"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

All these guys are nutritionists, and most are MDs as well, and they all disagree on such things so your speculations are welcome. Besides, I agree with you. I'm going with the most oil-restrictive system to start but I don't think I'll choose to follow it in the end.Oil is eliminated in McDougall's "Starch Solution" and others in his camp. He says the food has enough fat in it. He even radically restricts nuts because of their oil and I think that's going way too far. Other health teachers don't so strictly restrict oils, but I want to try this version first, at least with respect to the oil restriction, not the whole diet. Partly because I need to lose weight and I know I put it all on because of the fat habits I acquired on the Atkins style diets. Fat is OK when you cut way back on carbs but when you add the carbs back into the mix along with the fats you gain weight. I may not be able to give up the oil anyway, I'll have to see how long I last. Oils are ridiculously calorie-dense and it should help if I can cut down on them at least.Whatever I end up with is probably going to be a combination of the features I like best or think will be best for me from the different versions out there.The testimonials to the miraculous effects of straight plant-based eating are amazing so I have to give it a good try. I finally accept most of what they say about meat and dairy, but I still have a doubt in the back of my mind if only because of the vitamin B12 you have to add to a wholly plant diet. But continuing with even a small amount of meat at this point would be counterproductive since the benefits claimed by so many are all from a purely plant diet.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here is a prime example of a substance with no known scientific basis, plenty of anecdotal testimony, and even a stint on 60 minutes, back in 1980:
60 Minutes ReportLike the report concludes, the product does no harm and, even if simply a placebo effect has value.

What Experts RecommendThe supplement industry is big pharma with little regulation. Most of what it sells is unnecessary. Some of it is even potentially dangerous. Know what you need, and don’t waste money (at best) on the things you don’t.

Sometimes snake oil works... I have found results with the Willard water...besides it cant hurt me. At worst, Ive spent money on the placebo effect.

If it is a placebo, it isn’t really doing anything.

Many have testified that the water does something. They speak of better plant growth, calmer livestock and birds. Animals are a great control group as they dont understand what a placebo is, anyway.

Given that the suppliers say this: You can be sure that they don’t have good evidence of any medical benefit.

Phat, please.They claim to "change the molecular structure of water."And you're buying this?

nobody has disproven that specific claim.

Phat responds to me:

quote:

---

nobody has disproven that specific claim.

---

Physical chemistry did.If you "changed the molecular structure of water," then it isn't water anymore because "changing the molecular structure" of something means it has reacted with something.Unless you're trying to say that something in the water is changing the angle of the molecular bonds of the water...which is something that can't be done. The physical constants force the bond angle of water to be 104.5 degrees...and note, we would expect it to be 109, but the way the hydrogen is bonded to the oxygen has the electrons pushing the hydrogen nuclei closer together. There is no way to change this.Unless they're talking about heavy water, which has a bond angle of 106 degrees. But you don't get heavy water just by adding minerals to regular water. And you wouldn't want to drink heavy water because your cells depend upon the physical chemistry of normal water (that bond angle is important.) You could get away with a little bit of it, but if you were to replace all the water in your body with heavy water, you wouldn't survive (of course, it would take days to do and you would have to make sure that all the water you consumed was heavy water...which would mean all the sources of hydrogen you took in would have to be dueterium).Unless, of course, these conmen are talking about breaking the hydrogen bonds between molecules like soap does. But that doesn't actually change the water. It's just a physical interruption and as soon as you absorb the molecules of water, it is just plain water again. Those micelles aren't going to do anything.So contrary to your claim, Phat, the claims have long since been disproven. Go to any physical chemistry course and you'll actually do the work on why water is the way it is.It's a scam, Phat.

While I trust your analysis, I question whether it is indeed a scam. They went before Congress in a hearing. Harry Reasoner gave them a favorable review. No claims have ever been made by the Doc nor his sons.... it's the people who use the product that tout its claims. And like I said before, at worst it is a harmless placebo. So my jury is still out on whether or not it is actually no better than ordinary water.

Phat responds to me:

quote:

---

While I trust your analysis, I question whether it is indeed a scam.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You trust physical chemistry saying that what they claim is impossible, and yet it might not be a scam?

quote:

---

They went before Congress in a hearing.

---

Because Congress is filled with scientists and are capable of making a determination on a scientific question?

quote:

---

Harry Reasoner gave them a favorable review.

---

Because Harry Reasoner is a scientist?Because the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?

quote:

---

No claims have ever been made by the Doc nor his sons.... it's the people who use the product that tout its claims.

