Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease

[Craig Heal]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n24/abs/joc12012.html

Context Laboratory findings have suggested that oxidative
stress may contribute to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer
disease. Therefore, the risk of Alzheimer disease might be
reduced by intake of antioxidants that counteract the
detrimental effects of oxidative stress.

Objective To determine whether dietary intake of antioxidants
is related to risk of Alzheimer disease.

Design and Setting The Rotterdam Study, a population-based,
prospective cohort study conducted in the Netherlands.

Participants A total of 5395 participants who, at baseline
(1990-1993), were aged at least 55 years, free of dementia,
and noninstitutionalized and had reliable dietary assessment.
Participants were reexamined in 1993-1994 and 1997-1999 and
were continuously monitored for incident dementia.

Main Outcome Measures Incidence of Alzheimer disease, based on
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised
Third Edition (DSM-III-R) criteria and National Institute of
Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and
Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders Association
(NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria, associated with dietary intake of
beta carotene, flavonoids, vitamin C, and vitamin E.

Results After a mean follow-up of 6 years, 197 participants
developed dementia, of whom 146 had Alzheimer disease. When
adjustments were made for age, sex, baseline Mini-Mental State
Examination score, alcohol intake, education, smoking habits,
pack-years of smoking, body mass index, total energy intake,
presence of carotid plaques, and use of antioxidative
supplements, high intake of vitamin C and vitamin E was
associated with lower risk of Alzheimer disease (rate ratios
[RRs] per 1-SD increase in intake were 0.82 [95% confidence
interval {CI}, 0.68-0.99] and 0.82 [95% CI, .66-1.00],
respectively). Among current smokers, this relationship was
most pronounced (RRs, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.37-1.14] and 0.58 [95%
CI, 0.30-1.12], respectively) and also was present for intake
of beta carotene (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.27-0.92]) and flavonoids
(RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31-0.96]). The associations did not vary
by education or apolipoprotein E genotype.

Conclusion High dietary intake of vitamin C and vitamin E may
lower the risk of Alzheimer disease.

JAMA. 2002;287:3223-3229

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Craig Health rambled on about
"Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease
." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>Conclusion High dietary intake of vitamin C and vitamin E may
>lower the risk of Alzheimer disease.

Emphasis is on Food, *not* supplements!

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
ever before.

[Thomas Doy]

If one takes supplements with food, I fail to see how the body
can distinguish "food" from "supplement when processing.

"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1gkhuk5o6e00t0jnpo8be9jfp6a9t36ts@4ax.com...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Craig Health rambled on about
> "Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
> Disease ." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
> retorts, thusly ...
>
> >Conclusion High dietary intake of vitamin C and vitamin E
> >may lower the risk of Alzheimer disease.
>
> Emphasis is on Food, *not* supplements!
>
> Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
> --
> John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a
> Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
> the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
> webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
> is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
> ever before.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Thomas Doyle rambled on about
"Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>If one takes supplements with food, I fail to see how the
>body can distinguish "food" from "supplement when processing.

Either one accepts what the research shows or they don't.

The significance of this research is that food works,
supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.

My Health-with-Attitude mailing list points out the
significance of the latest health research.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people trying to
follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/

[Slenon]

>Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons! John Gohde

Pimping again, gohde! What degrees, what universities, what
qualifications besides your own inflated egos? How long did
your self-inflicted anemia last?

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow slenon rambled on about "Re:
Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>How long did your self-inflicted anemia last?

4 hours!

The final determination of what is best for the patient is
both the right and responsibility of the individual patient.
--
John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering
De-Medicalization by handing back the power to the people,
encouraging self care and autonomy, and resisting the
categorization of life's problems as medical.

[David Zolt]

"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cp9lhuki5e5jlhbaamvnvl6q92sgpn5lv2@4ax.com...

> > If one takes supplements with food, I fail to see how the
> > body can distinguish "food" from "supplement when
> > processing.
>
> Either one accepts what the research shows or they don't.

I agree. Studies have shown that diets high in certain
vitamins and other nutrients (i.e., vegetables and fruits)
result in improvements in health and protection from disease.
In contrast, studies also show that taking supplements with
these same known and vitamins other nutrients does not have
the same effect.

When the data doesn't support your hypothesis, it's time to
rethink the hypothesis, rather than to challenge the data.

> The significance of this research is that food works,
> supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.

There are 2 possible explanations that I can think of. A diet
rich in vegetables and friuts either:

1) Has more and/or better nutrients than the ones we are
aware of, or
2) Packages or combines these nutrients in a way that's more
beneficial to us.

- David

If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every
problem as a nail. - A. Maslow

davidzolt@ameritech.net
--------------------------------------

1) The

[Michaelpri]

> The significance of this research is that food works,
> supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.

That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
supplements than food. See:

Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24

Comment in: ACP J Club. 1999 Mar-Apr;130(2):51

Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the
Nurses' Health Study.

Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Fuchs C,
Rosner BA, Speizer FE, Willett WC.

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.

BACKGROUND: High intake of folate may reduce risk for colon
cancer, but the dosage and duration relations and the impact
of dietary compared with supplementary sources are not well
understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relation between folate
intake and incidence of colon cancer. DESIGN: Prospective
cohort study. SETTING: 88,756 women from the Nurses' Health
Study who were free of cancer in 1980 and provided updated
assessments of diet, including multivitamin supplement use,
from 1980 to 1994. PATIENTS: 442 women with new cases of colon
cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Multivariate relative risk (RR) and 95%
CIs for colon cancer in relation to energy-adjusted folate
intake. RESULTS: Higher energy-adjusted folate intake in 1980
was related to a lower risk for colon cancer (RR, 0.69 [95%
CI, 0.52 to 0.93] for intake > 400 microg/d compared with
intake < or = 200 microg/d) after controlling for age; family
history of colorectal cancer; aspirin use; smoking; body mass;
physical activity; and intakes of red meat, alcohol,
methionine, and fiber. When intake of vitamins A, C, D, and E
and intake of calcium were also controlled for, results were
similar. Women who used multivitamins containing folic acid
had no benefit with respect to colon cancer after 4 years of
use (RR, 1.02) and had only nonsignificant risk reductions
after 5 to 9 (RR, 0.83) or 10 to 14 years of use (RR, 0.80).
After 15 years of use, however, risk was markedly lower (RR,
0.25 [CI, 0.13 to 0.51]), representing 15 instead of 68 new
cases of colon cancer per 10,000 women 55 to 69 years of age.
Folate from dietary sources alone was related to a modest
reduction in risk for colon cancer, and the benefit of
long-term multivitamin use was present across all levels of
dietary intakes. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of multivitamins
may substantially reduce risk for colon cancer. This effect
may be related to the folic acid contained in multivitamins.

PMID: 9758570 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cheers, Michael C Price

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow michaelprice rambled on about
"Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>> The significance of this research is that food works,
>> supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.
>
>That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
>supplements than food. See:
>
>Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24

And, that certainly is *not* the topic of this THREAD, so YOUR
comments are *totally* irrelevant.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

[Thomas Doy]

John 'the man' wrote:

>>Either one accepts what the research shows or they don't.

The significance of this research is that food works,
supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned<<

Well, that is certainly a simple and not very scientific
response. I assume the research was correlational. Therefore,
any extraneous variables could affect the results. For
example, it could be that the dietary habits or lifestyles of
those who took supplements in this study differed from those
who did not. Science "does not accept research or not" (your
response sounded a bit like a religious belief - with a
finality that wasn't deserved), but rather keeps asking
questions to further refine and define and clarify research.
My oritginal question was theorizing beyond the data and was
trying to explain or "unexplain" the results of one study.

[Ds]

>
> > The significance of this research is that food works,
> > supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.
>
> There are 2 possible explanations that I can think of. A
> diet rich in vegetables and friuts either:
>
> 1) Has more and/or better nutrients than the ones we are
> aware of, or
> 2) Packages or combines these nutrients in a way that's
> more beneficial to us.

The NIH press release (but not the article itself) speculates
that this difference may be because food sources of vitamin E
contain primarily gamma tocopherol, while pills are mostly
alpha tocopherol.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Thomas Doyle rambled on about
"Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>Well, that is certainly a simple and not very scientific
>response.

There is nothing stoping you from corresponding directly with
the authors of the research in question.
--
John Gohde Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com (((((((((((
Left-Brain Mode ON )))))))))))) Richmond, Virginia, USA,
Planet Earth, The Sun, Milky Way galaxy

[Rodney Rei]

Don't forget the tocotrienols too. Also, some substances seem
to potentiate gamma-E (sesamin) in sesame seeds does.

See the fun and fact filled study:

J Nutr 2002 May;132(5):961-6 Dietary sesame seed and its
lignans inhibit 2,7,8-trimethyl-
2(2'-carboxyethyl)-6-hydroxychroman excretion into urine of
rats fed gamma-tocopherol.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=PubMed&list_ui ds=11983822&dopt=Abstract

One last thought -- many people may not be taking their fat
sol. vitamins with fat

...Rodney

"DS" <dsteiger@be-research.ucsd.edu> wrote in message
news:3D1B6C87.425ECA40@be-research.ucsd.edu...
> >
> >
> > > The significance of this research is that food works,
> > > supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.
> >
> > There are 2 possible explanations that I can think of. A
> > diet rich in vegetables and friuts either:
> >
> > 1) Has more and/or better nutrients than the ones we are
> > aware of, or
> > 2) Packages or combines these nutrients in a way that's
> > more beneficial to us.
>
> The NIH press release (but not the article itself)
> speculates that this difference may be because food sources
> of vitamin E contain primarily
gamma
> tocopherol, while pills are mostly alpha tocopherol.

[Michaelpri]

"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> The significance of this research is that food works,
> >> supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.
> >
> >That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
> >supplements than food. See:
> >
> >Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24
>
> And, that certainly is *not* the topic of this THREAD, so
> YOUR comments are *totally* irrelevant.
> --
> John Gohde,

I note the lack of a substantive response.

Cheers, Michael C Price

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow michaelprice rambled on about
"Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>> >> The significance of this research is that food works,
>> >> supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.

>> >That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
>> >supplements than food. See:

>> >Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24

>> And, that certainly is *not* the topic of this THREAD, so
>> YOUR comments are *totally* irrelevant.

>I note the lack of a substantive response.

Then I note the *total* lack of substance in your Replies and
in your Logic!

Sorry, but I do *not* engage in Twit Arguments arguing
over language.
--
John Gohde Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com (((((((((((
Left-Brain Mode ON )))))))))))) Richmond, Virginia, USA,
Planet Earth, The Sun, Milky Way galaxy

[Jay Tanzma]

Thomas Doyle wrote:

> Well, that is certainly a simple and not very scientific
> response. I assume the research was correlational.

Why would you "assume" anyting about the research design when
it was clearly stated:

"Design and Setting The Rotterdam Study, a population-based,
prospective cohort study conducted in the Netherlands."

> Therefore, any extraneous variables could affect the
> results.

They adjusted for extraneous variables. Try reading what
was posted.

"When adjustments were made for age, sex, baseline Mini-Mental
State Examination score, alcohol intake, education, smoking
habits, pack-years of smoking, body mass index, total energy
intake, presence of carotid plaques, and use of antioxidative
supplements..."

-Jay

[Jay Tanzma]

michaelprice wrote:

> That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
> supplements than food. See:
>
> Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24
>
> Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the
> Nurses' Health Study.
>
> Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Fuchs C,
> Rosner BA, Speizer FE, Willett WC.

> BACKGROUND: High intake of folate may reduce risk for colon
> cancer, but the dosage and duration relations and the impact
> of dietary compared with supplementary sources are not well
> understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relation between
> folate intake and incidence of colon cancer. DESIGN:
> Prospective cohort study. SETTING: 88,756 women from the
> Nurses' Health Study who were free of cancer in 1980 and
> provided updated assessments of diet, including multivitamin
> supplement use, from 1980 to 1994. PATIENTS: 442 women with
> new cases of colon cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Multivariate
> relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs for colon cancer in relation
> to energy-adjusted folate intake. RESULTS: Higher
> energy-adjusted folate intake in 1980 was related to a lower
> risk for colon cancer (RR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.93] for
> intake > 400 microg/d compared with intake < or = 200
> microg/d) after controlling for age; family history of
> colorectal cancer; aspirin use; smoking; body mass; physical
> activity; and intakes of red meat, alcohol, methionine, and
> fiber. When intake of vitamins A, C, D, and E and intake of
> calcium were also controlled for, results were similar.
> Women who used multivitamins containing folic acid had no
> benefit with respect to colon cancer after 4 years of use
> (RR, 1.02) and had only nonsignificant risk reductions after
> 5 to 9 (RR, 0.83) or 10 to 14 years of use (RR, 0.80). After
> 15 years of use, however, risk was markedly lower (RR, 0.25
> [CI, 0.13 to 0.51]), representing 15 instead of 68 new cases
> of colon cancer per 10,000 women 55 to 69 years of age.
> Folate from dietary sources alone was related to a modest
> reduction in risk for colon cancer, and the benefit of
> long-term multivitamin use was present across all levels of
> dietary intakes. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of multivitamins
> may substantially reduce risk for colon cancer. This effect
> may be related to the folic acid contained in multivitamins.

This abstract neither states nor implies that folate is better
absorbed from supplements than from food.

-Jay

[Paul Chefu]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:04:40 -0700, Jay Tanzman
<jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote:

>This abstract neither states nor implies that folate is
>better absorbed from supplements than from food.
>
>-Jay

What factors besides absorption would make folic acid from
supplements more effective than dietary folate? The usual
argument is that dietary micronutrient sources are more
effective than supplements due to the presence of essential
cofactors in the food.

Paul

[Slenon]

>Sorry, but I do *not* engage in Arguments arguing >over
>language. John
Gohde

Because you remain incapable of using language correctly and
are defeated from the beginning. What a fraud you are. Stev
Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes Stev
Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line is
patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Joann Evan]

John 'the Man' wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow michaelprice rambled on about
> "Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
> Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
> retorts, thusly ...
>
> >> The significance of this research is that food works,
> >> supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned.
> >
> >That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
> >supplements than food. See:
> >
> >Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24
>
> And, that certainly is *not* the topic of this THREAD, so
> YOUR comments are *totally* irrelevant.

You asserted that the signifigance of the research is that
food works, supplements don't. Someone provided one
counterexample (and it may or may not be the only one) to
that assertion. And suddenly it becomes irreleveant?
Espically as you wish us to 'stay tuned' for more details
as to why your assertion is correct?

Just accept that this could be one exception (it doesn't
make you
signifigantly any more right or wrong than before), and
move on....

[Michaelpri]

"Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D1C8918.6B4ABF8@sph.llu.edu...
>
>
> michaelprice wrote:
>
> > That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
> > supplements than food. See:
> >
> > Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24
> >
> > Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the
> > Nurses'
Health
> > Study.
[snipped for brevity]
>> Folate from dietary sources alone was related to a modest
>> reduction in risk for colon cancer, and the benefit of
>> long-term multivitamin use was present across all levels of
>> dietary intakes. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of
>> multivitamins may substantially reduce risk for colon
>> cancer. This effect may be related to the folic acid
>> contained in multivitamins.
>
> This abstract neither states nor implies that folate is
> better absorbed
from
> supplements than from food.
>
> -Jay

Actually the abstract does imply that. But let me quote from
the main body where it is more explicit:

"In a recent small intervention study in women, erythrocyte
folate levels increased significantly over 3 months in
response to 400ug of folic acid from supplements of fortified
foods but not from an additional 400ug of dietary folate." and
they give cite:

Lancet 1996 Mar 9;347(9002):657-9

Comment in: Lancet. 1996 May 11;347(9011):1336.

Effect of increasing dietary folate on red-cell folate:
implications for prevention of neural tube defects.

Cuskelly GJ, McNulty H, Scott JM.

School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster,
Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland, UK.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations by the UK Department of Health
suggest that protection from neural tube defects (NTD) can be
achieved through intakes of an extra 400 microgram daily of
folate/folic acid as natural food, foods fortified with folic
acid, or supplements. The assumption is that all three routes
of intervention would have equal effects on folate status.
METHODS: We assessed the effectiveness of these suggested
routes of intervention in optimising folate status. 62 women
were recruited from the University staff and students to take
part in a 3-month intervention study. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of the following five groups: folic
acid supplement (400 microgram/day; I); folic-acid-fortified
foods (an additional 400 microgram/day; II); dietary folate
(an additional 400 microgram/day; III); dietary advice (IV),
and control (V). Responses to intervention were assessed as
changes in red-cell folate between pre-intervention and
post-intervention values. FINDINGS: 41 women completed the
intervention study. Red-cell folate concentrations increased
significantly over the 3 months in the groups taking folic
acid supplements (group I) or food fortified with folic acid
(group II) only (p<0.01 for both groups). By contrast,
although aggressive intervention with dietary folate (group
III) or dietary advice (group IV) significantly increased
intake of food folate (p<0.001 and p<0.05, respectively),
there was no significant change in folate status.
INTERPRETATION: We have shown that compared with supplements
and fortified food, consumption of extra folate as natural
food folate is relatively ineffective at increasing folate
status. We believe that advice to women to consume folate-rich
foods as a means to optimise folate status is misleading.

Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 8596381 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cheers, Michael C Price

[Jay Tanzma]

michaelprice wrote:
>
> "Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D1C8918.6B4ABF8@sph.llu.edu...
> >
> >
> > michaelprice wrote:
> >
> > > That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
> > > supplements than food. See:
> > >
> > > Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24
> > >
> > > Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in
> > > the Nurses'
> Health
> > > Study.
> [snipped for brevity]
> >> Folate from dietary sources alone was related to a modest
> >> reduction in risk for colon cancer, and the benefit of
> >> long-term multivitamin use was present across all levels
> >> of dietary intakes. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of
> >> multivitamins may substantially reduce risk for colon
> >> cancer. This effect may be related to the folic acid
> >> contained in multivitamins.
> >
> > This abstract neither states nor implies that folate is
> > better absorbed
> from
> > supplements than from food.
> >
> > -Jay
>
> Actually the abstract does imply that.

*Actually* it does not. It suggests that folate
supplementation may be more benefical than folate for foods,
but makes no suggestion whatsoever as to why that might be.

> But let me quote from the main body where it is more
> explicit:
>
> "In a recent small intervention study in women, erythrocyte
> folate levels increased significantly over 3 months in
> response to 400ug of folic acid from supplements of
> fortified foods but not from an additional 400ug of dietary
> folate." and they give cite:
>
> Lancet 1996 Mar 9;347(9002):657-9

[snip abstract]

That is interesting. I wasn't aware of it. The same is true
for vitamin B12 among the elderly; I'm not sure about the
general popluation.

-Jay

[Thomas Doy]

Well, in fact, I had overlooked the original posting (thanks
for directing
me); but, my original criticisms stand. The study was
correlational (which I agree is sometimes necessary) and
thus becomes research which is less controlled and more
questionable. Yes, they did seem to control for many
variables, but others such as exercise, sleep habits,
working environment, supplement composition (someone here
pointed out that E is complex), the way they supplements
are taken (someone here pointed out the fat soluble
effect), etc., etc, were not considered. Given the huge
number of conflicting correlational study results (even
reversals) in these areas, I was simply trying to point out
that it is wise to see the tentativeness of this type of
research rather than view one study (which supports one's
own belief) as the last word. A controlled experiment with
an exact explanation of the biological process of how and
which antioxidants might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's
might be more convincing. I was trying to remind the poster
that skepticism is the basis of science.

What I am more disturbed about is the interaction of SOME in
this thread. Their posts seem to berate anyone who does not
hold to their own personal "belief" about nutrition. One
person begins every reply with "once upon a time ___ rambles
on" (a very condescending approach which my original -
stronger than usual - reply was reacting to). And, words such
as "twit" "fraud" "slime" "pimping" pepper insults. Hopefully,
this is merely a selective perception of this newsgroup.

"Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D1C8792.F2859940@sph.llu.edu...
>
>
> Thomas Doyle wrote:
>
> > Well, that is certainly a simple and not very scientific
> > response. I
assume
> > the research was correlational.
>
> Why would you "assume" anyting about the research design
> when it was
clearly
> stated:
>
> "Design and Setting The Rotterdam Study, a population-based,
> prospective cohort study conducted in the Netherlands."
>
> > Therefore, any extraneous variables could affect the
> > results.
>
> They adjusted for extraneous variables. Try reading what
> was posted.
>
> "When adjustments were made for age, sex, baseline
> Mini-Mental State Examination score, alcohol intake,
> education, smoking habits, pack-years of smoking, body mass
> index, total energy intake, presence of carotid plaques, and
> use of antioxidative supplements..."
>
> -Jay

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Joann Evans rambled on about "Re:
Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

> You asserted that the signifigance of the research is that
> food works, supplements don't.

No I didn't!

Does *only* slime grow on these ngs?

I stated that is what one specific research study stated. You
know the "Topic" of this THREAD, Dim Wit!!!

I and I recall that they were talking mostly about
vitamins C and E.

[Joann Evan]

John 'the Man' wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow Joann Evans rambled on about
> "Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
> Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
> retorts, thusly ...
>
> > You asserted that the signifigance of the research is
> > that food works, supplements don't.
>
> No I didn't!

Oh, so the words I quoted were not actually written by
you? Then perhaps the security of your e-mail account is
at risk...

> Does *only* slime grow on these ngs?

Thanks, I just *love* the flattery. It does *so* much to
enhance your credibility...

> I stated that is what one specific research study stated.
> You know the "Topic" of this THREAD, Dim Wit!!!

Thank you, I do. Now, is this the *first* time in your
experience that a newsgroup thread drifted (and just a few
degrees at that) off the original topic?

> I and I recall that they were talking mostly about vitamins
> C and E.

Perhaps so. Nevertheless, you said:

"Either one accepts what the research shows or they don't.

The significance of this research is that food works,
supplements don't! As to why? Stay tuned."

That's 'supplements' without any narrower qualification.

Again assuming that you did in fact write the above.

The hell of it is, I'm not even necessairily saying you're
wrong. Just live up to your words....

[Michaelpri]

"Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D1CE489.F317C91D@sph.llu.edu...
>
>
> michaelprice wrote:
> >
> > "Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3D1C8918.6B4ABF8@sph.llu.edu...
> > >
> > >
> > > michaelprice wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's not true for folic acid. Better absorbed from
> > > > supplements than food. See:
> > > >
> > > > Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24
> > > >
>>>> Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women
>>>> in the
>> Nurses' Health Study.
>> [snipped for brevity]
>>>> Folate from dietary sources alone was related to a modest
>>>> reduction in risk for colon cancer, and the benefit of
>>>> long-term multivitamin use was present across all levels
>>>> of dietary intakes. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of
>>>> multivitamins may substantially reduce risk for colon
>>>> cancer. This effect may be related to the folic acid
>>>> contained in multivitamins.
> > >
>>> This abstract neither states nor implies that folate is
>>> better absorbed from supplements than from food.
> > >
> > > -Jay
> >
> > Actually the abstract does imply that.
>
> *Actually* it does not. It suggests that folate
> supplementation may be
more
> benefical than folate for foods, but makes no suggestion
> whatsoever as to why that might be.

But being more benefical implies better absorbed, since there
is no difference between the structures of synthetic and
natural folate. Presumably dietary folate is bound to the
food, e.g. locked inside vegetable cellulose.

Cheers, Michael C Price

[Slenon]

Jimbo:
>Hey Sir Johnnypoo, It's said imitation is the sincerest form
>of flattery.
I'm flattered.

Sorry, Jimbo, he's not imitating you, he's copying you, as an
ape might copy a human. Imitation indicates he has the thought
capacity to plan a response and complete it. He's just doing
the same thing he always does, copying the work of other
people as if it gave credence to his being. He's never
completed an original thought in his adult life.

His health plan is so good that he became anemic following it.
Makes me want to rush out and hit all those commercial sites
he pimps for.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Jimbo]

"slenon" <slenon@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BXmT8.94856$db.1568994@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Jimbo:
> >Hey Sir Johnnypoo, It's said imitation is the sincerest
> >form of flattery.
> I'm flattered.
>
> Sorry, Jimbo, he's not imitating you, he's copying you, as
> an ape might
copy
> a human. Imitation indicates he has the thought capacity
> to plan a
response
> and complete it. He's just doing the same thing he always
> does, copying
the
> work of other people as if it gave credence to his being.
> He's never completed an original thought in his adult life.

I'm sure you're right!

> His health plan is so good that he became anemic following
> it. Makes me want to rush out and hit all those commercial
> sites he pimps for.
>
> --
> Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia
> ashes Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate
> bottom line is patients
not
> profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member slenon@tampabay.rr.com
> http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92k-
> word.htm

[Joann Evan]

John 'the Man' wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow Joann Evans rambled on about
> "Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
> Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
> retorts, thusly ...
>
> >Thank you, I do. Now, is this the *first* time in your
> >experience that a newsgroup thread drifted (and just a few
> >degrees at that) off the original topic?
>
> A Twit Argument is a Twit Argument.

One man's twit....

> And, I don't converse with people too simple to follow the
> established rules of engagement on smn. :-(

I've followed this newsgroup for some time and I recall seeing
no
such rules. Point me toward them, and I'll most willingly read
them.
Meanwhile, I simply try to be reasonable and polite on any
newsgroup.

> THIS THREAD was and IS about what one recently published
> study said about Alzheimer Disease. What maybe true for
> Alzheimer Disease generally is *not* true for the another
> health condition, such as heart disease.

Agreed. But folic acid most certainly has relevance to
Alzheimer's...

http://www.alzheimers.org/nianews/nianews45.html

http://www.nia.nih.gov/news/pr/2002/0301.htm

http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/5/BRAIN10.AAN.html

...so the prospect that the supplement may be more
effective than dietary folic acid is most surely relevant.

> I personally take supplements, including of course
> Folic Acid.

As do I, the folic acid mostly for the above reason.
(Reproduction is not an issue with me, so I'm aware of, but
not personally concerned with the reduced chance of neural
tube defects....and do forgive me for just having mentioned
something off the subject of the thread, if you will.)

> But, of course, that has nothing to do with the ISSUE
> at hand.

I think I've just shown that it does.

> Conversing with fools who can not focus their replies to
> the issues at hand is a total waste of time.
>
> Please stop arguing over language and wasting peoples
> time on smn!

I'm arguing (unnecessairily) denied assertions, not
language or semantics. And in any case, nothing prevents
you (or anyone else here) from ignoring me completely. I'm
not a medical or research professional, I claim no special
credentials. But I most certainly *can* read and reason.

However, I agree that this has become pointless, albeit for
reasons different from yours. I'm done. You're welcome to
the last word, if you want it.

[Michaelpri]

"Joann Evans" <greenie31@juno.com> wrote in message
news:3D1E5350.84249D80@juno.com...
>
>> THIS THREAD was and IS about what one recently published
>> study said about Alzheimer Disease. What maybe true for
>> Alzheimer Disease generally is *not* true for the another
>> health condition, such as heart disease.
>
> Agreed. But folic acid most certainly has relevance to
> Alzheimer's...
>
> http://www.alzheimers.org/nianews/nianews45.html
>
> http://www.nia.nih.gov/news/pr/2002/0301.htm
>
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/5/BRAIN10.AAN.html
>
> ...so the prospect that the supplement may be more
> effective than dietary folic acid is most surely
> relevant.

Great URLs. The moral is clear. Avoid Alzheimers by taking
B6, B12 and folate supplements. Will improve cardiovascular
health as well.

Cheers, Michael C Price

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Joann Evans rambled on about "Re:
Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>> And, I don't converse with people too simple to follow the
>> established rules of engagement on smn. :-(

>> THIS THREAD was and IS about what one recently published
>> study said about Alzheimer Disease. What maybe true for
>> Alzheimer Disease generally is *not* true for the another
>> health condition, such as heart disease.

> Agreed. But folic acid most certainly has relevance to
> Alzheimer's...

Seems simple enough to me.

THIS THREAD was and is about one recently published study
about Alzheimer Disease.

The SCOPE of this THREAD was and is "Alzheimer Disease" and
"Vitamins C & E."

If YOU want to talk on an entirely new subject, then do the
right thing and start YOUR own THREAD. I do it ALL the
time, Dear.

Seems simple enough to me.

Many, many, many different things have been associated with
Alzheimer Disease from watching television, to genes, to
proteins, to Folic Acid.

You want to change the topic then start YOUR own thread, DEAR!
--
John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering
De-Medicalization by handing back the power to the people,
encouraging self care and autonomy, and resisting the
categorization of life's problems as medical.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow michaelprice rambled on about
"Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>Great URLs. The moral is clear. Avoid Alzheimers by taking
>B6, B12 and folate supplements. Will improve cardiovascular
>health as well.

The SCOPE on this THREAD is one specific study and the
Vitamins C & E, ... Dim Wit.

Something new is being associated with Alzheimer Disease and
is reported on in the Press every few days.

The subject of Folic Acid was in the PRESS a week or two ago.
You guys are ancient history!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

[Jay Tanzma]

Tom Matthews wrote:

> But it should always be remembered that researchers can only
> adjust for the extraneous variable which *they think of*. It
> often turns out that the ones which were *not* thought of
> provide the most important information and causal
> explanation.

Often? Not really. Can you give, say, a dozen specific
prospective studies where this was later found to be the case.
Confounders with large enough effects to seriously distort
results are usually identifiable.

-Jay

[Jay Tanzma]

Thomas Doyle wrote:
>
> Well, in fact, I had overlooked the original posting (thanks
> for directing
> me); but, my original criticisms stand. The study was
> correlational...

It was prospective. Correlational studies are cross-sectional.
I think what you are getting at is that it was observational.

> ...(which I agree is sometimes necessary) and thus becomes
> research which is less controlled and more questionable.
> Yes, they did seem to control for many variables, but others
> such as exercise, sleep habits, working environment,
> supplement composition (someone here pointed out that E is
> complex), the way they supplements are taken (someone here
> pointed out the fat soluble effect), etc., etc, were not
> considered.

You don't know without reading the paper what potential
confounders were considered but not included in the
final model.

> ... I was simply trying to point out that it is wise to
> see the tentativeness of this type of research rather than
> view one study (which supports one's own belief) as the
> last word.

True.

> A controlled experiment with an exact explanation of the
> biological process of how and which antioxidants might
> reduce the risk of Alzheimer's might be more convincing.

*Would* be more convincing, but that standard is unrealistic
wrt our current understanding of Alzheimers.

> What I am more disturbed about is the interaction of SOME in
> this thread. Their posts seem to berate anyone who does not
> hold to their own personal "belief" about nutrition. One
> person begins every reply with "once upon a time ___ rambles
> on" (a very condescending approach which my original -
> stronger than usual - reply was reacting to). And, words
> such as "twit" "fraud" "slime" "pimping" pepper insults.
> Hopefully, this is merely a selective perception of this
> newsgroup.

I suspect that you are new to Usenet. Welcome. Most
newsreaders allow you to set filters that automatically delete
messages from posters, such as the one you are referring to,
who repeatedly abuse newsgroups. It is best just to "killfile"
such posters.

BTW, as a point of netiquette, it is customary to parse the
message to which you are replying and post your response
_below_ the appropriate quoted text. The thread is easier to
follow that way.

-Jay

[Jay Tanzma]

michaelprice wrote:

> But being more benefical implies better absorbed, since
> there is no difference between the structures of synthetic
> and natural folate. Presumably dietary folate is bound to
> the food, e.g. locked inside vegetable cellulose.

The difference could just be due to dosage. Nothing in the
abstract rules this out.

-Jay

[Tom Matthe]

Jay Tanzman wrote:

>
> Tom Matthews wrote:
>
>
>>But it should always be remembered that researchers can only
>>adjust for the extraneous variable which *they think of*. It
>>often turns out that the ones which were *not* thought of
>>provide the most important information and causal
>>explanation.
>>
>
> Often? Not really.

I think "often" is the right word. Don't forget that is
sometimes takes decades before the real reasons for something
come out. Just examine all the vasilation and variation which
has taken place over the decades of study of atherosclerosis,
not to mention stomach ulcers.

> Can you give, say, a dozen specific prospective studies
> where this was later found to be the case.

Yes, I could, but I really don't have the time right
now. Sorry.

> Confounders with large enough effects to seriously
> distort results are usually identifiable.

Obviously I disagree. We still know far too little about the
body's total biochemistry, its inherent complexities and its
individual variation for that to be the case.

But I am taking mostly about epidemiological studies where
there is no ability to control (a priori) the variable
environment and the only tool available is to make judgements
about what might be a confounder.

--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based
tools for More Life in quantity & quality

[Steve Harr]

Jay Tanzman wrote in message
<3D207F31.86314256@sph.llu.edu>...
>
>
>Tom Matthews wrote:
>
>> But it should always be remembered that researchers can
>> only adjust for
the
>> extraneous variable which *they think of*. It often turns
>> out that the
ones
>> which were *not* thought of provide the most important
>> information and
causal
>> explanation.
>
>Often? Not really. Can you give, say, a dozen specific
>prospective
studies
>where this was later found to be the case. Confounders with
>large enough effects to seriously distort results are usually
>identifiable.
>
>-Jay

The point is that statistically if you prospectively
randomize, you can use that number to set a lower bound on the
product of [how many unknown confounders you can have * how
great their influence(s) can be.] If there's just one, it
can't have more than x effect with n subjects. If there are
two, the sum of their effects can't be greater than x, and so
on. That's the point of randomized studies, don't you know,
Tom. You're randomizing confounding influences. They can't get
away from the flip of a coin, except by chance, and you can
figure how large that chance is. It doesn't take that many
people until it's a sure as Los Vegas that there aren't any
big influences skewing your result. That doesn't mean there
aren't big influences-- it only means that if they are there,
there are just as many in one group as the other.

For example: suppose you're doing an antacid treatment vs.
acid-blocking drug treatment of ulcer study, in the days
before you know about H. pylori. If you knew about H. pylori,
obviously you'd stratify for it, since its presence it will
make a bigger difference in outcome than any treatment you
have (even smokers don't have more ulcers when H pylori
negative). But say if you don't know about it, and randomized
your patients, it's just a binomial theorem problem of how
likely you are to have x% more H.pylori patients (single
confounder +) in one group vs. the other. Then, even if H.
pylori was 100% predictive and causal of ulcer recurrence
independent of treatment (worst case confounder) you can still
calculate how likely that would be to skew your results all by
itself at p= 0.05 or 0.01 or whatever. If the p for THAT is
less than .05 or .01, then you can say to 95% or 99% certainty
that no such confounder that bad exists.

Confounders of large magnitude are with us everywhere,
remember. Confounders of all kinds, and of large effects, are
why 100% of people in the treatment group don't get well, vs
0% in the untreated group (how many studies do you see like
that?). Nevertheless, relative risk ranges for treatments and
effects of behaviors are still calculable to a given level of
confidence. The confounders broaden that range--indeed are
responsible for most of it-- but the range is what it is, and
what you don't know, doesn't change that range. It's already
taken into account, as it were.

SBH

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
passes my Turing test.

[Jay Tanzma]

Tom Matthews wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> >
> > Tom Matthews wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But it should always be remembered that researchers can
> >>only adjust for the extraneous variable which *they think
> >>of*. It often turns out that the ones which were *not*
> >>thought of provide the most important information and
> >>causal explanation.
> >>
> >
> > Often? Not really.
>
> I think "often" is the right word. Don't forget that is
> sometimes takes decades before the real reasons for
> something come out. Just examine all the vasilation and
> variation which has taken place over the decades of study of
> atherosclerosis...

Except that there hasn't really been much "vasilation [sic]
and variation." The basics haven't really changed: LDL bad,
HDL good; saturated fat and cholesterol bad, unsaturated fats
good. Sure, we've refined our knowledge, but these basic
facts, which were in large part, investigated
epidemiologically, are still valid.

> > Can you give, say, a dozen specific prospective studies
> > where this was later found to be the case.
>
> Yes, I could, but I really don't have the time right
> now. Sorry.

So you say. Sorry, I don't believe you.

-Jay

[Michaelpri]

"Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D207D0E.2411C011@sph.llu.edu...
>
>
> michaelprice wrote:
>
> > But being more benefical implies better absorbed, since
> > there is no difference between the structures of synthetic
> > and natural folate. Presumably dietary folate is bound to
> > the food, e.g. locked inside vegetable cellulose.
>
> The difference could just be due to dosage. Nothing in the
> abstract rules this out.

My paragraph was just re-hashing something discussed in the
main body of the article.

> -Jay

Cheers, Michael C Price

[Thomas Doy]

"Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D20842F.1FE1FFF1@sph.llu.edu...

> It was prospective. Correlational studies are
> cross-sectional. I think
what
> you are getting at is that it was observational.

Well, I think we are using terms differently here. Here is how
I understand
it. All research is observational and many different types of
research use "groups." Correlation does not manipulate
variables, while an experiment does. That is why an
experiment is more likely to indicate a causal
relationship (in that you have actually caused something
to happen, while correlation is more "observational", more
difficulty to control, and subject to more confounding
errors). As far as "cross-sectional", I understood that
term to apply to experimentation, whereas in correlation
ones uses such terms as "multivariate", "multiple
regression", etc.

> You don't know without reading the paper what potential
> confounders were considered but not included in the
> final model.

True (I was going by the summary), but correlation by its very
nature (as others here have pointed out) can never take into
account all variables, hence my original point (way back!)
that conclusions based on correlation must be very tentative
and cautionary. Now, of course, ALL research results must be
taken with caution, but some less that than others (depending
on design). The original reason for my entering the discussion
was (what I saw) as a biased acceptance of some research based
on one's beliefs about nutrition. Objectivity is another
cornerstone of science.

> > A controlled experiment with an exact explanation of the
> > biological process of how and which antioxidants might
> > reduce the risk of Alzheimer's might be more convincing.
>
> *Would* be more convincing, but that standard is
> unrealistic wrt our
current
> understanding of Alzheimers.

Well, some things seem to be known (like plaque, tissue
distruction, parts of the brain affected, etc.) and thus some
processes might be ascertained.

> > What I am more disturbed about is the interaction of SOME
> > in this
thread.
> > Their posts seem to berate anyone who does not hold to
> > their own
personal
> > "belief" about nutrition. One person begins every reply
> > with "once upon
a
> > time ___ rambles on" (a very condescending approach which
> > my original - stronger than usual - reply was reacting
> > to). And, words such as "twit" "fraud" "slime" "pimping"
> > pepper insults. Hopefully, this is merely a selective
> > perception of this newsgroup.
>
> I suspect that you are new to Usenet. Welcome. Most
> newsreaders allow
you to
> set filters that automatically delete messages from posters,
> such as the
one you
> are referring to, who repeatedly abuse newsgroups. It is
> best just to "killfile" such posters.

Actually, I am not new to newsgroups. But, I have never seen
such things as "the middle finger" drawn to indicate a
response on ANY group. I suspect many in this group have
intense beliefs about nutrition, yet have an underlying doubt
about their own knowledge, and so resort to such tactics. I
guess I also didn't expect it on a newgroup titled
"sci.med.nutrition."

> BTW, as a point of netiquette, it is customary to parse the
> message to
which you
> are replying and post your response _below_ the appropriate
> quoted text.
The
> thread is easier to follow that way.

Sometimes, I edit very long threads to make it easier to read
and I assume the reader has followed previous posts through
the thread.

[Simon Hill]

There is no difference between a synthetic nutrient and those
found in our food!!! On a molecular level they are the same.
It is impossible to achieve the nutrients we need from our
food. With modern farming practices the micronutrient levels
in our food have decreased frightening amounts. All the while
nutrient levels in our food have been decreasing cases of
degenerative disease are on the uprise. Supplementation is a
must. The pathways of the human cell require many different
miconutrients in the right amounts otherwise we end up with a
degenerated cell, the cell replaces elements needed in the
chemical pathways with others from the same periodic group but
then it is inferior to what it should be. This research is
substantiated and backed by several PhD scientists around the
globe, such as Dr. Ray Strand,
Dr. Michael Colgan fomr the Colgan Institute and Dr. Myron
Wentz of Gull Laboratories and USANA Health Sciences.
Posted by Simon Hill

"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1gkhuk5o6e00t0jnpo8be9jfp6a9t36ts@4ax.com...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Craig Health rambled on about
> "Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
> Disease ." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
> retorts, thusly ...
>
> >Conclusion High dietary intake of vitamin C and vitamin E
> >may lower the risk of Alzheimer disease.
>
> Emphasis is on Food, *not* supplements!
>
> Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
> --
> John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a
> Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
> the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
> webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
> is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
> ever before.

[John 'The]

x-no-archive: yes

Once upon a time, our pettifogger Mr. Anal Personality Type
rambled on about "Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk
of Alzheimer Disease." Our champion being bored in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>One person begins every reply with "once upon a time ___
>rambles on" (a very condescending approach ...

Written by a 100% Anal Person. :-)

No self-respecting scientist would ever appear on any of
these sci ngs.

Go back to Academia where you Anal Scum, truly belongs. :-)

[Tom Matthe]

Steve Harris wrote:

> Jay Tanzman wrote in message
> <3D207F31.86314256@sph.llu.edu>...
>
>>
>>Tom Matthews wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But it should always be remembered that researchers can
>>>only adjust for the extraneous variable which *they think
>>>of*. It often turns out that the ones which were *not*
>>>thought of provide the most important information and
>>>causal explanation.
>>>
>>Often? Not really. Can you give, say, a dozen specific
>>prospective studies where this was later found to be the
>>case. Confounders with large enough effects to seriously
>>distort results are usually identifiable.
>>
>>-Jay
>>
>
> The point is that statistically if you prospectively
> randomize, you can use that number to set a lower bound on
> the product of [how many unknown confounders you can have *
> how great their influence(s) can be.] If there's just one,
> it can't have more than x effect with n subjects. If there
> are two, the sum of their effects can't be greater than x,
> and so on. That's the point of randomized studies, don't
> you know, Tom. You're randomizing confounding influences.
> They can't get away from the flip of a coin, except by
> chance, and you can figure how large that chance is. It
> doesn't take that many people until it's a sure as Los
> Vegas that there aren't any big influences skewing your
> result. That doesn't mean there aren't big influences-- it
> only means that if they are there, there are just as many
> in one group as the other.
>
> For example: suppose you're doing an antacid treatment vs.
> acid-blocking drug treatment of ulcer study, in the days
> before you know about H. pylori. If you knew about H.
> pylori, obviously you'd stratify for it, since its presence
> it will make a bigger difference in outcome than any
> treatment you have (even smokers don't have more ulcers when
> H pylori negative). But say if you don't know about it, and
> randomized your patients, it's just a binomial theorem
> problem of how likely you are to have x% more H.pylori
> patients (single confounder +) in one group vs. the other.
> Then, even if H. pylori was 100% predictive and causal of
> ulcer recurrence independent of treatment (worst case
> confounder) you can still calculate how likely that would be
> to skew your results all by itself at p= 0.05 or 0.01 or
> whatever. If the p for THAT is less than .05 or .01, then
> you can say to 95% or 99% certainty that no such confounder
> that bad exists.
>
> Confounders of large magnitude are with us everywhere,
> remember. Confounders of all kinds, and of large effects,
> are why 100% of people in the treatment group don't get
> well, vs 0% in the untreated group (how many studies do you
> see like that?). Nevertheless, relative risk ranges for
> treatments and effects of behaviors are still calculable to
> a given level of confidence. The confounders broaden that
> range--indeed are responsible for most of it-- but the range
> is what it is, and what you don't know, doesn't change that
> range. It's already taken into account, as it were.
>
> SBH

Thanks for the excellent explanation. I was thinking more of
prospective studies which are not efficiently randomized, as
so many are not, and/or when unseen correlated variables
accompany the cohort studied differences. It is in the last
respect that interventive experiments are vastly superior.

--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based
tools for More Life in quantity & quality

[Slenon]

gohde:
>Written by a 100% Anal Person. :-)

What an apt description of yourself, gohde. Lose those
juvenile emoticons. We might think that you are somewhat more
capable if you didn't persist in writing like a 12 year old
pre-pubescent female. We've given up on the hope that you will
ever master spelling and English grammar. This is where you
will likely resort to vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity
again for lack of better communications skills.

Now, explain to us again how one scams donor centers to become
anemic? Then tell us what degrees from what institutions you
might actually hold. How sad that you wish to be "an
authority" but have no academic or practical background in
anything scientific. You can only copy the words of others and
hope some newbie thinks you actually know something. Don't
worry, one of us will make sure that newbies are made aware
that you are and remain a poseur, a poltroon, and a fraud.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Tom Matthe]

I am afraid this is heading nowhere because while our opinions
differ, neither of us has time or desire to validate his
opinion with evidence.

Therefore, I have simply indicated below where I agree or
disagree and I will consider this an end to our discussion.

Jay Tanzman wrote:

>
> Tom Matthews wrote:
>
>>Jay Tanzman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom Matthews wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But it should always be remembered that researchers can
>>>>only adjust for the extraneous variable which *they think
>>>>of*. It often turns out that the ones which were *not*
>>>>thought of provide the most important information and
>>>>causal explanation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Often? Not really.
>>>
>>I think "often" is the right word. Don't forget that is
>>sometimes takes decades before the real reasons for
>>something come out. Just examine all the vasilation and
>>variation which has taken place over the decades of study of
>>atherosclerosis...
>>
>
> Except that there hasn't really been much "vasilation [sic]
> and variation." The basics haven't really changed: LDL bad,
> HDL good; saturated fat and cholesterol bad, unsaturated
> fats good. Sure, we've refined our knowledge, but these
> basic facts, which were in large part, investigated
> epidemiologically, are still valid.

I mostly disagree with this view.

>>>Can you give, say, a dozen specific prospective studies
>>>where this was later found to be the case.
>>>
>>Yes, I could, but I really don't have the time right
>>now. Sorry.
>>
>
> So you say. Sorry, I don't believe you.

And neither do I believe you. End of discussion.

--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based
tools for More Life in quantity & quality

[Tsu Dho Ni]

"slenon" <slenon@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>Now, explain to us again how one scams donor centers to
>become anemic?

This is possible, but just barely.

If you give at one center, then another, within a couple of
hours, without rehydrating yourself, the blood volume might
not restore itself enough lower the hematocrit far enough to
put out of the guidelines.

But after that, the presence of fresh needle marks over the
veins of both antecubital areas would make donating at a third
center difficult to do.

The best you could do is be down 2 litres.

Tsu Dho Nimh

It is my job to completely create professional technology in
order that we may seamlessly supply competitive data.

[Mattlb]

John 'the Man' wrote:

> Once upon a time, our pettifogger Mr. Anal Personality Type
> rambled on about "Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and
> Risk of Alzheimer Disease." Our champion being bored in
> sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >One person begins every reply with "once upon a time ___
> >rambles on" (a very condescending approach ...
>
> Written by a 100% Anal Person. :-)
>
> No self-respecting scientist would ever appear on any of
> these sci ngs.

Why, because they risk being damned by association with you,
the living embodiment of opinon-without-fact anti-science?

MattLB

[Slenon]

>But after that, the presence of fresh needle marks over the
>veins of both
antecubital areas would make donating at a third center
>difficult to do. The best you could do is be down 2 litres.
>Tsu Dho Nimh

Actually, the mechanism gohde boasted of was merely to go to
different donor centers and lie about frequency of donation. A
stupid thing to do; but then, look at the person who felt the
need to do it in order to deplete his iron stores.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Tsu Dho Ni]

"slenon" <slenon@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>>But after that, the presence of fresh needle marks over the
>>veins of both
>antecubital areas would make donating at a third center
>>difficult to do. The best you could do is be down 2 litres.
>>Tsu Dho Nimh
>
>Actually, the mechanism gohde boasted of was merely to go to
>different donor centers and lie about frequency of donation.
>A stupid thing to do; but then, look at the person who felt
>the need to do it in order to deplete his iron stores.

Doesn't work that way in the USA ... they test the hematocrit
before taking the blood and you would get rejected as soon as
you dropped below the legal limit.

Tsu Dho Nimh

It is my job to completely create professional technology in
order that we may seamlessly supply competitive data.

[Slenon]

>Doesn't work that way in the USA ... they test the hematocrit
>before taking
the blood and you would get rejected as soon as you
>dropped below the legal limit. Tsu Dho Nimh

Which is exactly what the dimwit boasted about. He was
remarkably proud of depleting his own iron stores to the point
where he was rejected as a donor. I'm well aware of the
procedures used in screening and accepting donors. As a
clinical lab scientist, I used to process and draw donors. The
flaw in the donor processing system is that no one expects a
donor to lie to you about frequency of donation. You can go
back and track the posts under one of his many
pseudonyms/alter-egos.

The fact remains, anyone foolish enough to purposely set out
to deplete his own iron stores is not someone wise enough or
learned enough to offer nutritional advice. He is dangerous
both to himself and anyone who mistakenly believes he knows
anything about nutrition or medicine.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Am Yisrael]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
==-=-=-=-=
"The Truth may not always win, but it is always right."
(Eli Hertz)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
==-=-=-=-=

What is in your Drinking Water?

http://pnews.org/A/DrinkingWater.shtml

TheGolem http://pnews.org/

---
/ o o \
===OO=====OO================================================-
==========

The follow forums are installed at:
http://pnews.org/HTH/phpnuke/ for Health - Pain -
Veterans - ETC.

Medical Marijuana Chronic Pain Chronic Illnesses Cancer
Arthritis Visual Problems Service Animals Eating Disorders
Dieting Veterans DisAbilities Alerts Misc Poverty and
Health Drugs Law HMOS Veterans Issues Access Voc Rehab Aid
Programs VAMC

http://pnews.org/phpnuke/ ------- (Middle East and
Terrorism) http://g0lem.net/PHP/phpnuke/ -------
(cyber-terrorism & InterNUT) http://pnews.org/HTH/phpnuke/
--- (Health - Pain & Support)
http://g0lem.net/CMS/phpnuke/ -- (Internet Economics &
E-Commerce) http://pnews.org/NWO/phpnuke/ - (Politics of
New World DisOrder)

[Fred & Mic]

"Simon Hill" <simon@libertasint.net> wrote in message
news:afrjvv$buu$1@perki.connect.com.au...
> There is no difference between a synthetic nutrient and
> those found in our food!!! On a molecular level they are the
> same. It is impossible to achieve the nutrients we need from
> our food.

Tell that to all the folks who don't take supplemental
vitamins & do not suffer from any signs/symptoms of
malnutrition or deficiency. Many long-lived, healthy people
have never taken supplements.

With modern
> farming practices the micronutrient levels in our food have
> decreased frightening amounts.

Your source of this claim?

All the while
> nutrient levels in our food have been decreasing cases of
> degenerative disease are on the uprise.

Degenerative diseases occur more commonly in people as they
get older. More people are fortunate enough to get older now
than in the past. It stands to reason that the incidence of
diseases that occur more commonly in people as they age would
increase as the numbers of people who live longer increases.

supplementation is a must.
> The pathways of the human cell require many different
> miconutrients in the right amounts otherwise we end up with
> a degenerated cell, the cell replaces elements needed in the
> chemical pathways with others from the same periodic group
> but then it is inferior to what it should be. This research
> is substantiated and backed by several PhD scientists around
> the globe, such as Dr. Ray Strand,
> Dr. Michael Colgan fomr the Colgan Institute and Dr. Myron
> Wentz of Gull Laboratories and USANA Health Sciences.
> Posted by Simon Hill

How do you explain the increase in the *average* life span of
this country's population over the last century or two then?
[I'll even grant that some of this increase is due to
vaccination, better treatment of disease, safer work & home
environments, but a malnourished population would still have
trouble increasing its average life span despite these
advances, right?]

Michele

[Michaelpri]

"fred & michele" <healthyu@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:afssvg$e2e@dispatch.concentric.net...
> "Simon Hill" <simon@libertasint.net> wrote in message
> news:afrjvv$buu$1@perki.connect.com.au...
>> There is no difference between a synthetic nutrient and
>> those found in our food!!! On a molecular level they are
>> the same.
> > It is impossible to achieve the nutrients we need from
> > our food.
>
> Tell that to all the folks who don't take supplemental
> vitamins & do not suffer from any signs/symptoms of
> malnutrition or deficiency. Many long-lived, healthy people
> have never taken supplements.
>
>> With modern farming practices the micronutrient levels in
>> our food have decreased frightening amounts.
>
> Your source of this claim?

With the switch from hunter-gatherer to agrarian farmer
average heights (due to malnutrition) dropped by up to 6
inches. See Why We Age by Steve Austad. It only in the last
century that heights have recovered.

Cheers, Michael C Price

[Tsu Dho Ni]

"slenon" <slenon@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>>Doesn't work that way in the USA ... they test the
>>hematocrit before taking
>the blood and you would get rejected as soon as you
>>dropped below the legal limit. Tsu Dho Nimh
>
>Which is exactly what the dimwit boasted about. He was
>remarkably proud of depleting his own iron stores to the
>point where he was rejected as a donor.

If he merely did it enough long enough to get rejected, then
quit, he still had plenty of iron stores left. What he ran out
of was RBC-making capacity.

It's difficult for a man to get iron deficient unless he has
a long-standing slow blood loss or do a wierd iron-free diet
for years.

Tsu Dho Nimh

It is my job to completely create professional technology in
order that we may seamlessly supply competitive data.

[Slenon]

>If he merely did it enough long enough to get rejected, then
>quit, he still
had plenty of iron stores left. What he ran out
>of was RBC-making capacity. It's difficult for a man to get
>iron
deficient unless he has a long-standing slow blood loss or do
a wierd iron-free diet >for years. Tsu Dho Nimh

Not worth the debate over mechanisms. RBC manufacturing
capacity is dependent upon iron stores. He was rejected for
having a hgb/hct below safe limits for donors as a result of
his own machinations and dietary practices. Makes him a false
guru in my book as well as an extremely poor source of
information for anything having to do with health or
nutrition.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re:
Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

I want to thank all the academics who replied to my post.

You have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that all
academics are 100% Anal. :-)

I forgive all you Ass-Holes out their who made this science
experiment possible.

>John 'the Man' wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, our pettifogger Mr. Anal Personality Type
>> rambled on about "Re: Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and
>> Risk of Alzheimer Disease." Our champion being bored in
>> sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>>
>> >One person begins every reply with "once upon a time ___
>> >rambles on" (a very condescending approach ...
>>
>> Written by a 100% Anal Person. :-)
>>
>> No self-respecting scientist would ever appear on any of
>> these sci ngs.
>
>Why, because they risk being damned by association with you,
>the living embodiment of opinon-without-fact anti-science?
>
>MattLB

[Fred & Mic]

"michaelprice" <michaelprice@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vPmU8.5428$4L2.610066@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> "fred & michele" <healthyu@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:afssvg$e2e@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > "Simon Hill" <simon@libertasint.net> wrote in message
> > news:afrjvv$buu$1@perki.connect.com.au...
> >> There is no difference between a synthetic nutrient and
> >> those found in our food!!! On a molecular level they are
> >> the same.
> > > It is impossible to achieve the nutrients we need from
> > > our food.
> >
> > Tell that to all the folks who don't take supplemental
> > vitamins & do not suffer from any signs/symptoms of
> > malnutrition or deficiency. Many long-lived, healthy
> > people have never taken supplements.
> >
> >> With modern farming practices the micronutrient levels in
> >> our food have decreased frightening amounts.
> >
> > Your source of this claim?
>
> With the switch from hunter-gatherer to agrarian farmer
> average heights (due to malnutrition) dropped by up to 6
> inches. See Why We Age by Steve Austad. It only in the last
> century that heights have recovered.

Heights have recovered -- lifespans are longer -- why would
either of those points lead one to suspect malnutrition??????

Michele

[Tsu Dho Ni]

"fred & michele" <healthyu@concentric.net> wrote:

>> > "Simon Hill" <simon@libertasint.net> wrote in message
>> >> With modern farming practices the micronutrient levels
>> >> in our food have decreased frightening amounts.

>Heights have recovered -- lifespans are longer -- why would
>either of those points lead one to suspect malnutrition??????

Haven't you heard ... abnormal bone growth leading to
excessive height is a symptom of malnutrition. And the
increased lifespan is because we have so much toxic stuff in
our bodies that the germs can't do their duty and kill us at
35. There's no other explanaiton. Tsu Dho Nimh

It is my job to completely create professional technology in
order that we may seamlessly supply competitive data.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re:
Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>What was your control group? Oh there wasn't one was there.
>Still, if it satisfies your pre-exisiting bias who needs
>controls? Oh and BTW

Still trying to show the world that you are 100% Anal, I see.
:-)

Thanks MattLB for operationally proving my point once again!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

[Mattlb]

John 'the Man' wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re:
> Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer
> Disease." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
> retorts, thusly ... I want to thank all the academics who
> replied to my post. You have proved beyond the shadow of a
> doubt, that all academics are 100% Anal. :-)

A meaningless term.

> I forgive all you Ass-Holes out their who made this science
> experiment possible.

If that's your idea of a scientific experiment, you've only
proved how little you understand. What was your control group?
Oh there wasn't one was there. Still, if it satisfies your
pre-exisiting bias who needs controls? Oh and BTW <gohde mode>
the subject of this thread is Dietary Intake of Antioxidants
and Risk of Alzheimer Disease, so you are OFF-TOPIC!!!!!
</gohde mode>

MattLB

[Slenon]

gohde:
>You have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that all
>academics are 100%
Anal. :-)

And you have provided further evidence of your own
incompetence, intolerance, bigotry, and inability to write
as an adult.

What degrees? What institutions?

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Mattlb]

John 'the Man' wrote:

> >What was your control group? Oh there wasn't one was there.
> >Still, if it satisfies your pre-exisiting bias who needs
> >controls? Oh and BTW
>
> Still trying to show the world that you are 100% Anal, I
> see. :-)

What's your obsession with this term? Did you copy it off the
back of your favourite video?

> Thanks MattLB for operationally proving my point once again!

No, thank *you* John, for demonstrating your hypocrisy
once again.

> John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Only when you don't understand the science.

> The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less
> about prevention.

...and those who give health advice when they have no
education or informed practical experience in it.

> Beware of anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being
> overweight, or about smoking!

..or about losing all their teeth, or making themselves
anaemic, or having a self-congratulatory website... MattLB

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Steve Lemon rambled on about "Re:
Dietary Intake of Antioxidants and Risk of Alzheimer Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>how many of them are actually you under other screen names.

There is one Dane living in Sweden.

At least one person lives in Australia.

There is at least one Canadian who is vocal.

The most vocal group lives in Great Britain.

Most of the List are Americans, but they are too Shy to
say anything.
:-(

And, quite frankly it is too time consuming to setup 100
different ID's in Yahoo!

About 95% are females. Quite a few appear to be overweight.

And, in the month of July 71 messages have already been sent
in hot discussions on the important health issues of today.
Quite a few believe in eating "Organic." "Marrianne from the
UK" thinks that Canola is toxic.

And, by the way, I have taken the necessary steps to make my
group ID's forgery proof! Nobody can physically post to
Health-with-Attitude impersonating moi.

At this point, MattLB's blood is reaching the boiling point.
Calm down MattLB, my BP is only 90/60.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people trying to
follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/

[Sir John]

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

You forgot to mention my very successful Health-with-Attitude
Mailing List! The ice has finally been broken. People are
starting to share with each other. Discussions are actually
taking place. And, one person has even attacked the Lyon Diet
Heart Study online research paper!!!

We now have almost 100 members.

I know for a fact, that at least one of you Science Geeks are
covertly observing my mailing list. I know this because they
are using their real name. :-(

Could use some level-headed scientists to join up.

MattLB need not apply.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people trying to
follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/

"MattLB" <mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> wrote in message
news:3D2349A6.5A687B1E@FAKEBITangelfire.com...
> John 'the Man' wrote:
>
> > >What was your control group? Oh there wasn't one was
> > >there. Still, if it satisfies your pre-exisiting bias who
> > >needs
controls?
> > >Oh and BTW
> >
> > Still trying to show the world that you are 100% Anal, I
> > see. :-)
>
> What's your obsession with this term? Did you copy it off
> the back of your favourite video?
>
> > Thanks MattLB for operationally proving my point once
> > again!
>
> No, thank *you* John, for demonstrating your hypocrisy
> once again.
>
> > John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a
> > Science!
>
> Only when you don't understand the science.
>
> > The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less
> > about prevention.
>
> ...and those who give health advice when they have no
> education or
informed
> practical experience in it.
>
> > Beware of anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet,
> > being overweight, or about smoking!
>
> ..or about losing all their teeth, or making themselves
> anaemic, or having
a
> self-congratulatory website... MattLB

[Mattlb]

Sir John wrote:

> I know for a fact, that at least one of you Science Geeks
> are covertly observing my mailing list. I know this because
> they are using their real name. :-(

It's hardly covert then is it.

> Could use some level-headed scientists to join up.

As long as drop their scientific principles and agree with
everything you say, of course.

> MattLB need not apply.

Ha, the joke's on you. All those people who agree with you are
actually me pretending to be someone else.

MattLB

[Slenon]

gohde:
>We now have almost 100 members.

And how many of them are actually you under other screen
names. Whether your Yahoo group has a single member or 100,
the fact remains that you lack any qualification to speak on
any matter dealing with medicine or nutrition. You failed to
put in the time to earn the credentials. You can't make up for
that by starting a controlled admission group. You remain an
poseur, a fraud, and a pimp.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Fred & Mic]

"slenon" <slenon@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mcZU8.143450$0g1.2678765@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> gohde:
> >We now have almost 100 members.
>
> And how many of them are actually you under other screen
> names. Whether your Yahoo group has a single member or 100,
> the fact remains that you
lack
> any qualification to speak on any matter dealing with
> medicine or
nutrition.
> You failed to put in the time to earn the credentials. You
> can't make up for that by starting a controlled admission
> group. You remain an poseur,
a
> fraud, and a pimp.

Jim Jones had HUNDREDS of members in his fold -- convinced
most of 'em to drink cyanide Kool-Aid too.........

Michele

[Slenon]

>Jim Jones had HUNDREDS of members in his fold -- convinced
>most of 'em to
drink cyanide Kool-Aid too.........
>Michele

Yeah, but Jones, at least, had his own teeth.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Kristofer]

In misc.health.alternative MattLB
<mattlb@fakebitangelfire.com> wrote:

>> I know for a fact, that at least one of you Science Geeks
>> are covertly observing my mailing list. I know this because
>> they are using their real name. :-(

> It's hardly covert then is it.

Heh, yep, I've been "covertly" using my real name and address
for years. In some mysterious manner this makes me suspect...

>> Could use some level-headed scientists to join up.

Hmm, the "artiste" wants backup, despite his assetion that
health is not a science... ;^]

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

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

[Slenon]

gohde:
>And, by the way, I have taken the necessary steps to make my
>group ID's
forgery proof! Nobody can physically post to
>Health-with-Attitude impersonating moi.

Who would ever want to impersonate you? Anyone that ill would
be locked up already. Impersonating others is your stock in
trade. No one wants to be taken as you.

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Mattlb]

John 'the Man' wrote:

> About 95% are females. Quite a few appear to be overweight.

Have you called them 'FatSo' yet?

> And, in the month of July 71 messages have already been sent
> in hot discussions on the important health issues of today.
> Quite a few believe in eating "Organic."

Not many silicon-based lifeforms on your list then.

> And, by the way, I have taken the necessary steps to make my
> group ID's forgery proof! Nobody can physically post to
> Health-with-Attitude impersonating moi.
>
> At this point, MattLB's blood is reaching the boiling point.

You're fantasizing again. Or were you talking to Matti?

> Calm down MattLB, my BP is only 90/60.

Ah, that explains everything. Since your head's in the
clouds, 90/60 is nowhere near enough to get adequate blood to
your brain.

MattLB