Johngohde 2007-11-20 17:07:36
Is Medical Scientism a bunch of crock when it comes to Vitamin
Research, or what? Do scientists intentionally distort their findings
by any and all means possible in order to further their political
agenda?
scientism
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/s/scientism.htm
“scientism: the belief that there is one and only one method
of science and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the
conduct of research.”
The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
expensive urine. The obvious political justification is that if
vitamins are indeed both inexpensive and effective why should
physicians prescribe statins which are both expensive and come with a
number of serious side effects; other then to extract as much money as
possible from both patients and their health insurance?
For example: “Many experts say the finding, published this week in
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Living/ap20030612_2091.html
The Lancet medical journal, settles the issue of antioxidant vitamins
for heart health.”
Vivekananthan DP, Penn MS, Sapp SK.
Use of antioxidant vitamins for the prevention of
cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12814711&dopt=Abstract
Lancet. 2003 Jun 14;361(9374):2017-23.
PMID: 12814711
I call into question the following recent research study. According
to this study, the issue of antioxidant vitamins for heart health is
not by any means settled.
Osganian SK, Stampfer MJ, Rimm E.
Vitamin C and risk of coronary heart disease in women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12875759&dopt=Abstract
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Jul 16;42(2):246-52.
PMID: 12875759
After taking into account the women’s age, whether they smoked,
and other factors, the researchers found that the risk of heart
disease dropped as vitamin C intake increased. Women who used
vitamin C pills were 28% less likely to develop heart disease
than women who didn’t.
The findings of the above study were different from most other recent
vitamin c research. Half of the human population happens to be female
and have a built-in immunity against heart disease for about 10 years
over men. This probably explains why women live longer than men do. As
a result, many other studies have shown antioxidants to be effective
for men, but not for women. And, that the men who have been the most
protected are those who smoke and engage in unhealthy
lifestyles.
Yet, the above study found that women who used vitamin C pills were
28% less likely to develop heart disease than women who didn’t.
Now, compare that positive finding with this recent review study.
Morris CD, Carson S.
Routine vitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular
disease: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1\2834320&dopt=Abstract
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jul 1;139(1):56-70.
PMID: 12834320
Full Text online for FREE at:
http://www.annals.org/issues/v139n1/full/200307010-00014.html
“In three of four cohort studies, vitamin C supplementation was not
associated with coronary heart disease mortality (21 23) or all-cause
mortality (23). In two studies in older samples (21, 23), vitamin C
use did not protect against coronary disease or all-cause mortality
after adjustment for relevant confounders (23). Similarly, vitamin C
had no impact on cardiovascular or coronary heart disease mortality
(27). However, in a good-quality follow-up study of NHANES I (22),
regular use of a vitamin C supplement reduced the standardized
mortality ratio for cardiovascular mortality by 48% and for all-cause
mortality by 26%. In a cohort analysis of a secondary prevention trial
of cholesterol reduction or coronary stenosis, vitamin C use (250
mg/d) had no appreciable effect on progression of stenosis (28).”
I read through the complete full text of this study. They found a
reason to exclude a sizeable number of studies from their review. And,
for every favorable finding they found a reason to discount it. I
would characterize this review as political as it gets.
So, I repeat my question.
Is Medical Scientism a bunch of crock when it comes to Vitamin
Research, or what? Do scientists intentionally distort their findings
by any and all means possible in order to further their political
agenda?
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about
prevention.
Anth 2007-11-20 17:08:15
The vitamin C foundation published early results for 800-1500% reduction in
plaque using ascorbic acid and lysine.
Since it involves ‘mega dose vitamin’ supplements and Pauling’s/Rath’s
research, I doubt the article will ever be published.
Shame really….
Anth
George conklin 2007-11-20 17:08:18
This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not make
it true.
Doug 2007-11-20 17:08:21
Or it could be that they are indeed creating expensive urine, at least in
the case of vitamins B and C.
For A, D and E expensive health problems are created in lue of urine.
How many pills?
250mg supplement may be benificial.
500mg – you are gettin all you use.
500mg+, all the extra is p***** away.
Science dosn’t support your ideas?
Easy solution – shoot the messenger.
Is that prevention of quackery you are talking about?
Good, then we agree.
—
“The emperor is naked!”
“No he isn’t, he’s merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!”
to email me
Please remove “all your clothes”
Doug
Doug 2007-11-20 17:08:25
If it was never published, how do you know about it?
—
“The emperor is naked!”
“No he isn’t, he’s merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!”
to email me
Please remove “all your clothes”
Doug
George conklin 2007-11-20 17:08:28
Science is differently biased at different times but that does not stop
the fact that systematic analyisis of vitamin supplements is going to be
looked at because vitamins cannot be patended and more importantly, put on
prescription. The first poster is completely correct in his comment that the
standard answer still given is that vitamins more than the minimum accepted
dose just produces expensive urine.
Johngohde 2007-11-20 17:08:33
Thanks for responding to my post.
Your comments operationally illustrate how a scientist in writing a
research paper, simply by careful selection of the words he chooses to
use, can make the findings of his research paper either positive or
negative depending on his political agenda. And, thus before you can
properly interpret the results, you have to first determine the spin
the authors are trying to put on their paper.
A recent example of this would be:
Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP.
Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery
atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12904518&dopt=Abstract
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):535-45.
PMID: 12904518
The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As most
women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
irrelevant.
Your comments, of course, don’t speak well for impartial research.
If anything your comments illustrate exactly what a farce Medical
Scientism really is. 🙁
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
Johngohde 2007-11-20 17:08:37
I run a Yahoo Mailing List on Prevention and Healthy Lifestyles. To
date, I have reported on some 700 recent research studies on personal
health.
Anybody who spends any amount of time actually reading published
research would have to be some kind of a fool to place any faith in
the false religion of Medical Scientism to actually solve our Nations
Health Problems.
Published health research clearly goes in a spiral direction. It is
like traveling to the Moon, from Earth, by way of Mars. It is
laughably inefficient. It clearly has the objective of going as slow
as possible so that the paychecks of the research scientists will keep
coming in as long as is humanly possible.
And, as far as peer review research is concerned, it clearly does not
work in the case of Vitamin Research. Scientists in the field of
health research clearly are neither willing or able to correct the
problem. If Medical Scientism was how NASA depended on getting to the
Moon, we would never have gotten even one monkey to obit the earth
once. 🙁
Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people
trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/
Jeff utz 2007-11-20 17:08:40
I know what you mean. The companies that sell vitamins and other so-called
health foods are so honest that they would never distort in any way the
findings of scientists or try to sell vitamins with any type of advertising
that is not 100% accurate and totally proven scientifically. What an honest
bunch of businessmen.
Jeff
Mombu 2007-11-24 08:29:44
I am not talking about personal opinions on health. I mean real
scientific research and that is not supported either by you OR the medical
establishment.
Mombu 2007-11-24 08:29:48
Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman’s health overall. The fact that
it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.
Johngohde 2007-11-24 08:29:52
Perhaps if you were to concentrate?
The subject of this thread is “The Politics of Vitamin Research.”
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
Johngohde 2007-11-24 08:29:55
Kindly, cite some “real scientific research” that meets your above criteria.
Be sue to leave out *all* personal opinions on health. 🙂
LOL … In your case George, that means leaving out all the whining.
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about prevention.
Johngohde 2007-11-24 08:29:57
most
that
Perhaps if you were to concentrate?
The citation was cited by me to provide an example that shows that
when “a study” (ie, subject matter is irrelevant) does not produce the
expected negative results, scientists think absolutely nothing of
wording the abstract in such a fashion as to make the conclusion
negative anyway.
The subject of this thread is *not* about HRT. You are already wasted
every bodies time on that subject, George.
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about
prevention.
Pramesh rutaji 2007-11-24 08:29:59
Well, at least we know that Horse Hormone Replacement put into women
causes problems. Now what we need is a study that uses human hormones.
—
Pramesh
Jeff utz 2007-11-24 08:30:08
And the sales of vitamins are irrelevant. Yeah right.
Anth 2007-11-24 08:30:13
Why not avoid supplementation and go for all natural?
Anth
Rhino ceros 2007-11-24 08:30:15
Awh, you garbaged it. Synthetic vitamins have impurities caused by the
bacteria and fungi used to produce the wanted product.
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-24 08:30:57
–
Scientific method is defined by its design to prevent such distortion.
What political agenda? I know hundreds of doctors, and dozens of scientists.
Their politics range from right wing conservatism to socialism to at least
one self-proclaimed communist.
This word is not in common use, and sounds like a fabrication of those who
like to demean science as a mere belief system or religion.
Ah, it’s the Great Medical Conspiracy theory again. Bullshit.
Corellation is not causation.
But your ‘characterization’ is apolitical and impartial?
And I repeat my answer. No.
Science is a method of preventing us from lying to ourselves.
–Rich –>Frauds in “alternative medicine” abound. Just enter “herbs” in
Google to find thousands of them.
Anth 2007-11-24 08:30:59
Not quite, check this out…
Yeum, K, et al Beta carotene intervention trial in premalignant gastric
lesions, Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 995;14:536:A48
Anth
Steve harris 2007-11-24 08:31:03
Quote em. And spare me the all rac dl vitamin E studies,
inasmuch as d,d,d natural can now be produced synthetically,
and most of the d-alpha is produced semisynthetically.
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-26 06:50:38
–
This opinionated tirade proves nothing about science, medicine, or the
politics of scientists or medical professionals.
I said, and still say, that there is no coherent “political agenda” among
medical professionals and scientists. There are hardly any political ideas
we agree on. There is certainly no illuminati-like controling organization.
Oh? For free? Or are you another greedy altie quack who’s anti-science
political agenda is designed to scare people away from their doctors and
toward your pseudonatural for-profit products?
–Rich
Johngohde 2007-11-26 06:50:39
Oh, so according to you quoting directly from:
Rodwin MA.
The politics of evidence-based medicine.
http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/jhppl/rodwin.htm#Introduction
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2001 Apr;26(2):439-46. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 11330089
contistutes an opinionated tirade?
No! You are presenting the opinionated tirade. 🙂
I simply quoted from an Academic Journal.
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about prevention.
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-26 06:50:41
–
So you think that academic journals never publish opinionated, biased
articles? Doesn’t that undermine your contention that, “scientists
intentionally distort their findings…”? Besides, the article you are
quoting here was published under the title “Commentary” and presented as the
opinion of the author. It was never intended to represent researched
data-based fact as would appear in the body of an academic journal.
prevention.
