wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (08/21/85)
The cover story of Newsweek,August 26, 1985 issue is: "WARNING--AMERICA'S SWEET TOOTH MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO ITS HEALTH". For those particularly nasty scoffers,who have been doing their best to ridicule those who have been trying to share this important new knowledge, I have a question: "WHO'S LAUGHING NOW ?" To those people with open minds who truly were interested in something new: there are many resources available to you. You don't have to wait till the "powers that be" get around to saving you. Once again, I offer FREE a detailed protocol and bibliography for testing your own susceptibility to refined carbohydrates as well as the benefits you would obtain from a trial elimination of same. Unless you do it correctly, you are likely to have withdrawal symptoms for weeks and your results will be slow (though certain). The correct approach will produce remarkable results within one week and continuous progress for about 4 months. Withdrawal should be over in 3-4 days, done correctly. Just send a stamped, self addressed envelope to me for the above offer. Please feel free to share the copywritten material with any one you care for. The more healthy people there are in this world the better world it will be for me, and my children, to live in! Even Steve Dyer and Gordon Banks are welcome--I'm a firm believer that there is good in everyone (if we look hard enough). cbosgd!ukma!wws -- Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder, & Medical Director Holistic Medical Centre 1412 N. Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/25/85)
> The cover story of Newsweek,August 26, 1985 issue is: > "WARNING--AMERICA'S SWEET TOOTH MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO ITS HEALTH". > For those particularly nasty scoffers,who have been doing their best > to ridicule those who have been trying to share this important new > knowledge, I have a question: "WHO'S LAUGHING NOW ?" > Dear Walt, "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers." Tell me, since when is the cover title of Newsweek proof of anything? When is an article in a popular newsmagazine proof of anything? Even so, did you even READ the article? If you had, you would have noted that it said nothing to contradict the common scientific opinion on sugar, namely that it contributes to dental caries and obesity, period. Which makes sense, of course, since such articles are simply reviews of the scientific literature made palatable by a popular style. If you want to be taken seriously, and not "scoffed at", then use your head, and don't act stupid. Don't make silly comments like "who's laughing now" on the basis of a sensational cover on Newsweek. (And finally, turn your CAPS LOCK key off :-)) If you want to strengthen your position, then use the tools of the scientific method and present some real, hard evidence. You'll get people to listen. As it is, both you and Stanions come off as buffoons (sorry to be so blunt, but that's the way it is) misapplying logic and grasping at non-evidence in a desperate attempt to validate your opinions. And then you wonder why reasonable people don't take you seriosly! -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (08/27/85)
After due consideration, I have decided that someone either slipped Walt Stoll or I a faked copy of newsweek, or Walt has been tippling at the sugar again... In article <2074@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: >The cover story of Newsweek,August 26, 1985 issue is: >"WARNING--AMERICA'S SWEET TOOTH MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO ITS HEALTH". > >For those particularly nasty scoffers,who have been doing their best >to ridicule those who have been trying to share this important new >knowledge, I have a question: "WHO'S LAUGHING NOW ?" I read this article. It told me nothing I didn't know before, or wasn't agreed to by the more "mainstream" posters to this newsgroup. (1) Sugar is bad for your teeth, (2) Sugar supplies empty calories, calories with little or no other nutritional value, (3) Sugar is bad for people with diabetes. In no way did this article suggest the pandora's box of terrors that Bill and Walt have laid at sugar's feet. In fact, it specifically stated that sugar was in no way the *cause* of diabetes, at least one thing which the anti-sugar types promote (I shouldn't say anti-sugar, because *I'm* anti-sugar, but realistically so.) If you are laughing, Walt, then you really are deplorable. You would seem to be more interested in winning than in promoting good health. >To those people with open minds who truly were interested in something >new: there are many resources available to you. You don't have to >wait till the "powers that be" get around to saving you. >Once again, I offer FREE a detailed protocol and bibliography for >testing your own susceptibility to refined carbohydrates as well as >the benefits you would obtain from a trial elimination of same. If you cannot even read a Newsweek article, and get it straight, why should I trust your conclusions or believe in your protocol? I do not take advice from people who do (1) not keep up with the facts of medicine as aptly demonstrated from your declaration that RABIES IS A PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASE and (2) would either inadvertantly or deliberately attempt to mislead the readers of this group as to the content of the Newsweek article. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
ssm@cmu-ri-leg.ARPA (Sesh Murthy) (08/28/85)
O.K. I have been keeping quiet but I want to refute the stuff about lack of refined sugar making you feel great. During the mid-60s when I was a ten year old kid, India had a serious food-shortage. Sugar was available only intermittently through the rationing system and we could not afford the price in the open market. Our diet was mainly unleavened bread made of whole wheat flour, lentils and lots of vegetables( These were really cheap.) We went for several months at a time without sugar in any form. We never ate processed food so we never got any sugar from that source. The same story was repeated in 72-73. I was never hungry at that time. However I never felt any different because I did not eat sugar. I wonder how Mr. Stoll accounts for that? P.S. A side effect is that I don't like sweets or anything containing a lot of sugar. I don't know how to explain this to others but they leave a horrible aftertaste in my mouth.-- uucp: seismo!rochester!cmu-ri-leg!ssm arpa: ssm@cmu-ri-leg