Re: HIV and vitamins (specifically vitamin C)

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After controlling for other factors, HIV-infected participants with CD4(+) T cells >/=500 had decreased iron intake (P<.05) and tended to be associated with lower intakes of vitamins C and E (P<.10) compared with those with more advanced disease and HIV-uninfected youths. Among those youths with CD4(+) T cells between 200 and 499 cells/microL, a high anxiety score was associated with a sixfold increase in vitamin A intake as compared with those with a low score<<

COMMENT:

So anxious people take vitamins. This is news?

As for the rest, it's a completely uncontrolled study of people who
know very well whether they are HIV pos or neg, and probably in many
cases what their progression is. Did they control for supplement use?

Did you even read the post? Why do you even bother? You are a waste of
bandwidth.

TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you even read the post? Why do you even bother? You are a waste of

bandwidth. <<

The question is whether YOU read it. The Kruzich abstract does not say
specifically if they controlled for supplement use, or even if there
was supplement use. Here's your chance to take the Kruzich abstract you
posted, and show in detail that it answers the question I asked, but
that I misread it.

SBH

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you even read the post? Why do you even bother? You are a waste of

bandwidth. <<

The question is whether YOU read it. The Kruzich abstract does not say
specifically if they controlled for supplement use, or even if there
was supplement use. Here's your chance to take the Kruzich abstract you
posted, and show in detail that it answers the question I asked, but
that I misread it.

SBH

I said nothing about supplements, or whether they controlled for it or
not, or whether there was supplement use or not. Why would it matter if
the Kruzich abstract said anything about that or not. And why would you
waste time attacking me on something I did not say which has no
relevance to the abstract posted in the first place?

I headed my post with "HIV and vitamins (specifically vitamin C)".

And here are the conclusions in the abstract:

"Applications/conclusions Given the increased micronutrient
requirements, nutrition counseling with HIV-infected youths should
focus on early increase of intake of foods rich in micronutrients to
improve growth, slow disease progression, and increase survival."

Where did *I* say anything about frikkin' supplements? Show me where I
said anything about supplements in this post.

You are a complete idiot. Read the frikkin' post.

TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And here are the conclusions in the abstract:

Quoted message said:

Applications/conclusions Given the increased micronutrient

requirements, nutrition counseling with HIV-infected youths should
focus on early increase of intake of foods rich in micronutrients to
improve growth, slow disease progression, and increase survival <<

COMMENT: There is nothing in the abstacted study which shows or even
gives good evidence that "an early intake of foods rich in
micronutrients improves growth, slows disease progression, or increases
survival with HIV." That's a nice idea, but this study does not prove
it or even good quality evidence for it. This is a cross sectional
epidemiologic study with small numbers. Such things may identify
correlations (most of which are spurious) but are otherwise of little
power.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where did *I* say anything about frikkin' supplements? Show me where I said anything about supplements in this post. <<

Here is the exchange:

Harris: >>Did they control for supplement use?

TC: >>Did you even read the post? Why do you even bother? You are a
waste of
bandwidth. <<

Naturally I thought that your response to my question was in answer to
my question. If on the other hand, you were just babbling, then fine.
If you don't like responses like mine, then stop making responses like
yours. Yes, I read the post. The answer isn't there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are a complete idiot. Read the frikkin' post. <<

Thanks, I did. The complete idiot here is you. Don't post abstracts if
you don't want comments on them. That's how it works on usenet.

SBH

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And here are the conclusions in the abstract:

Quoted message said:

Applications/conclusions Given the increased micronutrient

requirements, nutrition counseling with HIV-infected youths should
focus on early increase of intake of foods rich in micronutrients to
improve growth, slow disease progression, and increase survival <<

COMMENT: There is nothing in the abstacted study which shows or even
gives good evidence that "an early intake of foods rich in
micronutrients improves growth, slows disease progression, or increases
survival with HIV." That's a nice idea, but this study does not prove
it or even good quality evidence for it. This is a cross sectional
epidemiologic study with small numbers. Such things may identify
correlations (most of which are spurious) but are otherwise of little
power.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where did *I* say anything about frikkin' supplements? Show me where I said anything about supplements in this post. <<

Here is the exchange:

Harris: >>Did they control for supplement use?

TC: >>Did you even read the post? Why do you even bother? You are a
waste of
bandwidth. <<

Naturally I thought that your response to my question was in answer to
my question. If on the other hand, you were just babbling, then fine.
If you don't like responses like mine, then stop making responses like
yours. Yes, I read the post. The answer isn't there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are a complete idiot. Read the frikkin' post. <<

Thanks, I did. The complete idiot here is you. Don't post abstracts if
you don't want comments on them. That's how it works on usenet.

SBH

I'm just yanking your chain.

I posted several studies that all point to similar conclusions. That
being that nutritional status is important in the treatment and
management of AIDS.

Anyone who disputes such a basic comonsensical concept like nutrition
being important in the management of infectious diseases needs to get
himself some basic education.

