fact that they have
paradoxes on both ends of their ridiculous theories is proof enough
that they are completely wrong.

Isn't it that obvious that any data that doesn't meet your conclusion is
flawed. Paradoxes are just anomolies that can be disregarded.

If you want to gamble with your health on such nonsense that is your choice.

Robert Klute <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 6 Aug 2004 19:05:36 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)

Quoted message said:

Yes but its funny how people ignore this fact just as they ignore
healthy high fat eating populations. Anything that does not fit into
their flawed preconceived notions is disregarded. Definitely not real
science. The fact is there is no "paradox" either way. There is
simply poor understanding of the situation. There is only a paradox
to those who are wrong in their ideas. The fact that they have
paradoxes on both ends of their ridiculous theories is proof enough
that they are completely wrong.

Isn't it that obvious that any data that doesn't meet your conclusion is
flawed. Paradoxes are just anomolies that can be disregarded.

If you want to gamble with your health on such nonsense that is your choice.

On 9 Aug 2004 15:32:48 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)

Quoted message said:

Robert Klute <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it that obvious that any data that doesn't meet your conclusion is

(ed. note: conclusion should of course be hypothesis)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

flawed. Paradoxes are just anomolies that can be disregarded.

Quoted message said:

If you want to gamble with your health on such nonsense that is your choice.

Oh dear. I thought it was obviously an ironic (sardonic?) remark that
it didn't need the ;> at the end.