Date:   9/28/2011 12:56:40 PM ( 13 y ago)
Hits:   3,243
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1863092

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

ROTFLMAO!!! Running away so soon? 

"I really do feel like a boxer"

Well you just got a 5th round Knock Out.

It's called a "rope a dope".  I was way too easy on you from the start, assuming you understood that the mucosal lining of the colon is quantitatively and qualitatively significantly different from that of feces. Surely enough you wore yourself out trying to correct what you *thought* was my misunderstanding and began exposing your own ignorance. And now you have received a devastating blow. Really, you have received a sweep kick and landed on your ass, taking your entire fecal counting obsession with you to the ground.

I have stated from the very beginning that it is the beneficial microflora at hand. Not feces. Once again I gave you too much credit even with the term "microflora" referring contextually to the beneficial microbiotica residing in the mucosal lining. Proving that the bacteria in the mucosal lining of the colon are significantly different than that of feces destroys your argument. Proving also that your outdated textbooks were based on medical assumption rather than fact renders your copy pasting obsolete.

And sure, the article doesn't specify biopsy volume, but do you really think they took one millionth of a mL sample, which would be necessary to bring the 10^5 measurement up to 10^11/mL as seen in feces? Most likely it was a 100 microliter sample for the flow cytometric analysis, which is 1/10 of a mL. A 1/10th mL sample would yield a density of only 10^6 to 10^7 bacteria /mL in the mucosal lining of the colon. And weren't you and fecal man getting your panties in a bundle over the small intestine being "sterile" with a bacteria density of *only* 10^8 bacteria /mL in the distal end? That is 10 to 100 times more dense with bacteria than the mucosal lining of the colon. 10^8/mL is certainly NOT sterile. I would pay to see your hands shaking over the keyboard as your face turns red with embarrassment. The article proves both qualitatively AND quantitatively the significant difference between the mucosal lining and feces.

You had better run away, because there is no way for you or fecal soap man to recover from this. You might as well both leave curezone altogether, for the betterment of all!

Now look at your embarrassing rant in your previous post:

"Also, let's use common sense. We've all seen diagrams of the colon, it's like the Greek letter mu. Starting from the anus: it goes up, hangs a left, then goes back down again. If I were to shove an instrument through your anus with a scoop attached to it, to gather a sample of mucous to count your bacteria, I'm really only gathering info from one small spot. Whereas fecal matter (a stool sample) that travels the length of your colon has been picking up flora as it moves along. So if you were a bacteriologist and enjoyed finding and counting bacteria, which method, which sample would you rather use?"

Wow! A fantasy of pretending to know enough to dare suggest what a bacteriologist would do to determine a sample. Read once again: the predominant mucosa-associated bacterial community was host specific and uniformly distributed along the colon

->Uniformly distributed<- So much for your fantasy of possessing "common sense"

READ: you went out of your way to write an enitre PARAGRAPH based on your clear and distinct lack of knowledge on this subject, in a vain attempt to somehow prove a point through writing a hypothetical scenario based on ignorance? Incredible. And you had the audacity to cry "flat-out wrong" when you don't even know what you are talking about? Shove a scoop up your own anus and do some research. Let's face it: you and the masses were so obsessed with feces that they never bothered to take an actual sample of the mucosal lining. Everyone just believed what everyone else told them, and what the textbooks implied. Sound familiar? This is exacly your fallacy of thinking. You have a fecal obsession and are too lazy to think for yourself, exactly like your bend-over-buddy fecal soap man.

I know you are crying shamelessly in a corner from the beating you have brought upon yourself at this point, but expect no mercy from me. You obviously were and are a bully in real life, and so it is my pleasure to put you in your place.

And no, this thread is not dead. Over 50 people have witnessed your shameless ignorance masquerading as authoritative knowledge.

So now, FINALLY that you know some facts about what you are debating, I mean, crying about, is it so difficult to consider that just like the colon, the mucosal lining of the small intestines is also uniformly distributed? And is it SO far fetched to consider the possibility that the population density of the small intestine mucosal lining is consistent throughout?It certainly is worthy of study and consideration, NOT "flat-out wrong" as you and fecal man have cried.

Really, what better way to inter populate a constant influx of fluid and chime with the necessary amounts of bacteria than having a consistent and high concentration of microflora throughout the mucosa of the small intestines? Or do you still believe in your "trend" and think that the bacteria count of the mucosa increases the further down you go? Already Proven wrong: uniformly distributed

If no one until that article in 2002 bothered to do a sample of the colon's mucosal lining, don't you think an area that is even more difficult to reach such as the small intestines would be unknown and unstudied as well?

Do you really believe the mucosal lining of the small intestines is sterile? Just why do you think the population density of the fluid and chime increases the further down the small intestines it goes? Forget about your "trend". The answer should be obvious to anyone with half a brain: it is because it has had more time exposure to the real source of beneficial microflora; the mucosal lining of the small intestines, which is most likely uniformly distributed like the colon's lining.

I have phrased all this in the form of questions, not because I in any way expect you to actually be able to contemplate in a reasonable and logical fashion what is outside the boundaries of your conditioned herd-mind, but rather to add extra emphasis in exposing your shameful outburst of "flat-out wrong". 

Now considering all this, let's remember that it was YOU who acted out by going out of your way to declare my statement as "flat-out wrong". So far, you have by no means proven anything to that effect. You have only demonstrated your acute lack of knowledge about the subject at hand while acting like a pompous ass. Congratulations!! You have proven how dumb and disrespectul you are!

I would say that I have lost all respect for you, but that would be a falsehood. I never had any respect for you to begin with!

Now go put on a dunce hat and sit in the corner with fecal man.

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1863092