Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

This post is a must read about free radical damage.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
montygram - 07 Aug 2005 00:49 GMT
Here is a good example of what I"ve posted here many times, namely,
that the underlying cause of various "chronic diseases" is directly
or indirectly related to free radical damage in one form or another.
Notice that this (i.e., free radical damage/oxidative stress) is not
even mentioned in the report, yet it took me about a minute to find an
abstract that makes the case for oxidative stress as the cause.  The
researchers discussed and quoted in the report make it seem like there
is some sort of mystery involved, when there is none.  They make it
seem as though prevention is not possible.  There is no denying that
free radical damage can be prevented, though the exact foods and
supplements to consume is not totally clear, which is why that is where
the research money should be spent.  Moreover, you can avoid the highly
unsaturated fatty acid foods while eating things like berries and dark
chocolate.

These "researchers" appear to be unaware of the fact that oxidative
stress is what is causing the problem they observed further down the
"disease pathway."  They may not fully understand the significance
of oxidative stress, and that is why I am trying to educate those who
read my posts here about this point (i.e., that it's the underlying
cause but that many "scientists" don't seem to understand it or
are unaware that it appears to always be the root cause).  It's
interesting that they say a "smoking gun" has been found, but then say
that it is not the root cause.  The evidence suggests in the strongest
possible terms (I've got plenty of other abstracts that make the point)
that oxidative stress is the problem, so if there is a "smoking gun,"
it's almost certainly oxidative stress.  Is it that they can't make any
money designing drugs to combat oxidative stress, or is it that they
are ignorant?  It doesn't matter to you if you  just want to do you
best to avoid Alzheimer's Disease.  If you print this post out, you
will be able to think through this, and then tell others what is going
on, that is, too many scientists get focused on problems that do not
address the root cause, and may in fact lead to greater damage that the
original "disease" would have done (usually because of the drug's
side-effects).

8/6/2005
Smoking Gun For Alzheimer's Disease

In a world first, Australian researchers have found a toxin that plays
an important role in the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the
most common cause of dementia.

The research is significant because drugs that are in the advanced
developmental phase for other conditions might be able to be used on
Alzheimer's patients, to halt the disease progressing. At present,
there are only minimally effective treatments for the condition, which
is increasing with the ageing population.

"We found that all of the brains of dementia patients showed quinolinic
acid neurotoxicity," said Professor Bruce Brew, Director of Neurology
at St Vincent's Hospital and Professor of Medicine at the University of
New South Wales (UNSW). "This acid kills nerve cells in the brain,
leading to brain dysfunction and ultimately death."

There are currently more than 200, 000 people with Alzheimer's disease
in Australia. The number will exceed 730, 000 by 2050.

"Quinolinic acid is part of a biochemical pathway called the kynurenine
pathway," said the lead author of the research, UNSW's Dr Gilles
Guillemin, who is based at the Centre for Immunology at St Vincent's
Hospital. "The activation of that pathway is also found in other major
brain diseases including Huntington's disease, stroke, dementia and
schizophrenia."

The paper Indoleamine 2, 3 dioxygenase and quinolinic acid
Immunoreactivity in Alzheimer's disease hippocampus has been published
this week in the leading international journal Neuropathology and
Applied Neurobiology. It is the result of collaboration between
researchers from St Vincent's Hospital, UNSW, the University of Sydney
and Hokkaido University, Japan.

"There are several drugs which can block this pathway, which are
already under investigation by our laboratory and others," said Dr
Guillemin.

The drugs, which would need to be tested for efficacy, could be used to
complement other treatments.

"Quinolinic acid may not be the cause of Alzheimer's disease, but it
plays a key role in its progression," said Alzheimer's researcher, Dr
Karen Cullen from the University of Sydney. "It's the smoking gun, if
you like.

"While we won't be able to prevent people from getting Alzheimer's
disease, we may eventually, with the use of drugs, be able to slow down
the progression."

The other researchers are Claire Noonan from Sydney University and
Osamu Takikawa from Hokkaido University, Japan. The research is
significant because drugs that are in the advanced developmental phase
for other conditions might be able to be used on Alzheimer's patients,
to halt the disease progressing. At present, there are only minimally
effective treatments for the condition, which is increasing with the
ageing population.

"We found that all of the brains of dementia patients showed quinolinic
acid neurotoxicity," said Professor Bruce Brew, Director of Neurology
at St Vincent's Hospital and Professor of Medicine at the University of
New South Wales (UNSW). "This acid kills nerve cells in the brain,
leading to brain dysfunction and ultimately death."

There are currently more than 200, 000 people with Alzheimer's disease
in Australia. The number will exceed 730, 000 by 2050.

"Quinolinic acid is part of a biochemical pathway called the kynurenine
pathway," said the lead author of the research, UNSW's Dr Gilles
Guillemin, who is based at the Centre for Immunology at St Vincent's
Hospital. "The activation of that pathway is also found in other major
brain diseases including Huntington's disease, stroke, dementia and
schizophrenia."

The paper Indoleamine 2, 3 dioxygenase and quinolinic acid
Immunoreactivity in Alzheimer's disease hippocampus has been published
this week in the leading international journal Neuropathology and
Applied Neurobiology. It is the result of collaboration between
researchers from St Vincent's Hospital, UNSW, the University of Sydney
and Hokkaido University, Japan.

"There are several drugs which can block this pathway, which are
already under investigation by our laboratory and others," said Dr
Guillemin.

The drugs, which would need to be tested for efficacy, could be used to
complement other treatments.

"Quinolinic acid may not be the cause of Alzheimer's disease, but it
plays a key role in its progression," said Alzheimer's researcher, Dr
Karen Cullen from the University of Sydney. "It's the smoking gun, if
you like.

"While we won't be able to prevent people from getting Alzheimer's
disease, we may eventually, with the use of drugs, be able to slow down
the progression."

The other researchers are Claire Noonan from Sydney University and
Osamu Takikawa from Hokkaido University, Japan.

Source: www.sciencedaily.com

Br J Pharmacol. 1999 Dec;128(8):1754-60.

Oxidative stress as a mechanism for quinolinic acid-induced hippocampal
damage: protection by melatonin and deprenyl.

Behan WM, McDonald M, Darlington LG, Stone TW.

Institute of Biomedical & Life Sciences, West Medical Building,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ.

1. There are differences between the excitotoxic actions of quinolinic
acid and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) which suggest that quinolinic acid
may act by mechanisms additional to the activation of NMDA receptors.
The present study was designed to examine the effect of a potent
antioxidant, melatonin, and the potential neuroprotectant, deprenyl, as
inhibitors of quinolinic acid-induced brain damage. Injections were
made into the hippocampus of anaesthetized rats, which were allowed to
recover before the brains were taken for histology and the counting of
surviving neurones. 2. Quinolinic acid (120 nmols) induced damage to
the pyramidal cell layer, which was prevented by the co-administration
of melatonin (5 nmols locally plus 2x20 mg kg(-1) i.p.). This
protective effect was not prevented by the melatonin receptor blocker
luzindole. Neuronal damage produced by NMDA (120 nmols) was not
prevented by melatonin. 3. Quinolinic acid increased the formation of
lipid peroxidation products from hippocampal tissue and this effect was
prevented by melatonin. 4. Deprenyl also prevented quinolinic
acid-induced damage at a dose of 50 nmols but not 10 nmols plus 2x1.0
mg kg(-1) i.p. The non-selective monoamine oxidase inhibitor nialamide
(10 and 50 nmols plus 2x25 mg kg(-1)) did not afford protection. 5. The
results suggest that quinolinic acid-induced neuronal damage can be
prevented by a receptor-independent action of melatonin and deprenyl,
agents which can act as a potent free radical scavenger and can
increase the activity of endogenous antioxidant enzymes respectively.
This suggests that free radical formation contributes significantly to
quinolinic acid-induced damage in vivo.
Visual Purple - 07 Aug 2005 02:51 GMT
I think all radicals should be freed so long as they subscribe to a
benign, evolutionary form of anarchy.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

VP :0)
Mr-Natural-Health - 07 Aug 2005 03:24 GMT
> I think all radicals should be freed so long as they subscribe to a
> benign, evolutionary form of anarchy.

