 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / February 2008Compound in Onion Can Reduce Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Individuals
A ndew study shows that Quercitin, the compound most commonly associated with onions, may reduce blood pressure by an average of five millimitres of mercury. This flavonol has not been studied for its anti-hypertension effects in the past; this group found a daily 730 milligram supplement of quercitin led to significant reductions in the blood pressure of 22 people with high blood pressure. While this is considered a smaller, "pilot" scale trial, the news is good because this is just another benefit for a flavonol that has already been discovered to be extremely valuable in human consumption. As always, consult your naturopath or holistic MD for the specifics of Quercitin in your own personal regimen. Hypertension is defined as having a systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) greater than 140 and 90 mmHg, affects about 600 million people worldwide and is associated with over seven million deaths. In the USA, the hypertension numbers have recently been adjusted. A person can be considered to be in "pre-hypertension" today with numbers that were considered normal just a few years ago. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, (the best way to manage experimental trials) adds to an ever-growing body of reported health benefits for quercitin. The flavonol was previously linked to reduced risk of certain cancers. Building on science from animal studies reporting a potential hypotensive (blood pressure lowering) role for the flavonol, researchers from the University of Utah recruited 19 men and women with pre-hypertension (average BP 137/86 mmHg) and 22 hypertensives (average BP 148/96 mmHg). The subjects were randomly assigned to receive a daily supplement of quercetin (730 mg) or placebo for 28 days. Lead author Randi Edwards and co-workers report that the hypertensives receiving the quercitin supplement experienced reductions in systolic and diastolic BP of seven and five mmHg, respectively, compared to placebo. It is important to note that no BP changes were observed in the pre- hypertensives as a result of these interventions. "These data are the first to our knowledge to show that quercetin supplementation reduces blood pressure in hypertensive subjects," stated the researchers. Although no mechanism of action study was performed by the researchers, they suggested that the flavonoid could limit the production of angiotensin II, a molecule that constricts blood vessels (vasoconstrictor) leading to an increase in blood pressure. Further investigation would be required to confirm this speculation. Dave Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/ > A ndew study shows that Quercitin, the compound most commonly > associated with onions, may reduce blood pressure by an average of [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Full text article above extracted fromhttp://shamvswham.blogspot.com/ Is that only raw onions or cooked onions too? Dolores Hi Dolores, This compound is present in onions, raw or cooked, but the point is that you probably can't load up on enough onions to make the dent you might wish in your blood pressure readings. Yes -- eating onions will be a healthy pursuit, but the drop in blood pressure that these people saw came because they took quercitin in large quantities via a supplement. Companies are now learning to isolate these special plant biochemicals and then you can really start to see the advantages, when you get up to what will someday be considered a "therapeutic" dosage. But for that to happen, there will need to be more and larger studies. Clinical trials to determine just how much of quercitin is good, and where the break point is (where the dosage turns sour and no extra effect is noticed). Right now a lot of companies are studying this compound for inclusion into herbal products for reducing blood pressure. We'll have to touch on the subject again in six months to see what's on the market, Dave > > A ndew study shows that Quercitin, the compound most commonly > > associated with onions, may reduce blood pressure by an average of [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Is that only raw onions or cooked onions too? > Dolores > Yes -- eating onions will > be a healthy pursuit, but the drop in blood pressure that these people [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pressure. We'll have to touch on the subject again in six months to > see what's on the market, That's your marketing spin on it, written to please the supplement companies you wish to have as sponsors of your commercial blogspot web site. But your advertisement presents dangerously incomplete information. As usual, you did not report that quercetin modulates P-gp (the major drug efflux transporter) and CYP3A4 (the major drug-metabolizing enzyme), however the mechanisms are unknown and the literature is conflicting. Some reports indicate up-regulation while others indicate down-regulation of these enzymes, possibly due to different cell types being studied or