860,000 children to die from Vitamin A deficiency

[Roman Byst]

Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm

Unless urgent steps are taken to prevent and control
deficiency of Vitamin A, 860,000 children will die in the
next 10 years.

This means that 240 children will die per day, Commissioner
for Health, Leke Pitan, has said.

The commissioner made the remarks while speaking at the grand
finale of the Micronutrient Week organised by the Ministry of
Health in Lagos. Speaking through Dr. Kumbi Layenu Adeyemo, a
consultant in the ministry, Pitan disclosed that iron
deficiency affects 28 per cent of Nigerian women of
reproductive age while as much as 34 per cent are affected in
some regions. He added that profiles analysis shows that if no
action is taken, about 64,480 Nigerian mothers will die in the
next 10 years since they are anemic. The figure, he observed,
represents 18 maternal deaths per day for the next 10 years.

Pitan said micronutrient malnutrition is a serious threat to
the health and productivity of more than two billion people
worldwide. He added that because of the high prevalence and
close association with childhood illness and mortality, three
micronutrient deficiencies of health significance namely iron;
Vitamin A and iodine need urgent intervention.

He said women and children are more vulnerable to
micronutrient deficiencies because of their requirement for
reproduction and growth. Iron deficiency, he pointed out,
renders the child inattentive and uninterested in the acts of
living and learning, adding that iron deficiency is a serious
cause of ill health. The World Health Organisation Global
Burden of Disease Report, he asserted, ranks iron deficiency
as the second among leading causes of disability.

Red meat, the commissioner emphasised, is the best source of
highly absorbable iron but largely unaffordable to many. He
added that the absorption of iron from grains, legumes and
vegetables could be significantly increased three to seven
fold if such foods are consumed with foods riched in Vitamin
C. Iron deficiency, Pitan stated, is the cause of most
preventable mental retardation and brain damage. "Consequences
of iodine deficiency have been reported as impaired growth
development and intellectual capacity, reproductive problems
in women, increased fetal deaths and still births, retardation
in neurological development, impaired coordination, lethargy
etc," he stressed.

The commissioner revealed that though Nigeria has succeeded
in achieving 98 per cent iodization, sustained effort is
required to curb the problem. He added that investing
programmes such as Micronutrient Week is crucial to
protecting the millions of people, particularly children and
women who are still at risk of impaired development, and
physical deformities, etc, among others.

He stated that apart from salt fortification, seafoods such
as crayfish, shrimps, crab and oysters are sources of
iodine, adding that night blindness and exophthalmia related
cornea scars are some of ailments resulting for deficiency
of the nutrient.

[Peterb]

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
> Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>
Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of infectious
disease in children. Our resident pharma bloggers will likely
have little or nothing to say about a health article that
doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad, that.

PeterB

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>
>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>>deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
>>Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>
>
> Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma bloggers
> will likely have little or nothing to say about a health
> article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad, that.

It was well said and needed no comment.

I see that Jan is training you well.

[Peterb]

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >
> >>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
> >>deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
> >>Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >>
> >
> > Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> > infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
> > bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
> > about a health article that doesn't also promote
> > vaccine. Sad, that.
>
> It was well said and needed no comment.

It never stops you.

> I see that Jan is training you well.

Not likely. I miss the toilet bowl like clockwork.

PeterB

[Peter Bowd]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>
>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
>> Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>
>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma bloggers
>will likely have little or nothing to say about a health
>article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad, that.
>
>PeterB

You would be wrong.

Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin A
to the very large proportion of the world's population who get
their calories from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to
think that GM food is the work of Satan.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[David Wrig]

In article
<1130863147.974837.207110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
>> Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>
>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma bloggers
>will likely have little or nothing to say about a health
>article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad, that.

What exactly were you thinking should be said about it?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you
can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice
Roosevelt Longworth

[Ladylollip]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130890327.234629.320290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>> > Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>> >
>> >>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>> >>deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
>> >>2005, Link:
>> >>http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>> >>
>> >
>> > Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>> > infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>> > bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say about
>> > a health article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad,
>> > that.
>>
>> It was well said and needed no comment.
>
> It never stops you.
>
>> I see that Jan is training you well.
>
> Not likely. I miss the toilet bowl like clockwork.
>
> PeterB

DI DI DI DID you have to say that?!?!

You must have been listening in at the Drew household today,
long about
12:00 noon!

Just told hubby to read this post!

He is:

ROTFLOL!!!

[Peterb]

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
> >> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
> >> 2005, Link:
> >> http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >>
> >Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> >infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
> >bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
> >about a health article that doesn't also promote
> >vaccine. Sad, that.
> >
> >PeterB
>
> You would be wrong.

Thanks for confessing.

> Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
> genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin
> A to the very large proportion of the world's population who
> get their calories from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem
> to think that GM food is the work of Satan.

GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We can't
know the consequences of wild-strain mutations of these
organisms that are impacting the human (and animal) food
chain. We do know that GMO contaminates non-GMO agriculture
and threatens the viability of organic farming. The real
impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization of
agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of increasing
corporate profits, whereas the potential short-term benefits
(if there are any) are nothing more than pre-packaged
justification. Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a
drink of water.

PeterB

[Peterb]

David Wright wrote:
> In article
> <1130863147.974837.207110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
> >> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
> >> 2005, Link:
> >> http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >>
> >Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> >infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
> >bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
> >about a health article that doesn't also promote
> >vaccine. Sad, that.
>
> What exactly were you thinking should be said about it?

Sorry, I can't think for other people. It's against my
religion.

[Peterb]

David Wright wrote:
> In article
> <1130863147.974837.207110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
> >> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
> >> 2005, Link:
> >> http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >>
> >Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> >infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
> >bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
> >about a health article that doesn't also promote
> >vaccine. Sad, that.
>
> What exactly were you thinking should be said about it?

Sorry, I can't think for other people. It's against my
religion.

[jdeere2312]

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> You would be wrong.
>
> Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
> genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin
> A to the very large proportion of the world's population who
> get their calories from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem
> to think that GM food is the work of Satan.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It's conceivable that some day we would know enough genetics
to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a GM food what
all its ramifications to the human body are.

If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.

Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food after
folks like you have been using it for 20 years or so -- so
I guess I should thank you for volunteering to be the
guinea pigs.

So: Thank you.

(But, please note I am not taking any share of responsibility
in your decision to feed it to your children.)

[jdeere2312]

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >> You would be wrong.
> >>
> >> Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
> >> genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
> >> Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
> >> population who get their calories from rice? I'm not, but
> >> many alties seem to think that GM food is the work of
> >> Satan.
> >
> >A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> >
> >It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
> >genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a
> >GM food what all its ramifications to the human body are.
> >
> >If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
> >sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
> >
> >Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food after
> >folks like you have been using it for 20 years or so -- so
> >I guess I should thank you for volunteering to be the
> >guinea pigs.
> >
> >So: Thank you.
> >
> >(But, please note I am not taking any share of
> >responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
> >children.)
>
> Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without mentioning)
> the words to which I had been replying, where I and others
> were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A to anyone
> because it is not a vaccine:

I was only responding to your comments about genetically
modified food. Anybody who wanted to see the entire context
could go back and read the whole thread -- they don't need to
see the whole thing in each and every message.

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>>>>deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
>>>>Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
>>
>>It was well said and needed no comment.
>
>
> It never stops you.

Sure it does. I did not reply to the OP, thus it stopped me.

>>I see that Jan is training you well.

> Not likely. I miss the toilet bowl like clockwork.

We know. When you miss, you post your pharmablogging fantasy.

[Peter Bowd]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> You would be wrong.
>>
>> Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>> genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>> Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>> population who get their calories from rice? I'm not,
>> but many alties seem to think that GM food is the work
>> of Satan.
>
>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
>It's conceivable that some day we would know enough genetics
>to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a GM food what
>all its ramifications to the human body are.
>
>If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
>sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
>
>Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food after
>folks like you have been using it for 20 years or so -- so
>I guess I should thank you for volunteering to be the
>guinea pigs.
>
>So: Thank you.
>
>(But, please note I am not taking any share of responsibility
>in your decision to feed it to your children.)

Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without mentioning)
the words to which I had been replying, where I and others
were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A to anyone
because it is not a vaccine:

>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma bloggers
>will likely have little or nothing to say about a health
>article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad, that.

Sad that, indeed.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Mark Probe]

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>
>>>You would be wrong.
>>>
>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>>population who get their calories from rice? I'm not,
>>>but many alties seem to think that GM food is the work
>>>of Satan.
>>
>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>
>>It's conceivable that some day we would know enough genetics
>>to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a GM food
>>what all its ramifications to the human body are.
>>
>>If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
>>sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
>>
>>Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food after
>>folks like you have been using it for 20 years or so -- so
>>I guess I should thank you for volunteering to be the
>>guinea pigs.
>>
>>So: Thank you.
>>
>>(But, please note I am not taking any share of
>>responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
>>children.)
>
>
> Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without mentioning)
> the words to which I had been replying, where I and others
> were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A to anyone
> because it is not a vaccine:
>
>
>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma bloggers
>>will likely have little or nothing to say about a health
>>article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad, that.
>
>
> Sad that, indeed.

I suppose that the poster just wants to line the pockets of
the Herb/supplement/magic potion industry and have these
people who are in desperate need of Vit A be dependent on us.

[Mark Probe]

LadyLollipop wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:113089-
> 0327.234629.320290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>
>>>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>>>>>deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
>>>>>2005, Link:
>>>>>http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
>>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
>>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
>>>
>>>It was well said and needed no comment.
>>
>>It never stops you.
>>
>>
>>>I see that Jan is training you well.
>>
>>Not likely. I miss the toilet bowl like clockwork.
>>
>>PeterB
>
>
> DI DI DI DID you have to say that?!?!
>
> You must have been listening in at the Drew household today,
> long about
> 12:00 noon!
>
> Just told hubby to read this post!
>
> He is:
>
> ROTFLOL!!!

Ilena and you have justified stalking and harassng my wife for
just the same thing.

Leave him out of it.

[jdeere2312]

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
> Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm

Sounds like stepwise-PR for GM rice with vitamin A.

Vitamin A deficiency doesn't kill. It can lead to poor
night vision.

The URL above does a switcharoo from vitamin A to iron. It
claims children will die from lack of iron, but leaves an
implication in the reader's mind that vitamin A is involved in
this. Then the headline reads "chidren to die from vitamin A
deficiency".

In the ng, the "GM rice with vitamin A" was deftly inserted,
suggesting a well-coordinated marketing plan for selling this
particular GM rice.

[Cathyb]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

> Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> > Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
> > deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
> > Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>
> Sounds like stepwise-PR for GM rice with vitamin A.
>
> Vitamin A deficiency doesn't kill. It can lead to poor
> night vision.

As PeterB stated above, vitamin A deficiency is a killer if a
child is exposed to infectious disease; it increases
mortality, which is why it is a treatment for measles; the WHO
is in fact trying to ensure that kids in vitamin-A-poor areas
get vitamin A supplementation along with vaccination as a
matter of urgency.

>
> The URL above does a switcharoo from vitamin A to iron. It
> claims children will die from lack of iron, but leaves an
> implication in the reader's mind that vitamin A is involved
> in this. Then the headline reads "chidren to die from
> vitamin A deficiency".

See above. However, it would be interesting to see where that
figure of 860 000 came from.

> In the ng, the "GM rice with vitamin A" was deftly inserted,
> suggesting a well-coordinated marketing plan for selling
> this particular GM rice.

And now you gurgle off into your own little world. Perhaps
PeterB is part of the conspiracy, with his inane aside that
no-one had commented on the fact that vitamin A deficiency is
a problem that resulted in the post?

Cathy

[Peter Bowd]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>> Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>> deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
>> Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>
>Sounds like stepwise-PR for GM rice with vitamin A.
>
>Vitamin A deficiency doesn't kill. It can lead to poor
>night vision.
>
>The URL above does a switcharoo from vitamin A to iron. It
>claims children will die from lack of iron, but leaves an
>implication in the reader's mind that vitamin A is involved
>in this. Then the headline reads "chidren to die from vitamin
>A deficiency".
>
>In the ng, the "GM rice with vitamin A" was deftly inserted,
>suggesting a well-coordinated marketing plan for selling this
>particular GM rice.

Check your foil beanie for holes.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
>>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>>>
>>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A
>>>>deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
>>>>Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
>>>
>>>PeterB
>>
>>You would be wrong.
>
>
> Thanks for confessing.
>
>
>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin
>>A to the very large proportion of the world's population who
>>get their calories from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem
>>to think that GM food is the work of Satan.
>
>
> GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We
> can't know the consequences of wild-strain mutations of
> these organisms that are impacting the human (and animal)
> food chain. We do know that GMO contaminates non-GMO
> agriculture and threatens the viability of organic farming.

Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never
produce enough food for the whole worldpopulation. With regard
to the contimination argument - what do you think nature has
been doing for eons? Swapping DNA between organisms or
inserting yours into another organism has been going on
naturally for millions of years and has never led to the
extinction of life or any major problem in general. Look up
cladistics and the problem of horizontal gene transfer if want
to learn more.

> The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization of
> agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of
> increasing corporate profits, whereas the potential
> short-term benefits (if there are any) are nothing more than
> pre-packaged justification.

Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it started
out as "this will allow us to grow crops in deserts and
oranges on the north pole so there will be food for everyone",
but it is now mostly about profit. Monsanto has come up with
soy that is resistant to Roundup, which they just happen to
sell, and that doesn't grow any seeds so farmers need to buy
new seeds after every harvest, which, guess what, Monsanto
also happens to sell. I do see longterm benefits though,
Golden Rice being a better example of what can and should be
done with GM food.

> Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of water.

I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural proces.

[Jand]

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:7oaim15ifo1ircvsiujdaktsq69poaq8pr@4ax.com...
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>> You would be wrong.
>>>
>>> Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>> genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>> Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>> population who get their calories from rice? I'm not, but
>>> many alties seem to think that GM food is the work of
>>> Satan.
>>
>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>
>>It's conceivable that some day we would know enough genetics
>>to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a GM food
>>what all its ramifications to the human body are.
>>
>>If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
>>sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
>>
>>Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food after
>>folks like you have been using it for 20 years or so -- so
>>I guess I should thank you for volunteering to be the
>>guinea pigs.
>>
>>So: Thank you.
>>
>>(But, please note I am not taking any share of
>>responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
>>children.)
>
> Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without mentioning)

Note how Peter Bowditch accuses others of his exact guilt.

Then note how Peter overlooks his buddies, snipping without
mentioning.

LadyLollipop Oct 27, 3:17 pm

Subject: Rosa Parks Has Left Us

> You forgot to tell us what's to wonder about! What's more
> you snipped without mentioning it!! Now, Peter will be right
> after ya!

Peter was SILENT!

LadyLollipop Aug 25, 8:12 pm

Subject: Re: Part 2 of my Manual for those with unrecognised
cancer cures

Restoring what was snipped without mentioning it.

Peter was SILENT!

That's because it came for his buddy, who recommends his
LYING websites.

It is Peter Bowditch who is DECEITFUL

Sad indeed.


the words
> to which I had been replying, where I and others were
> accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A to anyone because
> it is not a vaccine:
>
>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma bloggers
>>will likely have little or nothing to say about a health
>>article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad, that.
>
> Sad that, indeed.
> --
> Peter Bowditch

[Jand]

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote

[ ]

.
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>
>>>>You would be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>>>population who get their calories from rice? I'm not, but
>>>>many alties seem to think that GM food is the work of
>>>>Satan.
>>>
>>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>>
>>>It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
>>>genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a
>>>GM food what all its ramifications to the human body are.
>>>
>>>If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
>>>sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
>>>
>>>Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food after
>>>folks like you have been using it for 20 years or so -- so
>>>I guess I should thank you for volunteering to be the
>>>guinea pigs.
>>>
>>>So: Thank you.
>>>
>>>(But, please note I am not taking any share of
>>>responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
>>>children.)
>>
>>
>> Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without
>> mentioning) the words to which I had been replying, where I
>> and others were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A to
>> anyone because it is not a vaccine:
>>
>>
>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
>>
>>
>> Sad that, indeed.

[jdeere2312]

cathyb wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> > > Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin
> > > A deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
> > > 2005, Link:
> > > http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >
> > Sounds like stepwise-PR for GM rice with vitamin A.
> >
> > Vitamin A deficiency doesn't kill. It can lead to poor
> > night vision.
>
> As PeterB stated above, vitamin A deficiency is a killer if
> a child is exposed to infectious disease; it increases
> mortality, which is why it is a treatment for measles; the
> WHO is in fact trying to ensure that

I hadn't read that, I stand corrected. The article is about
iron deficiency, though, and the vitamin A connection is just
added without any support. The numbers appear incorrect for
"increased risk" of infection.

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >
> >>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin
> >>>>A deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
> >>>>2005, Link:
> >>>>http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> >>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
> >>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say about
> >>>a health article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad,
> >>>that.
> >>>
> >>>PeterB
> >>
> >>You would be wrong.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for confessing.
> >
> >
> >>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
> >>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
> >>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
> >>population who get their calories from rice? I'm not, but
> >>many alties seem to think that GM food is the work of
> >>Satan.
> >
> >
> > GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We
> > can't know the consequences of wild-strain mutations of
> > these organisms that are impacting the human (and animal)
> > food chain. We do know that GMO contaminates non-GMO
> > agriculture and threatens the viability of organic
> > farming.
>
> Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never
> produce enough food for the whole worldpopulation...

Organic farming is perfectly viable for the markets it serves,
including those in developed nations who choose to avoid
standard agriculture. And even combined with GMO technology,
modern farming methods will not feed the world population.

> With regard to the contimination argument - what do you
> think nature has been doing for eons? Swapping DNA between
> organisms or inserting yours into another organism has been
> going on naturally for millions of years and has never led
> to the extinction of life or any major problem in general.
> Look up cladistics and the problem of horizontal gene
> transfer if want to learn more.

There is a huge difference between naturally-evolved genetic
mutation and instantaneous alteration using gene transfer
technology. Insertion of genes into target DNA is a very
imprecise science. If we disrupt other genes essential to the
life of that organism, we increase the risk of harm to
ourselves.

> > The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization
> > of agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of
> > increasing corporate profits, whereas the potential
> > short-term benefits (if there are any) are nothing more
> > than pre-packaged justification.
>
> Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it
> started out as "this will allow us to grow crops in deserts
> and oranges on the north pole so there will be food for
> everyone", but it is now mostly about profit. Monsanto has
> come up with soy that is resistant to Roundup, which they
> just happen to sell, and that doesn't grow any seeds so
> farmers need to buy new seeds after every harvest, which,
> guess what, Monsanto also happens to sell. I do see longterm
> benefits though, Golden Rice being a better example of what
> can and should be done with GM food.

Monsanto prosecutes innocent farmers whose crops become
contaminated with their GMO seeds. I think it's clear that
this will end badly for everyone.

http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm

> > Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
> > water.
>
> I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
> proces.

Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into your
brain. Would you consider that natural?

PeterB

[jdeere2312]

JohnDoe wrote:

> Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> 'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine) tastes
> better and is healthier.

What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big brother?
If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to have
opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?

If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat it. If
someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I will
support your right not to be forced.

In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
"tasting" is their business.

[Peterb]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
> > jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > >Peter Bowditch wrote:
> > >> You would be wrong.
> > >>
> > >> Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
> > >> genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
> > >> Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
> > >> population who get their calories from rice? I'm not,
> > >> but many alties seem to think that GM food is the work
> > >> of Satan.
> > >
> > >A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> > >
> > >It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
> > >genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a
> > >GM food what all its ramifications to the human body are.
> > >
> > >If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
> > >sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
> > >
> > >Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food
> > >after folks like you have been using it for 20 years or
> > >so -- so I guess I should thank you for volunteering to
> > >be the guinea pigs.
> > >
> > >So: Thank you.
> > >
> > >(But, please note I am not taking any share of
> > >responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
> > >children.)
> >
> > Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without
> > mentioning) the words to which I had been replying, where
> > I and others were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A
> > to anyone because it is not a vaccine:
>
> I was only responding to your comments about genetically
> modified food. Anybody who wanted to see the entire context
> could go back and read the whole thread -- they don't need
> to see the whole thing in each and every message.

Bowditch just needs an argument. Badly.

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin
>>>>>>A deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1,
>>>>>>2005, Link:
>>>>>>http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say about
>>>>>a health article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad,
>>>>>that.
>>>>>
>>>>>PeterB
>>>>
>>>>You would be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for confessing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>>>population who get their calories
>>>
>>>>from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM
>>>>food is the
>>>
>>>>work of Satan.
>>>
>>>
>>>GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We
>>>can't know the consequences of wild-strain mutations of
>>>these organisms that are impacting the human (and animal)
>>>food chain. We do know that GMO contaminates non-GMO
>>>agriculture and threatens the viability of organic farming.
>>
>>Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never
>>produce enough food for the whole worldpopulation...
>
> Organic farming is perfectly viable for the markets it
> serves,

Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced 'organic'
produce (as if other produce is inorganic or something - but
that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine) tastes better and is
healthier.