Johngohde 2007-11-26 06:50:42
I’ll rate your pathetic attempt to save face a C-.
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-26 06:50:44
–
And your feeble attempt at diversion gets a failing grade. The fact remains
that the article in question is a biased anti-science tirade, and that you
have presented nothing factual in support of your contention that scientists
distort their research in order to further some common political goal. See
if you can find anything solid. Present not just vague accusations, but an
example of a study that was cooked and the evidence that the errant
researcher was influenced by a conspiracy to “extract as much money as
possible from both patients and their health insurance.”
–Rich –>With a face of sunshine and serenity.
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-26 06:50:47
–
So then, it is the political agenda of the federal government (supplying the
great bulk of the research money) to suppress research favoring vitamin
supplements in favor of promoting the sale of statin drugs? Why? Besides, it
is not Mr. Gohde’s contention that vitamin researchers do not get funded,
but that they cheat when reporting their results.
You surely know more than a few scientists at Purdue. Ask them if they are
willing to cook their data or adjust their conclusions to meet a common
political agenda.
–Rich
Johngohde 2007-11-26 06:50:53
To a certain extent it depends on the particular vitamin.
But, in general the issue of natural versus synthetic is so passe as
to be almost laughable.
Johngohde 2007-11-26 06:50:56
Seven (7) high quality references
ad hominem comments?
Are you not making an oxymoron statement?
Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages,
Nutrition ( http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ )is now
with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-26 06:50:58
–
….that do not support your thesis.
Yes run away to your private sandbox. Come back to the real world when
you’ve learned enough about how it operates to engage in intelligent debate.
Johngohde 2007-11-26 06:50:59
In a certain REPLY I responded to your comments, period.
The rules of newgroup communication prohibits responding both to my
thesis and to your comments in the same post. All educated people
agree on this. I personally don’t even download very long posts.
Long posts are a marker for Twit Comments.
I will restate my thesis with support in a separate entirely new post. 🙂
You missed the obvious problem with my comments on reference #6.
There was actually nothing wrong with this abstract. The problem was
with the news media coverage of this abstract. The original press
release came from Reuters. Reuters news coverage is supposed to be of
high scientific quality. Obviously, their coverage is often
politically motivated. They failed to report that the results of two
studies in the New England Journal of Medicine was actually mixed.
They are the ones who erroneously made the claim the results of this
study was negative.
I have seen their biased reporting before. Another example would be
their erroneous claim that moderate exercise is just as effective as
intense physical exercise is in reducing the risk of mortality from
heart disease. I recall them positively making this type of health
claim from abstracts that directly contradicted their health claims.
I believe that they did this once or twice.
Of course, the precise news reports and citations are permanently
recorded on my Mailing List online database. 🙂
I never made any such claim.
At best, I claimed that the ‘negative conclusions’ of ‘some’ vitamin
research appears to be politically motivated.
I never claimed that *all* scientists and doctors have a common
political agenda. In fact, I was not talking about physicians at all.
Those comments were strictly made in reply to your comments.
—
John Gohde,
Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com – Pioneering De-Medicalization by
handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life’s problems as
medical.
Johngohde 2007-11-26 06:51:01
I never made any such claim.
At best, I claimed that the ‘negative conclusions’ of ‘some’ vitamin
research appears to be politically motivated. I did state that ‘some’
research appear to be ‘down-right fraudulent,’ but I was intending to
refer *only* to a couple of recent review studies that erroneously
‘appeared’ to make the conclusion that the use of antioxidant
supplements were not effective. The use of vitamin supplements are a
lot more effective than the medical establishment (i.e., these recent
antioxidant reviews) would like you to believe.
Of course, what they precisely did was engage in intentionally deceptive word games
I never made any such claim.
I never claimed anbody was cooking their data!
I never claimed that *all* scientists have a common political agenda.
See my comments above.
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people
trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-26 06:51:03
–
So now the problem is bad science reporting in the popular press? I thought
we were talking about scientists distorting their findings.
Hmmm.
“Is Medical Scientism a bunch of crock when it comes to Vitamin
Research, or what? Do scientists intentionally distort their findings
by any and all means possible in order to further their political
agenda?”
“The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
expensive urine. The obvious political justification is that if
vitamins are indeed both inexpensive and effective why should
physicians prescribe statins which are both expensive and come with a
number of serious side effects; other then to extract as much money as
possible from both patients and their health insurance?”
I don’t see the qualifying “some” in either of those accusatory statements
from your original post in the thread. And it seems to be “physicians” who
are greedily prescribing the statins. Oh, and who are the “Medical
Establishment”? Nursing assistants and hospital janitors?
–Rich –> Patient empowerment rises from patient knowledge. Learn your
science.
Rich shewmaker 2007-11-26 06:51:04
–
I’m not at all clear why the medical establishment would want to deceive me
about this. Surely vitamins do not compete directly with statins or other
prescription drugs at the consumer level. And even if my doctor prescribes
statins for me, I doubt he would object to my taking vitamins as well. In
fact, he does recommend folate supplement and a daily aspirin, neither of
which are high profit items for the “Medical Establishment.” Do you really
think that research scientists see supplementary vitamins as a threat to
replace prescription medication and thereby a threat to their livelihoods?
Precisely what do you think the “Medical Establishment” is doing, and WHY?
–Rich
Mooshie peas 2007-11-26 06:51:08
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 07:23:15 +0100, “Anth”
Why won’t it be published? Is it not worthy?
Mooshie peas 2007-11-27 23:53:03
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, “George Conklin”
Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
wholefood diet.
Mooshie peas 2007-11-27 23:53:10
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:09:45 GMT, “Doug”
Doug, Doug, Doug! Such awkward questions. Didn’t your Mom tell you
that wasn’t nice? 🙂
Mooshie peas 2007-11-27 23:53:17
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:05:43 GMT, “George Conklin”
When the truth is biased differently 🙂
So how come they have been looked at exhaustively?
It does, in general.
Mooshie peas 2007-11-27 23:53:23
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:00:40 +0100, “Anth”
So it WAS published? What is the URL?
Mooshie peas 2007-11-27 23:54:00
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:09:18 GMT,
posted:
I wonder if HRT doesn’t actually “cause” the cancer, but encourages
cancers that occur normally, to grow faster. Just musing.
Mooshie peas 2007-11-27 23:54:06
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:48:10 +0100, “Anth”
Rarely being invariably.
Mooshie peas 2007-11-27 23:54:10
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:59:13 +0100, “Anth”
Not quite what?
Doesn’t do a thing for me. What date is that ref?
Pramesh rutaji 2007-11-27 23:54:28
Premarin, a product made from horse’s urine, is being used in the
Women’s Health Study that is reporting negative results. 50% of the
estrogen from this formulation is not naturally found in women. The
Women’s Health Study is not studying HRT that uses ONLY estrogens found
naturally in women. They are not doing hormone “replacement” but
alternative hormone supplementation. One cannot assume from this study
that replacing natural human hormone would have the same effect as
supplementation with horse estrogens.
—
Pramesh
Pramesh rutaji 2007-11-27 23:54:33
Depends on who’s funding the research – paying the bills.
‘Ghostwritten’ research claims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/1806613.stm
—
Pramesh
Anth 2007-11-27 23:54:39
Mombu 2007-11-27 23:54:45
Herman does not recognize that when something cannot be put on
prescription and/or patented, then no one is interested in researching it.
The power of the prescription is what gives physcians their terrific power,
not knowledge. The medical-industrial complex does not really care about
research on something that cannot be controlled. Statins, by the way,
result in about a 23% chance of a cancer diagnosis in year 1 of use for
those over 65. That finding is ignored because they say it is not ‘causal,’
but then there is no knowledge of why that happens.
Mombu 2007-11-27 23:54:50
The minimium does were set to avoid obvious diseases like scurvy. As
for higher doses, there was no research done and still isn’t.
The food pyramid was set by politics, not research. Milk was not a basic
food until the 1930s, and of course is not a basic food beyond age 2. On
white people can digest milk easily as an adult–the recommendation is
basically racist. The current food pyramid will be done away with in the
next few years and is thought to be one main cause of an increase in
diabetes.
Mombu 2007-11-27 23:54:55
They have not been carefully looked at at all. Things like lycopene show
good correlational reductions in prostate cancer for example, but definitive
studies are not being undertaken because lycopene cannot be patented.
Unproven statement at the present time.
Mombu 2007-11-27 23:55:10
We all have cancer cells in us all the time. The body gets rid of them.
HRT probably stops that process.
Hrubin 2007-12-01 12:58:12
The ones actually making the decisions are essentially
administrators from the scientific establishment; they
mainly believe the current dogma. As the current dogma
is that supplements are largely useless, they do not fund
studies in it. On the other hand, they believe that
non-supplement drugs are useful, and therefore fund studies on them.
If one did, would he admit it?
There are many ways to adjust conclusions to fit the biases
of the investigator. It took a lot of pressure to get the
government to fund the current study of diets; it was
“politically incorrect” to consider that high fat diets
MIGHT be a good idea, despite not having a single study
anywhere showing that they might be bad.
The same holds for the question of sodium. In this case,
the published studies go both ways, and it is clear that
they are not studying the same thing, OR that key negative
studies are not published. In general, a paper does not
get published unless it agrees with the biases of the
editors, or has very strong statistical results. This is
the religious misuse of statistics in medicine and other
branches of science.
This is quite common, and is a good reason why
meta-analysis, which is how different papers are combined,
is dangerous.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Rich shewmaker 2007-12-01 12:58:14
–
Well, I certainly agree with you that meta-analysis is dangerous. I always
read those meta-analysed review studies with a higher order of skepticism. I
also agree that there are many ways to fit conclusions to the biases of the
investigator. Often, however, those biases will be pointed out by others, or
filtered out in peer review. And in the history of science, some of the
greatest discoverys have been made when a scientist chose a hypothesis to
match his biases, then had the courage and intellect to rethink the issue
when the research data did not meet his expectations.
Tim tyler 2007-12-01 12:58:18
: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:
: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily
: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily
: 1 large glass of green tea daily
: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily
Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?
No wonder the world has diet problems 😉
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Tintinet1 2007-12-01 12:58:33
If one had a solid diet otherwise, as well as the other listed
recommended items, one chocolate bar would be fine. It’s that so many
eat nothing but the nutritional equivalents of chocolate bars all day
long that causes the problems.