different time-scales being used. Reports are also conflicting on whether quercetin activates SXR (steroid and xenobiotic receptor), which controls expression of P-gp and CYP3A4. Anyone taking a drug known to be affected by these drug clearance mechanisms (such as the anti-rejection drug cyclosporin, contraceptive drugs, and cancer chemotherapy drugs) should be aware of this risk, but you'll never hear that from the blogspot spammer. He only wants to promote the sales of supplements. He won't tell you about any reason for caution, because that might offend the supplement companies. All he wants is to get his share of the multi-billion dollar supplement market, and he doesn't care if anybody gets hurt by his marketing spin. These interactions are especially important for drugs with a low therapeutic index (small difference between an effective dose and a fatal dose). In the following rat study, quercetin increased the bioavailability of the anti-cancer drug tamoxifen by 1.2 to 1.6 times. That's a huge amount! Int J Pharm. 2006 Apr 26;313(1-2):144-9. Enhanced bioavailability of tamoxifen after oral administration of tamoxifen with quercetin in rats. Shin SC, Choi JS, Li X. College of Pharmacy, Chonnam National University, Bukgu, Gwangju 500-757, Republic of Korea. Orally administered tamoxifen undergoes a first-pass metabolism and substrates for multidrug resistance (MDR) transporters efflux in the liver and intestines, which obstructs its systemic exposure. This study investigated the effect of quercetin, a dual inhibitor of CYP3A4 and P-gp, on the bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen and one of its metabolites, 4-hydroxytamoxifen, in rats. The pharmacokinetic parameters of tamoxifen and 4-hydroxytamoxifen in plasma were determined after orally administering tamoxifen (10 mg/kg) with or without quercetin (2.5, 7.5 and 15 mg/kg). The coadministration of quercetin (2.5 and 7.5 mg/kg) significantly (p < 0.05) increased the absorption rate constant (K(a)), peak concentration (C(max)) and the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of tamoxifen. The absolute bioavailability (AB%) of tamoxifen with 2.5 and 7.5 mg/kg quercetin ranged from 18.0% to 24.1%, which was significantly higher than the control group, 15.0% (p < 0.05). The relative bioavailability (RB%) of tamoxifen coadministered with quercetin was 1.20-1.61 times higher than the control group. The coadministration of quercetin caused no significant changes in the terminal half-life (t(1/2)) and the time to reach the peak concentration (T(max)) of tamoxifen. Compared with the control group, the coadministration of 7.5 mg/kg quercetin significantly (p < 0.05) increased the AUC of 4-hydroxytamoxifen. However, the metabolite ratios (MR; AUC of 4-hydroxytamoxifen to tamoxifen) were significantly lower (p < 0.05). This suggests that quercetin inhibits the both MDR transporters efflux and first-pass metabolism of tamoxifen. The enhanced bioavailability of tamoxifen as a result of its coadministration with quercetin might be due to the effect of quercetin promoting the intestinal absorption and reducing the first-pass metabolism of tamoxifen. If the results are further confirmed in the clinical trials, the tamoxifen dosage should be adjusted when tamoxifen is administered with quercetin or quercetin-containing dietary supplements in order to avoid potential drug interactions. >> Yes -- eating onions will >> be a healthy pursuit, but the drop in blood pressure that these people [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > quercetin-containing dietary supplements in order > to avoid potential drug interactions. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/0/pub0087.html Cancer Experts Encouraged by New Garlic/Onion Study; Allium Vegetables Linked to Lower Prostate Cancer Risk in Humans 11/5/2002 From: Glen Weldon of the American Institute for Cancer Research, 202-328-7744 WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 -- Experts at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) today welcomed new data from a study published in the November 6 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI). The researchers at AICR said the new study is an important addition to mounting evidence that diets high in plant foods offer multi-faceted protection against cancer. The study, led by Dr. Ann W. Hsing of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute, was conducted in Shanghai, China. Researchers compared the diets of individuals with early or advanced prostate cancer to the diets of healthy individuals. In this study, individuals who reported eating the most allium vegetables (garlic, scallions, onions, chives and leeks) were found to have a nearly 50 percent lower cancer risk than those who ate the least. According to AICR, these new findings agree with the growing mass of evidence from other studies involving allium vegetables and cancer in general. More importantly, positive results have been consistently seen across different kinds of scientific studies. Constituents of garlic and other allium vegetables have displayed anti-tumor effects in a number of laboratory