What really happened? What needs to happen?

[Quentin Gr]

G'day G'day Folks,

I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering what
really was going on and what really happened.

The control diet (41% fat, 14% protein, 45% carbohydrates and
7 g of fiber per 1000 kcal)appears to be a reasonable
approximation of the standard American diet, SAD.

The intervention diet (18% fat, 19% protein, 63%
carbohydrates, and 26 g of fiber per 1000 kcal)

IF we take the research results at face value then raising the
protein from a maintenance level of 14% to 19% and
dramatically raising the fibre from 7 g per 1000 kcal to 28 g
per 1000 kcal worked. Both protein and fibre are known to
promote satiety so that stacks the odds in an ad libertum
trial. Weight loss is easier with higher protein levels.

If the researchers had wanted a fair trial of some other
factor, say carbohydrate for instance, then the control diet
would have had 18 or 19 g of fibre per 1000 kcal. Obviously
there was a massive yet largely undisclosed difference in the
quality of carbohydrates used in the control and intervention
arms of the trial. At the moment the trial appears to be a
poorly conducted trial of carbohydrate composition. It would
have been more meaningful if the possible confounding factor
of carbohydrate percentages etc had been eliminated.

OK, the reasons for their success aren't too hard to find if
we assume that in this ad libertum trial, people on the
intervention trial consumed fewer calories over time when
given almost four times the fibre and a higher than
maintenance level of protein.

However there is a rub.

The authors claim "There was no significant difference in
total food intake among the 3 groups and no change in energy
intake over time."

Were they brazenly hoping no one would check out what
exactly "no significant difference" meant or was there some
incompetence in their method of assessing energy intake
that was almost immediately picked up by others or are
their detractors simply wrong and making up refutations as
they go along.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html

"As it turns out, study subjects in the high-carbohydrate
groups consumed about 400-600 calories less per day than those
in the control group. Over the 12-week period of the study,
then, the average study subject in the high-carbohydrate group
consumed about 42,000 calories less than the average study
subject in the control group.

Since a pound of fat represents about 3,500 calories, it’s no
wonder why those in the high-carbohydrate group lost weight.
It was because they ate less, not because of any magical
effects of a high-carbohydrate diet."

How on Earth could that happen? .

Did the researchers count the fibre as carbohydrate in their
energy calculations?

Were they hoping no one would notice the difference in energy
intake or ask if they were indeed significant?

Are we to believe that not one of them thought to check the
energy figures? If any of them had doubts are we to believe
none of them asked for an independent audit?

Books have been written about group decision making. The
perils aren't new or unknown. Hays NP, Starling RD, Liu X,
Sullivan DH, Trappe TA, Fluckey JD, Evans WJ. all put THEIR
names to the research. Did none of the seven think their
reputations worthy of having an independent audit before
publication?

For that matter, how on Earth could the paper be published
without having undergone preliminary scrutiny? By now
scientific publishers and scientists alike must have some
realisation that ficts on controversial topics propagate
rapidly without much hope of retrieval. IMHO when published
research is shown to be wanting in basic accountancy audit
issues the reputation of all scientists and scientific
publishers is ever so slightly tarnished in the public mind.

And what of the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics,
University of Arkansas?

How functional are THEIR review committees?

Do universities whose reputations depend in part on research
quality have validation committees and how are they
accredited? We are not talking about esoteric matters of
scientific opinion here ... just basic energy accounting on
which the public should be able to rely.

Firstly I'd like to know what really happened in this
experiment.

There are millions of people who could benefit from some sound
scientific research on weightloss. They deserve something
better than the scientific community is apparently currently
delivering if this is a typical example.

Once it is established beyond reasonable doubt what really
happened, the next question would seem to be how to set and
maintain standards for research that will uphold the
reputation of science.

If funding realities have made research commercial perhaps it
is high time a bond system was instituted to ensure adequate
checks are made of the validity of interpretation of data
before publication. Someone can work out the details. There
are existing models such as fidelity funds for lawyers that
might provide a basis for discussion.

