• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lord Language Resurrection.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stuart said:
A phobia (definition from here) is:
It is neither excessive or irrational to take precautions around something that is potentially fatal.
Click to expand...
It will be a great invention if somebody will build the technology of making a man free from his phobias.
After I have successfully adapted to my Great "To Eat Only in the 7th Day Lifestyle", I think that it is possible.
 
Craig4 said:
No, this is incorrect. A 40 proof distilled spirit is will not kill the salmonella virus. It's only 40 percent alcohol and will be diluted in the fluids in your stomach. It may slightly reduce the risk but only just.
Click to expand...
Just try to understand a very simple thing.
If you even will not drink vodka - 50 gr of raw meat from your refrigerator is too little dose of meat to kill you in every cases.
It means that your risk to die is zero.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
It's hard to live with such cocktail of different ideas of different people.

When you are trying to find a connection between these ideas you find only one explanation.

The authors of those ideas are crazy, drug addicts and alcoholics.
Click to expand...



That's right ladies and gentlemen. NC just called a puppet based YouTube comedy channel "drug addicts and alcoholics" because I used them as an example of how expressing an opinion does not necessarily mean that opinion has authority.
 
Border Reiver said:
Raw vegetables - no problem
Raw grains - issues will arise with digestion as the starches must be exposed by grinding
Raw dairy - unpasteurized milk may contain a large amount of bacterial contaminants from contact with the air, the cow and the skin of the farmer. There is a reason that raw milk carries a large number of health warnings and that infant deaths dropped dramatically after dairies started pasteurizing milk.
Raw meat and fish - certain types can be consumed raw, but poultry and many types of fish contain bacterial and environmental contaminants that must be removed by cooking.

Your "diet" will have the natural consequence of killing people.
Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself.
Dairy products, fruits and vegetables, whole grains we buy in the supermarket.
So there will be no problems.

Meat, fish and poultry people must not eat a lot at once.
A man will try to eat in the first time only 25 - 50 gr of raw meat.
If there is nausea or diarrhea the exeperiment have to be stoped.
But 99.9% that all would be well.
In this case you can increase the dose of raw meat in 2 times.
Then another 2 times, etc.
So you will know how many grams of raw meat you can eat without harm to your health.

I did it many times and I am OK.
It does not mean that I eat only raw meat.
It means that I can do it when I want and it is a great thing.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
Just try to understand a very simple thing.
If you even will not drink vodka - 50 gr of raw meat from your refrigerator is too little dose of meat to kill you in every cases.
It means that your risk to die is zero.
Click to expand...

Bacteria are really really tiny. Really really tiny. So tiny in fact, that 50 grams of meat can contain very very many of them.
It might also interest you to know that bacteria are alive and can reproduce asexually.
Even a few bacteria can become really really many bacteria in a matter of hours if the conditions are right.
So just taking smaller bites of spoiled meat is not a good way to prevent food poisoning.
Somehow I'm not surprised you need to be told this :(
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
Sorry I don't see any link between this my quote and your material.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think you do. ;)

http://explosm.net/comics/4488/

I think you know exactly what I meant.

VDdlb.gif
 
halleyscomet said:
I find it very revealing you have to lie about what I said to even try to defend yourself.

I want to see some proof of your alleged diet claims. Given how freely you like about what I wrote just a few posts ago, I have no reason to believe you're being truthful about your diet claims. I don't believe you. That also happens to be one of the pitfalls of self-experimentation. It's VERY easy to dismiss n=1 "research" where the "researcher" is also the only test subject, Confirmation bias makes the "research" completely unreliable.
Click to expand...

You are right.
It is much better when there is somebody who can check me in my great experiment.
I am open to everybody.
You can come to me and check me too.
Only because nobody still does not want to check me I have to check me myself.

halleyscomet said:
I doubt scientists are going to willingly and intentionally roll back the quality of scientific research 100 to 200 years for no benefit. Hell, we make horror movies about scientists stupid enough to use themselves, or even their own tissue, in research:
Click to expand...

I am absolutely sure that if we combine in one person the ill man with specific disease, the scientist and the expert in this disease model and the model for experimentation; the probability of getting a brilliant and unexpected results will very much increase.
halleyscomet said:
I never said anything about you becoming a professor. You don't need to be a professor or a doctor to write a case study.

Actually, now that I think about it, I could write a case study about you based upon your self-reported diet. I'll start with the working title "neurological decline due to deliberate starvation diet."
Click to expand...

From one side you don't believe that has really achieved a great ability to eat only in the 7th day.
From an other side you do believe that has really achieved a great ability to eat only in the 7th day because you want to start with the working title "neurological decline due to deliberate starvation diet."
What logic you use to combine in your mind those alternative?
halleyscomet said:
I did that intentionally to mock your dietary claims and tacitly accuse you of lying by equating your claims with works of deliberate fiction.
Click to expand...

