Insights Give Hope for New Attack on Alzheimer’s

NY Times ^ | December 13, 2010 | GINA KOLATA

[editor-surveyor]

You keep on doing battle with strawmen:

>> “AT MINIMUM, we absolutely KNOW that benzene is significantly more toxic than hexane...” <<

[editor-surveyor]

"...but if you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental concept that "the dose makes the poison""

Interesting that your views are opposite those of Drs. Fred and Alice Ottoboni who made that phrase famous.

[Wonder Warthog]

“AT MINIMUM, we absolutely KNOW that benzene is significantly more toxic than hexane...”

Nothing "strawmanly" about that statement at all. It goes directly to the heart of the argument that "your hero" made in the article you linked upthread. Specifically, he says that benzene and hexane should be regulated to the same "safe dose". If you disagree that benzene is more toxic than hexane, then there is no hope for you. The difference in relative toxicity of the two chemicals is an accepted FACT of science. There is no possible justification for regulating them to identical levels. Based on that, I assume you believe, for instance, sodium cyanide is no more toxic than sodium chloride??

[Wonder Warthog]

"Interesting that your views are opposite those of Drs. Fred and Alice Ottoboni who made that phrase famous."

I fail to see how the linked article has anything whatsoever to do with what we are talking about. Are you just simply insane, randomly posting whatever strikes your fancy at the current moment, or what.

[editor-surveyor]

It has everything to do with what we are talking about.

Your promotion of poly unsaturated oils is un healthy, and that is the position of real scientists such as the Ottobonis.

You appear to be here to offer confusion and misdirection, or else, why this absurd comment?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ I assume you believe, for instance, sodium cyanide is no more toxic than sodium chloride??” <<

Love your strawman arguments; keep on fighting them, its great exercise.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Your promotion of poly unsaturated oils is un healthy, and that is the position of real scientists such as the Ottobonis."

I see you have reading comprehension problems as well. In my post, far from "promoting" unsaturated oils, I was simply saying that current accepted science says that the unsaturated oils are healthier. My own opinion is not formed on the question.

"You appear to be here to offer confusion and misdirection, or else, why this absurd comment?"

I'm trying to understand your position in advocating that relatively innocuous chemicals, such as hexane and sodium choloride, should be regulated to the same standard as more toxic chemicals, such as benzene and sodium cyanide.

This IS what your "real scientist" is advocating, which is contrary to all the facts and understandings of toxicology. If his judgment on this one point is this badly wrong (which it is), then why should I put any credence in his positions of saturated vs. unsaturated oils?

The only person obfuscating around here is YOU. You have danced around vigorously, and failed to answer the above question. Repeatedly.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “I was simply saying that current accepted science says that the unsaturated oils are healthier.” <<

.
But no ‘science’ has ever offered that idea. It has been a political position from the start, with ADM and P&G calling the shots to pormote their products through government meddling.

.
>> “I’m trying to understand your position in advocating that relatively innocuous chemicals, such as hexane and sodium choloride, should be regulated to the same standard as more toxic chemicals, such as benzene and sodium cyanide.” <<

.
Back to the old stand-by strawman method huh?

.
>> This IS what your “real scientist” is advocating, which is contrary to all the facts and understandings of toxicology <<

.
Horse manure! - Fred and Alice Ottoboni are the Gold Standard in toxicology, world wide.

(or did you mean the other article?)

If it is this one you mean: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html

You’re still blowing acrid smoke. You jump on one out of more than ten toxic intermediary processes that are mentioned in the article, and totally ignore all the primary arguments.

Groves doesn’t rely solely on his own work or opinion, he lists 19 peer reviewed, published references, are you prepared to slay them all?

References
1. Gofman, J W, et al. The role of lipids and lipoproteins in atherosclerosis. Science 1950; 111: 166-181, 186

2. Keys A. Atherosclerosis: a problem in newer public health. J Mt Sinai Hosp 1953; 20: 118-139.

3. Mann G V. Diet-heart: End of an Era. New Eng J Med . 1977; 297: 644.

4. Carroll K K. Dietary fats and cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1991; 53: 1064S.

5. France T, Brown P. Test-tube cancers raise doubts over fats. New Scientist , 7 December 1991, p 12.

6. Newsholme E A. Mechanism for starvation suppression and refeeding activity of infection. Lancet 1977; i: 654.

7. Miller JD, et al. Br Med J 1973; i: 765.

8. Uldall PR, et al . Lancet 1974; ii: 514.

9. Pearce M L, Dayton S. Incidence of cancer in men on a diet high in polyunsaturated fat. Lancet 1971; i: 464.

10. American Heart Association Monograph, No 25. 1969.

11. Nauts HC. Cancer Research Institute Monograph No 18. 1984, p 91.

12. Mackie BS. Med J Austr 1974; 1: 810.

13. Karnauchow PN. Melanoma and sun exposure. Lancet 1995; 346: 915.

14. Kearney R. Promotion and prevention of tumour growth — effects of endotoxin, inflammation and dietary lipids. Int Clin Nutr Rev 1987; 7: 157.

15. Wolk A, et al. A Prospective Study of Association of Monounsaturated Fat and Other Types of Fat With Risk of Breast Cancer. Arch Intern Med . 1998; 158: 41-45

16. Ip C, Scimeca J A, Thompson H J. Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anticarcinogen from animal fat sources. Cancer 1994; 74(3 Suppl): 1050-4.

17. Shultz T D, Chew B P, Seaman W R, Luedecke L O. Inhibitory effect of conjugated dienoic derivatives of linoleic acid and beta-carotene on the in vitro growth of human cancer cells. Cancer Letters 1992; 63: 125-133.

18. Lin H, Boylston TD, Chang MJ, Luedecke LO, Schultz TD. Survey of the conjugated linoleic acid contents of dairy products. J Dairy Sci . 1995; 78: 2358-65.

19. Cox BD, Whichelow MJ. Frequent consumption of red meat is not a risk factor for cancer. Br Med J 1997; 315: 1018.

[Wonder Warthog]

"But no ‘science’ has ever offered that idea. It has been a political position from the start, with ADM and P&G calling the shots to pormote their products through government meddling."

Ah, a "natural foodie" nutcase. Thanks for finally outing yourself.

"Back to the old stand-by strawman method huh?"

Erroneous toxicology isn't a "strawman". It is central to the question.

"(or did you mean the other article?)

Yes.

"You’re still blowing acrid smoke. You jump on one out of more than ten toxic intermediary processes that are mentioned in the article, and totally ignore all the primary arguments."

Equating benzene with hexane isn't a "toxic intermediary process", it's simply wrong science. And anybody who makes such a claim has outed themselves as a "natural foods nutcase" of the "all processed foods are bad, only natural foods are acceptable" camp. The toxicity claim is so outrageously and ridiculously wrong that it negates anything else he might say or have said.

"Groves doesn’t rely solely on his own work or opinion, he lists 19 peer reviewed, published references, are you prepared to slay them all?"

Irrelevant to the point I continue to make, and you keep claiming is a "strawman". You keep trying to defend the indefensible. Your "hero" was wrong on a fundamental point of science, and you just cannot bring yourself to admit it.

[editor-surveyor]

No, it was a complete strawman, since I was defending nothing, and there was nothing to defend, since on “equation” made; it was just the onlt straw you could grasp.

.
Natural foods? - Absolutely, but I will defend your right to poison yourself to your heart’s content.
.