Great April Fools joke from the forum of flog.

Why is it I get the impression, whatever numbers the forum of flog comes up with, are based on fantasy, or a broken calculator. What amazes me is the fact well respected people in the low carb community are quoting these ludicrous numbers gained from the flog.

As of today the flog boasts "Get support from 231,354 people on the Diabetes Forum" we know only a very tiny fraction of the members ever post. The member count includes many who have never posted, and countless members who walked years ago, not to mention the sock-puppets, spammers and banned members.

So 231,354 members and 200,000 on the low carb program have lost 1.8 million Kgs. this equates to 1,800 metric tonnes, that's one awful lot of blubber and one awfully large amount of flannel. I expect the owners will come along soon with some facts supporting these apparently ludicrous claims, but I won't be holding my breath.

The most surprising thing to me, is the fact the flogs idea of a low carb diet, was 150 grams of carb per day last time I checked. Just think what the weight loss might have been if a real low carb diet had been used. Maybe just as well a real low carb diet was not used, the planets axis could have been thrown out of kilter and we may have hurled towards the Sun and oblivion.

Think the barstewards are trying to kill me off last thing I need is to lose weight  

graham64 wrote:Think the barstewards are trying to kill me off last thing I need is to lose weight  

http://communicatoremail.com/w6~W2D3jRXtA29uSsy0uEpk_FeMNcX9Ht6ZgQwscPlG/WebView.aspx

I notice the Coventry Telegraph is not mentioned in this more accomplished than usual mail shot to the masses "One of the ways the website makes money is by charging to put organisations such as pharmaceutical companies doing medical trials in touch with forum members who have diabetes" Arjun Panesar forum owner Coventry Telegraph 3/8/2015

Link http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/gps-give-medical-advice-havent-9766465

How ironic a forum that banned, thread locked, edited and deleted many thousands of low carbers posts for years, is now presenting itself as the salvation for diabetics. Not so long ago the Sales Manager Barry Summers was stating publicly "We are interested to hear from investors, M&A groups, strategic partners, health insurance or pharmaceutical companies who have an interest in improving outcomes in the management and control of diabetes throughout the world. An ideal turn key beyond the pill distribution channel" This was swiftly deleted when quoted on the low carb diabetic blog.

Now we see the flog is trumpeting "able to come off medication" precisely what so many flog banned member's were confirming years ago. How times change, it appears a tie up with big pharma will not be as profitable as envisaged. Meanwhile, the forum members supply around 99% of the forum content, and the mods work for free, Panesar's parasites are claiming the glory.

Scary isn't it? I just saw yet another puff piece in I think the Daily Mail (may have been a while ago now, I'm trawling through Twitter).

Next he'll be patenting low carb.

I haven't looked for a long time, in fact I stopped using it when it was taking more than a day to read a day's worth of posts, but I suspect the ADA Forum is probably a LOT bigger in terms of active members. And despite that none of the successful ones actually followed the ADA Diet, not one was ever banned. In fact apart from the inevitable spammers, only one low carb anti was actually banned on my watch.

There are also a metric shitload of other forums I also never had time to even start reading but some of them were pretty huge too. Even by then (well more than 10 years ago) low carb was the main message in all of them.

http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/2011/04/26/not-only-banned-totally-expunged/

and adjacent posts, lest we forget the insanity. And David Unwin of course.

Meanwhile Sid has now become a statinator 

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/statins-good-or-bad-what-does-the-research-say.90050/page-9#post-1429251

graham64 wrote:Meanwhile Sid has now become a statinator 

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/statins-good-or-bad-what-does-the-research-say.90050/page-9#post-1429251

"If anyone wants to know about the factual evidence regarding Statins rather than the often bias Youtube video presentations and anecdotal evidence then the only place to look is the Cockrane Reviews.

The Cockrane reviews are NOT cherry picked and give ONLY the best un-biased reviews of medical research ."

My bold and Sid is yet again a complete wanker IMO for dismissing 'Anecdotal' evidence which as we all know is the hard reality for many and the myriad of real nasties experienced by a significant proportion of REAL folks who have taken statins which Sid arrogantly shuns although statins,as far as I am aware,are NOT a drug that Sid has ever used...Just what is his angle I wonder? i

Paul1976 wrote:

graham64 wrote:Meanwhile Sid has now become a statinator 

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/statins-good-or-bad-what-does-the-research-say.90050/page-9#post-1429251

"If anyone wants to know about the factual evidence regarding Statins rather than the often bias Youtube video presentations and anecdotal evidence then the only place to look is the Cockrane Reviews.

The Cockrane reviews are NOT cherry picked and give ONLY the best un-biased reviews of medical research ."

My bold and Sid is yet again a complete wanker IMO for dismissing 'Anecdotal' evidence which as we all know is the hard reality for many and the myriad of real nasties experienced by a significant proportion of REAL folks who have taken statins which Sid arrogantly shuns although statins,as far as I am aware,are NOT a drug that Sid has ever used...Just what is his angle I wonder? i

Sid is a very mercurial and unpredictable man, he always has been. He is like a human fruit machine, someone pulls his handle and the results are very random. Will he be posting a sensible post, will it be nonsense? Will it be a winner, three bells, or a plum a cherry and a grape, you never know with Sid.

Stains are a health hazard for most. Even the manufacturers most optimistic data shows average life increased by a matter of months at best. Unbiased data show statins are useless for Women, but may show some benefit to men who have had a heart attack. The fact is there is no correlation between cholesterol levels, and heart disease, absolutely none, as the largest study ever carried out proved.

The number one statin flogger in the UK is Sir Rory Collins, he has received over £100 million from the statin makers as evidenced at the link. So, if the fundamental reason for taking statins is to lower cholesterol, and that makes zero difference to heart disease risk, what’s the point of leaving yourself open, to the undoubted downside risks? Some very serious indeed, as is very well known.  http://thelowcarbdiabetic.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/hot-off-press-bmj-right-in-statins.html

Sid is still defending statins but he did put up a link to a thread from 2012 which is highly entertaining just be warned it covers twelve pages 

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/so-whats-the-truth-about-cholesterol.30571/

I found this

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/55/6/1807

which shows the differing effects of hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia on some actual risk factors for arterial damage.

IMO studying "cholesterol" is like studying firemen as the cause of fires because they are usually found in the vicinity. BROKEN cholesterol - small dense LDL - may be a factor inasmuch as drunk firemen may not work too well. The secret is to go back and look at the factors which damage the LDL, which may well be the same factors that damage the arteries in the first place. See Malcolm Kendrick for details.