> including those in developed nations who choose to avoid
> standard agriculture. And even combined with GMO technology,
> modern farming methods will not feed the world population.

There is more food on the planet than the population needs,
it's just that a lot of it is in the wrong place.

>>With regard to the contimination argument - what do you
>>think nature has been doing for eons? Swapping DNA between
>>organisms or inserting yours into another organism has been
>>going on naturally for millions of years and has never led
>>to the extinction of life or any major problem in general.
>>Look up cladistics and the problem of horizontal gene
>>transfer if want to learn more.
>
> There is a huge difference between naturally-evolved genetic
> mutation and instantaneous alteration using gene transfer
> technology. Insertion of genes into target DNA is a very
> imprecise science. If we disrupt other genes essential to
> the life of that organism, we increase the risk of harm to
> ourselves.

If we disrupt such an essential gene the organism will die and
won't be able to spread its DNA so what's your problem?

>>>The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization
>>>of agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of
>>>increasing corporate profits, whereas the potential
>>>short-term benefits (if there are any) are nothing more
>>>than pre-packaged justification.
>>
>>Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it
>>started out as "this will allow us to grow crops in deserts
>>and oranges on the north pole so there will be food for
>>everyone", but it is now mostly about profit. Monsanto has
>>come up with soy that is resistant to Roundup, which they
>>just happen to sell, and that doesn't grow any seeds so
>>farmers need to buy new seeds after every harvest, which,
>>guess what, Monsanto also happens to sell. I do see longterm
>>benefits though, Golden Rice being a better example of what
>>can and should be done with GM food.
>
>
> Monsanto prosecutes innocent farmers whose crops become
> contaminated with their GMO seeds. I think it's clear that
> this will end badly for everyone.
>
> http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm
>
>
>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
>>>water.
>>
>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
>>proces.
>
>
> Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into
> your brain. Would you consider that natural?
>
> PeterB

Tell me, what's unnatural about genes? And if you knew
anything about biology, specifically evolution, you'd
know we already have fish genes in our DNA. It's called
common ancestry.

[Mark Probe]

I would like to say that the new and improved JanD wrote the
following, but, if I did that Jan would be justified in
calling me a liar, since she is neither new or improved:

> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote
>
[ SNIPPAGED RESTORED BELOW-Jan is afraid of facts]
>
> .
>
>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>
>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You would be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>>>>population who get their calories
>>>>
>>>>>from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM
>>>>>food is the
>>>>
>>>>>work of Satan.
>>>>
>>>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>>>
>>>>It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
>>>>genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a
>>>>GM food what all its ramifications to the human body are.
>>>>
>>>>If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
>>>>sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
>>>>
>>>>Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food
>>>>after folks like you have been using it for 20 years or so
>>>>-- so I guess I should thank you for volunteering to be
>>>>the guinea pigs.
>>>>
>>>>So: Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>(But, please note I am not taking any share of
>>>>responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
>>>>children.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without
>>>mentioning) the words to which I had been replying, where I
>>>and others were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A to
>>>anyone because it is not a vaccine:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
>>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
>>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sad that, indeed.

I suppose that the poster just wants to line the pockets of
the Herb/supplement/magic potion industry and have these
people who are in desperate need of Vit A be dependent on us.

[Jand]

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote

I would like to say

[ ]
>
>
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote

[ ].
>>
>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>
>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You would be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>>>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>>>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>>>>>population who get their calories
>>>>>
>>>>>>from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that
>>>>>>GM food is the
>>>>>
>>>>>>work of Satan.
>>>>>
>>>>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
>>>>>genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature of a
>>>>>GM food what all its ramifications to the human body are.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
>>>>>sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.
>>>>>
>>>>>Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food
>>>>>after folks like you have been using it for 20 years or
>>>>>so -- so I guess I should thank you for volunteering to
>>>>>be the guinea pigs.
>>>>>
>>>>>So: Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>(But, please note I am not taking any share of
>>>>>responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
>>>>>children.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without
>>>>mentioning) the words to which I had been replying, where
>>>>I and others were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin A
>>>>to anyone because it is not a vaccine:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say about
>>>>>a health article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad,
>>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sad that, indeed.

[Roman Byst]

For your information. Enjoy your day.

Humphrey, J. H. and Rice, A. L., "Vitamin A supplementation of
young infants", The Lancet, July 29, 2000, Vol. 356, Num. 0,
pp. 422-424

"Young infants are often vitamin A deficient. Studies from
Bangladesh, Brazil, and Indonesia reported that a quarter to
over 90% of the 6 month-old infants studied had inadequate
liver stores."

"A meta-analysis of several large trials established that
vitamin A supplementation of 6 month-old to 5-year-old
children living in areas where vitamin A deficiency is a
problem can reduce their risk of dying by an average of 23%.
... In one study in Indonesia, a single dose 50,000 IU of
vitamin A given on the first day of life reduced infant
mortality by 64%, and during the first 4 months of life,
clinic visits for cough and fever suggestive of pneumonia, the
major cause of death in this age group, were reduced."

[jdeere2312]

JohnDoe wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> >>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> >>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
> >>tastes better and is healthier.
> >
> >
> > What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
> > brother?
>
> What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you
> have a point? I simply point out that a lot of people buy
> 'organic' produce for reasons that, when properly
> investigated with things such as blind tasting, are simply
> not true.
>
> > If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
> > degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
> > have opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?
> >
> > If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat it.
> > If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I will
> > support your right not to be forced.
> >
> > In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
> > "tasting" is their business.
>
> In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
> that in blind tasting, people can not taste the difference
> between 'organic' and regular produce. And as far as I'm
> concerned, people are free to choose

I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind tests
showed organic and regular are no different. But I didn't find
a link to the original details for the tests.

>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more like the
blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same panel may
prefer non-organic potatos over organic potatos, but may
prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.

That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would mean the
tastes are different, but the preferences of people are not
consistent in favoring one over the other. That would depend
upon the tester's habits, training, etc.

[Rich]

"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131101232.078522.50290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> For your information. Enjoy your day.
>
> Humphrey, J. H. and Rice, A. L., "Vitamin A supplementation
> of young infants", The Lancet, July 29, 2000, Vol. 356, Num.
> 0, pp. 422-424
>
> "Young infants are often vitamin A deficient. Studies from
> Bangladesh, Brazil, and Indonesia reported that a quarter to
> over 90% of the 6 month-old infants studied had inadequate
> liver stores."
>

Mercury poisoning is a common cause of pediatric death in
Bangladesh, too. Hardly any of the children there have any
amalgam dental restorations or have had the recommended
schedule of vaccinations. Go figure.
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

[Johndoe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine) tastes
>>better and is healthier.
>
>
> What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big brother?

What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you have
a point? I simply point out that a lot of people buy 'organic'
produce for reasons that, when properly investigated with
things such as blind tasting, are simply not true.

> If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
> degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to have
> opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?
>
> If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat it.
> If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I will
> support your right not to be forced.
>
> In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
> "tasting" is their business.

In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know that
in blind tasting, people can not taste the difference between
'organic' and regular produce. And as far as I'm concerned,
people are free to choose whatever they want as long as people
are given the full and honest facts. I have absolutely no beef
with peoples choices, only with people offering those choices
and lying about what they are offering.

[jdeere2312]

JohnDoe wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> >>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> >>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
> >>>>tastes better and is healthier.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
> >>>brother?
> >>
> >>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you
> >>have a point? I simply point out that a lot of people buy
> >>'organic' produce for reasons that, when properly
> >>investigated with things such as blind tasting, are simply
> >>not true.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
> >>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
> >>>have opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?
> >>>
> >>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
> >>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I
> >>>will support your right not to be forced.
> >>>
> >>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
> >>>"tasting" is their business.
> >>
> >>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
> >>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the difference
> >>between 'organic' and regular produce. And as far as I'm
> >>concerned, people are free to choose
> >
> >
> > I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
> > tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
> > didn't find a link to the original details for the tests.
> >
> >>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
> >>like the
> > blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same panel
> > may prefer non-organic potatos over organic potatos, but
> > may prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.
> >
> > That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would mean
> > the tastes are different, but the preferences of people
> > are not consistent in favoring one over the other. That
> > would depend upon the tester's habits, training, etc.
>
> Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
> result. After

No really. You would expect no preference either way, at all.

You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to have
stronger taste differences, and you should be able to tell the
difference. Whether you like one or the other, is something
else altogether.

[Cathyb]

Rich wrote:

> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131101232.078522.50290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > For your information. Enjoy your day.
> >
> > Humphrey, J. H. and Rice, A. L., "Vitamin A
> > supplementation of young infants", The Lancet, July 29,
> > 2000, Vol. 356, Num. 0, pp. 422-424
> >
> > "Young infants are often vitamin A deficient. Studies from
> > Bangladesh, Brazil, and Indonesia reported that a quarter
> > to over 90% of the 6 month-old infants studied had
> > inadequate liver stores."
> >
>
>
> Mercury poisoning is a common cause of pediatric death in
> Bangladesh, too. Hardly any of the children there have any
> amalgam dental restorations or have had the recommended
> schedule of vaccinations. Go figure.

LIAR!!

Sorry. Another Lollipop moment.

Cathy:)

PS. Of course, for a true Lollipop moment, I would have had to
snip your post before calling you a liar.

> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended websites:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au
> http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/
> http://www.csicop.org/

[Cathyb]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
> > jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > JohnDoe wrote:
> > >
> > >>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>JohnDoe wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> > >>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> > >>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
> > >>>>tastes better and is healthier.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
> > >>>brother?
> > >>
> > >>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
> > >>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
> > >>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
> > >>properly investigated with things such as blind tasting,
> > >>are simply not true.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
> > >>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
> > >>>have opinions about mine), why should that be my
> > >>>problem?
> > >>>
> > >>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
> > >>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and
> > >>>I will support your right not to be forced.
> > >>>
> > >>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
> > >>>better "tasting" is their business.
> > >>
> > >>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
> > >>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
> > >>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And as
> > >>far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
> > >
> > >
> > > I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
> > > tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
> > > didn't find a link to the original details for the
> > > tests.
> > >
> > >>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
> > >>like the
> > > blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
> > > panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
> > > potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over
> > > non-organic.
> > >
> > > That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
> > > mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
> > > people are not consistent in favoring one over the
> > > other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
> > > training, etc.
> >
> > Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
> > result. After
>
> No really. You would expect no preference either way, at
> all.

No, you wouldn't. Not if you understood anything at all about
statistics.

> You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to have
> stronger taste differences, and you should be able to tell
> the difference. Whether you like one or the other, is
> something else altogether.

You're missing the point. Whether *you* think you can
taste a difference or not is irrelevant. Blind tastings
show that people can't tell the difference--even when they
think they can.

There are various arguments that can be used for buying
organic, but taste is demonstrably not one of them.
Regardless, the retailers tend to use it as a selling point.

Cathy

[Cathyb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> >>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> >>>>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
> >>>>>>tastes better and is healthier.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
> >>>>>brother?
> >>>>
> >>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
> >>>>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
> >>>>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
> >>>>properly investigated with things such as blind tasting,
> >>>>are simply not true.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
> >>>>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
> >>>>>have opinions about mine), why should that be my
> >>>>>problem?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
> >>>>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and
> >>>>>I will support your right not to be forced.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
> >>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
> >>>>
> >>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
> >>>>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
> >>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And as
> >>>>far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
> >>>tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
> >>>didn't find a link to the original details for the tests.
> >>>
> >>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
> >>>>like the
> >>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
> >>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
> >>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.
> >>>
> >>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
> >>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
> >>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
> >>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
> >>>training, etc.
> >>
> >>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
> >>result. After
> >
> >
> > No really. You would expect no preference either way,
> > at all.
>
> I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
> difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
> together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
> practically unavoidable.
>
> > You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> > inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>
> Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
> INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!

Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers are
organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it difficult
to understand how anyone could be dim enough to use
"inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough, but to
describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is beyond the pale.

An irate chemist.

> (sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you mean).
>
> > These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
> > should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like
> > one or the other, is something else altogether.
>
> That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
> sample would be way too small to be reliable. I just may
> have stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and a
> particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.

[Cathyb]

JohnDoe wrote:

> cathyb wrote:
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> >>>>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic
> >>>>>>>>or something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of
> >>>>>>>>mine) tastes better and is healthier.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
> >>>>>>>brother?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
> >>>>>>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
> >>>>>>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
> >>>>>>properly investigated with things such as blind
> >>>>>>tasting, are simply not true.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
> >>>>>>>have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel
> >>>>>>>free to have opinions about mine), why should that be
> >>>>>>>my problem?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't
> >>>>>>>eat it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then
> >>>>>>>write and I will support your right not to be forced.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
> >>>>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to
> >>>>>>know that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
> >>>>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And
> >>>>>>as far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I found a lot of references on the web that
> >>>>>double-blind tests showed organic and regular are no
> >>>>>different. But I didn't find a link to the original
> >>>>>details for the tests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
> >>>>>>like the
> >>>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
> >>>>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
> >>>>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over
> >>>>>non-organic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
> >>>>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
> >>>>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
> >>>>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
> >>>>>training, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort
> >>>>of result. After
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No really. You would expect no preference either way,
> >>>at all.
> >>
> >>I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
> >>difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
> >>together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
> >>practically unavoidable.
> >>
> >>
> >>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> >>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
> >>
> >>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
> >>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
> >
> >
> > Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers
> > are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it
> > difficult to understand how anyone could be dim enough to
> > use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough,
> > but to describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is
> > beyond the pale.
> >
> > An irate chemist.
>
> If you think that is bad, let me tell you this. In another
> newsgroup I've ran into not just one, but two creationists
> who claimed there is such a thing as 'non-biological
> lifeforms'.

I have to ask. WTF were they talking about?

Cathy

>
> >>(sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you
> >>mean).
> >>
> >>
> >>>These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
> >>>should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like
> >>>one or the other, is something else altogether.
> >>
> >>That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
> >>sample would be way too small to be reliable. I just may
> >>have stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and
> >>a particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.
> >

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> >>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> >>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
> >>>>tastes better and is healthier.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
> >>>brother?
> >>
> >>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you
> >>have a point? I simply point out that a lot of people buy
> >>'organic' produce for reasons that, when properly
> >>investigated with things such as blind tasting, are simply
> >>not true.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
> >>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
> >>>have opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?
> >>>
> >>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
> >>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I
> >>>will support your right not to be forced.
> >>>
> >>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
> >>>"tasting" is their business.
> >>
> >>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
> >>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the difference
> >>between 'organic' and regular produce. And as far as I'm
> >>concerned, people are free to choose
> >
> >
> > I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
> > tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
> > didn't find a link to the original details for the tests.
> >
> >>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
> >>like the
> > blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same panel
> > may prefer non-organic potatos over organic potatos, but
> > may prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.
> >
> > That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would mean
> > the tastes are different, but the preferences of people
> > are not consistent in favoring one over the other. That
> > would depend upon the tester's habits, training, etc.
>
> Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
> result. After all, statistically speaking, there is very
> little chance of each getting exactly the same appreciation
> from the tasters so one always has to come out on top. Only
> if the results are repeated consistently can you be sure
> it's not a statistical fluke. It's a bit like comparing
> homeopathic remedies with a placebo since there is also no
> difference between them.

I've been eating organic for years and there is no difference
in taste. That's not why people choose organic produce. We do
it because there is less chemical residue and because organic
foods have higher nutrient density. See Nutritional Quality of
Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains,
published in The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary
Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001, 161-173. V. Worthington, 2001.
Nutrient levels in both organic and conventionally-grown foods
were evaluated by reviewing data from 41 comparative studies
on crops produced with organic matter and inorganic
fertilisers. The study showed that organic crops yield higher
average levels of some 21 nutrients analysed. The results were
most statistically significant for Vitamin C (27% more),
magnesium (29%), iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).

PeterB

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>PeterB wrote:
> >>
> >>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from
> >>>>>>Vitamin A deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria,
> >>>>>>November 1, 2005, Link:
> >>>>>>http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> >>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
> >>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
> >>>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
> >>>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>PeterB
> >>>>
> >>>>You would be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for confessing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
> >>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
> >>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
> >>>>population who get their calories
> >>>
> >>>>from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that
> >>>>GM food is the
> >>>
> >>>>work of Satan.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We
> >>>can't know the consequences of wild-strain mutations of
> >>>these organisms that are impacting the human (and animal)
> >>>food chain. We do know that GMO contaminates non-GMO
> >>>agriculture and threatens the viability of organic
> >>>farming.
> >>
> >>Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never
> >>produce enough food for the whole worldpopulation...
> >
> > Organic farming is perfectly viable for the markets it
> > serves,
>
> Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> 'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine) tastes
> better and is healthier.

As I said, people choose organic produce because there is less
chemical residue and because organic foods have higher
nutrient density, though some people do think there is a
difference in taste. See Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus
Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains, published in The
Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, Vol. 7, No.
2, 2001, 161-173. V. Worthington, 2001. Nutrient levels in
both organic and conventionally-grown foods were evaluated by
reviewing data from 41 comparative studies on crops produced
with organic matter and inorganic fertilisers. The study
showed that organic crops yield higher average levels of some
21 nutrients analysed. The results were most statistically
significant for Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%), iron
(21%) and phosphorus (14%).

> > including those in developed nations who choose to avoid
> > standard agriculture. And even combined with GMO
> > technology, modern farming methods will not feed the world
> > population.
>
> There is more food on the planet than the population needs,
> it's just that a lot of it is in the wrong place.

That's why GMO foods is not the answer.

> >>With regard to the contimination argument - what do you
> >>think nature has been doing for eons? Swapping DNA between
> >>organisms or inserting yours into another organism has
> >>been going on naturally for millions of years and has
> >>never led to the extinction of life or any major problem
> >>in general. Look up cladistics and the problem of
> >>horizontal gene transfer if want to learn more.
> >
> > There is a huge difference between naturally-evolved
> > genetic mutation and instantaneous alteration using gene
> > transfer technology. Insertion of genes into target DNA is
> > a very imprecise science. If we disrupt other genes
> > essential to the life of that organism, we increase the
> > risk of harm to ourselves.
>
> If we disrupt such an essential gene the organism will die
> and won't be able to spread its DNA so what's your problem?

You are making a big assumption about what "essential" means
here. It may be "essential" in that it confers no allergic
risk to an animal or human being. It may be "essential" in
that it maintains important nutrient uptake attributes.
According to studies, even pesticide-treated agriculture has a
lower nutrient content than organically grown foods. Genetic
modification has at least as much potential for creating such
imbalance. Besides, an important gene that confers beneficial
properties may not be essential for survival prior to
reproduction, even if it were to shorten lifespan.

> >>>The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization
> >>>of agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of
> >>>increasing corporate profits, whereas the potential
> >>>short-term benefits (if there are any) are nothing more
> >>>than pre-packaged justification.
> >>
> >>Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it
> >>started out as "this will allow us to grow crops in
> >>deserts and oranges on the north pole so there will be
> >>food for everyone", but it is now mostly about profit.
> >>Monsanto has come up with soy that is resistant to
> >>Roundup, which they just happen to sell, and that doesn't
> >>grow any seeds so farmers need to buy new seeds after
> >>every harvest, which, guess what, Monsanto also happens
> >>to sell. I do see longterm benefits though, Golden Rice
> >>being a better example of what can and should be done
> >>with GM food.
> >
> >
> > Monsanto prosecutes innocent farmers whose crops become
> > contaminated with their GMO seeds. I think it's clear that
> > this will end badly for everyone.
> >
> > http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm
> >
> >
> >>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
> >>>water.
> >>
> >>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
> >>proces.
> >
> >
> > Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into
> > your brain. Would you consider that natural?
> >
> > PeterB
>
> Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?

Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene into
your brain a natural process?

> And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
> evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in our DNA.
> It's called common ancestry.

Would you, or would you not, participate in a study that
inserts a fish gene into your brain?

