Tim Noakes Not Guilty

Read the hearing. He gave bad advice, but they deemed it ok because he did it with the Herald of High Fat hat (LCHF author) on. Not his doctor's hat.

Nope.

Adams says the council found that his advice was not dangerous.

"On the facts, this committee finds that no actual or potential harm was proven or that any information provided on Twitter by the respondent, whether unsolicited or not, was dangerous or life threatening."
 
Read the hearing. He gave bad advice, but they deemed it ok because he did it with the Herald of High Fat hat (LCHF author) on. Not his doctor's hat.

That he wasn't wearing his doctor's hat was obvious at the time, and indeed I pointed that out in the thread.

I can't find a copy of the hearing / judgement - Got a link?

Got a link? Have you read it? Or were you telling fibs about them deeming it bad advice?
 
Nope.

Adams says the council found that his advice was not dangerous.

"On the facts, this committee finds that no actual or potential harm was proven or that any information provided on Twitter by the respondent, whether unsolicited or not, was dangerous or life threatening."

Correct, the advice he gave re the child was to ween it onto real food, as with all infants in the history of time, his mistake was he used a precursor of LCHF, which people seemed to freak out about.
In real terms, prepare the 'Purity' yourself is what he was saying, not processed foods.

the tweet
Baby doesn't eat the dairy and cauliflower. Just very healthy high fat breast milk. Key is to ween [sic] baby onto LCHF."

So someone thinks that a 1 liner on twitter now replaces your dietitian, personal MD or whoever else 'you pay to play with' and throws a hissy fit. Unlikely.

Shame, cry me a river.
Big sugar at play here.
 
Spoken like a true disciple.

3 years and you'll qualify for vegan.

I don't really understand you guys who are so vociferously anti-Noakes. As much as you try and paint the rest of us as unthinking acolytes, how do you not recognise your absolutely stubborn refusal to listen to reason, inability to examine evidence honestly and constant sniping at Noakes and those who find the evidence for his claims sufficient, as an even more dimwitted version of the same failing?

Not to mention some of you outright just making **** up to support your viewpoints, as far as I can tell.

It's simply bizarre.
 
I don't really understand you guys who are so vociferously anti-Noakes. As much as you try and paint the rest of us as unthinking acolytes, how do you not recognise your absolutely stubborn refusal to listen to reason, inability to examine evidence honestly and constant sniping at Noakes and those who find the evidence for his claims sufficient, as an even more dimwitted version of the same failing?

Not to mention some of you outright just making **** up to support your viewpoints, as far as I can tell.

It's simply bizarre.
I'm a avid Atkins follower I like the banting stuff I do not like sir Tim Jokes though
 
Shifts to a new story every 8 years his a "family friend" just one like the guy. How many reasons do I need? None I don't like him.

Changing one's view in light of evidence pointing at a truth different to a conception previously held, is the mark of an engaged mind.
 
The earth was flat once, apparently.
"A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point… presented with evidence - unequivocal and undeniable evidence - that his belief is wrong, he will emerge not only unshaken but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed he may even evince new fervor about convincing and converting others to his view."
Leon Festinger, author of When Prophecy Fails

“In science it often happens that scientists say, you know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion”.
- Carl Sagan
 
Scientism is the new religion and its dangerous.
Science is bought and paid for by vested interests.
Medical fascism against different paradigms of understanding health and disease causation is not science.
 
Scientism is the new religion and its dangerous.
Science is bought and paid for by vested interests.
Medical fascism against different paradigms of understanding health and disease causation is not science.

Youre going to love Australia then mate, they don't take kindly to you anti-vaxxer lot.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X