1: Arch Intern Med. 2004 Jan 26;164(2):210-7.

Effects of an ad libitum low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet on
body weight, body composition, and fat distribution in older
men and women: a randomized controlled trial.

Hays NP, Starling RD, Liu X, Sullivan DH, Trappe TA, Fluckey
JD, Evans WJ.

Nutrition, Metabolism, and Exercise Laboratory, Donald W.
Reynolds Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas for
Medical Sciences and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare
System, Little Rock.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ad libitum low-fat diets in
reducing body weight and fat in overweight and obese adults
remains controversial.

METHODS: We examined the effect of a 12-week low-fat,
high-complex carbohydrate diet alone (HI-CHO) and in
combination with aerobic exercise training (HI-CHO + EX) on
body weight and composition in 34 individuals with impaired
glucose tolerance (20 women and 14 men; mean +/- SEM age, 66
+/- 1 years).

Participants were randomly assigned to a control diet (41%
fat, 14% protein, 45% carbohydrates, and 7 g of fiber per 1000
kcal), a HI-CHO diet (18% fat, 19% protein, 63% carbohydrates,
and 26 g of fiber per 1000 kcal), or a HI-CHO diet plus
endurance exercise 4 d/wk, 45 min/d, at 80% peak oxygen
consumption (HI-CHO + EX). Participants were provided 150% of
estimated energy needs and were instructed to consume food ad
libitum. Total food intake, body composition, resting
metabolic rate, and substrate oxidation were measured.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in total food
intake among the 3 groups and no change in energy intake over
time. The HI-CHO + EX and HI-CHO groups lost more body weight
(-4.8 +/- 0.9 kg [P =.003] and -3.2 +/- 1.2 kg [P =.02]) and a
higher percentage of body fat (-3.5% +/- 0.7% [P =.01] and
-2.2% +/- 1.2% [P =.049]) than controls (-0.1 +/- 0.6 kg and
0.2% +/- 0.6%). In addition, thigh fat area decreased in the
HI-CHO (P =.003) and HI-CHO + EX (P<.001) groups compared with
controls. High carbohydrate intake and weight loss did not
result in a decreased resting metabolic rate or reduced fat
oxidation.

CONCLUSION: A high-carbohydrate diet consumed ad libitum,
with no attempt at energy restriction or change in energy
intake, results in losses of body weight and body fat in
older men and women.

PMID: 14744846 [PubMed - in process]

Best wishes,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[Tcomeau]

Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<l2qv10p85prcm8ffrkhtsltm1ecq1cj22b@4ax.com>...
> G'day G'day Folks,
>
> I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering what
> really was going on and what really happened.

<snip>

What really happened is the one of the authors published a
high carb diet book last May.

AstroFit: The Astronaut Program for Anti-Aging by William J.
Evans (Author) Publisher: Free Press; (May 13, 2003)

Then he decided that Atkins was keeping his book off the
bestseller list. So he thought he would create a
sensationalistic and headlne grabbing study to get attention
away from atkins and towards his book. So he throws some
nonsensical study together to generate some "data" to support
his POV. He then gets some unsuspecting friends in the
research community to attach their names to it. They get
another addition to their list of studies published and he
gets a bit of added weight to his study.

Then he manages to get it past the silly and ineffective peer
review system, past the busy and inattentive editors and
straight into a bona-fide scientific journal. Thus he prove to
everyone that junk science is easy to perpetrate and will in
fact gain lots of publicity.