Yes, I agree.  Monty 'the Quack' should let them all go home.

Alzheimer's disease has been linked to virtually everything.  The next
thing that this Kook will try to do is tell us that we all should be
taking mega dosages of Vitamin C.  Monty 'the Quack' is totally out of
date.

Just thought that you might want to know, Monty. :)
montygram - 07 Aug 2005 05:05 GMT
I'll let the readers decide who is out of date.  This report is about a
study published over the last few days.  The abstract is from 1999.  I
was tuaght in grad. school that you need to be cognizant of the
literature to which you seek to contribute, and you need to address
such obvious points as the one I am making here.  Mr. Nature Boy is
actually reiterating my point, that is, it is certainly true that all
kinds of claims are made about the cause of this or that "disease."
The only overall hypothesis that incorporates all of these "diseases"
and appears to be the underlying cause is free radical damage in one
form or another.  I posted this for those who want to know what to look
for when they encounter all the contradictory claims to which Nature
Boy alludes.  If this example I've presented is not clear, I welcome
any resasonable questions.  Feel free to ask.  Nasty comments, however,
should be limited to those who clearly are nasty people.
Mr-Natural-Health - 07 Aug 2005 10:49 GMT
> 8/6/2005
> Smoking Gun For Alzheimer's Disease
>
> In a world first, Australian researchers have found a toxin that plays
> an important role in the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the
> most common cause of dementia.

Ooooh! Another new study on Alzheimer's Disease.  Whoopi Do!

Perhaps if you were to concentrate?

Virturally everthing has been linked to Alzheimer's Disease.  Anybody
who has actually bothered to track the studies published on Alzheimer's
Disease should known this.

Thus, trying to link free radical damage to Alzheimer's Disease or the
importance of this latest health news on Alzheimer's Disease is a total
waste of time because it proves precisely nothing!

If there is anything that makes health/medical research look stupid it
is the constrant crap being reported about Alzheimer's Disease. I
always ignore Alzheimer's Disease research on my health blog because
virturally everthing has been linked to Alzheimer's Disease in them.

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)
Visual Purple - 07 Aug 2005 11:39 GMT
Monty,

For the record:  my comment above was light-hearted humor, which is
very healthy for the body and the Spirit, and certainly no
disparagement of what you wrote.

I am dismayed how people can talk about being concerned with peoples'
health out of one side of their mouth and call people names like
"quack" out of the other, knowing full well that this causes the body
to produce stress hormones and other damaging substances both in the
sayer and the one to whom it is addressed. The hapless reader who comes
across the post is likewise polluted by it.

Please know that I did not take part in any such behavior and I do not
like the fact that "Mr. Natural Health" tried to drag me into such
negativity.

Accept my apologies if you were inadvertinently offended.

As to free radicals (the chemical kind):  I do not know to what extent
they are responsible in carcinogenesis and the aging process.  I do
believe they do play at least some role.

I, therefore, eat a diet rich in phytochemicals.  I look for the most
deeply-coloured produce I can find when I shop - preferring red
cherries to the whitish ones, yellow peaches to white, canteloupe to
honeydew (most of the time), etc.

Being light-skinned, I try to eat very richly-coloured berries before
going out in the punishing Mediterranean sun, even when I wear
sun-block.

I also eat a nice portion of baked salmon a couple of times a month
and, to a lesser extent, tuna, sardines and mackerel.

Again, I do not think that this will prevent me from growing old (I can
say for a surety it doesn't :0), neither will it protect me entirely
from cancer.

But every bit helps.

Thank you for bringing up the topic and standing by your guns.  The
topic is important.

Mr. Natural:

The comment about mega doses of Vitamin C is funny.  You have a sense
of humor.  If you'd learn to apply it in a non-sardonic manner you'd be
a fun person to be around.

VP
Mr-Natural-Health - 07 Aug 2005 13:47 GMT
> I am dismayed how people can talk about being concerned with peoples'
> health out of one side of their mouth and call people names like
> "quack" out of the other,

I am dismayed at the number of ass-holes on this thread.  What kind of
name is 'Visual Purple'?  Visual Purple you make me want to throw up.
:(

For the record, I have never been concerned with anybodies health,
ever, Idiot.  And, I have clearly stated so on my web site for many
years.  I couldn't careless with being politcally correct.  And, people
mostly interested in socializing on these ngs are the lowest form of
life on this planet, as far as I am concerned.

Try getting a life, Jack.  I would like to talk nutrition, with
somebody remotely intelligent and above all else 100% honest and
upfront. That clearly excludes both of you two jerks. :(

I am dismayed at people who keep on yacking about how they have a PhD
from a major university in almost every post, yet wont give any
details.  That spells fraud to me. And, guess what Jack.  I do NOT like
frauds of any kind.

As far as I am concern, Monty is both a Liar and a Quack.  I find none
of it funny, in the least.

You can shove it up your ass-hole for all I care, Jack. And, go to hell
while you are at it.

That is how light hearted and funny I find being attacked on these
threads is.

Have a nice day, piece of sh.t.
Visual Purple - 07 Aug 2005 19:23 GMT
ROFL

That was great!

Do an encore.

Bust a gut. Let's see ya.

There is nothing funnier than someone getting that angry and totally
losing for everyone to see because of strangers for all of the normal
people in cyberspace to see.

More! More!

ROFL

VP
Mr-Natural-Health - 07 Aug 2005 20:11 GMT
> There is nothing funnier than someone
> getting that angry and totally ...

I believe that Purple the racist Zionist, who lives in Israel,
qualifies.

Please let the Palestinians have an independent country too, wont you
Ms. Zionist.
Visual Purple - 07 Aug 2005 21:17 GMT
You're just prejudiced against purple Jewish women.  Aren't you?
Aren't you?  Fess up!  I know you are, you little bugger.

Ooooh.  I'm just gonna love taking you out and playing with you. I
think you're gonna become my favorite boy toy.

VP

PS
Mr-Natural-Health - 07 Aug 2005 22:48 GMT
> You're just prejudiced against purple Jewish women.  Aren't you?
> Aren't you?  Fess up!  I know you are, you little bugger.
>
> Ooooh.  I'm just gonna love taking you out and playing with you. I
> think you're gonna become my favorite boy toy.

Sorry, but I don't date chicks with dicks.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Visual Purple - 08 Aug 2005 08:19 GMT
I let your wife know that just as soon as I get the make on your IP
that I'm looking for.

Just though *you* might want to know.

:0)
RBR - 13 Aug 2005 00:25 GMT
>> You're just prejudiced against purple Jewish women.  Aren't you?
>> Aren't you?  Fess up!  I know you are, you little bugger.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Sorry, but I don't date chicks with dicks.

That's because you prefer guys without dicks, you toothless little
windbag. :(

>Just thought that you might want to know. :)

Not really interested in your sexual fantasies. :(

Just my opinion but I'm right as usual. :)

RBR
montygram - 07 Aug 2005 21:45 GMT
I almost always present evidence that is directly on point and done by
those with credentials.  If not, I am happy to do so for those
interested.  I have probably posted hundreds of studies here over the
years.