You did not pay any attention that I have returned to my great "To Eat Only in the 7th Days Lifestyle" immediately very very easy and without 6 months of preliminary stages as I did in the begining of my great project.
halleyscomet said:
If it's well prepared properly handled sushi, you're right. If it's chicken, you're not only begging for trouble, but eating a very disgusting meal.
Click to expand...
I ate the raw chickens many times and it is not the disgusting meal when you really want to eat.
I can't understand me because you simply have no experience what means "I want to eat after 6 days freedom from eating".
 
halleyscomet said:
That assumes the cyanide was still even cyanide when it was used in food to begin with:

http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/...80/The_murder_of_Rasputin.pdf?v=1353967419600



Rasputin did not have an immunity to cyanide. You can't build up an immunity to a chemical that binds to the iron in your cells. If you could, then you could also build up an immunity to Carbon monoxide poisoning! Imagine how convenient THAT would be as am immunity in the modern world.

WHEN the cyanide was applied hardly matters given the unstable nature of the compound used.
Click to expand...
Your hypothesis is that potassium cyanide has become another - the harmless substance.
My version is that Rasputin has developed a strong immunity to lethal doses of cyanide and that's why he did not die when his enemies tried to poison him.
I believe that I am right.
You believe in this silly hypothesis.
 
halleyscomet said:
That's right ladies and gentlemen. NC just called a puppet based YouTube comedy channel "drug addicts and alcoholics" because I used them as an example of how expressing an opinion does not necessarily mean that opinion has authority.
Click to expand...
My goal is not to change the opinion of somebody.
My goal is to change radically and positively the lifestyles of billions people.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Bacteria are really really tiny. Really really tiny. So tiny in fact, that 50 grams of meat can contain very very many of them.
It might also interest you to know that bacteria are alive and can reproduce asexually.
Even a few bacteria can become really really many bacteria in a matter of hours if the conditions are right.
So just taking smaller bites of spoiled meat is not a good way to prevent food poisoning.
Somehow I'm not surprised you need to be told this :(
Click to expand...
Let us speak about this here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=286661

And in this thread let us speak about my great global social projects.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
You are right.
It is much better when there is somebody who can check me in my great experiment.
I am open to everybody.
You can come to me and check me too.
Only because nobody still does not want to check me I have to check me myself.
Click to expand...
Nope. Your own self reported wild weight variations are in themselves sufficient to demonstrate that you are either telling porkies or committing slow suicide.


Nationalcosmopolitan said:
I am absolutely sure that if we combine in one person the ill man with specific disease, the scientist and the expert in this disease model and the model for experimentation; the probability of getting a brilliant and unexpected results will very much increase.
Click to expand...
Nope, you are not by your own admission. You claimed to have had hernia surgery. You claimed that you abandoned your diet because of it. Your diet proposal is clearly useless by your own admission.


Nationalcosmopolitan said:
From one side you don't believe that has really achieved a great ability to eat only in the 7th day.
Click to expand...
Nor do you. If you really believed it, your post surgery diet would not have changed. You stated that that you resumed a normal diet post surgery. At some level, you clearly know your diet is deleterious.

Nationalcosmopolitan said:
From an other side you do believe that has really achieved a great ability to eat only in the 7th day because you want to start with the working title "neurological decline due to deliberate starvation diet."
What logic you use to combine in your mind those alternative?
Click to expand...
Logic? Nope. Evidence. We know that your diet will mess anyone up thanks to science.

Nationalcosmopolitan said:
You did not pay any attention that I have returned to my great "To Eat Only in the 7th Days Lifestyle" immediately very very easy and without 6 months of preliminary stages as I did in the begining of my great project.
Click to expand...
It deserves no attention. As an idea it is utterly stupid.

Nationalcosmopolitan said:
I ate the raw chickens many times and it is not the disgusting meal when you really want to eat.
I can't understand me because you simply have no experience what means "I want to eat after 6 days freedom from eating".
Click to expand...
You are dodging bullets. Eventually, you will get caught out. For what it's worth, I have been 6 days with no food more than once. Even then raw chicken was not remotely an option regardless that I was hungry. If you are willing to gobble raw chicken after six days of fasting, you clearly have some other medical issue going on which is either undiagnosed or you are concealing.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
Your hypothesis is that potassium cyanide has become another - the harmless substance.

My version is that Rasputin has developed a strong immunity to lethal doses of cyanide and that's why he did not die when his enemies tried to poison him.

I believe that I am right.

You believe in this silly hypothesis.
Click to expand...


I believe in science.

You're choosing to believe a fairytale about a very smelly super monk.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
I ate the raw chickens many times and it is not the disgusting meal when you really want to eat.
I can't understand me because you simply have no experience what means "I want to eat after 6 days freedom from eating".
Click to expand...

Tell me, is it like the desire to inhale farts after several minutes of 'freedom' from breathing?
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
Just try to understand a very simple thing.
If you even will not drink vodka - 50 gr of raw meat from your refrigerator is too little dose of meat to kill you in every cases.
It means that your risk to die is zero.
Click to expand...

No, this is also not correct. It all depends on how many microbes are on the meat to begin with. 50 grams is more than enough material for a potentially lethal amount salmonella.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom