Re: Benefits of omega 3 for Type I Diabetes

My first thought after reading this was, "what a fool Ron is, because
no matter how you explain it to him, and no matter how much evidence
you provide, and no matter the fact that there is only one
interpretation of the evidence that makes sense, he just does not get
it." But then I thought, "who is the fool, the person who sells the
dangerous substance, or the person who pays for it AND ingests it?"

For whatever reason, Ron is not able to comprehend or admit that cod
liver oil is very dangerous, and that the problem with all the
"chronic disease" of today is found on a chart used in a CNN special
called "America's Killer Diet." I put it on my web site - here it is:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/scientificdebateforumpictures.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=2

Note that the steep rise in soybean was not unique. There was the
same rise in dietary canola oil consumption starting in the 1980s or
1990s (depending what country you are in). Canola is more dangerous
than soybean, so it's no surprise that you hear about all kinds of
"epidemics" of non-infectious diseases in the mainstream media these
days. The key point, however, is that you should not endanger
yourself with fish oil (canola and soybean also have omega 3s), but
instead you can just go back to the old ways of eating, though high
heat cooking should be done very rarely (boiling eggs is okay). Take
a look at the old cookbooks. "Pound cake" was made with a pound of
butter AND a pound of sugar. My diet is rich in sugar and saturated
fatty acids, and low in unsaturated fatty acids - I started it back in
2001, when I was in my late 30s. I was also afflicted with a wasting
disorder (which stumped my doctors), after about 18 months taking
various omega 3 supplements. I recovered from it, and also recovered
from the complications that arose (severe osteoporosis, tendonosis,
thrush, toe fungus, skin rashes,
etc.), on this diet, whereas "experts" are telling you how "bad" it is
(because they use indirect "markers" that are based on flawed
assumptions). One such assumption is that lard is dangerous because
of the saturated fatty acids, when it is in fact only about 40%
saturated now. Those on coconut-rich diets (coconut fat is 92%
saturated) should have very high rates of heart disease if these
marker studies were accurate, but this is not the case. Nations like
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, etc. have had very low rates (now some of
these nations are switching over to canola or rapeseed oil,
unfortunately) - the World Health Organization keeps these kinds of
statistics. There are also studies of native people who eat a lot of
coconut (or animals fed coconut), and they had "high cholesterol" but
no heart disease. For some reason, Ron does not understand the
meaning of these facts, no matter how many ways I try to explain it to
him, and no matter how much evidence I cite. The conclusions he draws
from the evidence he cites does not make sense when the evidence is
examined as a whole. My tentative conclusion is that Ron is involved
with fish oil sales, because I simply cannot imagine someone being so
incapable of critical and independent thought as the alternative
explanation would require.

.