PeterB

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>PeterB wrote:
> >>
> >>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>PeterB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from
> >>>>>>>>Vitamin A deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria,
> >>>>>>>>November 1, 2005, Link:
> >>>>>>>>http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
> >>>>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
> >>>>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
> >>>>>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
> >>>>>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>PeterB
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You would be wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks for confessing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
> >>>>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
> >>>>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
> >>>>>>population who get their calories
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that
> >>>>>>GM food is the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>work of Satan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment.
> >>>>>We can't know the consequences of wild-strain mutations
> >>>>>of these organisms that are impacting the human (and
> >>>>>animal) food chain. We do know that GMO contaminates
> >>>>>non-GMO agriculture and threatens the viability of
> >>>>>organic farming.
> >>>>
> >>>>Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can
> >>>>never produce enough food for the whole
> >>>>worldpopulation...
> >>>
> >>>Organic farming is perfectly viable for the markets it
> >>>serves,
> >>
> >>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
> >>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
> >>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
> >>tastes better and is healthier.
> >
> >
> > As I said, people choose organic produce because there is
> > less chemical residue and because organic foods have
> > higher nutrient density, though some people do think there
> > is a difference in taste. See Nutritional Quality of
> > Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and
> > Grains, published in The Journal of Alternative and
> > Complimentary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001, 161-173. V.
> > Worthington, 2001. Nutrient levels in both organic and
> > conventionally-grown foods were evaluated by reviewing
> > data from 41 comparative studies on crops produced with
> > organic matter and inorganic fertilisers. The study showed
> > that organic crops yield higher average levels of some 21
> > nutrients analysed. The results were most statistically
> > significant for Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%),
> > iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).
> >
> >
> >>>including those in developed nations who choose to avoid
> >>>standard agriculture. And even combined with GMO
> >>>technology, modern farming methods will not feed the
> >>>world population.
> >>
> >>There is more food on the planet than the population
> >>needs, it's just that a lot of it is in the wrong place.
> >
> >
> > That's why GMO foods is not the answer.
>
> As long as the population stays stable. Which it doesn't.
>
> >>>>With regard to the contimination argument - what do you
> >>>>think nature has been doing for eons? Swapping DNA
> >>>>between organisms or inserting yours into another
> >>>>organism has been going on naturally for millions of
> >>>>years and has never led to the extinction of life or any
> >>>>major problem in general. Look up cladistics and the
> >>>>problem of horizontal gene transfer if want to learn
> >>>>more.
> >>>
> >>>There is a huge difference between naturally-evolved
> >>>genetic mutation and instantaneous alteration using gene
> >>>transfer technology. Insertion of genes into target DNA
> >>>is a very imprecise science. If we disrupt other genes
> >>>essential to the life of that organism, we increase the
> >>>risk of harm to ourselves.
> >>
> >>If we disrupt such an essential gene the organism will die
> >>and won't be able to spread its DNA so what's your
> >>problem?
> >
> >
> > You are making a big assumption about what "essential"
> > means here.
>
> Making your own definitions again? If the organism can live
> without it, it's not essential, period.

Wrong. It may be essential to *your* health while having no
impact to the lifespan of the plant.

> > It may be "essential" in that it confers no allergic risk
> > to an animal or human being. It may be "essential" in that
> > it maintains important nutrient uptake attributes.
> > According to studies, even pesticide-treated agriculture
> > has a lower nutrient content than organically grown foods.
> > Genetic modification has at least as much potential for
> > creating such imbalance. Besides, an important gene that
> > confers beneficial properties may not be essential for
> > survival prior to reproduction, even if it were to shorten
> > lifespan.
> >
> >
> >>>>>The real impetus behind GMO technology is
> >>>>>commoditization of agriculture at the genetic level for
> >>>>>the purpose of increasing corporate profits, whereas
> >>>>>the potential short-term benefits (if there are any)
> >>>>>are nothing more than pre-packaged justification.
> >>>>
> >>>>Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it
> >>>>started out as "this will allow us to grow crops in
> >>>>deserts and oranges on the north pole so there will be
> >>>>food for everyone", but it is now mostly about profit.
> >>>>Monsanto has come up with soy that is resistant to
> >>>>Roundup, which they just happen to sell, and that
> >>>>doesn't grow any seeds so farmers need to buy new seeds
> >>>>after every harvest, which, guess what, Monsanto also
> >>>>happens to sell. I do see longterm benefits though,
> >>>>Golden Rice being a better example of what can and
> >>>>should be done with GM food.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Monsanto prosecutes innocent farmers whose crops become
> >>>contaminated with their GMO seeds. I think it's clear
> >>>that this will end badly for everyone.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
> >>>>>water.
> >>>>
> >>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
> >>>>proces.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into
> >>>your brain. Would you consider that natural?
> >>>
> >>>PeterB
> >>
> >>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
> >
> >
> > Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene into
> > your brain a natural process?
> >
> >
> >>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
> >>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in our
> >>DNA. It's called common ancestry.
> >
> >
> > Would you, or would you not, participate in a study that
> > inserts a fish gene into your brain?
> >
> > PeterB
>
>
> Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
> schoolyard taunts.

He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't bother.
Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.

PeterB

[Jand]

"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0NHaf.3661$Hs.323@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131101232.078522.50290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> For your information. Enjoy your day.
>>
>> Humphrey, J. H. and Rice, A. L., "Vitamin A supplementation
>> of young infants", The Lancet, July 29, 2000, Vol. 356,
>> Num. 0, pp. 422-424
>>
>> "Young infants are often vitamin A deficient. Studies from
>> Bangladesh, Brazil, and Indonesia reported that a quarter
>> to over 90% of the 6 month-old infants studied had
>> inadequate liver stores."
>>
>
>
> Mercury poisoning

Is not the subject.
> --
>
>
> --Rich

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from
>>>>>>>>Vitamin A deficiency", Daily Independent, Nigeria,
>>>>>>>>November 1, 2005, Link:
>>>>>>>>http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say
>>>>>>>about a health article that doesn't also promote
>>>>>>>vaccine. Sad, that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You would be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for confessing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>>>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>>>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>>>>>population who get their calories
>>>>>
>>>>>>from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that
>>>>>>GM food is the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>work of Satan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We
>>>>>can't know the consequences of wild-strain mutations of
>>>>>these organisms that are impacting the human (and animal)
>>>>>food chain. We do know that GMO contaminates non-GMO
>>>>>agriculture and threatens the viability of organic
>>>>>farming.
>>>>
>>>>Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never
>>>>produce enough food for the whole worldpopulation...
>>>
>>>Organic farming is perfectly viable for the markets it
>>>serves,
>>
>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine) tastes
>>better and is healthier.
>
>
> As I said, people choose organic produce because there is
> less chemical residue and because organic foods have higher
> nutrient density, though some people do think there is a
> difference in taste. See Nutritional Quality of Organic
> Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains,
> published in The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary
> Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001, 161-173. V. Worthington,
> 2001. Nutrient levels in both organic and
> conventionally-grown foods were evaluated by reviewing data
> from 41 comparative studies on crops produced with organic
> matter and inorganic fertilisers. The study showed that
> organic crops yield higher average levels of some 21
> nutrients analysed. The results were most statistically
> significant for Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%), iron
> (21%) and phosphorus (14%).
>
>
>>>including those in developed nations who choose to avoid
>>>standard agriculture. And even combined with GMO
>>>technology, modern farming methods will not feed the world
>>>population.
>>
>>There is more food on the planet than the population needs,
>>it's just that a lot of it is in the wrong place.
>
>
> That's why GMO foods is not the answer.

As long as the population stays stable. Which it doesn't.

>>>>With regard to the contimination argument - what do you
>>>>think nature has been doing for eons? Swapping DNA between
>>>>organisms or inserting yours into another organism has
>>>>been going on naturally for millions of years and has
>>>>never led to the extinction of life or any major problem
>>>>in general. Look up cladistics and the problem of
>>>>horizontal gene transfer if want to learn more.
>>>
>>>There is a huge difference between naturally-evolved
>>>genetic mutation and instantaneous alteration using gene
>>>transfer technology. Insertion of genes into target DNA is
>>>a very imprecise science. If we disrupt other genes
>>>essential to the life of that organism, we increase the
>>>risk of harm to ourselves.
>>
>>If we disrupt such an essential gene the organism will die
>>and won't be able to spread its DNA so what's your problem?
>
>
> You are making a big assumption about what "essential"
> means here.

Making your own definitions again? If the organism can live
without it, it's not essential, period.

> It may be "essential" in that it confers no allergic risk to
> an animal or human being. It may be "essential" in that it
> maintains important nutrient uptake attributes. According to
> studies, even pesticide-treated agriculture has a lower
> nutrient content than organically grown foods. Genetic
> modification has at least as much potential for creating
> such imbalance. Besides, an important gene that confers
> beneficial properties may not be essential for survival
> prior to reproduction, even if it were to shorten lifespan.
>
>
>>>>>The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization
>>>>>of agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of
>>>>>increasing corporate profits, whereas the potential
>>>>>short-term benefits (if there are any) are nothing more
>>>>>than pre-packaged justification.
>>>>
>>>>Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it
>>>>started out as "this will allow us to grow crops in
>>>>deserts and oranges on the north pole so there will be
>>>>food for everyone", but it is now mostly about profit.
>>>>Monsanto has come up with soy that is resistant to
>>>>Roundup, which they just happen to sell, and that doesn't
>>>>grow any seeds so farmers need to buy new seeds after
>>>>every harvest, which, guess what, Monsanto also happens
>>>>to sell. I do see longterm benefits though, Golden Rice
>>>>being a better example of what can and should be done
>>>>with GM food.
>>>
>>>
>>>Monsanto prosecutes innocent farmers whose crops become
>>>contaminated with their GMO seeds. I think it's clear that
>>>this will end badly for everyone.
>>>
>>>http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
>>>>>water.
>>>>
>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
>>>>proces.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into
>>>your brain. Would you consider that natural?
>>>
>>>PeterB
>>
>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
>
>
> Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene into
> your brain a natural process?
>
>
>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in our DNA.
>>It's called common ancestry.
>
>
> Would you, or would you not, participate in a study that
> inserts a fish gene into your brain?
>
> PeterB

Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
schoolyard taunts.

[Mark Probe]

JanD wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote
>
> I would like to say
>
> [ ]RESTORED:

I would like to say that the new and improved JanD wrote the
following, but, if I did that Jan would be justified in
calling me a liar, since she is neither new or improved:

>
>>
>>>"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote
>
>
> [ ].

Restored, again:

[ SNIPPAGED RESTORED BELOW-Jan is afraid of facts]
>
>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You would be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
>>>>>>>genetically-modified form of rice that would provide
>>>>>>>Vitamin A to the very large proportion of the world's
>>>>>>>population who get their calories
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that
>>>>>>>GM food is the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>work of Satan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
>>>>>>genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature of
>>>>>>a GM food what all its ramifications to the human body
>>>>>>are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you think that day is today, you have been
>>>>>>dangerously sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is
>>>>>>gambling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food
>>>>>>after folks like you have been using it for 20 years or
>>>>>>so -- so I guess I should thank you for volunteering to
>>>>>>be the guinea pigs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So: Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(But, please note I am not taking any share of
>>>>>>responsibility in your decision to feed it to your
>>>>>>children.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without
>>>>>mentioning) the words to which I had been replying, where
>>>>>I and others were accused of not wanting to give Vitamin
>>>>>A to anyone because it is not a vaccine:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of
>>>>>>infectious disease in children. Our resident pharma
>>>>>>bloggers will likely have little or nothing to say about
>>>>>>a health article that doesn't also promote vaccine. Sad,
>>>>>>that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sad that, indeed.

I suppose that the poster just wants to line the pockets of
the Herb/supplement/magic potion industry and have these
people who are in desperate need of Vit A be dependent on us.

[Johndoe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
>>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
>>>>tastes better and is healthier.
>>>
>>>
>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>brother?
>>
>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you
>>have a point? I simply point out that a lot of people buy
>>'organic' produce for reasons that, when properly
>>investigated with things such as blind tasting, are simply
>>not true.
>>
>>
>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
>>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to have
>>>opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?
>>>
>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat it.
>>>If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I will
>>>support your right not to be forced.
>>>
>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
>>>"tasting" is their business.
>>
>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
>>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the difference
>>between 'organic' and regular produce. And as far as I'm
>>concerned, people are free to choose
>
>
> I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
> tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
> didn't find a link to the original details for the tests.
>
>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more like the
> blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same panel
> may prefer non-organic potatos over organic potatos, but may
> prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.
>
> That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would mean
> the tastes are different, but the preferences of people are
> not consistent in favoring one over the other. That would
> depend upon the tester's habits, training, etc.

Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
result. After all, statistically speaking, there is very
little chance of each getting exactly the same appreciation
from the tasters so one always has to come out on top. Only if
the results are repeated consistently can you be sure it's not
a statistical fluke. It's a bit like comparing homeopathic
remedies with a placebo since there is also no difference
between them.

[Johndoe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
>>>>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
>>>>>>tastes better and is healthier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>>>brother?
>>>>
>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you
>>>>have a point? I simply point out that a lot of people buy
>>>>'organic' produce for reasons that, when properly
>>>>investigated with things such as blind tasting, are simply
>>>>not true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
>>>>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
>>>>>have opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
>>>>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I
>>>>>will support your right not to be forced.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
>>>>>"tasting" is their business.
>>>>
>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
>>>>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the difference
>>>>between 'organic' and regular produce. And as far as I'm
>>>>concerned, people are free to choose
>>>
>>>
>>>I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
>>>tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
>>>didn't find a link to the original details for the tests.
>>>
>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
>>>>like the
>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same panel
>>>may prefer non-organic potatos over organic potatos, but
>>>may prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.
>>>
>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would mean
>>>the tastes are different, but the preferences of people are
>>>not consistent in favoring one over the other. That would
>>>depend upon the tester's habits, training, etc.
>>
>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
>>result. After
>
>
> No really. You would expect no preference either way, at
> all.

I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
practically unavoidable.

> You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.

Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!! (sorry, my pet peeve acting
up, I understand what you mean).

> These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
> should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like one
> or the other, is something else altogether.

That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the sample
would be way too small to be reliable. I just may have
stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and a
particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
>>>>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
>>>>>>tastes better and is healthier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>>>brother?
>>>>
>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you
>>>>have a point? I simply point out that a lot of people buy
>>>>'organic' produce for reasons that, when properly
>>>>investigated with things such as blind tasting, are simply
>>>>not true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
>>>>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
>>>>>have opinions about mine), why should that be my problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
>>>>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and I
>>>>>will support your right not to be forced.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds better
>>>>>"tasting" is their business.
>>>>
>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
>>>>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the difference
>>>>between 'organic' and regular produce. And as far as I'm
>>>>concerned, people are free to choose
>>>
>>>
>>>I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
>>>tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
>>>didn't find a link to the original details for the tests.
>>>
>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
>>>>like the
>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same panel
>>>may prefer non-organic potatos over organic potatos, but
>>>may prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.
>>>
>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would mean
>>>the tastes are different, but the preferences of people are
>>>not consistent in favoring one over the other. That would
>>>depend upon the tester's habits, training, etc.
>>
>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
>>result. After all, statistically speaking, there is very
>>little chance of each getting exactly the same appreciation
>>from the tasters so one always has to come out on top. Only
>>if the results are repeated consistently can you be sure
>>it's not a statistical fluke. It's a bit like comparing
>>homeopathic remedies with a placebo since there is also no
>>difference between them.
>
>
> I've been eating organic for years and there is no
> difference in taste. That's not why people choose organic
> produce.

I've been watching Jamie Oliver on tv and he claims it tastes
better, and so de many producers of organic produce. I see the
taste claim all the time.

> We do it because there is less chemical residue and because
> organic foods have higher nutrient density.

Without getting into wether those claims are true or not, I
think those are at least better reasons.

> See Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional
> Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains, published in The Journal of
> Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001,
> 161-173. V. Worthington, 2001. Nutrient levels in both
> organic and conventionally-grown foods were evaluated by
> reviewing data from 41 comparative studies on crops produced
> with organic matter and inorganic fertilisers. The study
> showed that organic crops yield higher average levels of
> some 21 nutrients analysed. The results were most
> statistically significant for Vitamin C (27% more),
> magnesium (29%), iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).
>
> PeterB

[Mark Probe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

> You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to have
> stronger taste differences, and you should be able to tell
> the difference. Whether you like one or the other, is
> something else altogether.

I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use home
made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course, since I do
not have an evil profit motive when growing it, it tastes much
better. We all know that seeking a profit makes things bad.

[Johndoe]

cathyb wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>>>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic or
>>>>>>>>something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine)
>>>>>>>>tastes better and is healthier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>>>>>brother?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
>>>>>>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
>>>>>>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
>>>>>>properly investigated with things such as blind tasting,
>>>>>>are simply not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they have
>>>>>>>degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free to
>>>>>>>have opinions about mine), why should that be my
>>>>>>>problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
>>>>>>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and
>>>>>>>I will support your right not to be forced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
>>>>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know
>>>>>>that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
>>>>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And as
>>>>>>far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
>>>>>tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
>>>>>didn't find a link to the original details for the tests.
>>>>>
>>>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
>>>>>>like the
>>>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
>>>>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
>>>>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over non-organic.
>>>>>
>>>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
>>>>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
>>>>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
>>>>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
>>>>>training, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort of
>>>>result. After
>>>
>>>
>>>No really. You would expect no preference either way,
>>>at all.
>>
>>I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
>>difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
>>together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
>>practically unavoidable.
>>
>>
>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>
>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
>
>
> Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers
> are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it
> difficult to understand how anyone could be dim enough to
> use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough,
> but to describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is beyond
> the pale.
>
> An irate chemist.

If you think that is bad, let me tell you this. In another
newsgroup I've ran into not just one, but two creationists who
claimed there is such a thing as 'non-biological lifeforms'.

>>(sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you mean).
>>
>>
>>>These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
>>>should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like one
>>>or the other, is something else altogether.
>>
>>That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
>>sample would be way too small to be reliable. I just may
>>have stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and a
>>particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.

[Rich]

"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1131111446.951943.12270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JohnDoe wrote:
>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > JohnDoe wrote:
>> >
>> >>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>JohnDoe wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>> >>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic
>> >>>>>>or something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of
>> >>>>>>mine) tastes better and is healthier.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>> >>>>>brother?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
>> >>>>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
>> >>>>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
>> >>>>properly investigated with things such as blind
>> >>>>tasting, are simply not true.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
>> >>>>>have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel
>> >>>>>free to have opinions about mine), why should that be
>> >>>>>my problem?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
>> >>>>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write
>> >>>>>and I will support your right not to be forced.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
>> >>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to
>> >>>>know that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
>> >>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And
>> >>>>as far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
>> >>>tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
>> >>>didn't find a link to the original details for the
>> >>>tests.
>> >>>
>> >>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more like
>> >>>>the
>> >>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
>> >>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
>> >>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over
>> >>>non-organic.
>> >>>
>> >>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
>> >>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
>> >>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
>> >>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
>> >>>training, etc.
>> >>
>> >>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort
>> >>of result. After
>> >
>> >
>> > No really. You would expect no preference either way,
>> > at all.
>>
>> I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
>> difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
>> together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
>> practically unavoidable.
>>
>> > You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>> > inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>
>> Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>> INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
>
> Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers
> are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it
> difficult to understand how anyone could be dim enough to
> use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough,
> but to describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is beyond
> the pale.
>
> An irate chemist.
>
>> (sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you
>> mean).

DDT and Malathion are organic. Dolomitic limestone and green
marl are not.

--Rich

[Jand]

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:436b6563$0$2343$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> cathyb wrote:
>> JohnDoe wrote:
>>
>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>>>>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic
>>>>>>>>>or something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of
>>>>>>>>>mine) tastes better and is healthier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>>>>>>brother?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
>>>>>>>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
>>>>>>>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
>>>>>>>properly investigated with things such as blind
>>>>>>>tasting, are simply not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
>>>>>>>>have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel
>>>>>>>>free to have opinions about mine), why should that be
>>>>>>>>my problem?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat
>>>>>>>>it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write
>>>>>>>>and I will support your right not to be forced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
>>>>>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to
>>>>>>>know that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
>>>>>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And
>>>>>>>as far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I found a lot of references on the web that double-blind
>>>>>>tests showed organic and regular are no different. But I
>>>>>>didn't find a link to the original details for the
>>>>>>tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more like
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
>>>>>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
>>>>>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over
>>>>>>non-organic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
>>>>>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
>>>>>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
>>>>>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
>>>>>>training, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort
>>>>>of result. After
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No really. You would expect no preference either way,
>>>>at all.
>>>
>>>I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
>>>difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
>>>together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
>>>practically unavoidable.
>>>
>>>
>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>>
>>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
>>
>>
>> Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers
>> are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it
>> difficult to understand how anyone could be dim enough to
>> use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough,
>> but to describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is beyond
>> the pale.
>>
>> An irate chemist.
>
> If you think that is bad, let me tell you this. In another
> newsgroup I've ran into not just one, but two creationists
> who claimed there is such a thing as 'non-biological
> lifeforms'.
>
>>>(sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you
>>>mean).
>>>
>>>
>>>>These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
>>>>should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like
>>>>one or the other, is something else altogether.
>>>
>>>That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
>>>sample would be way too small to be reliable. I just may
>>>have stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and
>>>a particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.

Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.

[Johndoe]

cathyb wrote:

-snip-

>>>>
>>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>>>
>>>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers
>>>are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it
>>>difficult to understand how anyone could be dim enough to
>>>use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough,
>>>but to describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is beyond
>>>the pale.
>>>
>>>An irate chemist.
>>
>>If you think that is bad, let me tell you this. In another
>>newsgroup I've ran into not just one, but two creationists
>>who claimed there is such a thing as 'non-biological
>>lifeforms'.
>
>
> I have to ask. WTF were they talking about?
>
> Cathy

Well, they said that 'life has always been here, either
biological or non-biological life'. I think what they meant
is that we are biological life but God, who was here before
us, is also life, but non-biological. The definition of
biology was obviously way, waaaay beyond their intellectual
capacity. Ah well, what's new. You can see the testimony of
Michael Behe in Kansas and see that creationists change
definitions of anything (in his case the definition of
science) to suit their needs. Sort of like certain alt-med
posters do in MHA - PeterB and the definition of the words
'blogging' and 'casual' come to mind.

[Roman Byst]

Could you please supply me with the reference on this. Thanks.

[Peter Bowd]

"JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:0NHaf.3661$Hs.323@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:1131101232.078522.50290@g49g2000cwa.googlegr-
>> oups.com...
>>> For your information. Enjoy your day.
>>>
>>> Humphrey, J. H. and Rice, A. L., "Vitamin A
>>> supplementation of young infants", The Lancet, July 29,
>>> 2000, Vol. 356, Num. 0, pp. 422-424
>>>
>>> "Young infants are often vitamin A deficient. Studies from
>>> Bangladesh, Brazil, and Indonesia reported that a quarter
>>> to over 90% of the 6 month-old infants studied had
>>> inadequate liver stores."
>>>
>>
>>
>> Mercury poisoning
>
>Is not the subject.

Says the first person to introduce the word "mercury" into
this thread. Apparently when Jan talks about it it has
something to do with vitamin A.

>> --
>>
>>
>> --Rich
>
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Rich]

"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131158230.214409.236720@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Could you please supply me with the reference on this.
> Thanks.
>

Actually I read in a book last year, that I no longer have,
that the ground water in Bangladesh is contaminated with high
levels of heavy metals, especially arsenic and mercury, and
that, combined with frequent consumption of mercury laden fish
by pregnant women, contributes to the infant death rate in the
country--one of the highest in the world. I can't find support
for this quickly on line, though. I'll look again when I have
time. I have to go to work now.

BTW, I did notice a reference that claims that 17% of
child mortality in Bangladesh is caused by
vaccine-preventable diseases.
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

[Jand]

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:lasnm1ldj9mens9708a4bdl5hs1en2u330@4ax.com...
> "JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:0NHaf.3661$Hs.323@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:1131101232.078522.50290@g49g2000cwa.googlegr-
>>> oups.com...
>>>> For your information. Enjoy your day.
>>>>
>>>> Humphrey, J. H. and Rice, A. L., "Vitamin A
>>>> supplementation of young infants", The Lancet, July 29,
>>>> 2000, Vol. 356, Num. 0, pp. 422-424
>>>>
>>>> "Young infants are often vitamin A deficient. Studies
>>>> from Bangladesh, Brazil, and Indonesia reported that a
>>>> quarter to over 90% of the 6 month-old infants studied
>>>> had inadequate liver stores."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mercury poisoning
>>
>>Is not the subject.
>
> Says the first person to introduce the word "mercury" into
> this thread. [snip]

Poor Peter.

Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:0NHaf.3661$Hs.323@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> --Rich
>>
> --
> Peter Bowditch

[Peter Bowd]

"JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote:

>Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.

Is this thread about Rosalind?

Is Rosalind here?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Jand]

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:85snm1pbaetniqg7nka0k5cbc2cmd189ku@4ax.com...
> "JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.
>
> Is this thread about Rosalind?

Shall I repeat what Mark Probert says?

That seems to work, with NO comments from YOU.

Why is that Peter??

*selective*?

[snip]

> --
> Peter Bowditch

[Mark Probe]

Rich wrote:
> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:1131158230.214409.236720@g44g2000cwa.googleg-
> roups.com...
>
>>Could you please supply me with the reference on this.
>>Thanks.
>>
>
>
> Actually I read in a book last year, that I no longer have,
> that the ground water in Bangladesh is contaminated with
> high levels of heavy metals, especially arsenic and mercury,
> and that, combined with frequent consumption of mercury
> laden fish by pregnant women, contributes to the infant
> death rate in the country--one of the highest in the world.
> I can't find support for this quickly on line, though. I'll
> look again when I have time. I have to go to work now.
>
> BTW, I did notice a reference that claims that 17% of child
> mortality in Bangladesh is caused by vaccine-preventable
> diseases.

Arsenic seems to be more of a problem, but:

Google Scholar Results 1 - 20 of about 1,200 for bangladesh
water mercury. (0.07 seconds)

When I was there in the 1970's, we were given stern warnings
about the naturally contaminated water.

[Mark Probe]

JanD wrote:
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
> news:85snm1pbaetniqg7nka0k5cbc2cmd189ku@4ax.com...
>
>>"JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.
>>
>>Is this thread about Rosalind?
>
>
> Shall I repeat what Mark Probert says?

Yes, repeat after me: When Jan Drew posts in a thread, the
thread automatically becomes about Jan Drew.

[Jand]

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:aS4bf.549$oP5.406@fe09.lga...
> JanD wrote:
>> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>> news:85snm1pbaetniqg7nka0k5cbc2cmd189ku@4ax.com...
>>
>>>"JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.
>>>
>>>Is this thread about Rosalind?
>>
>>
>> Shall I repeat what Mark Probert says?
>
> Yes, repeat after me: When Rosalind posts in a thread, the
> thread automatically becomes about Rosalind

[Mark Probe]

JanD wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
> message news:aS4bf.549$oP5.406@fe09.lga...
>
>>JanD wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>>news:85snm1pbaetniqg7nka0k5cbc2cmd189ku@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.
>>>>
>>>>Is this thread about Rosalind?
>>>
>>>
>>>Shall I repeat what Mark Probert says?
>>
>>Yes, repeat after me: When Rosalind posts in a thread, the
>>thread automatically becomes about Rosalind

You altered my post, which is dishonest. Here is the truth,
the truth you are afraid of:

Yes, repeat after me: When Jan Drew posts in a thread, the
thread automatically becomes about Jan Drew.

[Mark Probe]

JanD wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:436b6563$0$2343$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>
>>cathyb wrote:
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>>>>>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic
>>>>>>>>>>or something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of
>>>>>>>>>>mine) tastes better and is healthier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>>>>>>>brother?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
>>>>>>>>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
>>>>>>>>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
>>>>>>>>properly investigated with things such as blind
>>>>>>>>tasting, are simply not true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
>>>>>>>>>have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel
>>>>>>>>>free to have opinions about mine), why should that be
>>>>>>>>>my problem?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't
>>>>>>>>>eat it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then
>>>>>>>>>write and I will support your right not to be forced.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
>>>>>>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to
>>>>>>>>know that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
>>>>>>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And
>>>>>>>>as far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I found a lot of references on the web that
>>>>>>>double-blind tests showed organic and regular are no
>>>>>>>different. But I didn't find a link to the original
>>>>>>>details for the tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
>>>>>>>>like the
>>>>>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
>>>>>>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
>>>>>>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over
>>>>>>>non-organic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
>>>>>>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
>>>>>>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
>>>>>>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
>>>>>>>training, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort
>>>>>>of result. After
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No really. You would expect no preference either way,
>>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>>I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
>>>>difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
>>>>together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
>>>>practically unavoidable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>>>
>>>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers
>>>are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it
>>>difficult to understand how anyone could be dim enough to
>>>use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough,
>>>but to describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is beyond
>>>the pale.
>>>
>>>An irate chemist.
>>
>>If you think that is bad, let me tell you this. In another
>>newsgroup I've ran into not just one, but two creationists
>>who claimed there is such a thing as 'non-biological
>>lifeforms'.
>>
>>
>>>>(sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you
>>>>mean).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
>>>>>should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like
>>>>>one or the other, is something else altogether.
>>>>
>>>>That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
>>>>sample would be way too small to be reliable. I just may
>>>>have stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and
>>>>a particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.
>
>
> Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.

Oh, Dear....is this thread about Rosalind, whoever that is?

Of course, Jan is merely parroting her handler's bogus
allegations because, once again, Jan proves that she cannot
think for herself.

[Jand]

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:rR4bf.548$oP5.128@fe09.lga...
> JanD wrote:
>> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
>> news:436b6563$0$2343$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>>
>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>
>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced
>>>>>>>>>>>'organic' produce (as if other produce is inorganic
>>>>>>>>>>>or something - but that's a bit of a pet peeve of
>>>>>>>>>>>mine) tastes better and is healthier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>>>>>>>>brother?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like
>>>>>>>>>you have a point? I simply point out that a lot of
>>>>>>>>>people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that, when
>>>>>>>>>properly investigated with things such as blind
>>>>>>>>>tasting, are simply not true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
>>>>>>>>>>have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel
>>>>>>>>>>free to have opinions about mine), why should that
>>>>>>>>>>be my problem?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't
>>>>>>>>>>eat it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then
>>>>>>>>>>write and I will support your right not to be
>>>>>>>>>>forced.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
>>>>>>>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to
>>>>>>>>>know that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
>>>>>>>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce. And
>>>>>>>>>as far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I found a lot of references on the web that
>>>>>>>>double-blind tests showed organic and regular are no
>>>>>>>>different. But I didn't find a link to the original
>>>>>>>>details for the tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
>>>>>>>>>like the
>>>>>>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
>>>>>>>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
>>>>>>>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over
>>>>>>>>non-organic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
>>>>>>>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
>>>>>>>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
>>>>>>>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
>>>>>>>>training, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this sort
>>>>>>>of result. After
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No really. You would expect no preference either way, at
>>>>>>all.
>>>>>
>>>>>I see you snipped the important part. You would expect no
>>>>>difference if you do a lot of tests and put the results
>>>>>together. In just a few tests however, a difference is
>>>>>practically unavoidable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>>>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some greengrocers
>>>>are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but I find it
>>>>difficult to understand how anyone could be dim enough to
>>>>use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is bad enough,
>>>>but to describe a fruit or vegetable as inorganic is
>>>>beyond the pale.
>>>>
>>>>An irate chemist.
>>>
>>>If you think that is bad, let me tell you this. In another
>>>newsgroup I've ran into not just one, but two creationists
>>>who claimed there is such a thing as 'non-biological
>>>lifeforms'.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>(sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you
>>>>>mean).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
>>>>>>should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like
>>>>>>one or the other, is something else altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>>That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
>>>>>sample would be way too small to be reliable. I just may
>>>>>have stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato
>>>>>and a particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.
>>
>>
>> Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.
>
> Oh, Dear....is this thread about Rosalind, whoever that is?

[snip]

Oh deara, Mark Probert is S T I L L LYING,

http://tinyurl.com/74efy

A thread where Mark Probert Posted.

PROVING HE IS ONCE AGAIN L Y I N G

http://212.58.226.40/1/hi/talking_point/589263.stm

As a toxicologist, I am far more concerned about
manure-derived bacteria and bacterial toxins than minute
traces of pesticides. I avoid organic food on principle. the
pro-organic, anti-GM lobby are motivated by genocidal racism
and a hatred for the human race, particularly the poor.

Rosalind Dalefield, UK

[Mark Probe]

JanD wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
> message news:rR4bf.548$oP5.128@fe09.lga...
>
>>JanD wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
>>>news:436b6563$0$2343$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>overpriced 'organic' produce (as if other produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>is inorganic or something - but that's a bit of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>pet peeve of mine) tastes better and is healthier.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big
>>>>>>>>>>>brother?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What's this, you need a strawman to make it look
>>>>>>>>>>like you have a point? I simply point out that a lot
>>>>>>>>>>of people buy 'organic' produce for reasons that,
>>>>>>>>>>when properly investigated with things such as blind
>>>>>>>>>>tasting, are simply not true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
>>>>>>>>>>>have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel
>>>>>>>>>>>free to have opinions about mine), why should that
>>>>>>>>>>>be my problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't
>>>>>>>>>>>eat it. If someone is forcing you to eat it, then
>>>>>>>>>>>write and I will support your right not to be
>>>>>>>>>>>forced.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else finds
>>>>>>>>>>>better "tasting" is their business.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to
>>>>>>>>>>know that in blind tasting, people can not taste the
>>>>>>>>>>difference between 'organic' and regular produce.
>>>>>>>>>>And as far as I'm concerned, people are free to
>>>>>>>>>>choose
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I found a lot of references on the web that
>>>>>>>>>double-blind tests showed organic and regular are no
>>>>>>>>>different. But I didn't find a link to the original
>>>>>>>>>details for the tests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>From reading the descriptions, it reads to me more
>>>>>>>>>>like the
>>>>>>>>>blind-test results are not consistent, e.g. the same
>>>>>>>>>panel may prefer non-organic potatos over organic
>>>>>>>>>potatos, but may prefer organic tomatos over
>>>>>>>>>non-organic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That wouldn't mean there is no difference. That would
>>>>>>>>>mean the tastes are different, but the preferences of
>>>>>>>>>people are not consistent in favoring one over the
>>>>>>>>>other. That would depend upon the tester's habits,
>>>>>>>>>training, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, if there is no difference, you'd expect this
>>>>>>>>sort of result. After
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No really. You would expect no preference either way,
>>>>>>>at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see you snipped the important part. You would expect
>>>>>>no difference if you do a lot of tests and put the
>>>>>>results together. In just a few tests however, a
>>>>>>difference is practically unavoidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>>>>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup. Even the plastic ones on display at some
>>>>>greengrocers are organic. It might be your pet peeve, but
>>>>>I find it difficult to understand how anyone could be dim
>>>>>enough to use "inorganic" in this context. "Organic" is
>>>>>bad enough, but to describe a fruit or vegetable as
>>>>>inorganic is beyond the pale.
>>>>>
>>>>>An irate chemist.
>>>>
>>>>If you think that is bad, let me tell you this. In another
>>>>newsgroup I've ran into not just one, but two creationists
>>>>who claimed there is such a thing as 'non-biological
>>>>lifeforms'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>(sorry, my pet peeve acting up, I understand what you
>>>>>>mean).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
>>>>>>>should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like
>>>>>>>one or the other, is something else altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
>>>>>>sample would be way too small to be reliable. I just may
>>>>>>have stumbled on a particularly tasty 'organic' tomato
>>>>>>and a particularly nasty cauliflower just by dumb luck.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh deara, Rosalind is shouting.
>>
>>Oh, Dear....is this thread about Rosalind, whoever that is?
>
>
> [snip]

restored:

Oh, Dear....is this thread about Rosalind, whoever that is?

Of course, Jan is merely parroting her handler's bogus
allegations because, once again, Jan proves that she cannot
think for herself.

[Roman Byst]

Thank you very much that was quite nice of you to offer. I
will do some research in the scientific journals when I have
the time to do so. Thanks again and enjoy your day.

Roman

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:

-snip--

>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
>>>>>>>water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
>>>>>>proces.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into
>>>>>your brain. Would you consider that natural?
>>>>>
>>>>>PeterB
>>>>
>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
>>>
>>>
>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene into
>>>your brain a natural process?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
>>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in our
>>>>DNA. It's called common ancestry.
>>>
>>>
>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study that
>>>inserts a fish gene into your brain?
>>>
>>>PeterB
>>
>>
>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
>>schoolyard taunts.
>
>
> He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't bother.
> Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
>
> PeterB

PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue, but
there might be some people reading this who are not, so for
their benefit I'll reply to this silly question. First, why is
this question silly? Because there is no easy yes or no answer
to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world there is. That is the happy
happy joy dreamworld of alt-med, where everything is all
natural, has no side effects, where there are no greedy
corporations more interested in money than your health and
everything has a clear and easy answer. You see, I do
understand the appeal of alt-med. The real world is
complicated and there are no easy answers and alt-med offers a
nice refuge from this reality. But back to reality now. Before
I'll answer PeterB's fish gene question, I'll try and explain
the concept of 'acceptable risk' first with an example that
even his limited intellect should be able to grasp.
Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no easy
yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I should enter the
house and take the risk.
- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird. Sorry
Tweety, you'll be missed.
- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
complicated the real world is?

Now for PeterB's question:
Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain? Given
that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know what the
risk is and set it of against the expected benefit.
- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that does
I'll tell him to take a hike.
- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold forever,
but there is a significant risk I'll end up with a damaged
brain, I won't do it either. A cold isn't that bad.
- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him about
what research has been done, read that and I'll carefully
weigh the risk of the procedure against the risk of my
diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have diabetes, it's
just an example).
- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not respond
to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die in 3 months
but that he could insert this fish gene in my brain which
would help me, I'll still ask him on what evidence he is
basing his claim but I'd be willing to take a lot more
risks. Of course, if he's got as much evidence for his claim
as homeopathy, TT, Reiki etc. has got, I'll just go ahead
and die without wasting time and money on this fish gene
thing, thank you very much.

That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to get a
grasp of it.

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> -snip--
>
> >>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
> >>>>>>>water.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
> >>>>>>proces.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene
> >>>>>into your brain. Would you consider that natural?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>PeterB
> >>>>
> >>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene
> >>>into your brain a natural process?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
> >>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in our
> >>>>DNA. It's called common ancestry.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study that
> >>>inserts a fish gene into your brain?
> >>>
> >>>PeterB
> >>
> >>
> >>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
> >>schoolyard taunts.
> >
> >
> > He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't bother.
> > Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
> >
> > PeterB
>
> PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue, but
> there might be some people reading this who are not, so for
> their benefit I'll reply to this silly question. First, why
> is this question silly? Because there is no easy yes or no
> answer to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world there is. That is
> the happy happy joy dreamworld of alt-med, where everything
> is all natural, has no side effects, where there are no
> greedy corporations more interested in money than your
> health and everything has a clear and easy answer. You see,
> I do understand the appeal of alt-med. The real world is
> complicated and there are no easy answers and alt-med
> offers a nice refuge from this reality. But back to reality
> now. Before I'll answer PeterB's fish gene question, I'll
> try and explain the concept of 'acceptable risk' first with
> an example that even his limited intellect should be able
> to grasp.
> Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no easy
> yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I should enter
> the house and take the risk.
> - Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
> - To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird.
> Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
> - To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
> second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
> complicated the real world is?
>
> Now for PeterB's question:
> Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know
> what the risk is and set it of against the expected
> benefit.
> - If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that
> does I'll tell him to take a hike.
> - If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold isn't
> that bad.
> - If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him about
> what research has been done, read that and I'll carefully
> weigh the risk of the procedure against the risk of my
> diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have diabetes, it's
> just an example).
> - If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die in
> 3 months but that he could insert this fish gene in my
> brain which would help me, I'll still ask him on what
> evidence he is basing his claim but I'd be willing to take
> a lot more risks. Of course, if he's got as much evidence
> for his claim as homeopathy, TT, Reiki etc. has got, I'll
> just go ahead and die without wasting time and money on
> this fish gene thing, thank you very much.
>
> That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to get a
> grasp of it.

The problem with your response is that it doesn't equate to
what is happening with GMO foods. Insertion of foreign genes
into agriculture exposes our entire species, not just one
individual, to unknown risks. Perhaps it is alright for you to
have a fish gene implanted into your brain to treat a disease
or illness after proper research, that would be your choice.
Application of GMO technology to the human food chain has
occured without proper science, without consensus, and without
adequate regulatory controls.

PeterB

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>-snip--
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of
>>>>>>>>>water.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural
>>>>>>>>proces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene
>>>>>>>into your brain. Would you consider that natural?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene
>>>>>into your brain a natural process?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
>>>>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in our
>>>>>>DNA. It's called common ancestry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study that
>>>>>inserts a fish gene into your brain?
>>>>>
>>>>>PeterB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
>>>>schoolyard taunts.
>>>
>>>
>>>He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't bother.
>>>Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
>>>
>>>PeterB
>>
>>PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue, but
>>there might be some people reading this who are not, so for
>>their benefit I'll reply to this silly question. First, why
>>is this question silly? Because there is no easy yes or no
>>answer to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world there is. That is
>>the happy happy joy dreamworld of alt-med, where everything
>>is all natural, has no side effects, where there are no
>>greedy corporations more interested in money than your
>>health and everything has a clear and easy answer. You see,
>>I do understand the appeal of alt-med. The real world is
>>complicated and there are no easy answers and alt-med
>>offers a nice refuge from this reality. But back to reality
>>now. Before I'll answer PeterB's fish gene question, I'll
>>try and explain the concept of 'acceptable risk' first with
>>an example that even his limited intellect should be able
>>to grasp.
>>Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no easy
>> yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I should enter
>> the house and take the risk.
>>- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
>>- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird.
>> Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
>>- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
>> second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
>> complicated the real world is?
>>
>>Now for PeterB's question:
>>Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
>> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know
>> what the risk is and set it of against the expected
>> benefit.
>>- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that
>> does I'll tell him to take a hike.
>>- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
>> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
>> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold isn't
>> that bad.
>>- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him about
>> what research has been done, read that and I'll carefully
>> weigh the risk of the procedure against the risk of my
>> diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have diabetes, it's
>> just an example).
>>- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
>> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die in
>> 3 months but that he could insert this fish gene in my
>> brain which would help me, I'll still ask him on what
>> evidence he is basing his claim but I'd be willing to take
>> a lot more risks. Of course, if he's got as much evidence
>> for his claim as homeopathy, TT, Reiki etc. has got, I'll
>> just go ahead and die without wasting time and money on
>> this fish gene thing, thank you very much.
>>
>>That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to get a
>>grasp of it.
>
>
> The problem with your response is that it doesn't equate to
> what is happening with GMO foods.

Then why did *you*, yes *you*, ask the question about
having a fish gene inserted in the brain in the first
place? Above I have given one reason why your question is
silly, you have just given another. Could you please keep
this up, exposing your own silliness? It would save us
'Pharma Bloggers' a lot of work.

> Insertion of foreign genes into agriculture exposes our
> entire species, not just one individual, to unknown risks.
> Perhaps it is alright for you to have a fish gene implanted
> into your brain to treat a disease or illness after proper
> research, that would be your choice. Application of GMO
> technology to the human food chain has occured without
> proper science, without consensus, and without adequate
> regulatory controls.

And this is what I find fascinating about people like PeterB.
This last bit actually makes some sense. I may or may not
agree with it, but at least this isn't the usual drivel. And
this same PeterB also comes up with this totally unrelated and
stupid fish gene question. This combination of utter stupidity
with occasional burps of reason is simply fascinating. Please
note that I have considered that the last part of his posting
could be just a cut-n-past job (it probably is). It still
requires a level of understanding of just the words that
doesn't show in any of his other posts.

> PeterB

[jdeere2312]

JohnDoe wrote:

> > You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> > inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>
> Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
> INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!! (sorry, my pet peeve acting
> up, I understand what you mean).

I am glad to see you took some chemistry class(es.) Though I
think you missed out in your college life when the more
interesting discussions, such as continuous evolution of
natural languages, were going on.

> > These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
> > should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like
> > one or the other, is something else altogether.
>
> That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
> sample would be

Sure, try blind tasting. After all, you are the experimenter.
All you need is someone to help out.

> way too small to be reliable. I just may have stumbled on a
> particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and a particularly nasty
> cauliflower just by dumb luck.

So repeat the experiment a few times. (Different times,
different shops etc.)

Even the most carefully controlled experiment (or set of
experiments) does have a small probability of just stumbling
upon things. That doesn't mean we should stop experimenting
with things.

If you see an apple falling to the ground, it's possible you
stumbled upon the only apple that falls to the groud (while
all others fell to the sky), but after repeating the
experiment a few times, you should be able to have some
confidence.

Organic vs inorganic may not be so clear-cut, as the labels
are vague. But after some time of eating such foods, normal
people can be expected to develop some ideas.

[jdeere2312]

Mark Probert wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> > inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to have
> > stronger taste differences, and you should be able to tell
> > the difference. Whether you like one or the other, is
> > something else altogether.
>
> I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use
> home made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course,
> since I do not have an evil profit motive when growing it,
> it tastes much better. We all know that seeking a profit
> makes things bad.

Seeking a profit often makes things better. Much better. The
computer you used to post this is 1000's of times more
powerful and faster, than the ones you could have bought 30
years ago for 5 times more money. All that is from profit
seekers. Nobody loses in these cases, except other profit
seekers. They go bankrupt when they bet wrong.

Seeking profit at the expense of your consumers, well, makes
things bad for your consumers. That's simply because profit
seekers tend to be good at what they do. Even in those cases,
the profit-seekers do make things better, but only for
themselves. Maybe they buy a better CD player, maybe a new
car, maybe a bigger house.

So profit-seekers do make things better. As to for whom, that
depends upon who they are and what they do.

If the profit-seekers are not kept in fair competition with
each other, they tend to harm their consumers.

Sometimes they buy or otherwise influence the regulatory
bodies and institutions that are supposed to make sure they go
bankrupt when they goof up. When they have bought these
regulatory bodies, the game changes. Nobody goes bankrupt
anymore, and it's all a wild party at the expense of the
consumers.

But all, even most, profit-seeking is not bad for consumers.

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>PeterB wrote:
> >>
> >>-snip--
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink
> >>>>>>>>>of water.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100%
> >>>>>>>>natural proces.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene
> >>>>>>>into your brain. Would you consider that natural?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>PeterB
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene
> >>>>>into your brain a natural process?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
> >>>>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in
> >>>>>>our DNA. It's called common ancestry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study
> >>>>>that inserts a fish gene into your brain?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>PeterB
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
> >>>>schoolyard taunts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't
> >>>bother. Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
> >>>
> >>>PeterB
> >>
> >>PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue, but
> >>there might be some people reading this who are not, so
> >>for their benefit I'll reply to this silly question.
> >>First, why is this question silly? Because there is no
> >>easy yes or no answer to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world
> >>there is. That is the happy happy joy dreamworld of
> >>alt-med, where everything is all natural, has no side
> >>effects, where there are no greedy corporations more
> >>interested in money than your health and everything has a
> >>clear and easy answer. You see, I do understand the appeal
> >>of alt-med. The real world is complicated and there are no
> >>easy answers and alt-med offers a nice refuge from this
> >>reality. But back to reality now. Before I'll answer
> >>PeterB's fish gene question, I'll try and explain the
> >>concept of 'acceptable risk' first with an example that
> >>even his limited intellect should be able to grasp.
> >>Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no
> >> easy yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I should
> >> enter the house and take the risk.
> >>- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
> >>- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird.
> >> Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
> >>- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
> >> second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
> >> complicated the real world is?
> >>
> >>Now for PeterB's question:
> >>Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
> >> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know
> >> what the risk is and set it of against the expected
> >> benefit.
> >>- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that
> >> does I'll tell him to take a hike.
> >>- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
> >> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
> >> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold isn't
> >> that bad.
> >>- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him
> >> about what research has been done, read that and I'll
> >> carefully weigh the risk of the procedure against the
> >> risk of my diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have
> >> diabetes, it's just an example).
> >>- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
> >> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die
> >> in 3 months but that he could insert this fish gene in
> >> my brain which would help me, I'll still ask him on what
> >> evidence he is basing his claim but I'd be willing to
> >> take a lot more risks. Of course, if he's got as much
> >> evidence for his claim as homeopathy, TT, Reiki etc. has
> >> got, I'll just go ahead and die without wasting time and
> >> money on this fish gene thing, thank you very much.
> >>
> >>That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to get
> >>a grasp of it.
> >
> >
> > The problem with your response is that it doesn't equate
> > to what is happening with GMO foods.
>
> Then why did *you*, yes *you*, ask the question about having
> a fish gene inserted in the brain in the first place?

Because of your claim that human-directed genetic
modification is a "100% natural process." You then declined
to answer the original question: "Is insertion of a fish gene
into your brain a natural process?" Going into an elaborate
defense of conditions under which you might allow such a
procedure on yourself is just an evasion. Nothing unusual for
you, of course.

> Above I have given one reason why your question is silly,
> you have just given another. Could you please keep this up,
> exposing your own silliness? It would save us 'Pharma
> Bloggers' a lot of work.

Don't make comments you can't defend. Answer the orginal
question: Yes or No.

> > Insertion of foreign genes into agriculture exposes our
> > entire species, not just one individual, to unknown risks.
> > Perhaps it is alright for you to have a fish gene
> > implanted into your brain to treat a disease or illness
> > after proper research, that would be your choice.
> > Application of GMO technology to the human food chain has
> > occured without proper science, without consensus, and
> > without adequate regulatory controls.
>
> And this is what I find fascinating about people like
> PeterB. This last bit actually makes some sense. I may or
> may not agree with it, but at least this isn't the usual
> drivel. And this same PeterB also comes up with this totally
> unrelated and stupid fish gene question. This combination of
> utter stupidity with occasional burps of reason is simply
> fascinating. Please note that I have considered that the
> last part of his posting could be just a cut-n-past job (it
> probably is). It still requires a level of understanding of
> just the words that doesn't show in any of his other posts.

I think we'll have to invent a whole new term for this:
"Pharma Babbling."

PeterB

[jdeere2312]

Mark Probert wrote:

> Like pharmaceuticals!

Certainly. For a large part of recent history, pharmaceuticals
have been fairly competitive with each other, and have had
normal governmental and other institutional controls on them.
They have brought about great improvements in human welfare.

If they are able to effectively end regulations and
competition, all that would end, of course.

[jdeere2312]

Mark Probert wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
> >>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
> >>
> >>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
> >>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!! (sorry, my pet peeve
> >>acting up, I understand what you mean).
> >
> >
> > I am glad to see you took some chemistry class(es.) Though
> > I think you missed out in your college life when the more
> > interesting discussions, such as continuous evolution of
> > natural languages, were going on.
>
> Are you contending that you usage of the word 'inorganic'
> is proper?

Well, no.

But I am contending that it's likely to become standard
terminology. Language purists almost never win (except perhaps
in France.)

[Peterb]

jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> > Like pharmaceuticals!
>
> Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
> other, and have had normal governmental and other
> institutional controls on them. They have brought about
> great improvements in human welfare.

There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have shortened
human life than there is that they have extended it. Various
iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate due to properly
dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other estimates
say the figure could be 300,000 per year. If you count people
having a fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a hospital
setting, the figures could ver well double.

> If they are able to effectively end regulations and
> competition, all that would end, of course.

It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built on
disease management. They simply want to prevent the public
from seeing this for what it is.

PeterB

[jdeere2312]

PeterB wrote:
> jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> >
> > > Like pharmaceuticals!
> >
> > Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> > pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
> > other, and have had normal governmental and other
> > institutional controls on them. They have brought about
> > great improvements in human welfare.
>
> There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have shortened
> human life than there is that they have extended it. Various
> iatrogenic studies

The human life expectancy has gradually increased over last
few centuries, and a large part of the increase is supposed to
be due to improved vaccination, medication etc.

> show an annual death rate due to properly dispensed
> pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this only
> counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other estimates say
> the figure could be 300,000 per year. If you count people
> having a fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a hospital
> setting, the figures could ver well double.
>
> > If they are able to effectively end regulations and
> > competition, all that would end, of course.
>
> It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built on
> disease management. They simply want to prevent the public
> from seeing this for what it is.

Well, all the early pharmaceuticals had all the disease they
needed. They only had to build the right medicine, and people
would beat paths to their doors...

The recent evolution of the customer-supplier relation is more
complex, of course. I assume like all manufactures, there is a
"building demand" concern, even if it may be somewhat
subconscious in the corporate culture.

[Peterb]

Rich wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:113146-
> 4022.526288.202370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >> PeterB wrote:
> >> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>PeterB wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>-snip--
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a
> >> >>>>>>>>>drink of water.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100%
> >> >>>>>>>>natural proces.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish
> >> >>>>>>>gene into your brain. Would you consider that
> >> >>>>>>>natural?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>PeterB
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish
> >> >>>>>gene into your brain a natural process?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>And if you knew anything about biology,
> >> >>>>>>specifically evolution, you'd know we already have
> >> >>>>>>fish genes in our DNA. It's called common ancestry.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study
> >> >>>>>that inserts a fish gene into your brain?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>PeterB
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
> >> >>>>schoolyard taunts.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't
> >> >>>bother. Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>PeterB
> >> >>
> >> >>PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue,
> >> >>but there might be some people reading this who are
> >> >>not, so for their benefit I'll reply to this silly
> >> >>question. First, why is this question silly? Because
> >> >>there is no easy yes or no answer to it. Oh sure, in
> >> >>PeterB's world there is. That is the happy happy joy
> >> >>dreamworld of alt-med, where everything is all natural,
> >> >>has no side effects, where there are no greedy
> >> >>corporations more interested in money than your health
> >> >>and everything has a clear and easy answer. You see, I
> >> >>do understand the appeal of alt-med. The real world is
> >> >>complicated and there are no easy answers and alt-med
> >> >>offers a nice refuge from this reality. But back to
> >> >>reality now. Before I'll answer PeterB's fish gene
> >> >>question, I'll try and explain the concept of
> >> >>'acceptable risk' first with an example that even his
> >> >>limited intellect should be able to grasp.
> >> >>Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no
> >> >> easy yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I
> >> >> should enter the house and take the risk.
> >> >>- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
> >> >>- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the
> >> >> bird. Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
> >> >>- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for
> >> >> a second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB,
> >> >> how complicated the real world is?
> >> >>
> >> >>Now for PeterB's question:
> >> >>Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
> >> >> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to
> >> >> know what the risk is and set it of against the
> >> >> expected benefit.
> >> >>- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what
> >> >> that does I'll tell him to take a hike.
> >> >>- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
> >> >> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
> >> >> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold
> >> >> isn't that bad.
> >> >>- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him
> >> >> about what research has been done, read that and I'll
> >> >> carefully weigh the risk of the procedure against the
> >> >> risk of my diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't
> >> >> have diabetes, it's just an example).
> >> >>- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
> >> >> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll
> >> >> die in 3 months but that he could insert this fish
> >> >> gene in my brain which would help me, I'll still ask
> >> >> him on what evidence he is basing his claim but I'd
> >> >> be willing to take a lot more risks. Of course, if
> >> >> he's got as much evidence for his claim as
> >> >> homeopathy, TT, Reiki etc. has got, I'll just go
> >> >> ahead and die without wasting time and money on this
> >> >> fish gene thing, thank you very much.
> >> >>
> >> >>That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to
> >> >>get a grasp of
> >> >>it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The problem with your response is that it doesn't
> >> > equate to what is happening with GMO foods.
> >>
> >> Then why did *you*, yes *you*, ask the question about
> >> having a fish gene inserted in the brain in the first
> >> place?
> >
> > Because of your claim that human-directed genetic
> > modification is a "100% natural process." You then
> > declined to answer the original question: "Is insertion of
> > a fish gene into your brain a natural process?" Going into
> > an elaborate defense of conditions under which you might
> > allow such a procedure on yourself is just an evasion.
> > Nothing unusual for you, of course.
> >
> >> Above I have given one reason why your question is silly,
> >> you have just given another. Could you please keep this
> >> up, exposing your own silliness? It would save us 'Pharma
> >> Bloggers' a lot of work.
> >
> > Don't make comments you can't defend. Answer the orginal
> > question: Yes or No.
> >
> >> > Insertion of foreign genes into agriculture exposes our
> >> > entire species, not just one individual, to unknown
> >> > risks. Perhaps it is alright for you to have a fish
> >> > gene implanted into your brain to treat a disease or
> >> > illness after proper research, that would be your
> >> > choice. Application of GMO technology to the human food
> >> > chain has occured without proper science, without
> >> > consensus, and without adequate regulatory controls.
> >>
> >> And this is what I find fascinating about people like
> >> PeterB. This last bit actually makes some sense. I may or
> >> may not agree with it, but at least this isn't the usual
> >> drivel. And this same PeterB also comes up with this
> >> totally unrelated and stupid fish gene question. This
> >> combination of utter stupidity with occasional burps of
> >> reason is simply fascinating. Please note that I have
> >> considered that the last part of his posting could be
> >> just a cut-n-past job (it probably is). It still requires
> >> a level of understanding of just the words that doesn't
> >> show in any of his other posts.
> >
> > I think we'll have to invent a whole new term for this:
> > "Pharma Babbling."
>
> A more appropriate question, which I will propose to you,
> Peter, is would you use a medication that was made by
> inserting a human gene into a bacterium?

Trying to take the heat of John? Won't work. John needs to
finish what he started. If he can.

PeterB

[Peter Bowd]

Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>JohnDoe wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>> inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to
>>>>>> have stronger taste differences, and you should be able
>>>>>> to tell the difference. Whether you like one or the
>>>>>> other, is something else altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use
>>>>> home made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course,
>>>>> since I do not have an evil profit motive when growing
>>>>> it, it tastes much better. We all know that seeking a
>>>>> profit makes things bad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seeking a profit often makes things better. Much better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>
>>>> The computer you used to post this is 1000's of times
>>>> more powerful and faster, than the ones you could have
>>>> bought 30 years ago for 5 times more money.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be an Apple IIe.
>>
>>
>> Amateur. I had a Sinclair ZX Spectrum (not counting the
>> Pong game as a real computer here). ;-)
>
>I had a Pong with the controls on the console and it was
>black and white.
>
>I also had a Adam.

Luxury!

The first computer I worked on had 4K of memory. It had been
upgraded from 2K. We ran a payroll for 72,000 people on it.

(And why did I say "luxury"?
http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm)
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against
Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only
at ratbags.com

[Mark Probe]

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to
>>>>>>>have stronger taste differences, and you should be able
>>>>>>>to tell the difference. Whether you like one or the
>>>>>>>other, is something else altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use
>>>>>>home made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course,
>>>>>>since I do not have an evil profit motive when growing
>>>>>>it, it tastes much better. We all know that seeking a
>>>>>>profit makes things bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Seeking a profit often makes things better. Much better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The computer you used to post this is 1000's of times
>>>>>more powerful and faster, than the ones you could have
>>>>>bought 30 years ago for 5 times more money.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That would be an Apple IIe.
>>>
>>>
>>>Amateur. I had a Sinclair ZX Spectrum (not counting the
>>>Pong game as a real computer here). ;-)
>>
>>I had a Pong with the controls on the console and it was
>>black and white.
>>
>>I also had a Adam.
>
>
> Luxury!
>
> The first computer I worked on had 4K of memory. It had been
> upgraded from 2K. We ran a payroll for 72,000 people on it.
>
> (And why did I say "luxury"? http://www.phespirit.info/mont-
> ypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm)

The only software I had for it was purchased from a 3rd party
vendor who advertised in the back of a magazine. I bought his
mail merge program. I had a 1000 mailings to make, and it ran
for two days.

[Mark Probe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>
>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!! (sorry, my pet peeve acting
>>up, I understand what you mean).
>
>
> I am glad to see you took some chemistry class(es.) Though I
> think you missed out in your college life when the more
> interesting discussions, such as continuous evolution of
> natural languages, were going on.

Are you contending that you usage of the word 'inorganic'
is proper?

While your message came through, the terminology is clearly
confusing.

[Mark Probe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to have
>>>stronger taste differences, and you should be able to tell
>>>the difference. Whether you like one or the other, is
>>>something else altogether.
>>
>>I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use
>>home made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course,
>>since I do not have an evil profit motive when growing it,
>>it tastes much better. We all know that seeking a profit
>>makes things bad.
>
>
> Seeking a profit often makes things better. Much better.

Like pharmaceuticals!

> The computer you used to post this is 1000's of times more
> powerful and faster, than the ones you could have bought 30
> years ago for 5 times more money.

That would be an Apple IIe.

> All that is from profit seekers. Nobody loses in these
> cases, except other profit seekers. They go bankrupt when
> they bet wrong.
>
> Seeking profit at the expense of your consumers, well, makes
> things bad for your consumers. That's simply because profit
> seekers tend to be good at what they do. Even in those
> cases, the profit-seekers do make things better, but only
> for themselves. Maybe they buy a better CD player, maybe a
> new car, maybe a bigger house.
>
> So profit-seekers do make things better. As to for whom,
> that depends upon who they are and what they do.
>
> If the profit-seekers are not kept in fair competition with
> each other, they tend to harm their consumers.
>
> Sometimes they buy or otherwise influence the regulatory
> bodies and institutions that are supposed to make sure they
> go bankrupt when they goof up. When they have bought these
> regulatory bodies, the game changes. Nobody goes bankrupt
> anymore, and it's all a wild party at the expense of the
> consumers.
>
> But all, even most, profit-seeking is not bad for consumers.

According to the anti-pharms out there, profit seeking is the
root of all evil.

[Johndoe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>
>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!! (sorry, my pet peeve acting
>>up, I understand what you mean).
>
>
> I am glad to see you took some chemistry class(es.) Though I
> think you missed out in your college life when the more
> interesting discussions, such as continuous evolution of
> natural languages, were going on.

Puhleaze. I did hard science, none of this softy evolution of
natural languages stuff ;-). I am well aware of what happened
to the words 'biologic' and 'organic' with regard to
agriculture. I don't like the way they are used there, in a
scientific setting definitions have to be rigid or else it'll
be like the Tower of Babel must have been, but hey, that's the
way things developed and I can cope with it. But here its the
use of word 'inorganic' I object to. I could live with 'not
organically grown', 'conventionally grown' or even
'non-organic'. But here 'inorganic' is abuse of the word.

>>>These tend to have stronger taste differences, and you
>>>should be able to tell the difference. Whether you like one
>>>or the other, is something else altogether.
>>
>>That wouldn't be blind testing now would it? Also, the
>>sample would be
>
>
> Sure, try blind tasting. After all, you are the
> experimenter. All you need is someone to help out.

