[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(06-11-2013 11:10 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 10:52 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Fuck. ... I hate it when the joke goes over my head. ... God damn you. God damn you all to hell.



If you think that was bad, the answer to your question was "yes".

Yes, I got that one. God damn you. God damn you all to hell.




As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
06-11-2013, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2013 11:27 PM by aurora.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(06-11-2013 11:15 PM)Chippy Wrote:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1481227041

Real book. Many joke reviews.

It's hard to laugh and throw-up at the same time Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like aurora's post
06-11-2013, 11:24 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
It has a companion volume:

http://www.amazon.com/Semenology-The-Sem...=pd_cp_b_1

Also with good joke reviews.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 11:29 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(06-11-2013 11:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  It has a companion volume:

http://www.amazon.com/Semenology-The-Sem...=pd_cp_b_1

Also with good joke reviews.

Now that's a little hard to swallow!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like aurora's post
06-11-2013, 11:34 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(06-11-2013 11:29 PM)aurora Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 11:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  It has a companion volume:

http://www.amazon.com/Semenology-The-Sem...=pd_cp_b_1

Also with good joke reviews.

Now that's a little hard to swallow!

Ba-Dum Tshh

Try the veal folks, it's great.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 08:41 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(06-11-2013 11:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 11:10 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  If you think that was bad, the answer to your question was "yes".

Yes, I got that one. God damn you. God damn you all to hell.




Y'know, what? I didn't mean that.

I was going along the lines of a cream that reverses 'the signs' of aging is one that is applied so thickly that it fills in all the creases.

Chippy's jizz went over my head too.

(lucky I was kneeling down)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
07-11-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:However it also seems that claims as to any level of vitamin supplementation are also unverified with regards to a high scientific standard. So although there is a recognised RDA/RDI for the various nutrients, it is unknown how these recommendations came about.

You don't know what you are talking about. Just because you have no clue it doesn't mean that no one knows where the RDA/RDI data came from.
I don't claim to be a doctor, I have not studied this topic. I'm just going by the arguments presented in this thread.
You have not shown double blind tests supporting your own claim.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:These RDA/RDI assume a healthy person, with no pre-existing nutrient deficiencies. They do not account for the ability for a human body to absorb the nutrients ingested.

You don't know what you are talking about.
I am going by the information presented in this thread. You have not corrected me on this point, you have not shown that RDA/RDI applies to unhealthy people.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:As has been discussed it is hard for tablets to deliver their payload thus much passes through the system without being absorbed.

You have evidence for this claim?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/12/3/162.abstract
Quote:It may be concluded that since the absorption mechanisms of vitamins differ markedly and since their absorption is so readily influenced by the pharmaceutical form in which they are compounded, there is need for much more information to ensure that vitamin therapy is placed on a sound physiologic basis. Such information is of particular importance when attempts are made to modify absorption rates.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/improve-...-2898.html
Quote:Absorption of vitamins can be encouraged or thwarted by a variety of factors.


(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:It just seems to me that not enough quality research has been carried out in this regard to draw much conclusions.

You haven't read any of the studies so you are in no position to form that conclusion. Also you are second-guessing the RANZCP, RCP and the ACA.
As you have stated before, appeals to authority don't hold weight.
Granted my knowledge is very limited on this topic, but going by what has been presented in this thread, there doesn't seem to be much quality research carried out on vitamins. Many, many of the cited research either state that the results are inconclusive or state that more research is needed

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:It seems that there are claims that extreme dosing on vitamins can be dangerous, but those claims don't go into detail on what levels of viamin dosing are dangerous as opposed to what levels are not dangerous.

Read the studies that were were systematically reviewed and meta-analysed if you want the details. Don't just assume that no such data exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin
Quote:There have been mixed studies on the importance and safety of dietary supplementation. A meta-analysis published in 2006 suggested that Vitamin A and E supplements not only provide no tangible health benefits for generally healthy individuals but may actually increase mortality, although two large studies included in the analysis involved smokers, for whom it was already known that beta-carotene supplements can be harmful.[45][46][47] Another study published in May 2009 found that antioxidants such as vitamins C and E may actually curb some benefits of exercise.[48] While other findings suggest that evidence of Vitamin E toxicity is limited to specific form taken in excess.[49] A double-blind trial published in 2011 found that vitamin E increases the risk of prostate cancer in healthy men.[50] The conflict of interest section of this study reveals that it has ties to the ambitions of the pharmaceutical companies Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Amgen, Firmagon, and Novartis.[51] Other studies without conflicts of interest reported exactly the opposite – that Vitamin E supplementation reduced the risk of prostate cancer,[52] and increased overall prostate cancer survival.[53]

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:Basically, where are the boudaries and how linear are the correlations of negative effects/mortality as dosage increases? Is this related to one off doses or to prolonged doses?

This just shows that you are ignorant.
No doubt. But this evidence has not been shown in this thread.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:Most of the studies that The Clap cites indicate that results are inconclusive, that more quality studies are necessary.