Johngohde 2007-12-01 12:58:35
Moosh Brain once upon a time babbled on thusly …
Not if you use inexpensive vitamins.
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
Johngohde 2007-12-01 12:58:38
Actually, that is pretty good advice. Cooking your food with spice is
a great way to add natural antioxidants to your diet. Part of the
secrete to the Cretan Mediterranean Diet can be found in the way they
cook their food with herbs and spices
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages,
Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now
with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
Johngohde 2007-12-01 12:59:06
Ha, … Hah, Ha!
That was a good one!
Hrubin 2007-12-03 04:44:07
Why not? It contains antioxidants.
Also, there is NO evidence at this time that low fat
diets are more healthful.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Hrubin 2007-12-03 04:44:09
I do not hate data; I hate bad cookbook analyses of it.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Mombu 2007-12-03 04:44:16
Well, you hate 100% of data as it is presented today professionally. It
is the same thing. You cannot call 100% of data published today ‘cookbook,’
and still have anyone believe that you just want a way to substitute
libertarian religion for FActs. Further, you have NEVER shown that how YOU
want data looked at will change the final result. If it did, you could have
a whole string of publications. It just does not happen Herman because your
favorite analysis does not change the out comes.
Mombu 2007-12-03 04:44:25
And there is gathering evidence that the food pyramid is a disaster.
Milk? Recommended only for white people. It is a racist recommendation.
Syrahz derzai 2007-12-03 04:44:27
Commonly accepted ways of applying statistics to data (e.g. point
hypothesis testing, making decisions based on significance levels,
etc) lead to misleading results – there is plenty of publications on
this. There is no argument here among those who understand
statistics. But professionals who generate and handle the data will
practice cookbook recipes regardless.
—
# syrahz_derzai ; at yahoo.com
Mooshie peas 2007-12-06 08:01:00
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:12:55 GMT,
posted:
Plenty of research, just nothing found.
Why not? It is a perfectly good food. A staple of many groups of
humans for thousands of years.
What ARE you talking about?
No, that’s caused by eating too much and sitting on your a**. Both
things advised against by the food pyramid.
Mooshie peas 2007-12-08 08:20:38
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:15:08 GMT,
posted:
Is lycopene a vitamin? It seems to be studied fairly well. How many
hits in PubMed? You can’t avoid it easily in a varied wholefood diet,
like the food pyramid advocates.
Well until something arises to show that it is beneficial when eating
a varied wholefood diet we must assume that it is just being washed
down the plumbing. No evidence otherwise, despite much looking, over
the decades.
Jhgohde 2007-12-08 08:20:39
LOL … Mooshie peas is the cure for believing that the Medical Scientism is
actually working to solve our health problems.
Eric bohlman 2007-12-08 08:20:43
It’s a standard anti-milk argument which completely ignores the fact that
the majority of Westerners (particularly Americans) with African or Asian
ancestry are in fact of quite mixed ancestry and therefore have a much
higher rate of lactase persistence than indigenous Africans and Asians.
Most “non-white” Americans have no problems with the amount of milk
recommended in the food pyramid. The argument appeals to what I call
“aristocratic liberals” who make a great show of how much they care for
oppressed or marginalized populations, but don’t really know a whole lot
about those populations or what their members desire. The vast majority of
Americans who think that the promotion of milk is racist are well-off whites.
I like the “is thought”? Is thought *by whom*? Religious low-carbies,
that’s who. They always change the subject when asked how the food pyramid
can be causing diabetes, making people fat, etc. when there’s no evidence
that a significant number of Americans follow it. Such a belief is,
though, quite consistent with libertarian ideology; it’s a recommendation
*by* the government *for* an aspect of people’s personal lives, and
a certain brand of libertarianism says the government *always* screws up
when doing such.
(There’s an amusing thought experiment to determine which functions of
government a caricatured libertarian thinks government can be successful
at: imagine kids playing at doing it. If the activity would attract mostly
boys (army, cops and robbers, etc.) it’s legitimate; if it would attract
mostly girls (playing house, cooking, etc.) it’s best left to the private
sector. It seems they’re not so much against paternal government as
maternal government.)
It also strikes me that low-carb doctrine usually calls for the replacement
of foods with culturally feminine associations (e.g. grains) with foods
with culturally masculine associations (e.g. meat). In fact, the “the food
pyramid is making America fat” story strikes me as a thinly disguised
version of the Garden of Eden story; there’s a strong theme there of the
world going downhill as a result of the feminization of the culture. Of
course, some arguments for veganism are nothing more than the other side of
the coin, based on some rather loopy feminist doctrines and tying in with
the old superstition that eating an animal gives you the strength and
aggressiveness of the animal (a variation of the “doctrine of signatures”),
where “aggressiveness” is interpreted as “rape” (which doesn’t fit in well
with the fact that most of the meat in the American diet comes from
castrated animals, but since when does logic affect such matters?).
So I do think that some aspects of the Battle of the Sexes have leaked into
the nutrition debate, as well as aspects of political and economic
ideology.
Jhgohde 2007-12-08 08:20:45
Yes, I agree … Moosh Brian is nothing!
I thought that our Moosh Brain was an aboriginal, as in a real original, from
down under?
Hrubin 2007-12-08 08:21:09
It sure does. How long and how well post-menopausal women
lived has no effect on species survival, but it is of concern
now, and it should be.
And now we are protected from the sabre tooth, and to
some extent from other large and small predators.
The current theory is that a very large proportion of
the population has the genetics of type 2 diabetes, which
has a real survival advantage with poor food supply. Also,
type 1 diabetes is related to a very strong immune system,
a survival advantage before sanitation and other advances.
It is a major respected cardiology department.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Eric bohlman 2007-12-09 20:26:41
Yes. This is due to the fact that humans take an extremely long time to
reach reproductive maturity, and are helpless for a lot of that time. In
order for an individual to “propagate his genes” it’s necessary not only
for him to reproduce, but for his kids to survive long enough to be able to
reproduce themselves, which for most of human history was *at least* 14 or
15 years. Therefore, there’s selective pressure to survive not just long
enough to reproduce, but long enough for one’s kids to grow up. That
pressure doesn’t exist in species with shorter generation times.
Mooshie peas 2007-12-09 20:27:14
On 23 Aug 2003 19:05:11 GMT, Eric Bohlman
posted:
Thanks Eric, fascinating stuff. I will reread it again 🙂
Mombu 2008-01-24 21:23:41
There is another elder effect. Elders are repositories of experience over
a time span which allows them to have survival knowledge that comes as a
cycle, like drought. They see variations of difficult births, crop
productions and their effects, tactics in war in different situations, and
other such information.
Mooshie peas 2008-01-24 21:24:18
On 24 Aug 2003 09:36:25 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) posted:
I think it has a considerable effect on the survival of the species.
And it has always been a concern, hasn’t it?
And we are living longer and healthier than ever.
Yep, interesting theories that I have some sympathy with.
Name? Where did you see this? URL?
Anth 2008-01-25 14:15:11
Living longer – there has been a change in mortality?
There’s no change in the verified upper limits of how long we can live.
I can also remind you that we are not living more healthy either.
Approx 33% chance of getting cancer, approx 1/2 heart disease.
If we died earlier then these diseases proably wouldn’t manifest themselves as much.
I don’t worry about them, some people do, because I’m pretty much convinced
they can be treated or prevented.
Some would argue evolution has halted in man or changed form.
What is a ‘balanced diet’, and why do they keep changing the RDA’s?
Then it _must_ be wrong because they are failing miserably!
Mombu 2008-01-25 14:15:17
Average life expectancy is way, way up. The span of life probably has
not changed, but in the past so few people reached 85, we really don’t know.
Tim tyler 2008-01-25 14:15:20
:> And we are living longer and healthier than ever.
: Living longer – there has been a change in mortality?
Yes – it is decreasing. The figures look something like this:
Life expectancy at birth (in years) of males born in U.S.
Birth Year: 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Life Expectancy: 65.6 66.6 67.1 70.0 71.8
Life Expectancy at Birth
Year: 1985 1987 1988 1990 1993 1998 2000
World 62 63 63 64 65 66 66
Developed World 73 73 73 74 74 75 75
Developing World 58 59 60 61 63 63 64
U.S.A. 75 75 75 75 75 76 77
– http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/data/p-tab-07.htm
Life expectancy is increasing by about 60 days each year.
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Tim tyler 2008-01-25 14:15:23
: Although human life expectancy has been increasing over the last
: several decades, the rate of its increase is slowing down, as
: though the observed human life expectancy were approaching a biological
: maximum human life expectancy.
I see that there are claims (somewhat along the lines you mention)
that the increase in life expectancy is largely due to decreased
infant mortality figures.
If that’s right then the slow-down in life expectancy increase would
predictable on the grounds that the infant mortality decreases are bound
to run into diminishing returns as more and more babies’ lives are
preserved.
More along these lines at:
“Life Expectancy and Health Trends in Modern Society”
– http://www.holistichealthtopics.com/HMG/trends.html
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Mooshie peas 2008-01-25 14:15:35
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:26:27 +0100, “Anth”
Death of a multicelled organism is death of particular vital cells
that we choose to consider.
Some cells can go on for days. Given the substrates needed for life.
Mooshie peas 2008-01-25 14:15:37
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:11:23 +0100, “Anth”
Yes, you can remove it, I suppose. Good for cats 🙂
Mooshie peas 2008-01-25 14:15:40
On 27 Aug 2003 19:25:38 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) posted:
Nope, but surely tomatoes are. I eat them several times per day, on average.
You surely don’t need some of every antioxidant, and I dispute that
there are only 100. There are surely thousands, if not millions.
Do they really? Some may “act” in specific places, but they surely all
do the same thing. Ascorbic acid is used as an antioxidant
preservative in pharmaceuticals, for instance.
Your physicians are not using evidence based medicine?
Where is the evidence for this 1000 mg of ascorbic acid?
I’ve seen evidence that it is harmful, but I take no notice of any of
this “evidence” until it is tested and found “real”.
Cobblers!
If there is no evidence to disprove a hypothesis (and disproving is
all you can do) then it stands until evidence comes along TO disprove it.
So long as they are not overweight. That’s the usual determiner of
screwed up blood lipid levels.
So where has your statistical theory gone?
Really? You must have poor measurement techniques.
What is? More about? Or easily detected with a urine dipstick?