I still say the sample is too small. I'd rather have consumer
organisation do it all for me. And yes, ok, I'm too lazy to do
all that tasting myself. I am not very picky about my food so
I don't want to spent my time on it. But if same well designed
test tells me that organic food really tastes much better, I
might spent my money on it when I want to have some really
good food, not just something to eat. So far, I haven't seen
those test so taste would not be a motivation for me to buy
'organic', 'biological' and so.

>>way too small to be reliable. I just may have stumbled on a
>>particularly tasty 'organic' tomato and a particularly nasty
>>cauliflower just by dumb luck.
>
>
> So repeat the experiment a few times. (Different times,
> different shops etc.)
>
> Even the most carefully controlled experiment (or set of
> experiments) does have a small probability of just stumbling
> upon things. That doesn't mean we should stop experimenting
> with things.

Certainly not. I does mean we should be very careful drawing
conclusions from small samples and very few tests. That's one
of the problems I have with homeopathy. They draw far reaching
conclusions from provings, done only once or twice with groups
of 1 (!) to 8 people. Statistically that's just plain BS.

> If you see an apple falling to the ground, it's possible you
> stumbled upon the only apple that falls to the groud (while
> all others fell to the sky), but after repeating the
> experiment a few times, you should be able to have some
> confidence.

No argument here.

> Organic vs inorganic may not be so clear-cut, as the labels
> are vague. But after some time of eating such foods, normal
> people can be expected to develop some ideas.

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>-snip--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink
>>>>>>>>>>>of water.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100%
>>>>>>>>>>natural proces.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene
>>>>>>>>>into your brain. Would you consider that natural?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene
>>>>>>>into your brain a natural process?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
>>>>>>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in
>>>>>>>>our DNA. It's called common ancestry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study
>>>>>>>that inserts a fish gene into your brain?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
>>>>>>schoolyard taunts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't
>>>>>bother. Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>PeterB
>>>>
>>>>PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue, but
>>>>there might be some people reading this who are not, so
>>>>for their benefit I'll reply to this silly question.
>>>>First, why is this question silly? Because there is no
>>>>easy yes or no answer to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world
>>>>there is. That is the happy happy joy dreamworld of
>>>>alt-med, where everything is all natural, has no side
>>>>effects, where there are no greedy corporations more
>>>>interested in money than your health and everything has a
>>>>clear and easy answer. You see, I do understand the appeal
>>>>of alt-med. The real world is complicated and there are no
>>>>easy answers and alt-med offers a nice refuge from this
>>>>reality. But back to reality now. Before I'll answer
>>>>PeterB's fish gene question, I'll try and explain the
>>>>concept of 'acceptable risk' first with an example that
>>>>even his limited intellect should be able to grasp.
>>>>Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no
>>>> easy yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I should
>>>> enter the house and take the risk.
>>>>- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
>>>>- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird.
>>>> Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
>>>>- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
>>>> second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
>>>> complicated the real world is?
>>>>
>>>>Now for PeterB's question:
>>>>Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
>>>> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know
>>>> what the risk is and set it of against the expected
>>>> benefit.
>>>>- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that
>>>> does I'll tell him to take a hike.
>>>>- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
>>>> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
>>>> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold isn't
>>>> that bad.
>>>>- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him
>>>> about what research has been done, read that and I'll
>>>> carefully weigh the risk of the procedure against the
>>>> risk of my diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have
>>>> diabetes, it's just an example).
>>>>- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
>>>> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die
>>>> in 3 months but that he could insert this fish gene in
>>>> my brain which would help me, I'll still ask him on what
>>>> evidence he is basing his claim but I'd be willing to
>>>> take a lot more risks. Of course, if he's got as much
>>>> evidence for his claim as homeopathy, TT, Reiki etc. has
>>>> got, I'll just go ahead and die without wasting time and
>>>> money on this fish gene thing, thank you very much.
>>>>
>>>>That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to get
>>>>a grasp of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The problem with your response is that it doesn't equate to
>>>what is happening with GMO foods.
>>
>>Then why did *you*, yes *you*, ask the question about having
>>a fish gene inserted in the brain in the first place?
>
>
> Because of your claim that human-directed genetic
> modification is a "100% natural process."

Strawman. I pointed out that horizontal gene transfer, the
exchange of DNA between organisms and/or the insertion of
foreign DNA in organisms (like a virus does all the time)
apparently has not led to the end of life as we know it and
that I see no reason why copying nature's work in a lab would
be any different.

> You then declined to answer the original question: "Is
> insertion of a fish gene into your brain a natural process?"
> Going into an elaborate defense of conditions under which
> you might allow such a procedure on yourself is just an
> evasion. Nothing unusual for you, of course.

And I quote: "Would you, or would you not, participate in a
study that inserts a fish gene into your brain?" /endquote.
That was your question. Are you now complaining I gave you
reply? Or are you complaining I didn't gave you the reply you
wanted? Here is the mental illness again: -reply to PeterB:
proof you're a 'Pharma Blogger'
- don't reply to PeterB: proof you're a 'Pharma Blogger'.
Obviously the only way to not be accused of being a 'Pharma
Blogger' is to unconditionally agree with you. Fat chance.

>>Above I have given one reason why your question is silly,
>>you have just given another. Could you please keep this up,
>>exposing your own silliness? It would save us 'Pharma
>>Bloggers' a lot of work.
>
> Don't make comments you can't defend. Answer the orginal
> question: Yes or No.

You still don't get that this 'yes or no' game is silly
don't you.

>>>Insertion of foreign genes into agriculture exposes our
>>>entire species, not just one individual, to unknown risks.
>>>Perhaps it is alright for you to have a fish gene implanted
>>>into your brain to treat a disease or illness after proper
>>>research, that would be your choice. Application of GMO
>>>technology to the human food chain has occured without
>>>proper science, without consensus, and without adequate
>>>regulatory controls.
>>
>>And this is what I find fascinating about people like
>>PeterB. This last bit actually makes some sense. I may or
>>may not agree with it, but at least this isn't the usual
>>drivel. And this same PeterB also comes up with this totally
>>unrelated and stupid fish gene question. This combination of
>>utter stupidity with occasional burps of reason is simply
>>fascinating. Please note that I have considered that the
>>last part of his posting could be just a cut-n-past job (it
>>probably is). It still requires a level of understanding of
>>just the words that doesn't show in any of his other posts.
>
>
> I think we'll have to invent a whole new term for this:
> "Pharma Babbling."

That seems to be your only strong point - inventing derogatory
labels to put on people.

> PeterBlabber.

[Rich]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131464022.526288.202370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> JohnDoe wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>> > JohnDoe wrote:
>> >
>> >>PeterB wrote:
>> >>
>> >>-snip--
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink
>> >>>>>>>>>of water.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100%
>> >>>>>>>>natural proces.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene
>> >>>>>>>into your brain. Would you consider that natural?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>PeterB
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene
>> >>>>>into your brain a natural process?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
>> >>>>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in
>> >>>>>>our DNA. It's called common ancestry.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study
>> >>>>>that inserts a fish gene into your brain?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>PeterB
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
>> >>>>schoolyard taunts.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't
>> >>>bother. Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
>> >>>
>> >>>PeterB
>> >>
>> >>PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue, but
>> >>there might be some people reading this who are not, so
>> >>for their benefit I'll reply to this silly question.
>> >>First, why is this question silly? Because there is no
>> >>easy yes or no answer to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world
>> >>there is. That is the happy happy joy dreamworld of
>> >>alt-med, where everything is all natural, has no side
>> >>effects, where there are no greedy corporations more
>> >>interested in money than your health and everything has a
>> >>clear and easy answer. You see, I do understand the
>> >>appeal of alt-med. The real world is complicated and
>> >>there are no easy answers and alt-med offers a nice
>> >>refuge from this reality. But back to reality now. Before
>> >>I'll answer PeterB's fish gene question, I'll try and
>> >>explain the concept of 'acceptable risk' first with an
>> >>example that even his limited intellect should be able to
>> >>grasp.
>> >>Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no
>> >> easy yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I should
>> >> enter the house and take the risk.
>> >>- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
>> >>- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird.
>> >> Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
>> >>- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
>> >> second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
>> >> complicated the real world is?
>> >>
>> >>Now for PeterB's question:
>> >>Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
>> >> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know
>> >> what the risk is and set it of against the expected
>> >> benefit.
>> >>- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that
>> >> does I'll tell him to take a hike.
>> >>- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
>> >> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
>> >> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold
>> >> isn't that bad.
>> >>- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him
>> >> about what research has been done, read that and I'll
>> >> carefully weigh the risk of the procedure against the
>> >> risk of my diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have
>> >> diabetes, it's just an example).
>> >>- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
>> >> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die
>> >> in 3 months but that he could insert this fish gene in
>> >> my brain which would help me, I'll still ask him on
>> >> what evidence he is basing his claim but I'd be willing
>> >> to take a lot more risks. Of course, if he's got as
>> >> much evidence for his claim as homeopathy, TT, Reiki
>> >> etc. has got, I'll just go ahead and die without
>> >> wasting time and money on this fish gene thing, thank
>> >> you very much.
>> >>
>> >>That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to get
>> >>a grasp of
>> >>it.
>> >
>> >
>> > The problem with your response is that it doesn't equate
>> > to what is happening with GMO foods.
>>
>> Then why did *you*, yes *you*, ask the question about
>> having a fish gene inserted in the brain in the first
>> place?
>
> Because of your claim that human-directed genetic
> modification is a "100% natural process." You then declined
> to answer the original question: "Is insertion of a fish
> gene into your brain a natural process?" Going into an
> elaborate defense of conditions under which you might allow
> such a procedure on yourself is just an evasion. Nothing
> unusual for you, of course.
>
>> Above I have given one reason why your question is silly,
>> you have just given another. Could you please keep this up,
>> exposing your own silliness? It would save us 'Pharma
>> Bloggers' a lot of work.
>
> Don't make comments you can't defend. Answer the orginal
> question: Yes or No.
>
>> > Insertion of foreign genes into agriculture exposes our
>> > entire species, not just one individual, to unknown
>> > risks. Perhaps it is alright for you to have a fish gene
>> > implanted into your brain to treat a disease or illness
>> > after proper research, that would be your choice.
>> > Application of GMO technology to the human food chain has
>> > occured without proper science, without consensus, and
>> > without adequate regulatory controls.
>>
>> And this is what I find fascinating about people like
>> PeterB. This last bit actually makes some sense. I may or
>> may not agree with it, but at least this isn't the usual
>> drivel. And this same PeterB also comes up with this
>> totally unrelated and stupid fish gene question. This
>> combination of utter stupidity with occasional burps of
>> reason is simply fascinating. Please note that I have
>> considered that the last part of his posting could be just
>> a cut-n-past job (it probably is). It still requires a
>> level of understanding of just the words that doesn't show
>> in any of his other posts.
>
> I think we'll have to invent a whole new term for this:
> "Pharma Babbling."

A more appropriate question, which I will propose to you,
Peter, is would you use a medication that was made by
inserting a human gene into a bacterium?
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

[Johndoe]

Mark Probert wrote:
> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>> inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to have
>>>> stronger taste differences, and you should be able to
>>>> tell the difference. Whether you like one or the other,
>>>> is something else altogether.
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use
>>> home made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course,
>>> since I do not have an evil profit motive when growing it,
>>> it tastes much better. We all know that seeking a profit
>>> makes things bad.
>>
>>
>>
>> Seeking a profit often makes things better. Much better.
>
>
> Like pharmaceuticals!
>
>> The computer you used to post this is 1000's of times more
>> powerful and faster, than the ones you could have bought 30
>> years ago for 5 times more money.
>
>
> That would be an Apple IIe.

Amateur. I had a Sinclair ZX Spectrum (not counting the Pong
game as a real computer here). ;-)

>> All that is from profit seekers. Nobody loses in these
>> cases, except other profit seekers. They go bankrupt when
>> they bet wrong.
>>
>> Seeking profit at the expense of your consumers, well,
>> makes things bad for your consumers. That's simply because
>> profit seekers tend to be good at what they do. Even in
>> those cases, the profit-seekers do make things better, but
>> only for themselves. Maybe they buy a better CD player,
>> maybe a new car, maybe a bigger house.
>>
>> So profit-seekers do make things better. As to for whom,
>> that depends upon who they are and what they do.
>>
>> If the profit-seekers are not kept in fair competition with
>> each other, they tend to harm their consumers.
>>
>> Sometimes they buy or otherwise influence the regulatory
>> bodies and institutions that are supposed to make sure they
>> go bankrupt when they goof up. When they have bought these
>> regulatory bodies, the game changes. Nobody goes bankrupt
>> anymore, and it's all a wild party at the expense of the
>> consumers.
>>
>> But all, even most, profit-seeking is not bad for
>> consumers.
>
>
> According to the anti-pharms out there, profit seeking is
> the root of all evil.

[Rich]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131466994.546758.271200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich wrote:
>> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:11314-
>> 64022.526288.202370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >

>>
>> A more appropriate question, which I will propose to you,
>> Peter, is would you use a medication that was made by
>> inserting a human gene into a bacterium?
>
> Trying to take the heat of John? Won't work. John needs to
> finish what he started. If he can.

No, it has nothing to do with John. I'm asking you a
straightforword question. Modern medicine is not inserting
fish genes into human brains. Useful medications ARE being
manufactured by inserting human genes into bacteria and
yeasts. Would you use these medications? Or is your resistance
to GM and the pharmaceutical industry such that you would
suffer and die instead?
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

[Mark Probe]

JohnDoe wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>
>>>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>> inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to have
>>>>> stronger taste differences, and you should be able to
>>>>> tell the difference. Whether you like one or the other,
>>>>> is something else altogether.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use
>>>> home made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course,
>>>> since I do not have an evil profit motive when growing
>>>> it, it tastes much better. We all know that seeking a
>>>> profit makes things bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Seeking a profit often makes things better. Much better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like pharmaceuticals!
>>
>>> The computer you used to post this is 1000's of times more
>>> powerful and faster, than the ones you could have bought
>>> 30 years ago for 5 times more money.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be an Apple IIe.
>
>
> Amateur. I had a Sinclair ZX Spectrum (not counting the Pong
> game as a real computer here). ;-)

I had a Pong with the controls on the console and it was black
and white.

I also had a Adam.

>>> All that is from profit seekers. Nobody loses in these
>>> cases, except other profit seekers. They go bankrupt when
>>> they bet wrong.
>>>
>>> Seeking profit at the expense of your consumers, well,
>>> makes things bad for your consumers. That's simply because
>>> profit seekers tend to be good at what they do. Even in
>>> those cases, the profit-seekers do make things better, but
>>> only for themselves. Maybe they buy a better CD player,
>>> maybe a new car, maybe a bigger house.
>>>
>>> So profit-seekers do make things better. As to for whom,
>>> that depends upon who they are and what they do.
>>>
>>> If the profit-seekers are not kept in fair competition
>>> with each other, they tend to harm their consumers.
>>>
>>> Sometimes they buy or otherwise influence the regulatory
>>> bodies and institutions that are supposed to make sure
>>> they go bankrupt when they goof up. When they have bought
>>> these regulatory bodies, the game changes. Nobody goes
>>> bankrupt anymore, and it's all a wild party at the expense
>>> of the consumers.
>>>
>>> But all, even most, profit-seeking is not bad for
>>> consumers.
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the anti-pharms out there, profit seeking is
>> the root of all evil.

[Mark Probe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>>>
>>>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!! (sorry, my pet peeve
>>>>acting up, I understand what you mean).
>>>
>>>
>>>I am glad to see you took some chemistry class(es.) Though
>>>I think you missed out in your college life when the more
>>>interesting discussions, such as continuous evolution of
>>>natural languages, were going on.
>>
>>Are you contending that you usage of the word 'inorganic'
>>is proper?
>
>
> Well, no.
>
> But I am contending that it's likely to become standard
> terminology. Language purists almost never win

I doubt it since *alternatives* are available, like
non-organic. The word 'inorganic' is deeply *rooted* in our
lexicon and it is unlikely to take on a new meaning in a
*field* where terminology needs to be precise.

> (except perhaps in France.)

They are getting a lesson, now.

[Rich]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>> > Like pharmaceuticals!
>>
>> Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>> pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>> other, and have had normal governmental and other
>> institutional controls on them. They have brought about
>> great improvements in human welfare.
>
> There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have shortened
> human life than there is that they have extended it. Various
> iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate due to properly
> dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
> only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other estimates
> say the figure could be 300,000 per year. If you count
> people having a fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a
> hospital setting, the figures could ver well double.

Bullshit! If all that death from ADR's were happening, I would
be seeing it in my ER. In 25 years of ER nursing, I've seen
exactly ONE death from ADR, and that was in an 85-year-old
woman with multiple system failure who would probably not have
survived that hospitalization anyway. We do see ADR's in the
ER, of course. Most common are allergic reactions, but those
are seldom more serious than a rash, and even when there is
more dangerous respiratory involvement, the treatment is
straightforward and effective. Other common ADR's are similar;
extrapyramidal reactions to certain nausea and psych meds,
tachycardia from respiratory treatment meds, hypotension from
diuretics, nitroglycerines, or beta-blockers, all of which are
treatable and seldom fatal. I'm not counting intentional
overdoses as ADR's of course. At the other end of the scale, I
take care of people every day whose lives have been extended
by pharmaceuticals. A close friend of mine who is a successful
business person, an accomplished musician, and a poet, is also
a type-I diabetic who would never have reached her 54th
birthday last month were it not for pharmaceutical insulin.
And don't give me any bullshit about insulin being "natural
medicine" because it "corrects an imbalance." For nearly
twenty years, the insulin she uses has been manufactured using
GM technology, another practice you campaign against.

>
>> If they are able to effectively end regulations and
>> competition, all that would end, of course.
>
> It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built on
> disease management. They simply want to prevent the public
> from seeing this for what it is.
>
> PeterB

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>
>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>>other, and have had normal governmental and other
>>institutional controls on them. They have brought about
>>great improvements in human welfare.
>
>
> There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have shortened
> human life than there is that they have extended it. Various
> iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate due to properly
> dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
> only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other estimates
> say the figure could be 300,000 per year. If you count
> people having a fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a
> hospital setting, the figures could ver well double.

I just love your idle speculation.

>
>
>>If they are able to effectively end regulations and
>>competition, all that would end, of course.
>
>
> It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built on
> disease management. They simply want to prevent the public
> from seeing this for what it is.

Yes, no cures, just a lifetime of pills...

Sure, Petey, sure....

[Sdores]

I hope you never need the evil meds to help you. I don't like
the way things are going with meds and even insurance
companies with all the protection our government has given
them instead of those of us who need it but I have to deal
with it. Hopefully you will stay healthy the rest of your life
and not have to deal with a major medical problem. UM MOM
Susan "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have shortened
> human life than there is that they have extended it. Various
> iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate due to properly
> dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
> only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other estimates
> say the figure could be 300,000 per year. If you count
> people having a fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a
> hospital setting, the figures could ver well double.
>
> It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built on
> disease management. They simply want to prevent the public
> from seeing this for what it is.
>
> PeterB

[Sdores]

Well with crohn's the options are meds to help flares or to
help control damage or surgery, at least this has been my
options. I take supplements and try to eat well but my diet is
very limited due to the fact that I have a stricture. I am
glad you could help yourself but I am doing the best I can
under these terrible circumstances. I suggest you go to the
www.ccfa.org site and read about IBD so you understand the
disease more. UM MOM Susan "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1131472195.225938.74770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You're too late. I've cured myself of PVCs, HPB, chronic
> pain resulting from Hepatitus, and chronic sinusitus (no
> antibiotics in 5 years). All without drugs of any kind.
> Never think you don't have options.
>
> PeterB
>
> Sdores wrote:
>> I hope you never need the evil meds to help you. I don't
>> like the way things are going with meds and even
>> insurance companies with all the protection our
>> government has given them instead of those of us who need
>> it but I have to deal with it. Hopefully you will stay
>> healthy the rest of your life and not have to deal with a
>> major medical problem. UM MOM Susan "PeterB"
>> <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:1131466138.8-
>> 67730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>> > shortened human life than there is that they have
>> > extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
>> > death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in
>> > the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths in
>> > supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the figure
>> > could be 300,000 per year. If you count people having a
>> > fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a hospital
>> > setting, the figures could ver well double.
>> >
>> > It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built
>> > on disease management. They simply want to prevent the
>> > public from seeing this for what it is.
>> >
>> > PeterB
>

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> I don't believe you are doing the best you can if all you
> are doing is taking meds and supplements. Health is not
> something you take, it's something you do. I suggest you
> read "Restoring Your Digestive Health: How the Guts and
> Glory Program Can Transfom Your Life, by Jordan Rubin. He
> cured his own Crohn's years ago and is one of America's most
> well-read authors (especially for his latest book, "The
> Maker's Diet.")

Save your money. Read the original diet in the Old
Testament or Torah.

Keep kosher.

>
> PeterB
>
> Sdores wrote:
>
>>Well with crohn's the options are meds to help flares or to
>>help control damage or surgery, at least this has been my
>>options. I take supplements and try to eat well but my diet
>>is very limited due to the fact that I have a stricture. I
>>am glad you could help yourself but I am doing the best I
>>can under these terrible circumstances. I suggest you go to
>>the www.ccfa.org site and read about IBD so you understand
>>the disease more. UM MOM Susan "PeterB"
>><pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:1131472195.2259-
>>38.74770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>You're too late. I've cured myself of PVCs, HPB, chronic
>>>pain resulting from Hepatitus, and chronic sinusitus (no
>>>antibiotics in 5 years). All without drugs of any kind.
>>>Never think you don't have options.
>>>
>>>PeterB
>>>
>>>Sdores wrote:
>>>
>>>>I hope you never need the evil meds to help you. I don't
>>>>like the way things are going with meds and even
>>>>insurance companies with all the protection our
>>>>government has given them instead of those of us who need
>>>>it but I have to deal with it. Hopefully you will stay
>>>>healthy the rest of your life and not have to deal with a
>>>>major medical problem. UM MOM Susan "PeterB"
>>>><pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:1131466138.8-
>>>>67730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
>>>>>death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in
>>>>>the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths in
>>>>>supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the figure
>>>>>could be 300,000 per year. If you count people having a
>>>>>fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a hospital
>>>>>setting, the figures could ver well double.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built
>>>>>on disease management. They simply want to prevent the
>>>>>public from seeing this for what it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>
>>

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> I don't believe you are doing the best you can if all you
> are doing is taking meds and supplements. Health is not
> something you take, it's something you do. I suggest you
> read "Restoring Your Digestive Health: How the Guts and
> Glory Program Can Transfom Your Life, by Jordan Rubin. He
> cured his own Crohn's years ago and is one of America's most
> well-read authors (especially for his latest book, "The
> Maker's Diet.")

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

[Sdores]

I have read about him, he has a site, at least he did. There
is cure and then there is remission. With crohn's it's called
remission and I had one until this Jan. I can't eat foods like
you do. I have a stricture (food has trouble passing through
it and I get a partial block like I have now.) You need to
educate about crohn's before making stupid comments about me
not caring to cure myself. I would love to be cured! Why did
you take the alt.crohn's-colitis site out? Restored. UM MOM
Susan "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131483930.054270.102050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The "Maker's Diet" is far more expansive than your link,
> however. The recipes are especially fitting for gentiles
> like myself, and there are other wellness concepts presented
> that aren't strictly related to diet. The main point is that
> he cured his disease with proper food selection.
>
> PeterB

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> The "Maker's Diet" is far more expansive than your link,
> however. The recipes are especially fitting for gentiles
> like myself, and there are other wellness concepts presented
> that aren't strictly related to diet.

Be careful, or your next meal may be your last
supper...or Seder.

> The main point is that he cured his disease with proper
> food selection.

Sure, he cured his Crohn's....that helps sell books.....

[Sdores]

My apologies I was thinking of another post. UM MOM Susan
"Sdores" <sdores@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:T99cf.33686$NJ.4501@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>I have read about him, he has a site, at least he did. There
>is cure and then there is remission. With crohn's it's called
>remission and I had one until this Jan. I can't eat foods
>like you do. I have a stricture (food has trouble passing
>through it and I get a partial block like I have now.) You
>need to educate about crohn's before making stupid comments
>about me not caring to cure myself. I would love to be cured!
>Why did you take the alt.crohn's-colitis site out? Restored.
>UM MOM Susan "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1131483930.054270.102050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> The "Maker's Diet" is far more expansive than your link,
>> however. The recipes are especially fitting for gentiles
>> like myself, and there are other wellness concepts
>> presented that aren't strictly related to diet. The main
>> point is that he cured his disease with proper food
>> selection.
>>
>> PeterB
>

[Sdores]

To be fair, he did help himself a lot and has helped others
but it still isn't a cure it is a remission with crohn's. UM
MOM Susan "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote
in message news:Zg9cf.67565$rE2.31663@fe10.lga...
> PeterB wrote:
>> The "Maker's Diet" is far more expansive than your link,
>> however. The recipes are especially fitting for gentiles
>> like myself, and there are other wellness concepts
>> presented that aren't strictly related to diet.
>
> Be careful, or your next meal may be your last
> supper...or Seder.
>
>> The main point is that he cured his disease with proper
>> food selection.
>
> Sure, he cured his Crohn's....that helps sell books.....

[David Wrig]

In article
<1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>> > Like pharmaceuticals!
>>
>> Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>> pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>> other, and have had normal governmental and other
>> institutional controls on them. They have brought about
>> great improvements in human welfare.
>
>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have shortened
>human life than there is that they have extended it. Various
>iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate due to properly
>dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other estimates
>say the figure could be 300,000 per year.

The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around 15,000
ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big numbers were
based on decades-old data, or bad methodology.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you
can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice
Roosevelt Longworth

[Johndoe]

jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:

> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers.
>>>>
>>>>Inorganic tomatoes? THERE ARE NO INORGANIC TOMATOES OR
>>>>INORGANIC VEGGIES OF ANY SORT!! (sorry, my pet peeve
>>>>acting up, I understand what you mean).
>>>
>>>
>>>I am glad to see you took some chemistry class(es.) Though
>>>I think you missed out in your college life when the more
>>>interesting discussions, such as continuous evolution of
>>>natural languages, were going on.
>>
>>Are you contending that you usage of the word 'inorganic'
>>is proper?
>
>
> Well, no.
>
> But I am contending that it's likely to become standard
> terminology. Language purists almost never win (except
> perhaps in France.)

You're right about that. France is the only place in the world
that calls AIDS SIDA. Oh, and computers 'micro-ordinateurs',
videorecorders 'magnetoscopes', CD's 'disque audionumerique'
etc. And they've made it legally compulsory to do so.

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:

> Rich wrote:
>
>>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:113146-
>>4022.526288.202370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-snip--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>drink of water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>natural proces.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish
>>>>>>>>>>>gene into your brain. Would you consider that
>>>>>>>>>>>natural?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene
>>>>>>>>>into your brain a natural process?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
>>>>>>>>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in
>>>>>>>>>>our DNA. It's called common ancestry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study
>>>>>>>>>that inserts a fish gene into your brain?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
>>>>>>>>schoolyard taunts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't
>>>>>>>bother. Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue,
>>>>>>but there might be some people reading this who are not,
>>>>>>so for their benefit I'll reply to this silly question.
>>>>>>First, why is this question silly? Because there is no
>>>>>>easy yes or no answer to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world
>>>>>>there is. That is the happy happy joy dreamworld of
>>>>>>alt-med, where everything is all natural, has no side
>>>>>>effects, where there are no greedy corporations more
>>>>>>interested in money than your health and everything has
>>>>>>a clear and easy answer. You see, I do understand the
>>>>>>appeal of alt-med. The real world is complicated and
>>>>>>there are no easy answers and alt-med offers a nice
>>>>>>refuge from this reality. But back to reality now.
>>>>>>Before I'll answer PeterB's fish gene question, I'll try
>>>>>>and explain the concept of 'acceptable risk' first with
>>>>>>an example that even his limited intellect should be
>>>>>>able to grasp.
>>>>>>Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no
>>>>>> easy yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I
>>>>>> should enter the house and take the risk.
>>>>>>- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
>>>>>>- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird.
>>>>>> Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
>>>>>>- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
>>>>>> second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
>>>>>> complicated the real world is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now for PeterB's question:
>>>>>>Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
>>>>>> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know
>>>>>> what the risk is and set it of against the expected
>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that
>>>>>> does I'll tell him to take a hike.
>>>>>>- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
>>>>>> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
>>>>>> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold
>>>>>> isn't that bad.
>>>>>>- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him
>>>>>> about what research has been done, read that and I'll
>>>>>> carefully weigh the risk of the procedure against the
>>>>>> risk of my diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have
>>>>>> diabetes, it's just an example).
>>>>>>- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
>>>>>> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die
>>>>>> in 3 months but that he could insert this fish gene in
>>>>>> my brain which would help me, I'll still ask him on
>>>>>> what evidence he is basing his claim but I'd be
>>>>>> willing to take a lot more risks. Of course, if he's
>>>>>> got as much evidence for his claim as homeopathy, TT,
>>>>>> Reiki etc. has got, I'll just go ahead and die without
>>>>>> wasting time and money on this fish gene thing, thank
>>>>>> you very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to
>>>>>>get a grasp of
>>>>>>it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem with your response is that it doesn't equate
>>>>>to what is happening with GMO foods.
>>>>
>>>>Then why did *you*, yes *you*, ask the question about
>>>>having a fish gene inserted in the brain in the first
>>>>place?
>>>
>>>Because of your claim that human-directed genetic
>>>modification is a "100% natural process." You then declined
>>>to answer the original question: "Is insertion of a fish
>>>gene into your brain a natural process?" Going into an
>>>elaborate defense of conditions under which you might allow
>>>such a procedure on yourself is just an evasion. Nothing
>>>unusual for you, of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Above I have given one reason why your question is silly,
>>>>you have just given another. Could you please keep this
>>>>up, exposing your own silliness? It would save us 'Pharma
>>>>Bloggers' a lot of work.
>>>
>>>Don't make comments you can't defend. Answer the orginal
>>>question: Yes or No.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Insertion of foreign genes into agriculture exposes our
>>>>>entire species, not just one individual, to unknown
>>>>>risks. Perhaps it is alright for you to have a fish gene
>>>>>implanted into your brain to treat a disease or illness
>>>>>after proper research, that would be your choice.
>>>>>Application of GMO technology to the human food chain has
>>>>>occured without proper science, without consensus, and
>>>>>without adequate regulatory controls.
>>>>
>>>>And this is what I find fascinating about people like
>>>>PeterB. This last bit actually makes some sense. I may or
>>>>may not agree with it, but at least this isn't the usual
>>>>drivel. And this same PeterB also comes up with this
>>>>totally unrelated and stupid fish gene question. This
>>>>combination of utter stupidity with occasional burps of
>>>>reason is simply fascinating. Please note that I have
>>>>considered that the last part of his posting could be just
>>>>a cut-n-past job (it probably is). It still requires a
>>>>level of understanding of just the words that doesn't show
>>>>in any of his other posts.
>>>
>>>I think we'll have to invent a whole new term for this:
>>>"Pharma Babbling."
>>
>>A more appropriate question, which I will propose to you,
>>Peter, is would you use a medication that was made by
>>inserting a human gene into a bacterium?
>
>
> Trying to take the heat of John? Won't work. John needs to
> finish what he started. If he can.
>
> PeterB
>

Evasive action and Alt Blogging noted! Your masters will be
most pleased with you.

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:

> Rich wrote:
>
>>"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:113146-
>>4022.526288.202370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-snip--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>drink of water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I find it strange that you're scared of a 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>natural proces.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish
>>>>>>>>>>>gene into your brain. Would you consider that
>>>>>>>>>>>natural?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tell me, what's unnatural about genes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just answer the question. Is insertion of a fish gene
>>>>>>>>>into your brain a natural process?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And if you knew anything about biology, specifically
>>>>>>>>>>evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes in
>>>>>>>>>>our DNA. It's called common ancestry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Would you, or would you not, participate in a study
>>>>>>>>>that inserts a fish gene into your brain?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please, spare me the non-sequitur and the 2nd grade
>>>>>>>>schoolyard taunts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He can't answer the question honestly, so he won't
>>>>>>>bother. Hypocrisy (and pharma blogging) noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB, I know for a fact that you are beyond rescue,
>>>>>>but there might be some people reading this who are not,
>>>>>>so for their benefit I'll reply to this silly question.
>>>>>>First, why is this question silly? Because there is no
>>>>>>easy yes or no answer to it. Oh sure, in PeterB's world
>>>>>>there is. That is the happy happy joy dreamworld of
>>>>>>alt-med, where everything is all natural, has no side
>>>>>>effects, where there are no greedy corporations more
>>>>>>interested in money than your health and everything has
>>>>>>a clear and easy answer. You see, I do understand the
>>>>>>appeal of alt-med. The real world is complicated and
>>>>>>there are no easy answers and alt-med offers a nice
>>>>>>refuge from this reality. But back to reality now.
>>>>>>Before I'll answer PeterB's fish gene question, I'll try
>>>>>>and explain the concept of 'acceptable risk' first with
>>>>>>an example that even his limited intellect should be
>>>>>>able to grasp.
>>>>>>Q: would I enter a burning house yes or no? There is no
>>>>>> easy yes or no answer, since it's unclear why I
>>>>>> should enter the house and take the risk.
>>>>>>- Just for the heck of it? No way, I am not going in.
>>>>>>- To try and save my parakeet? Well, no. Screw the bird.
>>>>>> Sorry Tweety, you'll be missed.
>>>>>>- To try and get my child out? I wouldn't hesitate for a
>>>>>> second and don't you try to stop me. See PeterB, how
>>>>>> complicated the real world is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now for PeterB's question:
>>>>>>Q: would I let a scientist put a fish gene in my brain?
>>>>>> Given that nothing is without risk, I'll have to know
>>>>>> what the risk is and set it of against the expected
>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>- If he tells me he's just curious to find out what that
>>>>>> does I'll tell him to take a hike.
>>>>>>- If he tells me it'll protect me from a common cold
>>>>>> forever, but there is a significant risk I'll end up
>>>>>> with a damaged brain, I won't do it either. A cold
>>>>>> isn't that bad.
>>>>>>- If he tells me it'll cure my diabetes, I'll ask him
>>>>>> about what research has been done, read that and I'll
>>>>>> carefully weigh the risk of the procedure against the
>>>>>> risk of my diabetes. I might do it. (btw, I don't have
>>>>>> diabetes, it's just an example).
>>>>>>- If he tells me I've got a brain tumour that does not
>>>>>> respond to therapy and is inoperable and that I'll die
>>>>>> in 3 months but that he could insert this fish gene in
>>>>>> my brain which would help me, I'll still ask him on
>>>>>> what evidence he is basing his claim but I'd be
>>>>>> willing to take a lot more risks. Of course, if he's
>>>>>> got as much evidence for his claim as homeopathy, TT,
>>>>>> Reiki etc. has got, I'll just go ahead and die without
>>>>>> wasting time and money on this fish gene thing, thank
>>>>>> you very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the real world PeterB. Maybe you should try to
>>>>>>get a grasp of
>>>>>>it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem with your response is that it doesn't equate
>>>>>to what is happening with GMO foods.
>>>>
>>>>Then why did *you*, yes *you*, ask the question about
>>>>having a fish gene inserted in the brain in the first
>>>>place?
>>>
>>>Because of your claim that human-directed genetic
>>>modification is a "100% natural process." You then declined
>>>to answer the original question: "Is insertion of a fish
>>>gene into your brain a natural process?" Going into an
>>>elaborate defense of conditions under which you might allow
>>>such a procedure on yourself is just an evasion. Nothing
>>>unusual for you, of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Above I have given one reason why your question is silly,
>>>>you have just given another. Could you please keep this
>>>>up, exposing your own silliness? It would save us 'Pharma
>>>>Bloggers' a lot of work.
>>>
>>>Don't make comments you can't defend. Answer the orginal
>>>question: Yes or No.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Insertion of foreign genes into agriculture exposes our
>>>>>entire species, not just one individual, to unknown
>>>>>risks. Perhaps it is alright for you to have a fish gene
>>>>>implanted into your brain to treat a disease or illness
>>>>>after proper research, that would be your choice.
>>>>>Application of GMO technology to the human food chain has
>>>>>occured without proper science, without consensus, and
>>>>>without adequate regulatory controls.
>>>>
>>>>And this is what I find fascinating about people like
>>>>PeterB. This last bit actually makes some sense. I may or
>>>>may not agree with it, but at least this isn't the usual
>>>>drivel. And this same PeterB also comes up with this
>>>>totally unrelated and stupid fish gene question. This
>>>>combination of utter stupidity with occasional burps of
>>>>reason is simply fascinating. Please note that I have
>>>>considered that the last part of his posting could be just
>>>>a cut-n-past job (it probably is). It still requires a
>>>>level of understanding of just the words that doesn't show
>>>>in any of his other posts.
>>>
>>>I think we'll have to invent a whole new term for this:
>>>"Pharma Babbling."
>>
>>A more appropriate question, which I will propose to you,
>>Peter, is would you use a medication that was made by
>>inserting a human gene into a bacterium?
>
>
> Trying to take the heat of John? Won't work. John needs to
> finish what he started. If he can.
>
> PeterB
>
Oh, and I forgot to ask one thing: PeterB, have you stopped
beating your wife?

[Johndoe]

Mark Probert wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You could do your own taste test, buy some organic and
>>>>>> inorganic tomatoes, and cauliflowers. These tend to
>>>>>> have stronger taste differences, and you should be able
>>>>>> to tell the difference. Whether you like one or the
>>>>>> other, is something else altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel that what I grow tastes the best. Firstly, I use
>>>>> home made composte, and, secondly I add TLC. Of course,
>>>>> since I do not have an evil profit motive when growing
>>>>> it, it tastes much better. We all know that seeking a
>>>>> profit makes things bad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seeking a profit often makes things better. Much better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>
>>>> The computer you used to post this is 1000's of times
>>>> more powerful and faster, than the ones you could have
>>>> bought 30 years ago for 5 times more money.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be an Apple IIe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Amateur. I had a Sinclair ZX Spectrum (not counting the
>> Pong game as a real computer here). ;-)
>
>
> I had a Pong with the controls on the console and it was
> black and white.
>
> I also had a Adam.

Ok, you win. :-) My pong had separate controllers, sliding
thingies. But it was B&W as well. Lines burnt in the
tv-screen and all.

>>>> All that is from profit seekers. Nobody loses in these
>>>> cases, except other profit seekers. They go bankrupt when
>>>> they bet wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Seeking profit at the expense of your consumers, well,
>>>> makes things bad for your consumers. That's simply
>>>> because profit seekers tend to be good at what they do.
>>>> Even in those cases, the profit-seekers do make things
>>>> better, but only for themselves. Maybe they buy a better
>>>> CD player, maybe a new car, maybe a bigger house.
>>>>
>>>> So profit-seekers do make things better. As to for whom,
>>>> that depends upon who they are and what they do.
>>>>
>>>> If the profit-seekers are not kept in fair competition
>>>> with each other, they tend to harm their consumers.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes they buy or otherwise influence the regulatory
>>>> bodies and institutions that are supposed to make sure
>>>> they go bankrupt when they goof up. When they have bought
>>>> these regulatory bodies, the game changes. Nobody goes
>>>> bankrupt anymore, and it's all a wild party at the
>>>> expense of the consumers.
>>>>
>>>> But all, even most, profit-seeking is not bad for
>>>> consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the anti-pharms out there, profit seeking is
>>> the root of all evil.
>

[Peterb]

David Wright wrote:
> In article
> <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>
> >> > Like pharmaceuticals!
> >>
> >> Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> >> pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
> >> other, and have had normal governmental and other
> >> institutional controls on them. They have brought about
> >> great improvements in human welfare.
> >
> >There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
> >shortened human life than there is that they have extended
> >it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate
> >due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of
> >thousands, and this only counts deaths in supervised
> >healthcare. Other estimates say the figure could be 300,000
> >per year.
>
> The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around 15,000
> ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big numbers
> were based on decades-old data, or bad methodology.

I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather than
the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.) As for "decades-old
data" and "bad methodology," what expertise do you have that
the study authors didn't?

PeterB

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
>>In article
>><1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>
>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>>>>other, and have had normal governmental and other
>>>>institutional controls on them. They have brought about
>>>>great improvements in human welfare.
>>>
>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>shortened human life than there is that they have extended
>>>it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate
>>>due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of
>>>thousands, and this only counts deaths in supervised
>>>healthcare. Other estimates say the figure could be 300,000
>>>per year.
>>
>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around 15,000
>>ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big numbers
>>were based on decades-old data, or bad methodology.
>
>
> I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather
> than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)

Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide the
basis for your conclusion.

As for "decades-old data" and "bad
> methodology," what expertise do you have that the study
> authors didn't?
>
> PeterB

[Mark Probe]

Sdores wrote:
> To be fair, he did help himself a lot and has helped others
> but it still isn't a cure it is a remission with crohn's. UM
> MOM Susan

Understood. However, the word *cure* was used, and that
is bullshit.

> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
> message news:Zg9cf.67565$rE2.31663@fe10.lga...
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>The "Maker's Diet" is far more expansive than your link,
>>>however. The recipes are especially fitting for gentiles
>>>like myself, and there are other wellness concepts
>>>presented that aren't strictly related to diet.
>>
>>Be careful, or your next meal may be your last
>>supper...or Seder.
>>
>>
>>> The main point is that he cured his disease with proper
>>> food selection.
>>
>>Sure, he cured his Crohn's....that helps sell books.....
>>
>

[Sdores]

Agreed! UM MOM Susan "Mark Probert"
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:p9ncf.9478$oP5.9343@fe09.lga...
> Sdores wrote:
>> To be fair, he did help himself a lot and has helped others
>> but it still isn't a cure it is a remission with crohn's.
>> UM MOM Susan
>
> Understood. However, the word *cure* was used, and that is
> bullshit.
>
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
>> message news:Zg9cf.67565$rE2.31663@fe10.lga...
>>
>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>
>>>>The "Maker's Diet" is far more expansive than your link,
>>>>however. The recipes are especially fitting for gentiles
>>>>like myself, and there are other wellness concepts
>>>>presented that aren't strictly related to diet.
>>>
>>>Be careful, or your next meal may be your last
>>>supper...or Seder.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The main point is that he cured his disease with proper
>>>> food selection.
>>>
>>>Sure, he cured his Crohn's....that helps sell books.....
>>>
>

[Peterb]

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > David Wright wrote:
> >
> >>In article
> >><1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
> >>>>
> >>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> >>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
> >>>>other, and have had normal governmental and other
> >>>>institutional controls on them. They have brought about
> >>>>great improvements in human welfare.
> >>>
> >>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
> >>>shortened human life than there is that they have
> >>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
> >>>death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in
> >>>the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths in
> >>>supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the figure
> >>>could be 300,000 per year.
> >>
> >>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
> >>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big
> >>numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
> >>methodology.
> >
> >
> > I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather
> > than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>
> Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide the
> basis for your conclusion.

I'll answer that once David answers my question.

> As for "decades-old data" and "bad
> > methodology," what expertise do you have that the study
> > authors didn't?
> >
> > PeterB

[Cathyb]

PeterB wrote:

> Mark Probert wrote:
> > PeterB wrote:
> > > David Wright wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.google-
> > >>groups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> > >>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
> > >>>>other, and have had normal governmental and other
> > >>>>institutional controls on them. They have brought
> > >>>>about great improvements in human welfare.
> > >>>
> > >>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
> > >>>shortened human life than there is that they have
> > >>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
> > >>>death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in
> > >>>the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths in
> > >>>supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the figure
> > >>>could be 300,000 per year.
> > >>
> > >>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
> > >>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big
> > >>numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
> > >>methodology.
> > >
> > >
> > > I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather
> > > than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
> >
> > Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
> > the basis for your conclusion.
>
> I'll answer that once David answers my question.

Bless. How very mature.

Cathy

>
> > As for "decades-old data" and "bad
> > > methodology," what expertise do you have that the study
> > > authors didn't?
> > >
> > > PeterB
>

[Peterb]

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > David Wright wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.goog-
> > > >>legroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> > > >>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
> > > >>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
> > > >>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
> > > >>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
> > > >>>shortened human life than there is that they have
> > > >>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
> > > >>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
> > > >>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
> > > >>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
> > > >>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
> > > >>
> > > >>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
> > > >>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really
> > > >>big numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
> > > >>methodology.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
> > > > rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
> > >
> > > Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
> > > the basis for your conclusion.
> >
> > I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>
> Bless. How very mature.

Shut up. How's that?

>
> >
> > > As for "decades-old data" and "bad
> > > > methodology," what expertise do you have that the
> > > > study authors didn't?
> > > >
> > > > PeterB
> >

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> > cathyb wrote:
> >
> >>PeterB wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>PeterB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>David Wright wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.goog-
> >>>>>>legroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> >>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
> >>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
> >>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
> >>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
> >>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
> >>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
> >>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
> >>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
> >>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
> >>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
> >>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really
> >>>>>>big numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
> >>>>>>methodology.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
> >>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
> >>>>
> >>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
> >>>>the basis for your conclusion.
> >>>
> >>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
> >>
> >>Bless. How very mature.
> >
> >
> > Shut up. How's that?
>
> You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
> again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
> answer yes or no.

Pharma blogging distraction noted. To get David off the
hook as quickly as possible, you have to bury the
question. Pathetic.

[Peterb]

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>PeterB wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>cathyb wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>PeterB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>PeterB wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.go-
> >>>>>>>>oglegroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> >>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
> >>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
> >>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
> >>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
> >>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
> >>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
> >>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
> >>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
> >>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
> >>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere
> >>>>>>>>around 15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The
> >>>>>>>>really big numbers were based on decades-old data,
> >>>>>>>>or bad methodology.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
> >>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and
> >>>>>>provide the basis for your conclusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
> >>>>
> >>>>Bless. How very mature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Shut up. How's that?
> >>
> >>You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
> >>again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
> >>answer yes or no.
> >
> >
> > Pharma blogging distraction noted. To get David off the
> > hook as quickly as possible, you have to bury the
> > question. Pathetic.
>
> You did bury my question in just the same manner.

No, dummy, I responded that David should answer my question
first. Obviously, only a third party can bury a question
addressed to a particular poster. As if you don't know
perfectly well how that works.

PeterB

[Peterb]

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>PeterB wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>cathyb wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>PeterB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>PeterB wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.go-
> >>>>>>>>oglegroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
> >>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
> >>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
> >>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
> >>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
> >>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
> >>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
> >>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
> >>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
> >>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
> >>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere
> >>>>>>>>around 15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The
> >>>>>>>>really big numbers were based on decades-old data,
> >>>>>>>>or bad methodology.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
> >>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and
> >>>>>>provide the basis for your conclusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
> >>>>
> >>>>Bless. How very mature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Shut up. How's that?
> >>
> >>You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
> >>again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
> >>answer yes or no.
> >
> >
> > Pharma blogging distraction noted. To get David off the
> > hook as quickly as possible, you have to bury the
> > question. Pathetic.
>
> 1) 'Alt-blogging' refusal to answer the question noted;
> 2) David can very well take care of himself, so I've
> noticed. I didn't post this for his sake;
> 3) If you stop asking question from the 'wife beating'
> category, you might start getting more replies.

I'll answer when courtesies are extended. In fact, I'll answer
anyway, but in my own good time. Of course, I understand why
your team shrinks away from questions about medical
qualifications. If you don't have the expertise to invalidate
legitimate science published in major medical journals, and
you don't want to admit that you don't have such credentials,
don't blame me for pointing it out. You are free to make those
same charge when I question the studies you refer to. I don't
whine about it.

PeterB

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article
>>>><1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>>>>>>other, and have had normal governmental and other
>>>>>>institutional controls on them. They have brought about
>>>>>>great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
>>>>>death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in
>>>>>the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths in
>>>>>supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the figure
>>>>>could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>
>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big
>>>>numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>methodology.
>>>
>>>
>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather
>>>than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>
>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide the
>>basis for your conclusion.
>
>
> I'll answer that once David answers my question.

Nice weasel. David did not ask you, I did. I'll conclude that
you cannot prove your allegation.

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:

> cathyb wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.google-
>>>>>>groups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>>>>>>>>other, and have had normal governmental and other
>>>>>>>>institutional controls on them. They have brought
>>>>>>>>about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
>>>>>>>death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in
>>>>>>>the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths in
>>>>>>>supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the figure
>>>>>>>could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big
>>>>>>numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>>>methodology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather
>>>>>than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>
>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
>>>>the basis for your conclusion.
>>>
>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>
>>Bless. How very mature.
>
>
> Shut up. How's that?

You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
answer yes or no.

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.google-
>>>>>>groups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>>>>>>>>other, and have had normal governmental and other
>>>>>>>>institutional controls on them. They have brought
>>>>>>>>about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
>>>>>>>death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in
>>>>>>>the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths in
>>>>>>>supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the figure
>>>>>>>could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big
>>>>>>numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>>>methodology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather
>>>>>than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>
>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
>>>>the basis for your conclusion.
>>>
>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>
>>Bless. How very mature.
>
>
> Shut up. How's that?

There ya go, again, telling someone to shut up. Seems to be an
alteration of your thinking process.

>
>
>>>> As for "decades-old data" and "bad
>>>>
>>>>>methodology," what expertise do you have that the study
>>>>>authors didn't?
>>>>>
>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>

[Jand]

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:TQIcf.68323$rE2.16040@fe10.lga...
> PeterB wrote:
>> cathyb wrote:
>>
>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googl-
>>>>>>>egroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual
>>>>>>>>death rate due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals
>>>>>>>>in the tens of thousands, and this only counts deaths
>>>>>>>>in supervised healthcare. Other estimates say the
>>>>>>>>figure could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big
>>>>>>>numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>>>>methodology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather
>>>>>>than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
>>>>>the basis for your conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>>
>>>Bless. How very mature.
>>
>>
>> Shut up. How's that?
>
> There ya go, again, telling someone to shut up. Seems to be
> an alteration of your thinking process.

Like, Dragon's Girl, Mark?

Oh, that's right, she's your buddy. That's when you are
suddenly

S I L E N T

AND

Your lack of i n t e g r i t y shows.

>
>>
>>
>>>>> As for "decades-old data" and "bad
>>>>>
>>>>>>methodology," what expertise do you have that the study
>>>>>>authors didn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB
>>>>>

[Johndoe]

PeterB wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.goog-
>>>>>>>>legroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
>>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
>>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
>>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
>>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
>>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
>>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really
>>>>>>>>big numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>>>>>methodology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
>>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
>>>>>>the basis for your conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>>>
>>>>Bless. How very mature.
>>>
>>>
>>>Shut up. How's that?
>>
>>You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
>>again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
>>answer yes or no.
>
>
> Pharma blogging distraction noted. To get David off the hook
> as quickly as possible, you have to bury the question.
> Pathetic.

1) 'Alt-blogging' refusal to answer the question noted;
2) David can very well take care of himself, so I've noticed.
I didn't post this for his sake;
3) If you stop asking question from the 'wife beating'
category, you might start getting more replies.

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.goog-
>>>>>>>>legroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
>>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
>>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
>>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
>>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
>>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
>>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really
>>>>>>>>big numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>>>>>methodology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
>>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
>>>>>>the basis for your conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>>>
>>>>Bless. How very mature.
>>>
>>>
>>>Shut up. How's that?
>>
>>You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
>>again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
>>answer yes or no.
>
>
> Pharma blogging distraction noted. To get David off the hook
> as quickly as possible, you have to bury the question.
> Pathetic.

You did bury my question in just the same manner.

[Mark Probe]

JanD wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
> message news:TQIcf.68323$rE2.16040@fe10.lga...
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.goog-
>>>>>>>>legroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
>>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
>>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
>>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
>>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
>>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
>>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really
>>>>>>>>big numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>>>>>methodology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
>>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and provide
>>>>>>the basis for your conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>>>
>>>>Bless. How very mature.
>>>
>>>
>>>Shut up. How's that?
>>
>>There ya go, again, telling someone to shut up. Seems to be
>>an alteration of your thinking process.
>
>
> Like, Dragon's Girl, Mark?
>
> Oh, that's right, she's your buddy. That's when you are
> suddenly
>
> S I L E N T
>
> AND
>
> Your lack of i n t e g r i t y shows.

I believe that I addressed that with her. However, I did not
retain the URL of the post.

You may have missed it, as it was part of an overall
discussion of Free Speech, something that you and your
handler oppose.

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.go-
>>>>>>>>>>oglegroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
>>>>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
>>>>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
>>>>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
>>>>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
>>>>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
>>>>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>around 15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The
>>>>>>>>>>really big numbers were based on decades-old data,
>>>>>>>>>>or bad methodology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
>>>>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and
>>>>>>>>provide the basis for your conclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bless. How very mature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Shut up. How's that?
>>>>
>>>>You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
>>>>again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
>>>>answer yes or no.
>>>
>>>
>>>Pharma blogging distraction noted. To get David off the
>>>hook as quickly as possible, you have to bury the question.
>>>Pathetic.
>>
>>You did bury my question in just the same manner.
>
>
> No, dummy, I responded that David should answer my
> question first.

True. You weaseled and the thread continued.

> Obviously, only a third party can bury a question addressed
> to a particular poster. As if you don't know perfectly well
> how that works.

Sure I do. Jan taught me.

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>PeterB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.go-
>>>>>>>>>>oglegroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
>>>>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
>>>>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
>>>>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
>>>>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
>>>>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
>>>>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>around 15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The
>>>>>>>>>>really big numbers were based on decades-old data,
>>>>>>>>>>or bad methodology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
>>>>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and
>>>>>>>>provide the basis for your conclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bless. How very mature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Shut up. How's that?
>>>>
>>>>You haven't answered my question either. I'll just try
>>>>again. PeterB, have you stopped beating your wife? Just
>>>>answer yes or no.
>>>
>>>
>>>Pharma blogging distraction noted. To get David off the
>>>hook as quickly as possible, you have to bury the question.
>>>Pathetic.
>>
>>1) 'Alt-blogging' refusal to answer the question noted;
>>2) David can very well take care of himself, so I've
>> noticed. I didn't post this for his sake;
>>3) If you stop asking question from the 'wife beating'
>> category, you might start getting more replies.
>
>
> I'll answer when courtesies are extended.

When you first came here, you were courteously treated. When
you started the pharmablogger fantasy, you got what you
asked for.

In fact, I'll answer anyway,
> but in my own good time. Of course, I understand why your
> team shrinks away from questions about medical
> qualifications.

I do not see anyone shrinking away for questions about medical
qualifications. It is often the first thing we look for, in
addition to checking out the persons representations of
memberhips, etc.

If you don't have
> the expertise to invalidate legitimate science published in
> major medical journals, and you don't want to admit that you
> don't have such credentials, don't blame me for pointing it
> out. You are free to make those same charge when I question
> the studies you refer to. I don't whine about it.

No, you do not whine about that, but you do whine about
pharmabloggers (whatever they are).

[David Wrig]

In article
<1131466398.172008.62350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<jdeere2312@yahoo.com> wrote:
>PeterB wrote:
>> jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Mark Probert wrote:
>> >
>> > > Like pharmaceuticals!
>> >
>> > Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>> > pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>> > other, and have had normal governmental and other
>> > institutional controls on them. They have brought about
>> > great improvements in human welfare.
>>
>> There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>> shortened human life than there is that they have extended
>> it. Various iatrogenic studies
>
>The human life expectancy has gradually increased over last
>few centuries, and a large part of the increase is supposed
>to be due to improved vaccination, medication etc.

It's a little more intricate than that. Life expectancy at
birth, as an average, is increasing and has continued to
increase. The over-85 age group is the fastest-growing group
in the US right now. In 1900, life expectancy at birth was
about 47. However, this was skewed because of high infant
mortality, which has been reduced through a combination of
better sanitation, better nutrition, and better medical care.

Maximum life expectancy really hasn't changed much for a very
long time. I had an ancestor back around the time of the
American revolution who lived to 100. Even today, few people
live to be that old.

>> show an annual death rate due to properly dispensed
>> pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this only
>> counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other estimates say
>> the figure could be 300,000 per year. If you count people
>> having a fatal ADR to a prescribed drug outside a hospital
>> setting, the figures could ver well double.
>>
>> > If they are able to effectively end regulations and
>> > competition, all that would end, of course.
>>
>> It's the same animal it's always been -- a business built
>> on disease management. They simply want to prevent the
>> public from seeing this for what it is.
>
>Well, all the early pharmaceuticals had all the disease they
>needed. They only had to build the right medicine, and people
>would beat paths to their doors...
>
>The recent evolution of the customer-supplier relation is
>more complex, of course. I assume like all manufactures,
>there is a "building demand" concern, even if it may be
>somewhat subconscious in the corporate culture.

You see some of it in the increase in the number of e.g.
psychological syndromes and disorders that can, amazingly
enough, be treated with
psychopharmacological medication. Whether "social anxiety
disorder" really needs to be treated this way, I'm not
at all sure.

Vaccines, however, don't really fit the model, because they're
often the sort of thing you get once or twice in a lifetime,
and they're also not very expensive compared to those
$1-per-pill (or more) pills you need to take every day.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you
can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice
Roosevelt Longworth

[David Wrig]

In article
<1131550924.817195.278420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article
>> <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> Mark Probert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Like pharmaceuticals!
>> >>
>> >> Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>> >> pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with each
>> >> other, and have had normal governmental and other
>> >> institutional controls on them. They have brought about
>> >> great improvements in human welfare.
>> >
>> >There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>> >shortened human life than there is that they have extended
>> >it. Various iatrogenic studies show an annual death rate
>> >due to properly dispensed pharmaceuticals in the tens of
>> >thousands, and this only counts deaths in supervised
>> >healthcare. Other estimates say the figure could be
>> >300,000 per year.
>>
>> The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>> 15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really big
>> numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad methodology.
>
>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates, rather than
>the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.) As for "decades-old
>data" and "bad methodology," what expertise do you have that
>the study authors didn't?

It didn't take much. Let me see; the other day you posted a
study that purported to show, what, about 100,000 ADR
fatalities in hospitals per year, and then I found a review of
it that said that the original authors had bungled the
statistical methodology and that their results were
meaningless. Back to square one.

The other study that is beloved of the alties is Starfield's
JAMA paper that supposedly showed the 106,000 ADR fatalities
per year in hospitalizedpatients. Have you read it, PeterB? I
have. I've also read the responses to it. Starfield was quite
properly raked over the coals for using bogus data. Why bogus
data, you say? Because it was over 30 years old, that's why.
If you tossed out all the pre-1969 studies and just used the
ones that might actually be relevant today, suddenly the
estimates dropped down to a median of more like 15,000. (I've
forgotten the exact number, but 15,000 is in the ballpark.)

Now, that's still a fair number, but it's about 1/3 the number
of deaths due to automobile crashes per year, and it doesn't
allow the "pharmaceuticals are awful" crowd to claim that ADRs
are the leading cause of death today, etc etc etc.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you
can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice
Roosevelt Longworth

[Jand]

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:1sJcf.68338$rE2.30069@fe10.lga...
> JanD wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
>> message news:TQIcf.68323$rE2.16040@fe10.lga...
>>
>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>
>>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <1131466138.867730.159250@g43g2000cwa.goo-
>>>>>>>>>glegroups.com>, PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>jdeere2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Like pharmaceuticals!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Certainly. For a large part of recent history,
>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals have been fairly competitive with
>>>>>>>>>>>each other, and have had normal governmental and
>>>>>>>>>>>other institutional controls on them. They have
>>>>>>>>>>>brought about great improvements in human welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There is better evidence that pharmaceuticals have
>>>>>>>>>>shortened human life than there is that they have
>>>>>>>>>>extended it. Various iatrogenic studies show an
>>>>>>>>>>annual death rate due to properly dispensed
>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceuticals in the tens of thousands, and this
>>>>>>>>>>only counts deaths in supervised healthcare. Other
>>>>>>>>>>estimates say the figure could be 300,000 per year.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The best estimates I've seen suggest somewhere around
>>>>>>>>>15,000 ADR deaths per year in hospitals. The really
>>>>>>>>>big numbers were based on decades-old data, or bad
>>>>>>>>>methodology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I see you gravitate to the very lowest estimates,
>>>>>>>>rather than the median, which I use (ie., 100,000.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can you demonstrate that this is the median, and
>>>>>>>provide the basis for your conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll answer that once David answers my question.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bless. How very mature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Shut up. How's that?
>>>
>>>There ya go, again, telling someone to shut up. Seems to be
>>>an alteration of your thinking process.
>>
>>
>> Like, Dragon's Girl, Mark?
>>
>> Oh, that's right, she's your buddy. That's when you are
>> suddenly
>>
>> S I L E N T
>>
>> AND
>>
>> Your lack of i n t e g r i t y shows.
>
> I believe that I addressed that with her. However, I did not
> retain the URL of the post.

I did, as usual you are lying.

http://tinyurl.com/a3jqf

[snip]

[Mark Probe]

Sdores wrote:
> I have read about him, he has a site, at least he did. There
> is cure and then there is remission. With crohn's it's
> called remission and I had one until this Jan. I can't eat
> foods like you do. I have a stricture (food has trouble
> passing through it and I get a partial block like I have
> now.) You need to educate about crohn's before making stupid
> comments about me not caring to cure myself. I would love to
> be cured! Why did you take the alt.crohn's-colitis site out?
> Restored. UM MOM Susan

Hmmm...when someone removes a group that is specific to a
discussion, like Petey did, it means a severe case of
Fact-o-Phobia. The all natural cure is a healthy portion of
hubris followed by a healthier portion of crow (which may not
be Kosher.)

> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:113148-
> 3930.054270.102050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The "Maker's Diet" is far more expansive than your link,
>>however. The recipes are especially fitting for gentiles
>>like myself, and there are other wellness concepts presented
>>that aren't strictly related to diet. The main point is that
>>he cured his disease with proper food selection.
>>
>>PeterB
>>
>