"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

Actually God calls on "heaven and earth" as His witnesses against His errant people in the first chapter of Isaiah, which is probably a clue to the possibility that His own angels understand His judgments and act as a sort of jury. Besides, God spelled out His law to the Israelites, including blessings and punishments for obedience or disobedience, and it is to be our guide too, so we can't say we don't know what is required of us. In any case it is our own consciences that will judge us in the end, when everything will be laid bare; though now our consciences may be corrupted.If you judge God as morally inferior to you, you aren't a Christian.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet the Bible actually says we should question and judge God.What you post and what your cult markets is exactly the opposite of thinking, critically or otherwise and is evidenced in your understanding of the Bible and your cults inability to deal with what the Bible actually says.This is the issue also seen in this thread where you admit that you are unwilling to do the work necessary to actually look at the studies involving nutrition.

No it doesn't.My "cult" is the historical Christian faith, no cult. And I've explained why. I trust the reports of the studies I've run across, and the character of the people who give the reports.

It is critical thinking that tells me that God is omniscient and I am not and that I am to trust Him and that those who put themselves above Him are in deep trouble.

In short, your entire answer is to avoid doing any critical thinking when God is concerned. What is worse, you let that same attitude bleed over into stuff that is not in the Bible.You talk about innocence because you have no reason to be consistent. God did not give any of those dead infants even the slightest chance. There were a lot more of them than there were the family of lot. None of them had the slightest chance to accept or reject God. And the Bible explains why. It is because they are being punished for the sins of their parents, and not because of any evil on their own part. This notion of original sin that your ilk have grafted onto the Bible is not the explanation that is given in the text.So, this ridiculous notion that God "usually" gives the innocent a chance just does not describe the God of the Old Testament at all. Your notion is completely non-Biblical.Just to drag this stuff back to the topic. I don't give a crap if you can find your explanation duplicated in a youtube video, that does not make it right or even provide any evidence other than that there is one more idiot spreading nonsense.

God tells us to test Him in His promises to us, that's not judging God as you do. If you are a Christian -- I'm not sure where God draws the line -- you are far from everything I've been taught as a Christian about God's character and attributes.I gave OT examples of God's warning people of judgment to come. You are getting all semantic about the term "innocent" to no good purpose. If we're all sinners then the concept of innocence is at least relative or it stands for those who trust God although they are sinners.You keep saying I treat other things the way I treat the Bible but you haven't given a single example.Yeah, I find a lot of evidence in the films I've mentioned. Every day I'm trying to make use of what I've learned.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, remember, many of us have actually read the Bible and believe it says what it says, not what you cult wished it said.You mentioned Sodom yet there is a prequel to that fable you seem to ignore.The God character is doing a walkabout because he has heard rumors but wanted to go actually check the sources since he did not know what the truth of the rumors was.(critical points so far. The God character is not omniscient; not all knowing. Second the God character actually goes and puts in the work to try to find out the truth; goes to look for actual evidence.)The story continues. He stops along his walkabout and starts up a conversation about what he is planning to do; and the human says "Wait God, are you really as clueless as you seem? Are you really going to kill the innocent along with the guilty?"So yes Faith, we are told in the Bible that we know as much as God does about what is right and what is wrong and that when it seems that God is about to do wrong we are to question Gods acts and character.Try actually reading the Bible Faith, Genesis 2 & 3 as well as Genesis 18. And once again you admit that what you are doing is the exact opposite of Critical Thinking.

It's really depressing to think that anyone might possibly take you seriously.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This thread is all about those examples. You don't read anything critically. That's why you believe a bunch of BS.

Re Esselstyn's study; Not quite true, even as per Esselstyn's own accounts, although it has to be said that Esselstyn seems to have trouble keeping his accounts consistent in the first place.In "Forks Over Knives" he says he had twenty-four patients. In the write-up of the study that Esselstyn presents on his website, it is twenty-two patients, five of whom dropped out completely, with a further six failing to keep up with reporting their results, leaving him with just eleven patients. This drop-out rate is troubling; the patients who drop out of studies tend to be those for whom the regime isn't working. By leaving only those patients who improved, the drop-out rate greatly distorts the results.When you say "no heart trouble" it's true that none of the patients who followed Esselstyn's diet had no further coronary events, but Esselstyn himself notes that some of their lesions got worse;

quote:

---

Analysis by minimal lumen diameter of 25 lesions fotind that 6 regressed, 14 remained stable, and 5 progressed.

---

A Strategy to Arrest and Reverse Coronary Artery Disease: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study of a Single Physician's Practice
Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr, MD; Stephen G. Ellis, MD; Sharon V. Medendorp, MPH; and Timothy D. CroweWelcome heartattackproof.com - BlueHost.comSo whilst they weren't having heart attacks, they were not completely untroubled.It's also worth noting that when he first started his study Esselstyn was content to include small amounts of dairy. Now he says to eliminate all dairy. He seems to have changed numerous parameters of his diet over the years. This is incredibly bad form. You can't change the test parameters half-way through a test. That would invalidate the test, as ought to be obvious.So all told, we have a study with a pathetically small sample size, no control group, inadequate and inconsistent reporting and multiple changes in procedure during the test period. This is junk science. Esselstyn may well be sincere and well-meaning, but he is a terrible researcher. Somebody competent perhaps. He didn't bother to include a control group, so how can we know?Besides, the important comparison is between Esselstyn's diet and a less stringent healthy diet. Comparing Esselstyn's diet only against the random awful diets his patients had before is meaningless. For example, Evelyn Oswick, who apparently appears in "Forks Over Knives", clearly had an appalling diet;

quote:

---

I ate all the chocolate I could eat, I ate every doughnut I could get my hands on oh, I just loved things like that. A lot of gravy.