A diagnosis of diabetes is two fasting blood glucose levels above a
certain limit. The simple screening test of sugar in the urine (That’s
what diabetes mellitus means) is a tried and true screening test.
Blood tests will pick it up earlier, but it will always be causght by
the urine dipstick screen.
The genes. But as obesity must come first (very few thin, type twos
out there) it can be avoided by not getting fat.
No, weight gain causes insulin resistance. No weight gain, no insulin resistance (in general)
If you never become overweight you can avoid all of this. I wouldn’t
regard this as “severe dieting”, BTW.
Yep, we know all that. As I said, no weight gain, no insulin
resistance and no eventual frank diabetes. (in general)
How doesn’t it hold up?
Mooshie peas 2008-01-25 14:15:43
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:48:44 GMT, Tim Tyler
Not in the numbers you gave.
Ag24 2008-01-25 14:15:46
There is actually quite a lot in error in the above. The slowdown in
the rate of increase in life expectancy does not in any way support the
idea that there is a genetic upper limit on the maximum human lifespan,
because (as you say) it results merely from the fact that we’ve run out
of young deaths to prevent. What needs to be examined in order to ask
about the “genetic upper limit” hypothesis is the rate of increase of
life expectancy at age 50 (say). This is not slowing, it’s speeding
up. (See, for example, Wilmoth’s study of the age of the oldest Swede
over the past 140 years: Science 289(5488):2366.) Thus, we already
have evidence that either there is no such limit or it is a long way
off.
Also, yes, life expectancy appears to be at least partially related to
the length of our telomeres — but inversely related. We have shorter
telomeres than other primates, theirs are shorter than those of wild
mice, theirs are shorter than (short-lived) lab mice.
Aubrey de Grey
Rhino ceros 2008-01-26 06:02:26
Rath is a mafioso. His spamming sunk the email servers of the EU in
Brussels.
PS:
I do hate N*** programmers who force me to post into certain newsgroups!
Anth 2008-01-26 06:02:28
Rath is a highly respected MD
Anth
Rhino ceros 2008-01-26 06:02:33
Rath is a criminal. He was charged for some of his deeds.
Do not forget: Rath is a mafioso. His spamming sunk the email servers of the
EU in
Brussels.
PS:
I do hate N*** programmers who force me to post into certain newsgroups!
Orac 2008-01-26 06:02:45
That’s only part of the reason for the slowdown in increases in life
expectancy, not the entire reason.
That is not *quite* what the authors concluded. The authors concluded:
“The more rapid rise in the maximum age since 1969 is due to the faster
pace of old-age mortality decline during recent decades.” Indeed, they
found that a lot of this was due to a decrease in mortality in people
above 70 and thus may represent an increase in the human maximal life
span. That certainly is one possible explanation for their observations,
if you accept their methodology. However, they appear to have neglected
another explanation that is at least equally likely. This decrease in
old age mortality in recent decades could also be explained by
improvements over the last three decades in the treatment of the
diseases of old age, particularly heart disease and cancer, which result
in increased survival in elderly patients with these diseases.
There is quite a lot of error in your last statement, particularly the
part about the inverse relation. Your conclusion fails to account for
how active telomerase is in the various species. The more active
telomerase is, the more telomeres are lengthened. In humans, in normal
somatic cells, there is very little, if any, telomerase activity.
Initial telomere length may not be comparable between species, but
telomere length between individuals of the same species is. Indeed,
there is good, although not conclusive, evidence suggesting that
lifespan is directly related to the length of telomeres in humans:
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/01/int15.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l
ist_uids=12573379&dopt=Abstract
Also, good evidence that telomere length relates to lifespan comes from
the study of cloned mice, which have a shorter life expectancy. Other
evidence comes from the observation of what happens when telomerase is
transfected into cells that normally become senescent. Telomerase
increases their replicative potential markedly. [See Nature Biotech.
20:592-596 (2002), for example.]
—
Orac |”A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
|
|”If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?”
Mombu 2008-01-26 06:02:50
The authors don’t conclude that because there is no evidence that
adult-onset cancers, especially those of old age, have been conquered. When
well-known cancer drugs brag about a 2 month increase in life expectancy, or
even 1 month, the overall effect is nil compared to life expectancy of large
groups. You always overrate the effects of spending huge amounts of money
on your business: the medical/industrial complex.
Orac 2008-01-27 09:02:12
I never said adult-onset cancers of old age had been conquered George. I
said that they were better treated, just like atherosclerotic heart
disease (which is not curable) is much better managed these days than it
was 30 years ago. Please respond to what I said, rather than what you
would like me to have said.
Adding a couple of years to the life expectancy of patients with heart
disease could potentially have a significant effect, could it not,
George? Similarly, I’m not talking about trivial improvements in the
life expectancy of people with metastatic pancreatic cancer, in which
case treatment does only increase life expectancy by a couple of months
or so. I’m talking about more common and less lethal tumors. Take a
couple of the common cancers, like breast. Better adjuvant therapy for
breast cancer and the wider use of hormonal agents have increased the
“cure rate” by a few percent, which could potentially also have a
significant increase in overall life expenctancy, although it would be
smaller than that realized by better treatment and management of heart
disease, simply because there are far more elderly patients with heart
disease than with cancer.
—
Orac |”A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
|
|”If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?”
Orac 2008-01-27 09:02:15
One could also postulate that, because the oldest old do tend to be
unusually resistant to the most common causes of old age death, they may
also respond far better to interventions that prevent or treat these
conditions. [Snip]
Indeed, which is why I look at comparisons between species in telomere
length with a fair bit of caution.
Possibly. However, until such a study is done (which, of course, would
take 70-100 years to see how long the infants live), the above study is
the best we have at the moment. One way to address your comment might be
to draw blood from groups of people at, say, decade intervals and
measure whether the rate of decrease in telomere length, or the telomere
length itself correlates with life expectancy.
Well, this result probably indicates that most mice have far longer
telomeres than they need.
Well, the problem is that certain cell types keep replicating throughout
life, some quite vigorously. There’s a big difference between a neuron,
for instance, and the epithelial cells lining the intestines or the
precursor cells of the bone marrow.
—
Orac |”A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
|
|”If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?”
Jhgohde 2008-01-27 09:02:19
Ha, … Hah, Ha!
Well, I am responding to the fact that you guys have been babbling on about
absolutely nothing for quite a while. How can you prove your point, when you
don’t have a point? 🙁
What in the world are you guys talking about anyway? Nothing? Thought so.
Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
Orac 2008-01-27 09:02:24
And YOUR point is…?
If that’s so, then why did you feel compelled to chime in and say
nothing about nothing?
Tell yourself that if it makes you feel good. No skin off my nose.
—
Orac |”A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
|
|”If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?”
Mombu 2008-01-27 09:02:31
The issue is life expectancy, not management.
Heart disease: oh yes. We went throught that here several years back
when it was discovered that you were equally likely to live after a heart
attack in Canada as in the USA, despite aggressive treatments here. Those
posting at the time stated that our treatments offered better ‘lifestyle’
than the Canadian ones, even if they did not change life expectancy.
Anth 2008-01-27 09:02:45
…and how would such treatments be compared?
Since one hasn’t been double blinded.
Anth
Ag24 2008-01-28 00:17:38
The main evidence that that is not so, and that the more resistant you
are naturally, the harder it is to improve on you, is that until fairly
recently mortality curves in developed nations were getting more
rectangular even at ages around the life expectancy. We may now be
close to the point where medical treatments that can help anybody can
help most people, giving the recent pattern (no more rectangularisation
but rather a progressive right shift in survival, i.e. all deciles of
the mortality distribution moving to older ages at roughly the same
rate). And yet, the acceleration in that right shift seems to be continuing.
Hang on — if so, surely you would have to look at **all** comparisons
between species with similar caution? That seems likely to be rather over-restrictive.
Absolutely. But so might humans…. and certainly so do the cloned
mice that you mentioned initially in support of your position.
Yes. One of the main differences, a decidedly relevant one, is that
the intestinal stem cells express telomerase.
Aubrey de Grey
Mooshie peas 2008-02-05 20:49:27
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 02:17:20 +0800, “William A. Noyes”
First it ain’t essential. It’s thought to be beneficial in a healthy
diet, but there are many other molecules that do the same thing.
And second, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t eat tomatoes several times
a day. What is anti-science about that? Makes me think that you
haven’t got a clue what science is.
William a. noy 2008-02-07 15:01:20
OK. Give an example. I can think of a couple off hand that do similiar
things. But do they do them in the same tissues?
That is an over-statement. :-(Oh. I see burger and fries with catsup
morning, noon, and nite:-)
Science is about measurement of effect and specifics in part.
You almost never deal with specifics. You deal with things, like
an English lit major.
Johngohde 2008-03-07 16:52:55
Is Medical Scientism a bunch of crock when it comes to Vitamin
Research, or what? Do scientists intentionally distort their findings
by any and all means possible in order to further their political
agenda?
scientism
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/s/scientism.htm
“scientism: the belief that there is one and only one method
of science and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the
conduct of research.”
The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
expensive urine. The obvious political justification is that if
vitamins are indeed both inexpensive and effective why should
physicians prescribe statins which are both expensive and come with a
number of serious side effects; other then to extract as much money as
possible from both patients and their health insurance?
For example: “Many experts say the finding, published this week in
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Living/ap20030612_2091.html
The Lancet medical journal, settles the issue of antioxidant vitamins
for heart health.”
Vivekananthan DP, Penn MS, Sapp SK.
Use of antioxidant vitamins for the prevention of
cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12814711&dopt=Abstract
Lancet. 2003 Jun 14;361(9374):2017-23.
PMID: 12814711
I call into question the following recent research study. According
to this study, the issue of antioxidant vitamins for heart health is
not by any means settled.
Osganian SK, Stampfer MJ, Rimm E.
Vitamin C and risk of coronary heart disease in women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12875759&dopt=Abstract
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Jul 16;42(2):246-52.
PMID: 12875759
After taking into account the women’s age, whether they smoked,
and other factors, the researchers found that the risk of heart
disease dropped as vitamin C intake increased. Women who used
vitamin C pills were 28% less likely to develop heart disease
than women who didn’t.
The findings of the above study were different from most other recent
vitamin c research. Half of the human population happens to be female
and have a built-in immunity against heart disease for about 10 years
over men. This probably explains why women live longer than men do. As
a result, many other studies have shown antioxidants to be effective
for men, but not for women. And, that the men who have been the most
protected are those who smoke and engage in unhealthy
lifestyles.
Yet, the above study found that women who used vitamin C pills were
28% less likely to develop heart disease than women who didn’t.
Now, compare that positive finding with this recent review study.
Morris CD, Carson S.
Routine vitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular
disease: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1\2834320&dopt=Abstract
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jul 1;139(1):56-70.
PMID: 12834320
Full Text online for FREE at:
http://www.annals.org/issues/v139n1/full/200307010-00014.html
“In three of four cohort studies, vitamin C supplementation was not
associated with coronary heart disease mortality (21 23) or all-cause
mortality (23). In two studies in older samples (21, 23), vitamin C
use did not protect against coronary disease or all-cause mortality
after adjustment for relevant confounders (23). Similarly, vitamin C
had no impact on cardiovascular or coronary heart disease mortality
(27). However, in a good-quality follow-up study of NHANES I (22),
regular use of a vitamin C supplement reduced the standardized
mortality ratio for cardiovascular mortality by 48% and for all-cause
mortality by 26%. In a cohort analysis of a secondary prevention trial
of cholesterol reduction or coronary stenosis, vitamin C use (250
mg/d) had no appreciable effect on progression of stenosis (28).”
I read through the complete full text of this study. They found a
reason to exclude a sizeable number of studies from their review. And,
for every favorable finding they found a reason to discount it. I
would characterize this review as political as it gets.
So, I repeat my question.
Is Medical Scientism a bunch of crock when it comes to Vitamin
Research, or what? Do scientists intentionally distort their findings
by any and all means possible in order to further their political
agenda?
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about
prevention.
Anth 2008-03-07 16:52:59
The vitamin C foundation published early results for 800-1500% reduction in
plaque using ascorbic acid and lysine.
Since it involves ‘mega dose vitamin’ supplements and Pauling’s/Rath’s
research, I doubt the article will ever be published.
Shame really….
Anth
George conklin 2008-03-07 16:53:16
This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not make
it true.
Doug 2008-03-07 16:53:20
If it was never published, how do you know about it?
—
“The emperor is naked!”
“No he isn’t, he’s merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!”
to email me
Please remove “all your clothes”
Doug
Anth 2008-03-08 02:50:44
Website with the results on.
Anth
George conklin 2008-03-08 02:50:52
Science is differently biased at different times but that does not stop
the fact that systematic analyisis of vitamin supplements is going to be
looked at because vitamins cannot be patended and more importantly, put on
prescription. The first poster is completely correct in his comment that the
standard answer still given is that vitamins more than the minimum accepted
dose just produces expensive urine.
Johngohde 2008-03-08 02:51:26
Thanks for responding to my post.
Your comments operationally illustrate how a scientist in writing a
research paper, simply by careful selection of the words he chooses to
use, can make the findings of his research paper either positive or
negative depending on his political agenda. And, thus before you can
properly interpret the results, you have to first determine the spin
the authors are trying to put on their paper.
A recent example of this would be:
Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP.
Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery
atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12904518&dopt=Abstract
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):535-45.
PMID: 12904518
The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As most
women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
irrelevant.
Your comments, of course, don’t speak well for impartial research.
If anything your comments illustrate exactly what a farce Medical
Scientism really is. 🙁
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
Johngohde 2008-03-08 02:51:31
I run a Yahoo Mailing List on Prevention and Healthy Lifestyles. To
date, I have reported on some 700 recent research studies on personal
health.
Anybody who spends any amount of time actually reading published
research would have to be some kind of a fool to place any faith in
the false religion of Medical Scientism to actually solve our Nations
Health Problems.
Published health research clearly goes in a spiral direction. It is
like traveling to the Moon, from Earth, by way of Mars. It is
laughably inefficient. It clearly has the objective of going as slow
as possible so that the paychecks of the research scientists will keep
coming in as long as is humanly possible.
And, as far as peer review research is concerned, it clearly does not
work in the case of Vitamin Research. Scientists in the field of
health research clearly are neither willing or able to correct the
problem. If Medical Scientism was how NASA depended on getting to the
Moon, we would never have gotten even one monkey to obit the earth
once. 🙁
Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people
trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/
Jeff utz 2008-03-08 02:51:35
I know what you mean. The companies that sell vitamins and other so-called
health foods are so honest that they would never distort in any way the
findings of scientists or try to sell vitamins with any type of advertising
that is not 100% accurate and totally proven scientifically. What an honest
bunch of businessmen.
Jeff
Mombu 2008-03-08 12:38:00
Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman’s health overall. The fact that
it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.
Johngohde 2008-03-08 12:39:31
Kindly, cite some “real scientific research” that meets your above criteria.
Be sue to leave out *all* personal opinions on health. 🙂
LOL … In your case George, that means leaving out all the whining.
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about prevention.
Johngohde 2008-03-08 12:39:37
most
that
Perhaps if you were to concentrate?
The citation was cited by me to provide an example that shows that
when “a study” (ie, subject matter is irrelevant) does not produce the
expected negative results, scientists think absolutely nothing of
wording the abstract in such a fashion as to make the conclusion
negative anyway.
The subject of this thread is *not* about HRT. You are already wasted
every bodies time on that subject, George.
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about
prevention.
Jeff utz 2008-03-09 05:12:04
And the sales of vitamins are irrelevant. Yeah right.
Johngohde 2008-03-09 14:55:44
Yeah right!
The subject of this thread is “The Politics of Vitamin Research.”
For the benefit of the intellectually challenged Science Geeks reading
this thread, the question is really very simple.
Are vitamins effective, or are they not effective, for improving your
personal health. 🙂
And, it appears to me that most of the published research on this
subject matter is down right fraudulent in that the use of vitamin
supplements is a lot more beneficial to your health than the medical
establishment would like you to believe.
The question of the effectiveness of vitamins has no more to do with
the sale of vitamins than the sale of statins has to do with the
effectiveness of statins.
Furthermore, quibbling over rather Vitamin E is effective against
arteriosclerosis or atherosclerosis does *not* address the question
that I am asking.
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
Anth 2008-03-09 14:56:06
Why not avoid supplementation and go for all natural?
Anth
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-10 00:49:36
–
Scientific method is defined by its design to prevent such distortion.
What political agenda? I know hundreds of doctors, and dozens of scientists.
Their politics range from right wing conservatism to socialism to at least
one self-proclaimed communist.
This word is not in common use, and sounds like a fabrication of those who
like to demean science as a mere belief system or religion.
Ah, it’s the Great Medical Conspiracy theory again. Bullshit.
Corellation is not causation.
But your ‘characterization’ is apolitical and impartial?
And I repeat my answer. No.
Science is a method of preventing us from lying to ourselves.
–Rich –>Frauds in “alternative medicine” abound. Just enter “herbs” in
Google to find thousands of them.
Anth 2008-03-10 00:50:20
Not quite, check this out…
Yeum, K, et al Beta carotene intervention trial in premalignant gastric
lesions, Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 995;14:536:A48
Anth
Steve harris 2008-03-10 00:50:26
Quote em. And spare me the all rac dl vitamin E studies,
inasmuch as d,d,d natural can now be produced synthetically,
and most of the d-alpha is produced semisynthetically.
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-10 18:04:45
–
This opinionated tirade proves nothing about science, medicine, or the
politics of scientists or medical professionals.
I said, and still say, that there is no coherent “political agenda” among
medical professionals and scientists. There are hardly any political ideas
we agree on. There is certainly no illuminati-like controling organization.
Oh? For free? Or are you another greedy altie quack who’s anti-science
political agenda is designed to scare people away from their doctors and
toward your pseudonatural for-profit products?
–Rich
Johngohde 2008-03-10 18:04:48
Oh, so according to you quoting directly from:
Rodwin MA.
The politics of evidence-based medicine.
http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/jhppl/rodwin.htm#Introduction
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2001 Apr;26(2):439-46. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 11330089
contistutes an opinionated tirade?
No! You are presenting the opinionated tirade. 🙂
I simply quoted from an Academic Journal.
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about prevention.
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-10 18:04:51
–
So you think that academic journals never publish opinionated, biased
articles? Doesn’t that undermine your contention that, “scientists
intentionally distort their findings…”? Besides, the article you are
quoting here was published under the title “Commentary” and presented as the
opinion of the author. It was never intended to represent researched
data-based fact as would appear in the body of an academic journal.
prevention.
Johngohde 2008-03-10 18:05:22
I’ll rate your pathetic attempt to save face a C-.
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-10 18:05:25
–
And your feeble attempt at diversion gets a failing grade. The fact remains
that the article in question is a biased anti-science tirade, and that you
have presented nothing factual in support of your contention that scientists
distort their research in order to further some common political goal. See
if you can find anything solid. Present not just vague accusations, but an
example of a study that was cooked and the evidence that the errant
researcher was influenced by a conspiracy to “extract as much money as
possible from both patients and their health insurance.”
–Rich –>With a face of sunshine and serenity.
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-11 14:56:46
–
So respond in a way that supports your thesis. The articles you quote do not
do so, regardless of the prestige of their sources. Where are the fraudulent
research reports from the greedy conpirators? You made the claim. So support it.
Let’s look at the support you’ve provided in this thread for your claim of
wrongdoing by researchers–
Referrence #1: An ABC News report of a study published in Lancet that
concluded that evidence does not support widespread use of vitamin E. No
mention of any researcher wrongdoing.
Referrence #2: The abstract of the article reported in referrence #1. No
evidence of any researcher wrongdoing.
Referrence #3: Abstract of a study in the Journal of the American College
of Cardiologists which concludes that women who use vitamin C supplements
appear to be at lower risk for coronary heart disease. No evidence of any
researcher wrongdoing.
Referrence #4: A review article in Annals of Internal Medicine which
abstracted cardiac outcomes from selected studies of vitamin supplementation
and reported that though some quality studies support a lower risk of
cardiovascular disease associated with vitamin supplement use, no one
vitamin or combination of vitamins was found to have a significant effect on
cardiac health. No evidence of any researcher wrongdoing.
Referrence #5: The full test of the review article in referrence #4. This
is the referrence you take issue with, stating that you characterize it, “as
political as it gets.” Why? Because, “They found a reason to exclude a
sizeable number of studies from their review. And, for every favorable
finding they found a reason to discount it.” Although you may disagree with
their selection of studies and their conclusions, their methods and
conclusions are clearly explained and reasonably supported and do not in any
way constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
Referrence #6: A study in the New England Journal of Medicine which you
posted as an example of a researcher “playing word games,” and as evidence,
“that when ‘a study’ (ie, subject matter is irrelevant) does not produce the
expected negative results, scientists think absolutely nothing of wording
the abstract in such a fashion as to make the conclusion negative anyway.”