---

And that doesn't make it a scam?First, your claim that "No claims have ever been made by the Doc nor his sons" is simply not true. From their own website: That is laughably stupid. It is impossible to do this. You will note that I over-emphasized one of the claims:What is a "negative magnetic field"? Are they claiming they have managed to create magnetic monopoles? You see, this is one of the great mysteries of science: Certain interpretations of magnetic theory indicate that there should be magnetic monopoles just as there are electrical ones.That is, there is a particle that carries an electric charge in a certain type: The electron. It carries a negative electric charge. No positive.But there's also a particle that carries the opposite electric charge: The proton. It carries a positive electric charge. You put them near each other and you can generate an electric field. If an object has an electric dipole (like, for example, a water molecule), you can physically cut the object such that the positive charge is in one place and the negative charge is in another.There are electric monopoles.Well, there is a magnetic field, too. As we've all seen in grade school, you can put a piece of paper over a bar magnet and sprinkle iron filings on it and you can physically see the lines of magnetic force that flow from the north pole to the south pole.But if you cut that magnet in half, you don't get a "north" magnet and a "south" magnet. Instead, you get two magnets, each with a north and south.It turns out you can't actually physically separate out magnetism. Gauss' Law for Magnetism (del-dot-B = 0) indicates that there can't be any magnetic monopoles. Certain aspects of QM and string theory suggest the possibility of such, so it would be a huge discovery if someone had figured out a way to create just a south magnetic field (presuming that's what is meant by "negative magnetic field"). Because from what we can directly observe, that is physically impossible.Especially by doing so chemically.In short, there is no such thing as a "negative magnetic field." You can't create a magnetic field without having both a south and a north pole.Or is he saying that his magic micelles violate the right-hand rule? That is, you can generate a magnetic field by moving an electric charge. This is how electromagnets work: You wrap a copper wire around an object that can hold a magnetic field (like an iron bar). When you run an electric current through the wire, the object will become magnetized. Turn off the current and the magnetic field disappears.The direction of the magnetic field is determined by the direction of the current flowing by the right-hand rule: Hold your right hand out and make a "thumbs-up" gesture. If the direction your thumb is pointing is the direction the current is flowing, then the direction of your curled fingers is the direction of the magnetic field. For example, if you have your thumb pointing up, the field is going counter-clockwise as seen from above. Turn your hand over so that the current is flowing down, and the magnetic field will be flowing clockwise as seen from above.Is he saying that he's created an electrical current that follows a left-hand rule? That would quite literally break physics as we know it and we need to give this man a Nobel Prize.And that doesn't even begin to get into the nonsense of the phrase "high energy particle." You know what a "high energy particle" is?Radiation.But the thing about this is that you can't "contain" it. It's not like you can bottle radiation. That "high energy" means it is moving...until it hits something. At that point, it loses some of its energy...it be radiated away as heat. And that assumes it doesn't damage what it hit (which is why alpha radiation is dangerous). So there is no possible way that these micelles are "high energy."And then there's the stupidity of the comparison with graphite and diamond.The reason graphite and diamond are different is because they are both solid. Thus, there is a crystalline structure to examine. And indeed, graphite has a different crystalline structure (layered, planar either hexagonal or rhombohedral) than diamond (face-centered cubic). But the reason that works is because these are both solids and the atoms within the crystal structure do not move.Liquids, on the other hand, have the atoms moving all over the place. Now, water is infamous for its hydrogen bonding, but that isn't enough to keep the individual water molecules in place. It's why liquids spread out to fill their container. There is no "structure" to alter.We've already covered the fact that you can't change the bond angle and since there is no other "molecular structure" (outside of a phase change, but then you're talking about ice or steam, not water), this is quite literally nothing but a load of nonsense dressed up with scientific words that they're hoping you don't know anything about but will just accept out of your ignorance.But wait, what do they say it can do? Again, from their own website: So much for idea that they don't make any claims. They even have the fake studies to prove it!But wait, there's more: So once again, the idea that the good doctor or his son don't make any claims is trivially proven false.

​

This isn't a bunch of yahoos using this product off-label. They are actively selling this for the specific reasons claimed.

​

And everything about their claims are false.

​

Ergo, a scam.

​

quote:

---

And like I said before, at worst it is a harmless placebo.

---

​

NO! It is not "a harmless placebo"! It is scamming you out of your money. You are ingesting god knows what in that "CAW micelle." They are playing on your gullibility and by doing so, setting you up for the next scam to come your way.

​

This is not "harmless."

​

quote:

---

So my jury is still out on whether or not it is actually no better than ordinary water.

---

​

We're back to me blinking again.

​

You trust physical chemistry saying that what they claim is impossible, and yet the "jury is out"?

​

Edited by Rrhain, : Fixing typo and a double-negative

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

That's why snakes don't squeak.

That's how the best scams work. It's like a Ponzi scheme. The true believers insulate the perpetrator from any responsibility.

But if you're talking about 'calmer livestock and birds'; this is still a subjective judgement. People are looking at their animals and thinking 'hmmm, they look calmer now they're drinking Willards'. That's in no way an objective control of people thinking 'hmmm, I feel better now I'm drinking Willards'.