TC

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On 6 Feb 2004 09:22:09 -0800,
tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote:

>Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:<l2qv10p85prcm8ffrkhtsltm1ecq1cj22b@4ax.com>...
>> G'day G'day Folks,
>>
>> I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering what
>> really was going on and what really happened.
>
><snip>
>
>What really happened is the one of the authors published a
>high carb diet book last May.
>
>AstroFit: The Astronaut Program for Anti-Aging by William J.
>Evans (Author) Publisher: Free Press; (May 13, 2003)
>
>Then he decided that Atkins was keeping his book off the
>bestseller list. So he thought he would create a
>sensationalistic and headlne grabbing study to get attention
>away from atkins and towards his book. So he throws some
>nonsensical study together to generate some "data" to support
>his POV. He then gets some unsuspecting friends in the
>research community to attach their names to it. They get
>another addition to their list of studies published and he
>gets a bit of added weight to his study.
>
>Then he manages to get it past the silly and ineffective peer
>review system, past the busy and inattentive editors and
>straight into a bona-fide scientific journal. Thus he prove
>to everyone that junk science is easy to perpetrate and will
>in fact gain lots of publicity.
>
>TC

G'day G'day TC,

Thank you for that explanation. If it is correct and I have
no reason to doubt it, then if the scientific method isn't
to become subject to increasing public ridicule, something
has to be done about
it.

The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their
sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond may seem far fetched
simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in the past.
IMHO it is necessary now. The sooner it is implemented the
better. Those who wish to continue making a living as
scientists have much to lose if the public's faith in
scientists is eroded. Imagine a scenario where public money
dried up ... where financial Support for academic institutions
dried up except from commercial concerns. It might be thought
that, that wouldn't matter since most funding comes from
commercial interests anyway but that funding is in part
provided because the academic institutions lend the image of
integrity to research.

The scientific integrity fund would lead to loss of bond if
researchers are found to be wilfully or negligently
manipulating the data, publishing conclusions that are
unsupported by the data. I'm not talking esoteric matters of
opinion here, just simple non-controversial accountancy stuff
like keeping accurate energy balances. The management of the
universities are required to get their accounting correct and
get audited to make sure they do. Should scientists who make
claims (they call them conclusions) based on energy accounting
be subject to less rigorous checking?

Best wishes,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[David Harm]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:54:01 +1300 in sci.med.nutrition,
Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> was alleged to
have written:
>The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their
>sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond may seem far
>fetched simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in
>the past. IMHO it is necessary now. The sooner it is
>implemented the better.

Administered by the people currently doing the peer reviews?

[Tcomeau]

Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<imc820lda3m128shohgbcs4pkt24nkfhe7@4ax.com>...
> This post not CC'd by email On 6 Feb 2004 09:22:09 -0800,
> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote:
>
> >Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> >news:<l2qv10p85prcm8ffrkhtsltm1ecq1cj22b@4ax.com>...
> >> G'day G'day Folks,
> >>
> >> I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering
> >> what really was going on and what really happened.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >What really happened is the one of the authors published a
> >high carb diet book last May.
> >
> >AstroFit: The Astronaut Program for Anti-Aging by William
> >J. Evans (Author) Publisher: Free Press; (May 13, 2003)
> >
> >Then he decided that Atkins was keeping his book off the
> >bestseller list. So he thought he would create a
> >sensationalistic and headlne grabbing study to get
> >attention away from atkins and towards his book. So he
> >throws some nonsensical study together to generate some
> >"data" to support his POV. He then gets some unsuspecting
> >friends in the research community to attach their names to
> >it. They get another addition to their list of studies
> >published and he gets a bit of added weight to his study.
> >
> >Then he manages to get it past the silly and ineffective
> >peer review system, past the busy and inattentive editors
> >and straight into a bona-fide scientific journal. Thus he
> >prove to everyone that junk science is easy to perpetrate
> >and will in fact gain lots of publicity.
> >
> >TC
>
> G'day G'day TC,
>
> Thank you for that explanation. If it is correct and I
> have no reason to doubt it, then if the scientific method
> isn't to become subject to increasing public ridicule,
> something has to be done about
> it.
>
> The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their
> sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond may seem far
> fetched simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in
> the past. IMHO it is necessary now. The sooner it is
> implemented the better. Those who wish to continue making a
> living as scientists have much to lose if the public's faith
> in scientists is eroded. Imagine a scenario where public
> money dried up ... where financial Support for academic
> institutions dried up except from commercial concerns. It
> might be thought that, that wouldn't matter since most
> funding comes from commercial interests anyway but that
> funding is in part provided because the academic
> institutions lend the image of integrity to research.
>
> The scientific integrity fund would lead to loss of bond if
> researchers are found to be wilfully or negligently
> manipulating the data, publishing conclusions that are
> unsupported by the data. I'm not talking esoteric matters of
> opinion here, just simple non-controversial accountancy
> stuff like keeping accurate energy balances. The management
> of the universities are required to get their accounting
> correct and get audited to make sure they do. Should
> scientists who make claims (they call them conclusions)
> based on energy accounting be subject to less rigorous
> checking?
>
> Best wishes,

