Nutrition Scam

[Smiley]

I recently had an argument online with a resaler for a
nutritional supplement called SeaSilver. The man was making
claims that just seemed unreasonable, and, being as I'm
naturally inquisitive and like doing research, I took up the
challenge of disproving his information.

It was a pretty one sided argument, he was completely
unwilling to counter any of my research or give any supporting
evidence, but I did gain a lot of knowledge in the process so
I'm not terribly disapointed.

So what I've now decided to do is set up a website where I can
put the research I've done, in case anybody else is also
looking for information about SeaSilver's deceitful practices.
I'm still in the middle of setting everything up, but I do
have one page done.

It's important to me that I've got my facts straight. I'm
trying to expose misinformation, not propagate it. What I'd
like is for the knowledgable people here to look through the
page I have done and comment - if there's any fact that I've
got wrong, or any questionable conclusions that I've come to,
I would like to address those as soon as possible, and
definitely before I add the URL to the search engines.

www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html

Please take a look and let me know, thank you.

[Denis Mari]

I have visited your site. I have learned that today's
pharmacists are educated to fill prescriptions only. Many of
the pharmacists gets their post education from pharmaceutical
companies. Some flagrant examples are the hormone replacement
therapy, Ponderal etc. To find out the origin, the chemistry,
the impacts and ramifications of vitamins a pharmacologist has
made more pertinent studies on the subject. Today we can send
a rocket to the moon but we are still learning about what fuel
is best for the human system. Vitamins vending is one of the
most profitable business. We have very little know out to
measure up their positive feedback.

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2jb9mr9sdk335@corp.supernews.com...
> I recently had an argument online with a resaler for a
> nutritional supplement called SeaSilver. The man was making
> claims that just seemed unreasonable, and, being as I'm
> naturally inquisitive and like doing research, I took up the
> challenge of disproving his information.
>
> It was a pretty one sided argument, he was completely
> unwilling to counter any of my research or give any
> supporting evidence, but I did gain a lot
of
> knowledge in the process so I'm not terribly disapointed.
>
> So what I've now decided to do is set up a website where I
> can put the research I've done, in case anybody else is also
> looking for information about SeaSilver's deceitful
> practices. I'm still in the middle of setting everything up,
> but I do have one page done.
>
> It's important to me that I've got my facts straight. I'm
> trying to expose misinformation, not propagate it. What I'd
> like is for the knowledgable people here to look through the
> page I have done and comment - if there's any fact that I've
> got wrong, or any questionable conclusions that I've
come
> to, I would like to address those as soon as possible, and
> definitely
before
> I add the URL to the search engines.
>
> www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html
>
> Please take a look and let me know, thank you.

[Pf Riley]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:38:28 -0500, "Smiley"
<smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote:
>
>www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html
>
>Please take a look and let me know, thank you.

Good work. I don't have much to add except I can confirm that
the bogus chart they made up does not and would not appear in
the PDR. The PDR is basically a hardcover collection of
pharmaceutical package inserts, not the end-all and be-all of
pharmacology textbooks as many con artists would have you
believe when they cite it in their appeals to authority.

And the chart itself is patently absurd. Drug absorption is
affected by many, many variables, only one of which is the
mode of delivery. You could certainly say a transdermal patch
could deliver more medication than a "gel-capsule" for a
certain drug (although I can't think of one) but there are
many drugs that would easily be absorbed from a capsule yet
would have zero absorption transdermally. And the claim than
an "intra-oral liquid" would be better absorbed than a drug
administered intramuscularly (IM) is complete nonsense, since
any drug given IM is by definition 100% absorbed!

PF

[Smiley]

> Good work. I don't have much to add except I can confirm
> that the bogus chart they made up does not and would not
> appear in the PDR. The PDR is basically a hardcover
> collection of pharmaceutical package inserts, not the
> end-all and be-all of pharmacology textbooks as many con
> artists would have you believe when they cite it in their
> appeals to authority.
>
> And the chart itself is patently absurd. Drug absorption is
> affected by many, many variables, only one of which is the
> mode of delivery. You could certainly say a transdermal
> patch could deliver more medication than a "gel-capsule" for
> a certain drug (although I can't think of one) but there are
> many drugs that would easily be absorbed from a capsule yet
> would have zero absorption transdermally. And the claim than
> an "intra-oral liquid" would be better absorbed than a drug
> administered intramuscularly (IM) is complete nonsense,
> since any drug given IM is by definition 100% absorbed!

Thanks a lot for the information. Are you a medical
practitioner in any field? If so, I may want to quote you on
that. If you don't feel comfortable giving out personal
information though, that's perfectly fine, I'm sure I can find
corroborations for your statements elsewhere online

[Denis Mari]

When perusing the PDR and the DIN (Drug Indemnification
Number) data base for ferrous sulfate the chemistry for it is
described as ferrous compound preparation. When the
government's authorities issues a DIN do not list what is in
the with ferrous compound preparation. After a month of
research I am still waiting for answers from Drug Mart chains
store and pharmacists. So far I have a partial listing of some
of the binding agents used with out the percentage included in
the tablets preparation. Some of the QA dept. stated that a
certain percentage of sugar was used to make the tablets.
Having said that, this is just for a very common vitamins
"Ferrous Sulfate" let alone the other vitamins on the shelf.

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2knhqlpjftr61@corp.supernews.com...
> > Good work. I don't have much to add except I can confirm
> > that the bogus chart they made up does not and would not
> > appear in the PDR. The PDR is basically a hardcover
> > collection of pharmaceutical package inserts, not the
> > end-all and be-all of pharmacology textbooks as many con
> > artists would have you believe when they cite it in their
> > appeals to authority.
> >
> > And the chart itself is patently absurd. Drug absorption
> > is affected by many, many variables, only one of which is
> > the mode of delivery. You could certainly say a
> > transdermal patch could deliver more medication than a
> > "gel-capsule" for a certain drug (although I can't think
> > of one) but there are many drugs that would easily be
> > absorbed from a capsule yet would have zero absorption
> > transdermally. And the claim than an "intra-oral liquid"
> > would be better absorbed than a drug administered
> > intramuscularly (IM) is complete nonsense, since any drug
> > given IM is by definition 100% absorbed!
>
> Thanks a lot for the information. Are you a medical
> practitioner in any field? If so, I may want to quote you on
> that. If you don't feel comfortable giving out personal
> information though, that's perfectly fine, I'm sure I can
> find corroborations for your statements elsewhere online

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:38:28 -0500 TO: Smiley FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Nutrition Scam." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>So what I've now decided to do is set up a website where I
>can put the research I've done, in case anybody else is also
>looking for information about SeaSilver's deceitful
>practices. I'm still in the middle of setting everything up,
>but I do have one page done.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

SeaSilver happens to be a trademark, sunny boy.

So, you now have a web page set up specifically to publicly
defame a trademark of a major corporation with major money?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I hope you are prepared to pay for a team of lawyers to defend
yourself, when SeaSilver sues you big time.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Smiley]

> SeaSilver happens to be a trademark, sunny boy.
>
> So, you now have a web page set up specifically to publicly
> defame a trademark of a major corporation with major money?
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> I hope you are prepared to pay for a team of lawyers to
> defend yourself, when SeaSilver sues you big time.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)

Yeah, that's why Microsoft's suing the pants off all the
websites out there that expose THEIR deceitful practices.

Oh, wait... that's not happening at all, is it?

Oops, guess you'd better try actually knowing what you're
talking about before you say anything.

[Pf Riley]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:13:44 -0500, "Smiley"
<smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote:

>> Good work. I don't have much to add except I can confirm
>> that the bogus chart they made up does not and would not
>> appear in the PDR. The PDR is basically a hardcover
>> collection of pharmaceutical package inserts, not the
>> end-all and be-all of pharmacology textbooks as many con
>> artists would have you believe when they cite it in their
>> appeals to authority.
>>
>> And the chart itself is patently absurd. Drug absorption is
>> affected by many, many variables, only one of which is the
>> mode of delivery. You could certainly say a transdermal
>> patch could deliver more medication than a "gel-capsule"
>> for a certain drug (although I can't think of one) but
>> there are many drugs that would easily be absorbed from a
>> capsule yet would have zero absorption transdermally. And
>> the claim than an "intra-oral liquid" would be better
>> absorbed than a drug administered intramuscularly (IM) is
>> complete nonsense, since any drug given IM is by definition
>> 100% absorbed!
>
>Thanks a lot for the information. Are you a medical
>practitioner in any field? If so, I may want to quote
>you on that.

I'm a pediatrician, but PF Riley is a psuedonym because there
are too many kooks on Usenet.

PF

[David Wrig]

In article <v2ltpnbnotfh9e@corp.supernews.com>, Smiley
<smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote:
>
>> SeaSilver happens to be a trademark, sunny boy.
>>
>> So, you now have a web page set up specifically to publicly
>> defame a trademark of a major corporation with major money?
>>
>> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>>
>> I hope you are prepared to pay for a team of lawyers to
>> defend yourself, when SeaSilver sues you big time.
>>
>> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
>
>Yeah, that's why Microsoft's suing the pants off all the
>websites out there that expose THEIR deceitful practices.
>
>Oh, wait... that's not happening at all, is it?
>
>Oops, guess you'd better try actually knowing what you're
>talking about before you say anything.

Gohde has rejected this approach, as it would result in his
posting nothing at all. Well, except maybe for "Ha, ... Hah,
Ha!" Which I think is the sound made by his empty skull
echoing, but I admit that's speculation on my part.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[Denis Mari]

Years ago one got out of med. school and was able to practice
medicine with too much post training until retirement. Today,
family physician have to check drugs and food updates
sometime twice each day. Some have subscriptions to data
banks, Universities, research centers and government
publications and are not shy use their palm pilot computer in
front of their patients. I get a shot of B12 administered
intramuscularly every month. My family physician stated that
to take B12 orally is not good because the body cannot absorb
it. Some are saying that a new B12 tablet will soon be
available thus eliminating intramuscularly injection. That
remains to be seeing.

"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:3e2ae800.104943793@news1.nwlink.com...
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:13:44 -0500, "Smiley"
> <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Good work. I don't have much to add except I can confirm
> >> that the bogus chart they made up does not and would not
> >> appear in the PDR. The PDR is basically a hardcover
> >> collection of pharmaceutical package inserts, not the
> >> end-all and be-all of pharmacology textbooks as many con
> >> artists would have you believe when they cite it in their
> >> appeals to authority.
> >>
> >> And the chart itself is patently absurd. Drug absorption
> >> is affected by many, many variables, only one of which is
> >> the mode of delivery. You could certainly say a
> >> transdermal patch could deliver more medication than a
> >> "gel-capsule" for a certain drug (although I can't think
> >> of one) but there are many drugs that would easily be
> >> absorbed from a capsule yet would have zero absorption
> >> transdermally. And the claim than an "intra-oral liquid"
> >> would be better absorbed than a drug administered
> >> intramuscularly (IM) is complete nonsense, since any drug
> >> given IM is by definition 100% absorbed!
> >
> >Thanks a lot for the information. Are you a medical
> >practitioner in any field? If so, I may want to quote you
> >on that.
>
> I'm a pediatrician, but PF Riley is a psuedonym because
> there are too many kooks on Usenet.
>
> PF

[Smiley]

> I get a shot of B12 administered intramuscularly every
> month. My family physician stated that to take B12 orally is
> not good because the body
cannot
> absorb it. Some are saying that a new B12 tablet will soon
> be available thus eliminating intramuscularly injection.
> That remains to be seeing.

That sounds like complete bull - first of all, If B12 is
unable to be absorbed from pills or eating, how the heck are
you supposed to get it from nature? There's no vitamin that
you can't get from nature's bounty, and the biggest danger of
having a Vitamin B12 deficiency is if you're a vegan. Even
then, a vitamin supplement is enough for those needs.

[Denis Mari]

The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot keep
it. It urinated it all . The way the schilling tests are done
is your are administered B12 intramuscularly. A nuclear pill
is then given to you. Your have to collect all your urine for
the next 24 hours. Then the container is brought to the
laboratory and analyzed. The Doctor reads the report and if
not satisfactory the tests are done again. Only then you know
if your system cannot retain enough B12 for normal living. In
my case I produce B12 but my system destroys/use it quicker
than the average person. As for vegans, their diet does not
include enough B12 and in certain case they may require their
diet to be supplemented by B12. Tons of B12 oral tablets are
sold but the human system cannot absorb the vitamin by the
mouth. It has to be administered intramuscularly. Many
manufacturers and re-sellers will tell you that this is not
true that their tablet is the real things. Without costly
shilling tests you cannot know your B12 requirement nor can
you validate the merit of the use of tablets to supplement a
vegan's diet. FWIW . "Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in
message news:v2ltlrb6uh4n3d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > I get a shot of B12 administered intramuscularly every
> > month. My family physician stated that to take B12 orally
> > is not good because the body
> cannot
> > absorb it. Some are saying that a new B12 tablet will soon
> > be available thus eliminating intramuscularly injection.
> > That remains to be seeing.
>
> That sounds like complete bull - first of all, If B12 is
> unable to be absorbed from pills or eating, how the heck are
> you supposed to get it
from
> nature? There's no vitamin that you can't get from nature's
> bounty, and
the
> biggest danger of having a Vitamin B12 deficiency is if
> you're a vegan. Even then, a vitamin supplement is enough
> for those needs.