Nothing in this article supports your accusation. And in the case of HRT,
one would think that the conspirators would want to find positive results to
sell more hormones. No evidence of wrongdoing.
When I pointed out to you that you have not proven that scientists and
doctors have a common political agenda, you came up with–
Referrence #7: A “Commentary” by a Marc A. Rowden in the Journal of Health
Politics, Policy and Law, decrying “Evidence Based Medicine” as an affront
to medical practice by “authority and experience.” When I labeled this an
anti-science tirade, you countered that you were quoting from an Academic
Journal [capitolization yours] and sniggered that you had made me lose face.
Well, it’s still an anti-science tirade, and though it attacks science and
politics, even this opinion piece does not claim that researchers are
biasing their studies for a conspiracy of greedy statin sellers. Still no
evidence of wrongdoing.
Your ad hominem comments are unbecomming. You still have not “supported your
comments” with any evidence of improper research reporting motivated by a common political agenda.
Tim tyler 2008-03-11 14:56:49
: Vitamin A has many forms, the most potent of which is
: beta carotene, two molecules stuck together.
Hmm – try a beta carotene overdose – and then a retinol overdose –
and see which is more “potent” 😉
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Hrubin 2008-03-11 14:57:08
Scientists do not, but the ones who dole out the money for
scientific research do. With the great bulk of the research
money coming from the federal government, not much vitamin
research will be done unless the NIH thinks it worthwhile.
For patentable medicines, private industry can take a chance,
since the rewards are high. The supplement industry may look
large to some, but it is small potatoes, and there is no way
to corner part of it; just about everything is generic.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-11 14:57:11
–
So then, it is the political agenda of the federal government (supplying the
great bulk of the research money) to suppress research favoring vitamin
supplements in favor of promoting the sale of statin drugs? Why? Besides, it
is not Mr. Gohde’s contention that vitamin researchers do not get funded,
but that they cheat when reporting their results.
You surely know more than a few scientists at Purdue. Ask them if they are
willing to cook their data or adjust their conclusions to meet a common
political agenda.
–Rich
Johngohde 2008-03-11 14:57:33
To a certain extent it depends on the particular vitamin.
But, in general the issue of natural versus synthetic is so passe as
to be almost laughable.
Johngohde 2008-03-11 14:57:36
Seven (7) high quality references
ad hominem comments?
Are you not making an oxymoron statement?
Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages,
Nutrition ( http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ )is now
with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-11 14:57:39
–
….that do not support your thesis.
Yes run away to your private sandbox. Come back to the real world when
you’ve learned enough about how it operates to engage in intelligent debate.
Johngohde 2008-03-11 14:57:42
In a certain REPLY I responded to your comments, period.
The rules of newgroup communication prohibits responding both to my
thesis and to your comments in the same post. All educated people
agree on this. I personally don’t even download very long posts.
Long posts are a marker for Twit Comments.
I will restate my thesis with support in a separate entirely new post. 🙂
You missed the obvious problem with my comments on reference #6.
There was actually nothing wrong with this abstract. The problem was
with the news media coverage of this abstract. The original press
release came from Reuters. Reuters news coverage is supposed to be of
high scientific quality. Obviously, their coverage is often
politically motivated. They failed to report that the results of two
studies in the New England Journal of Medicine was actually mixed.
They are the ones who erroneously made the claim the results of this
study was negative.
I have seen their biased reporting before. Another example would be
their erroneous claim that moderate exercise is just as effective as
intense physical exercise is in reducing the risk of mortality from
heart disease. I recall them positively making this type of health
claim from abstracts that directly contradicted their health claims.
I believe that they did this once or twice.
Of course, the precise news reports and citations are permanently
recorded on my Mailing List online database. 🙂
I never made any such claim.
At best, I claimed that the ‘negative conclusions’ of ‘some’ vitamin
research appears to be politically motivated.
I never claimed that *all* scientists and doctors have a common
political agenda. In fact, I was not talking about physicians at all.
Those comments were strictly made in reply to your comments.
—
John Gohde,
Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com – Pioneering De-Medicalization by
handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life’s problems as
medical.
Johngohde 2008-03-12 08:26:02
I never made any such claim.
At best, I claimed that the ‘negative conclusions’ of ‘some’ vitamin
research appears to be politically motivated. I did state that ‘some’
research appear to be ‘down-right fraudulent,’ but I was intending to
refer *only* to a couple of recent review studies that erroneously
‘appeared’ to make the conclusion that the use of antioxidant
supplements were not effective. The use of vitamin supplements are a
lot more effective than the medical establishment (i.e., these recent
antioxidant reviews) would like you to believe.
Of course, what they precisely did was engage in intentionally deceptive word games
I never made any such claim.
I never claimed anbody was cooking their data!
I never claimed that *all* scientists have a common political agenda.
See my comments above.
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people
trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-12 08:26:05
–
So now the problem is bad science reporting in the popular press? I thought
we were talking about scientists distorting their findings.
Hmmm.
“Is Medical Scientism a bunch of crock when it comes to Vitamin
Research, or what? Do scientists intentionally distort their findings
by any and all means possible in order to further their political
agenda?”
“The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
expensive urine. The obvious political justification is that if
vitamins are indeed both inexpensive and effective why should
physicians prescribe statins which are both expensive and come with a
number of serious side effects; other then to extract as much money as
possible from both patients and their health insurance?”
I don’t see the qualifying “some” in either of those accusatory statements
from your original post in the thread. And it seems to be “physicians” who
are greedily prescribing the statins. Oh, and who are the “Medical
Establishment”? Nursing assistants and hospital janitors?
–Rich –> Patient empowerment rises from patient knowledge. Learn your
science.
Rich shewmaker 2008-03-12 08:26:08
–
I’m not at all clear why the medical establishment would want to deceive me
about this. Surely vitamins do not compete directly with statins or other
prescription drugs at the consumer level. And even if my doctor prescribes
statins for me, I doubt he would object to my taking vitamins as well. In
fact, he does recommend folate supplement and a daily aspirin, neither of
which are high profit items for the “Medical Establishment.” Do you really
think that research scientists see supplementary vitamins as a threat to
replace prescription medication and thereby a threat to their livelihoods?
Precisely what do you think the “Medical Establishment” is doing, and WHY?
–Rich
Mooshie peas 2008-03-12 08:26:34
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, “George Conklin”
Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
wholefood diet.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-12 08:26:37
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:09:45 GMT, “Doug”
Doug, Doug, Doug! Such awkward questions. Didn’t your Mom tell you
that wasn’t nice? 🙂
Mooshie peas 2008-03-12 08:26:40
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:05:43 GMT, “George Conklin”
When the truth is biased differently 🙂
So how come they have been looked at exhaustively?
It does, in general.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-12 08:26:43
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:00:40 +0100, “Anth”
So it WAS published? What is the URL?
Mooshie peas 2008-03-12 08:26:50
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:09:18 GMT,
posted:
I wonder if HRT doesn’t actually “cause” the cancer, but encourages
cancers that occur normally, to grow faster. Just musing.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-12 08:26:53
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:48:10 +0100, “Anth”
Rarely being invariably.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-12 08:26:55
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:59:13 +0100, “Anth”
Not quite what?
Doesn’t do a thing for me. What date is that ref?
Pramesh rutaji 2008-03-12 18:34:58
Depends on who’s funding the research – paying the bills.
‘Ghostwritten’ research claims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/1806613.stm
—
Pramesh
Anth 2008-03-12 18:35:10
Mombu 2008-03-12 18:35:14
Herman does not recognize that when something cannot be put on
prescription and/or patented, then no one is interested in researching it.
The power of the prescription is what gives physcians their terrific power,
not knowledge. The medical-industrial complex does not really care about
research on something that cannot be controlled. Statins, by the way,
result in about a 23% chance of a cancer diagnosis in year 1 of use for
those over 65. That finding is ignored because they say it is not ‘causal,’
but then there is no knowledge of why that happens.
Mombu 2008-03-12 18:35:18
The minimium does were set to avoid obvious diseases like scurvy. As
for higher doses, there was no research done and still isn’t.
The food pyramid was set by politics, not research. Milk was not a basic
food until the 1930s, and of course is not a basic food beyond age 2. On
white people can digest milk easily as an adult–the recommendation is
basically racist. The current food pyramid will be done away with in the
next few years and is thought to be one main cause of an increase in
diabetes.
Mombu 2008-03-12 18:35:29
They have not been carefully looked at at all. Things like lycopene show
good correlational reductions in prostate cancer for example, but definitive
studies are not being undertaken because lycopene cannot be patented.
Unproven statement at the present time.
Mombu 2008-03-12 18:35:34
We all have cancer cells in us all the time. The body gets rid of them.
HRT probably stops that process.
Hrubin 2008-03-13 04:38:25
The ones actually making the decisions are essentially
administrators from the scientific establishment; they
mainly believe the current dogma. As the current dogma
is that supplements are largely useless, they do not fund
studies in it. On the other hand, they believe that
non-supplement drugs are useful, and therefore fund studies on them.
If one did, would he admit it?
There are many ways to adjust conclusions to fit the biases
of the investigator. It took a lot of pressure to get the
government to fund the current study of diets; it was
“politically incorrect” to consider that high fat diets
MIGHT be a good idea, despite not having a single study
anywhere showing that they might be bad.
The same holds for the question of sodium. In this case,
the published studies go both ways, and it is clear that
they are not studying the same thing, OR that key negative
studies are not published. In general, a paper does not
get published unless it agrees with the biases of the
editors, or has very strong statistical results. This is
the religious misuse of statistics in medicine and other
branches of science.
This is quite common, and is a good reason why
meta-analysis, which is how different papers are combined,
is dangerous.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Tim tyler 2008-03-13 04:38:55
: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:
: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily
: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily
: 1 large glass of green tea daily
: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily
Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?
No wonder the world has diet problems 😉
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Johngohde 2008-03-13 22:02:18
Precisely!!!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages,
Nutrition ( http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ ) is now
with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
It is also very easy to start an online journal of your own.
And, you can produce e-books with print-on-demand options.
