4 ms·

> Where are the [factual reports], then? Here http://meatheals.com/ http://meatheals.com/ and of course those of Petersons > There isn't even evidence that th

by sridca 8y ago

> Where are the [factual reports], then? Here http://meatheals.com/ http://meatheals.com/ and of course those of Petersons > There isn't even evidence that the Petersons follow their own diet advice. There are only claims and consultation fees. What they do to earn their living is irrelevant. Including your convenient disbelief (in the name of "evidence") of their factual reports. Unlike you, I take what people say with face value in order to establish a prima facie case -- there is no need to believe or disbelieve. Had I listened to the Internet cynics like you I would not have resolved my own chronic condition.

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> What they do to earn their living is irrelevant. No, it is very relevant. There's a blatant conflict of interest and that you chose to ignore it, and just take them on their word without evidence, speaks volumes. I wish you luck in treating your chronic condition.
- sridca 8y ago
  It is irrelevant, as it does not automagically make a factual report suddenly false. This is such basic comprehension; I have no idea why some people don't get it.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    Please don't straw man my post. "Conflict of interest" and "complete lack of evidence that so-called practitioners even practice their diet" don't mean that their report is automatically false, it just calls into question their integrity and their report's basis in reality.
    - sridca 8y ago
      Yet that is what you are implying. You inject your (presumably agenda-based) disbelief onto their factual reports and then buttress that disbelief by channeling attention into irrelevant matters (thereby suppressing discussion of the therapeutic effects of the diet), instead of opening up a conversation with any modicum of curiosity. Unless a person is lying -- like that notorious vegan did when submitting a deliberately false report to meatheals.com -- one's report is indeed factual. Intelligent people are not stupid enough to blindly believe what others say, instead of taking it at face value in order to establish a prima facie case. Cynicism won't get anyone very far in life.

by sridca 8y ago

fucking_tragedy 8y ago

> What they do to earn their living is irrelevant. No, it is very relevant. There's a blatant conflict of interest and that you chose to ignore it, and just take them on their word without evidence, speaks volumes. I wish you luck in treating your chronic condition.

sridca 8y ago
It is irrelevant, as it does not automagically make a factual report suddenly false. This is such basic comprehension; I have no idea why some people don't get it.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  Please don't straw man my post. "Conflict of interest" and "complete lack of evidence that so-called practitioners even practice their diet" don't mean that their report is automatically false, it just calls into question their integrity and their report's basis in reality.
  - sridca 8y ago
    Yet that is what you are implying. You inject your (presumably agenda-based) disbelief onto their factual reports and then buttress that disbelief by channeling attention into irrelevant matters (thereby suppressing discussion of the therapeutic effects of the diet), instead of opening up a conversation with any modicum of curiosity. Unless a person is lying -- like that notorious vegan did when submitting a deliberately false report to meatheals.com -- one's report is indeed factual. Intelligent people are not stupid enough to blindly believe what others say, instead of taking it at face value in order to establish a prima facie case. Cynicism won't get anyone very far in life.