[Eric Bohlm]

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in
news:v2ltlrb6uh4n3d@corp.supernews.com:

>
>> I get a shot of B12 administered intramuscularly every
>> month. My family physician stated that to take B12 orally
>> is not good because the body
> cannot
>> absorb it. Some are saying that a new B12 tablet will soon
>> be available thus eliminating intramuscularly injection.
>> That remains to be seeing.
>
> That sounds like complete bull - first of all, If B12 is
> unable to be absorbed from pills or eating, how the heck are
> you supposed to get it from nature? There's no vitamin that
> you can't get from nature's bounty, and the biggest danger
> of having a Vitamin B12 deficiency is if you're a vegan.
> Even then, a vitamin supplement is enough for those needs.

Actually it's pretty much correct but a little sloppy. People
who need B12 injections generally have a condition called
pernicious anemia in which their immune system attacks the
stomach cells that produce a protein, called "intrinsic
factor," that's necessary for the absorption of B12. So the
statement "the body cannot absorb it" *is* correct *if* the
body in question has pernicious anemia. Someone who lacks
intrinsic factor can take tons of B12 orally and it won't get
into the bloodstream. That's why they need injections. But,
needless to say, that has no bearing on the absorbability of
B12 from food or supplements in people who don't have this
fairly rare condition.

In fact, that kind of sloppiness is a common way that
nutritional myths (or for that matter, any kind of myths)
start; someone takes a conditional statement that happens to
be true, strips off the conditional part, and then passes off
(deliberately or not) what remains as true unconditionally.
Classic case: if you're losing large amounts of water due to
sweating from heavy exercise in hot weather, you may start to
get dehydrated before you feel thirsty. That's a true
statement, and it makes sense to advise people who are going
to exercise in hot weather to drink before they feel thirsty
(especially since water can't be absorbed instantly and
they're going to continue to sweat before the water they drank
is absorbed). But if you snip off the conditional and just say
"thirst isn't a good guide to hydration, so you should never
wait until you're thirsty to drink" you've got a statement
that's no longer true. Under most circumstances, thirst *is* a
good guide to hydration; the condition of large, rapid water
loss just isn't "most circumstances."

It's easy to turn a valid statement of the exception into an
invalid statement of the rule.

[Smiley]

"Denis Marier" <marierd@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:VIDW9.242$mL1.16673@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot keep
> it. It urinated it all .

Not true. Your body doesn't produce any vitamins at all - any
vitamins you get come from outside sources.

> The way the schilling tests are done is your are
> administered B12 intramuscularly. A nuclear pill is then
> given to you. Your have to collect all your urine for the
> next 24 hours. Then the container is brought to the
> laboratory and analyzed. The Doctor reads the report and
> if not satisfactory the tests are done again. Only then
> you know if your system cannot retain enough B12 for
> normal living.
In
> my case I produce B12 but my system destroys/use it quicker
> than the
average
> person.

Do you have pernicious anemia?

> As for vegans, their diet does not include enough B12 and in
> certain case they may require their diet to be supplemented
> by B12. Tons of B12 oral tablets are sold but the human
> system cannot absorb the vitamin by the mouth. It has to be
> administered intramuscularly. Many manufacturers and
> re-sellers will tell you that this is not true that
their
> tablet is the real things. Without costly shilling tests you
> cannot know your B12 requirement nor can you validate the
> merit of the use of tablets
to
> supplement a vegan's diet.

I've seen no evidence that different people need such wildly
different amounts of any vitamins, baring any medical
condition that would make it necessary. The Food and Nutrition
board and the National Academy of Sciences published their
Recommended Daily Allowances for many vitamins including B12
without any reservations as to necessities for conducting
shilling tests.

[John De Ho]

Eric Bohlman wrote...

> Actually it's pretty much correct but a little sloppy.
> People who need B12 injections generally have a condition
> called pernicious anemia in which their immune system
> attacks the stomach cells that produce a protein, called
> "intrinsic factor," that's necessary for the absorption
> of B12. So
>
> the statement "the body cannot absorb it" *is* correct *if*
> the body in question has pernicious anemia. Someone who
> lacks intrinsic factor can take tons of B12 orally and it
> won't get into the bloodstream. That's why
>
> they need injections. But, needless to say, that has no
> bearing on the absorbability of B12 from food or supplements
> in people who don't have this fairly rare condition.

I'd like to qualify the above just a bit. As people get older
(and with the added effects of taking antibiotics, etc.) their
ability to absorb B12 often (not all that rarely) declines;
i.e., intrinsic factor declines significantly. B12 shots can
help, but another measure that appears to work is to take
large amounts of B12, preferably as methylcobalamin. From 500
to 1500 micrograms daily should be enough to absorb the
necessary few micrograms actually needed.

--
John De Hoog http://dehoog.org

[Steve Harr]

Eric Bohlman wrote in message ...
>"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in
>news:v2ltlrb6uh4n3d@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>
>>> I get a shot of B12 administered intramuscularly every
>>> month. My family physician stated that to take B12 orally
>>> is not good because the body
>> cannot
>>> absorb it.

Your family physician is about 20 years behind the times. Try
a new one.

SBH

[Steve Harr]

Denis Marier wrote in message ...
>The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot keep
>it. It urinated it all . The way the schilling tests are
>done is your are administered B12 intramuscularly. A nuclear
>pill is then given to you. Your have to collect all your
>urine for the next 24 hours. Then the container is brought
>to the laboratory and analyzed. The Doctor reads the report
>and if not satisfactory the tests are done again. Only then
>you know if your system cannot retain enough B12 for normal
>living. In my case I produce B12 but my system destroys/use
>it quicker than the
average
>person. As for vegans, their diet does not include enough B12
>and in certain case they may require their diet to be
>supplemented by B12. Tons of B12 oral tablets are sold but
>the human system cannot absorb the vitamin by the mouth. It
>has to be administered intramuscularly. Many manufacturers
>and re-sellers will tell you that this is not true that their
>tablet is the real things. Without costly shilling tests you
>cannot know your B12 requirement nor can you validate the
>merit of the use of tablets
to
>supplement a vegan's diet. FWIW

Complete nonsense. The Shilling test (please note the
spelling) is a waste of money, since the treatment is the
same for B12 deficiency (diagnosed by blood test), no matter
what the mechanism. A simple, cheap, megadose pill containing
from 1 to 5 mg B12 is given every day. After a few months of
this, another blood test confirms the efficacy, and that's
the end of it. You take the pill daily for the rest of your
life, but they're about nickel apiece. The money you save not
doing ONE Shilling test will buy you a lifetime (40 year)
supply of B12 pills.

The pills work in anyone short of B12 who has a terminal ileum
(if you're missing that piece of your gut, you're pretty
likely to know about it, since it will have been cut out of
you at some point). For these few people missing that piece of
small bowel, B12 shots are necessary, but not doing a Shilling
test STILL pays for a lifetime of shots, and provides no
therapeutic information. So there's STILL no point in doing
it. It's a relic of a bygone age when B12 was expensive.
Nobody but a few academic fossils does the test anymore, and
even they woudn't do it, if they had to pay for
it.

I wish them all a package of radioactive cobalt for Christmas.

SBH

[Denis Mari]

Thanks for your feedback.

Yes, I was diagnosed with pernicious anemia.

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2m38lj48jm4f9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Denis Marier" <marierd@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:VIDW9.242$mL1.16673@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot
> > keep it. It urinated it all .
>
> Not true. Your body doesn't produce any vitamins at all -
> any vitamins
you
> get come from outside sources.
>

[Steve Harr]

John De Hoog wrote in message ...
>Eric Bohlman wrote...
>
>> Actually it's pretty much correct but a little sloppy.
>> People who need B12 injections generally have a condition
>> called pernicious anemia in which their immune system
>> attacks the stomach cells that produce a protein, called
>> "intrinsic factor," that's necessary for the absorption
>> of B12.
So
>>
>> the statement "the body cannot absorb it" *is* correct *if*
>> the body in question has pernicious anemia. Someone who
>> lacks intrinsic factor can take tons of B12 orally and it
>> won't get into the bloodstream. That's
why
>>
>> they need injections

Wrong. They don't need injections-- that's urban myth. As for
"tons", you're off by a factor of about a billion. A milligram
a day of B12 orally will provide somebody with pernicious
anemia with all they need. Sometimes they are given a few
shots to load them up after initial diagnosis, but nobody has
proven formally that these have a better recovery than
patients treated with oral megadoses alone.

SBH

[Steve Harr]

B12 is produced in your hindgut where you cannot absorb it.
Whether the space inside your colon counts as being "inside"
your body or not, is a philsophical point. In one sense,
you're a like a donut, and your gut is the hole. Stuff in your
gut is in once sense never in you at all.

SBH

Denis Marier wrote in message ...
>Thanks for your feedback.
>
>Yes, I was diagnosed with pernicious anemia.
>
>"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
>news:v2m38lj48jm4f9@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Denis Marier" <marierd@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:VIDW9.242$mL1.16673@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> > The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot
>> > keep it. It urinated it all .
>>
>> Not true. Your body doesn't produce any vitamins at all -
>> any vitamins
>you
>> get come from outside sources.
>>
>>

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:02:22 GMT TO: PF Riley FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>I'm a pediatrician, but PF Riley is a psuedonym because there
>are too many kooks on Usenet.

No! Tell me that it ain't so.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:31:28 GMT TO: David Wright FROM: Dr.
S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Yeah, that's why Microsoft's suing the pants off all the
>websites out there
>>that expose THEIR deceitful practices.

>>Oh, wait... that's not happening at all, is it?

>>Oops, guess you'd better try actually knowing what you're
>>talking about before you say anything.

>... has rejected this approach, as it would result in his
>posting nothing at all. Well, except maybe for "Ha, ... Hah,
>Ha!" Which I think is the sound made by his empty skull
>echoing, but I admit that's speculation on my part.

Actually I was once contacted by a lawyer threatening legal
action. It does happen. If Seasilver ever gets wind of the
activities of this idiot ...

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Better you than me ... I have better things to do with my
money than supporting a team of lawyers.
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Smiley]

> Actually I was once contacted by a lawyer threatening legal
> action. It does happen. If Seasilver ever gets wind of the
> activities of this idiot ...

Ever hear of a little thing called Free Speech?

It's what allows people to set up websites putting down
Microsoft, AOL, Rogers Cable, and Scientology without fear
of reprisal.

Nobody get's sued just because they disagree with a company -
despite your lame assertion that "It does happen".

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:07:52 -0500 TO: Smiley FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Ever hear of a little thing called Free Speech?

Ever hear of defamation of character?

Ever hear of having a legal Department to protect your legal
rights in a money making venture?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:30:03 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>I wish them all a package of radioactive cobalt for
>Christmas. SBH

I see that you have not lost your famous people skills.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Buckshot]

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:<v2m38lj48jm4f9@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Denis Marier" <marierd@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:VIDW9.242$mL1.16673@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot
> > keep it. It urinated it all .
>
> Not true. Your body doesn't produce any vitamins at all -
> any vitamins you get come from outside sources.
>

Actually, exposure to sunlight causes your body to
synthesize vitamin D, and vitamin K is synthesized by
bacteria in your gut.

[John De Ho]

Steve Harris wrote...

> >> they need injections
>
>
>
> Wrong. They don't need injections-- that's urban myth. As
> for "tons", you're off by a factor of about a billion. A
> milligram a day of B12 orally will provide somebody with
> pernicious anemia with all they need. Sometimes they are
> given a few shots to load them up after initial diagnosis,
> but nobody has proven formally that these have a better
> recovery than patients treated with oral megadoses alone.

Thanks for the information, but watch those attributions (in
this, and in another message where you appear to be
disagreeing with one person but are actually taking on the
person being quoted by that person).

--
John De Hoog http://dehoog.org

[Steve Harr]

Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. wrote in message ...
>DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:30:03 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
>Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
>==========
>
>>I wish them all a package of radioactive cobalt for
>>Christmas. SBH
>
>I see that you have not lost your famous people skills.
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I see you're still out there, too, Gohde. And can't disguise
yourself even well enough to send two messages without being
obviously your own sweet self.

Still gumming that bread and milk?

SBH

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:11:19 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>In one sense, you're a like a donut, and your gut is the
>hole. Stuff in your gut is in once sense never in you at all.
>
>SBH

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

So, the food that I eat is never actually in me?
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Steve Harr]

Put a ball bearing on your tongue .You think it's in you? How
about when you reel it in, and your teeth close behind it?
When you swallow? We can continue this till it comes out the
other end. So you tell me when it's in you.

Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. wrote in message
<1lvl2vsd410tjecb00vkbovtdfgl1gflp6@4ax.com>...
>DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:11:19 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
>sci.med.nutrition
>==========
>
>>In one sense, you're a like a donut, and your gut is
>>the hole. Stuff in your gut is in once sense never in
>>you at all.
>>
>>SBH
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
>So, the food that I eat is never actually in me?
>--
>Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment
>brought to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
>
>Science is all about knowing less and less about more
>and more.

[Steve Harr]

Actually, in your case, GeekGodhe, make it when your dentures
close behind
it.

Steve Harris wrote in message ...
>Put a ball bearing on your tongue .You think it's in you? How
>about when you reel it in, and your teeth close behind it?
>When you swallow? We can continue this till it comes out the
>other end. So you tell me when it's in you.
>
>
>
>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. wrote in message
> <1lvl2vsd410tjecb00vkbovtdfgl1gflp6@4ax.com>...
>>DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:11:19 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
>>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
>>sci.med.nutrition
>>==========
>>
>>>In one sense, you're a like a donut, and your gut is
>>>the hole. Stuff in your gut is in once sense never in
>>>you at all.
>>>
>>>SBH
>>
>>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>>
>>So, the food that I eat is never actually in me?
>>--
>>Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment
>>brought to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
>>
>>Science is all about knowing less and less about more
>>and more.

[Pf Riley]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:40:23 GMT, "Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D."
<SGeek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm a pediatrician, but PF Riley is a psuedonym because
>>there are too many kooks on Usenet.
>
>No! Tell me that it ain't so.

Case in point.

>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[maniacal laughter]

[Pf Riley]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 02:25:08 GMT, "Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D."
<SGeek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ever hear of a little thing called Free Speech?
>
>Ever hear of defamation of character?

The risk there, of course, would be if the web page contained
lies. So far he's right on.

PF

[Pf Riley]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:16:53 GMT, "Denis Marier"
<marierd@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot keep
>it. It urinated it all . The way the schilling tests are done
>is your are administered B12 intramuscularly. A nuclear pill
>is then given to you. Your have to collect all your urine for
>the next 24 hours. Then the container is brought to the
>laboratory and analyzed. The Doctor reads the report and if
>not satisfactory the tests are done again. Only then you know
>if your system cannot retain enough B12 for normal living. In
>my case I produce B12 but my system destroys/use it quicker
>than the average person. As for vegans, their diet does not
>include enough B12 and in certain case they may require their
>diet to be supplemented by B12.

Yet again we are reminded: "Never believe what a patient tells
you his doctor said."

You misunderstand the purpose of the Schilling test. It does
not test how fast your "system destroys/use[s]" vitamin B12.
It tests how well you absorb oral vitamin B12.

>Tons of B12 oral tablets are sold but the human system cannot
>absorb the vitamin by the mouth. It has to be administered
>intramuscularly. Many manufacturers and re-sellers will tell
>you that this is not true that their tablet is the real
>things. Without costly shilling tests you cannot know your
>B12 requirement nor can you validate the merit of the use of
>tablets to supplement a vegan's diet. FWIW

If humans cannot absorb vitamin B12 by mouth, then why doesn't
everyone on the planet need vitamin B12 shots?

According to the NIH, even with true intrisnic factor
deficiency, humans can still absorb 1% of oral vitamin B12.

PF

[Pf Riley]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:30:03 -0800, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>The Shilling test (please note the spelling)

Well whaddaya know. The NIH got the spelling wrong.

PF

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:38:02 GMT TO: PF Riley FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>>>Ever hear of a little thing called Free Speech?

>>Ever hear of defamation of character?

>The risk there, of course, would be if the web page contained
>lies. So far he's right on.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Ah! The Academic mind at work. :()

If you got money you can still sue, dumb dumb. And, the courts
can order you to cease and desist, too.

You are just another fool who thinks Free Speech means
that you can defame people as you please. Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
All it means is that most people don't bother to sue. But,
some do. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Smiley]

"Buckshot" <c6re@sdsumus.sdstate.edu> wrote in message
news:3a838998.0301192135.6667879e@posting.google.com...
> "Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:<v2m38lj48jm4f9@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Denis Marier" <marierd@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> > news:VIDW9.242$mL1.16673@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > > The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot
> > > keep it. It urinated it all .
> >
> > Not true. Your body doesn't produce any vitamins at all -
> > any vitamins
you
> > get come from outside sources.
> >
>
> Actually, exposure to sunlight causes your body to
> synthesize vitamin D,
and
> vitamin K is synthesized by bacteria in your gut.

Hmmm... one of my sources when I was researching said that we
didn't produce vitamins which was why we had to get them from
our food. I guess they just meant 'for the most part'.

[Pf Riley]

On 19 Jan 2003 21:35:12 -0800, c6re@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
(Buckshot) wrote:

>"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
>news:<v2m38lj48jm4f9@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Denis Marier" <marierd@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:VIDW9.242$mL1.16673@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> > The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot
>> > keep it. It urinated it all .
>>
>> Not true. Your body doesn't produce any vitamins at all -
>> any vitamins you get come from outside sources.
>
>Actually, exposure to sunlight causes your body to
>synthesize vitamin D, and vitamin K is synthesized by
>bacteria in your gut.

Vitamin D is misnamed. It's a steroid hormone, not a vitamin.
As for vitamin K, again the argument of whether bacteria
living in your gut counts as part of your body or not will
never be settled, but suffice to say that if you are on
chronic antibiotic therapy, killing the little buggers, and
are not getting vitamin K in your nutrition (e.g., parenteral
nutrition) you could end up vitamin K deficient, since your
"body" doesn't synthesize it.

PF

[Pf Riley]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:11:19 -0800, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>B12 is produced in your hindgut where you cannot absorb it.
>Whether the space inside your colon counts as being "inside"
>your body or not, is a philsophical point. In one sense,
>you're a like a donut, and your gut is the hole. Stuff in
>your gut is in once sense never in you at all.

Here's a little more on that.

From <http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-
-7c.shtml>:

Direct coprophagy: a reliable (vegan?) B-12 source

Note: this section may be considered to be in poor taste--both
figuratively and literally--by some readers. It is
included here for completeness, and in the event certain
(extremist) fruitarian/veg*ns might be interested in
experimenting with a vegan (?) source of vitamin B-12
that is truly radical in character.

B-12 [is] produced in, but cannot be absorbed from, the human
colon. The human colon contains bacteria that produce vitamin
B-12, and fecal matter is a rich source of B-12. This raises
the question of whether B-12 can be absorbed from the colon.
From Herbert [1988, p. 852]:

In one of the less appetizing but more brilliant experiments
in the field of vitamin B-12 metabolism in the 50s, Sheila
Callendar (7) in England delineated that colon bacteria make
large amounts of vitamin B-12. Although the bacterial vitamin
B-12 is not absorbed through the colon, it is active for
humans. Callendar studied vegan volunteers who had vitamin
B-12 deficiency characterized by classic megaloblastic anemia.
She collected 24-h stools, made water extracts of them, and
fed the extract to the patients, thereby curing their vitamin
B-12 deficiency. This experiment demonstrated clearly that 1)
colon bacteria of vegans make enough vitamin B-12 to cure
vitamin B-12 deficiency, 2) the vitamin B-12 is not absorbed
through the colon wall, and 3) if given by mouth, it is
absorbed primarily in the small bowel.

Herbert et al. [1984] collected the 24-hour fecal output from
6 men. They found that the (24-hour) total fecal output
contained ~100 mcg of total corrinoids, of which only ~5 mcg
was true B-12 (the remainder being analogues). (Note: see
Mozafar [1994] for a table of B-12 levels in manure, feces,
soil, sludge, etc.) Given this, the work of Callendar
mentioned above could be taken to suggest that the true B-12
in the feces (if reingested and passed back through the small
bowel) would be absorbed, despite the substantial amount of
analogues present.

Any takers? Further, the daily output of ~5 mcg versus the
RDA/RDI of 1-2 mcg suggests that a direct coprophagy level
(i.e., reingestion of feces) of 20-40% of output will meet
requirements for B-12. Might this qualify as the only truly
reliable, vegan (?) source of B-12? Will coprophagy be the
next fad among certain fruitarian extremists? (Obligatory
warning: coprophagy, and the handling of feces, is unsafe and
increases the risk of transmission of parasites and diseases.
Coprophagy is not recommended.)

PF

[Eric Bohlm]

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in
news:v2n4fhdj3orcf9@corp.supernews.com:

> Hmmm... one of my sources when I was researching said that
> we didn't produce vitamins which was why we had to get them
> from our food. I guess they just meant 'for the most part'.

Sort of. There are a few exceptions. For example, humans can
synthesize niacin (by a minor pathway of tryptophan
metabolism), but not in sufficient quantities to meet their
requirements.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:59:56 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>I see you're still out there, too, .... And can't disguise
>yourself even well enough to send two messages without being
>obviously your own sweet self.

Excuse me, but ...

The "S" stands for Science. That is Science Geek, ... you
Geek!

I am the parody of your worst nightmares. I'm hardly trying to
hide my identify. I am a caricature of the Academic
personalities found on smn. :()

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:02:35 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Actually, in your case, GeekGodhe, make it when your dentures
>close behind
>it.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Another Geek who thinks of me as "he who is God."

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:56:36 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Put a ball bearing on your tongue .You think it's in you? How
>about when you reel it in, and your teeth close behind it?
>When you swallow? We can continue this till it comes out the
>other end. So you tell me when it's in you.

We can also say that blood is nothing but seawater, too.

Or, we can say that matter is not solid. It is mostly
empty space.

Ah! Steve just proved the validity of the commonsense approach
to health.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Smiley]

> Ever hear of defamation of character?
>
> Ever hear of having a legal Department to protect your legal
> rights in a money making venture?

Ever hear of the FDA? The organization that's going to bust
these guys for violating the DSHEA?

I think their legal department is going to be a little to busy
to worry about me.

[Smiley]

> You are just another fool who thinks Free Speech means
> that you can defame people as you please. Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
> All it means is that most people don't bother to sue. But,
> some do. :)

How about this then - I live in another country and I don't
give out my name or location on the website.

Even if they wanted to sue me, they'd be pretty hard
pressed to do so.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:16:29 -0500 TO: Smiley FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>> You are just another fool who thinks Free Speech means
>> that you can defame people as you please. Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>> All it means is that most people don't bother to sue. But,
>> some do. :)

>How about this then - I live in another country and I don't
>give out my name or location on the website.

>Even if they wanted to sue me, they'd be pretty hard pressed
>to do so.

Hay mack!

We already know that you are an idiot.

Why do you insist on giving us more proof???
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Steve Harr]

Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. wrote in message ...
>DATE: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:59:56 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
>Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
>==========
>
>>I see you're still out there, too, .... And can't disguise
>>yourself even well enough to send two messages without being
>>obviously your own sweet self.
>
>Excuse me, but ...
>
>The "S" stands for Science. That is Science Geek, ...
>you Geek!
>
>I am the parody of your worst nightmares. I'm hardly trying
>to hide my identify. I am a caricature of the Academic
>personalities found on smn. :()

Yeah, John Godhe, like I said. You are now officially added to
my killfile, as another Godhe sockpuppet. Bye bye.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:43:58 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Yeah, ..., like I said. You are now officially added to my
>killfile, as another ... sockpuppet. Bye bye.
--
It would be nice if commoners would first learn to navigate
the web as well as newsgroups and their newsreaders before
becoming a royal pest.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[David Wrig]

In article <Xns9309315EC6176ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>,
Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in
>news:v2n4fhdj3orcf9@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Hmmm... one of my sources when I was researching said that
>> we didn't produce vitamins which was why we had to get them
>> from our food. I guess they just meant 'for the most part'.
>
>Sort of. There are a few exceptions. For example, humans can
>synthesize niacin (by a minor pathway of tryptophan
>metabolism), but not in sufficient quantities to meet their
>requirements.

There's a rare mutation in humans that allows those who have
it to synthesize vitamin C, but not enough to avoid scurvy, so
it's not of much practical interest.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[David Wrig]

In article <tvco2vsfrjtb4k39jgr13bvo267uedavmt@4ax.com>,
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. <Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
"SGeek@hotmail.com"> wrote:
>DATE: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:43:58 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
>Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
>==========
>
>>Yeah, ..., like I said. You are now officially added to my
>>killfile, as another ... sockpuppet. Bye bye.
>--
>It would be nice if commoners would first learn to navigate
>the web as well as newsgroups and their newsreaders before
>becoming a royal pest.

So you're saying that's what you did before becoming a
royal pest?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[B12 User]

Case in point: I happen to be one of those rare folks having
had their ileum circumvented by weight-reduction surgery, so
it might as well not be there. And I do take vitamin B12
shots, once a month, have been doing so for three years. When
my doc suspected a B12 problem, he did a simple blood test,
not the Shilling/Schilling (whatever) test. And 1 mg. of B12
serum a month, with a tiny needle, solved the problem.

Me
- - - - - -

Steve Harris wrote:
>
> Denis Marier wrote in message ...
> >The situation is that your body produces B12 but cannot
> >keep it. It urinated it all . The way the schilling tests
> >are done is your are administered B12 intramuscularly. A
> >nuclear pill is then given to you. Your have to collect all
> >your urine for the next 24 hours. Then the container is
> >brought to the laboratory and analyzed. The Doctor reads
> >the report and if not satisfactory the tests are done
> >again. Only then you know if your system cannot retain
> >enough B12 for normal living. In my case I produce B12 but
> >my system destroys/use it quicker than the
> average
> >person. As for vegans, their diet does not include enough
> >B12 and in certain case they may require their diet to be
> >supplemented by B12. Tons of B12 oral tablets are sold but
> >the human system cannot absorb the vitamin by the mouth. It
> >has to be administered intramuscularly. Many manufacturers
> >and re-sellers will tell you that this is not true that
> >their tablet is the real things. Without costly shilling
> >tests you cannot know your B12 requirement nor can you
> >validate the merit of the use of tablets
> to
> >supplement a vegan's diet. FWIW
>
> Complete nonsense. The Shilling test (please note the
> spelling) is a waste of money, since the treatment is the
> same for B12 deficiency (diagnosed by blood test), no matter
> what the mechanism. A simple, cheap, megadose pill
> containing from 1 to 5 mg B12 is given every day. After a
> few months of this, another blood test confirms the
> efficacy, and that's the end of it. You take the pill daily
> for the rest of your life, but they're about nickel apiece.
> The money you save not doing ONE Shilling test will buy you
> a lifetime (40 year) supply of B12 pills.
>
> The pills work in anyone short of B12 who has a terminal
> ileum (if you're missing that piece of your gut, you're
> pretty likely to know about it, since it will have been cut
> out of you at some point). For these few people missing that
> piece of small bowel, B12 shots are necessary, but not doing
> a Shilling test STILL pays for a lifetime of shots, and
> provides no therapeutic information. So there's STILL no
> point in doing it. It's a relic of a bygone age when B12 was
> expensive. Nobody but a few academic fossils does the test
> anymore, and even they woudn't do it, if they had to pay for
> it.
>
> I wish them all a package of radioactive cobalt for
> Christmas.
>
> SBH

[Gym Bob]

I understand that sublingual B12 is the best form for
absorption.

"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b0f8bu$o52$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> John De Hoog wrote in message ...
> >Eric Bohlman wrote...
> >
> >> Actually it's pretty much correct but a little sloppy.
> >> People who need B12 injections generally have a condition
> >> called pernicious anemia in which their immune system
> >> attacks the stomach cells that produce a protein, called
> >> "intrinsic factor," that's necessary for the absorption
> >> of B12.
> So
> >>
> >> the statement "the body cannot absorb it" *is* correct
> >> *if* the body in question has pernicious anemia. Someone
> >> who lacks intrinsic factor can take tons of B12 orally
> >> and it won't get into the bloodstream. That's
> why
> >>
> >> they need injections
>
>
>
> Wrong. They don't need injections-- that's urban myth. As
> for "tons", you're off by a factor of about a billion. A
> milligram a day of B12 orally will provide somebody with
> pernicious anemia with all they need. Sometimes they are
> given a few shots to load them up after initial diagnosis,
> but nobody has proven formally that these have a better
> recovery than patients treated with oral megadoses alone.
>
> SBH

[Gym Bob]

You see this? If I go to Supernews.com with a warant they dish
out your complete name, address , the works! Legally you are a
piece of cake to find!

Never assume you are anonymous on the internet!
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
-----------------
Path: mantis.golden.net!radon.golden.net!newsfeed4.cidera.com-
!newsfeed1.cidera.com !Cidera!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!-
sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!co
rp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Smiley"
<smiley@uvgotemail.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Nutrition Scam Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:16:29
-0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews,
http://www.supernews.com Message-ID:
<v2o4mfdo4lhe05@corp.supernews.com> X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook
Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft
MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 10 Xref: mantis.golden.net sci.med:342728
sci.med.nutrition:183818

--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
-------------------

> You are just another fool who thinks Free Speech means
> that you can defame people as you please. Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
> All it means is that most people don't bother to sue. But,
> some do. :)

How about this then - I live in another country and I don't
give out my name or location on the website.

Even if they wanted to sue me, they'd be pretty hard
pressed to do so.

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2o4mfdo4lhe05@corp.supernews.com...
>
> How about this then - I live in another country and I don't
> give out my
name
> or location on the website.
>
> Even if they wanted to sue me, they'd be pretty hard pressed
> to do so.

[Steve Harr]

Gym Bob wrote in message ...
>I understand that sublingual B12 is the best form for
>absorption.

There's no good evidence for this that know of, and I've
looked. The sublingual route of oral absorption for drug like
nitroglycerine has gotten a lot of press because in your mouth
and your anus is mucosa which is drained by veins which bypass
the liver, and thus things you absorb by mouth or per rectum
bypass liver metabolism. This is totally irrelevent to B12,
which you want to go to your liver anyway. Not that I think
the surface area of your mouth compares with your gut when it
comes to mass-action diffusional B12 absorption, of the type
we're discussing here.

Sublingual B12 was invented by marketing geniuses, and it's
bought by the nutritionally clueless. Sort of the same way as
with B12 nasal gel. Not quite that silly, but getting there.

SBH

[Gym Bob]

easy....big boy...I bought a large bottle of it...but it sure
tasted good for a breathe mint!....LOL

"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b0iehq$5ek$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Gym Bob wrote in message ...
> >I understand that sublingual B12 is the best form for
> >absorption.
>
>
> There's no good evidence for this that know of, and I've
> looked. The sublingual route of oral absorption for drug
> like nitroglycerine has
gotten
> a lot of press because in your mouth and your anus is mucosa
> which is drained by veins which bypass the liver, and thus
> things you absorb by
mouth
> or per rectum bypass liver metabolism. This is totally
> irrelevent to B12, which you want to go to your liver
> anyway. Not that I think the surface
area
> of your mouth compares with your gut when it comes to
> mass-action diffusional B12 absorption, of the type we're
> discussing here.
>
> Sublingual B12 was invented by marketing geniuses, and
> it's bought by the nutritionally clueless. Sort of the
> same way as with B12 nasal gel. Not quite that silly, but
> getting there.
>
> SBH

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:25:20 -0800 TO: Steve Harris FROM:
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Gym Bob wrote in message ...
>>I understand that sublingual B12 is the best form for
>>absorption.

>There's no good evidence for this that know of, and I've
>looked. The sublingual route of oral absorption for drug like
>nitroglycerine has gotten a lot of press because in your
>mouth and your anus is mucosa which is drained by veins which
>bypass the liver, and thus things you absorb by mouth or per
>rectum bypass liver metabolism. This is totally irrelevent to
>B12, which you want to go to your liver anyway. Not that I
>think the surface area of your mouth compares with your gut
>when it comes to mass-action diffusional B12 absorption, of
>the type we're discussing here.
>
>Sublingual B12 was invented by marketing geniuses, and it's
>bought by the nutritionally clueless. Sort of the same way as
>with B12 nasal gel. Not quite that silly, but getting there.
>
>SBH

Boy Steve, are you ignorant!

Sublingual B12 is for the expensive form of B-12 that is
destroyed in your stomach if you swallow it!!!

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[B12 User]

S. Geek, if you aren't John Godhe, why did you go to the
trouble of excising that name from your reply?

> Yeah, John Godhe, like I said. You are now officially added
> to my killfile, as another Godhe sockpuppet. Bye bye.

>>Yeah, ..., like I said. You are now officially added to my
>>killfile, as another ... sockpuppet. Bye bye.

Just baffled by this idiotic exchange going on... Me

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:49:54 GMT TO: B12 User FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly Shilling
Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>why did you go to the trouble of excising that name from
>your reply?

Excuse me, but ...

The "S" stands for Science. That is Science Geek, ... you
Geek!

I am no Exorcist!

I am a caricature of the Academic personalities found on smn.
:()

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 04:04:39 GMT TO: David Wright FROM: Dr.
S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
>were standing on my shoulders."

Personally, I think that they are standing on your head ...
in the mud!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 04:03:19 GMT TO: David Wright FROM: Dr.
S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>There's a rare mutation in humans that allows those who have
>it to synthesize vitamin C, but not enough to avoid scurvy,
>so it's not of much practical interest.

mutation?

Ah! The Academic mind at work. :()

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Smiley]

How the heck would Supernews.com even know who I am? You're
not making any sense. Are they the parent company for
uvegotemail.com? Is that what you're talking about?
uvgotemail.com doesn't know who I am either - they're just a
web based email provider. Plus, they're also in another
country from mine altogether as well, even if they could
give information about me it would be a hassle getting it
from them.

"Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
news:BM2X9.123$9k6.12500071@mantis.golden.net...
> You see this? If I go to Supernews.com with a warant they
> dish out your complete name, address , the works! Legally
> you are a piece of cake to
find!
>
> Never assume you are anonymous on the internet!

[Smiley]

"Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
news:BM2X9.123$9k6.12500071@mantis.golden.net...
> You see this? If I go to Supernews.com with a warant they
> dish out your complete name, address , the works! Legally
> you are a piece of cake to
find!
>
> Never assume you are anonymous on the internet!

Ah, I see now, Supernews - apparently they're an
outsourcing service to this newsgroup provider. They don't
know anything about me either, I've got my ISP account
elsewhere. If you know of any other way anybody could find
me, I'd love to hear it.

[Gym Bob]

If supernews didn't know who you were they wouldn't be able to
give you access or credt your account now would they?

When Suoernews stands for "interfering with the legal process"
or "conspiracy to commit crime" they know who you are
geeee...guess what?........and it isn't a hassle anymore.

Been there, done this. You are not invincible on the internet.

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2pop5kfoomo2c@corp.supernews.com...
> How the heck would Supernews.com even know who I am? You're
> not making
any
> sense. Are they the parent company for uvegotemail.com? Is
> that what you're talking about? uvgotemail.com doesn't know
> who I am either -
they're
> just a web based email provider. Plus, they're also in
> another country
from
> mine altogether as well, even if they could give information
> about me it would be a hassle getting it from them.
>
> "Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:BM2X9.123$9k6.12500071@mantis.golden.net...
> > You see this? If I go to Supernews.com with a warant they
> > dish out your complete name, address , the works! Legally
> > you are a piece of cake to
> find!
> >
> > Never assume you are anonymous on the internet!

[Smiley]

"Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
news:nYeX9.165$vr7.15737969@mantis.golden.net...
> If supernews didn't know who you were they wouldn't be able
> to give you access or credt your account now would they?
>
> When Suoernews stands for "interfering with the legal
> process" or "conspiracy to commit crime" they know who you
> are geeee...guess what?........and it isn't a hassle
> anymore.
>
> Been there, done this. You are not invincible on the
> internet.
>

Sorry, but you're wrong - I have no direct contact with
supernews.com, nor have they ever charged me any money. The
newsreader service that I'm using from this computer
apparently uses supernews.com, but that's about it.

supernews.com has no way of knowing who I am, so you're out of
luck there.

[Gym Bob]

Well you see that "one of a kind ID I published? That just
happens to identify you absolutely (well your account anyway)
and when the cops come they hand over where it came from. It
may take a while but it works and always finds you.

Now if you lived in Russia or some internet unfriendly
nation it may be a little harder. The rest have to keep
records or get off the connection. Connection rules apply or
don't connect.

There is no such thing as anonyminity on the internet, only
confusion not making the cost worth while.

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2r3u73t9gdi9a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:nYeX9.165$vr7.15737969@mantis.golden.net...
> > If supernews didn't know who you were they wouldn't be
> > able to give you access or credt your account now
> > would they?
> >
> > When Suoernews stands for "interfering with the legal
> > process" or "conspiracy to commit crime" they know who you
> > are geeee...guess what?........and it isn't a hassle
> > anymore.
> >
> > Been there, done this. You are not invincible on the
> > internet.
> >
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong - I have no direct contact with
> supernews.com, nor have they ever charged me any money. The
> newsreader service that I'm
using
> from this computer apparently uses supernews.com, but that's
> about it.
>
> supernews.com has no way of knowing who I am, so you're out
> of luck there.

[Ginnie]

Smiley, you're either into some *serious* wishful thinking, or
some even more serious DENIAL. Even I - an average user - can
tell that you're using Microsoft Outlook Express on a PC, and
that anyone who takes offense at anything you post as "Smiley"
at smiley@uvgotemail.com, should direct their abuse
"X-Complaints- To: abuse@supernews.com. It's all there, in the
header of every single message you send.

Supernews obviously rides herd over uvgotemail. Ignore
that fact, and the fact that you CAN be identified, at
your own risk.

Ginnie
________________________________

Smiley wrote:
>
> "Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:nYeX9.165$vr7.15737969@mantis.golden.net...
> > If supernews didn't know who you were they wouldn't be
> > able to give you access or credt your account now
> > would they?
> >
> > When Suoernews stands for "interfering with the legal
> > process" or "conspiracy to commit crime" they know who you
> > are geeee...guess what?........and it isn't a hassle
> > anymore.
> >
> > Been there, done this. You are not invincible on the
> > internet.
> >
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong - I have no direct contact with
> supernews.com, nor have they ever charged me any money. The
> newsreader service that I'm using from this computer
> apparently uses supernews.com, but that's about it.
>
> supernews.com has no way of knowing who I am, so you're out
> of luck there.

[Smiley]

"Ginnie" <ginnies@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E2DCCAD.14B86AA2@earthlink.net...
> Smiley, you're either into some *serious* wishful thinking,
> or some even more serious DENIAL. Even I - an average user -
> can tell that you're using Microsoft Outlook Express on a
> PC, and that anyone who takes offense at anything you post
> as "Smiley" at smiley@uvgotemail.com, should direct their
> abuse "X-Complaints- To: abuse@supernews.com. It's all
> there, in the header of every single message you send.
>
> Supernews obviously rides herd over uvgotemail. Ignore
> that fact, and the fact that you CAN be identified, at
> your own risk.

How? Uvgotemail.com doesn't even know who I am. They're a web
based email company who didn't require me to submit my address
or anything. Even if they wanted to they couldn't identify me.

[Smiley]

"Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
news:WnjX9.181$fO7.16898114@mantis.golden.net...
> Well you see that "one of a kind ID I published? That just
> happens to identify you absolutely (well your account
> anyway) and when the cops come they hand over where it came
> from. It may take a while but it works and always finds you.
>
> Now if you lived in Russia or some internet unfriendly
> nation it may be a little harder. The rest have to keep
> records or get off the connection. Connection rules apply or
> don't connect.
>
> There is no such thing as anonyminity on the internet, only
> confusion not making the cost worth while.

Which one? The message ID? It's different for each
message I write.

Besides which, it's a moot point. First off, I'm not doing
anything illegal and it's highly unlikely anybody would arrest
me - especially since if SeaSilver tried anything they would
only be exposing their own illegal activities to a judge and
jurors as well.

Second of all, I use mostly web based services for my mail and
news, and they don't know where I live at all.

Thirdly, SeaSilver wouldn't even know anything about this
newsgroup conversation, and by the time I finish the website
it will be long gone history - unless they were tipped off and
decided to search through some newsgroup archives, which, of
course, would be a little bit much of an effort involving time
and money to waste on just finding me.

Fourthly, even the legalities of finding out where I live
would involve time and money consuming legal work through more
than one country, even if they were able to trace down my ISP.

[David Wrig]

In article <i4pp2vo096upq0vrahbrcusbpf76kgk3vg@4ax.com>,
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. <Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
"SGeek@hotmail.com"> wrote:

>Personally, I think

There you go, making ridiculous assertions again.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[Ginnie]

Oh, you aren't living in the real world!

You aren't gonna like this one bit... Look what I found, in
under 20 seconds- and I didn't even use the name Smiley, just
"SeaSilver" and sci.med: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%-
22seasilver%22+group:sci.med&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0

Ginnie
______________________
Smiley wrote:
>
> "Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:WnjX9.181$fO7.16898114@mantis.golden.net...
> > Well you see that "one of a kind ID I published? That just
> > happens to identify you absolutely (well your account
> > anyway) and when the cops come they hand over where it
> > came from. It may take a while but it works and always
> > finds you.
> >
> > Now if you lived in Russia or some internet unfriendly
> > nation it may be a little harder. The rest have to keep
> > records or get off the connection. Connection rules apply
> > or don't connect.
> >
> > There is no such thing as anonyminity on the internet,
> > only confusion not making the cost worth while.
>
> Which one? The message ID? It's different for each message
> I write.
>
> Besides which, it's a moot point. First off, I'm not doing
> anything illegal and it's highly unlikely anybody would
> arrest me - especially since if SeaSilver tried anything
> they would only be exposing their own illegal activities to
> a judge and jurors as well.
>
> Second of all, I use mostly web based services for my mail
> and news, and they don't know where I live at all.
>
> Thirdly, SeaSilver wouldn't even know anything about this
> newsgroup conversation, and by the time I finish the website
> it will be long gone history - unless they were tipped off
> and decided to search through some newsgroup archives,
> which, of course, would be a little bit much of an effort
> involving time and money to waste on just finding me.
>
> Fourthly, even the legalities of finding out where I live
> would involve time and money consuming legal work through
> more than one country, even if they were able to trace
> down my ISP.

[Gym Bob]

You're living in wish land. I am not sure how long they have
to or do keep the records but every post has an ID attached
that identifies a link to their logs which will tell them your
IP address. That happens to come from your ISP and their logs
will , along with the time posted, tell them absolutely what
account the post came from. Let's face it...you are not
anonymous.

Yes you have agreed with me and I will repeat it again. It
has to be worth the hassle. A legal criminal thing or large
bucks etc..

The confusion can mask smal/petty things., Never admit to
anything when they knock on your door. First mistake.

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2rlpu6ud45e15@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ginnie" <ginnies@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3E2DCCAD.14B86AA2@earthlink.net...
> > Smiley, you're either into some *serious* wishful
> > thinking, or some even more serious DENIAL. Even I - an
> > average user - can tell that you're using Microsoft
> > Outlook Express on a PC, and that anyone who takes offense
> > at anything you post as "Smiley" at smiley@uvgotemail.com,
> > should direct their abuse "X-Complaints- To:
> > abuse@supernews.com. It's all there, in the header of
> > every single message you send.
> >
> > Supernews obviously rides herd over uvgotemail. Ignore
> > that fact, and the fact that you CAN be identified, at
> > your own risk.
>
> How? Uvgotemail.com doesn't even know who I am. They're a
> web based
email
> company who didn't require me to submit my address or
> anything. Even if they wanted to they couldn't identify me.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:14:43 GMT TO: David Wright FROM: Dr.
S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>>Personally, I think

>There you go, making ridiculous assertions again.

You are not entitled to an opinion unless you have a PhD
behind your name, ... Geek!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[J R]

ok! what does sublingual absorption potentiate? ( how do you
spell this word steve? my spell checker makes it look
religious.)

if nothing why use this route at all?

Steve Harris wrote:

> Gym Bob wrote in message ...
>
>>I understand that sublingual B12 is the best form for
>>absorption.
>>
>
>
> There's no good evidence for this that know of, and I've
> looked. The sublingual route of oral absorption for drug
> like nitroglycerine has gotten a lot of press because in
> your mouth and your anus is mucosa which is drained by
> veins which bypass the liver, and thus things you absorb
> by mouth or per rectum bypass liver metabolism. This is
> totally irrelevent to B12, which you want to go to your
> liver anyway. Not that I think the surface area of your
> mouth compares with your gut when it comes to
> mass-action diffusional B12 absorption, of the type
> we're discussing here.
>
> Sublingual B12 was invented by marketing geniuses, and
> it's bought by the nutritionally clueless. Sort of the
> same way as with B12 nasal gel. Not quite that silly, but
> getting there.
>
> SBH
>

[Roman]

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2jb9mr9sdk335@corp.supernews.com...
>
> www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html
>

Not arguing for or against SeaSilver, but want to address your
statements regarding Vitamin A: "My multivitamin offers
10,000iu of vitamin A. An overdose is anything over 25,000iu.
Go ahead, ask your doctor if it would be okay to swallow 10 of
those, taking in 100,000iu of Vitamin A. After the horrified
look on his face wears off he will tell you to under no
circumstances follow that plan!"

You are mistaken about toxicity of Vitamin A. It is much less
toxic, regardless of what your doctor will tell you. But I am
talking about a natural form, e.g. from fish oil. I don't have
any data about a synthetic form.

Roman

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:12:38 -0600 TO: Roman FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "about Vitamin A toxicity; Re: Nutrition
Scam." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

> I don't have any data about a synthetic form.

You don't have any data period!

You are not entitled to an opinion unless you have a PhD
behind your name, ... Geek!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: 22 Jan 2003 10:09:55 -0800 TO: smiley FROM: Dr. S. Geek,
Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Nothing's impossible if you try hard enough, that's why they
>cracked the Enigma code back in WWII. But seriously, how
>likely do you think it is that I'll get in any sort of
>trouble here?

Yeah! Anything is possible and worth it to get your very
last dime.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Hey Dumb Dumb, Seasilver is a trademark. Do you have
permission to use their trademark?

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Smiley]

Ginnie <ginnies@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<3E2DEF13.525F2BBF@earthlink.net>...
> Oh, you aren't living in the real world!
>
> You aren't gonna like this one bit... Look what I found, in
> under 20 seconds- and I didn't even use the name Smiley,
> just "SeaSilver" and sci.med:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22seasilver%
> 22+group:sci.med&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
>
> Ginnie

You're not making any sense, why are you showing me a list of
Google newsgroup results? Good for you, you managed to find
some posts, how does that invalidate anything I've said???

[Smiley]

"Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
news:<nynX9.202$Jo.18763831@mantis.golden.net>...
> You're living in wish land. I am not sure how long they have
> to or do keep the records but every post has an ID attached
> that identifies a link to their logs which will tell them
> your IP address. That happens to come from your ISP and
> their logs will , along with the time posted, tell them
> absolutely what account the post came from. Let's face
> it...you are not anonymous.
>
> Yes you have agreed with me and I will repeat it again. It
> has to be worth the hassle. A legal criminal thing or large
> bucks etc..
>
> The confusion can mask smal/petty things., Never admit to
> anything when they knock on your door. First mistake.

My IP address would be the only way they could find me, but
even that would be quite a bit of a hassle, especially since I
like to use proxy services. It would be especially much of a
hassle since they'd have to go through a few companies just to
get the information they want, and they'd need a pretty good
reason to even get a judge to give them a warrant for the
records of just one of those companies.

I'm not saying that it's completely impossible for them to
find me, I'm just saying that it's way more hassle than it's
worth. Nothing's impossible if you try hard enough, that's
why they cracked the Enigma code back in WWII. But seriously,
how likely do you think it is that I'll get in any sort of
trouble here?

[Gym Bob]

Agreed then.....LOL

I've done it once.

"smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:7adb0bf3.0301221009.5ceb4a94@posting.google.com...
> "Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
news:<nynX9.202$Jo.18763831@mantis.golden.net>...
> > You're living in wish land. I am not sure how long they
> > have to or do
keep
> > the records but every post has an ID attached that
> > identifies a link to their logs which will tell them your
> > IP address. That happens to come
from
> > your ISP and their logs will , along with the time posted,
> > tell them absolutely what account the post came from.
> > Let's face it...you are not anonymous.
> >
> > Yes you have agreed with me and I will repeat it again. It
> > has to be
worth
> > the hassle. A legal criminal thing or large bucks etc..
> >
> > The confusion can mask smal/petty things., Never admit to
> > anything when
they
> > knock on your door. First mistake.
>
> My IP address would be the only way they could find me, but
> even that would be quite a bit of a hassle, especially since
> I like to use proxy services. It would be especially much of
> a hassle since they'd have to go through a few companies
> just to get the information they want, and they'd need a
> pretty good reason to even get a judge to give them a
> warrant for the records of just one of those companies.
>
> I'm not saying that it's completely impossible for them to
> find me, I'm just saying that it's way more hassle than it's
> worth. Nothing's impossible if you try hard enough, that's
> why they cracked the Enigma code back in WWII. But
> seriously, how likely do you think it is that I'll get in
> any sort of trouble here?

[David Wrig]

In article <b0mmon$8v0$1@news.chatlink.com>, Roman
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
>news:v2jb9mr9sdk335@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html
>
>Not arguing for or against SeaSilver, but want to address
>your statements regarding Vitamin A: "My multivitamin offers
>10,000iu of vitamin A. An overdose is anything over 25,000iu.
>Go ahead, ask your doctor if it would be okay to swallow 10
>of those, taking in 100,000iu of Vitamin A. After the
>horrified look on his face wears off he will tell you to
>under no circumstances follow that plan!"
>
>You are mistaken about toxicity of Vitamin A. It is much less
>toxic, regardless of what your doctor will tell you. But I am
>talking about a natural form, e.g. from fish oil. I don't
>have any data about a synthetic form.

Ha ha ha. Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at
overdose no matter whether it's "natural" or not. Ever heard
of the arctic explorers who made the mistake of eating polar
bear liver? It was real natural -- and loaded with vitamin A.
It killed them.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[David Wrig]

In article <gnjs2v00iftfuhun7acjs57ms8bi07ttt4@4ax.com>,
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. <Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
"SGeek@hotmail.com"> wrote:
>DATE: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:14:43 GMT TO: David Wright FROM:
>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
>Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
>==========
>
>>>Personally, I think
>
>>There you go, making ridiculous assertions again.
>
>You are not entitled to an opinion unless you have a PhD
>behind your name, ... Geek!

I have one. You don't, and never will (diploma mills
don't count).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:43:14 GMT TO: Ginnie FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam." NG:
sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Oop, wrong about the last part. You don't have a real URL of
>your own, you bought a slice of Angelfire.Lycos. Even easier.
>SeaSilver calls up Angelfire.Lycos, mentioning "lawsuit", and
>your site likely comes down in a flash, until the legal
>issues are settled.

I can see now why his name is smiley.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

He is a total rube!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Ginnie]

Easy.

Scenario: SeaSilver wonders - just *wonders* - if anybody out
there is slamming their products. Or even *talking* about
them. They spend a few minutes on Google Groups searching for
"SeaSilver", and... guess what pops up?

Among other hits, THIS conversation, a bunch of times, since
SeaSilver's name has been mentioned in a lot of individual
posts;and allllllllllll about your website, and alllllllllll
about how you think you're underneath everybody's radar...

AND they get a 'tude about it, and decide to find out just
what is on this website.

Depending on how ticked they are, and how much they hate your
website, and anything they find "over the limit" in the legal
sense, they could then get a judge to give them the order to
find out who you are, to slap a suit on you.

The other thing that *anyone* can do is take the URL of your
website, plug it into WHOIS, and it will tell them *exactly*
who owns that website, their contact information, their
administrater and their contact information.

Easy.

Ginnie
_________________________________________

smiley wrote:
>
> Ginnie <ginnies@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<3E2DEF13.525F2BBF@earthlink.net>...
> > Oh, you aren't living in the real world!
> >
> > You aren't gonna like this one bit... Look what I found,
> > in under 20 seconds- and I didn't even use the name
> > Smiley, just "SeaSilver" and sci.med:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22seasilver%
> > 22+group:sci.med&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
> >
> > Ginnie
>
> You're not making any sense, why are you showing me a
> list of Google newsgroup results? Good for you, you
> managed to find some posts, how does that invalidate
> anything I've said???

[Ginnie]

Oop, wrong about the last part. You don't have a real URL of
your own, you bought a slice of Angelfire.Lycos. Even easier.
SeaSilver calls up Angelfire.Lycos, mentioning "lawsuit", and
your site likely comes down in a flash, until the legal issues
are settled.

Ginnie
__________________________________________

smiley wrote:
>
> Ginnie <ginnies@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<3E2DEF13.525F2BBF@earthlink.net>...
> > Oh, you aren't living in the real world!
> >
> > You aren't gonna like this one bit... Look what I found,
> > in under 20 seconds- and I didn't even use the name
> > Smiley, just "SeaSilver" and sci.med:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22seasilver%
> > 22+group:sci.med&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
> >
> > Ginnie
>
> You're not making any sense, why are you showing me a
> list of Google newsgroup results? Good for you, you
> managed to find some posts, how does that invalidate
> anything I've said???

[Gym Bob]

ohhh...the disbelief here....LOL

"Ginnie" <ginnies@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E2F3AE7.E456C38D@earthlink.net...
> Oop, wrong about the last part. You don't have a real URL of
> your own, you bought a slice of Angelfire.Lycos. Even
> easier. SeaSilver calls up Angelfire.Lycos, mentioning
> "lawsuit", and your site likely comes down in a flash, until
> the legal issues are settled.
>
> Ginnie
> __________________________________________
>
> smiley wrote:
> >
> > Ginnie <ginnies@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<3E2DEF13.525F2BBF@earthlink.net>...
> > > Oh, you aren't living in the real world!
> > >
> > > You aren't gonna like this one bit... Look what I found,
> > > in under 20
seconds-
> > > and I didn't even use the name Smiley, just "SeaSilver"
> > > and sci.med:
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22seasilver%
> > > 22+group:sci.med&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
> > >
> > > Ginnie
> >
> > You're not making any sense, why are you showing me a list
> > of Google newsgroup results? Good for you, you managed to
> > find some posts, how does that invalidate anything I've
> > said???

[Gym Bob]

....and it had nothing to do with fatal parasites.

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <b0mmon$8v0$1@news.chatlink.com>, Roman
> <r_rom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:v2jb9mr9sdk335@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html
> >
> >Not arguing for or against SeaSilver, but want to address
> >your statements regarding Vitamin A: "My multivitamin
> >offers 10,000iu of vitamin A. An overdose is anything over
> >25,000iu. Go ahead, ask your doctor if it would
be
> >okay to swallow 10 of those, taking in 100,000iu of Vitamin
> >A. After the horrified look on his face wears off he will
> >tell you to under no circumstances follow that plan!"
> >
> >You are mistaken about toxicity of Vitamin A. It is much
> >less toxic, regardless of what your doctor will tell you.
> >But I am talking about a natural form, e.g. from fish oil.
> >I don't have any data about a synthetic form.
>
> Ha ha ha. Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at
> overdose no matter whether it's "natural" or not. Ever heard
> of the arctic explorers who made the mistake of eating polar
> bear liver? It was real natural -- and loaded with vitamin
> A. It killed them.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
> have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
> standing on my shoulders."

[Gym Bob]

http://www.anti-parasite.com/wrmsflks.html

Vitamin A poisoning from a meal?.....ROFLMFAO!

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <b0mmon$8v0$1@news.chatlink.com>, Roman
> <r_rom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ha ha ha. Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at
> overdose no matter whether it's "natural" or not. Ever heard
> of the arctic explorers who made the mistake of eating polar
> bear liver? It was real natural -- and loaded with vitamin
> A. It killed them.

[Roman]

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

> Ha ha ha.

Damn, one more got infected by whatever is devouring
Godhe's brain. :)

>Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at overdose no
>matter whether it's "natural" or not.

Everything is toxic if consumed in too large doses, including
water itself. My point was not to say that Vitamin A is never
toxic but that it is far less toxic that the original poster
stated. Let us pay attention to main points of posts. Ok?

>Ever heard of the arctic explorers who made the mistake of
>eating polar bear liver? It was real natural -- and loaded
>with vitamin A. It killed them.

I have heard of many things, but that doesn't make them
necessarily true, does it? People make mistakes, some mistakes
stay with us as myths for thousands of years. Are you
***sure*** that the explorers ***died*** from ***Vitamin A***
poisoning? Can you prove it? Just because the explorers ate
polar bear liver and that polar bear liver contains a lot of
Vitamin A, it does not follow that they died from Vitamin A
overdose. Even if eating the liver led to problems the
explorer experienced, you have to keep in mind that the liver
might have contained other substances too (actually it always
does). Read more about this in the next paragraph. And did
they actually die?

Other people make other statements. Here's one from
http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/supplements.html: "The
warnings against vitamin A usually include mention of Arctic
explorers who died from vitamin A overdose because they
consumed polar bear livers. Actually, the early ***explorers
did not die*** from eating polar bear liver. They did suffer
from exfoliative dermatitis and hair loss. In 1988, a team of
Swedish scientists discovered that polar bear and seal livers
tend to accumulate the metal cadmium. The symptoms for
cadmium poisoning are exfoliative dermatitis and hair loss,
but don't expect to hear about this on the evening news.
Rather, expect continuing stories about the alleged dangers
of vitamins A and D. The media and the medical establishment
work together to vilify the very substances that can prevent
suffering and disease."

And here's another article about exaggerated public perception
of toxicity of Vitamin A --
http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/vitaminasaga.html

Roman

[David Wrig]

In article <cu3v2v42vl3rib1rma9fo2vc8jnjsjn0ij@4ax.com>,
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. <Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
"SGeek@hotmail.com"> wrote:
>DATE: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:48:19 GMT TO: David Wright FROM:
>Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
>Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
>==========
>
>>I have one. You don't, and never will (diploma mills
>>don't count).
>
>I am a caricature of the Academic personalities found
>on smn. :()

That's true of all your postings, no matter which of your
zillions of aliases you're under.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[David Wrig]

In article <XR%X9.19$1A4.919662@mantis.golden.net>, Gym Bob
<none@spam.com> wrote:
>....and it had nothing to do with fatal parasites.

Correct.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <b0mmon$8v0$1@news.chatlink.com>, Roman
>> <r_rom@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> >"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:v2jb9mr9sdk335@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html
>> >
>> >Not arguing for or against SeaSilver, but want to address
>> >your statements regarding Vitamin A: "My multivitamin
>> >offers 10,000iu of vitamin A. An overdose is anything over
>> >25,000iu. Go ahead, ask your doctor if it would
>be
>> >okay to swallow 10 of those, taking in 100,000iu of
>> >Vitamin A. After the horrified look on his face wears off
>> >he will tell you to under no circumstances follow that
>> >plan!"
>> >
>> >You are mistaken about toxicity of Vitamin A. It is much
>> >less toxic, regardless of what your doctor will tell you.
>> >But I am talking about a natural form, e.g. from fish oil.
>> >I don't have any data about a synthetic form.
>>
>> Ha ha ha. Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at
>> overdose no matter whether it's "natural" or not. Ever
>> heard of the arctic explorers who made the mistake of
>> eating polar bear liver? It was real natural -- and loaded
>> with vitamin A. It killed them.
>>
>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
>> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
>> have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
>> standing on my shoulders."
>>
>>
>

[Beverly Er]

In article <Zz3Y9.62$ia5.3109937@mantis.golden.net>, Gym Bob
<none@spam.com> wrote:
>
>Vitamin A poisoning from a meal?.....ROFLMFAO!

Well, if you want some actual information, rather than just an
opportunity to display your ignorance, try a search on "polar
bear liver" and "toxicity. One of the first things it turned
up for me was a course on nutritional toxicology at Cornell
University,
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625classvit.html

Classification of Vitamins by Toxicity

Naturally-occurring intoxications with vitamins are
EXTREMELY RARE and result only from ingestion of 1) liver
from animals that really pack away a lot of retinyl ester
(Vitamin A) in their stellate cells (polar bear, shark,
tuna, dogs, etc.) and 2) one of three or four plants
containing vitamin D-like calcinogenic glycosides (1, 25
dihydroxycholcalciferol derivatives).

Artificially-induced vitamin toxicity for both humans and
their domestic animals can result from errors in
calculation, measurement, mixing and judgement.

Toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index of 20 or less and
include both Vitamin A (retinol, retinal, retinoic acid)
and Vitamin D (especially
D3).

Relatively non-toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index of
20 or more and include all other vitamins. No naturally
occurring intoxications are known for this latter class of
vitamins, but "megadoses" taken for reputed medical
benefits have resulted in niacin toxicity and some less
serious complications associated with vitamin C.

For more detailed info, try:

http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625vita.ht-
ml

Or the other 145 URLs I turned up in a few seconds.

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:06:39 -0600 TO: Roman FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: about Vitamin A toxicity; Re:
Nutrition Scam." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

>> Ha ha ha.

>Damn, one more got infected by whatever is devouring Godhe's
>brain. :)

Damn it, don't you just hate it when 'he who is God' enriches
every ones vocabulary on smn?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I have also introduced 'word games' into your
vocabulary, too. :)

One small step for Dr. Geek, one giant leap for Geeks!!!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Gym Bob]

geeesh................try this one............ "trichonosis".
It is a fatal parasite that Polar Bears carry. I wonder where
concentrations of parasites like to be?....In your liver.

"Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0sgnt$e70$1@news.chatlink.com...
> "David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > Ha ha ha.
>
> Damn, one more got infected by whatever is devouring Godhe's
> brain. :)
>
> >Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at overdose no
> >matter whether it's "natural" or not.
>
> Everything is toxic if consumed in too large doses,
> including water
itself.
> My point was not to say that Vitamin A is never toxic but
> that it is far less toxic that the original poster stated.
> Let us pay attention to main points of posts. Ok?
>
> >Ever heard of the arctic explorers who made the mistake of
> >eating polar bear liver? It was real natural -- and loaded
> >with vitamin A. It killed them.
>
> I have heard of many things, but that doesn't make them
> necessarily true, does it? People make mistakes, some
> mistakes stay with us as myths for thousands of years. Are
> you ***sure*** that the explorers ***died*** from ***Vitamin
> A*** poisoning? Can you prove it? Just because the explorers
ate
> polar bear liver and that polar bear liver contains a lot of
> Vitamin A, it does not follow that they died from Vitamin A
> overdose. Even if eating the liver led to problems the
> explorer experienced, you have to keep in mind that the
> liver might have contained other substances too (actually it
always
> does). Read more about this in the next paragraph. And did
> they actually die?
>
> Other people make other statements. Here's one from
> http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/supplements.html: "The
> warnings
against
> vitamin A usually include mention of Arctic explorers who
> died from
vitamin
> A overdose because they consumed polar bear livers.
> Actually, the early ***explorers did not die*** from eating
> polar bear liver. They did suffer from exfoliative
> dermatitis and hair loss. In 1988, a team of Swedish
> scientists discovered that polar bear and seal livers tend
> to accumulate
the
> metal cadmium. The symptoms for cadmium poisoning are
> exfoliative
dermatitis
> and hair loss, but don't expect to hear about this on the
> evening news. Rather, expect continuing stories about the
> alleged dangers of vitamins A and D. The media and the
> medical establishment work together to vilify the very
> substances that can prevent suffering and disease."
>
> And here's another article about exaggerated public
> perception of toxicity of Vitamin A --
> http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/vitaminasaga.html
>
> Roman

[David Wrig]

In article <b0v5b2$b3o$1@news.chatlink.com>, Roman
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:b0sgnt$e70$1@news.chatlink.com...
>> > "David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> > news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > > Ha ha ha.
>> >
>> > Damn, one more got infected by whatever is devouring
>> > Godhe's brain. :)
>> >
>> > >Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at overdose
>> > >no matter whether it's "natural" or not.
>> >
>> > Everything is toxic if consumed in too large doses,
>> > including water
>> itself.
>> > My point was not to say that Vitamin A is never toxic but
>> > that it is far less toxic that the original poster
>> > stated. Let us pay attention to main points of posts. Ok?
>> >
>> > >Ever heard of the arctic explorers who made the mistake
>> > >of eating polar bear liver? It was real natural -- and
>> > >loaded with vitamin A. It killed them.
>> >
>> > I have heard of many things, but that doesn't make them
>> > necessarily
>true,
>> > does it? People make mistakes, some mistakes stay with us
>> > as myths for thousands of years. Are you ***sure*** that
>> > the explorers ***died***
>from
>> > ***Vitamin A*** poisoning? Can you prove it? Just because
>> > the explorers
>> ate
>> > polar bear liver and that polar bear liver contains a lot
>> > of Vitamin A,
>it
>> > does not follow that they died from Vitamin A overdose.
>> > Even if eating
>the
>> > liver led to problems the explorer experienced, you have
>> > to keep in mind that the liver might have contained other
>> > substances too (actually it
>> always
>> > does). Read more about this in the next paragraph. And
>> > did they actually die?
>> >
>> > Other people make other statements. Here's one from
>> > http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/supplements.html:
>> > "The warnings
>> against
>> > vitamin A usually include mention of Arctic explorers who
>> > died from
>> vitamin
>> > A overdose because they consumed polar bear livers.
>> > Actually, the early ***explorers did not die*** from
>> > eating polar bear liver. They did
>suffer
>> > from exfoliative dermatitis and hair loss. In 1988, a
>> > team of Swedish scientists discovered that polar bear and
>> > seal livers tend to accumulate
>> the
>> > metal cadmium. The symptoms for cadmium poisoning are
>> > exfoliative
>> dermatitis
>> > and hair loss, but don't expect to hear about this on the
>> > evening news. Rather, expect continuing stories about the
>> > alleged dangers of vitamins
>A
>> > and D. The media and the medical establishment work
>> > together to vilify
>the
>> > very substances that can prevent suffering and disease."
>> >
>> > And here's another article about exaggerated public
>> > perception of
>toxicity
>> > of Vitamin A --
>> > http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/vitaminasaga.html
>> >
>> > Roman
>> >
>
>"Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:egmY9.200$hH6.7608461@mantis.golden.net...
>> geeesh................try this one............
>> "trichonosis". It is a
>fatal
>> parasite that Polar Bears carry. I wonder where
>> concentrations of
>parasites
>> like to be?....In your liver.
>
>Well, they *supposedly*, died within a few hours. Does that
>parasite act this fact.
>
>But did they really die? Here an excerpt from
>http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/vitaminasaga.html: "In
>adults, according to the Merck Manual, vitamin-A toxicity has
>been reported in arctic explorers who developed drowsiness,
>irritability, headaches and vomiting, with subsequent peeling
>of the skin, within a few hours of ingesting several million
>units of vitamin A from polar bear or seal liver. Again,
>these symptoms cleared up with discontinuation of the
>vitamin-A rich food. Other than this unusual example,
>however, only vitamin-A from "megavitamin tablets containing
>vitamin A. . . when taken for a long time" has induced acute
>toxicity, that is, 100,000 IU synthetic vitamin-A per day
>taken for many months."

Well, you'd have to consider Weston Price a reliable source to
be happy with this, and I don't.

According to my own reference book, Vitamin A toxicity can be
induced with *one* dose of 300,000 IU, or 50,000 IU over a
more extended period. However, that's not universally true.
Some years ago, vitamin A was being tried as a treatment for
an eye disease (I think it was retinitis pigmentosa). They
were using 25,000 IU/d and giving the treatment as vitamin A
palmitate, and some study subjects still had to drop out due
to toxicity.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[David Wrig]

In article <b13u7g$qoh$1@news.chatlink.com>, Roman
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:5zaZ9.4728$IR.1626@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> Well, you'd have to consider Weston Price a reliable source
>> to be happy with this, and I don't.
>>
>> According to my own reference book, Vitamin A toxicity can
>> be induced with *one* dose of 300,000 IU, or 50,000 IU over
>> a more extended period. However, that's not universally
>> true. Some years ago, vitamin A was being tried as a
>> treatment for an eye disease (I think it was retinitis
>> pigmentosa). They were using 25,000 IU/d and giving the
>> treatment as vitamin A palmitate, and some study subjects
>> still had to drop out due to toxicity.
>
>There was a time period when I was taking about 300,000 IU
>of fish oil derived Vitamin A for several months with no
>sign of toxicity. I then reduced it to somewhere about
>30-50K IU on average and have been taking it for probably
>about two years now. Again, with no signs of toxicity. And
>my experience is confirmed by others I know, and some of
>patients of a doctor I know.

Clearly, since not all the patients in the study I mentioned
dropped out, tolerance to vitamin A in high dosages varies
quite a lot. But just because it works for some people doesn't
make it safe for everyone.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[David Wrig]

In article <b16no1$l9e$1@news.chatlink.com>, Roman
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:4joZ9.582$_Y4.193@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Clearly, since not all the patients in the study I
>> mentioned dropped out, tolerance to vitamin A in high
>> dosages varies quite a lot. But just because it works for
>> some people doesn't make it safe for everyone.
>
>Certainly. But the same logic applies to the opposite. Just
>because some people are less tolerant, doesn't mean it should
>be limited to 5K IU or whatever amount RDA recommends. My
>brother in law experiences feeling of heaviness after eating
>a piece of meat. So, should meat be announced unsafe? So,
>let's agree that individuals have their own requirements and
>level of tolerance for different things.

Obviously. However, I worry about some of the earlier postings
that seemed to imply that anyone should feel free to chow down
on a few hundred thousand IUs of retinol per day without
worrying about toxicity.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders."

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:48:19 GMT TO: David Wright FROM: Dr.
S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>I have one. You don't, and never will (diploma mills
>don't count).

I am a caricature of the Academic personalities found on smn.
:()

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Gym Bob]

Can't you think of all your flames at once?

Moron

<PLONK>

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:0J2Y9.934$c13.50793543@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <cu3v2v42vl3rib1rma9fo2vc8jnjsjn0ij@4ax.com>,
> Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. <Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. "SGeek@hotmail.com">
> wrote:
> >DATE: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:48:19 GMT TO: David Wright FROM:
> >Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
> >Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
> >==========
> >
> >>I have one. You don't, and never will (diploma mills don't
> >>count).
> >
> >I am a caricature of the Academic personalities found on
> >smn. :()
>
> That's true of all your postings, no matter which of your
> zillions of aliases you're under.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
> have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
> standing on my shoulders."

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:49:16 GMT TO: David Wright FROM: Dr.
S. Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: Nutrition Scam (The Silly
Shilling Test)." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>>I am a caricature of the Academic personalities found on
>>smn. :()

>That's true of all your postings, no matter which of your
>zillions of aliases you're under.

Hey dumb dumb, I am making fun of people like you. I say what
you would say in a similar situation. :()

So, when you attack Dr. Geek, you are attacking yourself!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Roman]

Searching the web doesn't necessarily result in having "actual
information" (if you mean truth). Neither does it necessarily
indicate that the searcher is not ignorant. Information
published on the net (including University sites), books,
journals, and especially John Godhe's sources may be wrong
just as anything and anybody, and myths are abound. So, don't
be so arrogant.

Roman

"Beverly Erlebacher" <bae@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in message
news:2003Jan24.162216.1836@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
> In article <Zz3Y9.62$ia5.3109937@mantis.golden.net>, Gym Bob
> <none@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >Vitamin A poisoning from a meal?.....ROFLMFAO!
>
> Well, if you want some actual information, rather than just
> an opportunity to display your ignorance, try a search on
> "polar bear liver" and "toxicity. One of the first things it
> turned up for me was a course on nutritional toxicology at
> Cornell University,
> http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625classvit.html
>
> Classification of Vitamins by Toxicity
>
> Naturally-occurring intoxications with vitamins are
> EXTREMELY RARE and result only from ingestion of 1)
> liver from animals that really pack away a lot of
> retinyl ester (Vitamin A) in their stellate cells (polar
> bear, shark, tuna, dogs, etc.) and 2) one of three or
> four plants containing vitamin D-like calcinogenic
> glycosides (1, 25 dihydroxycholcalciferol derivatives).
>
> Artificially-induced vitamin toxicity for both humans
> and their domestic animals can result from errors in
> calculation, measurement, mixing and judgement.
>
> Toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index of 20 or less
> and include both Vitamin A (retinol, retinal, retinoic
> acid) and Vitamin D (especially
> D3).
>
> Relatively non-toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index
> of 20 or more and include all other vitamins. No
> naturally occurring intoxications are known for this
> latter class of vitamins, but "megadoses" taken for
> reputed medical benefits have resulted in niacin
> toxicity and some
less
> serious complications associated with vitamin C.
>
> For more detailed info, try:
>
> http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625vita.html
>
> Or the other 145 URLs I turned up in a few seconds.

[Gym Bob]

...and you haven't even read your own link have you?

Speaking of ignoramuses.

Vitamin A poisoning from one meal?.....ROFLMFAO!!

"Beverly Erlebacher" <bae@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in message
news:2003Jan24.162216.1836@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
> In article <Zz3Y9.62$ia5.3109937@mantis.golden.net>, Gym Bob
> <none@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >Vitamin A poisoning from a meal?.....ROFLMFAO!
>
> Well, if you want some actual information, rather than just
> an opportunity to display your ignorance, try a search on
> "polar bear liver" and "toxicity. One of the first things it
> turned up for me was a course on nutritional toxicology at
> Cornell University,
> http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625classvit.html
>
> Classification of Vitamins by Toxicity
>
> Naturally-occurring intoxications with vitamins are
> EXTREMELY RARE and result only from ingestion of 1)
> liver from animals that really pack away a lot of
> retinyl ester (Vitamin A) in their stellate cells (polar
> bear, shark, tuna, dogs, etc.) and 2) one of three or
> four plants containing vitamin D-like calcinogenic
> glycosides (1, 25 dihydroxycholcalciferol derivatives).
>
> Artificially-induced vitamin toxicity for both humans
> and their domestic animals can result from errors in
> calculation, measurement, mixing and judgement.
>
> Toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index of 20 or less
> and include both Vitamin A (retinol, retinal, retinoic
> acid) and Vitamin D (especially
> D3).
>
> Relatively non-toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index
> of 20 or more and include all other vitamins. No
> naturally occurring intoxications are known for this
> latter class of vitamins, but "megadoses" taken for
> reputed medical benefits have resulted in niacin
> toxicity and some
less
> serious complications associated with vitamin C.
>
> For more detailed info, try:
>
> http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625vita.html
>
> Or the other 145 URLs I turned up in a few seconds.

[B-Ob1]

Ih tes...too much Vit A (like about 150 units or more) can
do damage...stick to 50.000 units max every 48 hrs///no
mor often. Lay off for awhile so the effects can wear off.
Take plenty of Vit C however...250 mg per hour for most
adults. B-0b1

Beverly Erlebacher wrote:

> In article <Zz3Y9.62$ia5.3109937@mantis.golden.net>, Gym Bob
> <none@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >Vitamin A poisoning from a meal?.....ROFLMFAO!
>
> Well, if you want some actual information, rather than just
> an opportunity to display your ignorance, try a search on
> "polar bear liver" and "toxicity. One of the first things it
> turned up for me was a course on nutritional toxicology at
> Cornell University,
> http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625classvit.html
>
> Classification of Vitamins by Toxicity
>
> Naturally-occurring intoxications with vitamins are
> EXTREMELY RARE and result only from ingestion of 1)
> liver from animals that really pack away a lot of
> retinyl ester (Vitamin A) in their stellate cells (polar
> bear, shark, tuna, dogs, etc.) and 2) one of three or
> four plants containing vitamin D-like calcinogenic
> glycosides (1, 25 dihydroxycholcalciferol derivatives).
>
> Artificially-induced vitamin toxicity for both humans
> and their domestic animals can result from errors in
> calculation, measurement, mixing and judgement.
>
> Toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index of 20 or less
> and include both Vitamin A (retinol, retinal, retinoic
> acid) and Vitamin D (especially
> D3).
>
> Relatively non-toxic vitamins have a therapeutic index
> of 20 or more and include all other vitamins. No
> naturally occurring intoxications are known for this
> latter class of vitamins, but "megadoses" taken for
> reputed medical benefits have resulted in niacin
> toxicity and some less serious complications associated
> with vitamin C.
>
> For more detailed info, try:
>
> http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625vita.-
> html
>
> Or the other 145 URLs I turned up in a few seconds.

[Roman]

> "Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b0sgnt$e70$1@news.chatlink.com...
> > "David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:MvKX9.2728$c%7.668@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > Ha ha ha.
> >
> > Damn, one more got infected by whatever is devouring
> > Godhe's brain. :)
> >
> > >Vitamin A in the non-soluble forms is toxic at overdose
> > >no matter whether it's "natural" or not.
> >
> > Everything is toxic if consumed in too large doses,
> > including water
> itself.
> > My point was not to say that Vitamin A is never toxic but
> > that it is far less toxic that the original poster stated.
> > Let us pay attention to main points of posts. Ok?
> >
> > >Ever heard of the arctic explorers who made the mistake
> > >of eating polar bear liver? It was real natural -- and
> > >loaded with vitamin A. It killed them.
> >
> > I have heard of many things, but that doesn't make them
> > necessarily
true,
> > does it? People make mistakes, some mistakes stay with us
> > as myths for thousands of years. Are you ***sure*** that
> > the explorers ***died***
from
> > ***Vitamin A*** poisoning? Can you prove it? Just because
> > the explorers
> ate
> > polar bear liver and that polar bear liver contains a lot
> > of Vitamin A,
it
> > does not follow that they died from Vitamin A overdose.
> > Even if eating
the
> > liver led to problems the explorer experienced, you have
> > to keep in mind that the liver might have contained other
> > substances too (actually it
> always
> > does). Read more about this in the next paragraph. And did
> > they actually die?
> >
> > Other people make other statements. Here's one from
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/supplements.html:
> > "The warnings
> against
> > vitamin A usually include mention of Arctic explorers who
> > died from
> vitamin
> > A overdose because they consumed polar bear livers.
> > Actually, the early ***explorers did not die*** from
> > eating polar bear liver. They did
suffer
> > from exfoliative dermatitis and hair loss. In 1988, a team
> > of Swedish scientists discovered that polar bear and seal
> > livers tend to accumulate
> the
> > metal cadmium. The symptoms for cadmium poisoning are
> > exfoliative
> dermatitis
> > and hair loss, but don't expect to hear about this on the
> > evening news. Rather, expect continuing stories about the
> > alleged dangers of vitamins
A
> > and D. The media and the medical establishment work
> > together to vilify
the
> > very substances that can prevent suffering and disease."
> >
> > And here's another article about exaggerated public
> > perception of
toxicity
> > of Vitamin A --
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/vitaminasaga.html
> >
> > Roman
> >

"Gym Bob" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
news:egmY9.200$hH6.7608461@mantis.golden.net...
> geeesh................try this one............
> "trichonosis". It is a
fatal
> parasite that Polar Bears carry. I wonder where
> concentrations of
parasites
> like to be?....In your liver.

Well, they *supposedly*, died within a few hours. Does that
parasite act this fact.

But did they really die? Here an excerpt from
http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins/vitaminasaga.html: "In
adults, according to the Merck Manual, vitamin-A toxicity has
been reported in arctic explorers who developed drowsiness,
irritability, headaches and vomiting, with subsequent peeling
of the skin, within a few hours of ingesting several million
units of vitamin A from polar bear or seal liver. Again, these
symptoms cleared up with discontinuation of the vitamin-A rich
food. Other than this unusual example, however, only vitamin-A
from "megavitamin tablets containing vitamin A. . . when taken
for a long time" has induced acute toxicity, that is, 100,000
IU synthetic vitamin-A per day taken for many months."

Roman

[Roman]

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:5zaZ9.4728$IR.1626@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Well, you'd have to consider Weston Price a reliable source
> to be happy with this, and I don't.
>
> According to my own reference book, Vitamin A toxicity can
> be induced with *one* dose of 300,000 IU, or 50,000 IU over
> a more extended period. However, that's not universally
> true. Some years ago, vitamin A was being tried as a
> treatment for an eye disease (I think it was retinitis
> pigmentosa). They were using 25,000 IU/d and giving the
> treatment as vitamin A palmitate, and some study subjects
> still had to drop out due to toxicity.

There was a time period when I was taking about 300,000 IU
of fish oil derived Vitamin A for several months with no
sign of toxicity. I then reduced it to somewhere about
30-50K IU on average and have been taking it for probably
about two years now. Again, with no signs of toxicity. And
my experience is confirmed by others I know, and some of
patients of a doctor I know.

Here's some data from eMedicine web site
(http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic638.htm): Vitamin
A: "Acute toxic dose is 25,000 IU/kg, and chronic toxic
dose is 4000
IU/kg every day for 6-15 months." If you recalculate these
numbers for a 70 kg (154 lb) person, you would get
1,750,000 IU (this is 1.75 million) and 280,000 IU
respectively. So, I said before, Vitamin A is far less
toxic than most people have been led to believe.

Roman

[Roman]

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:4joZ9.582$_Y4.193@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

> Clearly, since not all the patients in the study I mentioned
> dropped out, tolerance to vitamin A in high dosages varies
> quite a lot. But just because it works for some people
> doesn't make it safe for everyone.

Certainly. But the same logic applies to the opposite. Just
because some people are less tolerant, doesn't mean it should
be limited to 5K IU or whatever amount RDA recommends. My
brother in law experiences feeling of heaviness after eating a
piece of meat. So, should meat be announced unsafe? So, let's
agree that individuals have their own requirements and level
of tolerance for different things.

Roman

[Roman]

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:kZJZ9.5868$o%6.2145@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> Obviously. However, I worry about some of the earlier
> postings that seemed to imply that anyone should feel free
> to chow down on a few hundred thousand IUs of retinol per
> day without worrying about toxicity.
>

Sure. I understand. And I worry about some statements that
recommended to limit consumption to just a couple of thousand.

There's an issue of taking just one vitamin. Maybe consuming
just Vitamin A without Vitamin D and what else is what causes
problems (if it does indeed cause problems). Dr. Weston
Price's natives that I had mentioned consumed Vitamin A as a
part of the food intake. It contained lots of things. So, to
be very scientific, it is probably wrong to extrapolate this
to taking isolated Vitamin A without all the other possibly
necessary cofactors.

Roman

[Dr. S. Gee]

DATE: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:43:12 -0600 TO: Roman FROM: Dr. S.
Geek, Ph.D. SUBJECT: "Re: about Vitamin A toxicity; Re:
Nutrition Scam." NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========

>Information published on the net (including University
>sites), books, journals, and especially John Godhe's sources
>may be wrong just as anything and anybody, and myths are
>abound. So, don't be so arrogant.

There you go again, Roman, calling John 'he who is God.'

You really need to do something about your inferiority
complex. It is really showing.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition moment brought
to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.

Science is all about knowing less and less about more and
more.

[Sandy]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:39:51 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:5zaZ9.4728$IR.1626@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> Well, you'd have to consider Weston Price a reliable source
>> to be happy with this, and I don't.
>>
>> According to my own reference book, Vitamin A toxicity can
>> be induced with *one* dose of 300,000 IU, or 50,000 IU over
>> a more extended period. However, that's not universally
>> true. Some years ago, vitamin A was being tried as a
>> treatment for an eye disease (I think it was retinitis
>> pigmentosa). They were using 25,000 IU/d and giving the
>> treatment as vitamin A palmitate, and some study subjects
>> still had to drop out due to toxicity.
>
>There was a time period when I was taking about 300,000 IU of
>fish oil derived Vitamin A for several months with no sign of
>toxicity.

Why were you doing this?

Do you over-consume other toxins just to see if you can get
away with it? Does vitA give you high?

Sandy

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:e2mm3voofroc8kefd4an9cniv7ii6hr25n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:39:51 -0600, "Roman"
> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> >news:5zaZ9.4728$IR.1626@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> Well, you'd have to consider Weston Price a reliable
> >> source to be happy with this, and I don't.
> >>
> >> According to my own reference book, Vitamin A toxicity
> >> can be induced with *one* dose of 300,000 IU, or 50,000
> >> IU over a more extended period. However, that's not
> >> universally true. Some years ago, vitamin A was being
> >> tried as a treatment for an eye disease (I think it was
> >> retinitis pigmentosa). They were using 25,000 IU/d and
> >> giving the treatment as vitamin A palmitate, and some
> >> study subjects still had to drop out due to toxicity.
> >
> >There was a time period when I was taking about 300,000 IU
> >of fish oil derived Vitamin A for several months with no
> >sign of toxicity.
>
> Why were you doing this?

To improve my complexion.

> Do you over-consume other toxins just to see if you can get
> away with it? Does vitA give you high?

I don't "over-consume other toxins". You are obviously deluded
about what vitamins are. What would give me high is not seeing
you in the same newsgroups where I post. Or at least not see
your replies to my posts. You must be Gohde's relative.

Roman

P.S. If you email me privately, at least be polite enough to
provide your valid email address so that I can reply.
Otherwise, don't even bother.

[Sandy]

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:32:09 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >There was a time period when I was taking about 300,000 IU
>> >of fish oil derived Vitamin A for several months with no
>> >sign of toxicity.
>>
>> Why were you doing this?
>
>To improve my complexion.
>
>> Do you over-consume other toxins just to see if you can get
>> away with it? Does vitA give you high?
>
>I don't "over-consume other toxins". You are obviously
>deluded about what vitamins are.

Molecules needed for human metabolism in minute amounts and
that the human body cannot provide from other nutrients. What
did you have in mind?

>What would give me high is not seeing you in the same
>newsgroups where I post.

This is a sci newsgroup. You must expect any nonsense
posted to be jumped on, unless you can satisfactorily
substantiate it.

>Or at least not see your replies to my posts.

If you like to censor my posts, then use your filters by all
means. I prefer to see all posts and respond or not at my
free will.

>You must be Gohde's relative.

Heaven forbid :)

>Roman
>
>P.S. If you email me privately, at least be polite enough to
> provide your valid email address so that I can reply.
> Otherwise, don't even bother.

I apologise for that. Somehow my software decided to email you
instead of follow my intention to post to the newsgroup. I
never email folks on newsgroups intentionally. I will try to
see it never happens again.

Sandy

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:vqlp3vgcq41j4dc7rpv3ff804a1f98v8dv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:32:09 -0600, "Roman"
> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >There was a time period when I was taking about 300,000
> >> >IU of fish oil derived Vitamin A for several months with
> >> >no sign of toxicity.
> >>
> >> Why were you doing this?
> >
> >To improve my complexion.
> >
> >> Do you over-consume other toxins just to see if you can
> >> get away with it? Does vitA give you high?
> >
> >I don't "over-consume other toxins". You are obviously
> >deluded about what vitamins are.
>
> Molecules needed for human metabolism in minute amounts and
> that the human body cannot provide from other nutrients.
> What did you have in mind?

Sometimes vitamins provide useful therapeutic effect when
consumed beyond the tiny amounts in which you consume them.
Consuming them in these amounts doesn't justify calling them
toxins in the way you called them in your reply to my post.

> This is a sci newsgroup. You must expect any nonsense
> posted to be jumped on, unless you can satisfactorily
> substantiate it.

That's right, a science group, not that of circus clowns or
comedians. Not knowing or understanding something doesn't
justify your ridiculing it. Ask for an explanation, instead...
unless you think you already know everything.

Roman

[Roman]

"Smiley" <smiley@uvgotemail.com> wrote in message
news:v2jb9mr9sdk335@corp.supernews.com...

> www.angelfire.com/nb2/seasilverfraud/vitamins.html
>
> Please take a look and let me know, thank you.

I haven't had time to read the entire article of yours or this
thread, so I apologize if this has already been said. I
noticed that you rely on info obtained from the quackwatch
site. In my opinion, this doesn't give what you wrote much
weight (as in value). If you want to prove what you set out to
prove, you should use more credible sources. Not arguing for
or against SeaSilver. I've had problems with their claims too.
And other manufactures'.

Roman

[Gym Bob]

LOL...good post!

"Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1jj44$92e$1@news.chatlink.com...
> > This is a sci newsgroup. You must expect any nonsense
> > posted to be jumped on, unless you can satisfactorily
> > substantiate it.
>
> That's right, a science group, not that of circus clowns or
> comedians. Not knowing or understanding something doesn't
> justify your ridiculing it. Ask for an explanation,
> instead... unless you think you already know
everything.
>
> Roman

[Sandy]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:08:39 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:vqlp3vgcq41j4dc7rpv3ff804a1f98v8dv@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:32:09 -0600, "Roman"
>> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >There was a time period when I was taking about 300,000
>> >> >IU of fish oil derived Vitamin A for several months
>> >> >with no sign of toxicity.
>> >>
>> >> Why were you doing this?
>> >
>> >To improve my complexion.
>> >
>> >> Do you over-consume other toxins just to see if you can
>> >> get away with it? Does vitA give you high?
>> >
>> >I don't "over-consume other toxins". You are obviously
>> >deluded about what vitamins are.
>>
>> Molecules needed for human metabolism in minute amounts and
>> that the human body cannot provide from other nutrients.
>> What did you have in mind?
>
>Sometimes vitamins provide useful therapeutic effect when
>consumed beyond the tiny amounts in which you consume them.
>Consuming them in these amounts doesn't justify calling them
>toxins in the way you called them in your reply to my post.

I suppose this may be possible. They are not vitamins
then, but therapeutic drugs, and arguably being used in
the toxic range.

>> This is a sci newsgroup. You must expect any nonsense
>> posted to be jumped on, unless you can satisfactorily
>> substantiate it.
>
>That's right, a science group, not that of circus clowns or
>comedians. Not knowing or understanding something doesn't
>justify your ridiculing it. Ask for an explanation,
>instead... unless you think you already know everything.

Taking possibly toxic amounts of a substance for a therapeutic
effect is not the area of this group -- nutrition.

Sandy

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:fuqr3vc4bda6oed5ubk8a5raogguibj8b9@4ax.com...

> Taking possibly toxic amounts of a substance for a
> therapeutic effect is not the area of this group --
> nutrition.

Is that your excuse for your disrespectful behavior?

Roman

[Sandy]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:31:08 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:fuqr3vc4bda6oed5ubk8a5raogguibj8b9@4ax.com...
>
>> Taking possibly toxic amounts of a substance for a
>> therapeutic effect is not the area of this group --
>> nutrition.
>
>Is that your excuse for your disrespectful behavior?

Disrespectful of whom and where, Roman? I've rubbished some of
the things you've said, (they're nonsense IMHO) but I don't
recall making assertions about whom you are related to.

Sandy