What is disconcerting to me is that there are a few obnoxious
individuals who do not want to address the science.  If you think that
these scientists are incorrect, or if you think my interpretation is
correct, then by all means tell us why.  Of course, since there are
hundreds, if not thousands, of studies that say in the clearest
possible terms that free radical damage/oxidative stress is the
underlying mechanism/cause, it's difficult to argue that I somehow am
interpreting these studies in a misleading way.

As I've said before, I wish I was the first to say what I'm saying,
because that would put me ahead of Einstein, but I'm just a messenger
here, reporting on what my research has uncovered.  The science is
basic.  Unsaturated fatty acids are more likely to degrade due to
exposure to air than saturated ones.  This process damages vital
molecules.  Etcetera, and so forth.  I've posted studies that say this
explicitly.  Go to pubmed.com and search for spiteller linoleic, for
example, and you'll see a few of this nature.

I'm confident that those who can think for themselve will begin to put
the pieces together, as I have over the years.  For those with closed
minds, I have to admit that on some level I feel that they  will get
exactly what they  deserve, but again, that has nothing to do with the
scientific evidence, which is what posts here should be addressing.
Mr-Natural-Health - 08 Aug 2005 00:02 GMT
> What is disconcerting to me is that there are a few obnoxious
> individuals who do not want to address the science.

I never address the science.  I advocate natural health.

Just thought that you might want to know.

> If you think that
> these scientists are incorrect, or if you think my interpretation is
> correct, then by all means tell us why.

I have already made myself perfectly clear on this issue.

All Alzheimer's disease research is bogus.  And, I positively wont
waste my time addressing it.

> Of course, since there are
> hundreds, if not thousands, of studies that say in the clearest
> possible terms that free radical damage/oxidative stress is the
> underlying mechanism/cause, it's difficult to argue that I somehow am
> interpreting these studies in a misleading way.

???

Its very easy to. Chronic Inflammation is what the average person needs
to be concerned about.

> Unsaturated fatty acids are more likely to degrade due to
> exposure to air than saturated ones.

NEWSFLASH:  That fact is quite ancient history.  Where have you been
these last 3 years?
montygram - 08 Aug 2005 01:32 GMT
If you are not interested in addressing the scientific evidence, then
perhaps you should being your own newsgroup which does not being with
sci.

However, it is true that chronic inflammation is a manifestation of
oxidative stress in the Western dietary context.  I have addressed this
in previous posts.

This is how it works, for the most part:

1. You eat a diet high in omega 6 PUFAs.

2. Your body converts the linoleic acid (most common omega 6 PUFA) into
arachidonic acid (AA).

3.  The AA is incorporated into your cells in the SN-2 postion as the
predominant stressor-induced fatty acid.

4. Because AA is so highly unstable, any little stressor causes it to
be released.

5.  It is then converted, via the LOX or COX pathway into very
biochemically active molecules, which are like taking a strong
medicine.

6.  Over time, the metabolites do more harm than good.  If you don't
believe me, do a pubmed.com search for LTB4 or PGE2 and then any
"disease" of your choice: Cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, MS, AIDS,
etc.

Now what I've been saying, and to this there is no doubt:  if you avoid
dietary PUFAs your body makes its own PUFA, called the Mead acid, which
then goes into the SN-2 position and serves the role of the predominant
stressor-induced fatty acid.

There is also no doubt that the Mead acid is much less potent than AA,
and so the metabolites are much less dangerous if you are chronically
stressed in some way.

I have avoided dietary PUFAs (except in tiny trace amounts, such as you
get in butter or coconut oil) and can see the difference.  Cuts heal
slower but with less inflammation.  Nose bleeds, which I've gotten
since childhood, take a little longer to stop, but the scab is soft and
rubbery, whereas it used to be like a hard piece of plastic.  The
keliod I had kept growing and was quite red, but then began to shrink
and went back to being normal skin color after a year or so after I
began to avoid dietary PUFAs.  There's an interesting literature on
keliods and omega 6 PUFAs available on pubmed as well.

