The Real Scam -- Care to Follow Durianrider Off a Cliff?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mellifera on June 26, 2009 at 9:31am

it might have been because it simply takes a long time for malabsorption to heal. I have always disliked alliums and enjoy any excuse to not eat them though...haha.

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 25, 2009 at 8:32pm

Not particularly talking about the stomach here, but everywhere else, especially the small intestine.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by telefunken on June 26, 2009 at 10:36am

Mark said: Not particularly talking about the stomach here, but everywhere else, especially the small intestine.

--------------------------------

So you are suggesting that a food item's nature hasn't changed from the time it has been masticated until it reaches the small intestine? Hmmmmm.... A reasonable person might think that the process of digestion would breakdown and dilute all substances ingested. But, in your view Mark, the nature of food apparently doesn't change as it passes along.

You seem to believe that the potency of a so-called "irritant" is just as strong, (and capable of causing injury according to you), when it reaches the small intestine as when it was sitting on the cutting board in the kitchen.

I'll play the common sense card. Digestion breaks down and dilutes things we ingest. Their nature has changed by the time the small intestine is involved.

Permalink Reply by Rawzilla on June 24, 2009 at 3:23pm

There are just as many meat eaters as vegans with B12 deficiency. That is the only statement I asked for a body of literature to support. Just that ratio. I try to report honestly here too and back up my claims. Or if I have a theory, I say it's a theory.

As you said, "diet is only one factor in achieving health." And it is a factor.

There is no question B12 deficiency is a problem for nonvegans too. Nutrition and absorption are complex processes, not as simple as just putting x,y, znd z in your body. You don't have to prove that to me. I already said it.

I actually have done a lot of research in industry-funded science, but in other areas where there is a real "cover up" going on, such as with vaccines, I have found enough support to see the other side (as in, I think vaccines are dangerous, despite some so-called scientific claims). I don't actually see this with the B12 argument.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jen on June 25, 2009 at 3:03pm

guess dr hasn't been getting any....

sorry, i couldn't resist

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by rawGuitars on June 24, 2009 at 7:18pm

Here is the Brian Clement take on B-12

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ben "the beekeeper" stiller on June 24, 2009 at 10:10pm

this is good information. i always like dr. clement's lectures.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 25, 2009 at 2:46pm

Those B12 are from at least a few years back. Since then DR's levels has quadrupled. He's credited this to giving up all irritants, such as salt, chilis, garlic, onion, spices.

Why don't you get your facts straight rather than wasting your time dragging up such gossip? This data is entirely out of date. It shows that what most people are doing is culprit and not what DR is doing since that time.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Casandra Willis on June 25, 2009 at 4:52pm

I agree.

To use "old news" and misconstrue it into something else entirely, IMO, points to a lack in character. I highly recommend researching and ensuring all of your facts are up to date before attempting to down-talk somebody's lifestyle choices. It really shows poor judgment on your part.

Close, but no cigar multisport bee.

Good try though :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ben "the beekeeper" stiller on June 25, 2009 at 5:47pm

Casandra,

"Old news" is all we ever have--whether a study was published months ago or years ago, or is an ancient secret that is shared to enlighten someone for the first time.

Yes, old news is all we ever have, unless you want to back up your claims with fiction and prophesy. ; )

The reality is that people are constantly joining the raw movement and some of them are interested in the health histories of some of the zealots of this diet trend or another (aka banana pushers).

Just as you said on another forum as an example:

We've been told for YEARS that fluoride is good for our teeth, that studies have shown this to us. It was "proven" and that information is still relevant, so is the health history of anyone who is eagerly advocating some diet.

that's old news too. You don't seem to have a problem offering it there...

Nothing more, nothing less. Do you want my cigar?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Casandra Willis on June 25, 2009 at 6:34pm

You seemed to have twisted my words around a bit ;)

My fluoride comment is not old news. It's a current fact. As well, it's completely irrelevant to the current situation.

I believe you've misunderstood my post.

When I speak of old news, I'm referring to Harley's diet and nutrient problems that occurred prior to his adopting the 811 lifestyle.

Just as you've been told by many others who have responded to this thread, as well.

Moreover, it is by no means relevant in any conversations pertaining to 811... as the B12 deficiency reared it's ugly head before the adoption of the low-fat raw-vegan diet.

To incautiously thwart around claims that someone's past ailments are directly linked to their present lifestyle is borderline discriminatory.

Point of the matter here is: Please update your facts before running your campaign. I agree that people are constantly joining the raw movement. But unfortunately, with threads like these, based on fallacious facts and misinformed posters... the wrong information is now being given out to those starving for any information.

I have no intentions of "attacking" you so please don't feel that way. But it is my duty, along with those who also know more on the situation, to educate those who possess incorrect information.

One would assume that as the one who posted this thread, you would acquire the responsibility that is expected of you, and ensure your debates/discussions are based solely on hard facts rather than frivolous assumptions.

That is all I have to say :) Hope that cleared some things up for ya...

And no thanks, I don't smoke ;)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ben "the beekeeper" stiller on June 25, 2009 at 7:56pm

Casandra,

Do you have the legitimate, controlled study where DR's diet was monitored, his health was assessed, and there were measures to test whether he supplemented or ate meat? Because if not, this study that was published is the only valid reporting we have.

I certainly hope you are not basing your updated "facts" on DR's claims. He makes a lot of unsupported claims, such as 100% cure rates on the diet, while you see comments posted to his videos where people are flailing. He says it's 100% successful yet acknowledges that people on it tell him they are still sick. He rarely replies to challenges--he just drops in and disappears when confronted. Check out the exchange Burke posted. He avoids answering Burke's questions by deflection.

If you would like to have a real discussion about real facts, then, please, post a study or something other than some guy defending himself in front of thousands of people.

It's amazing when people blindly follow someone and don't investigate the truth.

I encourage you to be an independent thinker.

As for you and Burke, "hating" something as benign as someone referring to the "raw food movement," well that is just mean spiritedness. Picking apart a completely benign (if not positive) term tells us a lot about who are and the kind of energy you want to share.

The same comment goes for your judging my "lack in character."

I suggest sticking to the facts (the real ones), and treating others in the community with respect.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last