---

All that this woman's experience demonstrates is that Esselstyn's diet is an improvement over a primarily doughnut and gravy based diet. Forgive me, but that is not an astonishing revelation. It wasn't mentioned because it's not true. It's just some silliness you made up for yourself.All Esseystyn's patients were on statins.

quote:

---

Methods. The study included 22 patients with angiographically documented, severe coronary artery disease that was not immediately life threatening. These patients took cholesterol-lowering drugs and followed a diet that derived no more than 10% of its calories from fat.

​

...

​

Conclusions. A physician can influence patients in the decision to adopt a very low-fat diet that, combined with lipid-lowering drugs, can reduce cholesterol levels to below150 mg/dL and uniformly result in the arrest or reversal of coronary artery disease.

---

So not diet alone. Drugs too. No mention of discontinuation.So basically, this is a terrible study and your faith in it is misplaced. It might be interesting to see it replicated, but it would have to be done with a much larger sample group, a proper control group, follow-up on drop-outs and, most of all, a consistent regime to test, rather than constant modification. Until then, I really don't see that there's any meat on these bones.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Yet they do, mainly because I back up my posts with actual evidence that they can verify independently.That is the difference Faith. I do not expect or ask anyone to trust me and instead expect that they will test what I say against logic, reason and reality.They can go and read Genesis 2&3 and also Genesis 18 to see if what I post is actually what the Bible says.That's the difference in the methods of Critical Thinking and Cult Dogma. You rely on the dogma of your cult. I ask them to throw the dogma away, throw God away and instead actually look at the studies, read the Bible instead of the Commentaries.As the Bible says; "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil".

I don't really know how to respond to that, other than resorting to an outbreak of Rrhain-esque blinking. Do you seriously doubt that a low-fat calorie controlled diet can improve health?To keep score;Leprechauns - Plausible, probably demons.Improved health through diet - Suddenly implausible, despite the fact that that is exactly what you've been promoting throughout this thread.It seems that when internet videos tell you something, you believe it wholeheartedly, but when actual doctors are involved, you refuse to believe even the most obvious facts.Scepticism; you're doing it wrong. Or he simply improved through swapping his diet of deep-fried lard for a healthier diet with more fruit and veg, with his specific dietary strictures adding little or nothing to what amounts to a low fat calorie controlled diet. Without a control group or a sample size greater than just one dude, there is no way to know. Not a single one of Esselstyn's patients was cured. They all still had coronary artery disease. So no cure there. They make that claim, but I'm still waiting to see some actual evidence of that. Anyone can make claims... They claim...Athletes actually tend towards extreme gullibility with regards to anything that claims to aid their performance. The craze for the mediaeval practise of cupping that swept through the Rio Olympics attests to that.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

I cannot speak for everyone, since we are all uniquely different and respond to different diets. Some of us, like myself, benefit from low insulin, low carbohydrate diets. Others benefit from healthy carbohydrates. Dr.Ron Rosedale is an expert and is at the cutting edge of this science, and though some of you may think he is another carny barker selling something, I can assure you that my intuition is not wrong on this one.Here is a talk that he once had. Read it if you dare, and tell me that his science is not on point.
Insulin and its metabolic effects(Yes, I know it is on Mercolas website, but Rosedale himself is not selling anything. He once had an office here in Denver and my friend, who at the time was 300 pounds, diabetic, and dying, went to see Dr. Rosedale and now lives in Greece, weighs 225 pounds, and is off all medications. In the case of my own health, I will no longer listen to my Endocrinologist who does nothing for me but prescribe more insulin, Trulicity, and statin lowering drugs. Granted I am responsible to maintain the healthy diet, but this is not a gamble. It is indeed a sure bet.)

I do know what mitochondria are and what they do. The heart contains the most of them. As for the science behind lower insulin and health, I have read plenty of studies. It is my contention that Type II Diabetes, of which I have, can be better controlled through lower insulin rather than higher insulin. I don't like to gamble with my health, and I am not simply listening to what you would call the snake oil salesmen. Much has been learned in the past twenty years about this science, and many Doctors now advocate it.Faith herself would likely benefit from a combination of a lower insulin good fat diet with lots of healthy vegetables. She just needs to cut back on sugars and high glycemic carbs so that she will have more energy.

Rosedale is another diet faddist Science Based MedicineControlling diabetes by controlling your diet is probably a good idea if you can get it right. Going on a heavily calorie-restricted diet - with proper supervision - might even reverse it. The rest of it is rather more suspect.But you really have to be careful not to believe things becAuse you want to, or because the person saying them seems plausible.