So, Nature, I agree with you, or rather, you agree with me, but you
don't seem to understand the science to the point where you would
recognize this.  During chronic inflammatory processes, oxidative
stress is doing most of the harm, so the prescription would be the
same: avoid dietary PUFAs and oxidized cholesterol, eat foods rich in
antioxidants (rather than concentrated forms, such as megadoses of
rosemary), stay away from food that is difficult to digest, etc.

What is "unnatural" about that?
Mr-Natural-Health - 08 Aug 2005 02:49 GMT
> So, Nature, I agree with you, or rather, you agree with me, but you
> don't seem to understand the science to the point where you would
> recognize this.

As you already know, I have previously posted on this topic.

Web sites happen to have a timemachine from which snapshots of the
history of my various web pages can be viewed at the Alexia operated
WayBackMachine.

Looking at the January 5, 2002 snapshot, look under the heading of
'High rates of Prostanoid / Eicosanoid Synthesis.'
http://web.archive.org/web/20020322121426/home.att.net/~j.gohde/info/prevention.html

This documents for the world to see, that the science of this topic was
covered on my web site at the start of January, 2002. Other web pages
put it more into plain English in the form of my Advanced Diet
recommendations.

My web site has over 100 pages.  And, every web page has a history
documented in the WayBackMachine archives.

You have my condolences. :)
montygram - 08 Aug 2005 05:00 GMT
Not at all sure what you're talking about, but I doubt that anyone who
is reading these posts cares who said what first.  If you think you are
some sort of great discoverer, fine.  What I'm trying to do is to
explain how the process is something that everyone can understand, if
only someone took the time to take it step by step, and not to take
anything for granted, and also that it is something that is basic
science, unlike the "studies" they hear about on the evening news,
which are usually either statistical analyses based upon flawed initial
assumptions or are little more than advertisements for the latest,
patented, very expensive drug/magic pill.
Mr-Natural-Health - 08 Aug 2005 12:47 GMT
> Not at all sure what you're talking about, but I doubt that anyone who
> is reading these posts cares who said what first.  If you think you are
> some sort of great discoverer, fine.

It proves that your topic, as dumb as it is, was covered on my web site
some 6 months before your first arrived on this ng.

> What I'm trying to do is to
> explain how the process is something that everyone can understand, if
> only someone took the time to take it step by step, and not to take
> anything for granted, and also that it is something that is basic
> science,

You are now a leopard that has just changed its spots.  Now you are
making a gnostic argument that it is specific knowledge that will save
you. And, I say quite effectively on my website that, that is total
rubbish.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/

> unlike the "studies" they hear about on the evening news,
> which are usually either statistical analyses based upon flawed initial
> assumptions or are little more than advertisements for the latest,
> patented, very expensive drug/magic pill.

Here you are basically knocking the value of medical scientism.

You have my condolences, with whatever spots you might be wearing on
your next post.
montygram - 08 Aug 2005 05:00 GMT
Not at all sure what you're talking about, but I doubt that anyone who
is reading these posts cares who said what first.  If you think you are
some sort of great discoverer, fine.  What I'm trying to do is to
explain how the process is something that everyone can understand, if
only someone took the time to take it step by step, and not to take
anything for granted, and also that it is something that is basic
science, unlike the "studies" they hear about on the evening news,
which are usually either statistical analyses based upon flawed initial
assumptions or are little more than advertisements for the latest,
patented, very expensive drug/magic pill.
Laurie - 15 Aug 2005 05:12 GMT
> I am dismayed at the number of ass-holes on this thread.
   Well, stop being one; you are giving the very concept of a natural
approach to getting healthy a bad name, by misappropriating the name.

> For the record, I have never been concerned with anybodies health,
> ever, Idiot.
>I would like to talk nutrition, with somebody remotely intelligent
> and above all else 100% honest and upfront.
   Self-contradiction is a sure way to build credibility and respect.
   And, no one with any intelligence would "talk nutrition" with someone
not developed beyond the name-calling buffoonery you learned in the 3rd
grade.