Frankly, I am very tempted to try to get something of my own
authorship published in one of these peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps,
some kind of commentary?
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn’t care less about
prevention.
Tintinet1 2008-03-13 22:02:27
If one had a solid diet otherwise, as well as the other listed
recommended items, one chocolate bar would be fine. It’s that so many
eat nothing but the nutritional equivalents of chocolate bars all day
long that causes the problems.
Johngohde 2008-03-13 22:02:30
Moosh Brain once upon a time babbled on thusly …
Not if you use inexpensive vitamins.
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
Johngohde 2008-03-13 22:02:33
Actually, that is pretty good advice. Cooking your food with spice is
a great way to add natural antioxidants to your diet. Part of the
secrete to the Cretan Mediterranean Diet can be found in the way they
cook their food with herbs and spices
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
—
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages,
Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now
with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
Johngohde 2008-03-13 22:03:06
Ha, … Hah, Ha!
That was a good one!
Hrubin 2008-03-15 11:10:28
Why not? It contains antioxidants.
Also, there is NO evidence at this time that low fat
diets are more healthful.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Hrubin 2008-03-15 11:10:32
I do not hate data; I hate bad cookbook analyses of it.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Mombu 2008-03-15 11:10:37
Well, you hate 100% of data as it is presented today professionally. It
is the same thing. You cannot call 100% of data published today ‘cookbook,’
and still have anyone believe that you just want a way to substitute
libertarian religion for FActs. Further, you have NEVER shown that how YOU
want data looked at will change the final result. If it did, you could have
a whole string of publications. It just does not happen Herman because your
favorite analysis does not change the out comes.
Mombu 2008-03-15 11:10:41
And there is gathering evidence that the food pyramid is a disaster.
Milk? Recommended only for white people. It is a racist recommendation.
Syrahz derzai 2008-03-15 21:07:50
Commonly accepted ways of applying statistics to data (e.g. point
hypothesis testing, making decisions based on significance levels,
etc) lead to misleading results – there is plenty of publications on
this. There is no argument here among those who understand
statistics. But professionals who generate and handle the data will
practice cookbook recipes regardless.
—
# syrahz_derzai ; at yahoo.com
Mooshie peas 2008-03-17 19:22:27
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:08:19 GMT,
posted:
Not from what I’ve seen, working in labs for many years.
Yes they are a gatekeeper to the excesses of patient self-regulation.
In my experience here, they are generally loathe to write
prescriptions unless they are essenmtial.
But the scientific community does. Don’t confuse the two.
And the rate in those NOT taking statins? Where is your evidence?
So it doesn’t matter? I thought you were claiming that it WAS causal.
You do know what causal means I hope.
Well please demonstrate that it does first. And that this does not
happen in equivalent folks NOT taking statins.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-17 19:22:32
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:12:55 GMT,
posted:
Plenty of research, just nothing found.
Why not? It is a perfectly good food. A staple of many groups of
humans for thousands of years.
What ARE you talking about?
No, that’s caused by eating too much and sitting on your a**. Both
things advised against by the food pyramid.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-17 19:22:38
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:15:08 GMT,
posted:
Is lycopene a vitamin? It seems to be studied fairly well. How many
hits in PubMed? You can’t avoid it easily in a varied wholefood diet,
like the food pyramid advocates.
Well until something arises to show that it is beneficial when eating
a varied wholefood diet we must assume that it is just being washed
down the plumbing. No evidence otherwise, despite much looking, over
the decades.
Eric bohlman 2008-03-18 12:01:03
It’s a standard anti-milk argument which completely ignores the fact that
the majority of Westerners (particularly Americans) with African or Asian
ancestry are in fact of quite mixed ancestry and therefore have a much
higher rate of lactase persistence than indigenous Africans and Asians.
Most “non-white” Americans have no problems with the amount of milk
recommended in the food pyramid. The argument appeals to what I call
“aristocratic liberals” who make a great show of how much they care for
oppressed or marginalized populations, but don’t really know a whole lot
about those populations or what their members desire. The vast majority of
Americans who think that the promotion of milk is racist are well-off whites.
I like the “is thought”? Is thought *by whom*? Religious low-carbies,
that’s who. They always change the subject when asked how the food pyramid
can be causing diabetes, making people fat, etc. when there’s no evidence
that a significant number of Americans follow it. Such a belief is,
though, quite consistent with libertarian ideology; it’s a recommendation
*by* the government *for* an aspect of people’s personal lives, and
a certain brand of libertarianism says the government *always* screws up
when doing such.
(There’s an amusing thought experiment to determine which functions of
government a caricatured libertarian thinks government can be successful
at: imagine kids playing at doing it. If the activity would attract mostly
boys (army, cops and robbers, etc.) it’s legitimate; if it would attract
mostly girls (playing house, cooking, etc.) it’s best left to the private
sector. It seems they’re not so much against paternal government as
maternal government.)
It also strikes me that low-carb doctrine usually calls for the replacement
of foods with culturally feminine associations (e.g. grains) with foods
with culturally masculine associations (e.g. meat). In fact, the “the food
pyramid is making America fat” story strikes me as a thinly disguised
version of the Garden of Eden story; there’s a strong theme there of the
world going downhill as a result of the feminization of the culture. Of
course, some arguments for veganism are nothing more than the other side of
the coin, based on some rather loopy feminist doctrines and tying in with
the old superstition that eating an animal gives you the strength and
aggressiveness of the animal (a variation of the “doctrine of signatures”),
where “aggressiveness” is interpreted as “rape” (which doesn’t fit in well
with the fact that most of the meat in the American diet comes from
castrated animals, but since when does logic affect such matters?).
So I do think that some aspects of the Battle of the Sexes have leaked into
the nutrition debate, as well as aspects of political and economic
ideology.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-19 07:32:09
On 20 Aug 2003 10:46:58 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) posted:
Why not? It’s done us proud for millions of years. What’s different
now except easy access to concentrated calories in excess? Supplements
are probably essential when this diet is indulged in.
Living longer is genetic. Food supply has little influence. Calorie
restricition might make it seem longer 🙂
Natural selection has little to do with diet. When you got a little
slow, the sabre tooth got you, end of story.
Well you tell me why it wouldn’t. You are advocating a change, show
any benefit. The diseases you mention above are from too much food,
not too little as you seem to be saying.
And none of them are of any advantage on the diet I see as optimal.
Your “reputable” medical centre is reputable with whom?
Sounds quite crackpot to me.
The search for a magic bullet goes on.
Hrubin 2008-03-19 07:32:45
It is somewhat studied. And it can easily be “avoided”
in a quite varied diet. I do not believe that there is
an RDA yet for this antioxidant. SOME multisupplements have it.
Unproven does not mean false.
Something often arises, mainly anecdotal or due to
reasoning from assumptions or biological analogies,
not always accepted by the mainstream. The evidence
is often highly contradictory and confusing. Good
examples of mainstream conclusion jumping are those
of lipids, such as cholesterol and triglycerides.
“Eating cholesterol raises cholesterol.” “Fats
directly raise triglycerides, so a high fat diet
must raise the triglyceride level.” Neither of these
has held up, but the establishment has been pushing
as if these must be so. Getting clear results on
studies on humans is rare.
We cannot conduct the 50 year controlled experiments
on humans to “prove” results, and we cannot wait 50
years for those results. Has there been an increase
in type 2 diabetes and its precursor, insulin
resistance, or are we just better at finding these?
This was dogma until recently; it seems not to hold up.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Hrubin 2008-03-19 07:32:57
It sure does. How long and how well post-menopausal women
lived has no effect on species survival, but it is of concern
now, and it should be.
And now we are protected from the sabre tooth, and to
some extent from other large and small predators.
The current theory is that a very large proportion of
the population has the genetics of type 2 diabetes, which
has a real survival advantage with poor food supply. Also,
type 1 diabetes is related to a very strong immune system,
a survival advantage before sanitation and other advances.
It is a major respected cardiology department.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Eric bohlman 2008-03-20 09:21:37
Yes. This is due to the fact that humans take an extremely long time to
reach reproductive maturity, and are helpless for a lot of that time. In
order for an individual to “propagate his genes” it’s necessary not only
for him to reproduce, but for his kids to survive long enough to be able to
reproduce themselves, which for most of human history was *at least* 14 or
15 years. Therefore, there’s selective pressure to survive not just long
enough to reproduce, but long enough for one’s kids to grow up. That
pressure doesn’t exist in species with shorter generation times.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-20 09:22:29
On 21 Aug 2003 14:52:57 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) posted:
So does just about ALL foods. You can get more anti-oxidants (if
that’s what turns you on) for far less calories in many other foods.
More of many other essential nutrients as well
Less calories in an overfed population?
Come now!
In a varied wholefood diet it is virtually impossible to get too
little fat, if that’s what worries you.
Anth 2008-03-20 09:22:35
A high %age of asians/blacks cannot digest significant amounts of lactose.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12018807&dopt=Abstract
Anth
Mooshie peas 2008-03-20 18:50:55
On 23 Aug 2003 19:05:11 GMT, Eric Bohlman
posted:
Thanks Eric, fascinating stuff. I will reread it again 🙂
Mombu 2008-03-21 19:35:18
There is another elder effect. Elders are repositories of experience over
a time span which allows them to have survival knowledge that comes as a
cycle, like drought. They see variations of difficult births, crop
productions and their effects, tactics in war in different situations, and
other such information.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-23 05:32:59
On 24 Aug 2003 09:18:29 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) posted:
Why would you “avoid” it? If you avoid foodstuffs, you ain’t varying it enough.
Antioxidants are in all wholefoods.
But it’s the best guess.
It does slightly, but I’ve been aware for nearly thirty years that the effect was minimal.
Fasting trigs?
I’ve always understood that the biggest determiner of this is weight and exercise.
Not in my experience.
Especially when the effect being looked at is tiny.
Nope, there is more about. Diabetes is easily detected with a simple
and routine urine dipstick test. The diabetes incidence closely
follows the obesity incidence. And there is a good, tested mechanism
to explain it.
Sorry, I’ve lost the thread. What was dogma, and where?
Mooshie peas 2008-03-23 05:33:04
On 24 Aug 2003 09:36:25 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) posted:
I think it has a considerable effect on the survival of the species.
And it has always been a concern, hasn’t it?
And we are living longer and healthier than ever.
Yep, interesting theories that I have some sympathy with.
Name? Where did you see this? URL?