That's an interesting idea. It may be easier and more
practical if the journal that was scammed into publishing this
tripe just banned these "scientists" from publishing in their
journal for ten years. Then they can take the pear reviewers
that let this get by them and take them off their list of
reviewers for ten years. Then they can fire the idiotic
editor(s) that approve the publication of this nonsensical
study. Then they can make a huge deal of it in the press and
eventually they will become reknown for their scientific
integrity. Every scientist and researcher and gov't agency and
person interested will regard that publication as an
unassailable pillar of scientific integrity.

TC

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:39:41 GMT,
David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:54:01 +1300 in sci.med.nutrition,
>Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> was alleged to
>have written:
>>The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their
>>sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond may seem far
>>fetched simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in
>>the past. IMHO it is necessary now. The sooner it is
>>implemented the better.
>
>Administered by the people currently doing the peer reviews?

G'day G'day David,

You seem to be hinting that the peer review process does not
work. If you are, then that would seem to support the need for
a better system than those currently in existence to maintain
credibility for research scientists. Do you have a better
proposal? I only ask because as one who grew up believing in
science it hurts when its image is tarnished.

I hadn't seen it as peer reviews. Part of the appeal of peer
reviews is that people doing the reviews can assess the
validity of the arguments and conclusions reached by the
researchers.

I saw academic audit as a lower level accountancy exercise.
Did the researchers make statements that were at variance with
their data ... basic energy accounting?

What I envisaged was pretty basic stuff. It isn't a matter of
telling researchers how they should do their business. If
anyone would do that sort of telling it should be those doing
peer review. I see that as intervision ... like supervision
for equally responsible folks. Faulty technique would be the
domain of peer review, formative assessment if you will.
Putting one over by fudging the numbers would get you done by
the academic auditors. That would be summative assessment.
Hard word stuff.

The idea of an academic audit is pretty simple. Other
researchers, even those with an axe to grind are likely to pot
folks who fudge the energy accounting. What this means people
who juice their results are likely to be found out sooner
rather than later AND the public would know. Put simply, for
large research organisations failing an academic audit would
make them newsworthy. The message would soon get around
academic institution who didn't have a suicidal wish that they
would really need to institute rigorous internal checks.

Best wishes,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On 9 Feb 2004 08:22:44 -0800,
tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote:

>That's an interesting idea. It may be easier and more
>practical if the journal that was scammed into publishing
>this tripe just banned these "scientists" from publishing in
>their journal for ten years. Then they can take the pear
>reviewers that let this get by them and take them off their
>list of reviewers for ten years. Then they can fire the
>idiotic editor(s) that approve the publication of this
>nonsensical study. Then they can make a huge deal of it in
>the press and eventually they will become reknown for their
>scientific integrity. Every scientist and researcher and
>gov't agency and person interested will regard that
>publication as an unassailable pillar of scientific
>integrity.
>
>TC

G'day G'day TC,

I take your point however I haven't reached the same
conclusions that you have about what should be done about
it.