>   I do NOT like frauds of any kind.
   Like, perhaps, someone with the name: "Mr-Natural-Health" who [has]
"never been concerned with anybodies health, ever,"?

> You can shove it up your ass-hole ... go to hell ... piece of sh.t.
   "I would like to talk nutrition, with somebody remotely intelligent",
but who, being "remotely intelligent", would want to talk with such a
juvenile, self-denigrating, abusive, vulgar, buffoon?

   Laurie
Mr-Natural-Health - 15 Aug 2005 10:23 GMT
Ah!  A new ass-hole trying to get Montygram to respond.  Guess what?
He is not responding.  Just thought that you might want to know.

> > I am dismayed at the number of ass-holes on this thread.
>     Well, stop being one; you are giving the very concept of a natural
> approach to getting healthy a bad name, by misappropriating the name.

It is a name!  Time to get over it, Ass-hole.

> > For the record, I have never been concerned with anybodies health,
> > ever, Idiot.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> not developed beyond the name-calling buffoonery you learned in the 3rd
> grade.

The only buffoon here is you.  Just thought that you might want to
know.

> >   I do NOT like frauds of any kind.
>     Like, perhaps, someone with the name: "Mr-Natural-Health" who [has]
> "never been concerned with anybodies health, ever,"?

Still cannot get over names, I see?  You have my condolences.

> > You can shove it up your ass-hole ... go to hell ... piece of sh.t.
>     "I would like to talk nutrition, with somebody remotely intelligent",
> but who, being "remotely intelligent", would want to talk with such a
> juvenile, self-denigrating, abusive, vulgar, buffoon?

With people like you, by my canned replies make for a more intelligent
conversation.

You have my condolences.
Laurie - 18 Aug 2005 22:11 GMT
> It is a name!  Time to get over it, Ass-hole.
   So, why are you denigrating yourself and destroying what shred of
credibility you may once have had by behaving like one, too?  Total lack of
self-respect and maturity?
   "Behave like a Barbarian and you will become a Barbarian." -- Frasier.

   Laurie
montygram - 07 Aug 2005 21:37 GMT
No, I was directing my comments to Nature Boy, not you.

I don't take any "anti-oxidant supplements" because you can get them
from food that tastes great.  Also, some things that are high in
antioxidants are also mutagenic.  Taking too much rosemary herb, for
example, is good if you are pregnant and want to misscarriage, but not
for most people.  Avoiding foods that are high in unsaturated fatty
acids and oxidized cholesterol (usually caused by cooking the wrong
way) is the other side of the coin.
Dawid Michalczyk - 07 Aug 2005 23:39 GMT
> Monty,
[..]
> I am dismayed how people can talk about being concerned with peoples'
> health out of one side of their mouth and call people names like
> "quack" out of the other, knowing full well that this causes the body
> to produce stress hormones and other damaging substances both in the
> sayer and the one to whom it is addressed. The hapless reader who comes
> across the post is likewise polluted by it.

Exactly! I wish more people were aware of this.

Signature

Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.art.eonworks.com - Art and Illustration

Laurie - 15 Aug 2005 04:52 GMT
>There is no denying that free radical damage can be prevented,
> though the exact foods and supplements to consume is not totally clear,
   Gee, Mr. Unspecified PhD, just HOW did the rest of the uncounted
millions of species of Life on this little mudball NOT need ANY "supplements
to consume" to evolve successfully for uncounted millions of years without
this horrible "free radical damage" plague you tout??
   Could it be by consuming their biologically-correct diet, while the
human is the -only- species with rampant "free radical damage" and its
consequent "degenerative diseases" due to the consumption of cooked,
cultural diets?
   "You need to address such obvious points as the one I am making here."

   Laurie
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.