Tim tyler 2008-03-23 05:33:12
: If you avoid foodstuffs, you ain’t varying it enough.
Ah – the candy floss seller’s song 😉
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Anth 2008-03-23 05:33:18
Living longer – there has been a change in mortality?
There’s no change in the verified upper limits of how long we can live.
I can also remind you that we are not living more healthy either.
Approx 33% chance of getting cancer, approx 1/2 heart disease.
If we died earlier then these diseases proably wouldn’t manifest themselves as much.
I don’t worry about them, some people do, because I’m pretty much convinced
they can be treated or prevented.
Some would argue evolution has halted in man or changed form.
What is a ‘balanced diet’, and why do they keep changing the RDA’s?
Then it _must_ be wrong because they are failing miserably!
Mombu 2008-03-23 14:45:34
Average life expectancy is way, way up. The span of life probably has
not changed, but in the past so few people reached 85, we really don’t know.
Tim tyler 2008-03-23 14:45:37
:> And we are living longer and healthier than ever.
: Living longer – there has been a change in mortality?
Yes – it is decreasing. The figures look something like this:
Life expectancy at birth (in years) of males born in U.S.
Birth Year: 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Life Expectancy: 65.6 66.6 67.1 70.0 71.8
Life Expectancy at Birth
Year: 1985 1987 1988 1990 1993 1998 2000
World 62 63 63 64 65 66 66
Developed World 73 73 73 74 74 75 75
Developing World 58 59 60 61 63 63 64
U.S.A. 75 75 75 75 75 76 77
– http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/data/p-tab-07.htm
Life expectancy is increasing by about 60 days each year.
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Anth 2008-03-23 14:45:51
If all the cells die because they originated from one cell, then why does
hair still grow when we die?
(Assuming that when a person died, it is because the biological clock has
chimed)
Surely a hair cell isn’t immortal ?
Anth
Tim tyler 2008-03-23 14:45:58
: Although human life expectancy has been increasing over the last
: several decades, the rate of its increase is slowing down, as
: though the observed human life expectancy were approaching a biological
: maximum human life expectancy.
I see that there are claims (somewhat along the lines you mention)
that the increase in life expectancy is largely due to decreased
infant mortality figures.
If that’s right then the slow-down in life expectancy increase would
predictable on the grounds that the infant mortality decreases are bound
to run into diminishing returns as more and more babies’ lives are
preserved.
More along these lines at:
“Life Expectancy and Health Trends in Modern Society”
– http://www.holistichealthtopics.com/HMG/trends.html
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Hrubin 2008-03-24 06:46:36
Lycopene is not that ubiquitous. It is present in large
quantities in red tomatoes, but essentially not at all in
yellow tomatoes. It is ONE of the red antioxidants.
Can everyone get enough red tomatoes? There are in
the neighborhood of 100 known antioxidants; how likely
are you to get lots of turmeric in a varied diet?
But there are lots of them, and they have different functions.
I have been given several recommendations by physicians to
increase my vitamin intake, including one recently to raise
my supplemental vitamin C to 1000 mg; I had been taking 500,
which is considered quite high. This probably varies quite
a bit from person to person.
Not if you use statistical decision theory in an
intelligent manner. Besides, there is no such thing
as “proof” here; just a strong statistical indication,
and this criterion is only used due to a total
misconception of probabilistic reasoning.
This was assumed; it is false. Those on high fat
diets seem to have better lipid profiles, in the preliminary results.
It might be the biggest, but that does not always
work. Nothing works for everyone.
Even when the effect is large.
Any educated diabetic knows that this is false in both
directions. It may have been the original method, but
it iw wrong. BTW, the “definition” of diabetes has
changed to include more.
The diabetes incidence closely
But which is the cause? Insulin resistance causes
weight gain; this is known; severe dieting can keep
it from becoming “clinical” diabetes, especially if
the diet is VERY low carbohydrate. And even mild
weight gain can trigger insulin resistance if the
gene is there, as can low availability of food; it
confers a survival advantage in that case.
And there is a good, tested mechanism
The good, tested mechanism.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Mooshie peas 2008-03-24 06:47:25
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:26:27 +0100, “Anth”
Death of a multicelled organism is death of particular vital cells
that we choose to consider.
Some cells can go on for days. Given the substrates needed for life.
Mooshie peas 2008-03-24 06:47:31
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:11:23 +0100, “Anth”
Yes, you can remove it, I suppose. Good for cats 🙂
Mooshie peas 2008-03-24 15:52:51
On 27 Aug 2003 19:25:38 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) posted:
Nope, but surely tomatoes are. I eat them several times per day, on average.
You surely don’t need some of every antioxidant, and I dispute that
there are only 100. There are surely thousands, if not millions.
Do they really? Some may “act” in specific places, but they surely all
do the same thing. Ascorbic acid is used as an antioxidant
preservative in pharmaceuticals, for instance.
Your physicians are not using evidence based medicine?
Where is the evidence for this 1000 mg of ascorbic acid?
I’ve seen evidence that it is harmful, but I take no notice of any of
this “evidence” until it is tested and found “real”.
Cobblers!
If there is no evidence to disprove a hypothesis (and disproving is
all you can do) then it stands until evidence comes along TO disprove it.
So long as they are not overweight. That’s the usual determiner of
screwed up blood lipid levels.
So where has your statistical theory gone?
Really? You must have poor measurement techniques.
What is? More about? Or easily detected with a urine dipstick?
A diagnosis of diabetes is two fasting blood glucose levels above a
certain limit. The simple screening test of sugar in the urine (That’s
what diabetes mellitus means) is a tried and true screening test.
Blood tests will pick it up earlier, but it will always be causght by
the urine dipstick screen.
The genes. But as obesity must come first (very few thin, type twos
out there) it can be avoided by not getting fat.
No, weight gain causes insulin resistance. No weight gain, no insulin resistance (in general)
If you never become overweight you can avoid all of this. I wouldn’t
regard this as “severe dieting”, BTW.
Yep, we know all that. As I said, no weight gain, no insulin
resistance and no eventual frank diabetes. (in general)
How doesn’t it hold up?
Tim tyler 2008-03-24 15:53:03
:>In sci.life-extension Anth
:>: “Mooshie peas”
:>:> And we are living longer and healthier than ever.
:>
:>: Living longer – there has been a change in mortality?
:>
:>Yes – it is decreasing. The figures look something like this:
:>
:>Life expectancy at birth (in years) of males born in U.S.
:>Birth Year: 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
:>Life Expectancy: 65.6 66.6 67.1 70.0 71.8
:>
:> Life Expectancy at Birth
:>Year: 1985 1987 1988 1990 1993 1998 2000
:>World 62 63 63 64 65 66 66
:>Developed World 73 73 73 74 74 75 75
:>Developing World 58 59 60 61 63 63 64
:>U.S.A. 75 75 75 75 75 76 77
:>
:> – http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/data/p-tab-07.htm
:>
:>Life expectancy is increasing by about 60 days each year.
: Where’s the decrease?
In the mortality.
—
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org
Ag24 2008-03-24 15:53:30
There is actually quite a lot in error in the above. The slowdown in
the rate of increase in life expectancy does not in any way support the
idea that there is a genetic upper limit on the maximum human lifespan,
because (as you say) it results merely from the fact that we’ve run out
of young deaths to prevent. What needs to be examined in order to ask
about the “genetic upper limit” hypothesis is the rate of increase of
life expectancy at age 50 (say). This is not slowing, it’s speeding
up. (See, for example, Wilmoth’s study of the age of the oldest Swede
over the past 140 years: Science 289(5488):2366.) Thus, we already
have evidence that either there is no such limit or it is a long way
off.
Also, yes, life expectancy appears to be at least partially related to
the length of our telomeres — but inversely related. We have shorter
telomeres than other primates, theirs are shorter than those of wild
mice, theirs are shorter than (short-lived) lab mice.
Aubrey de Grey
Rhino ceros 2008-03-24 15:53:42
Rath is a mafioso. His spamming sunk the email servers of the EU in
Brussels.
PS:
I do hate N*** programmers who force me to post into certain newsgroups!
Anth 2008-03-24 15:53:46
Rath is a highly respected MD
Anth
Mombu 2008-03-25 17:27:27
The authors don’t conclude that because there is no evidence that
adult-onset cancers, especially those of old age, have been conquered. When
well-known cancer drugs brag about a 2 month increase in life expectancy, or
even 1 month, the overall effect is nil compared to life expectancy of large
groups. You always overrate the effects of spending huge amounts of money
on your business: the medical/industrial complex.
Mombu 2008-03-26 02:37:06
The issue is life expectancy, not management.
Heart disease: oh yes. We went throught that here several years back
when it was discovered that you were equally likely to live after a heart
attack in Canada as in the USA, despite aggressive treatments here. Those
posting at the time stated that our treatments offered better ‘lifestyle’
than the Canadian ones, even if they did not change life expectancy.
Ag24 2008-03-27 03:17:29
The main evidence that that is not so, and that the more resistant you
are naturally, the harder it is to improve on you, is that until fairly
recently mortality curves in developed nations were getting more
rectangular even at ages around the life expectancy. We may now be
close to the point where medical treatments that can help anybody can
help most people, giving the recent pattern (no more rectangularisation
but rather a progressive right shift in survival, i.e. all deciles of
the mortality distribution moving to older ages at roughly the same
rate). And yet, the acceleration in that right shift seems to be continuing.
Hang on — if so, surely you would have to look at **all** comparisons
between species with similar caution? That seems likely to be rather over-restrictive.
Absolutely. But so might humans…. and certainly so do the cloned
mice that you mentioned initially in support of your position.
Yes. One of the main differences, a decidedly relevant one, is that
the intestinal stem cells express telomerase.
Aubrey de Grey
Mooshie peas 2008-04-01 20:03:50
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 02:17:20 +0800, “William A. Noyes”
First it ain’t essential. It’s thought to be beneficial in a healthy
diet, but there are many other molecules that do the same thing.
And second, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t eat tomatoes several times
a day. What is anti-science about that? Makes me think that you
haven’t got a clue what science is.
William a. noy 2008-04-02 14:16:32
OK. Give an example. I can think of a couple off hand that do similiar
things. But do they do them in the same tissues?
That is an over-statement. :-(Oh. I see burger and fries with catsup
morning, noon, and nite:-)
Science is about measurement of effect and specifics in part.
You almost never deal with specifics. You deal with things, like
an English lit major.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.