No they don't, you just don't understand what you are reading.
I specifically read the word "inconclusive" with most of your citations.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:It seems to me that it is entirely possible that the pharmaceutical companies have powerful people in their back pockets, much as the Firearms manufacturers and distributors in USA have their tenticals into high places. I am not saying this is definitely the case, but it is certainly worth some skepticism.

That is a conspiracy theory and it is based on your ignorance. Most nutritional supplements are manufactured by pharmaceutical companies.
The key part of my statement "certainly worth some skepticism" is not the words of a conspiracy theorist. You are taking things to the extreme again.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:If he really thinks Mark is doing something illegal then he could bring it to attention of the Australian police rather than make slanderous comments over the internet.

Quackery isn't illegal.
So why are you throwing so many insults at Mark?
If what he is doing is legal, and his patients go to him because they like a mix of alternative medicine and orthodox medicine, they why are you on this crusade?

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:The fact of the matter is that neither The Clap, nor yourself know enough about the medical practices of Mark Fulton, in order to make such claims.

Fulton described his non-evidence based practices, that is sufficient. He also admitted that his advice isn't mainstream.
So Mark is being upfront and honest, why do you have to insult him?


(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:The Clap is assuming an extreme worst case, he is assuming Mark is sending patients home with bags and bags of vitamins and giving no mainstream advise or prescriptions.

No I am not. My concern is the complete absence of evidence for the claims Fulton has made.
Then why not just address the claims rather than insult Mark and the education facility he attended. It makes it difficult to see what you are arguing about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(07-11-2013 12:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You don't know what you are talking about. Just because you have no clue it doesn't mean that no one knows where the RDA/RDI data came from.
I don't claim to be a doctor, I have not studied this topic. I'm just going by the arguments presented in this thread.
You have not shown double blind tests supporting your own claim.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You don't know what you are talking about.
I am going by the information presented in this thread. You have not corrected me on this point, you have not shown that RDA/RDI applies to unhealthy people.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You have evidence for this claim?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/12/3/162.abstract
Quote:It may be concluded that since the absorption mechanisms of vitamins differ markedly and since their absorption is so readily influenced by the pharmaceutical form in which they are compounded, there is need for much more information to ensure that vitamin therapy is placed on a sound physiologic basis. Such information is of particular importance when attempts are made to modify absorption rates.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/improve-...-2898.html
Quote:Absorption of vitamins can be encouraged or thwarted by a variety of factors.


(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You haven't read any of the studies so you are in no position to form that conclusion. Also you are second-guessing the RANZCP, RCP and the ACA.
As you have stated before, appeals to authority don't hold weight.
Granted my knowledge is very limited on this topic, but going by what has been presented in this thread, there doesn't seem to be much quality research carried out on vitamins. Many, many of the cited research either state that the results are inconclusive or state that more research is needed

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Read the studies that were were systematically reviewed and meta-analysed if you want the details. Don't just assume that no such data exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin
Quote:There have been mixed studies on the importance and safety of dietary supplementation. A meta-analysis published in 2006 suggested that Vitamin A and E supplements not only provide no tangible health benefits for generally healthy individuals but may actually increase mortality, although two large studies included in the analysis involved smokers, for whom it was already known that beta-carotene supplements can be harmful.[45][46][47] Another study published in May 2009 found that antioxidants such as vitamins C and E may actually curb some benefits of exercise.[48] While other findings suggest that evidence of Vitamin E toxicity is limited to specific form taken in excess.[49] A double-blind trial published in 2011 found that vitamin E increases the risk of prostate cancer in healthy men.[50] The conflict of interest section of this study reveals that it has ties to the ambitions of the pharmaceutical companies Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Amgen, Firmagon, and Novartis.[51] Other studies without conflicts of interest reported exactly the opposite – that Vitamin E supplementation reduced the risk of prostate cancer,[52] and increased overall prostate cancer survival.[53]

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  This just shows that you are ignorant.
No doubt. But this evidence has not been shown in this thread.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No they don't, you just don't understand what you are reading.
I specifically read the word "inconclusive" with most of your citations.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is a conspiracy theory and it is based on your ignorance. Most nutritional supplements are manufactured by pharmaceutical companies.
The key part of my statement "certainly worth some skepticism" is not the words of a conspiracy theorist. You are taking things to the extreme again.

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Quackery isn't illegal.
So why are you throwing so many insults at Mark?
If what he is doing is legal, and his patients go to him because they like a mix of alternative medicine and orthodox medicine, they why are you on this crusade?

(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Fulton described his non-evidence based practices, that is sufficient. He also admitted that his advice isn't mainstream.
So Mark is being upfront and honest, why do you have to insult him?


(06-11-2013 10:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No I am not. My concern is the complete absence of evidence for the claims Fulton has made.
Then why not just address the claims rather than insult Mark and the education facility he attended. It makes it difficult to see what you are arguing about.

Stevil, Chippy went bye bye.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(07-11-2013 12:52 PM)Dom Wrote:  Stevil, Chippy went bye bye.
OK, thanks for letting me know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(07-11-2013 03:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 12:52 PM)Dom Wrote:  Stevil, Chippy went bye bye.
OK, thanks for letting me know.

No, he's back.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: