"montygram" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...
[snipped pointless smalltalk]
Quoted message said:I have tried to construct an "essential fatty acid" (EFA)
hypothesis, since those who enjoy attacking the basic, scientific
points I make refuse to do so. At least two posters have actually said
that omega 3 and 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are
"essential" because the body cannot make them, as if any substance
the body cannot make is "essential." Perhaps they feel that
cyanide is essential, since the body cannot make it either.
Cyanide is not a nutrient
Cyanide does not fulfill a physiological function in vivo (when one
differentiates cyanide from -cn groups that is)
PUFA's do.
Quoted message said:If they
decide to act upon this, at least the rest of us will no longer have to
read their absurd posts and witness their dodging of basic scientific
methodology all the time.
you do not have a trace of an idea of scientific methodology.
you never did any practical research work in a lab nor did you even publish
a single biochemical paper.
you think biochemical research on hundreds of animals over their lifetime
period can be accomplished with about 100 bucks.
the dodging part is your métier... how often have you been confronted with
criticism on your theory and how often did you just ignore the tons of
studies and remarks.
Quoted message said:I now see why they refuse to respond to my request to state a basic
scientific hypothesis for "EFAs"
Maybe you should make a habit of reading the replies to your posts?
Many times all the arguments have been stated.. just do a search on
montygram and read the replies again.
Nobody feels the need to jump upon the band wagon for the 100th time just
because you are ignorant to the evidence presented to you.
Quoted message said:Moreover, omega 3
and/or 6 PUFAs would have to be compared to the omega 9 PUFA made by
humans, the Mead acid, and this has never been done, as far as I have
been able to determine (after years of researching it).
Is there a significant content of mead acid in any food you know?
I not, why should it be used as a control?
Quoted message said:Moreover, it
could be a matter of high quality protein intake or some other obvious
factor, and all would have to be controlled for in experiments.
And it is controlled for. It didn't change the facts however.
Quoted message said:Instead, researchers usually have compared a totally fat free diet,
which no animal used in the experiments eats in its natural
environment, against a fat source that contains all classes of fatty
acids.
Nonsense.
There is a lot of research where animals got fed either w3/w6 or non w3/w6
fat sources.
The articles have been posted numerous times.
Quoted message said:They talk of "dry skin" and such as
well, but as I've learned, when you are "deficient" in the
"EFAs" you may need to drink more, and then this is not a problem,
so we'd need to know if the animals were given enough water.
You didn't proove that you are deficient until now.
Quoted message said:The evidence that omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are very dangerous is
overwhelming, so anyone who wants to posit that they are
"essential" had better have some very strong evidence that this is
the case.
The evidence in fact is so "overwhelming" that people in coutries who
consume lots of fish oil (japan/okinawa) live the longest of all the rest of
the world!
I wish all "very dangerous" substances would be like that.
Quoted message said:In actuality, the evidence is either terribly flawed (as
mentioned above and as examined in other posts) or is irrelevant.
Which is a very easy and convenient way to deal with problems in your theory
isn't it?
If the study presented does not fit in your theory its "terribly flawed".
If it does not fit it your theory but its overwhelmingly backed up by tons
of evidence its "irrelevant".
Interesting approach to "scienfic method".
Quoted message said:A common and comprehensive book on nutrition today is "Perspectives
in Nutrition" by Gordon Wardlaw (see pages 120 and 135 of the fourth
edition). The author claims that one needs at least "1 tablespoon of
polyunsaturated plant oil a day," which he claims is acceptable even
on a very low fat diet.
The book is completely irrelevant-
There are books on anything with any topic and comclusion you like.
Science, however, is NOT based on such books- science is based on peer
reviewed, controlled and published experiments.
Quoted message said:One individual said that he didn't want to
subject the rats to such a horrible diet - the kind that I have been
eating for about 4 years now, with no "deficiency symptoms" and
many benefits. Isn't he a great guy? Perhaps we should call him the
"rat lover," sparing the cute little rats the terrible fate of a
long life lived in great health. Presumably, this rat lover man thinks
it's better if the rats were instead used in the more common kinds of
experiments, where they would be given cancer and then their heads
would be chopped off in a few weeks, at most.
Perhaps this rat-lover man thinks you should just make a blood test insted
of letting 100 rats die?
Since you claim to be deficient it would be interesting to check that with a
SCIENTIFIC method.
Quoted message said:Oncogene. 2004 Dec 9;23(57):9259-68.
Role of the BLT2, a leukotriene B4 receptor, in Ras transformation.
Quoted message said:Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Oct 1;10(19):6703-9.
Overexpression of 5-lipoxygenase in rat and human esophageal
adenocarcinoma and inhibitory effects of zileuton and celecoxib on
carcinogenesis.
Quoted message said:Blood. 2005 Feb 1;105(3):1274-9. Epub 2004 Sep 28. Related Articles,
Links
Leukotriene B4 plays a pivotal role in CD40-dependent activation of
chronic B lymphocytic leukemia cells.
Quoted message said:There are about 250 of these just on the LTB4 connection to cancer at
What these articles show is that a metabolite of AA plays a role in cancer-
apparently as a signaling molecule.
Does that mean that AA causes cancer?
No.
Vitamins play a role in cancer, they even feed cancer.. that doesn't mean
vitamins are bad- even though a tumor can't grow if there are no vitamins
present.
Signaling molecules play a large part in cancer.. the Hif - group for a
prominent example- but they play roles in other areas as well where they are
essential for survival of cells.
Your logic is therefore rather shallow.
Quoted message said:Interestingly, some authors blame the toxic effects of cod liver oil
supplmentation, which was popular several decades ago, on the vitamin A
and D it contains, yet there are plenty of people who have been
consuming megadoses of vitamin supplements since the 1960s, and yet the
toxicity of all the supplements combined (with the few rare exceptions
that are totally unrelated to A and D, such as the tryptophan deaths)
appears to be nearly nonexistent.
Please quote the reference to that.
Quoted message said:Rather, taking large doses of fish
oil, a substance that will generate huge amounts of free radicals, is
undeniably highly toxic, and I've proposed on point experiments,
comparing rats/mice large amounts of fish oil or fresh coconut oil, but
of course, nobody is interested, even though I will pay for all
expenses if the fish oil group lives longer.
Such experiments have already been done, published and cited to you.
Quoted message said:The activity damages or destroys vital biomolecules,
switches biochemical pathways on that should be off (and vice versa),
and can then lead to tissue or organ damage or severe dysfunction.
What an amazing nonsense.
No wonder authors of studies don't reply to your emails when you say things
like that.