studies. A few cohort studies such as the Iowa Women's Health Study (in which the diets of human subjects are followed for several years) have linked allium vegetables with lower risk of colon cancer. Several case-control studies (such as the current JNCI study, in which the diets of cancer patients are compared to the diets of healthy individuals) have linked allium vegetables to lower risk for cancer of the stomach, colon, esophagus, breast and endometrium (lining of the uterus). Although evidence of an overall link between allium vegetables and cancer prevention continues to mount, the new JNCI study is one of the first published studies to explore the specific link between allium vegetables and prostate cancer. Previously, a case-control study published in the British Journal of Cancer found that garlic consumption significantly decreased the risk of developing prostate cancer. A constituent of garlic has displayed potential anti-tumor activity in a Phase I clinical trial involving a small number of cancer patients, but clinical trials are generally better suited to pinpointing the effects of specific cancer drugs than to illuminating the complex associations between diet and cancer. When it comes to diet and cancer, researchers look for overall agreement among different studies of different design completed by different researchers. The evidence is shaping up that allium vegetables are an important component of a cancer-protective diet high in plant foods. The American Institute for Cancer Research is the nation's third largest cancer charity, focusing exclusively on the link between diet and cancer. The Institute provides a wide range of education programs that help millions of Americans learn to make dietary changes for lower cancer risk. AICR also supports innovative research in cancer prevention and treatment at universities, hospitals and research centers across the U.S. The Institute has provided over $62 million in funding for research in diet, nutrition and cancer. AICR is a member of the World Cancer Research Fund International. > > Yes -- eating onions will > > be a healthy pursuit, but the drop in blood pressure that these people [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > quercetin-containing dietary supplements in order > to avoid potential drug interactions. nice summary, Mark > > > Yes -- eating onions will > > > be a healthy pursuit, but the drop in blood pressure that these people [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > nice summary, Mark As a pharmaceutical industry tout, Mark doesn't realize that people who read this forum and others want to know about a full, holistic approach to healthcare. They explore all the options, including information about eating whole and complete foods, and even supplements derived from plants. As I mentioned in my article, which should negate any of this infamous pharma tout's jabs, you need to talk to your doctor about what you take and how it affects any drugs you are prescribed. Dave > As a pharmaceutical industry tout, Mark doesn't realize that people > who read this forum and others want to know about a full, holistic > approach to healthcare. Sci.med.nutrition group name implies that a scientific approach be used. There are disagreements in this newsgroup, but nobody else is suggesting abandonment of scientific inquiry. When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to expect for other posters to become skeptical. -- Ron > > As a pharmaceutical industry tout, Mark doesn't realize that people > > who read this forum and others want to know about a full, holistic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Ron Good point, Ron. That's why my articles always report on research in peer reviewed journals. They aren't about supplements, unless the study was about supplements. They are usually about nutritional studies on whole food. I don't have anything to do with Quercitin, as you'd see if you ever visited the site, which is just an index page of articles like the ones posted here. I repost the occasional full text article on this site. There are no "advertisers" and Mark's comments are purely because of his pharma industry roots. In actuality, his comments COULD be very valuable as additional commentary on the same topic, which is generally what a newsgroup is all about. In other words, someone posts something to get a topic started, and others add to the pool of information. That's the "scientific process' on sci.med.nutrition -- and it usually works. Instead of doing that, however, Mark adds the blowhard factor to his commentary. We need his input to add information to the topic. We don't need his name-calling and flaming. Dave > > When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to > > expect for other posters to become skeptical. > > Good point, Ron. That's why my articles always report on research in > peer reviewed journals. That's not true. Some of your "articles" have rehashed press releases from HerbClip, which is the unrefereed publication of a public relations outfit for the herbal supplements industry. > > > When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to > > > expect for other posters to become skeptical. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the unrefereed publication of a public relations > outfit for the herbal supplements industry. Mark, you are so "anti-herb" that you don't even recognize the journals in the field. I bring interesting information about all manner of health advice to the table, and have even included HerbClip on one occasion. The American Botanical Council is NOT a public relations outfit. in fact, I remember you saying the same things about Phytomedicine, another top source of science about herbs. I think you are doing people on this newsgroup a great disservice by being so closed minded. Yo post bad information like this about the ABC in the hopes of doing what . . .? Discouraging people from being informed? Just as an FYI for you, so you know for the future, the ABC is an indepedent, non-profit. The "mouthpiece of the industry" that you seem to be searching for is called the American Herbal Products Association. Now that we have that clear, let me post my information about various healthcare approaches, and let readers decide for themselves if it has value to them. They can inquire with their doctors about herb/pharma interactions -- that's what doctors are for. Dave > > > > When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to > > > > expect for other posters to become skeptical. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > manner of health advice to the table, and have even included HerbClip > on one occasion. The American Botanical Council is NOT a public HerbClip is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, and it's nothing like a peer-reviewed journal. It's just advertising to promote the sales of herbal supplements. And you've used their material more than just once: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/ac42e918aac13117?dmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/9a62670112f0012e?dmode=source Note that in the latter case, you don't specifically say you are quoting HerbClip, but quote you used is almost identical to this article/advertisment in HerbClip: http://content.herbalgram.org/wholefoodsmarket/herbclip/shownewsarticle.asp?i=62 > relations outfit. in fact, I remember you saying the same things about > Phytomedicine, another top source of science about herbs. I think you When did I say that? I did a Google search on my own postings, and I didn't find it. Are you just blowing smoke, again? Please provide a link to the specific posting, as I did above. > are doing people on this newsgroup a great disservice by being so > closed minded. Yo post bad information like this about the ABC in the > hopes of doing what . . .? Discouraging people from being informed? I certainly discourage people from being misinformed by a industry mouthpiece like HerbClip, and liars like you. > Just as an FYI for you, so you know for the future, the ABC is an > indepedent, non-profit. The "mouthpiece of the industry" that you > seem to be searching for is called the American Herbal Products And yet, the ABC has lots of herbal industry executives and consultants on their board of trustees and advisory board. They cannot be trusted to tell the public the whole truth about herbs. > Association. Now that we have that clear, let me post my information > about various healthcare approaches, and let readers decide for > themselves if it has value to them. They can inquire with their > doctors about herb/pharma interactions -- that's what doctors are for. Speaking of which, you never responded to this comment about your earlier posting, in which you said: > supplements derived from plants. As I mentioned in my article, which > should negate any of this infamous pharma tout's jabs, you need to > talk to your doctor about what you take and how it affects any drugs > you are prescribed. That's not what you said in your original "article" (actually, advertising masquerading as an article). This is the only sentence in your original article that says anything along those lines: > As always, consult your naturopath or holistic MD > for the specifics of Quercitin in your own > personal regimen. Where in there do you say anything about effects on drugs you are prescribed? NOWHERE! You had a duty to warn, and you failed to warn! You don't care who might get hurt by your CRAP "articles". You only care about the money. You only care about getting your share of the multibillion dollar supplement market. It is on this basis that I accurately characterize your motives as lacking in common human decency. You are amoral. This is an interesting thread. Perhaps it would better for Mark to say Dave is wrong and not ascribe motives. The concept of "common human decency" is at best a shaky one. From my view the world is more often amoral than not. Amoral as much from the problems of human limits as bad motive or mental sloth. I recall reading an article in the New England Journal Medicine and thinking about how the author distorted the evidence and cited source that supported a different position as if they support the authors position on vitamin D supplementation doses. The