So...you claim to have peer reviewed, published studies that actually say plant based vegan diets CURE this type of cancer and provide enough useable, quality proteins for people with his condition? I seriously doubt that, but feel free to produce away, but if I read them and find that they don't say any such thing (like the last time I spent my time debunking this guy), or aren't really scientific studies, be ready to be called a liar any time you post more claims without them being reviewed as a reward for wasting my time and efforts....again.

Wait....you see I won't accept non published, non peer reviewed studies because they aren't scientific, so instead you offer a webpage about random people's compiled anecdotes about weight LOSS from vegan diets, the exact opposite of the claim being discussed? There was only one cancer story on the whole page of anecdotes, totally unscientific, in which the woman had surgery and treatments then later went vegan and claimed it "cured" her, but she seems to have stopped checking so doesn't really even know if she still has it and certainly couldn't say what 'cured' it...and every story there is really just an add for his books. WTF man?

I never said some people can't benefit from plant based, or even vegan diets (although that's incredibly difficult and expensive long term, as proven by Jobs who couldn't benefit from the most expensive, highest quality plant proteins available.). I said it usually can't provide the protein normal people need to be healthy, much less the excessive protein needed with his condition, which was absolutely PROVEN because it completely failed to do so and eventually even he gave up...just far too late.
Plant based diets VS processed food based diets usually will help with weight loss (what almost all the anecdotes were about) and most people can benefit from the weight loss alone, no matter how it comes. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the topic of curing cancer or Jobs condition.
Face====>palm

You're already assuming the studies I'm going to quote aren't peer reviewed - which all journal published studies are. This is why I'm not going to bother, because we've been down this road before.

So perhaps you'd do better with anecdotes like this: https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/
Are all of these people lying about getting off their meds?

Up vote for hidden potato salad anecdote.

Not that I doubt your old-timey anecdotal evidence either (since you failed to actually POINT to evidence). A simple google pulled up this:

[url redacted]Ugh - Nevermind. I see we can't post links.
www usgovernmentspending com / compare_state_spending_2016b40a
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2016b40a

Hmmmm.... California and New York, followed by Texas.

Now I haven't been able to find a welfare spending by County yet in Texas, but I would be willing to BET that the majority of that is in the major metropolitan areas, which happen to also be quite blue... I wouldn't be surprised if that were true in New York and California too, but I don't know those people like I know Texas.

Not that i doubt your very charming old-timey anecdotal evidence, but spending a few minutes on google and you'll find... you know... actual data.

Conservative sites will point to how much 'blue' states spend on welfare, ignoring entirely the differences in population, as well as the fact that far and away the poorest counties with the highest percentage of welfare recipients are indeed in red states. As well as states in general, who per capita have the most welfare recipients. It really isn't even close.

Don't take my word for it...

Actually, your anecdote is slightly off. This election wasn't a choice between your responsibilities and a vacation, it was a choice between sitting in your dead end job, or taking a chance that you actually might be good at scavenging apocalyptic wastelands.

Alfred J. Pennyworth once said, "Some men just want to see the 1% infested Federal Government burn."

At least I think that's what he said.

Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.

No, you've pointed out what you believe were adverse outcomes from slight dehydration. These are anecdotes. You didn't measure your level of dehydration, nor did you control for all the other factors that could have caused your issues.

If it was dehydration causing you to have muscle cramps and loss of consciousness then you probably didn't have "slight dehydration", you most likely had severe dehydration. And as someone has already pointed out, the evidence for muscle cramps caused by dehydration is slim (but that doesn't mean it's not true for you).

Studies don't take into account outliers. They look at large groups of people to generate explanations for human physiological conditions. You might be a one in a billion person and react differently to dehydration than almost everyone else.

No, the meta-study I linked is saying that there is insufficient statistical evidence to suggest dehydration leads to muscle cramps in controlled forward looking studies, contrary to anecdotal backward looking claims which are statistically less rigorous.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/43/6/401.short

"Scientific evidence in support of the “electrolyte depletion” and “dehydration” hypotheses for the aetiology of EAMC comes mainly from anecdotal clinical observations, case series totalling 18 cases, and one small (n = 10) case–control study. Results from four prospective cohort studies do not support these hypotheses. In addition, the “electrolyte depletion” and “dehydration” hypotheses do not offer plausible pathophysiological mechanisms with supporting scientific evidence that could adequately explain the clinical presentation and management of EAMC."

I never said they were cruelty free, they just have better standards.

Also you always do this when it comes to farm discussions, you bring up anecdotal evidence. Unless you've been to every farm in the world, your personal experience is irrelevant.

If anyone wants to talk about which races, religions and nations have the monopoly on slavery, sexism, homophobia racial and religious discrimination, it's not Europeans these days, and certainly hasn't been for a long time.

If it's not acceptable for white people do behave this way, why do people tolerate it in other cultures?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U


Seems to me like Rapper Akala's anecdotes are a bit one sided.

Trump, and whether you can believe him or not, is not the point.

Showing confirmation bias and believing anecdotes from Charlie Sheen is the point I addressed.

One problem with your anecdote. Swiss citizens (men compulsory, women voluntarily) are required, by law, to become part of their citizen military, a militia if you will, and receive intense training and practice with weapons. The process also weeds out the whack jobs, who don't get to buy guns.

The Swiss procedure should be adopted by the US. It'd be a great way to use up the defense budget without invading anywhere...

While funny, your anecdotes could simply be used to throw out any law. There is a process to change the amendment and I am pretty sure your average gun owner would be willing to support that process, I know I am.

Additionally, if you are going to make fun, it's always best to include the one about our founding fathers being dyslexic and what they 'really' meant was the right to arm Bears.