Chester wrote:
A.L. wrote:
Price wrote: You can lower your viral load before starting your next treatment by eliminating carbohydrates from your diet. Hep C is sugar dependent so taking its sugar source lowers viral load (Carbs turn into sugar).
This study proves it....
Your advice is based on a profoundly ignorant understanding of the paper you quote. You have no idea of what you are saying and you are being reckless publishing such recommendations.
The paper you quote proves nothing of what you claim.
Just stop it A.L. Subjectively, I find your language on this forum unacceptable. Objectively, it is completely unnecessary.
In order to challenge someone's interpretation of the research, you do not have to adopt such a confrontational approach. You continually project emotions onto people. I've been subjected to your personal attacks and had you subscribe emotional responses to me on several occasions that simply were not the case. And as I suffer from PTSD I really don't appreciate it. But I recognise it for what it is.
Bullying.
My language is far more acceptable than that used against me in the past when I have commented. As far as your accusation of me being a bully, that is more a demonstration of victim culture that is one of the uglier aspects of modern western countries. If you don't like direct discourse, stay out of them, but whatever you do, please don't complain because you don't like direct expression of opinion. And to use your words, "Don't project emotions onto people."
I'm not going to thank an ignoramus who concludes from a scientific paper, and then goes on to advise, "You can lower your viral load before starting your next treatment by eliminating carbohydrates from your diet." He says "eliminating carbohydrates", which is straight up absurd. And then goes on to say "This study proves it..." Again, utter ignorance. In this field, there are very few single papers which prove anything, hence the enormous amount of repetition and variation of trials and experiments. His utterance, at the very least, misrepresents the scientific process and misleads people into making incorrect deductions from single studies. There is no room for misplaced politeness here, just as we don't warn someone walking into traffic, "Excuse me, you are about to be hit by a bus."
Well, sorry but I'm not copping your shit. Here's a tutorial on how to communicate on the internets. Your response could have gone something like this.
"Thanks for your contribution Price but I have to disagree with your interpretation for reasons x, y and z."
Come on, it's not that fucking hard. I don't post on this forum as much anymore partly because of you.
Are you serious? This is an open debate. When was the last time someone walked out of parliament because they didn't like the tone someone else was using? It reeks either of inexperience in debate, or of the new trend to shut down debate because one disagrees withanother's opinion.
If I'm feeling generous I might.....and I do mean might....contribute what I can to your request for information about how long to get over the FX of Tx.
But at the moment, I don't feel so inclined.
What you have just expressed can be described as passive aggression, threatening to withhold a favour unless I comply. For me, such a threat is no problem, more an illustration of a character trait, but I don't want to shut you down because of it, although it does come as a surprise that someone claiming to have PTSD should be so aggressive.
I'm direct, informative, don't swear, and argue well within the bounds of decency. You can't ask for a better interlocutor.