authors in my view started with a faulty conclusion and forced the evidence to fit it. And I'll agree with cut and paste article we see here, one needs to consider the source. I won't excluded a commerical source or a more bias source but when one reads everything one needs to take the proverbial pinch of salt with what we read. Anyway nearly all sources in this society have some commercial ties directly or indirectly with perhaps the exception of some individuals here on the usenet ;-) I'll agree with Mark in that I seen materials that lacked the "fine print type approach" that is needed with nearly all bioactive chemicals to some extent or another. And yet the "fine print approach" has it problems as it becomes not a document of science but a CYA (cover your arse) document (legal boiler plate) that runs counter to the needs of the patient or consumer. Hence the practice of off label use of meds by the Docs as an example of a failing of "the fine print". Further there is a problem with treating chemicals such as vitamins, flavonoids, minerals, and other dietary and nutrient like chemicals as drugs in the full sense. The problem is that these chemicals tend to be be more benign to a point and in some instances be presence in the diet which means they have the "right of way" in relation to the medical drugs which are likely more toxic and more foreign chemicals. These latter chemicals should be introduced or used in conjunction with the former only after looking careful for interactions. Understand this is a matter of degree and there are shades of gray. The fault is with the Doc not doing "patient teaching" (nursing term) and not knowing the information such that they can do it. Or expecting the nurse to do it, as nurses are even more unqualified and limited by their profession. Some of this falls in the field of the pharmacist and the system during the last 100 years has side lined this profession. In a slightly more ideal world most patients would have an indepth consultation with a pharmacist. Their function should be more than advanced pill counters that only look at drug interactions. The scope needs to include all factors including herbs, vitamins etc which means taking a history and have access to the history gathered by the Doc. The point is the system is gravely flawed. Then there is of drug companies and the governments which also gravely flawed and even at times some level malevolent in this field. On Oct 29, 2:46 pm, trigonometry1...@gmail.com wrote: > This is an interesting thread. Perhaps it would better for > Mark to say Dave is wrong and not ascribe motives. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > which also gravely flawed and even at times some level malevolent > in this field. Good post Trig. Always take what you read with a grain of salt, but on forums like these two (sci.med.nutrition, and misc.health.alternative) the reader sees all kinds of things, both pure technical stuff that someone posts directly from a journal, and then articles like mine that are my interpretation of what the journal says. I have nothing to do with compounds like Quercitin, for example, but I love to read and study what they do and how they work. I have no obligation to tell anyone anything beyond what the journal article said. If the journal article doesn't say there is some potential conflict with a pharmaceutical, it doesn't get into my reading of the work. I leave that for Mark Thorson, known as Pharma Boy here on the forum, as he loves to spend his time and energy researching anything that I post here. I love that about him . . . Thanks, Dave > On Oct 29, 2:46 pm, trigonometry1...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is an interesting thread. Perhaps it would better for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > someone posts directly from a journal, and then articles like mine > that are my interpretation of what the journal says. Your distorted interpretations are slanted to promote the sales of supplements. For example, in a recent "article" promoting omega-3 supplements, you did admit that the study you referenced was performed in mice, but you did not disclose that these mice were being given a powerful inflammatory chemical, just to make sure the anti-inflammatory effect of the omega-3 had something to oppose. And, they were given a powerful carcinogen, just to make sure they were at increased risk of cancer. Disclosing those facts would have made the "article" much less effective in promoting the sales of omega-3 supplements. Nobody can trust that the whole truth will get past your filter. You downplay or omit any details that would not contribute toward sales of supplements. > I have nothing to > do with compounds like Quercitin, for example, but I love to read and > study what they do and how they work. I have no obligation to tell > anyone anything beyond what the journal article said. If the journal In other words, caveat emptor. You disclaim any responsibility for presenting an accurate or complete picture, especially when doing so might offend the supplement companies you want to have as sponsors of your commercial blogspot web site. The danger is that your "articles" could actually cause harm. My responses may have saved lives, by noting the risk of fatal reactions that could occur if you were the only source of information that a potential victim would have. > article doesn't say there is some potential conflict with a > pharmaceutical, it doesn't get into my reading of the work. I leave > that for Mark Thorson, known as Pharma Boy here on the forum, as he > loves to spend his time and energy researching anything that I post > here. I love that about him . . . Rather than responding to the content of factual criticisms of your crap "articles", your response is immature name-calling and spin. You can't make a factual response relevant to the subject matter, because the facts are against you. And even if they weren't, you are not familiar with the facts because you lack a basic understanding of nutrition and medicine. That's why your "articles" are so full of holes, and I can shoot them down so easily. You are not competent to interpret the scientific literature for a broader audience. You have insufficient scientific training and poor writing ability, even if you had a sincere desire to present quality articles that are free of commercial bias. > You are not competent to interpret the scientific > literature for a broader audience. You have > insufficient scientific training and poor > writing ability, even if you had a sincere desire > to present quality articles that are free of > commercial bias. Pharma Boy, let's compare resumes. You know you won't put it out there, possibly because you post with a pseudonym, but most likely because you are a phoney. Many people here have called you on your posts. You started name calling many months ago and it took me this long to realize that the only way to respond to you is in the same manner. Your posts aren't sincere in any way -- they are simply self promotional fluff. You are like a Rooster puffing up your chest. Please, keep it up. I love knowing that you are spending your time researching as many abstracts from obscure journals as you can find -- anything to pump up the pharma and damn the alternatives, Dave > > You are not competent to interpret the scientific > > literature for a broader audience. You have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because you are a phoney. Many people here have called you on your > posts. Again, like a petulant child you are engaging in name-calling and inventing false accusations. I have always posted under my own name. I fill in the missing information which you do not include, either out of your own ignorance or delibrate white-washing of the truth about supplements. Take the recent case of curcumin, for which you wrote an "article" extolling its virtues. Did you leave out the information that it is an inhibitor of the two most important drug-metabolizing and drug-transporting enzymes (CYP3A4 and P-gp) because you were ignorant of that, or did you leave it out because you didn't want to hurt sales of curcumin-based supplements? Curcumin can increase the potency of drugs by retarding their transport out of the body and destruction in the liver. For drugs with a low therapeutic index (small difference between an effective dose and a lethal dose), this could have disasterous consequences. When I provide this information, you call that "trolling". As another example, you recently posted an "article" on tocotrienols, which have the reverse effect. They activate the steroid and xenobiotic receptor (SXR) which increases the expression of CYP3A4, the main drug-metabolizing enzyme in the liver. Other SXR activators have been shown to cause diminished effectiveness of drugs, resulting in failure of contraceptive drugs to prevent pregnancy and failure of the anti-rejection drug cyclosporine to prevent organ rejection. Again, did you omit that information because you were ignorant of it, or did you omit that information because you were afraid it would hurt the sales of tocotrienols? Which is it, Dave? > You started name calling many months ago and it took me this long to > realize that the only way to respond to you is in the same manner. I have never used name-calling. When I call you a spammer, that is not name calling. That is an accurate identification based on your commercial interests that drive your postings. You have admitted that your blogspot site is a commercial site when you said (on 7/21/07): > On occasion, I will mention a product that > I am affiliated with, and this is clearly > presented in the text. That only happens > in about one out of ten or twelve posts. Every one of your posts is pimping your commercial blogspot web site. You are abusing a non-commercial discussion newsgroup every time you advertise your commercial blogspot web site. > Your posts aren't sincere in any way -- they are simply self > promotional fluff. You are like a Rooster puffing up your chest. > Please, keep it up. I love knowing that you are spending your time > researching as many abstracts from obscure journals as you can find -- > anything to pump up the pharma and damn the alternatives, I provide science-based criticism