>It may be easier and more practical if the journal that was
>scammed into publishing this tripe just banned these
>"scientists" from publishing in their journal for ten years.

To me, there is a high level of subjective assessment inherent
in this proposal. Hey, I just going on words like "scammed"
"tripe" ""scientists"". Being banned for ten years from
publication in a particular journal is something that sounds
pretty concrete.

>Then they can take the pear reviewers

They would be a bit knock out of shape I imagine. <grin>

>that let this get by them and take them off their list of
>reviewers for ten years.

Publishing grey lists and black lists could have some value
but would be subject to challenge and appeals.

>Then they can fire the idiotic editor(s) that approve the
>publication of this nonsensical study.

Well first there is the issue of subjective judgements ...
"idiotic" "nonsensical" More importantly though IMHO is
something more important ... the editors are editors. Their
function is to ensure the articles are readable. While editors
may have a basic understanding of the subject material it is
simply too much to ask them to be responsible for the
integrity of the article as a whole.

Of course these are simply my views. Perhaps they will
catalyze others to express their views until at some point
someone out there says "Enough is enough. Researchers DO have
a credibility issue in the modern world that needs to be dealt
with and we are willing to make some sacrifices in our
traditions to retain credibility."

At the moment my money is still on a publication fidelity bond
that can be lost if it found they fudged the basic stuff ie
energy audits. It is much lower level stuff than peer review
that ought to helping scientist improve their scientific
method. If research is now fundamentally a business for profit
then it ought to get this basic accountancy stuff correct and
be subject to audit to make sure it does.

Best wishes,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[Tcomeau]

Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<2ljg209s0kdvoms5e0bo58a8mm8mc107q7@4ax.com>...
> This post not CC'd by email On 9 Feb 2004 08:22:44 -0800,
> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote:
>
> >That's an interesting idea. It may be easier and more
> >practical if the journal that was scammed into publishing
> >this tripe just banned these "scientists" from publishing
> >in their journal for ten years. Then they can take the pear
> >reviewers that let this get by them and take them off their
> >list of reviewers for ten years. Then they can fire the
> >idiotic editor(s) that approve the publication of this
> >nonsensical study. Then they can make a huge deal of it in
> >the press and eventually they will become reknown for their
> >scientific integrity. Every scientist and researcher and
> >gov't agency and person interested will regard that
> >publication as an unassailable pillar of scientific
> >integrity.
> >
> >TC
>
> G'day G'day TC,
>
> I take your point however I haven't reached the same
> conclusions that you have about what should be done
> about it.
>
> >It may be easier and more practical if the journal that
> >was scammed into publishing this tripe just banned
> >these "scientists" from publishing in their journal for
> >ten years.
>
> To me, there is a high level of subjective assessment
> inherent in this proposal. Hey, I just going on words like
> "scammed" "tripe" ""scientists"". Being banned for ten years
> from publication in a particular journal is something that
> sounds pretty concrete.
>
> >Then they can take the pear reviewers
>
> They would be a bit knock out of shape I imagine. <grin>
>
> >that let this get by them and take them off their list of
> >reviewers for ten years.
>
> Publishing grey lists and black lists could have some value
> but would be subject to challenge and appeals.
>
> >Then they can fire the idiotic editor(s) that approve the
> >publication of this nonsensical study.
>
> Well first there is the issue of subjective judgements ...
> "idiotic" "nonsensical" More importantly though IMHO is
> something more important ... the editors are editors. Their
> function is to ensure the articles are readable. While
> editors may have a basic understanding of the subject
> material it is simply too much to ask them to be responsible
> for the integrity of the article as a whole.
>
> Of course these are simply my views. Perhaps they will
> catalyze others to express their views until at some point
> someone out there says "Enough is enough. Researchers DO
> have a credibility issue in the modern world that needs to
> be dealt with and we are willing to make some sacrifices in
> our traditions to retain credibility."
>
> At the moment my money is still on a publication fidelity
> bond that can be lost if it found they fudged the basic
> stuff ie energy audits. It is much lower level stuff than
> peer review that ought to helping scientist improve their
> scientific method. If research is now fundamentally a
> business for profit then it ought to get this basic
> accountancy stuff correct and be subject to audit to make
> sure it does.
>
> Best wishes,