TC

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

>And here are the conclusions in the abstract:

Quoted message said:

Applications/conclusions Given the increased micronutrient

requirements, nutrition counseling with HIV-infected youths should
focus on early increase of intake of foods rich in micronutrients to
improve growth, slow disease progression, and increase survival <<

COMMENT: There is nothing in the abstacted study which shows or even
gives good evidence that "an early intake of foods rich in
micronutrients improves growth, slows disease progression, or increases
survival with HIV." That's a nice idea, but this study does not prove
it or even good quality evidence for it. This is a cross sectional
epidemiologic study with small numbers. Such things may identify
correlations (most of which are spurious) but are otherwise of little
power.

Quoted message said:

>Where did *I* say anything about frikkin' supplements? Show me where I

said anything about supplements in this post. <<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here is the exchange:

Harris: >>Did they control for supplement use?

TC: >>Did you even read the post? Why do you even bother? You are a
waste of
bandwidth. <<

Naturally I thought that your response to my question was in answer to
my question. If on the other hand, you were just babbling, then fine.
If you don't like responses like mine, then stop making responses like
yours. Yes, I read the post. The answer isn't there.

Quoted message said:

>You are a complete idiot. Read the frikkin' post. <<

Thanks, I did. The complete idiot here is you. Don't post abstracts if
you don't want comments on them. That's how it works on usenet.

SBH

I'm just yanking your chain.

I posted several studies that all point to similar conclusions. That
being that nutritional status is important in the treatment and
management of AIDS.

Anyone who disputes such a basic comonsensical concept like nutrition
being important in the management of infectious diseases needs to get
himself some basic education.

TC

That's not what he is saying.
One laboratory marker for malnutrition is total lymphocyte count and yes it
is important for combating infections.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone who disputes such a basic comonsensical concept like nutrition

being important in the management of infectious diseases needs to get
himself some basic education. <<

COMMENT:

I wouldn't dispute the basic idea, though the devil is in the details.
For example, you can't just [censored] nilly supplement everybody with an
infection with everything. You don't want to give people with active
bacterial infections supplemental iron, for example. And there's a fair
literature to suggest that supplements of vitamin E are
immunostimulants to a point, and doses over that probably are mildly
immunosuppressive and antiinflammatory. Inflammation is bad for people
with arthritis, but it's a mixed bag for people with infections
(sometimes being good, sometimes bad-- you need it JUST right). So it
may not be a good idea to load everybody with an infection up on the
max dose of every anti-inflammatory antioxidant vitamin you can think
of, either. And so on.

SBH

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone who disputes such a basic comonsensical concept like nutrition

being important in the management of infectious diseases needs to get
himself some basic education. <<

COMMENT:

I wouldn't dispute the basic idea, though the devil is in the details.
For example, you can't just [censored] nilly supplement everybody with an
infection with everything.

Why would you not want to supplement nutrients where it is lacking? And
supplementing is only one way to ensure optimum nutrition. Why would
doctors not try to ensure that the patients are getting the freshest
and the most nutritious foods possible under the circumstances? And
obviously you do not supplement where it is contra-indicated.

You don't want to give people with active

Quoted message said:

bacterial infections supplemental iron, for example. And there's a fair
literature to suggest that supplements of vitamin E are
immunostimulants to a point, and doses over that probably are mildly
immunosuppressive and antiinflammatory.

The problems with fat soluble vitamins occur only in the refined
supplements. Why not supplement with proven safe whole-food-source
products like cod liver oil? Or just the appropriate foods. It does not
have to be supplements, it could easily be real whole foods in the
right amounts.

Inflammation is bad for people

Quoted message said:

with arthritis, but it's a mixed bag for people with infections
(sometimes being good, sometimes bad-- you need it JUST right). So it
may not be a good idea to load everybody with an infection up on the
max dose of every anti-inflammatory antioxidant vitamin you can think
of, either. And so on.

SBH

The idea is not to [censored]-nilly load up on any and all
"anti-inflammatory antioxidant vitamin you can think of", the idea is
to become familiar with and study closely the various nutrients
available and needed and their various forms, from real food forms to
pill forms, and use them to assure the best nutritive state for the
patient in the most practical manner. Part of that is also clearly
understanding the roles of these vitamins in basic human health. Once a
nutritional assessment is done and some modicum of optimum nutritional
status is re-established or in the process of being established, then
you can consider additional treatment options such as pharmaceuticals,
surgeries, etc.

It makes so much sense to simply be aware of the nutritional status of
the patient and to correct any nutritional deficiencies or to optimize
the amounts of specific nutrients before or at the time that other
treatments are considered.

As it stands, doctors almost completely ignore nutritional deficiencies
and the resultant effects on the patients health, their ability to
recover, and their ability to tolerate the various treatments, etc. In
this area of basic nutrition, doctors are completely incompetent and
see no need to be any more competent than they are.

Imagine trying to straighten the crooked walls of a house without even
considering whether or not the foundation is in proper condition.
Imagine the contractor laughing at you and calling you a quack or a
screwball for even suggesting that there may be a problem with the
foundation. Yet, that is what doctors do in terms of nutrition and its
primary importance to the treatment of chronic conditions. They jump
right into all kinds of physically invasive treatments (and I include
pharmaceuticals as physically invasive treatments) without even
remotely considering the possibility of assessing or optimizing the
nutritional status of the patient as a part of the treatment.

TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As it stands, doctors almost completely ignore nutritional deficiencies and the resultant effects on the patients health, their ability to recover, and their ability to tolerate the various treatments, etc.<<

COMMENT

Sadly, I agree. It's a major deficit in the way medicine is practiced.
Until you'd made a valiant attempt to make sure your patient is
well-nourished, you shouldn't be messing about with drug treatment of
any chronic problem which can wait a bit. That's been a practice of
mine for decades.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In this area of basic nutrition, doctors are completely incompetent and see no need to be any more competent than they are.<<

COMMENT:

Here you will be surprised that I also agree. With the important
proviso that I see nobody out there much better. Trained nutritionists
are somewhat better at devising diets which supply the essential
nutrients in reasonable quantities, but nutritionists, even the full
"metabolic team," spend little time in figuring out whether their
prescriptions actually do what is needed! For most of these things
(half a hundred nutrients the body needs), there's no feedback! A few
macronutrients (protein/nitrogen) are tracked, and a very few vitamins
(B12) and electrolytes routinely have blood levels measured, in
standard medicine. For the rest of it, we really have little good idea
what is the relationship between nutrients and disease, because the
interventive studies have not been done (due to lack of funding), and
the epidemiological studies provide data too complex to sort out.

But it's not like the alternative crowd measures these things, either!
And when they do, they do it in hair or something and it's complete
hokum. Yes, there's a large group of people thowing every nutrient you
can think of, at every problem you can think of. But they're not
measuring blood levels of appropriate vitamers (your chiropractor
getting 25-OH vitamin D levels-- no, I don't think so) or metabolic
markers either (this can get EXPENSIVE) and they're not collecting good
randomized prospective statistics on efficacy. So what they do is not
captured in scientific knowlege. It's impossible to tell if they do any
good. Some of them might be. Some of them surely aren't. But they work
in the dark with treatments they only half guess might be efficacious,
and there's not enough there to say whether it's a useful addition to
medicine or not.

Some nutritional therapies are beginning to see the light (long chain
w-3 treatment) and they provide a glimpse of things to come. But they
are few and far between, and embedded in an awful lot of voodoo. As an
often cited example, I've been seeing "alternative medicine" shoving
vitamin E down people for 25 years, now. It doesn't work any better
now than it did then. All we know after 25 years about vitamin E is
how much it does NOT work for many of the things it was most claimed to
work for (cardiovascular disease, aging). That's an example of
something all the alternative people "knew", and ridiculed doctors for
not knowing, which they really didn't know at all. "It ain't the things
you don't know that hurt you, so much as the things you know, that just
aren't so." (Josh Billings).

SBH

Someone posted:

Quoted message said:

As it stands, doctors almost completely ignore nutritional deficiencies and

the resultant effects on the patients health, their ability to recover, and
their ability to tolerate the various treatments, etc.

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

Sadly, I agree. It's a major deficit in the way medicine is practiced.

IOW, medical schools do not teach "baseline" (diet / nutritional)
medicine to their med students. So any real "health nut" may know more
"baseline" (diet / nutritional) medicine than their M.D.?

Quoted message said:

Until you'd made a valiant attempt to make sure your patient is
well-nourished, you shouldn't be messing about with drug treatment of
any chronic problem which can wait a bit. That's been a practice of
mine for decades.

But really how many M.D.s really do that? Maybe, I needs to
become their own de facto baseline (diet & nutritional) medicine "doctor."?

Quoted message said:

In this area of basic nutrition, doctors are completely incompetent and

see no need to be any more competent than they are

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

Here you will be surprised that I also agree. With the important
proviso that I see nobody out there much better. Trained nutritionists

Naturopathic doctors are. N.D.s know that the ROOT cause of many
cases of ear infections and strep throats is their patient drinking cow's
milk.

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

often cited example, I've been seeing "alternative medicine" shoving
vitamin E down people for 25 years, now. It doesn't work any better
now than it did then. All we know after 25 years about vitamin E is
how much it does NOT work for many of the things it was most claimed to
work for (cardiovascular disease, aging). That's an example of

Perhaps, "real" Vitamin E needs to be used? Including all 8
forms of "real" Vitamin E?

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

something all the alternative people "knew", and ridiculed doctors for
not knowing, which they really didn't know at all. "It ain't the things
you don't know that hurt you, so much as the things you know, that just
aren't so." (Josh Billings).

I disagree. It is the thing that most M.D.s don't know that
hurts the doctor's patient: Like most M.D.s NOT knowing that the ROOT
cause of many cases of ear infections and strep throats is their patient
drinking cow's milk.

So the patient continues to suffer by NOT being told about the
possible adverse health effects of drinking cow's milk from their M.D.