of your crap "articles". When you can't defend your poorly written "articles" against honest criticism, you'll use any kind of character assassination to attack the critic rather than the criticism. Your "articles" are always slanted to support sales of supplements. You never mention the risks or drug interactions that the products you promote may have. You only mention the aspects that would cause people to buy the products, never the aspects which would give them caution. Your "articles" could actually harm people, because you omit this information. I fill in those gaps, and when I do, you respond with nasty attacks and name-calling. You have no interest in helping people -- your only interest is getting your share of the multi-billion dollar supplement business. You don't care if anybody gets hurt by one of your "articles". > > > > > When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to > > > > > expect for other posters to become skeptical. [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > your motives as lacking in common human decency. > You are amoral. Hey Pharma Boy, You are the single worst internet troll I've ever seen, bar none. Keep up the good work supporting those pharmaceutical chemicals you like to push. Pharma Boy, you are a complete liar and you know it. You use alternate personalities on usenet forums to promote your viewpoint and add "stars" to your Google rating. Pharma Boy, you should be ashamed of yourself. As you say, "you are amoral." Dave > Hey Pharma Boy, > > You are the single worst internet troll I've ever seen, bar none. > Keep up the good work supporting those pharmaceutical chemicals you > like to push. I have no connection with any pharmaceutical company, nor have I ever had such a connection. That is just the form of character assassination you use when you cannot defend your crap articles against my on-target criticism. When you can't defend against the criticism, you attack the critic. That just confirms the accuracy of my comments on your advertisements masquerading as "articles". > Pharma Boy, you are a complete liar and you know it. You use alternate > personalities on usenet forums to promote your viewpoint and add > "stars" to your Google rating. Pharma Boy, you should be ashamed of > yourself. As you say, "you are amoral." I did not call you a liar, until I had the proof you are indeed a liar. You were lying when you (on several occasions) called me a "pharmaceutical chemist". I've never been a "pharmaceutical chemist" or anything like that. And now you are lying again when you accuse me of using "alternate personalties" on Usenet and to add stars to my Google rating. I've never posted under any handle except my own name, and I've only switched e-mail addresses on the very few occasions when I had to switch ISPs, either because they went out of business or the service declined to an unacceptable level. I don't know much about the Google rating system, or how it is determined, and I certainly don't care. But I guess I rate higher than you, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset about it. If you want to have a higher rating, I suggest you answer factual criticism with facts which support you, if you can find any. You can't expect to gain respect if you only respond to intelligent criticism with character assassination and false accusations. That kind of childish response is guaranteed to lower other people's opinions of you. >>>>>> When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to >>>>>> expect for other posters to become skeptical. [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Dave This is just getting funnier and funnier! :-) But I must say, I'd buy a good medical textbook from a well-respected publisher *before* seeing the doctor. For the price of a single doctor's visit, you get a world of information, and you'll know what your "naturopath or holistic MD" is talking about. Not only that, but she'll appreciate it. I used to think two hundred dollars was a lot to pay for a book, but I've never regretted spending the money. (They can get awful darn heavy, though!) And if you can get it second-hand at the end of the semester, you'll save a bundle. I bought a two-hundred-dollar textbook of internal medicine for $30! And you might be surprised. Medical schools are not only offering the more orthodox courses nowadays, but also courses in all sorts of "alternative" approaches: ayurvedic medicine, herbal medicine, Chinese medicine, accupuncture, and so on. And they all use textbooks remarkably full of citations and free of hogwash! PS I'm not selling anything; I just love my books. :-)  SignatureMarshall Price of Miami Known to Yahoo as d021317c > > > When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to > > > expect for other posters to become skeptical. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the unrefereed publication of a public relations > outfit for the herbal supplements industry. Mark, you can't even get your arguments right. The public relations outfit for the herbal supplements industry is called the American Herbal Products Association, not the American Botanical Council. That's a non-profit group which has a SAB that reviews all content in Herbalgram and Herbclip, their two publications. Please get these two places straight the next time you bring them up, pharma-boy. Dave > As a pharmaceutical industry tout, Mark doesn't realize that people Another LIE from the spammer. I don't have any relation to any pharmaceutical or supplement company. Not as an investor, exployee, consultant, or anything else except as a customer. (I take aspirin, and some vitamins and minerals.) The spammer cannot truthfully make the same claim. > who read this forum and others want to know about a full, holistic > approach to healthcare. They explore all the options, including > information about eating whole and complete foods, and even That doesn't mean they don't want to be informed about potential hazards in supplements. The spammer will never tell you about these hazards, because that might offend the supplement companies he wants to have as sponsors for his commercial blogspot web site. > supplements derived from plants. As I mentioned in my article, which > should negate any of this infamous pharma tout's jabs, you need to > talk to your doctor about what you take and how it affects any drugs > you are prescribed. That's not what you said in your original "article" (actually, advertising masquerading as an article). This is the only sentence in your original article that says anything along those lines: > As always, consult your naturopath or holistic MD > for the specifics of Quercitin in your own > personal regimen. Where in there do you say anything about effects on drugs you are prescribed? NOWHERE! You had a duty to warn, and you failed to warn! You don't care who might get hurt by your CRAP "articles". You only care about the money. You only care about getting your share of the multibillion dollar supplement market. It is on this basis that I accurately characterize your motives as lacking in common human decency. You are amoral. > Hi Dolores, > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Darn. I would not take any unregulated, non standardized supplement because time after time, it has been shown that taking one substance out of the food matrix often causes more harm than good (like beta carotene and vitamin E). Campbell points this out in the China Study. I believe he calls it reductionism. Dolores > On Oct 31, 5:11 am, dorsy1943 <dtm...@usadatanet.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Study. I believe he calls it reductionism. > Dolores While reductionism has it problems, it also has some merits provided it isn't the only approach. I'll also point out the bulk of beta carotene on the market is all trans beta carotene which rather unlike much of the mixture of trans and cis beta carotene found in veggies. And large share of vitamin E is a synthetic mixture of chemical in which only one molecule in 8 is in one of the natural forms. Still there are better carotenoid supplement on the market as are there the better types of vitamin E supplements such a rrr-alpha tocopheryl succinate and high gamma mixed tocopherols. There is evidence is you take extra E, a person should make greater efforts to eat more vitamin K or take a vitamin K supplement. As I weigh the evidence, I have made the judgement that aforementioned vitamin E forms have merits and I take them along with several forms of vitamin K. On the other hand, I depend on food for my carotenoids though I do take smaller dose of preformed vitamin A that averages around 2000 to 3000 IU per day. And this year I am taking 5000 IU of cholecalciferol for the fall and winter I'll point out food fortification programs are as a practical manner are even less regulated. You likely have a high school drop out adding the vitamin additive to the given food product only when he isn't too stoned or the boss is looking or he maybe adding too much because the floor supervisior is too busy playing cards to do employee training. Trust me, when I tell most everthing you eat isn't all that regulated as a practical matter. You can be sure you've eaten banned pesticides at times. > A ndew study shows that Quercitin, the compound most commonly > associated with onions, may reduce blood pressure by an average of [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/ As for the mechanism of action, it's long been known that "Quercetin, by stabilizing membranes, exerting a potent antioxidant effect, and inhibiting hyaluronidase, inhibits inflammatory processes attributed to neutrophils activated. Membrane stabilization results in prevention of mast cell and basophil degranulation and decreases inflammation by inhibition of neutrophil lysosomal enzyme secretion and leukotriene production." (/Clinical Guide to Nutrition and Dietary Supplements in Disease Management/, p. 212, citing Thornhill SM, Kelly AM: Natural treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis, /Altern Med Rev/ 5:448-54, 2000.) In other words, it's the histamine! SignatureMarshall Price of Miami Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
Reply to this Message |
 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.