I guess my point is that we, and the people behind these
journals, should get ticked off and take some kind of action
that will at the very least embarass the offenders. Make a
stand. Show some backbone and some integrity. Whatever the
action taken it should be pro-active, quick, direct and
effective. Not just setting up an involved process like you
suggest. That will just give the offending people another
bureaucracy and set of operators to subvert. And they will
find the resources to do just that.

TC

[Kristofer]

Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> At the moment my money is still on a publication fidelity
> bond that can be lost if it found they fudged the basic
> stuff ie energy audits. It is much lower level stuff than
> peer review that ought to helping scientist improve their
> scientific method. If research is now fundamentally a
> business for profit then it ought to get this basic
> accountancy stuff correct and be subject to audit to make
> sure it does.

Putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds good in print,
but in practice, it means that there will be that many more
lawyers (I pronounce it "lie-yers") involved. Which is the
primary reason the R&D system is so compromised now. Legal
truth is now a commodity that only the wealthy can afford, and
it has absolutely nothing to do with the real thing. A friend
of mine who was "fortunate" enough to co-discover a means of
stimulating immune response to treat cancer has been subjected
to a decade of fraudulent business practices and adverse
judgement from strategic litigation as "compensation" for his
groundbreaking patented and published scientific work. His
case exemplifies the corruption and collusion that is possible
when the system quits working. Indeed, it is an ideal allegory
of the state of autoimmunity, whereby the defensive immune
system begins attacking the very body it relies upon to exist.

The sad truth of the matter is when those in positions of
power and authority do not honor and abide by the commonly
accepted rules, there is no basis for effective remedy, other
than revolution (frequently bloody, which I define as another
round of the same old shit) or the exigencies of time itself.
My take is that the malaise we now see in medical research is
the tip of the iceberg. Politicians and businesspeople
routinely get away with the most outrageous falsehoods, in
many cases rewarded by significant increases in their personal
fortune, with minimal or no accountability for these blatantly
predatory and socially destructive actions. As these patterns
of behavior increase, they aggressively supplant the "checks
and balances" of civil liberty and informed discourse that are
theoretically the mainstay of free societies. The
impoverishment of the many is not the only result, as history
shows those who pay any attention to it. The eclipse of free
speech, academic freedom, dissent, and innovation go hand in
hand with feudal society, making the thankless task of
acquiring legitimate knowledge exponentially more diffcult for
those cursed with the awareness and desire to do so.

For myself, I have learned two significant things about
"civilization" from history. The first being the fact that
people rarely, if ever, actually learn anything from history
that is actually taken to heart and practised in kind; the
second being that murder, especially when conducted on a
wholesale basis, is always an acceptable option. If the
natural remedy to overpopulation and resource depletion is
massive die-off, then perhaps it is only "natural" for human
beings to effect the same result with methods our technical
artifice has brought us to the brink of destruction with in
the first place. Regardless, never, ever, underestimate the
brutal power of blind stupidity and unfettered greed, derived
from the primordial instinct of fear. Stupidity (although
superstitious types insist on calling it evil) has met no
equal in the survival arena throughout the entire recorded
history of humankind, and it may ultimately be our "saving
grace", ironically enough... ;^]

--
_o Kristofer Dale, _ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...

p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org

[John 'The]

jheiskan@welho.com jwales@bomis.com TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Once
upon a time, our fellow Kristofer D. Dale rambled on about
"Re: What really happened? What needs to happen?." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>Putting your money where your mouth is.

Is that the same mouth that drinks the dirt?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!